/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/151111.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, November 11, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 225 Headlines 1-800-FLOWERS.COM FREE: Parties in "Frank" Engaged in Discovery 509 E. 83RD: Faces "Winograd" Suit Over Maintenance Charges 9136-4802 QUEBEC: Recalls Hot Salami Product ADVANCED SOLIDS: "Westbrook" Suit Removed to New Mexico Dist. Ct. AGRILEUM LLC: "Wilson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ASSOCIATED HEALTH: Recalls Vascular Access & Surgical Airway Kits AURORA IMPORTING: Recalls Wildflower Honey Products AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Merger Class Suits Consolidated AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Class Suits Over Emulex Deal Dismissed AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Counsel, Plaintiff Named in Cal. Case AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Del. Case Over PLX Acquisition Ongoing BARNES & NOBLE: Class Cert. Hearing Held in "Nguyen" BARNES & NOBLE: Motion to Dismiss PIN Pad Litigation Pending BARNES & NOBLE: "Lina" Case Stayed Pending Appeal BARNES & NOBLE: "Jones" Case Stayed Pending Appeal BARNES & NOBLE: "Carag" Case Remanded to State Court BED HANDLES: Recalls Products Lacking Safety Retention Straps BEST BUY: Oral Argument Expected To Be Scheduled Later In 2015 BEST BUY: Continues to Litigate CRT Antitrust Litigation BLUE BIRD: Recalls Vision School Bus Due to Crash Risk BRAIFORM ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Discriminatory Practices BUILD-A-BEAR: Recalls Starbrights Dragon Stuffed Animal CANADIAN TIRE: Recalls Booster Seats Due to Noncompliance CANTON LONG: "Ellison" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime CAPSTONE GENERAL: Faces "Dipilato" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CASEY'S GENERAL: Hearing This Month on Atty Fees in Hot Fuel Case CASEY'S GENERAL: Mediation Scheduled in Missouri FCRA Case CELADON GROUP: Judgment in "Wilmoth" Case Under Appeal CELADON GROUP: Judgment in "Day" Case Under Appeal CHI NAIL: Faces "Lau" Suit in California Over Age Discrimination CONN'S INC: Remaining Defendants Seek Securities Case Dismissal COOPER COMPANIES: 50+ Actions Filed by Contact Lens Consumers COUCHE-TARD INC: Recalls Trail Mix Products Due to Milk CROSSHILL CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages CUYAHOGA COMMUNITY: Sued Over False Employment Information DELAWARE NORTH: "Santiago" Suit Removed to S.D. California Ct. DISNEY WORLDWIDE: Sued Over Age and Disability Discrimination DOWNTOWN DELIVERY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces "McIntyre" Suit in N.Y. Over Fantasy Sports DUNES MOTEL: Sued in Cal. Over Disability Discrimination ECS INVESTMENT: Faces "Munoz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime EIHAB HUMAN: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Gender Discrimination EMC CORPORATION: Faces "Walsh" Suit Over Proposed Dell Merger EMERGENT CAPITAL: "Rothenberg" Shareholder Lawsuit Dismissed ENVIVIO INC: Final Judgment Entered in Class Action Settlement FERRING INC: Recalls Bravelle Sterile Pour Injections FINISAR CORPORATION: Appeal From Case Dismissal Order Pending FISH HOUSE: "Yohandry" Suit Removed to Florida Dist. Ct. FORD: Recalls Mustang 2016 Models Due to Crash Risk FTI CONSULTING: "Parets" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages GENEREL MOTORS: Recalls Pontiac Vibe 2009 & 2010 Models GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Crash Risk GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Fire Risk GLOBE SPECIALTY: MOU Reached in Stockholders Litigation GREEN FLEET: Faces "Pineda-Amaya" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT H&R BLOCK: Appeal Related to "Lopez" Case Pending H&R BLOCK: "Perras" Case Still Pending in W.D. Missouri H&R BLOCK: Form 8863 Litigation Remains Stayed HARRIS DAVIS: Faces "Estrada" Suit Over Termination Policies HEWLETT-PACKARD: Funded Settlement in Cunningham/Steavens Matter HEWLETT-PACKARD: Funded Settlement in "Salva" Case HEWLETT-PACKARD: Parties in "Karlbom" Case Engaged in Discovery HEWLETT-PACKARD: Consultant Opt-Ins Dismissed from FLSA Case HEWLETT-PACKARD: No Oral Argument Yet in Concrete Workers Appeal HEWLETT-PACKARD: Nov. 13 Hearing on Securities Case Settlement HEWLETT-PACKARD: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of ERISA Litigation HONDA: Recalls Fit 2015 and 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk HUM HOSPITALITY: Sued in Cal. Over Disability Discrimination J. C. PENNEY: Continues to Defend Johnson and Marcus Lawsuits J. C. PENNEY: Texas Court Trims "Rodriguez" ERISA Lawsuit J. C. PENNEY: Opposed Renewed Motion for Class Certification J. C. PENNEY: Defending Pricing Class Action Litigation KKHG SVI: Faces "Singletary" Suit Over Disability Discrimination LAWRENCE, MA: Sued Over Employment Discriminatory Practices LESLIE'S POOLMART: "Plizga" Suit Removed to E.D. California LES PRODUITS: Recalls Sprouted Trail Products Due to Salmonella LIBERTY BROADBAND: "Cohen" Suit Filed in Delaware Chancery Court LINKGLOBAL FOOD: Recalls Coconut Juice Products Due to Milk LIQUID FORCE: Recalls Kiteboard Control Systems LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Filed Motion to Dismiss Class Action MATERNE CANADA: Recalls Apple Grape & Apple Pear Pouch Products MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls GLE Coupe 2016 Model Due to Crash Risk MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Airbags MOBILTECH INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Caramel Macchiato Due to Milk N-E-WHERE TRANSPORT: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Suit Claims NEW JERSEY TRANSIT: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Action Claims OCEAN POWER: Dismissal of Securities Litigation Sought OMNI INSURANCE: "Colter" Suit Removed to South Carolina Dist. Ct. OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Has Final Court Approval OOMA INC: Hernandez, Salina, Ramirez and Rufus Filed Class Action PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Pfeiffer" Case in Discovery Phase PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Nov. 24 Hearing on Class Certification Motion PERRY ELLIS: Parties in "Ordaz" Class Action Reached Settlement QUORUM HEALTH: Community Health Systems Defend Class Action REGENCY SHARK: Faces "Chavez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime REMEDY TEMPORARY: Faces "Whitmore" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT RESTORATION HARDWARE: Coupons May Be Combined with Other Promos RKJD INVESTMENT: Faces "Yat" Suit Over Disability Discrimination RYLAND GROUP: Faces "Hancock" Action Over Standard Pacific Merger SIEMENS HEALTHCARE: Recalls N Latex B2-Microglobulin Products SLEEPY'S LLC: "Gundell" Suit Removed to New Jersey Dist. Ct. SPLASH INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Rubber Duck Squeeze Toys SUNMART INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Coconut Cream Powder Due to Milk SUPERMAN TRADING: Recalls Rubber Duck Squeeze Toys SWISHER HYGIENE: Facing Class Action Over Sale to Ecolab THAI INDOCHINE: Recalls Instant Coffee Products Due to Milk THOR MOTOR: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Fire Risk TOYOTA: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Fire Risk TRANS-EXEC: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages UNITEDLEX CORPORATION: Parets Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages VALBELLA GOURMET: Recalls Meat Products Due to Milk VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Opposed Motion for Award of Counsel Fees VERIFONE SYSTEMS: To Seek Dismissal of New Class Action VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Suit Taken Under Submission VERMEER: Recalls BC1000XL 2008 Model Due to Crash Risk VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Crash Risk VOLVO TRUCKS: Recalls VNL 2016 Model Due to Injury Risk WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models WISHBONE DESIGN: Recalls Wishbone Bike Recycled Edition * CFIA Recalls Orthodox Coconut Palm brand Coconut Drink ********* 1-800-FLOWERS.COM FREE: Parties in "Frank" Engaged in Discovery --------------------------------------------------------------- 1-800-FLOWERS.COM FREE, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 11, 2015, for the fiscal year ended June 28 2, 2015, that the parties in the case, In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. (Frank v.Trilegiant Corporation, Inc., et al), are engaged in discovery. On November 10, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York naming the Company (along with Trilegiant Corporation, Inc., Affinion, Inc. and Chase Bank USA, N.A.) as defendants in an action purporting to assert claims against the Company alleging violations arising under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA") among other statutes, and for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in connection with certain post-transaction marketing practices in which certain of the Company's subsidiaries previously engaged in with certain third-party vendors. On December 23, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal seeking to dismiss the entire action without prejudice. The court entered an Order on November 28, 2012, dismissing the case in its entirety. This case was subsequently refiled in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. On March 6, 2012 and March 15, 2012, two additional purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut naming the Company and numerous other parties as defendants in actions purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those asserted in the lawsuit filed on November 10, 2010. In each case, plaintiffs seek to have the respective case certified as a class action and seek restitution and other damages, each in an amount in excess of $5.0 million. On April 26, 2012, the two Connecticut cases were consolidated with a third case previously pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in which the Company is not a party (the "Consolidated Action"). A consolidated amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs on September 7, 2012, purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those originally asserted. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on December 7, 2012, which was subsequently refiled at the direction of the Court on January 16, 2013. On December 5, 2012, the same plaintiff from the action voluntarily dismissed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut naming the Company and numerous other parties as defendants, purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those asserted in the consolidated amended complaint (the "Frank Action"). On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a motion to transfer and consolidate the action filed on December 5, 2012 with the Consolidated Action. The Company intends to defend each of these actions vigorously. On January 31, 2013, the court issued an order to show cause directing plaintiffs' counsel in the Frank Action, also counsel for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, to show cause why the Frank Action is distinguishable from the Consolidated Action such that it may be maintained despite the prior-pending action doctrine. On June 13, 2013, the court issued an order in the Frank Action suspending deadlines to answer or to otherwise respond to the complaint until 21 days after the court decides whether the Frank Action should be consolidated with the Consolidated Action. On July 24, 2013 the Frank Action was reassigned to Judge Vanessa Bryant, before whom the Consolidated Action is currently pending, for all further proceedings. On August 14, 2013, other defendants filed a motion for clarification in the Frank Action requesting that Judge Bryant clarify the order suspending deadlines. On March 28, 2014, the Court issued a series of rulings disposing of all the pending motions in both the Consolidated Action and the Frank Action. Among other things, the Court dismissed several causes of action, leaving pending a claim for CUTPA violations stemming from Trilegiant's refund mitigation strategy and a claim for unjust enrichment. Thereafter, the Court consolidated the Frank case into the Consolidated Action. On April 28, 2014 plaintiffs moved for leave to appeal the various rulings against them to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and to have a partial final judgment entered dismissing those claims that the Court had ordered dismissed. The Company filed its Answer to the Complaint on May 12, 2014. On March 26, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs' motions and the parties are now engaged in discovery. 509 E. 83RD: Faces "Winograd" Suit Over Maintenance Charges ----------------------------------------------------------- Victor E. Winograd, Robin K. Winograd, and John W. Kaiser v. 509 E. 83rd St. Corp., Case No. 160118/2015 (N.Y., Super. Ct., October 2, 2015) is an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's failure to adjust the maintenance charges after proper application was made. 509 E. 83rd St. Corp. operates a residential housing cooperative located at 509 East 83rd Street, New York, New York 10028. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Gordon, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. GORDON 21 Swan Street Palisades, NY 10964 Telephone: (718) 267-9513 9136-4802 QUEBEC: Recalls Hot Salami Product -------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 22, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Microbiological - Other Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: 9136-4802 Quebec Inc. (Delices Al-Manar) Distribution: Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10104 Brand Common name Size Code(s) on UPC name ----------- ---- product --- ----- ---------- Imane Hot Salami 450 g 22 FE 16 6 81408 00011 5 ADVANCED SOLIDS: "Westbrook" Suit Removed to New Mexico Dist. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Zach Westbrook, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Advanced Solids Control, LLC, Case No. 15cv868, was removed from the Fifth Judicial District Court to the U.S. District Court District of New Mexico. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00905-LAM-GBW to the proceeding. Advanced Solids Control LLC is an oilfield service company specializing in solids control for land-based oil and gas drilling operations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth Harmonson, Esq. HARMONSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 7170 Westwind Drive, Suite 201 El Paso, TX 79912 Telephone: (915) 329-2892 Facsimile: (915) 247-2027 E-mail: clark.harmonson@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Wayne G. Chew, Esq. CHEW LAW OFFICES PO Box X Albuquerque, NM 87103 Telephone: (505) 842-6363 Facsimile: (505) 842-8607 E-mail: wgchew@wgchewlaw.com AGRILEUM LLC: "Wilson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel Brandon Wilson v. Agrileum, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02702- JPM-dkv (W.D. Tenn., October 27, 2015) seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Agrileum, LLC is a multi-feedstock biodiesel producer and service provider located in Memphis, Tennessee. The Plaintiff is represented by: William A. Wooten, Esq. WOOTEN LAW OFFICE 120 Court Square East Covington, TN 38019 Telephone: (901) 475-1050 Facsimile: (901) 475-0032 E-mail: wawooten@gmail.com - and - Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. James L. Holt Jr., Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 759-1745 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com ASSOCIATED HEALTH: Recalls Vascular Access & Surgical Airway Kits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 23, 2015 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-55776 A discrepancy has been found between the expiry dates on the package contents and the package outer labels. The kits may contain individually packaged components that have expiration dates that occur before the expiration date on the outer wrap. Inventories need to be checked on this. Affected products: A. CTOMS T.V.A.K (tactical Vascular Access Kit) Lot or serial number: All lots Model or catalog number: 32018 Manufacturer: Associated Health Systems Inc. #6-8145 130th Street Surrey V3W 7X4 British Columbia CANADA B. CTOMS SAS (Surgical Airway Sets) Military Lot or serial number: All lots Model or catalog number: 40307 Manufacturer: Associated Health Systems Inc. #6-8145 130th Street Surrey V3W 7X4 British Columbia CANADA C. CTOMS SAS (Surgical Airway Sets) EMS Lot or serial number: All lots Model or catalog number: 40306 Manufacturer: Associated Health Systems Inc. #6-8145 130th Street Surrey V3W 7X4 British Columbia CANADA AURORA IMPORTING: Recalls Wildflower Honey Products --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 23, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Chemical Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Aurora Importing & Distributing Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10125 Brand Common Size Code(s) on product UPC name name ---- ------------------ --- ----- ------ Aurora Wildflower 1 kg Lots 15104 and 15072 0 61659- Honey 01922 5 AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Merger Class Suits Consolidated --------------------------------------------------- Avago Technologies Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, issued an order coordinating and consolidating several state court actions and designating Xu v. Broadcom Corp., et al. as the lead case. Avago and Broadcom believe these claims are all entirely without merit and intend to vigorously defend these actions. Avago said, "Since the announcement of our pending acquisition of Broadcom, eleven putative class action complaints have been filed by and purportedly on behalf of alleged Broadcom shareholders. Two putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned: Wytas, et al. v. McGregor, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00979, filed on June 18, 2015; and Yassian, et al. v. McGregor, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01303, filed on August 15, 2015. One putative class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned Jew v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 1-15-CV-281353, filed June 2, 2015. Eight putative class action complaints were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, captioned: Xu v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00790689-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 1, 2015; Freed v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015- 00790699-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 1, 2015; N.J. Building Laborers Statewide Pension Fund v. Samueli, et al., Case No. 30-2015- 00791484-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 4, 2015; Yiu v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00791490-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 4, 2015; Yiu, et al. v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00791762-CU-BT- CXC, filed June 5, 2015; Yassian, et al. v. McGregor, et al., Case No. 30-2015-00793360-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 15, 2015; Seafarers' Pension Plan v. Samueli, et al., Case No. 30-2015-00794492-CU-SL- CXC, filed June 19, 2015; and Engel v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00797343-CU-SL-CXC, filed on July 2, 2015 (together with Jew v. Broadcom Corp., et al., the "State Actions")." The complaints name as defendants, among other parties, Broadcom, members of Broadcom's Board of Directors and Avago, and they allege breaches of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting of those alleged breaches. Additionally, Yassian, et al. v. McGregor, et al., which, is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleges violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14-a9. The complaints seek, among other things, injunctive relief to prevent the Broadcom Transaction from closing. On June 22, 2015, the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange dismissed the Yiu, et al. v. Broadcom Corp. et al., complaint at plaintiffs' request. On August 14, 2015, the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, issued an order coordinating and consolidating the State Actions and designating Xu v. Broadcom Corp., et al. as the lead case. Avago and Broadcom believe these claims are all entirely without merit and intend to vigorously defend these actions. AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Class Suits Over Emulex Deal Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- Avago Technologies Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Delaware Court of Chancery has dismissed the consolidated action relating to the acquisition of Emulex. On March 3, 2015, two putative shareholder class action complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Emulex Corporation, or Emulex, its directors, Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc., or AT Wireless, and Emerald Merger Sub, Inc., or Merger Sub, captioned as follows: James Tullman v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case No. 10743-VCL (Del. Ch.); Moshe Silver ACF/Yehudit Silver U/NY/UTMA v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case No. 10744-VCL (Del. Ch.). On March 11, 2015, a third complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Hoai Vu v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case No. 10776-VCL (Del. Ch.). The complaints allege, among other things, that Emulex's directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated February 25, 2015, by and among AT Wireless, Merger Sub and Emulex, or the Merger Agreement, and that AT Wireless and Merger Sub aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek, among other things, either to enjoin the proposed transaction or to rescind it should it be consummated, as well as damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees. The Delaware Court of Chancery has entered an order consolidating the three Delaware actions under the caption In re Emulex Corporation Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10743-VCL. On June 5, 2015, the Court of Chancery dismissed the consolidated action without prejudice. AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Counsel, Plaintiff Named in Cal. Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Avago Technologies Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the United States District Court for the Central District of California has granted plaintiff's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approved a lead counsel for the putative class. On April 8, 2015, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, entitled Gary Varjabedian, et al. v. Emulex Corporation, et al., No. 8:15-cv-554-CJC-JCG. The complaint names as defendants Emulex, its directors, AT Wireless and Merger Sub, and purports to assert claims under Sections 14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that the Board of Directors of Emulex failed to provide material information and/or omitted material information from the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC on April 7, 2015 by Emulex, together with the exhibits and annexes thereto. The complaint seeks to enjoin the tender offer to purchase all of the outstanding shares of Emulex common stock, as well as certain other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 28, 2015, the Court issued an order granting plaintiff's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approving lead counsel for the putative class. AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Del. Case Over PLX Acquisition Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Avago Technologies Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Delaware class litigation relating to the acquisition of PLX is on-going. In June and July 2014, four lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara challenging our acquisition of PLX. On July 22, 2014, the court consolidated these California actions under the caption In re PLX Technology, Inc. S'holder Litig., Lead Case No. 1-14-CV-267079 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara) and appointed lead counsel. That same day, the court also stayed the consolidated action, pending resolution of related actions filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Also in June and July 2014, five similar lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On July 21, 2014, the court consolidated these Delaware actions under the caption In re PLX Technology, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 9880- VCL (Del. Ch.), appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and designated an operative complaint for the consolidated action. On July 31, 2014, counsel for lead plaintiffs in Delaware informed the court that they would not seek a preliminary injunction, but intend to seek damages and pursue monetary remedies through post- closing litigation. Our acquisition of PLX closed on August 12, 2014. On October 31, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. This complaint alleges, among other things, that PLX's directors breached their fiduciary duties to PLX's stockholders by seeking to sell PLX for an inadequate price, pursuant to an unfair process, and by agreeing to preclusive deal protections in the merger agreement. Plaintiffs also allege that Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P., Deutsche Bank Securities, Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing, Inc. and the acquisition subsidiary aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches. Plaintiffs also allege that PLX's 14D-9 recommendation statement contained false and misleading statements and/or omitted material information necessary to inform the shareholder vote. The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On September 3, 2015, the Court granted motions to dismiss filed by Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing, Inc., the acquisition subsidiary and two PLX directors, and denied motions to dismiss filed by a several PLX directors, Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P. and Deutsche Bank Securities. The Delaware class litigation is on-going. BARNES & NOBLE: Class Cert. Hearing Held in "Nguyen" ---------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in the case, Kevin Khoa Nguyen, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., a hearing on the motion for class certification was scheduled on November 6, 2015. On April 17, 2012, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for the State of California against the Company. The complaint is styled as a nationwide class action and includes a California state-wide subclass based on alleged cancellations of orders for HP TouchPad Tablets placed on the Company's website in August 2011. The lawsuit alleges claims for unfair business practices and false advertising under both New York and California state law, violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act under California law, and breach of contract. The complaint demands specific performance of the alleged contracts to sell HP TouchPad Tablets at a specified price, injunctive relief, and monetary relief, but does not specify an amount. The Company submitted its initial response to the complaint on May 18, 2012, removing the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and moved to compel plaintiff to arbitrate his claims on an individual basis pursuant to a contractual arbitration provision on May 25, 2012. The Company also moved to dismiss the complaint and moved to transfer the action to New York. The court denied the Company's motion to compel arbitration, and the Company appealed that denial to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court granted the Company's motion to stay on November 26, 2012, and the action had been stayed pending resolution of the Company's appeal from the court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration. On August 18, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Company's motion to compel arbitration. On September 2, 2014, the Company filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On October 14, 2014, the court denied the Company's petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, and on October 23, 2014, the mandate issued returning the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Company then refiled its motion to dismiss the complaint and motion to transfer the action to New York. On February 17, 2015, the court denied the Company's motion to transfer. On June 16, 2015 the court granted-in-part the Company's motion to dismiss to the extent certain California unfair business practices and false advertising claims sought restitution or injunctive relief and denied-in-part the Company's motion to dismiss as to the remaining claims. The surviving claims are for breach of contract under New York law, violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and violation of two New York consumer protection statutes. The parties currently are engaging in discovery. On July 30, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification; the Company's opposition was due on September 17, 2015 and a hearing on the motion was scheduled on November 6, 2015. All dates for the case have been scheduled, including a trial date of May 3, 2016. BARNES & NOBLE: Motion to Dismiss PIN Pad Litigation Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that the Company's second motion to dismiss in the PIN Pad Litigation is pending. The Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores had been tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PIN numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals. Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012, the Company was served with four putative class action complaints (three in federal district court in the Northern District of Illinois and one in the Northern District of California), each of which alleged on behalf of national and other classes of customers who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes & Noble Retail stores common law claims such as negligence, breach of contract and invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claims such as violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data breach notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptive practices statutes. The actions sought various forms of relief including damages, injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. All four cases were transferred and/or assigned to a single judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and a single consolidated amended complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, and in September 2013, the Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. The Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint, and the Company filed a second motion to dismiss. That motion is pending. BARNES & NOBLE: "Lina" Case Stayed Pending Appeal ------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that the case, Lina v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al., has been stayed pending appeal. On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of California making the following allegations with respect to salaried Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in California from August 5, 2007 to present: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay for missed meals and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to reimburse for business expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage statements. The claims are generally derivative of the allegation that these salaried managers were improperly classified as exempt from California's wage and hour laws. The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the purported class. The Company was served with the complaint on August 11, 2011. On July 1, 2014 the court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification. The court ruled that plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden to demonstrate common issues predominated over individual issues, that plaintiff was a sufficient class representative, or that a class action was a superior method to adjudicate plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on August 29, 2014. On November 18, 2014, the trial court stayed all proceedings pending appeal. BARNES & NOBLE: "Jones" Case Stayed Pending Appeal -------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that the case, Jones et al v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al., has been stayed pending appeal. On April 23, 2013, Kenneth Jones (Jones) filed a purported Private Attorney General Act action complaint against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of California making the following allegations with respect to salaried Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in California: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay for missed meal and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to provide reimbursement for business expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage statements. The claims are generally derivative of the allegation that Jones and other "aggrieved employees" were improperly classified as exempt from California's wage and hour laws. The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the plaintiff or the purported aggrieved employees. On May 7, 2013, Judge Michael Johnson (before whom the Lina action is pending) ordered the Jones action related to the Lina action and assigned the Jones action to himself. The Company was served with the complaint on May 16, 2013 and answered on June 10, 2013. On November 18, 2014, the court stayed all proceedings pending appeal in the related Lina action. BARNES & NOBLE: "Carag" Case Remanded to State Court ---------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that the case, Cassandra Carag individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc, Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, remanded to state court. On November 27, 2013, former Associate Store Manager Cassandra Carag (Carag) brought suit in Sacramento County Superior Court, asserting claims on behalf of herself and all other hourly (non- exempt) Barnes & Noble employees in California in the preceding four years for unpaid regular and overtime wages based on alleged off-the-clock work, penalties and pay based on missed meal and rest breaks, and for improper wage statements, payroll records, and untimely pay at separation as a result of the alleged pay errors during employment. Via the complaint, Carag seeks to recover unpaid wages and statutory penalties for all hourly Barnes & Noble employees within California from November 27, 2009 to present. On February 13, 2014, the Company filed an Answer in the state court and concurrently requested removal of the action to federal court. On May 30, 2014, the federal court granted Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court and denied Plaintiff's motion to strike portions of the Answer to the Complaint (referring the latter motion to the lower court for future consideration). BED HANDLES: Recalls Products Lacking Safety Retention Straps ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 23, 2015 Posting date: October 23, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Strangulation Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-55502 Portable bed handles that lack safety retention straps. Recalled models include the Original Bedside Assistant(R) (BA10W), the Travel Handles(TM) (BA11W) which is sold as a set of two bed handles, and the Adjustable Bedside Assistant(R) (AJ1) sold between January 1994 and December 2007. Product description This recall involves the Original Bedside Assistant(R) (BA10W), the Travel Handles(TM) (BA11W) which is sold as a set of two bed handles, and the Adjustable Bedside Assistant(R) (AJ1). The L-shaped bed handles are made out of 1.9 centimetres (3/4- inch) tubular steel, measure 50.8 centimetres (20 inches) wide, 40.64 to 50.8 centimetres (16 to 20 inches) tall and have 91.44 centimetres (3 feet) poles that extend under the mattress. The Original Bedside Assistant(R) (BA10W) and the Travel Handles(TM) (BA11W) have a white handle with white poles that go under the mattress. The Adjustable Bedside Assistant(R) (AJ1) is gold in color and has a black cushioned foam handle. The bed handles are intended to assist adults with getting in and out of bed by giving them a bar to grip. Bed Handles Inc. and the model number are printed on a white label on the bed handles. When attached to an adult's bed without the use of safety retention straps, the handle can shift out of place, creating a dangerous gap between the bed handle and the side of the mattress. This poses a serious risk of entrapment, strangulation and death. Neither Bed Handles Inc. nor Health Canada has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these products in Canada. There have been 4 deaths reported in the United States. Approximately 2000 bed handles were sold in Canada by home health care stores, drug stores, medical equipment stores and in home and health care catalogs. Bed handles were sold from January 1994 through December 2007. Manufactured in United States. Manufacturer: Bed Handles, Inc. Blue Springs Missouri UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately stop using all recalled bed handles that were sold without safety retention straps. To request free safety retention straps to secure the bed handle to the bed frame, new assembly instructions for models BA10W, BA11W and AJ1 and a warning label to attach to the bed handles, consumers can contact Bed Handles Inc. online or by telephone at 1-800-725-6903 from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm CT Monday through Friday. The bed handles should be used only with the safety retention straps securely in place attaching the bed handle to the bed frame in order to prevent a gap. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/kOnY17 BEST BUY: Oral Argument Expected To Be Scheduled Later In 2015 -------------------------------------------------------------- Best Buy Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that oral argument is expected to be scheduled later in 2015 in a securities class action appeal. The Company said, "In February 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed against us and certain of our executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. This federal court action alleges, among other things, that we and the officers named in the complaint violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in connection with press releases and other statements relating to our fiscal 2011 earnings guidance that had been made available to the public. Additionally, in March 2011, a similar purported class action was filed by a single shareholder, Rene LeBlanc, against us and certain of our executive officers in the same court. In July 2011, after consolidation of the IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund and Rene LeBlanc actions, a consolidated complaint captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed and served." "We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in September 2011, and in March 2012, subsequent to the end of fiscal 2012, the court issued a decision dismissing the action with prejudice," the Company said. "In April 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the court's decision on our motion to dismiss. In October 2012, the court granted plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the court's decision on our motion to dismiss in part by vacating such decision and giving plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, which plaintiff did in October 2012. "We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in November 2012 and all responsive pleadings were filed in December 2012. A hearing was held on April 26, 2013. On August 5, 2013, the court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss in part and, contrary to its March 2012 order, denying the motion to dismiss in part, holding that certain of the statements alleged to have been made were not forward-looking statements and therefore were not subject to the "safe-harbor" provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). Plaintiffs moved to certify the purported class. "By Order filed August 6, 2014, the court certified a class of persons or entities who acquired Best Buy common stock between 10:00 a.m. EDT on September 14, 2010, and December 13, 2010, and who were damaged by the alleged violations of law. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals granted our request for interlocutory appeal. Briefing is complete. Oral argument is expected to be scheduled later in 2015. The trial court has stayed proceedings while the appeal is pending. We continue to believe that these allegations are without merit and intend to vigorously defend our company in this matter." BEST BUY: Continues to Litigate CRT Antitrust Litigation -------------------------------------------------------- Best Buy Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that the Company will continue to litigate the so-called Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litigation. The Company said, "On November 14, 2011, we filed a lawsuit captioned In re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. We allege that the defendants engaged in price fixing in violation of antitrust regulations relating to cathode ray tubes for the time period between March 1, 1995 through November 25, 2007. No trial date has been set." "In connection with this action, we received settlement proceeds net of legal expenses and costs in the amount of $8 million and $75 million in the second quarter and the first six months of fiscal 2016, respectively. We will continue to litigate against the remaining defendants and expect further settlement discussions as this matter proceeds; however, it is uncertain whether we will recover additional settlement sums or a favorable verdict at trial." BLUE BIRD: Recalls Vision School Bus Due to Crash Risk ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: October 22, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: School Bus Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 1 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015498TC ID number: 2015498 Manufacturer recall number: R15YH-C On certain school buses, the windshield wiper motor harness electrical connector may have been assembled incorrectly during manufacturing. The wiring in the terminal slides were not all fully seated into the connector, which may result in the windshield wipers becoming inoperative, which could limit the driver's visibility under certain operating conditions and increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect the windshield wiper motor connector and repair as necessary. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- BLUE BIRD VISION SCHOOL BUS 2016, 2017 BRAIFORM ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Discriminatory Practices -------------------------------------------------------- Nadia Georges v. Braiform Enterprises, Inc., Graeme Rutherford and Ben Hunt, Case No. 15-cv-8030 (S.D.N.Y., October 6, 2015) is an action for damages to remedy and redress the violation and deprivation of rights secured to the Plaintiff by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the New York State Executive Law. Braiform Enterprises, Inc. is in the business of supplying garment hangers, packaging solutions and hanger re-use programs to the retailers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nadia Georges PRO SE 2 Monisa Kay Drive Plymouth, MA 02360 Telephone: (508) 299-7573 BUILD-A-BEAR: Recalls Starbrights Dragon Stuffed Animal ------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 22, 2015 Posting date: October 22, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products, Toys Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Choking Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-55460 Starbrights Dragon is covered in a blue furry fabric with silver satin tummy, feet pads, wings and horns. The horns light up and the toy makes a musical sound when the hand is squeezed. The stuffed animal is 43 centimetres (17 inches) in length. Products with tracking labels 1059337 or 1059459 in Canada, and products with tracking labels 1059333 or 1059334 in the United States are affected. These numbers can be found on the label sewn on the backside of the leg. The satin seam of the stuffed animal can open, allowing the stuffing material to be exposed, posing a choking hazard to young children. Neither Health Canada nor Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this toy. For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them keep children safe when they play with toys, see the General Toy Safety Tips. Approximately 990 units of the recalled toys were sold in Canada and approximately 20,500 units in the United States. The recalled toys were sold at Build-A-Bear Workshops and sold online at www.buildabear.com between April 24, 2015 and August 19, 2015. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: Yangzhou Ever Toys, Co., Ltd. Yangzhou City Jiangsu Province CHINA Distributor: Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. St. Louis Missouri Consumers should immediately take the recalled stuffed animal away from children and return it to any Build-A-Bear Workshop store to receive a coupon for any Build-A-Bear stuffed animal. For more information, consumers may contact Build-A-Bear toll free at 1-866-236-5683 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. CST Monday through Friday, on Saturday between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. CT and on Sunday between 10:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. CST or by email. Consumers can also visit the firm's website and click on the Product Recalls at the bottom of the page for more information. Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/3qpDSK CANADIAN TIRE: Recalls Booster Seats Due to Noncompliance --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 21, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Not Entered, Car, Booster Seat Notification type: Compliance TC System: Fabrics Units affected: 11216 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015492TC ID number: 2015492 Certain booster seats may not comply with the requirements of the Canada Motor Vehicle Restraint Systems and Booster Seats Safety Regulations. The seat fabric does not meet flammability requirements specified in the regulations. This could increase the risk of injury. Correction: Owners should return the booster seat to a Canadian Tire store for a full refund. CANTON LONG: "Ellison" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Misty Ellison v. Canton Long Term Care, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv- 01650 (E.D. Tex., October 12, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime, liquidated damages, all available equitable relief, attorney fees, and litigation expenses/costs, including expert witness fees and expenses pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Canton Long Term Care, LLC operates a health care company located at 800 Brazos, Suite 400, Austin, Texas 78701. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bob Whitehurst, Esq. WHITEHURST LAW FIRM 5380 Old Bullard Road Suite 600, #363 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: (903)593-5588 E-mail: whitehurstdiane@yahoo.com CAPSTONE GENERAL: Faces "Dipilato" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Cathy Dipilato v. Capstone General Contracting, Inc., Christine Najem and Charbel Najem, Case No. 4:15-cv-40141 (D. Mass., October 9, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a construction company in Worcester County, Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shehzad S. Rajwani, Esq. Scott E. Regan, Esq. Lucia A. Passanisi, Esq. THE HARBOR LAW GROUP 300 West Main Street Building A, Unit 1 Northborough, MA 01532 Telephone: (508) 393-9244 Facsimile: (508) 393-9245 E-mail: srajwani@harborlaw.com regan@harborlaw.com lpassanisi@harborlaw.com CASEY'S GENERAL: Hearing This Month on Atty Fees in Hot Fuel Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Casey's General Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2015, that a hearing is anticipated to occur in November 2015 to award attorneys' fees for the plaintiffs' counsel in the Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation. The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas City has approved the settlement. Casey's said the settlement will not be considered final until after the hearing on counsel fees is held and the time for appeals have expired. The Company was named as a defendant in four lawsuits ("hot fuel" cases) brought in the federal courts in Kansas and Missouri against a variety of fuel retailers, which were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas City, Kansas as part of the multidistrict "Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation." A hearing to consider whether the previously-reported settlement involving the Company was fair, reasonable and adequate was conducted on June 9, 2015, and on August 21, 2015, the Court approved the same. The approved settlement includes, but is not limited to, the commitment on the part of the Company to "sticker" certain information on its gasoline pumps and to make a monetary payment (which is not considered to be material in amount) to the plaintiff class. The settlement will not be considered final until after a hearing on the attorneys' fees for the plaintiffs' counsel is held (which is anticipated to occur in November of this year) and all time for appeals have expired. CASEY'S GENERAL: Mediation Scheduled in Missouri FCRA Case ---------------------------------------------------------- Casey's General Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2015, that the Company is named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on behalf of all individuals on whom the Company obtained a consumer report for employment purposes during the last 2 years. Plaintiffs allege that the Company has violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") disclosure requirement. The FCRA provides for statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 for each willful violation, as well as punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The Court recently denied the Company's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Dismiss/Substitute a Proper Party, and court-ordered mediation had been scheduled for September 8, 2015. The Company believes it did not violate the FCRA disclosure requirement and intends to defend the matter vigorously. CELADON GROUP: Judgment in "Wilmoth" Case Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------ Celadon Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that it subsidiary has been named as the defendant in Wilmoth et al. v. Celadon Trucking Services, Inc., a class action proceeding. A summary judgment was recently granted in favor of the plaintiffs. The Company has appealed this judgment. The Company believes that it will be successful on appeal, but that it is also reasonably possible the judgment will be upheld. The Company estimates the possible range of financial exposure associated with this claim to be between $0 and approximately $5 million. The Company currently does not have a contingency reserved for this claim, but will continue to monitor the progress of this claim to determine if a reserve is necessary in the future. CELADON GROUP: Judgment in "Day" Case Under Appeal -------------------------------------------------- Celadon Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has been named as the defendant in Day et al. v. Celadon Trucking Services, Inc., a class action proceeding. A judgment was recently granted in favor of the plaintiffs. The Company has appealed this judgment. The Company believes that it will be successful on appeal, but that it is also reasonably possible the judgment will be upheld. The Company estimates the possible range of financial exposure associated with this claim to be between $0 and approximately $2 million. The Company currently does not have a contingency reserved for this claim, but will continue to monitor the progress of this claim to determine if a reserve is necessary in the future. CHI NAIL: Faces "Lau" Suit in California Over Age Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jennie Lau v. Chi Nail Bar & Organic Spa, Ki Nail Bar and Organic Spa, Fawn Ton, and Does 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No. BC597250 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 9, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged discriminatory practices based on age. The Defendants own and operate a nail Salon in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodney Mesriani, Esq. Pegah Sharifi, Esq. MESRIANI LAW GROUP A Professional Law Corporation 510 Arizona Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 826-6300 Facsimile: (310) 820-1258 CONN'S INC: Remaining Defendants Seek Securities Case Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- Conn's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that the remaining defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action Litigation. The Company said, "We and two of our current executive officers are defendants in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in the Southern District of Texas, In re Conn's Inc. Securities Litigation, Cause No. 14-CV-00548 (the "Consolidated Securities Action"). The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations, and prospects. They allege violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek to certify a class of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Conn's common stock and/or call options, or sold/wrote Conn's put options between April 3, 2013 and December 9, 2014. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought." On June 30, 2015, the Court held a hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. At the hearing, the Court dismissed Brian Taylor, a former executive officer, and certain other aspects of the complaint. The Court ordered plaintiffs to further amend their complaint in accordance with its ruling, and the plaintiffs filed their Fourth Consolidated Amended Complaint on July 21, 2015. The remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 28, 2015. The defendants intend to vigorously defend against all of these claims. It is not possible at this time to predict the timing or outcome of any of this litigation. COOPER COMPANIES: 50+ Actions Filed by Contact Lens Consumers ------------------------------------------------------------- The Cooper Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that since March 2015, more than 50 putative class action complaints were filed by contact lens consumers alleging that contact lens manufacturers, in conjunction with their respective Unilateral Pricing Policy (UPP), conspired to reach agreements between each other and certain distributors and retailers regarding the prices at which certain contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages against CooperVision, Inc., other contact lens manufacturers, distributors and retailers, in various courts around the United States. "In June 2015, all of the class action cases were consolidated and transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. CooperVision denies the allegations and intends to defend the actions vigorously. We are not in a position to assess whether any loss or adverse effect on our financial condition is probable or remote or to estimate the range of potential loss, if any," the Company said. COUCHE-TARD INC: Recalls Trail Mix Products Due to Milk ------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 24, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Couche-Tard Inc., Mac's Convenience Stores Inc. (Central), Mac's Convenience Stores Inc. (Western) Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10136 Industry is recalling Favourites brand mountain trail mix from the marketplace because it contains milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled product described below. The following product has been sold in nationally. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of this product. Background This recall was triggered by a recall in another country. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing the recalled product from the marketplace. Brand Common Size Code(s) on product UPC name name ---- ------------------ --- ----- ------ Favourites mountain 198 g All codes where milk 0 38445- trail mix is not declared on 12281 0 the label Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/ph2cxq CROSSHILL CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Ricardo Ramirez Lopez a/k/a Roberto Diaz v. Crosshill Construction Inc. and John Hassett, Case No. 1:15-cv-08994 (N.D. Ill., October 9, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate a construction company in Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos G. Becerra, Esq. Perla M. Gonzalez, Esq. BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC 332 South Michigan, Suite 1020 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312)957-9005 Facsimile: (888)826-5848 E-mail: cbecerra@law-rb.com pgonzalez@law-rb.com CUYAHOGA COMMUNITY: Sued Over False Employment Information ---------------------------------------------------------- George Daher v. Cuyahoga Community College District and Beverly Bankston, Case No. cv-15-852177 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, October 6, 2- 15) is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' practice of providing false information to the Plaintiff's prospective employers. Cuyahoga Community College District is an organization that exists under the laws of the State of Ohio, regularly does business, and engages in other persistent courses of conduct in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Caryn M. Groedel, Esq. CARYN GROEDEL & ASSOCIATES CO., LPA 31340 Solon Road, Suite 27 Cleveland, OH 44139 Telephone: (440) 544-1122 Facsimile: (440) 996-0064 E-mail: lgriffin@groedel-1aw.com cgroedel@groedel-law.com DELAWARE NORTH: "Santiago" Suit Removed to S.D. California Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Eduardo Santiago, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Delaware North Companies Sportservice, Inc., California Sportservice, Inc., and Does 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 37-02015-00029805-CU-OE- CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-02269-JAH-WVG to the proceeding. Delaware North Companies Sportservice, Inc. operates as a food, beverage, and retail management company in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Derek J. Emge, Esq. THE EMGE FIRM LLP 501 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-1400 Facsimile: (619) 595-1480 E-mail: derek@emgelawfirm.com - and - Suzanne Katleman Emge, Esq. EMGE & ASSOCIATES 225 Broadway, Suite 1350 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-1400 x203 E-mail: suzanne@emgelawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Jon D. Meer, Esq. Jonathan Lawrence Brophy, Esq. SEYFATH SHAW, LLP 2029 Century Park E, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com jbrophy@seyfarth.com - and - Michael Afar, Esq. 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 DISNEY WORLDWIDE: Sued Over Age and Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Vieira Jr. v. Disney Worldwide Services, Inc., Vanessa Moody, and Does 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. BC597541 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 9, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged discriminatory practices based on age and disability. The Defendants operate an amusement park located in the County of Los Angeles, at 500 S. Buena Vista St., Burbank, California 1521. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patricio T.D. Barrera, Esq. BARRERA & ASSOCIATES, APC 1500 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 500, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 802-1500 Facsimile: (310) 802-0500 E-mail: Barrera@baattorneys.com DOWNTOWN DELIVERY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jean Pierre, individually and on behalf of all other Similarly situated persons v. Downtown Delivery Services Inc. d/b/a A Plus Couriers, Case No. 1:15-cv-08450 (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief, pursuant to Fair Labor Standard Act. Downtown Delivery Services Inc. operates a messenger services company for New York City businesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, PC 2747 Coney Island Ave. Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 808-2224 E-mail: naydeskiylaw@gmail.com DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces "McIntyre" Suit in N.Y. Over Fantasy Sports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jason McIntyre, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Draftkings, Inc., and Fanduel, Inc., Case No. 7:15-cv- 08458-UA (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2015) is an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendants' acts and omissions whereby DFS players such as the Plaintiffs and members of the Classes are induced to invest their money based on the illusion that the contests offered are operated on a level playing field, and are not subject to manipulation. The Defendants are in the business of operating a daily fantasy sports website. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd S. Garber, Esq. D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP. 1311 Mamaroneck Avenue White Plains, NY 10605 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 Facsimile: (914) 824-1561 E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com gblankinship@fbfglaw.com jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com DUNES MOTEL: Sued in Cal. Over Disability Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------- David Singletary v. John Juknavorian, Martin Juknavorian and Michael Juknavorian d/b/a Dunes Motel & Coffee Shop, and Does 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. BC596776 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 6, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged discriminatory practices based on disability. The Defendants own and operate Dunes Inn located at 5625 Sunset Blvd., Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA 90028. The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Wakefield, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID C. WAKEFIELD 10620 Treena Street, Suite 230 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (619) 241-7112 Facsimile: (619) 342-7755 E-mail: dcw@DMWakeLaw.com ECS INVESTMENT: Faces "Munoz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Munoz, an individual v. ECS Investment Corporation d/b/a VIP Motel, VIP Motel, and does 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. BC 597375 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 9, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. The Defendants own and operate VIP Motel located at 2619 San Gabriel Blvd., Rosemead, California 91770. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo Y. Merluza, Esq. BERMEO & MERLUZA, LLP 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2745 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 380-9888 Facsimile: (213) 380-5397 E-mail: ricardo@bermeomerluza.com EIHAB HUMAN: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Gender Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------ Steffanie Johnson v. Eihab Human Services, Inc., Case No. 508554/2015 (N.Y., Super. Ct., October 10, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's gender and pregnancy based employment discrimination and retaliation of the Plaintiff during the course of her employment. Eihab Human Services, Inc. provides services to children and adults who have developmental disabilities, mental retardation and behavioral health challenges. The Plaintiff is represented by: Megan S. Goddard, Esq. NESENOFF & MILTENBERG, LLP 363 Seventh Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 736-4500 EMC CORPORATION: Faces "Walsh" Suit Over Proposed Dell Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Walsh, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. EMC Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-13654-ADB (D. Mass., October 27, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of EMC Corporation to enjoin a proposed transaction announced on October 12, 2015, pursuant to which EMC will be acquired by Dell Inc., through a flawed process and inadequate consideration. EMC Corporation operates an information technology company that focuses on enabling businesses and service providers to transform their operations. Dell Inc. operates a computer technology company with its corporate headquarters located at 1 Dell Way, Round Rock, TX 78682. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward F. Haber, Esq. Adam M. Stewart, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP Seaport East Two Seaport Lane Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 439-3939 E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com astewart@shulaw.com - and - Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com EMERGENT CAPITAL: "Rothenberg" Shareholder Lawsuit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Emergent Capital, Inc., on September 11, 2015, issued a press release announcing the dismissal of a shareholder lawsuit brought against the Company and its directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 15- CV-80505 styled as Harry Rothenberg v. Imperial Holdings, Inc., et al. Boca Raton, Fla.-based Emergent Capital, Inc., formerly known as Imperial Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: EMG), said the lead plaintiff dismissed with prejudice of a shareholder lawsuit against the Company and its directors brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 15-CV-80505. Among other things, the suit challenged the board's adoption of a bylaw requiring a shareholder to obtain the consent of holders of 3% of the Company's outstanding shares before bringing a claim on behalf of other shareholders in a class action or on behalf of the Company in a derivative action. The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit stated: "Although I have doubts about the benefit of the bylaw, after further investigation and the opportunity to meet with representatives of the board of directors, I now believe that they acted in good faith and did not engage in any improper behavior in adopting the bylaw or otherwise. Consequently, I have concluded that it is in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders that the case be dismissed." Emergent Capital (NYSE: EMG) is a specialty finance company that invests in esoteric asset classes, primarily life settlements. More information about Emergent can be found at www.emergentcapital.com. ENVIVIO INC: Final Judgment Entered in Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Envivio, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has entered a final judgment and order granting approval of the class action settlement. Envivio said, "On October 5, 2012 a complaint captioned Wiley v. Envivio, Inc., et al. CIV-517185 was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, naming as defendants the Company, each of our directors, our chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and certain underwriters of our IPO. The lawsuit purported to be a class action on behalf of purchasers of shares issued in the IPO and generally alleged that the registration statement for the IPO contained materially false or misleading statements. The complaint purported to assert claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and sought unspecified damages and other relief." On October 19, 2012 a similar complaint captioned Toth v. Envivio, Inc. et al. CIV-517481 was filed in the same court. On November 2, 2012 defendants removed the cases to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California where they were assigned case numbers 12-cv-05637-CRB and 12-cv-05636-CW. A similar complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on December 20, 2012 entitled Thomas v. Envivio, Inc., et al. C 12-06464. The Wiley and Toth actions were subsequently remanded to the San Mateo Superior Court, and the Thomas case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. "On February 28, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entitled Gary Silverberg v. Envivio, Inc. et al., Civil No. 14-cv-00933- PJH," the Company said. "The complaint purported to be on behalf of a class of purchasers of our securities between April 25, 2012 and September 7, 2012. It named as defendants the Company and our chief executive officer and chief financial officer, and sought unspecified damages and other relief for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934." On June 25, 2014, the Silverberg case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. In November 2014, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the actions without any admission of any wrongdoing by the Company or any of the named defendants. The parties subsequently entered into a formal settlement agreement, which received final court approval on June 22, 2015. The agreement required the Company to contribute approximately $1.0 million toward the settlement, and such amount has been paid. On June 22, 2015, the court entered a final judgment and order granting approval of the class action settlement, releasing all claims against the defendants, and barring class members from asserting released claims. Without affecting the finality of the judgment the court retained continuing jurisdiction for the purpose of construing, enforcing and administering the settlement. FERRING INC: Recalls Bravelle Sterile Pour Injections ----------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 23, 2015 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Drugs Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-55684 Out of specification result for potency during shelf life testing. Depth of distribution: Clinics, hospitals and/or wholesalers in all provinces/territories Affected products: Bravelle DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02268140 Dosage form: Poudre lyophilisee sterile pour injection Strength: Urofollitropin 75 IU Lot or serial number: Lot H15940B Lot H15940C Lot K16990B Lot K16990C Recalling Firm: Ferring Inc. 200 Yorkland Blvd., Suite 800, North York M2J 5C1 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Ferring Inc. 200 Yorkland Blvd., Suite 800, North York M2J 5C1 Ontario CANADA FINISAR CORPORATION: Appeal From Case Dismissal Order Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Finisar Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 2, 2015, that the appeal of a district court order dismissing securities class actions is pending. Several securities class action lawsuits related to the Company's March 8, 2011 earnings announcement alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased stock between December 1 or 2, 2010 through March 8, 2011. The named defendants are the Company and its Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. To date, no specific amount of damages has been alleged. The cases were consolidated, lead plaintiffs were appointed and a consolidated complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case. On January 16, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and granted the lead plaintiffs leave to amend the consolidated complaint. An amended consolidated complaint was filed on February 6, 2013. Thereafter, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss the case. On September 30, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. On October 25, 2013, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's dismissal ruling, and the appeal is pending. FISH HOUSE: "Yohandry" Suit Removed to Florida Dist. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Yohandry Cano and other similarly situated v. The Fish House, Inc. and Jose A. Rivero, Case No. 15-019399 CA 01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida to the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-23794-JAL to the proceeding. The Fish House, Inc. serves food and drinks and is located in Miami, Florida The Plaintiff is represented by: Brody Max Shulman, Esq. Jason Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Courthouse Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com jremer@rgpattorneys.com FORD: Recalls Mustang 2016 Models Due to Crash Risk --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 27, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Seats And Restraints Units affected: 1 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015508TC ID number: 2015508 Manufacturer recall number: 15C13 Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS) 210.1 - User-ready Tether Anchorages for Restraint Systems and (CMVSS) 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies. Front and rear seat belts may have been damaged prior to installation and may fail to conform to CMVSS 209 assembly performance standards, and the strength requirements of the CMVSS 210.1 standard. These issues could result in the belts not adequately restraining occupants in a crash, increasing the risk of injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace both front seatbelt retractors and pretensioners as well as both rear seatbelt retractors, rear seatbelt buckles, and rear child safety seat tether anchors. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- FORD MUSTANG 2016 FTI CONSULTING: "Parets" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Parets, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. FTI Consulting, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-24023- CMA (S.D. Fla., October 27, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. FTI Consulting, Inc. operates a business advisory firm located at 909 Commerce Road, Annapolis, Maryland 21401. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter F. Valori, Esq. Russell Landy, Esq. DAMIAN & VALORI LLP 1000 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1020 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 371-3960 Facsimile: (305) 371-3965 E-mail: pvalori@dvllp.com rlandy@dvllp.com - and - Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com - and - Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com GENEREL MOTORS: Recalls Pontiac Vibe 2009 & 2010 Models ------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 22, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 8751 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015496TC ID number: 2015496 Manufacturer recall number: 15791 On certain vehicles, inconsistent application of grease during the manufacturing process could cause the driver's side power window master switch to stick or become inoperative due to electrical contact point wear. This could cause debris to accumulate between the contact points, potentially resulting in an electrical short circuit. If a short circuit occurs, the switch assembly may overheat, produce smoke, melt and/or potentially lead to a fire causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will inspect the driver's power window master switch and apply a specialized grease that inhibits heat build-up, or replace the power window master switch circuit board, as necessary. Note: This is an expansion of recall 2012-342. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- PONTIAC VIBE 2009, 2010 GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Crash Risk ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 23, 2015 Type of communication: RecallSubcategory:Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Fuel Supply Units affected: 101 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015503TC ID number: 2015503 Certain vehicles with gasoline powered engines may be equipped with a fuel tank that could prematurely corrode and leak. A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source could increase the risk of fire causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace the fuel tank. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- GMC W3500 2008 GMC W4500 2008 ISUZU NPR 2008 ISUZU NPR-HD 2008 GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Fire Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 23, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Engine Units affected: 125783 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015501TC ID number: 2015501 Manufacturer recall number: 15757 On certain vehicles equipped with a 3.8L engine, degradation of the front rocker cover gasket may result in eventual oil seepage. Under hard braking, drops of engine oil may be deposited on the exhaust manifold. If the manifold is hot enough and the oil runs below the heat shield, it may ignite into a small flame and, in some instances, the fire may spread to the plastic spark plug wire channel and beyond. An under-hood fire could result in injury and/or property damage. Correction: To be determined. Note: This recall supersedes and is an expansion of recalls 2008- 081, 2009-105 and 2015-145. All vehicles having been inspected and/or serviced under the previous recall will require re- inspection and repair. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- PONTIAC GRAND PRIX 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 CHEVROLET IMPALA 2000 GLOBE SPECIALTY: MOU Reached in Stockholders Litigation ------------------------------------------------------- Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. (NASDAQ: GSM) on September 10, 2015, entered into a memorandum of understanding that outlines the terms of an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated action pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court") captioned In re Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. Stockholders Litigation. On February 23, 2015, Globe entered into a business combination agreement with, among others, Grupo Villar Mir, S.A.U. ("Grupo VM") and FerroAtlantica, pursuant to which the parties agreed to combine the businesses of Globe and FerroAtlantica under a new holding company to be renamed Ferroglobe PLC ("Ferroglobe"). The business combination agreement was amended and restated on May 5, 2015. On September 10, 2015, Globe announced that it has amended its business combination agreement with FerroAtlantica to, among other things, provide additional governance provisions for the benefit of the Globe shareholders. Globe also announced that, subject to certain conditions, a $32.5 million aggregate cash payment would be made by the combined companies for the benefit of the Globe shareholders after completion of the business combination. The amendments to the business combination agreement and the cash payment to the Globe shareholders are made pursuant to a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") that outlines the terms of an agreement in principle to settle the pending legal action regarding the business combination. Globe adjourned to September 22, 2015 its special meeting of shareholders called to approve the business combination in order to provide additional time for shareholders to consider these matters. The proposed terms of the settlement are subject to approval by the Court. Pursuant to the amended business combination agreement and the MOU, among other things: * An additional designee from GrupoVM's designees to the Ferroglobe board will be required to qualify as an independent director under applicable NASDAQ rules, bringing the total number of independent directors to five, with the effect that the Ferroglobe board will be comprised of a majority of independent directors. * After the fifth anniversary of the business combination, Grupo VM will abstain from voting its Ferroglobe shares with respect to contested elections involving the independent Globe designees to the Ferroglobe board, providing the opportunity for the Ferroglobe public shareholders to nominate and elect independent directors to the Ferroglobe board. * Ferroglobe's articles of association will require that all Ferroglobe shareholders will be offered the same type and amount of consideration per share in any tender offer and will receive the same type and amount of consideration per share in any scheme of arrangement, merger or other business combination that results in a change in control of Ferroglobe, ensuring equal treatment of shareholders. * Subject to, among other conditions, completion of the business combination and final approval of the settlement by the Court, the combined companies will pay an aggregate amount of $32.5 million to be distributed pro rata to holders of Globe shares (other than the defendants in the pending actions and certain related persons) as of the close of business on the effective date of the business combination. Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. is among the world's largest producers of silicon metal and silicon-based specialty alloys, critical ingredients in a host of industrial and consumer products. Customers include major silicone chemical, aluminum and steel manufacturers, auto companies and their suppliers, ductile iron foundries, manufacturers of photovoltaic solar cells and computer chips, and concrete producers. Globe is headquartered in Miami, Florida. For further information please visit our web site at www.glbsm.com. Grupo FerroAtlantica, S. A., is the parent company of a group of businesses in the following four areas: electrometallurgy, energy, mining and photovoltaic solar power. The Group currently operates fifteen production centres, working in the field of electrometallurgy: five in Spain, six in France, one in Venezuela, two in South Africa and one in China. Currently, the Group is a world-leader in the production of silicon metal, a leading producer of ferroalloys in the European Union, a leading independent Spanish producer of hydroelectric energy. Grupo FerroAtlantica, S. A. is wholly owned by Grupo Villar Mir. For more information, visit www.ferroatlantica.es. GREEN FLEET: Faces "Pineda-Amaya" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Pineda-Amaya and Laura Hernandez Pineda v. Green Fleet Systems, LLC, and Does 1through 100, Case No. BC596958 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 6, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Green Fleet Systems, LLC performs drayage services at the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alvin M. Gomez, Esq. GOMEZ LAW GROUP 853 Camino Del Mar, Suite 100 Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (858)552-0000 Facsimile: (858) 755-3364 E-mail: alvingomez@thegomezlawgroup.com H&R BLOCK: Appeal Related to "Lopez" Case Pending ------------------------------------------------- H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that the Company's appeal related to the case, Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., remains pending. The Company said, "On April 16, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against us in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri styled Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. (Case # 1216CV12290) concerning a compliance fee charged to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons. The plaintiff seeks to represent all Missouri citizens who were charged the compliance fee, and asserts claims of violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. We filed a motion to compel arbitration of the 2011 claims. The court denied the motion. We filed an appeal." "On May 6, 2014, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded the case for further consideration of the motion. On March 12, 2015, the trial court denied the motion on remand. We filed an appeal, which remains pending. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a loss contingency related to this matter." H&R BLOCK: "Perras" Case Still Pending in W.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------- H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend the case, Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, Inc. The Company said, "On April 19, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against us in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri styled Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK) concerning a compliance fee charged to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons. The plaintiff seeks to represent all persons nationwide (excluding citizens of Missouri) who were charged the compliance fee, and asserts claims of violation of various state consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. "In November 2013, the court compelled arbitration of the 2011 claims and stayed all proceedings with respect to those claims. In June 2014, the court denied class certification of the remaining 2012 claims. Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was denied on June 18, 2015. The Eighth Circuit denied plaintiff's subsequent petition for rehearing on August 7, 2015. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a loss contingency related to this matter." H&R BLOCK: Form 8863 Litigation Remains Stayed ---------------------------------------------- H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that the so-called Form 8863 Litigation remains stayed with respect to individual plaintiffs who agreed to arbitration. The Company said, "A series of putative class action lawsuits were filed against us in various federal courts and one state court beginning on March 13, 2013. Taken together, the plaintiffs in these lawsuits purport to represent certain clients nationwide who filed Form 8863 during tax season 2013 through an H&R Block office or using H&R Block At Home(R) online tax services or desktop tax preparation software, and allege breach of contract, negligence and violation of state consumer laws in connection with transmission of the form. The plaintiffs seek damages, pre- judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. In August 2013, the plaintiff in the state court action voluntarily dismissed her case without prejudice. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation subsequently granted our petition to consolidate the remaining federal lawsuits for coordinated pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri in a proceeding styled IN RE: H&R BLOCK IRS FORM 8863 LITIGATION (MDL No. 2474/Case No. 4:13-MD-02474-FJG). On July 11, 2014, the MDL court granted our motion to compel arbitration for those named plaintiffs who agreed to arbitrate their claims. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in October 2014. "We filed a motion to strike the class allegations relating to those clients who agreed to arbitration, which the court granted on January 7, 2015. The cases remain stayed with respect to the individual plaintiffs who agreed to arbitration. A portion of our loss contingency accrual is related to this matter for the amount of loss that we consider probable and reasonably estimable," the Company said. HARRIS DAVIS: Faces "Estrada" Suit Over Termination Policies ------------------------------------------------------------ Stanley Estrada v. Harris Davis Rebar, LLC, Case No. 32889465 (Fla., 11th Ct., October 6, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's alleged unlawful termination practices related to the Plaintiffs injury and medical treatment. Harris Davis Rebar, LLC makes, installs and distributes concrete reinforcing steel and other metal products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Perea, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD E. ZALDIVAR, P.A. 2600 S.W. Third Ave, Ste. 900, Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 856-5555 Facsimile: (305) 856-1666 E-mail: Jperea@zaldivarpa.com HEWLETT-PACKARD: Funded Settlement in Cunningham/Steavens Matter ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that HP has funded the settlement in the consolidated Cunningham/Steavens matter. HP is involved in several lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based on allegations that various employees of Electronic Data Systems Corporation ("EDS") or HP have been misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and/or in violation of the California Labor Code or other state laws. Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a purported collective action filed on May 10, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York claiming that current and former EDS employees allegedly involved in installing and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were misclassified as exempt employees. Another purported collective action, Steavens, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, was filed on October 23, 2007 in the same court alleging similar facts. The Steavens case was consolidated for pretrial purposes with the Cunningham case. On December 14, 2010, the court granted conditional certification of a class consisting of employees in 20 legacy EDS job codes in the consolidated Cunningham/Steavens matter. On December 11, 2013, HP and plaintiffs' counsel in the consolidated Cunningham/Steavens matter, and the Salva matter, mediated these cases and reached a settlement agreement. The court approved the settlement on June 16, 2015 and HP funded the settlement on July 27, 2015. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Funded Settlement in "Salva" Case -------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that HP has funded the settlement in the Salva lawsuit. HP is involved in several lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based on allegations that various employees of Electronic Data Systems Corporation ("EDS") or HP have been misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and/or in violation of the California Labor Code or other state laws. Salva v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported collective action filed on June 15, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York alleging that certain information technology employees allegedly involved in installing and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On December 11, 2013, HP and plaintiffs' counsel in the consolidated Cunningham/Steavens matter and the Salva matter mediated these cases and reached a settlement agreement. The court consolidated the Salva matter into the Cunningham/Steavens matter and approved the settlement on June 16, 2015 and HP funded the settlement on July 27, 2015. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Parties in "Karlbom" Case Engaged in Discovery --------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that the parties in the Karlbom case are engaged in discovery. Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a class action filed on March 16, 2009 in California Superior Court alleging facts similar to the Cunningham and Steavens matters. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Consultant Opt-Ins Dismissed from FLSA Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has dismissed the Technology Consultant and certain Field Technical Support Consultant opt-ins from the conditionally certified FLSA collective action. Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported class action filed on January 10, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that certain technical support employees allegedly involved in installing, maintaining and/or supporting computer software and/or hardware for HP were misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiff has also alleged that HP violated California law by, among other things, allegedly improperly classifying these employees as exempt. On February 13, 2014, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification. On May 7, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a Rule 23 state class of certain Technical Solutions Consultants in California, Massachusetts, and Colorado that they claim were improperly classified as exempt from overtime under state law. On July 30, 2015, the court dismissed the Technology Consultant and certain Field Technical Support Consultant opt-ins from the conditionally certified FLSA collective action. HEWLETT-PACKARD: No Oral Argument Yet in Concrete Workers Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that oral argument has not yet been scheduled in the appeal related to the class action filed by Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund. Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a putative securities class action filed on August 3, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that from November 13, 2007 to August 6, 2010 the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making statements regarding HP's Standards of Business Conduct ("SBC") that were false and misleading because Mr. Hurd, who was serving as HP's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer during that period, had been violating the SBC and concealing his misbehavior in a manner that jeopardized his continued employment with HP. On February 7, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 9, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint by September 9, 2013. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 9, 2013, and the defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on October 24, 2013. On June 25, 2014, the court issued an order granting the defendants' motions to dismiss and on July 25, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On November 4, 2014, the plaintiff-appellant filed its opening brief in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. HP filed its answering brief on January 16, 2015 and the plaintiff-appellant's reply brief was filed on March 2, 2015. Oral argument has not yet been scheduled. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Nov. 13 Hearing on Securities Case Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has set a hearing date of November 13, 2015 to determine whether to grant final approval to the settlement in the HP Securities Litigation. HP is involved in various stockholder litigation relating to, among other things, its October 2011 acquisition of Autonomy and its November 20, 2012 announcement that it recorded a non-cash charge for the impairment of goodwill and intangible assets within its Software segment of approximately $8.8 billion in the fourth quarter of its 2012 fiscal year and HP's statements that, based on HP's findings from an ongoing investigation, the majority of this impairment charge related to accounting improprieties, misrepresentations to the market and disclosure failures at Autonomy that occurred prior to and in connection with HP's acquisition of Autonomy and the impact of those improprieties, failures and misrepresentations on the expected future financial performance of the Autonomy business over the long term. This stockholder litigation was commenced against, among others, certain current and former HP executive officers, certain current and former members of HP's Board of Directors and certain advisors to HP. The plaintiffs in these litigation matters are seeking to recover certain compensation paid by HP to the defendants and/or other damages. In re HP Securities Litigation consists of two consolidated putative class actions filed on November 26 and 30, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that from August 19, 2011 to November 20, 2012, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making false statements related to HP's acquisition of Autonomy and the financial performance of HP's enterprise services business. On May 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint alleging that, during that same period, all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5(b) by concealing material information and making false statements related to HP's acquisition of Autonomy and that certain defendants violated SEC Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) by engaging in a "scheme" to defraud investors. On July 2, 2013, HP filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On November 26, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part HP's motion to dismiss, allowing claims to proceed against HP and Margaret C. Whitman based on alleged statements and/or omissions made on or after May 23, 2012. The court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims that were based on alleged statements and/or omissions made between August 19, 2011 and May 22, 2012. The lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on November 4, 2014 and, on December 15, 2014, the defendants filed their opposition to the motion. On June 9, 2015, HP entered into a settlement agreement with the lead plaintiff in the consolidated securities class action. Under the terms of the settlement, HP, through its insurers, will contribute $100 million to a settlement fund that will be used to compensate persons who purchased HP's shares during the period from August 19, 2011 through November 20, 2012. No individual is contributing to the settlement. HP and its current and former officers, directors, and advisors will be released from any Autonomy-related securities claims as part of the settlement. On July 17, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval to the settlement. The court has set a hearing date of November 13, 2015 to determine whether to grant final approval to the settlement. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of ERISA Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that plaintiffs in the HP ERISA Litigation have appealed the court's order dismissing the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In re HP ERISA Litigation consists of three consolidated putative class actions filed beginning on December 6, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that from August 18, 2011 to November 22, 2012, the defendants breached their fiduciary obligations to HP's 401(k) Plan and its participants and thereby violated Sections 404(a)(1) and 405(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by concealing negative information regarding the financial performance of Autonomy and HP's enterprise services business and by failing to restrict participants from investing in HP stock. On August 16, 2013, HP filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On March 31, 2014, the court granted HP's motion to dismiss this action with leave to amend. On July 16, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint containing substantially similar allegations and seeking substantially similar relief as the first amended complaint. On June 15, 2015, the court granted HP's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety and denied plaintiffs leave to file another amended complaint. On July 2, 2015, plaintiffs have appealed the court's order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. HONDA: Recalls Fit 2015 and 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 23, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 8081 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015499TC ID number: 2015499 On certain vehicles, the rear grab rail brackets may not have been manufactured to design specifications. In the event of a collision, they could interfere with side curtain airbag deployment and could result in a rear-seat occupant not receiving the intended protection from the side curtain airbag, increasing the risk of injury. Correction: Dealers will replace the rear grab rail bracket with one that has felt applied to prevent a puncture of the side curtain airbag. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- HONDA FIT 2015, 2016 HUM HOSPITALITY: Sued in Cal. Over Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------ David Singletary v. Hum Hospitality Group and Does 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. BC597065 (Cal. Super Ct., October 6, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged discriminatory practices based on disability. Hum Hospitality Group owns and operates a real estate property located at 2010 North Highland Ave., Hollywood, CA 90068. The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Wakefield, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID C. WAKEFIELD 10620 Treena Street, Suite 230 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (619) 241-7112 Facsimile: (619) 342-7755 E-mail: dcw@DMWakeLaw.com J. C. PENNEY: Continues to Defend Johnson and Marcus Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company continues to defend the Johnson and Marcus class actions. The Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah are parties to the Marcus consolidated purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. "The Marcus consolidated complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of persons who acquired our common stock during the period from August 20, 2013 through September 26, 2013, and alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder," the Company said. "Plaintiff claims that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the Company's financial condition and business prospects that caused our common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. The consolidated complaint seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, including interest, reasonable costs and expenses, and other relief as the court may deem just and proper. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed in November, 2014." Also, on August 26, 2014, plaintiff Nathan Johnson filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. "The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of persons who acquired our securities other than common stock during the period from August 20, 2013 through September 26, 2013, generally mirrors the allegations contained in the Marcus lawsuit, and seeks similar relief," the Company said. "On June 8, 2015, plaintiff in the Marcus lawsuit amended the consolidated complaint to include the members of the purported class in the Johnson lawsuit, and on June 10, 2015, the Johnson lawsuit was consolidated into the Marcus lawsuit." "We believe these lawsuits are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend them. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of these matters, we believe that the final resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said. J. C. PENNEY: Texas Court Trims "Rodriguez" ERISA Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ROBERTO RAMIREZ and THOMAS IHLE, Plaintiffs, v. J.C. PENNEY CORPORATION INC., MICHAEL DASTUGUE, JANET DHILLON, KENNETH HANNAH, MICHAEL KRAMER, RONALD JOHNSON, and MYRON E. ULLMAN, III, Defendants, Civil Action No. 6:14-CV-601-MHS-KNM (E.D. Tex.), District Judge Michael H. Schneider for the Eastern District of Texas, accepted the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which recommends that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be denied as to Count I and granted without prejudice as to Count II and the Request for Judicial Notice be granted. The Defendants filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Judge Schneider said the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the objections are without merit. Judge Schneider gave the Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint and replead Count II. A copy of Judge Schneider's Sept. 29 Order is available at http://is.gd/r9JPJIfrom Leagle.com. J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that JCP and certain present and former members of JCP's Board of Directors have been sued in a purported class action complaint by plaintiffs Roberto Ramirez and Thomas Ihle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, which was filed on July 8, 2014 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The suit alleges that the defendants violated Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by breaching fiduciary duties relating to the J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan (the Plan). The class period is alleged to be between November 1, 2011 and September 27, 2013. Plaintiffs allege that they and others who invested in or held Company stock in the Plan during this period were injured because defendants allegedly made false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the Company's financial condition and business prospects that caused the Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. The complaint seeks class certification, declaratory relief, a constructive trust, reimbursement of alleged losses to the Plan, actual damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 7, 2014, and this motion has been fully briefed. "We believe the lawsuit is without merit and we intend to vigorously defend it. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said. J. C. PENNEY: Opposed Renewed Motion for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the Employment Class Action Litigation, the Company has opposed the Illinois plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. JCP is a defendant in a class action proceeding entitled Tschudy v. JCPenney Corporation filed on April 15, 2011 in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. The lawsuit alleges that JCP violated the California Labor Code in connection with the alleged forfeiture of accrued and vested vacation time under its "My Time Off" policy. The class consists of all JCP employees who worked in California from April 5, 2007 to the present. Plaintiffs amended the complaint to assert additional claims under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act on behalf of all JCP employees who worked in Illinois from January 1, 2004 to the present. After the court granted JCP's motion to transfer the Illinois claims, those claims are now pending in a separate action in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, entitled Garcia v. JCPenney Corporation. The lawsuits seek compensatory damages, penalties, interest, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiffs in both lawsuits filed motions, which the Company opposed, to certify these actions on behalf of all employees in California and Illinois based on the specific claims at issue. On December 17, 2014, the California court granted plaintiffs' request for class certification. The Illinois court denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for class certification pending the filing of an amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint in the Illinois lawsuit on April 14, 2015 and the Company has answered. On July 2, 2015, the Illinois plaintiffs renewed their motion for class certification, which the Company has opposed. "We believe these lawsuits are without merit and we intend to continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of these matters, we believe that the final resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said. J. C. PENNEY: Defending Pricing Class Action Litigation ------------------------------------------------------- J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that JCP is a defendant in a class action proceeding entitled Spann v. J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. filed on February 8, 2012 in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California. The lawsuit alleges that JCP violated California's Unfair Competition Law and related state statutes in connection with its advertising of sale prices for private label apparel and accessories. The lawsuit seeks restitution, damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs. On May 18, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's request for certification of a class consisting of all people who, between November 5, 2010 and January 31, 2012, made purchases in California of JCP private or exclusive label apparel or accessories advertised at a discount of at least 30% off the stated original or regular price (excluding those who only received such discount by using coupon(s)), and who have not received a refund or credit for their purchases. "We believe this lawsuit is without merit and we intend to continue to vigorously defend this lawsuit. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said. KKHG SVI: Faces "Singletary" Suit Over Disability Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Singletary v. KKHG SVI LLC and Does 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. BC597063 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 6, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged discriminatory practices based on disability. KKHG SVI LLC owns and operates a real estate property located at 845 N. San Vicente Blvd., West Hollywood, CA 90069. The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Wakefield, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID C. WAKEFIELD 10620 Treena Street, Suite 230 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (619) 241-7112 Facsimile: (619) 342-7755 E-mail: dcw@DMWakeLaw.com LAWRENCE, MA: Sued Over Employment Discriminatory Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Hester v. City of Lawrence, Case No. 2015-cv-1689B (Mass. Cmmw., October 9, 2015) alleges discrimination practices, policies, and procedures, false and adverse unfair discipline, without just cause, retaliation, for being denied a promotional opportunity and advancement to apply for the next highest position in the building department because of his color and ethnicity. City of Lawrence is a municipal corporation in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence Hester PRO SE 171 Abbott Street, 2nd Floor Lawrence, MA 01843 Telephone: (978) 314-1014 LESLIE'S POOLMART: "Plizga" Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Roberto Plizga, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. Leslie's Poolmart, Inc., Case No. 34-02015-00179638, was removed from the California Superior Court, County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court Eastern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02109-TLN-EFB to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Moss, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ARI MOSS 15300 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 207 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (310) 982-2984 Facsimile: (310) 861-0389 E-mail: ari@arimoss.com The Defendant is represented by: Damien Paul DeLaney Frank M. Liberatore, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90016 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 680-0430 E-mail: ddelaney@jacksonlewis.com LiberatF@jacksonlewis.com LES PRODUITS: Recalls Sprouted Trail Products Due to Salmonella --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 26, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Les Produits Bio-Sphere Distribution: Ontario, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10140 Les Produits Bio-Sphere is recalling Les Produits Bio-Sphere brand Sprouted Trail 4 Flavours from the marketplace due to possible Salmonella contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled product described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting, nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may include severe arthritis. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand Common name Size Code(s) on product UPC name ----------- ---- ------------------ --- ----- Les Sprouted Trail 350 g Best before 18 SEP. 6 89051- Produits 4 Flavours 2016 04606 1 Bio-Sphere Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/OxssRw LIBERTY BROADBAND: "Cohen" Suit Filed in Delaware Chancery Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Liberty Broadband Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 11, 2015, that on August 21, 2015, a putative class action, entitled Cohen v. Malone, et al., was filed against the Company and each of its directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the disclosures made in the Proxy Statement regarding the share issuance proposal. The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and that no further disclosure is required to supplement the Proxy Statement under applicable laws. The plaintiff also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the vote on the share issuance proposal until defendants made supplemental disclosures. To eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties resulting from the preliminary injunction motion and without admitting any wrongdoing or that these supplemental disclosures are material or required to be made, on September 11, 2015, the Company agreed to supplement the disclosures in the Proxy Statement. Consequently, the plaintiff agreed to withdraw her motion for preliminary injunction. LINKGLOBAL FOOD: Recalls Coconut Juice Products Due to Milk ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 22, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Link Global Food Inc. Distribution: Manitoba, Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10094 LinkGlobal Food Inc. is recalling Orthodox Coconut Palm Brand Coconut Juice from the marketplace because it contains milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled product described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of this product. This recall was triggered by a recall in another country. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand Common name Size Code(s) on product UPC name ----------- ---- ------------------ --- ----- Orthodox Coconut Palm 1 L All codes where milk 6 901347- or Yeshu is not declared on 880390 (Chinese the label. characters) Coconut juice Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/ZREoJU LIQUID FORCE: Recalls Kiteboard Control Systems ----------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 21, 2015 Posting date: October 21, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Sports/Fitness Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-55472 This recall involves Liquid Force Response kiteboard control systems from model year 2015. The control systems are comprised of a light-weight control bar to control and depower the kite, a set of flying lines and a harness loop (chicken loop)/quick release mechanism. Recalled units have a solid orange release hood and the words "RESPONSE RELEASE SYSTEM" printed on the black loop. The release hood on the replacement systems is orange and black or yellow and black. The chicken loop release system, which is used to depower the kite, can stick and fail to open, posing a risk of injury to the user of the kiteboard. Neither Health Canada nor Liquid Source has received any reports of consumer incidents of injuries related to the affected products. Approximately 40 products were sold in Canada and 2,050 were distributed in the United States. The recalled products were sold from December 2014 to February 2015. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: Well Progress Industrial Co., Ltd. Dong Guang City, Guang Dong CHINA Distributor: Liquid Force Encinitas California UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled kiteboard control systems and contact Liquid Force for a free replacement chicken loop release mechanism. Consumers may contact Liquid Force by telephone at 1-800-820-7781 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, by email or online and click "Technical Service Bulletin" for more information. Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/iXN5W1 LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Filed Motion to Dismiss Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- lululemon athletica inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 2, 2015, that the Company has filed a motion to dismiss the action pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 for failure to adequately plead that demand on the board was excused. On July 15, 2015, plaintiffs Hallandale Beach Police Officers and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Fund and Laborers' District Council Industry Pension Fund filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery a derivative lawsuit on behalf of lululemon against certain current and former directors of lululemon, captioned Laborers' District Council Industry Pension Fund v. Bensoussan, et al., C.A. No. 11293-CB. Plaintiffs claim that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to lululemon by allegedly failing to investigate certain trades of lululemon stock owned by Dennis J. Wilson in 2013. Plaintiffs also claim that Mr. Wilson breached his fiduciary duties by making his broker aware of certain non-public, material events prior to executing sales of lululemon stock on Mr. Wilson's behalf. On August 18, 2015, the individual defendants (including Mr. Wilson) filed motions to dismiss the action pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23.1 and 12(b)(6) for failure to adequately plead that demand on the board was excused and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Also on August 18, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the action pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 for failure to adequately plead that demand on the board was excused. MATERNE CANADA: Recalls Apple Grape & Apple Pear Pouch Products --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 21, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Non harmful (Quality/Spoilage) Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Materne Canada Inc. Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10131 Materne Canada Inc. is recalling GoGo squeeZ(R) brand Apple Grape and Apple Pear pouch products from the marketplace due to the presence of mould. Consumers should not consume the recalled products described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If an infant or child has been fed the products described above, discontinue use and monitor for symptoms. Consumption of spoiled food may cause symptoms such as upset stomach, vomiting and diarrhea. If you have any concerns, please seek medical attention. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of these products. This recall was triggered by a recall in the United States. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. Brand Common name Size Code(s) on product UPC name ----------- ---- ------------------ --- ----- GoGo Apple Grape 360 g Best Before Dates 8 48860- squeeZ(R) (4 x between 2016 JN 30 00163 4 90 g) and 2016 JL 26, inclusively GoGo Apple Pear 360 g Best Before Dates 8 48860- squeeZ(R) (4 x between 2016 JN 30 00166 5 90 g) and 2016 JL 26, inclusively Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/ixqT8D MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls GLE Coupe 2016 Model Due to Crash Risk ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 23, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Powertrain Units affected: 2 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015506TC ID number: 2015506 On certain vehicles, the rear drive shaft bolts may not have been tightened to specification and could loosen, which could, overtime, cause the drive shaft to separate from the transmission. This could cause a loss of motive power, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect and tighten the bolts as necessary. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- MERCEDES-BENZ GLE COUPE 2016 MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Airbags ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 23, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car, SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 10888 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015505TC ID number: 2015505 On certain vehicles, a defect in the supplemental restraint system (SRS) controller could result in the inadvertent deployment of SRS components, such as airbags and seatbelt pretensioners, or could cause these components to fail to deploy in a crash where deployment is warranted. Unintended seatbelt pretensioner, airbag or other deployment, in a non-warranted (non-impact) situation, could result in minor injuries and could also startle the driver, which could result in a vehicle crash. Additionally, failure of the SRS components to deploy in a crash could increase the risk of injury. Correction: Dealers will replace the SRS control unit. Note: This condition would cause the illumination of the SRS warning light. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- MERCEDES-BENZ C CLASS 2008, 2009, 2010 MERCEDES-BENZ GLK CLASS 2008, 2009, 2010 MOBILTECH INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Caramel Macchiato Due to Milk -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 23, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Mobiltech International Inc. Distribution: British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10142 Brand Common Size Code(s) on product UPC name name ---- ------------------ --- ----- ------ Cantata Caramel 275 ml All codes where milk 8 801056- Macchiato is not declared on 051921 the label N-E-WHERE TRANSPORT: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Edberto Nunez, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. N-E-Where Transport, Inc., (M.D. Fla., October 27, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. N-E-Where Transport, Inc. operates a transportation service company in Hillsborough County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 337-7992 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com NEW JERSEY TRANSIT: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Action Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- George Sykowski, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. New Jersey Transit, Case No. 2:15-cv-07725-CCC-MF (D.N.J., October 27, 2015) is brought against the defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. New Jersey Transit operates a public transportation company with its principal offices located at Penn Plaza, City of Newark, County of Essez, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin E. Barber, Esq. NIEDWESKE BARBER LLC 98 Washington Street Morristown, NJ 07960 Telephone: (973) 401-0064 Facsimile: (973) 401-0061 E-mail: kbarber@N-BLaw.com OCEAN POWER: Dismissal of Securities Litigation Sought ------------------------------------------------------ Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company and its former Chief Executive Officer Charles Dunleavy are defendants in consolidated securities class action lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned In Re: Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 14-3799 (FLW) (LHG). The consolidated actions are Roby v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-03799-FLW-LHG; Chew, et al. v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No 3:14-cv-03815; Konstantinidis v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04015; and Turner v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04592. On March 17, 2015, the court entered an order appointing Five More Special Situation Fund Ltd. as the lead plaintiff. On May 18, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint. The amended class action complaint alleges claims for violations of sections 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and for violations of Sec.10(b) and Sec.20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of public statements relating to a now terminated agreement between Victorian Wave Partners Pty. Ltd. (VWP) and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) for the development of a wave power station (the "VWP Project"). The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On July 17, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint. Lead plaintiff filed a response to the motion on August 31, 2015. OMNI INSURANCE: "Colter" Suit Removed to South Carolina Dist. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Allison Colter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Omni Insurance Company and Omni Indemnity Company, Case No. 2015-CP-40-5273, was removed from Richland County to the U.S. District Court District of South Carolina (Columbia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-04171-JMC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel G. Peavy, Esq. Thomas Jefferson Goodwyn Jr., Esq. GOODWYN LAW FIRM 2519 Devine Street, Suite A Columbia, SC 29205 Telephone: (803) 251-4517 Facsimile: (803) 251-4527 E-mail: rpeavy@goodwynlaw.com JGoodwyn@Goodwynlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Brett Harris Bayne, Esq. J. Andrew Delaney, Esq. MCANGUS GOUDELOCK AND COURIE 1320 Main Street, Tenth Floor Columbia, SC 29211 Telephone: (803) 227-2281 E-mail: brett.bayne@mgclaw.com adelaney@mgclaw.com OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Has Final Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ Omnivision Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2015, for the three months ended July 31, 2015, that a court has granted final approval of the settlement of securities class actions. On October 26, 2011, the first of several putative class action complaints was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and three of its executives, one of whom is a director. All of the complaints alleged that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's business and financial results, in particular regarding the use of its imaging sensors in Apple Inc.'s iPhone. These actions have been consolidated as In re OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Litigation, Case No. 11-CV-5235 (RMW) (the "Securities Case"). On April 23, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between August 27, 2010 and November 6, 2011, seeking unspecified damages. On March 29, 2013, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. On December 30, 2014, the parties entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement to resolve the litigation, which was then submitted to the court for preliminary approval. The stipulation and agreement of settlement provides for a payment of $12.5 million to the plaintiff class, which is funded solely by the Company's insurance carriers. The Company also entered into a mutual release agreement with one of its insurance carriers. In March 2015, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement and ordering notice to the putative plaintiff class. On June 5, 2015, the court granted final approval of the settlement and entered a final judgment and order dismissing the action. OOMA INC: Hernandez, Salina, Ramirez and Rufus Filed Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ooma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that Michelle Hernandez, Ashley Salina, John Ramirez and Andre Rufus, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed on August 13, 2015, a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Talkatone, LLC (the "TCPA Litigation"). The lawsuit alleges that the Company and Talkatone, LLC sent unauthorized text messages to consumers on behalf of the Company in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The complaint seeks class certification, statutory damages of $500- $1,500 per violation, an injunction against "wireless spam activities," and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believes that the plaintiff's claims in the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. However, litigation is unpredictable and there can be no assurances that we will obtain a favorable final outcome or that we will be able to avoid unfavorable preliminary or interim rulings in the course of litigation that may significantly add to the expense of our defense and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources. Based on our current knowledge, we have determined that the amount of any loss or range of any losses that are reasonably possible to result from the TCPA Litigation are not reasonably estimable. PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Pfeiffer" Case in Discovery Phase --------------------------------------------------- Pacific Sunwear Of California, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that the Company is currently in the discovery phase of this case, Charles Pfeiffer, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores Corp., Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, Case No. 1100527. On January 13, 2011, the plaintiff in this matter filed a lawsuit against the Company under California's private attorney general act alleging violations of California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, among other things. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and penalties. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses. The Company is currently in the discovery phase of this case. PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Nov. 24 Hearing on Class Certification Motion -------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Sunwear Of California, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in the case, Tamara Beeney, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores Corporation, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2011-00459346- CU-OE-CXC, the hearing on the plaintiff's motion to certify will now be held on November 24, 2015. On March 18, 2011, the plaintiff in this matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company alleging violations of California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, among other things. The complaint seeks class certification, the appointment of the plaintiff as class representative, and an unspecified amount of damages and penalties. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses. On February 21, 2014, the plaintiff filed her motion to certify a class with respect to several claims. The Company's opposition to such motion was filed on June 30, 2014 and the plaintiff's reply to such opposition was filed on November 4, 2014. The hearing on the plaintiff's motion will now be held on November 24, 2015. As the ultimate outcome of this matter is uncertain, no amounts have been accrued by the Company as of the date of this report. PERRY ELLIS: Parties in "Ordaz" Class Action Reached Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Perry Ellis International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that the parties in the class action, Humberto Ordaz v. Perry Ellis International, Inc., have reached a settlement. The Company said, "We are a defendant in Humberto Ordaz v. Perry Ellis International, Inc., Case No. BC490485 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2012), involving claims for unpaid wages, missed breaks and related claims, which was originally filed on August 17, 2012 by a former employee in our California administrative offices. The plaintiff sought an unspecified amount of damages. The lawsuit has been pleaded but not certified as a class action. Mediation was held during the third quarter of fiscal 2015. Currently, the parties reached a settlement on August 12, 2015. The settlement amount was provided for in the Company's results of operations for fiscal 2015." QUORUM HEALTH: Community Health Systems Defend Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Quorum Health Corporation said in its Form 10 Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2015, that Community Health Systems, Inc. is defending a securities class action. Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee; namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed June 21, 2011. All three seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of CHS common stock between July 27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for CHS common stock. In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel. CHS' motion to dismiss this case has been fully briefed and remains pending before the court. The original district court judge has recused himself; in an order dated May 27, 2015, the new judge continued the discovery stay pending her ruling on CHS' motion to dismiss. CHS believes this consolidated matter is without merit and will vigorously defend this case. REGENCY SHARK: Faces "Chavez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Marcos Chavez, an individual v. Regency Shark Fire Services Inc., et al., Case No. BC596871 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 6, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Regency Shark Fire Services Inc. operates a full service Fire Sprinkler, Alarm & Monitoring company in Los Angeles County, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin A. Lipeles, Esq. Thomas H. Schelly, Esq. LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC 880 Apollo Street, Suite 336 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 322-22ll7 Facsimile: (310)322-2252 REMEDY TEMPORARY: Faces "Whitmore" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Whitney Whitmore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Remedy Temporary Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02161-SRB (D. Ariz., October 27, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Remedy Temporary Services, Inc. is in the business of providing staffing and in-house services related to the human resources processes, from worker recruitment and selection to introduction, planning and management of workers. The Plaintiff is represented by: James X. Bormes, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 201-0575 E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com - and - Thomas M. Ryan, Esq, LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C. 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 726-3400 E-mail: Tom@tomryanlaw.com RESTORATION HARDWARE: Coupons May Be Combined with Other Promos --------------------------------------------------------------- Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in the case, Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, the court has ordered that the 33% coupons may be combined with the Company's other promotional offers. On October 21, 2008, Mike Hernandez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a class action in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego against Restoration Hardware, Inc. alleging principally that the Company violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 by requesting and recording ZIP codes from customers paying with credit cards. On May 23, 2014, in response to a directive from the Court, the parties filed a joint statement as to the parties' agreed-upon claims process for the class members as well as to other matters related to this proceeding. On September 5, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and awards, and awarded $9.5 million in fees and costs to plaintiffs' attorneys. The Court entered judgment on September 29, 2014 and, on November 21, 2014, a class member filed a notice of appeal from the judgment. As a result of the appeal, the judgment was stayed until January 10, 2015. The appeal remains pending but the judgment is enforceable. As a result of these developments, during fiscal 2014, the Company recorded a $9.5 million charge related to this matter that was subsequently decreased to approximately $8 million. The decrease of approximately $1.5 million was based on a revision of estimated class member response. On March 16, 2015, the Company, through the third party claims administrator, began mailing the class action award to class members. The Company, through the third party claims administrator, paid approximately $2.4 million in cash awards to the class members and mailed 33% discount coupons, good for one year, on purchases up to $10,000, to class members that did not request the cash award. During a hearing on April 16, 2015, the Court provided additional guidance regarding the manner in which class members can use the 33% merchandise discount coupon. Specifically, the court ordered that the 33% coupons may be combined with the Company's other promotional offers. RKJD INVESTMENT: Faces "Yat" Suit Over Disability Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alejandra Yat v. RKJD Investment Group, Inc. d/b/a Denny's Restaurant, and Does 1- 10, Case No. CV-535713 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 6, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged discriminatory practices based on age and disability. RKJD Investment Group, Inc. owns and operates Denny's restaurant in South San Francisco, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arlo Garcia Uriarte, Esq. Un Kei Wu, Esq. LIBERATION LAW GROUP, P.C. 2760 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 695-1000 Facsimile: (415) 695-1006 E-mail: arlo@liberationlawgroup.com RYLAND GROUP: Faces "Hancock" Action Over Standard Pacific Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Ryland Group, Inc. on July 2, 2015, entered into an Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Amended Merger Agreement") with Standard Pacific Corp., a Delaware corporation ("Standard Pacific"), which amended and restated in its entirety the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 14, 2015 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and between Standard Pacific and the Company. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Amended Merger Agreement, the Company and Standard Pacific have agreed to the merger (the "Merger") of the Company with and into Standard Pacific, with Standard Pacific continuing as the surviving corporation in the Merger under the name CalAtlantic Group, Inc. (the "Surviving Corporation"). The Ryland Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, that Howard Hancock and Maureen Susan Hancock -- individually and on behalf of a purported class of common stockholders of the Company, excluding the directors of the Company and Standard Pacific as well as persons or entities related to or affiliated with the directors of the Company or Standard Pacific -- filed on August 31, 2015, a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Hancock v. Jews, et al., Case No. 11452-(VCN), against the Company's board of directors and Standard Pacific alleging, among other things, that the Company's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders and seeking, among other things, a preliminary injunction to enjoin consummation of the proposed Merger. The Company's board of directors believes that the claims asserted in this suit are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. SIEMENS HEALTHCARE: Recalls N Latex B2-Microglobulin Products ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 21, 2015 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type III Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-55724 Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics has received complaints from customers not being able to establish a calibration curve or to validate an established calibration curve with the respective controls when using one of the affected lots of N LATEX B2- MICROGLOBULIN. N LATEX B2-MICROGLOBULIN Lot or serial number: 44862 44902 44968 45192 45229 45252 45291 45329 45342 45366 Model or catalog number: OQWU15 Manufacturer: Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Products Gmbh Emil-Von-Behring-Str. 76 Marburg 35041 GERMANY SLEEPY'S LLC: "Gundell" Suit Removed to New Jersey Dist. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit entitled Jeffrey Gundell, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Sleepy's, LLC and Tempur- Pedic North America, LLC, Case No. MID-L-15-5147, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County to the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey (Trenton). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-07365-MAS-DEA to the proceeding. Sleepy's, LLC is a privately owned, four-generation mattress retail company founded in 1931 in Brooklyn, New York, with over 2,900 employees and over 1,000 stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Wolf, Esq. THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC, Suite 101 1520 U.S. Highway 130 North Brunswick, NJ 08902 Telephone: (732) 545-7900 Facsimile: (732) 545-1030 E-mail: awolf@wolflawfirm.net The Defendant is represented by: N. Ari Weisbrot, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD, LLP 75 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 200 Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (201) 881-7016 E-mail: aweisbrot@foxrothschild.com SPLASH INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Rubber Duck Squeeze Toys ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: October 23, 2015 Posting date: October 23, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products, Toys Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Choking Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-55462 This recall involves rubber duck squeeze toys sold in a set of four; one large duck and three small ducks are included in a clear plastic bag. The ducks are yellow with orange beaks, and there is a squeaker reed embedded in the underside of the duck. The model # is HAC1S and the UPC # 7-72094-06981-1. The plastic squeaker located on the inside of each duck can easily be removed; these small parts pose a choking hazard to young children. Neither Health Canada nor Splash International Marketing Inc. has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of the product in Canada. For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them keep children safe when they play with toys, see the General Toy Safety Tips. Approximately 1,907 units were sold in Canada. The recalled toy sets were sold between February 6, 2014 to October 8, 2015. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: Harvest Channel International Ltd. WangZong Min Road, XingLong 2nd District, ShiPaiTow, DongGuan City GuangDong Province CHINA Distributor: Splash International Marketing Inc. Markham Ontario CANADA Consumers should take the duck bath toy away from children and dispose of the product in regular household garbage. For more information, consumers may contact Splash International Marketing Inc. by mail: 395 Cochrane Drive, Markham, Ontario L3R 9R5, telephone at 1-800-237-4115 or by email. This recall is also posted on the Splash International Marketing Inc.'s website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/qmFePY SUNMART INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Coconut Cream Powder Due to Milk --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 21, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Sunmart International Ltd. Distribution: Ontario, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10122 Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on product UPC ----- ----------- ---- ------------------ --- S&P Instant 50 g All codes where milk 9 556181- Santan Coconut Cream is not declared on 010082 Powder the label SUPERMAN TRADING: Recalls Rubber Duck Squeeze Toys -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 23, 2015 Posting date: October 23, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products, Toys Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Choking Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-55428 This recall involves rubber duck squeeze toys sold in a set of four; one large duck and three small ducks are included in a netted bag. The ducks are yellow with red beaks, and there is a squeaker reed embedded in the underside of the duck. The plastic squeaker located on the inside of each duck can easily be removed; these small parts pose a choking hazard to young children. Neither Health Canada nor Superman Trading has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of the product in Canada. For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them keep children safe when they play with toys, see the General Toy Safety Tips. The total number of units is unknown, however approximately 150 units were sold in British Columbia. Time period sold The recalled toy sets were sold between June, 2013 and October, 2015. Manufacturer: Unknown company Distributor: Superman Trading Company 979 Crystal Court, V3C 5X5 Coquitlam British Columbia CANADA Consumers should take the duck bath toy away from children and dispose of the product in regular household garbage. For more information, consumers may call Superman Trading at 778- 552-5886. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/8qOO0V SWISHER HYGIENE: Facing Class Action Over Sale to Ecolab -------------------------------------------------------- Swisher Hygiene Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, that a lawsuit seeking to be certified as a class action was filed on September 8, 2015, against Swisher, the members of the Swisher board of directors, individually, and Ecolab Inc. ("Ecolab") in connection with the proposed sale of all of the assets primarily used in the Company's chemical service, wholesale and hygiene businesses (in each case outside of Canada) to Ecolab pursuant to the Purchase Agreement by and between Swisher and Ecolab dated August 12, 2015 (the "Purchase Agreement"). On September 8, 2015, a lawsuit seeking to be certified as a class action was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Chancery Division (the "Court") by Paul Berger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against Swisher, the members of the Swisher board of directors, individually, and Ecolab. The plaintiff has alleged that (i) faced with an ongoing investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Attorney General's Office, the individual defendants embarked upon a self-interested scheme to sell off Swisher's assets and to liquidate Swisher, (ii) the individual defendants, through an alleged insufficient process, caused Swisher to agree to sell substantially all of its assets for insufficient consideration, (iii) each member of the Swisher board of directors is interested in the Sale Transaction and the plan of dissolution, and (iv) the proxy statement was materially misleading and/or incomplete. The causes of action set forth in the complaint are (i) a claim for breaches of the fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty, fair dealing and due care, (ii) a claim for failure to disclose, and (iii) a claim for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff primarily seeks to enjoin the consummation of the Sale Transaction unless and until defendants provide all material facts in the proxy statement, and the plaintiff also seeks compensatory and/or rescissory damages as allowed by law for the plaintiff. This summary is qualified by reference to the full text of the complaint as filed with the Court (Paul Berger v. Swisher Hygiene Inc., et al., Case No. 2015 CH 13325 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Co.)). THAI INDOCHINE: Recalls Instant Coffee Products Due to Milk ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 22, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Thai Indochine Trading Inc. Distribution: British Columbia, Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10126 The food recall warning issued on October 2, 2015 has been updated to include additional product information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Industry is recalling Mr. Brown Coffee brand instant coffee from the marketplace because it contains milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled product described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of this product. This recall was triggered by the company. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand Common name Size Code(s) on product UPC name ----------- ---- ------------------ --- ----- Mr. Brown Arabica Blend 450 g All codes where milk 4 710085- Coffee Instant Coffee (15 g is not declared on 122509 (3 in 1) x 30 the label sachets) Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/AydNrB THOR MOTOR: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Fire Risk ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: October 21, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motor home Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 53 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015494TC ID number: 2015494 Manufacturer recall number: RC000106 On certain motorhomes, an incorrect electrical connection at the transfer switch buss bar could cause the transfer switch to overheat and melt. This could result in a vehicle fire causing property damage and/or personal injury. Correction: Dealers will replace the transfer switch. Note: This is an expansion of recall 2012-358. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- FOUR WINDS MAGELLAN 2010 FOUR WINDS MANDALAY 2009, 2010 FOUR WINDS SERRANO 2010, 2011 FOUR WINDS WINDSPORT 2009, 2010, 2011 FOUR WINDS HURRICANE 2009, 2010, 2011 TOYOTA: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Fire Risk -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 21, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car, Light Truck & Van, SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 315000 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015493TC ID number: 2015493 Manufacturer recall number: SRC R10 On certain vehicles, inconsistent application of grease during the manufacturing process could cause the driver's side power window master switch to stick or become inoperative due to electrical contact point wear. This could cause debris to accumulate between the contact points, potentially resulting in an electrical short circuit. If a short circuit occurs, the switch assembly may overheat, produce smoke, melt and/or potentially lead to a fire causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will inspect the driver's power window master switch and apply a specialized grease that inhibits heat build-up, or replace the power window master switch circuit board, as necessary. Note: This is an expansion of recall 2012-338. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- TOYOTA COROLLA 2009, 2010, 2011 TOYOTA CAMRY 2007, 2009 TOYOTA RAV4 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011 TOYOTA TUNDRA 2009, 2010, 2011 TOYOTA HIGHLANDER 2009, 2010, 2011 TOYOTA SEQUOIA 2009, 2010, 2011 TOYOTA HIGHLANDER HV 2009, 2010, 2011 TOYOTA MATRIX 2009, 2010, 2011 TOYOTA YARIS 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011 SCION XB 2011 TOYOTA CAMRY HV 2007, 2009 SCION XD 2011 TRANS-EXEC: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Brown v. Trans-Exec Airservice, Inc., and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. BC597188 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 9, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Trans-Exec Airservice, Inc. owns and operates an airline company in Van Nuys, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael B. Eisenberg, Esq. Daniel Nomanim, Esq. EISENBERG & ASSOCIATES 3580 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213)201-9331 Facsimile: (213)382-4083 E-mail: info@laborlitigators.com UNITEDLEX CORPORATION: Parets Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Parets, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. Unitedlex Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-24026- KMM (S.D. Fla., October 27, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Unitedlex Corporation is a legal services provider with headquarters and a principal place of business located at 12980 Foster Street, Overland Park, Kansas 66213. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter F. Valori, Esq. Russell Landy, Esq. DAMIAN & VALORI LLP 1000 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1020 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 371-3960 Facsimile: (305) 371-3965 E-mail: pvalori@dvllp.com rlandy@dvllp.com - and - Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com - and - Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com VALBELLA GOURMET: Recalls Meat Products Due to Milk --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 21, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Valbella Gourmet Foods Distribution: Alberta Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10105 Brand Common name Size Code(s) on UPC name ----------- ---- product --- ----- ---------- Valbella Pepper Pate Variable All codes where None Gourmet weight milk is not Foods declared on the label Valbella Turkey Italian Variable All codes where None Gourmet Sausage weight milk is not Foods declared on the label Valbella Gourmet Pate Variable All codes where None Gourmet weight milk is not Foods declared on the label Valbella Fine Liver Variable All codes where None Gourmet Sausage weight milk is not Foods declared on the label Valbella Chicken Apple Variable All codes where None Gourmet Sausage weight milk is not Foods declared on the label Valbella Venison Pate Variable All codes where None Gourmet weight milk is not Foods declared on the label Valbella Duck Liver Variable All codes where None Gourmet Pate weight milk is not Foods declared on the label Valbella Curried Bombay Variable All codes where None Gourmet Lamb Sausage weight milk is not Foods declared on the label Valbella Panzarotti Variable All codes where None Gourmet Sausage weight milk is not Foods declared on the label Valbella Cheese Smokies Variable All codes where None Gourmet weight milk is not Foods declared on the label Valbella Wild Boar Pate Variable All codes where None Gourmet weight milk is not Foods declared on the label Valbella Moroccan Lamb Variable All codes where None Gourmet Sausage weight milk is not Foods declared on the label VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Jusan Yang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., J. Michael Pearson, Howard B. Schiller, and Robert L. Rosiello, Case No. 3:15-cv-07746-MAS-DEA (D.N.J., October 27, 2015) alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. operates a specialty pharmaceutical and medical device company that develops, manufactures, and markets a range of branded, generic, and branded generic pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter products, and medical devices, such as contact lenses, intraocular lenses, ophthalmic surgical equipment, and aesthetics devices. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Marc Gorrie, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com mgorrie@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Opposed Motion for Award of Counsel Fees ---------------------------------------------------------- VeriFone Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is opposing a motion for award of compensation and attorneys' fees in the Israel Securities Class Action. On January 27, 2008, a class action complaint was filed against us in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel on behalf of purchasers of our stock on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. The complaint sought compensation for damages allegedly incurred by the class of plaintiffs due to the publication of erroneous financial reports. We filed a motion to stay the action, in light of the proceedings already filed in the U.S., on March 31, 2008. A hearing on the motion was held on May 25, 2008. Further briefing in support of the stay motion, specifically with regard to the threshold issue of applicable law, was submitted on June 24, 2008. On September 11, 2008, the Israeli District Court ruled in our favor, holding that U.S. law would apply in determining our liability. On October 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to appeal the Israeli District Court's ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court. Our response to plaintiffs' appeal motion was filed on January 18, 2009. The Israeli District Court stayed its proceedings until the Israeli Supreme Court rules on plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal. On January 27, 2010, after a hearing before the Israeli Supreme Court, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal and addressed the case back to the Israeli District Court. The Israeli Supreme Court instructed the Israeli District Court to rule whether the Israel class action should be stayed, under the assumption that the applicable law is U.S. law. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an application for reconsideration of the Israeli District Court's ruling that U.S. law is the applicable law. Following a hearing on plaintiffs' application, on April 12, 2010, the parties agreed to stay the proceedings pending resolution of the U.S. securities class action, without prejudice to plaintiffs' right to appeal the Israeli District Court's decision regarding the applicable law to the Israeli Supreme Court. On May 25, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to appeal the decision regarding the applicable law with the Israeli Supreme Court. In August 2010, plaintiff filed an application to the Israeli Supreme Court arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison et al. v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247, 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), may affect the outcome of the appeal currently pending before the Court and requesting that this authority be added to the Court's record. Plaintiff concurrently filed an application with the Israeli District Court asking that court to reverse its decision regarding the applicability of U.S. law to the Israel class action, as well as to cancel its decision to stay the Israeli proceedings in favor of the U.S. class action in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison. On August 25, 2011, the Israeli District Court issued a decision denying plaintiff's application and reaffirming its ruling that the law applicable to the Israel class action is U.S. law. The Israeli District Court also ordered that further proceedings in the case be stayed pending the decision on appeal in the U.S. class action. On November 13, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended application for leave to appeal addressing the Israeli District Court's ruling. We filed an amended response on December 28, 2011. On January 1, 2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered consideration of the application by three justices. On July 2, 2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered us to file an updated notice on the status of the proceedings in the U.S. securities class action then pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by October 1, 2012. On October 11, 2012, we filed an updated status notice in the Israeli Supreme Court on the proceedings in the U.S. securities class action pending at the time in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On January 9, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court held a further hearing on the status of the appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and recommended that the parties meet and confer regarding the inclusion of the Israeli plaintiffs in the federal class action pending in the U.S. On February 10, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court issued an order staying the case pursuant to the joint notice submitted to the court by the parties on February 4, 2013. The plaintiff and putative class members in this action are included in the stipulated settlement of the federal securities class action, In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc., disclosed above unless an individual plaintiff opts out. Following the February 25, 2014 judgment and orders by the U.S. court, in April 2014, the parties in the Israel class action filed a joint motion requesting that the Israeli Supreme Court renew the proceedings on appeal concerning the determination of the applicable law. A hearing was held on June 23, 2014 concerning whether the Israel class action should proceed in light of the settlement in the U.S. class action. On June 29, 2014, the plaintiff filed a supplemental pleading at the court's request. We filed our reply pleading on August 19, 2014, and plaintiff filed a further response pleading on September 4, 2014. On April 2, 2015, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the Israeli class action is estopped by the U.S. class action settlement and dismissed the case. On June 29, 2015, the plaintiff in the 2008 Israel Securities Class Action filed a motion for award of compensation and attorneys' fees based on the amount of settlement compensation received by Israelis in the U.S. class action. We are opposing that motion. VERIFONE SYSTEMS: To Seek Dismissal of New Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- VeriFone Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on May 13, 2015, a new class action complaint was filed against the Company in Israel alleging similar claims as the dismissed Israeli class action, and alleging that Israeli shareholders were deprived of due process in the U.S. class action settlement proceedings. "We intend to move to dismiss the new class action on substantially the same grounds on which the previous case was dismissed," the Company said. VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Suit Taken Under Submission ------------------------------------------------------------ VeriFone Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court has taken the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the VeriFone Securities Litigation under submission without a hearing. The Company said, "On March 7, 2013, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against us, certain of our former officers and one of our current officers and alleged claims in connection with our February 20, 2013 announcement of preliminary financial results for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2013. The action, captioned Sanders v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. C 13- 1038, and subsequently re-captioned In re VeriFone Securities Litigation, was initially brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of VeriFone securities between December 14, 2011 and February 19, 2013 and asserted claims under the Securities Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and SEC Rule 10b-5 for securities fraud and control person liability. The claims were based on allegations that we and the individual defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding our business, operations, and financial controls during the putative class period. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief." "Two additional class actions related to the same matter (Laborers Local 235 Benefit Funds v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. CV 13-1676 and Bland v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. CV 13-1853) were filed in April 2013. "On May 6, 2013, several putative plaintiffs and plaintiffs' law firms filed motions to consolidate these three securities class actions and requesting appointment as lead plaintiff and lead counsel, respectively. The plaintiffs in Laborers Local 235 Benefit Funds v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. and Bland v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. voluntarily dismissed their respective actions, without prejudice, on July 10, 2013 and July 17, 2013, respectively, and filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff in the action previously captioned Sanders v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. "On October 7, 2013, the court entered an order appointing the Selz Funds as lead plaintiffs and appointing Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs' first amended complaint was filed on December 16, 2013. The first amended complaint expanded the putative class period to December 14, 2011 and February 20, 2013, inclusive, and removed the current officer who was named in the original complaint from the action. "We filed our motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 14, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed their opposition on April 15, 2014 and we filed our reply on May 16, 2014. On May 27, 2014, the court took the motion to dismiss under submission without oral argument. On August 8, 2014, the court dismissed the amended complaint, with leave to amend. "Lead plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on October 7, 2014. We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on December 8, 2014. Lead plaintiffs filed their opposition and we filed our reply. The court has taken the motion under submission without a hearing. VERMEER: Recalls BC1000XL 2008 Model Due to Crash Risk ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: October 26, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Equipment Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Lights And Instruments Units affected: 1307 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015507TC ID number: 2015507 Manufacturer recall number: IK00-3221 Certain brush chipper and stump cutter units may not comply with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 - Lighting System and Retro reflective Devices. During manufacturing, the side marker LED lights installed did not include a reflex reflector built into the lens and no other reflex reflectors were installed on the sides of the trailers, which fails to meet the requirements of the standard. This could reduce vehicle conspicuity, which could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will install separate reflectors with SAE (A) marking or LED side marker lights with reflex reflectors with an SAE (A) rated lens. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- VERMEER BC1000XL 2008 VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Crash Risk ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 23, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Engine Units affected: 17240 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015504TC ID number: 2015504 On certain vehicles, the camshaft lobe which actuates the vacuum pump may fail, causing the pump to fail to deliver further vacuum supply to the brake booster, potentially increasing stopping distances. This would also result in a reduction in available engine power. These issues could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Note: This issue would result in the Engine Malfunction Indicator Light (MIL) illuminating. Correction: To be determined. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- VOLKSWAGEN JETTA 2015, 2016 VOLKSWAGEN GOLF 2015, 2016 VOLKSWAGEN PASSAT 2015 VOLKSWAGEN GTI 2015, 2016 VOLKSWAGEN NEW BEETLE 2015, 2016 VOLVO TRUCKS: Recalls VNL 2016 Model Due to Injury Risk ------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 22, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Engine Units affected: 2 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015495TC ID number: 2015495 Manufacturer recall number: RVXX1511 On certain vehicles, the Engine Control Module (ECM) may develop an internal electrical short circuit that could blow a fuse in the ECM's electrical supply circuit. This could cause the engine to stall without warning and prevent the vehicle from being restarted. Engine stalling would result in lost propulsion which, in conjunction with traffic and road conditions, and the driver's reactions, could increase the risk of a crash causing property damage and/or personal injury. Correction: Dealers will replace the ECM. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- VOLVO VNL 2016 WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models ----------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 22, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorhome Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 646 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015497TC ID number: 2015497 On certain motorhomes, the high pressure liquid propane (LP) hose(s) could harden and leak at the crimp fitting. A propane leak in the presence of an ignition source could result in a fire causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace the high pressure liquid propane (LP) hose(s). Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- ITASCA ELLIPSE 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 WINNEBAGO ERA 2013, 2014, 2015 WISHBONE DESIGN: Recalls Wishbone Bike Recycled Edition ------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 23, 2015 Posting date: October 23, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products, Sports/Fitness, Toys Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-55492 This recall involves Wishbone Design Studio Ltd.'s Wishbone Bike Recycled Edition 3-in-1 and 2-in-1 trike-to-balance bikes made from recycled black plastic materials with 30.5 centimetres (12- inch), air-filled white rubber tires. The adjustable seat height ranges from 9 to 20 inches. The bikes weigh about 4,535.9 grams (10 pounds). The two recalled bikes include one 3-in-1 model, which is adjustable as a 3-wheeler or 2-wheeler with a high seat or low seat; and one 2-wheeler model, which is adjustable with a high or low seat. The date codes for production appear in a round dial on the front frame of the bikes under the seat. Date codes are either 12/13 (December 2013) or 05/14 (May 2014). The year appears in the center of the dial and the arrow points to the month. There is also a Wishbone logo embossed on each bike fork. The affected products have the SKU 4016 or 4116 and barcode 9421903253132 or 9421901544768. The handlebar can pinch fingers placed at the center where the handlebar connects to the bike frame. Wishbone Design Studio Ltd. has received reports of four incidents, including two injuries; one required stitches and the other one required restorative surgery. Neither Health Canada nor Wishbone Design Studios Ltd. has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this toy in Canada. For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them keep children safe when they play with toys, see the General Toy Safety Tips. Approximately 114 units of the recalled products were sold at various retailers across Canada whereas approximately 400 were sold in the United States and 4,500 additional units were sold worldwide. The recalled products were sold in Canada from October 2014 to June 2015 at various independent toy and bicycle stores. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: Wishbone Design Studio Limited Wellington NEW ZEALAND Importer Wishbone: Design Studio Limited. Yardville New Jersey UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately stop using the bike, take it away from children and contact Wishbone or the store where the bike was purchased for a free neoprene cover for the handlebar. For additional information, consumers may contact Wishbone Design Studios Ltd. by email or visit the firm's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/dUjdZj * CFIA Recalls Orthodox Coconut Palm brand Coconut Drink -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 23, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10114 Brand Common Size Code(s) on product UPC name name ---- ------------------ --- ----- ------ Orthodox Coconut 6 x 245 All codes where milk 6 901347- Coconut Drink ml is not declared on 990815 Palm or the label Yeshu (Chinese characters) Orthodox Coconut 1 L All codes where milk 6 901347- Coconut Drink is not declared on 880390 Palm or the label Yeshu (Chinese characters) ********* 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 * * *