/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160205.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, February 5, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 26 Headlines ABBOTT MOLECULAR: Recalls m2000sp Instruments ABBOTT VASCULAR: Recalls Vascular Scaffold Systems AFFINION GROUP: Dispositive Motions Due Feb. 29 in Conn. Suit AFFINION GROUP: Conn. Court Tosses Claims in Webloyalty Suit AFFINION GROUP: Appeal Ongoing in Webloyalty Suit AFFINION GROUP: Settles Massachusetts Suit for Less Than $100,000 AIR CANADA: December Hearing Set for Halifax Crash Suit AMTRAK: Engineer's Account of Train Derailment Scrutinized AQUESYS INC: Recalls XEN 45 Glaucoma Treatment Systems ARKANSAS: Faces Class Suit Over Planned Parenthood Medicaid Cut AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Doe" Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y to MDL 2669 AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Campbell" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2669 AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Lisuzzo" Suit Goes from N.D. Ill. to MDL 2669 BANK OF AMERICA: "Hughes" Suit Moved to South Carolina BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Omaha Police Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y. BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Policemen's Annuity Suit Moved to S.D.N.Y. BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Rock Capital Markets Suit Goes to S.D.N.Y. BAXTERS CANADA: Recalls Tomato Soup Products BECKMAN COULTER: Recalls Coulter S-Cal Calibrator Kits BECTON DICKINSON: Recalls Tube Products Due to False EDTA BEDESSEE IMPORT: Recalls Malted Chocolate Drink Due to Milk BENLAN INC: Recalls MED-RX Wound Management Kits BERKS PACKING: Recalls Beef Products Due to Pork and Erythorbate BIL-JIM CONSTRUCTION: "Wall" Suit Moved to New Jersey Dist. Court BLUE BUFFALO: Promises $32MM to Settle False Advertising Suit BMW: "Kelley" Suit Moved from C.D. California to New Jersey BRP US: Recalls Evinrude(R) Outboards Engines Due to Injury Risk CALIFORNIA: Four Counties Sued Over Cost of Jail Calls CALIFORNIA: Judge Approves State Fire Fee Class Action Motion CALKINS & BURKE: Recalls Crushed Pineapple Products CAMPBELL-EWALD: Sup. Court Addresses Class Action Mootness Issue CANADIAN FOOTBALL: Families of Ex-Players Join Concussions Suit CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Court Rules on Securities Suit Limitations CANADIAN TIRE: Recalls Seasonal Lights Due to Fire Hazard CHEESE BOUTIQUE: Recalls Butternut Squash Ravioli Due to Tree Nut CHRYSLER: Recalls Fiat 500 Models with Automatic Transmissions COMBE INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Hair Product COOPER: Recalls 2015 Vehicles Due to Noncompliance COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Baked Green Pea Crisps Due to Milk CUISINE KARO: Recalls Cheese Sandwich Wrap Products CUSTOM ULTRASONICS: Recalls System 83+ Products DAKO NORTH: Recalls Dako Seymour Small Flap Slide Label Kits DEAN FOODS: Food Lion Fails to Obtain Class Certification DENVER PARENT: Trial This Year in Delaware Class Suit DING HO: Recalls Cuttlefish Balls Due to Egg DIRECTV INC: DJ's Sports Bar Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. DIRECTV INC: "Lippincott" Suit Goes from N.D. to MDL 2668 DISH NETWORK: Judge Approves $4.75-Mil. Settlement in FCRA Suit DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Marketing DOWNER EDI: Class Action Over Waratah Train Project Set to Begin DRAFTKINGS INC: "Huizar" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. DURACELL: Lawyers Get $5.7MM in Fees in Deceptive Ad Class Action ELEKTA BUSINESS: Recalls Mosaiq Due to Incorrect Drug Dosage EOS: Settles Lip Balm Class Action in California EVERSPRING FARMS: Expands Salba brand Chia Seeds Recall FAN DUEL: Faces Class Action Over Use of Athletes' Likeness FIGI'S COMPANIES: Recalls Classic Marzipan Due to Almonds FIRSTMERIT CORP: Law Firms Urge Shareholders to File Merger Suit FLINT, MI: Faces Major Legal Challenges Over Tainted Water Crisis FLINT, MI: Environmental Racism Issue Raised Amid Water Crisis FLOWERS FOOD: Sued by Truck Drivers Over Employee Status FLOWERS FOODS: Defending Misclassification Suit in North Carolina FOREST RIVER: Recalls Motorhomes with Lippert Electric Steps FOREST RIVER: Recalls Stealth 2016 Model Due to Asphyxiation Risk GALLAGHER BASSETT: Sued Over Slow Settlement Payments GARDEN OF LIFE: Recalls Raw Meal Organic Shake Due to Salmonella GE MEDICAL: Recalls Phased Flex Coils Due to Thermal Injury Risk GENERAL CHEMICAL: Fergus Falls Sues Aluminum Sulfate Sellers GENERAL MOTORS: Settles FTC Claims Over Used-Car Inspections GENERAL MOTORS: Lawyer Claims Hilliard Struck Deal with Automaker GENERAL MOTORS: Hilliard Reflects on Lapses in Scheuer Case GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Multiple 2016 Vehicle Models GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Sierra 2016 Models Due to Crash Risk GILEAD SCIENCES: Massachusetts AG to Probe Hep C Drug Costs GLAVAL: Recalls Wheelchair Lifts Due to Injury Risk GROUPE JEAN: Recalls Seasonal Lights Due to Shock Hazard GW PHARMA: Adler Freeman Files Securities Class Suit HALLIBURTON CO: Erica P John Fund Suit Sent to N.D. Tex. HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Massage Therapist Files Class Action HOME MAID: Recalls Meat and Poultry Ravioli and Pasta Products HOME MAID: Recalls Beef Ravioli Products Due to Misbranding HONDA: Recalls Multiple Motorcycle Models Due to Injury Risk HOUSE OF FLAVORS: Recalls Cookie Butter Ice Cream Due to Nuts HOUSTON AMERICAN: $7 Million Silverman Settlement Has Final OK HUNGARY: U.S. Court Revives Holocaust Survivors' Suit INDIANA: Mentally Ill Solitary Confinement Settlement Game Changer INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: N.J. Court Rejects Motion to Dismiss Suit JACKSON COUNTY, FL: Settles Compass Lake Subdivision Class Action JACOBY & MEYERS: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action JUBILANT DRAXIMAGE: Recalls Ruby-Fill Rubidium 82 Generators KAM WAH: Recalls Walnut Powder Due to Peanut and Soy KEHE FOOD DISTRIBUTORS: "Santana" Suit Sent to S.D. California KENNER, LA: Pay Firefighters' Pension, State Supreme Court Says LENOVO: Class Action Over Battery Life Dismissed LIFE FITNESS: Judge Denies FLSA Class Certification Motion LIME ENERGY: Insurer Paid $2.5MM Class Action Settlement LUCY'S WEIGHT: Recalls Pink Bikini and Shorts Capsules MAHINA MELE: Recalls Macadamia Nut Products Due to Salmonella MASTER HERBS: Recalls Licorice Coughing Liquid Due to Morphine MICHAEL KORS: $4.9MM Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court OK NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Super Bowl Ticket Class Suit Dismissal Upheld NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Trilogy Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y to C.D. Cal. NEBRASKA: "Shepard" Suit May Proceed in Forma Pauperis NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Securities Suit in California NEW JERSEY: Gibson Wins Motions to Squash Bridgegate Subpoena NEW YORK: Plaintiffs Lose Certification Bid in NYCHA Suit NOBLE SPOON: Recalls Beef and Chicken Entree Products NV ENERGY: Sides with SolarCity on Net-Metering Rules ONE SOURCE: Set to Settle Former Clients' Class Suit for $1.6MM OPKO HEALTH: Settlement Hearing Held in Bio-Reference Merger Case PAYPAL: Settles Suit Over Accounts Suspension for $3.2-Mil. PETTERS CO: Liquidation Plan Set Up for Ponzi Scheme Victims PHILIPPE CHOW: Workers Sue Over Unlawful Wage Practices PINNACLE FOODS: Recalls Chili Products Due to Misbranding PRA GROUP: Virginia Court Declines to Certify Proposed Class QC HOLDINGS: "Lee" Case Parties Expect to Complete Deal QC HOLDINGS: Settles "Stemple" Suit for $1.5 Million QC HOLDINGS: Calif. Judge Dismisses "Marquez" Class Suit QUORN: Sued in California Over Mycoprotein QUOTIENT TECHNOLOGY: Calif. Court Sustains Demurrer in Class Suit RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Stolen Rent REASBECK CONSTRUCTION: "Bayless" Labor Suit Moved to W.D. Kansas RITE-A-WAY SERVICES: Sued for Plumbing Technicians' Unpaid Wages SASAC: "Brooke" Suit Moved from E.D. Va. to MDL 2047 SCOTTRADE INC: "Hine" Suit Moved from S.D. Cal. to E.D. Missouri SLATER & GORDON: Shareholders Join Class Action SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: "Collier" Suit Goes from E.D. Mo. to N.D. Ga. SNAPP'S FERRY: Recalls Ground Beef Products Due to E. Coli SOUTHCOAST FINANCIAL: Faces Class Suit over BNC Deal SUNEDISON INC: Continues to Defend Against "Jones" Suit SUNEDISON INC: Reviewing Class Suits over TerraForm Global IPO SUNEDISON INC: Wagner Firm Files Securities Class Action SYNGENTA SEEDS: "Dreibodt" Suit Moved from W.D. Tex. to Kansas TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Agrawal" Suit Goes to N.D. Cal. TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Badri" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. California TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Iron Workers Pension Fund Moved to N.D. Cal. TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Fraser" Suit Moved to N.D. Cal. TETRAPHASE PHARMA: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit TOPHAT LOGISTICAL: Delivery Drivers File Class Action TRUECAR INC: N.Y. Court Narrows Car Dealers' Suit TRUECAR INC: Wants Calif. Securities Action Dismissed TRUECAR INC: Calif. State Court Suit Dismissed UNITED STATES: Newspaper Intervenes in Border Patrol Class Suit UTZ QUALITY FOODS: "Cummings" Suit Goes to Mass. Dist. Court VOLKSWAGEN AG: May Buy Back Non-Emission Compliant Diesel Cars WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Pepperoni Pizza Products Due to Misbranding ZIMBABWE: Judge Dismisses Suit Challenging Teachers Recall * Class Action, Mass Tort Trial Lawyers Tops Earners * EEOC May File Discrimination Suits for Group of Workers * Self-Driving Technology May Impact Auto Injury litigation Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Marine Transport's Bid to Junk "Quinlan" OK'd ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Recommends Dismissal of 2 Cos. in "Shaw" ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Affirms Ruling for Cos. in "Garnes" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Revises Scheduling Order in "Macqueen" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Attorney Awarded $18K for Estate Administration ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Wins Summary Judgment in "Ahnert" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Police Officer's Whisteblower Suit Remanded ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sprinkmann Loses Summary Judgment in "Ahnert" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pabst's Summary Judgment Bid in "Ahnert" Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Velan Valve Wins Summary Judgment in "Bell" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss "Clark" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Ordered to Disclose Settlement Terms ASBESTOS UPDATE: South African Asbestos Mines to be Rehabilitated ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dumped at Borders Tourist Attraction ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Poisoned by Asbestos-Covered Husband ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crawley Down Man Dies Due to Asbestos Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Launches GBP100K Damages Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Awards Summary Judgment to 7 Cos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Denies 2 Cos.'s Summary Judgment Bids ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Blames GE for Husband's Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: Water Corp. Failed Workers Exposed to Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Japan Gov't Ordered to Pay for Damages ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Awards Summary Judgment to Crane Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal Underway at Maplewood Post Office Bldg. ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Board Cancel Classes After Asbestos Find ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Devon Residents Die Following Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Husband Unwittingly Caused Wife's Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reservoir Asbestos Could Have Been Detected ASBESTOS UPDATE: Royal Navy Veteran Seeking Cancer Compensation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Adelaide Buildings Need Urgent Asbestos Removal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Concerns Raised Over Block Redevelopment ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Fined Over Inspection of Shop ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fly-Tippers Dump Toxic Waste in Derby Garage ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure at Home Increasing, Study Says ASBESTOS UPDATE: Increased Waste Leads to Illegal Dumping ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Bricklayer Diagnosed with Mesothelioma ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vets, Teachers Push Congress to Reject FACT Act ASBESTOS UPDATE: Measure Sacks Kansas's Worker Certification ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuit in Kentucky Opens ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canadian Federal Gov't Still Using Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Substantial Relief Needed for Japan Victims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has Until June to Perfect Appeals ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Suit vs. JPMorgan Officers Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Had $648MM Litigation Reserve at Dec. 31 ********* ABBOTT MOLECULAR: Recalls m2000sp Instruments --------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 14, 2015 Posting date: January 7, 2016 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-56550 Investigation at Abbott Molecular identified that an incorrect type of tip adapter (type D) could have been installed on m2000sp instrument during a service visit on or after august 14, 2015. This is because two lots of Abbott Molecular PN 30084426 (lots 76258007 and 77228007) were shipped with type D tip adapters rather than the required type B adapters. Affected products: A. m2000sp Instrument, G-series and E-series Lot or serial number: 10378 10417 10472 10621 10762 4123-G SERIES Model or catalog number: 9K14-01 9K14-02 Manufacturer: Abbott Molecular Inc. 1300 E. Touhy Ave. Des Plaines 60018 Illinois UNITED STATES ABBOTT VASCULAR: Recalls Vascular Scaffold Systems -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 7, 2015 Posting date: December 24, 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-56464 Abbott Vascular has recently published the results of Absorb III, a clinical trial that compared the safety and effectiveness of Absorb BVS to the XIENCE, metallic drug eluting stent. Learnings from an analysis of the Absorb III data and other published data have identified an impact on clinical outcomes following changes to procedural techniques. Implementation of these techniques is expected to facilitate optimal clinical outcomes and reduce the possibility of thrombosis. Abbott Vascular will be updating the instructions for use (IFU) with this information. Affected products: A. ABSORB BIORESORBABLE VASCULAR SCAFFOLD SYSTEM (BVS) Lot or serial number: All lots. Model or catalog number: 1012462-12 1012462-18 1012462-23 1012462-28 1012463-12 1012463-18 1012463-23 1012463-28 1012464-12 1012464-18 1012464-23 1012464-28 Manufacturer: Abbott Vascular 3200 Lakeside Drive Santa Clara 95054-2807 California UNITED STATES AFFINION GROUP: Dispositive Motions Due Feb. 29 in Conn. Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Connecticut court overseeing lawsuits over Trilegiant Corporation's sale of its membership programs have set a February 29, 2016 deadline for dispositive motions. On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the Company and Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant") in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a California-only subclass in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and for unjust enrichment. On September 29, 2010, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration of all of the claims asserted in this lawsuit. On February 24, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion. On March 28, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing the district court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration. On September 7, 2012, the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court denying arbitration. While that issue was on appeal, the matter proceeded in the district court. There was written discovery and depositions. Previously, the court had set a briefing schedule on class certification that called for the completion of class certification briefing on May 18, 2012. However, on March 28, 2012, the court suspended the briefing schedule on the motion due to the filing of two other overlapping class actions in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The first of those cases was filed on March 6, 2012, against the Company, Trilegiant, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corp., Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Apollo Global Management, LLC, 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc., United Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Int'l, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corp., People Finderspro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc., IAC/InteractiveCorp., and Shoebuy.com, Inc. The second of those cases was filed on March 25, 2012, against the same defendants as well as Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Vertrue, Inc., Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co. These two cases assert similar claims as the claims asserted in the earlier-filed lawsuit in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs. On April 26, 2012, the court consolidated these three cases. The court also set an initial status conference for May 17, 2012. At that status conference, the court ordered that Plaintiffs file a consolidated amended complaint to combine the claims in the three previously separate lawsuits. The court also struck the class certification briefing schedule that had been set previously. On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting substantially the same legal claims. The consolidated amended complaint added Priceline, Orbitz, Chase Paymentech, Hotwire, and TigerDirect as Defendants and added three new Plaintiffs; it also dropped Webloyalty and Rakuten as Defendants. On December 7, 2012, all Defendants filed motions seeking to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and to strike certain portions of the complaint. Plaintiff's response brief was filed on February 7, 2013, and Defendants' reply briefs were filed on April 5, 2013. On September 25, 2013, the court held oral argument on the motions to dismiss. On March 28, 2014, the court ruled on the motions to dismiss, granting them in part and denying them in part. The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' RICO claims and claims under the California Automatic Renewal Statute as to all defendants. The court also dismissed certain named Plaintiffs as their claims were barred either by the statute of limitations and/or a prior settlement agreement. Certain Defendants were also dismissed from the case. The court also struck certain allegations from the consolidated amended complaint, including certain of Plaintiffs' class action allegations under CUTPA. As to the Company and Trilegiant, the court denied the motion to dismiss certain Plaintiffs' claims under ECPA and for unjust enrichment, as well as certain other claims of Plaintiffs under CUTPA. Also, on December 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs' law firms in these consolidated cases filed an additional action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. That case is identical in all respects to this case except that it was filed by a new Plaintiff (the named Plaintiff from the class action complaint previously filed against the Company, Trilegiant, 1-800- Flowers.com, and Chase Bank USA, N.A., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November 10, 2010). On January 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate that case into the existing set of consolidated cases. On June 13, 2013, the court entered an order staying the date for all Defendants to respond to the Complaint until 21 days after the court ruled on the motion to consolidate. On March 28, 2014, the court entered an order granting the motion to consolidate. On May 12, 2014, remaining Defendants in the consolidated cases filed answers in which they denied the material allegations of the consolidated amended complaint. On April 28, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking interlocutory appellate review of portions of the court's order of March 28, 2014. Briefing on the motion was completed on June 5, 2014. On March 26, 2015, the court denied Plaintiff's motion for interlocutory appeal. On May 29, 2015, the court issued a scheduling order indicating that discovery was to commence immediately and be completed by December 31, 2015. On May 29, 2015, the court also set deadlines for dispositive motions, which are due February 29, 2016. If no dispositive motions are filed, a joint trial memorandum would be due by April 1, 2016, and jury selection would take place on May 3, 2016. If dispositive motions are filed, the joint trial memorandum would be due by October 3, 2016, and jury selection would take place on November 1, 2016. On June 16, 2015, the court set a schedule for class certification, with plaintiffs' motion for class certification due on September 15, 2015, and with briefing to be completed by November 30, 2015. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on September 15, 2015, and Defendants' opposition brief was due on November 16, 2015. AFFINION GROUP: Conn. Court Tosses Claims in Webloyalty Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a Connecticut court has entered a judgment dismissing all of the plaintiff's claims in a class action lawsuit against Webloyalty et al., with prejudice and without further leave to amend. On August 27, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against Webloyalty, one of its former clients and one of the credit card associations in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging, among other things, violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, civil theft, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act violation (the "Connecticut Action"). This lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on and after October 1, 2008. On November 1, 2010, the defendants moved to dismiss the initial complaint, which plaintiff then amended on November 19, 2010. On December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a second motion to dismiss this lawsuit. On May 15, 2014, the court heard oral argument on plaintiff's motion to strike the Company's request for judicial notice of the plaintiff's membership enrollment documents filed in support of the Company's second motion to dismiss. On July 17, 2014, the court denied plaintiff's motion to strike. The court, at the same time, dismissed those claims grounded in fraud, but reserved until further proceedings the determination as to whether all of plaintiff's claims are grounded in fraud and whether those claims not grounded in fraud are dismissible. The court permitted the plaintiff until August 15, 2014 to amend his complaint and allowed the parties the opportunity to conduct limited discovery, to be completed by September 26, 2014, concerning the issues addressed in its dismissal order. All other discovery is currently stayed in the case. The July 17, 2014 order indicated that the court will set a further motion to dismiss briefing schedule following the conclusion of this limited discovery. The plaintiff amended his complaint as scheduled, and the parties conducted limited discovery as ordered. After this limited discovery, the parties proposed a motion to dismiss briefing schedule calling for the defendants to file their opening briefs on January 9, 2015. The plaintiff filed his opposition brief on March 24, 2015, and on April 24, 2015, the defendants filed their reply briefs in response to that opposition. On October 15, 2015, the court entered a judgment dismissing all of the plaintiff's claims with prejudice and without further leave to amend. AFFINION GROUP: Appeal Ongoing in Webloyalty Suit ------------------------------------------------- Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that an appeal is underway before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a class action lawsuit related to Webloyalty's business practices. On June 7, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Webloyalty that was factually similar to the Connecticut Action. The action claims that Webloyalty engaged in unlawful business practices in violation of California Business and Professional Code Sec. 17200, et seq. and in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Both claims are based on allegations that in connection with enrollment and billing of the plaintiff, Webloyalty charged plaintiff's credit or debit card using information obtained through a data pass process and without obtaining directly from plaintiff his full account number, name, address, and contact information, as purportedly required under Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act. On September 25, 2012, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety and the court scheduled a hearing on the motion for January 14, 2013. Webloyalty also sought judicial notice of the enrollment page and related enrollment and account documents. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 12, 2012, and Webloyalty filed its reply submission on January 7, 2013. Thereafter, on January 10, 2013, the court cancelled the previously scheduled January 14, 2013 hearing and indicated that it would rule based on the parties' written submissions without the need for a hearing. On August 28, 2013, the court sua sponte dismissed plaintiff's complaint without prejudice with leave to amend by September 30, 2013. The plaintiff filed his amended complaint on September 30, 2013, adding purported claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and for unjust enrichment, money had and received, conversion, civil theft, and invasion of privacy. On December 2, 2013, the Company moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint. Plaintiff responded to the motion on January 27, 2014. On February 6, 2014, the court indicated that it would review the submissions and issue a decision on plaintiff's motion without oral argument. On September 29, 2014, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims on substantive grounds and/or statute of limitations grounds. The court has allowed the plaintiff 28 days to file a motion demonstrating why a further amendment of the complaint would not be futile. On October 27, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint and attached a proposed amended complaint. The Company responded to the motion on November 10, 2014. On June 22, 2015, the court entered a final order and judgment denying plaintiff's motion to amend, dismissing all federal claims with prejudice, and dismissing all state claims without prejudice. On July 10, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal decision and denial of his request to further amend his complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The plaintiff's opening appeal brief was due on October 19, 2015, and the Company's responsive brief was due on November 19, 2015. AFFINION GROUP: Settles Massachusetts Suit for Less Than $100,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company has agreed to settle a Massachusetts lawsuit on an individual, non- class basis for a payment of less than $0.1 million. On February 7, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and one of its clients in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging, among other things, violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Electronic Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, money had and received, conversion, misrepresentation, violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and equitable relief. Claims are based on allegations that plaintiff was enrolled and billed for a package program without plaintiff's proper consent and knowledge. On April 4, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. A hearing on that motion was held on July 24, 2014. On March 11, 2015, the magistrate judge to whom the motion was referred by the district court judge issued a report and recommendation granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. The magistrate judge granted the motion to dismiss on the fraud claim, which was dismissed as time-barred, but denied the remainder of the motion. On March 25, 2015, the Company filed objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Briefing on the objections concluded on April 9, 2015. On June 4, 2015, the court accepted and adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge over the Company's objections. The Company filed its answer to the complaint on July 2, 2015. A scheduling conference was held with the court on August 11, 2015. The court entered an order providing that fact discovery is to be completed by March 31, 2016. On October 2, 2015, plaintiff's counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. On October 20, 2015, the court granted the motion of plaintiff's counsel to withdraw as counsel. On October 21, 2015, plaintiff and the Company agreed to settle plaintiff's claims on an individual, non-class basis for a payment of less than $0.1 million. In connection with such settlement, plaintiff released the Company and its affiliates from all claims that plaintiff had against such parties related to such lawsuit. AIR CANADA: December Hearing Set for Halifax Crash Suit ------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that a hearing for a class-action lawsuit against Air Canada for a flight that crashed at the Halifax Stanfield International Airport in March of 2015 has been scheduled for December. The two law firms representing the passengers, Wagners out of Halifax and Camp, Fiorante, Matthews and Mogerman, out of Vancouver, met before Justice Denise Boudreau to schedule the proceedings. Air Canada flight 624 landed short of the runway on March 29, 2015, due to poor visibility and stormy weather. Twenty-three people were injured as a result of the crash. Passengers on the flight received $5,000 from Air Canada. Both firms have extensive histories of class-action lawsuits involving plane crashes. Wagners was involved in the successful representation of the families of the seven crew members who died in the MK Airlines Ltd. cargo plane crash near Halifax's airport in 2004. CFM prosecuted a class action for the passengers on the Air France flight that overran the runway at Toronto's Pearson International Airport roughly 10 years ago. AMTRAK: Engineer's Account of Train Derailment Scrutinized ---------------------------------------------------------- P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for Law.com, reports that just one hour after the National Transportation Safety Board released 2,000 pages of documents on the May 12 derailment of Amtrak Train 188 in Philadelphia, lawyers for passengers in the case picked apart statements given by the train's engineer about his memory of the accident. Thomas R. Kline and Robert Mongeluzzi, heads of the respective firms representing passengers in 29 of the 111 lawsuits filed against Amtrak, specifically called out engineer Brandon Bostian for what they claimed were discrepancies in separate accounts he gave to the NTSB about the night of the accident. At a news conference on Feb. 1, Mr. Mongeluzzi zeroed in on Mr. Bostian's statements in two interviews with NTSB officials; one conducted in May, shortly after the derailment, and another in November. In the May interview, Mr. Bostian said his memory was blank after passing train platforms in North Philadelphia after leaving 30th Street Station -- the next thing he remembered was coming to in the cab of the train after the accident. In the November interview, he recalled that he "may have" accelerated to 80 mph coming up to the curve where the train derailed in the Port Richmond section of the city -- although he said he wasn't sure whether that was on the night of the accident -- stating, "I remember feeling as though I was going too fast around the curve." Mr. Mongeluzzi said, "His change of testimony in this case is extraordinary." Mr. Kline added that there were "glaring inconsistencies" with Mr. Bostian's accounts. Mr. Bostian's attorney, Robert Goggin III, and Amtrak's attorney, Yuri Brunetti, did not immediately return calls seeking comment. Train 188's derailment left more than 200 people injured and eight dead. At the time of the accident, the train had been traveling around a curve at more than 100 mph -- twice the speed limit for that section of rail. Amtrak has admitted fault in the accident. Mr. Kline said Mr. Bostian illustrated in his November statement to the NTSB that he maintained situational awareness: he knew where he was, recalled details such as passing a stopped SEPTA train that had been hit with a rock, accelerating and then applying pressure to the brakes to try to slow down the train around the curve. "He went into that curve knowing what he was doing," Mr. Kline said. Mr. Mongeluzzi added Mr. Bostian refused to speak to police after the accident and asked for his lawyer. "That is something hallmark of someone who has their wits about them," he said. In his November interview with the NTSB, Mr. Bostian described the moment the train went off the rails. "I remember holding onto the controls tightly and feeling like, OK, well this is it, I'm going over," Mr. Bostian recalled. "And so I tried to brace myself. The only visual memory I have from that sequence of events is I remember seeing objects fly in front of me." He continued, "The next memory I have is, like I said before I think, of coming to after the event was over in the cab." Mr. Kline said the litigation is still in its infancy; the release of documents by the NTSB was one of the first steps. Additionally, he said the key to figuring out what happened that night, and in deciphering Mr. Bostian's "evolving memory," lies in putting the engineer on the witness stand and questioning him under oath. "We have a long way to go, but what we've learned is very informative and very telling," Mr. Kline said. The last major development affecting the cases against Amtrak was the increase of the maximum combined compensation for injured Train 188 passengers from $200 million to $295 million. In December, Congress agreed to raise the damages cap, which the passengers' attorneys had feared would not be enough to adequately compensate the injured parties. Even with $95 million increase, Mr. Mongeluzzi said the combined damages would likely surpass the new cap. Mr. Kline had said while Amtrak may argue the passengers' injury claims may not be worth $295 million altogether, potential punitive damages against the rail carrier will also be drawn from that figure. AQUESYS INC: Recalls XEN 45 Glaucoma Treatment Systems ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: December 14, 2015 Posting date: January 7, 2016 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-56556 Surgeons may encounter a higher than expected force to actuate slider mechanism on some XEN injectors when they are in the process of implanting the XEN 45 gel stent which may lead to ocular trauma especially when surgeon forces slider mechanism forward. Affected products: A. XEN 45 Glaucoma Treatment System Lot or serial number: 60815 60869 Model or catalog number: 5507-001 Manufacturer: Aquesys Inc. 26970 Aliso Viejo Parkway, Suite 200 Aliso Viejo 92656 California UNITED STATES ARKANSAS: Faces Class Suit Over Planned Parenthood Medicaid Cut --------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Mason Pieklo, writing for RH Reality Check, reports that a federal judge granted class action status to a lawsuit challenging Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson's (R) attempts to cut Planned Parenthood health-care centers from the state's Medicaid program. The decision means the three women who originally filed suit to block the defunding attempts can represent the thousands of Arkansans insured by Medicaid and use Planned Parenthood health- care centers for accessing family planning services. Hutchinson in August directed the Arkansas Department of Human Services to terminate its Medicaid provider contract with Planned Parenthood within 30 days. "It is apparent that after the recent revelations on the actions of Planned Parenthood, that this organization does not represent the values of the people of our state and Arkansas is better served by terminating any and all existing contracts with them," Hutchinson said in a statement announcing the decision. Hutchinson was referring to a series of heavily edited attack videos released by an anti-choice front group called the Center for Medical Progress (CMP). CMP's videos purported to show Planned Parenthood engaged in the illegal trafficking of fetal tissue. CMP officials have worked closely with Republican lawmakers to defund the health-care organization. Planned Parenthood has two health centers in Arkansas, one in Little Rock and the other in Fayetteville. The health centers provide about 4,400 patients with reproductive health services, and a significant portion of these patients receive care through Medicaid, according to Planned Parenthood. Reproductive rights advocates sued in September, arguing the decision to terminate the Medicaid provider contract violated federal law. A federal court agreed and issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Hutchinson administration from discontinuing Medicaid funds for the three original plaintiffs. The lawsuit will now continue as a class action, though U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker has not yet applied the injunction to the entire class. Once that happens, it will prevent the state from ending Medicaid coverage of Planned Parenthood services to Medicaid patients in the state. Attorneys for the state of Arkansas had argued that each Medicaid recipient should be required to bring their own individual lawsuits to challenge any denial of Medicaid benefits. Attorney General Leslie Rutledge issued a statement following the decision stating she "strongly disagrees with today's decision." She added, "It's unfortunate that women who need access to ethical and responsible health care providers are being used by Planned Parenthood in litigation designed to protect Planned Parenthood's bottom line." Baker is also presiding over a challenge to a new Arkansas law that limits the manner in which abortion-inducing medications can be administered. That law was set to take effect January 1, but Planned Parenthood sued in December, arguing the measure unduly burdened abortion rights. Baker agreed and granted a temporary restraining order in December that blocks enforcement of the law until March 14 at the earliest. AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Doe" Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y to MDL 2669 ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Doe v. Avid Life Media, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-07017, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01943- JAR to the proceeding. Avid Life Media is a social entertainment company that operates online social networking and dating communities for women and men worldwide. The company was founded in 2007 and is based in Toronto, Canada. The Doe case is being consolidated with MDL 2669 in re: Ashley Madison Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on multidistrict litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share factual questions arising from a data security breach that allegedly occurred on or about July 15, 2015, involving AshleyMadison.com, a dating website designed to facilitate intimate relationships for individuals who are either married or in a committed relationship. Avid owns and operates the website. In Its December 9, 2015 Order, The MDL Panel found that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of Missouri will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. John A. Ross, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:15- Md-02669-JAR. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Phillip C. Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A. 275 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686 1060 Facsimile: (212) 202 3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Campbell" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2669 --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Lee E. Campbell v. Avid Life Media Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-09475, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01944- JAR to the proceeding. Avid Life Media is a social entertainment company that operates online social networking and dating communities for women and men worldwide. The company was founded in 2007 and is based in Toronto, Canada. The Campbell case is being consolidated with MDL 2669 in re: Ashley Madison Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on multidistrict litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share factual questions arising from a data security breach that allegedly occurred on or about July 15, 2015, involving AshleyMadison.com, a dating website designed to facilitate intimate relationships for individuals who are either married or in a committed relationship. Avid owns and operates the website. In Its December 9, 2015 Order, The MDL Panel found that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of Missouri will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. John A. Ross, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:15- Md-02669-JAR. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Henry Bates III, Esq. CARNEY AND WILLIAMS 11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72212 Telephone: (501) 312 8500 Facsimile: (501) 312 8505 E-mail: hbates@cauleybowman.com AVID LIFE MEDIA: "Lisuzzo" Suit Goes from N.D. Ill. to MDL 2669 --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Lisuzzo v. Avid Life Media, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-11305, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01945- JAR to the proceeding. Avid Life Media is a social entertainment company that operates online social networking and dating communities for women and men worldwide. The company was founded in 2007 and is based in Toronto, Canada. The Lisuzzo case is being consolidated with MDL 2669 in re: Ashley Madison Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on multidistrict litigation on December 9, 2015. These actions share factual questions arising from a data security breach that allegedly occurred on or about July 15, 2015, involving AshleyMadison.com, a dating website designed to facilitate intimate relationships for individuals who are either married or in a committed relationship. Avid owns and operates the website. In Its December 9, 2015 Order, The MDL Panel found that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of Missouri will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. John A. Ross, United States District Judge. The lead case is 4:15- Md-02669-JAR. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440 0020 Facsimile: (312) 440 4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com - and - Scott Theodore Ferrill, Esq. 115 55th Street, Suite 400 Clarendon Hills, IL 60514 Telephone: (630) 908 7680 Facsimile: (630) 908 7165 E-mail: chicagolaw@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Christine Elizabeth Skoczylas, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4400 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 214 5613 E-mail: christine.skoczylas@btlaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: "Hughes" Suit Moved to South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Hughes v. Bank of America National Association, Case No. 2015-CP-42-04748, was removed from the Spartanburg County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Spartanburg). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:15-cv-05083-MGL to the proceeding. Bank of America operates as full service bank. The Bank accepts deposits, makes loans, and provides other financial and investment services for the public. The bank serves individual and institutional customers throughout the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bradley D Hewett, Esq. D. Michael Kelly, Esq. Jamie Nicole Smith, Esq. MIKE KELLY LAW GROUP PO Box 8113 Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (803) 461 2154 E-mail: bhewett@mklawgroup.com mkelly@mklawgroup.com jsmith@mklawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Robert A Muckenfuss, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS 201 N Tryon Street, Suite 3000 Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 343 2000 Facsimile: (704) 343 2300 E-mail: rmuckenfuss@mcguirewoods.com - and - Robert G. Houck, Esq. David J. Yeres, Esq. John D. Friel, Esq. CLIFFORD CHANCE US, LLP 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 878 3224 Facsimile: (212) 878 8375 E-mail: robert.houck@cliffordchance.com david.yeres@cliffordchance.com john.friel@cliffordchance.com - and - Jay B. Kasner, Esq. Paul Madison Eckles, Esq. Shepard Goldfein, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP Four Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 735 3000 Facsimile: (212) 735 2000 E-mail: jkasner@skadden.com pmeckles@skadden.com sgoldfei@skadden.com - and - Robert Y. Sperling, Esq. Elizabeth P Papez, Esq. Joseph Laurence Motto, Esq. Susannah P. Torpey, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 558 5600 Facsimile: (312) 558 5700 E-mail: rsperling@winston.com epapez@winston.com jmotto@winston.com storpey@winston.com - and - Penny Shane, Esq. Stephen Ehrenberg, Esq. SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL, LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558 4837 Facsimile: (212) 558 3360 E-mail: shanep@sullcrom.com ehrenbergs@sullcrom.com - and - Kenneth Ian Schacter, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 309 6815 Facsimile: (212) 309 6001 E-mail: kenneth.schacter@morganlewis.com - and - Atto Brad Scott Karp, Esq. Kenneth Anthony Gallo, Esq. Richard A. Rosen, Esq. Susanna Michele Buergel, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373 2384 Facsimile: (212) 373 2384 E-mail: bkarp@paulweiss.com kgallo@paulweiss.com rrosen@paulweiss.com sbuergel@paulweiss.com - and - Pamela Addison Miller, Esq. Edward Nathaniel Moss, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326 2088 Facsimile: (212) 326 2061 E-mail: pmiller@omm.com emoss@omm.com - and - Stephen Jay Senderowitz, Esq. John Richard Kastl, Esq. Rachel Marie Cannon, Esq. Sandra Denise Hauser, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 876 8000 E-mail: stephen.senderowitz@dentons.com john.kastl@dentons.com rachel.cannon@dentons.com sandra.hauser@dentons.com BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Omaha Police Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled City of Omaha Police and Fire Retirement System et al. v. Bank of Nova Scotia, New York Agency et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08890, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15- cv-10116-PGG to the proceeding. This class action lawsuit is brought to recover the damages that Plaintiffs suffered as a result of Defendants' illegal market manipulation, front-running, and violations of antitrust law. The Bank of Nova Scotia provides financial services in North America, Latin America, the Caribbean and Central America, and parts of Asia. The company serves 23 million customers through a range of advice, products and services, including personal and commercial banking, wealth management and private banking, corporate and investment banking and capital markets. The bank is headquartered in Halifax, Canada. Lead case: 1:15-md-02673-PGG The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher M. Burke, Esq. Walter W. Noss, Esq. Thomas Boardman, Esq. SCOTT & SCOTT, LLP 707 Broadway, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233 4565 Facsimile: (619) 233 0508 E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com wnoss@scott-scott.com tboardman@scott-scott.com - and - George A. Zelcs, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY, LLC 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 641 9750 Facsimile: (312) 641 9751 E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Policemen's Annuity Suit Moved to S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago v. Bank of Nova Scotia, New York Agency et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-09173, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-10118-PGG to the proceeding. According to the complaint, this action is brought to recover the damages that Plaintiff suffered as a result of Defendants' illegal market manipulation, front-running, and violations of antitrust law. The Bank of Nova Scotia provides financial services in North America, Latin America, the Caribbean and Central America, and parts of Asia. The company serves 23 million customers through a range of advice, products and services, including personal and commercial banking, wealth management and private banking, corporate and investment banking and capital markets. The bank is headquartered in Halifax, Canada. The Lead case is 1:15-md-02673- PGG The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Boardman, Esq. SCOTT & SCOTT, LLP 707 Broadway, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233 4565 Facsimile: (619) 233 0508 E-mail: tboardman@scott-scott.com - and - George A. Zelcs, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY, LLC 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 641 9750 Facsimile: (312) 641 9751 E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com The Defendants are represented by: Penny Shane, Esq. Stephen Ehrenberg, Esq. SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL, LLP(NYC) 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558 4837 Facsimile: (212) 558 3360 E-mail: shanep@sullcrom.com ehrenbergs@sullcrom.com - and - Robert Y. Sperling, Esq. Susannah P. Torpey, Esq. Elizabeth P Papez, Esq. Joseph Laurence Motto, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP (IL) 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 558 5600 Facsimile: (312) 558 5700 E-mail: rsperling@winston.com storpey@winston.com epapez@winston.com jmotto@winston.com - and - Stephen Jay Senderowitz, Esq. John Richard Kastl, Esq. Rachel Marie Cannon, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 876 8000 E-mail: stephen.senderowitz@dentons.com john.kastl@dentons.com rachel.cannon@dentons.com BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Rock Capital Markets Suit Goes to S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Rock Capital Markets, LLC v. Bank of Nova Scotia, New York Agency et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08859, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-10117-PGG to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly violated the Commodity Exchange Act and Sherman Act. The Bank of Nova Scotia provides financial services in North America, Latin America, the Caribbean and Central America, and parts of Asia. The company serves 23 million customers through a range of advice, products and services, including personal and commercial banking, wealth management and private banking, corporate and investment banking and capital markets. The bank is headquartered in Halifax, Canada. The Lead case is 1:15-md-02673- PGG The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony F. Fata, Esq. CAFFERTY FAUCHER LLP 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 782 4880 Facsimile: (312) 782 4485 E-mail: afata@caffertyclobes.com - and - Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 150 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782 4880 E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com - and - Jennifer Winter Sprengel, Esq. CAFFERTY FAUCHER LLP 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60602 The Defendants are represented by: Robert G. Houck, Esq. David J. Yeres, Esq. John D. Friel, Esq. CLIFFORD CHANCE US, LLP 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 878 3224 Facsimile: (212) 878 8375 E-mail: robert.houck@cliffordchance.com david.yeres@cliffordchance.com john.friel@cliffordchance.com - and - Jay B. Kasner, Esq. Paul Madison Eckles, Esq. Shepard Goldfein, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP Four Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 735 3000 Facsimile: (212) 735 2000 E-mail: jkasner@skadden.com pmeckles@skadden.com sgoldfei@skadden.com - and - Robert Y. Sperling, Esq. Elizabeth P Papez, Esq. Joseph Laurence Motto, Esq. Susannah P. Torpey, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 558 5600 Facsimile: (312) 558 5700 E-mail: rsperling@winston.com epapez@winston.com jmotto@winston.com storpey@winston.com - and - Penny Shane, Esq. Stephen Ehrenberg, Esq. SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL, LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558 4837 Facsimile: (212) 558 3360 E-mail: shanep@sullcrom.com ehrenbergs@sullcrom.com - and - Kenneth Ian Schacter, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 309 6815 Facsimile: (212) 309 6001 E-mail: kenneth.schacter@morganlewis.com - and - Atto Brad Scott Karp, Esq. Kenneth Anthony Gallo, Esq. Richard A. Rosen, Esq. Susanna Michele Buergel, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373 2384 Facsimile: (212) 373 2384 E-mail: bkarp@paulweiss.com kgallo@paulweiss.com rrosen@paulweiss.com sbuergel@paulweiss.com - and - Pamela Addison Miller, Esq. Edward Nathaniel Moss, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326 2088 Facsimile: (212) 326 2061 E-mail: pmiller@omm.com emoss@omm.com BAXTERS CANADA: Recalls Tomato Soup Products -------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 14, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Chemical Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Baxters Canada Inc. Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10197 Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Aylmer Tomato Soup 284 ml BB/MA 2017 AL 29 0 61202 - EST 142 8 7 7 15 119 02120 0 (only time stamps from 13:58 up to and including 16:05) BECKMAN COULTER: Recalls Coulter S-Cal Calibrator Kits ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: December 14, 2015 Posting date: January 18, 2016 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-56676 Beckman Coulter has received an increased number of customer complaints observed after S-CAL calibration on the UniCel DxH 800 and DxH 600 Coulter Cellular Analysis Systems, and the COULTER LH 750 and LH 780 Hematology Systems. Customers have reported a variety of issues during calibration, including: an increase in H&H check messages, low MCH recover in XB, and low MCHC recovery in XB. These issues are not observed with all analyzers. Affected products: A. COULTER S-CAL CALIBRATOR KITS Lot or serial number: 113160280 to 113160390 4770-4781 Model or catalog number: 179310 624519 628026 Manufacturer: Beckman Coulter Inc. 250 S. Kraemer Blvd. 92821 UNITED STATES BECTON DICKINSON: Recalls Tube Products Due to False EDTA --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 4, 2015 Posting date: December 24, 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-56466 The product has the potential to contain the incorrect (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) EDTA additive volume. Various amounts of EDTA additive in the tubes may lead to platelet clumping and clotting of the blood sample. Platelet clumping causes false reduction of platelet counts, the possible consequences of false reduction of platelet counts are erroneous results and specimen rejection. In the event that the clinician acts upon the erroneous results, this could lead to unnecessary platelet transfusion, hematologic work up including bone marrow biopsy, steroid therapy, splenectomy etc. Affected products: A. TUBE SPC EDTA PLH 13X75 3.0 PLBL TAN SP Lot or serial number: 5064684 Model or catalog number: 367855 Manufacturer: Becton Dickinson and Company 1 Becton Drive Franklin Lakes 07417 New Jersey UNITED STATES BEDESSEE IMPORT: Recalls Malted Chocolate Drink Due to Milk ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 8, 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: Bedessee Import Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10220 Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Ovaltine Malted 400 g All codes 7 612100 054345 Chocolate where milk Drink Mix is not declared on the label. BENLAN INC: Recalls MED-RX Wound Management Kits ------------------------------------------------ Starting date: December 10, 2015 Posting date: January 7, 2016 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-56540 A single damaged case of product returned from the sterilizer, unsterilized, and was inadvertently placed into distribution Affected products A. MED-RX WOUND MANAGEMENT KIT Lot or serial number: 118395 Model or catalog number: 85-4411 Manufacturer: Benlan Inc. 2760 Brighton Road Oakville L6H 5T4 CANADA BERKS PACKING: Recalls Beef Products Due to Pork and Erythorbate ---------------------------------------------------------------- Berks Packing Co., a Reading, Pa. establishment, is recalling approximately 1,320 pounds of beef products that may be misbranded, and may contain pork and erythorbate, an additive, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The beef knockwurst links were produced on Nov. 12, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: --- 1-lb. (plastic shrink wrapped) packages containing links of "BERKS Heat & Serve Knockwurst." The packages have a sell by date of March 11, 2016 printed on the package. The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST. 8782" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to retail locations in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, New York, West Virginia, Virginia, and Delaware. The problem was discovered by company personnel who learned of the incorrect labels being applied to the product and notified FSIS inspectors. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. FSIS has received no additional reports of injury or illness from consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. BIL-JIM CONSTRUCTION: "Wall" Suit Moved to New Jersey Dist. Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Wall et al. v. Bil-Jim Construction Co., Inc. et al., Case No. MID-L6671-15, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, to the U.S. District Court for the District New Jersey (Trenton). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-08982-PGS-TJB to the proceeding. Bil Jim Construction was founded and is based in Jackson, New Jersey. The Company's line of business includes highway and street construction. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul A. Digiorgio, Esq. KEEFE BARTELS, LLC 170 Monmouth St. Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (732) 224 9400 Facsimile: (732) 224 9494 The Defendants are represented by: Christopher S. Porrino, Esq. LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP 6 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 597 2500 Facsimile: (973) 597 2400 E-mail: cporrino@lowenstein.com - and - Peter Matthew Slocum LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP 65 Livingston Avenue Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 422 6708 Facsimile: (973) 422 6709 E-mail: pslocum@lowenstein.com - and - Ronald L. Tobia, Esq. Jill Tobia Sorger, Esq. Michael A. De Marco, Esq. TOBIA & SORGER ESQS., LLC 500 Supor Boulevard Harrison, NJ 07029 Telephone:(973) 932 1577 E-mail: jsorger@tobiasorger.com jsorger@tobiasorger.com mdemarco@tobiasorger.com BLUE BUFFALO: Promises $32MM to Settle False Advertising Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Weinstein and Tiffany Woo, writing for The National Law Review, report that pet-food maker Blue Buffalo will pay $32 million to settle 13 consumer class action suits, the company has announced. The 13 class actions -- which pet owners originally filed in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina federal courts -- were consolidated in the Eastern District of Missouri in October 2014. The consolidated action centers on Blue Buffalo's "True Blue Promise" labels, which allegedly appeared on all Blue Buffalo products. Blue Buffalo's True Blue Promise was that its brand of pet food contains "Only the Finest Natural Ingredients," with real meat first ingredients, "NO Chicken or Poultry By-Product Meals," "NO Corn, Wheat or Soy," and "NO Artificial Preservatives, Colors or Flavors." These True Blue Promise claims were allegedly restated on the front and back labels of every Blue Buffalo product and in other Blue Buffalo promotional materials. The class action plaintiffs also asserted that they paid a higher price for Blue Buffalo's products because of the True Blue Promise. But according to the class action plaintiffs, independent tests showed that some Blue Buffalo products did, in fact, contain chicken and poultry by-products. In addition, the tests indicated the presence of rice and corn in some products, including products from Blue Buffalo's "Wilderness" and "Freedom" product lines, which were advertised as being grain-free. Blue Buffalo denied any wrongdoing in entering into the settlement, stating that it agreed to the settlement to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and expense of further litigation. Under the terms of the deal, Blue Buffalo will pay the $32 million into a settlement fund. From this fund, Blue Buffalo will pay its class member customers an amount of money based on the number of Blue Buffalo products they purchased during the class period, and subject to certain conditions. Attorneys' fees and costs will also be paid from the settlement fund. The court has given the settlement agreement preliminary approval, and will hold a fairness hearing on May 19, 2016. At that time, the court will decide whether to give the settlement final approval. This case serves as a cautionary reminder of the potential liabilities of false advertising class actions. Nestle Purina, a competing pet food maker, commented that this $32 million settlement is the largest pet food class action settlement ever. In May 2014, Nestle Purina filed a false advertising lawsuit against Blue Buffalo on the basis of similar claims. That separate false advertising case against Blue Buffalo is ongoing before the same judge who presided over the consolidated consumer class actions, Judge Rodney W. Sippel. BMW: "Kelley" Suit Moved from C.D. California to New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Gurdip Kelley v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-09721, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00403 to the proceeding. BMW of North America engages in the marketing and sale of BMW brand motor vehicles, including motorcycles, the MINI brand, and the Rolls-Royce brand of motor cars in the United States and internationally. It manufactures sports activity vehicles; provides creative consulting services; and offers leasing, retail, and commercial financing and banking products. The company was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey with a technology office in Silicon Valley, California; and a manufacturing facility in Spartanburg, South Carolina. It also has studios in Los Angeles, California; Munich, Germany; Singapore; and Shanghai, China. The Plaintiff is represented by: Farfhid Shawn Azizollahi, Esq. Gary S Brotman, Esq. Poya Ghasri, Esq. MARQUEE LAW GROUP, APC 9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 445 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 275 1844 Facsimile: (310) 275 1801 - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Citigroup Center 153 E. 53rd Street New York, NY 10022-4675 Telephone: (212) 446 4900 The Defendant is represented by: Eric Y Kizirian, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD AND SMITH LLP 633 West 5th Street Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 250 1800 Facsimile: (213) 250 7900 BRP US: Recalls Evinrude(R) Outboards Engines Due to Injury Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 7, 2015 Posting date: December 7, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Outdoor Living Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-56136 This recall involves Evinrude(R) E-TEC(R) G2 74 degrees V6 (3.4 L) Outboards Engines with 200 to 300 horsepower (HP). The following Evinrude(R) E-TEC(R) G2 74 degrees V6 (3.4 L) outboard engines model numbers are affected: 200 H.O. 225HP 225 H.O. 250HP 250 H.O. 300 HP -------- ----- -------- ----- -------- ------ E200LHO E225X E225LHO E250X E250LHO E300LU E200LH E225XC E225LH E250XC E250LH E300XU E200XH E225XH E250Z E250XH E300ZU E200XHC E225XCH E250ZC E250XCH E300ZCU A200XHC A250XC A300XCU A300ZCU The following serial numbers are affected: 5420001 through 5448220. The two T45 pipe plugs on the outboard's stern and swivel assembly were not sufficiently tightened and can loosen, potentially creating the loss of hydraulic steering fluid. In some circumstances, this situation may result in a loss of steering control and possibly cause serious injuries or even death. Neither Health Canada nor BRP has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these products. Three hundred and thirty three Evinrude(R) E-TEC(R) G2 74ø V6 (3.4 L) Outboards were sold in Canada. The recalled products were sold from October 2014 to November 2015. Manufactured in the United States. Manufacturer: BRP US Inc. 10100 Science Drive, Sturtevant Wisconsin UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled outboards and call an authorized Evinrude/Johnson dealer to make an appointment to have their outboard serviced. The dealer will tighten the two T45 pipe plugs and complete a steering system leak test. The service will be performed at no charge to the consumer. Consumers can visit www.evinrude.com or call 1-844- 345-4277 if they have questions, need assistance, want to report any difficulty in obtaining repairs or to find the nearest authorized Evinrude/Johnson dealer. 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. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/QoosYp CALIFORNIA: Four Counties Sued Over Cost of Jail Calls ------------------------------------------------------ Brett Kelman, writing for The Desert Sun, reports that a class action lawsuit was filed against Riverside, Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Orange counties over jail call "kickbacks". On a quiet on Jan. 28 in the Norco suburbs, a cell phone rumbles to life on a dining room table in the humble home of Lou and Dana Kaelin. The voice on the line is that of their son, Todd. "Hey Toddy!" shouts Dana, jubilant, as she answers. This call, like hundreds of others, comes from the Banning jail, where Todd Kaelin is serving a 9-year sentence for drug convictions. He phones his parents two to three times a week, and the calls are his best link to the outside world. When prison life is at its bleakest, a voice on the phone gives him hope. But the calls cost money too, and the Kaelins insist the price is far too high. Each year, they spends hundreds of dollars to stay in touch with their son. The Kaelins claim that phone companies have gouged them with high rates and frivolous fees for years, and the county government does not care because it gets a cut of the jail calls' profits. "They do it because they can get away with it, and it's a good way to make money," said Lou Kaelin, 71, a retired phone company technician. "That's the only purpose for it. These people are making money off of us." The Kaelins are plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit that challenges the cost of jail calls in four Southern California counties -- Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange and Los Angeles -- and will soon add a fifth, Ventura. In each of these counties, plaintiffs claim that phone companies are paying local governments to turn a blind eye to unjustifiable call prices in county jails. Counties control the jail call contracts, and they could slash the cost of calls if they were willing to forego millions in revenue. Instead, the cost stays high, and the brunt of that expense falls to the friends and family of inmates, like Lou and Dana Kaelin. "It doesn't smell right," said attorney Scott Rapkin, who represents the Kaelins in the lawsuit. "These counties are literally making millions of dollars off of predominately African American and Latino families, who are low income, and many people with disabilities. We can expect that from a corporation, but for a county to allow it to go on -- especially in light of overwhelming evidence that staying in contact with loved ones is critical to recidivism rates -- makes this really unconscionable." The class-action lawsuit was filed in federal court at a time when momentum is swinging towards jail call reform. California and several other states have lowered call costs in their prisons by barring prisons from accepting payments from phone companies. The Federal Communications Commission has ordered county jails to cap rates and reduce fees by June. But the lawsuit seeks to go farther. If successful, millions will be refunded to families who have emptied their wallets to pay for jail calls, and phone companies will no longer be allowed to pay counties to get exclusive contracts. Companies call these payments "commissions," but critics refer to them by a different name -- "kickbacks." "It's graft," Lou Kaelin said. "Any time a private enterprise pays a government to work for them, its bribery. That's the definition of bribery." Regardless of what you call it, it's the status quo in Riverside County. For years, Riverside County's jail calls were handled by Global Tel*Link, or GTL, the nation's largest prison phone company. GTL charged about 10 cents per minute for a majority of jailhouse calls, but made most of its money in "connection charges," which lumped a $2 fee on the front of every call. In return for this exclusive contract, GTL paid the county at least $2 million a year. The deal stood from 2008 until last July, when another company offered to pay even more. Securus, the nation's second-largest prison phone company, upended GTL by offering to pay $2.5 million per year for an exclusive contract of its own. County leaders approved the deal, claiming it would provide inmate phone services at the "lowest possible cost." In reality, the Securus contract raised the per-minute cost of inmate calls, and introduced a slew of fees. Jail calls remained far more expensive than everyday, non-jail phone calls. Riverside County's contracts with GTL and Securus are "egregious, but normal" in the prison phone industry, which is worth "billions," said Carrie Wilkinson, an expert at the Human Rights Defense Center, an inmate advocacy nonprofit that is not involved with the class-action lawsuit. The companies and the counties always make money, Ms. Wilkinson said, but everything else is negotiable. "When these contracts are negotiated, nobody speaks for the prisoners or their families, seeking to get them the best service at the lowest price," Ms. Wilkinson said. "The only people who are negotiating were the ones who stand to make money." Despite the debate over the cost of jailhouse calls, no answers came from Securus or the Riverside County officials who are responsible for the jail phone system. The Riverside County Sheriff's Department, which runs the jails and spends the millions paid by Securus, refused to be interviewed for this story, insisting it would be "inappropriate" to comment on the jailhouse calls because of the class-action lawsuit. The department wouldn't discuss the basics of the phone system, despite the fact that it is in use at public facilities every day. A similar silence came from the county's Board of Supervisors, which approved the Securus contract with no debate or discussion in July. All five members of the board either declined to be interviewed or did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Ray Smith, a county spokesman, said the county attorney told the supervisors to stay mute on the topic because of the lawsuit. Securus ignored multiple requests for comment. Riverside County deposits the millions it collects from Securus into the Inmate Welfare Fund, a special account set aside to benefit jailhouse programs. This money is primarily used for programs that benefit inmates, like the jailhouse library or addiction treatment, but can also be used for jail maintenance. Mr. Rapkin, the attorney in the class action lawsuit, said his clients support the inmate welfare programs, but do not believe they should be funded by jail calls, shunting the cost onto inmates' friends and families. Everyone has a stake in inmate rehabilitation, so everyone should help pay for it, Mr. Rapkin said. "With a $1 dollar tax on every citizen, they could raise the same amount of money instead of putting it all on the backs of these families," Mr. Rapkin said. "That's what makes this so crazy. It would be just a buck or two." The class-action lawsuit is built on a similar argument, which makes it unique from other suits that have challenged jail call prices in other states. Mr. Rapkin and other attorneys claim that many of the phone charges levied on inmate families are technically a local tax, and that phone companies are simply a middle man that collect money and pass it on to county governments. The California Constitution establishes a very broad definition of taxes -- basically, any money collected for a specific government function -- and requires all local taxes to be approved by voters. Jail call prices have never been approved by Riverside County voters, so if the lawsuit can prove these fees are a tax, the charges will be illegal. This precedent would likely impact all California counties, even if they were not part of the suit. In Riverside, most of Securus' profit comes from deposit fees, which are collected through an automated online account system. If you want to stay in contact with an inmate, you must create an account and deposit money. Funds are automatically withdrawn each time you receive a call, and when the balance dwindles, another deposit is necessary. Most deposits are made online, and Securus applies a $7.95 "convenience" fee each time an online deposit is made. The company describes the fee as "up to $7.95," but during tests by The Desert Sun, the fee was always the maximum amount, no matter how much money was deposited. (At one point, Securus attempted to charge a reporter $7.95 to deposit a single cent.) That fee might seem high, but if you don't have an Internet connection, it is even higher. Securus charges up to $9.95 to deposit money by phone, $10.99 to deposit a MoneyGram and $11.95 to deposit by Western Union. The only way to avoid fees is to mail a check. The fees don't end there either. If a friend or family member wants to receive jailhouse calls on a cellphone, instead of a landline, there is an additional fee of $3.99 per month. If relatives accept any out-of-state calls, Securus tacks on an additional 5 percent fee, plus another $3.49 per month. If an inmate leaves you a voicemail, that's another $1.95. Finally, a 4 percent "location validation fee" is added to all jailhouse calls. Securus tracks the location of anyone who receives an inmate call, then bills the recipient to offset the cost of tracking. All of these fees are added to the cost of the actual phone calls. Pre-paid local calls cost 14 cents per minute. Interstate calls are 20 cents per minute. International calls range from 25 cents to 54 cents per minute. Soon, however, that could all change. The FCC order that takes effect this summer will cap the price of nearly most jailhouse calls at 16 cents per minute. Deposit fees will be limited at $3 for online service and $6 for phone service. All other fees will be forbidden. Phone companies are expected to challenge the FCC order in court, but if the order stands, Securus will be forced to re-write its prices in local jails. It is unclear what will happen to the money the company has promised to Riverside County. Based on its current contract, Securus has guaranteed the county at least $12.5 million over the next five years, but now that money could be jeopardized. "My guess is that they don't have a plan," said Mr. Rapkin, the Kaelins' attorney. "None of these counties do. They never expected this was going to happen." CALIFORNIA: Judge Approves State Fire Fee Class Action Motion ------------------------------------------------------------- Idyllwild Town Crier reports that on Jan. 22, Judge Shelleyanne W.L. Chang of the Sacramento Superior Court granted the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Association's motion to notice a class of litigants pursuing the overturn of the state's SRA Fire Fee. "We now have the judge's approval of the Class Notice's contents and the ways it will be publicized," HJTA wrote in an email on Jan. 22. "This is an important step in the class action because, once notice is given and the time has passed for people to opt out, everyone who has not opted out will be a plaintiff in our lawsuit and therefore entitled to a refund if we win. The official notification process has begun, HJTA added. In August, the judge issued an order granting HJTA's motion to establish a class-action suit. Now HJTA can begin to notify property owners of their possible benefit if the litigation is successful. The court certified the class as"[o]wners of property with habitable structures thereon, whose property has been designated part of the State Responsibility Area, who have paid the fire- prevention fee imposed by disputed ABX1-29, and who completed and timely submitted to [respondent] Cal Fire a Petition for Redetermination disputing the validity of the fee." CALKINS & BURKE: Recalls Crushed Pineapple Products --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 14, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Chemical Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Calkins & Burke Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10216 Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Best Value Crushed 540 ml CRU VT 141111 7 71212 88498 5 Pineapple BB/MA : 2017 in NO 11 Pineapple Juice CAMPBELL-EWALD: Sup. Court Addresses Class Action Mootness Issue ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas E.L. Dewey, writing for Law.com, reports that on Jan. 20, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Campbell- Ewald Co. v. Gomez. The court effectively denied the defendant- petitioner, and other corporations seeking to avoid class action lawsuits, the ability to moot an entire class action case by making a settlement offer that satisfies the named plaintiff's claim. An opposite result would have significantly affected individuals' ability to gather and form a class action. Such a result would have provided defendants with the ability to approach the named plaintiff with a total settlement -- potentially before the named plaintiff may have had the opportunity to move for class certification -- and moot the entire action in one fell swoop, even if the plaintiff did not accept the offer. This is striking when the relatively small-scale facts of Campbell are considered: in Campbell, the court had to consider whether an offer to settle for the maximum statutory amount of $1,500 per unwanted text message (of which there was only one such text message sent to Gomez), plus court costs, meant that no "case" or "controversy" existed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of Article III of the Constitution. However, the result also comes with an unnerving suggestion for defendants that in certain such circumstances, and despite complete offers to settle, litigation may be unavoidable. As stated in the amicus brief from The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and Business Roundtable: Defendants often make full settlement offers because they believe that fully compensating the plaintiff will resolve the litigation. But if the plaintiff purports to represent a class, and the putative class claims continue to exist despite a full settlement with the putative representative, defendants have little incentive to make such offers, even if they would serve everyone's interest. Settlement Offer and Decision The U.S. Navy contracted with an advertising and marketing communications company to send text messages as part of a recruitment campaign. The concept was that the text message would be sent to individuals who had opted in to receive the messages and who were between the ages of 18 and 24 years old. Over 100,000 cellular numbers received the Navy's message. In part, the text read "Destined for something big? Do it in the Navy." One of these messages was sent to the named plaintiff in this case, Jose Gomez. Mr. Gomez alleged that he had not agreed to receive this message and that he was clearly out of the desired age bracket -- Mr. Gomez was nearly 40 years old when he received the message. Mr. Gomez filed a class action complaint, alleging that the company had violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which prohibits such blanket text messages being sent to cellular telephones without the recipient's consent. Mr. Gomez sought treble statutory damages (permitted if the defendant willfully or knowingly violated the TCPA), attorney fees, costs and an injunction against the company. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, the company proposed to settle Gomez's individual claim by filing an offer of judgment in an amount that would have settled Mr. Gomez's personal treble-damages claim ($1,503 per message). Mr. Gomez chose not to accept the offer and allowed the offer to lapse after the prescribed 14-day period, per the time limit stated in Federal Rule 68. Federal Rule 68(a) states that: At least 14 days before the date set for trial, a party defending against a claim may serve on an opposing party an offer to allow judgment on specified terms, with the costs then accrued. If, within 14 days after being served, the opposing party serves written notice accepting the offer, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance, plus proof of service. The clerk must then enter judgment. The company then moved to dismiss the case. It argued, inter alia, that the offer had mooted Gomez's individual claim because it provided him with complete relief. Therefore, no Article III case or controversy remained. The company also argued that because Gomez's individual claim became moot before Gomez had moved for class certification, the putative class claims were mooted as well. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the court, which held that Mr. Gomez's claim was not mooted by the settlement offer. Rather, the court held that the unaccepted offer had no force -- the company's settlement offer remaining "only a proposal, binding neither Campbell nor Mr. Gomez . . . In short, with no settlement offer still operative, the parties remained adverse; both retained the same stake in the litigation they had at the outset."4 In doing so, the court adopted the analysis within Justice Elena Kagan's dissent in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk,5 (with whom Justice Ginsburg, Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined): When a plaintiff rejects such an offer -- however good the terms -- her interest in the lawsuit remains just what it was before. And so too does the court's ability to grant her relief. An unaccepted settlement offer--like any unaccepted contract offer-- is a legal nullity, with no operative effect. As every first-year law student learns, the recipient's rejection of an offer "leaves the matter as if no offer had ever been made" . . . Nothing in Rule 68 alters that basic principle. The court also observed that Federal Rule 68 itself does not support a finding that an unaccepted settlement offer, that would otherwise have satisfied the named plaintiff's individual claims, should moot the plaintiff's complaint. For instance, the rule provides that offers are "considered withdrawn" if not accepted within 14 days and includes "[t]he sole built-in sanction" that the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the offer was made if the ultimate judgment is not more favorable than the unaccepted offer.6 The extent to which the company's settlement offer signaled a potentially significant strategic tool against class actions is demonstrated within Justice Ginsburg's decision. To this end, Ginsburg stated that the company's true aim was "to avoid a potential adverse decision, one that could expose it to damages a thousand-fold larger than the bid Gomez declined to accept."7 However, the decision of the court has potentially left the door ajar for future defendants looking to frustrate potential class action claims by proposing to settle the named plaintiff's claim in its entirety. This is because the court did not go as far as to decide the hypothetical of "whether the result would be different if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount." Instead, the court held that this question should be reserved for a case in which that scenario is in issue -- and no doubt a class-action defendant will come knocking at this hypothetical's door soon. Indeed, The chief justice's dissent welcomed this caveat, stating that "[t]he good news is that this case is limited to its facts." The Dissents Chief Justice John Roberts authored a dissent, with which Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Samuel Alito joined. The dissent would have held that no case or controversy existed for the purpose of Article III when a defendant agrees to fully redress the injury that the plaintiff complained of. The dissent argued that a finding that Gomez's claim was not moot would give plaintiffs the power to decide whether federal litigation is necessary -- a power that should properly be in the hands of the federal court. The dissent explicitly highlighted that it is "an important constitutional principle" that "[t]he agreement of the plaintiff is not required to moot a case." To this end, Chief Justice Roberts opined that the focus should not be on the contractual nature of an offer to settle but, instead, the focus should be on the "essential purpose" of Article III, which is to ensure "that the federal courts expound the law only in the last resort, and as a necessity." Justice Ginsburg addressed this portion of the chief justice's dissent, stating--to the contrary--that to allow the company to avoid a potentially adverse decision by making such an offer would in fact place the defendant, not the plaintiff or the federal court, "in the driver's seat." Justice Ginsburg argued that it was Campbell that was strategically attempting to avoid an adverse decision, and the associated damages, by making a full settlement offer to Gomez for a relatively modest amount. Justice Alito submitted a separate dissent underlining the risk to plaintiffs of defendants who make such offers but who fail to follow through -- leaving the plaintiff "forever emptyhanded." He also observed that, in such a scenario, placing the burden on the plaintiff to move to reopen the dismissed case was an unattractive remedy. Rather, Justice Alito suggested two potential procedures that would serve to avoid a plaintiff being left high and dry: The defendant could just pay over the money; or, alternatively, the defendant could deposit the money in the district court or with another trusted intermediary to be released when the court dismisses the case as moot. Thus, Justice Alito reiterated that the door for defendants to moot a plaintiff's claim with an offer to settle is open for the simple reason that Justice Ginsburg's decision "does not prevent a defendant who actually pays complete relief--either directly to the plaintiff or to a trusted intermediary--from seeking dismissal on mootness grounds." This hurdle is not very high, and such a settlement proposition with payment will surely threaten class-action lawsuits in the future. CANADIAN FOOTBALL: Families of Ex-Players Join Concussions Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Gord Holder, writing for Ottawa Citizen, reports that families of two former Ottawa Rough Riders and another retired Canadian Football League player who is now a clinical psychologist have joined a class-action lawsuit against the CFL and others over concussions and brain trauma. Gary Schreider was a Rough Riders linebacker, running back and kicker from 1956-61 and 1963-64, sandwiched around 1962 stints with the B.C. Lions and Hamilton Tiger-Cats, while Dennis Duncan was an Ottawa running back in 1971 after three seasons with the Montreal Alouettes. Mike Webster, a lineman for the Lions in 1966 and the Alouettes in 1967-70, has also joined the class action that previously included Korey Banks, Eric Allen, Alondra Johnson and the family of Rod Woodward. The lawsuit seeks $200 million in damages for all former CFL players who have participated in practices and games since 1952. It claims the CFL, its teams, former commissioner Mark Cohon, brain-injury specialist Dr. Charles Tator and the Krembil Neuroscience Centre of Toronto knew or should have known about the long-term risk of brain injury resulting from concussive and sub- concussive blows. Those claims have not been tested or proven in court. Schreider died in January 2011 at the age of 76, several years after he was nudged into retirement as a master of Ontario Superior Court. His son, Gary Schreider Jr., said the man who was the first CFL Players' Association president had displayed increasingly severe symptoms of brain-related problems starting in his mid to late 50s. The younger Schreider said he and his mother contacted Robyn Wishart, a Vancouver lawyer representing the class-action participants as well as former CFL receiver Arland Bruce in another concussion-related lawsuit, after reading an Ottawa Citizen story about Woodward in December. "The motivation is getting the message out and to help (former) players that are suffering through this, to get the message out there because I think this was basically hidden from players for the longest time," Schreider said. "So people are aware of this when they play football and let them make their own decisions. I'm not saying stop playing football. Just let people make their own decisions based on what we know now." Webster is not the Mike Webster who played with the Pittsburgh Steelers and, after his death, was diagnosed with Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy. That led eventually to a class-action lawsuit against the National Football League and a multi-million- dollar settlement; the case was recently featured in the movie Concussion. "I don't really have anything to hide," former CFLer Mike Webster, who sat between Duncan and Woodward in the locker room with the 1969 Alouettes, said. Webster said he was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury a year ago after collapsing while at work at a military hospital on Vancouver Island. He still practises, but under supervision by the College of Psychologists of British Columbia. "I don't care if I get a penny out of (the lawsuit)," Webster added. "I would just like to do that for guys I played with and against. . . . Luckily at present I'm not as severe as many of my teammates. I've got Roddy Woodward in mind when I say that." Woodward, who spent most of his CFL career as a defensive back and punt returner for the Rough Riders, was recently admitted to hospital. Wishart said the 71-year-old likely would never be discharged and would eventually be transferred to a long-term care facility. The class-action proceeding is on hold pending a decision in Bruce's lawsuit against the league, Cohon, Tator, Krembil Neuroscience Centre and the CFL Alumni Association and its president, Leo Ezerins. The original judge in that case has withdrawn because of illness, so the chief justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia will hear a fourth day of arguments on Feb. 23. Bruce is seeking to have his day in court, while a lawyer for Cohon and the league argue the case should be heard by an arbitrator because CFL players are represented by a union. "There is no urgency for us," Schreider said of his family, "but I do know there is plenty of urgency with other former players who are suffering now." CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Court Rules on Securities Suit Limitations ------------------------------------------------------------- Brian N. Radnoff, Esq. -- bradnoff@lerners.ca -- of Lerners, reports that in Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Green, 2015 SCC 60 ("Green"), the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") ruled on the limitation periods for securities class actions regarding secondary market misrepresentation, an issue that had received inconsistent treatment at the Ontario Court of Appeal. In Green, a five judge panel of the Court of Appeal had reversed its previous decision in Sharma v. Timminco, 2012 ONCA 107 ("Timminco"), about how limitation periods for secondary market class actions operate. The majority of the SCC in Green overruled the Court of Appeal's reconsideration of the issue, favoring the previous approach in Timminco. When a class proceeding is commenced, class members have the limitation period for their cause of action suspended under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 ("Class Proceedings Act") while the certification motion is pending. This allows class members to wait and see whether the class proceeding will be approved and whether they would be better off opting out and pursuing an individual action. The issue on this appeal was at what point limitation periods are suspended for secondary market claims under Ontario's Securities Act, given that such claims require leave under the Act before they can proceed. The majority decision by the SCC in Green held that on both a plain reading and a purposive reading of the legislation, the limitation period was not suspended under the Class Proceedings Act until leave for the secondary market claim was granted. This interpretation was determined by the majority to strike the right balance between the two statutes and their respective purposes. The implication is that leave to bring the secondary market claim must be obtained within two years of the claim being discovered. Merely commencing the action to obtain leave is not sufficient to suspend the limitation period under the Class Proceedings Act. As a practical matter, this would require class counsel to move relatively quickly to obtain leave, likely before a certification motion could be brought, despite the fact there would normally be significant overlap between the issues on the leave motion and those on the certification motion. The SCC dissent in Green, on the other hand, sided with the Ontario Court of Appeal's reconsideration of the issue, interpreting the Class Proceedings Act as suspending the limitation period at the time the claim is commenced, before leave is obtained. The language of the Class Proceedings Act states that the limitation period is suspended "on the commencement of the class proceeding". As is evident from the different views expressed by the panels considering the legislation, the proper interpretation was not obvious. Both the majority and the dissent in the SCC viewed their own interpretation as consistent with a plain reading of the statutes as well as their respective purposes. Given the possible interpretations, it is interesting that the SCC ultimately decided in favor of the Ontario Court of Appeal's original interpretation in Timminco, in spite of criticism that decision attracted. Notably, before the SCC released its decision in Green, the Ontario legislature made amendments so the limitations period under the Securities Act that governed these claims would be suspended when a notice of motion for leave is filed. This provides some relief to the representative plaintiffs and class counsel in such actions. CANADIAN TIRE: Recalls Seasonal Lights Due to Fire Hazard --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 11, 2015 Posting date: December 11, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items, Tools and Electrical Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fire Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-56254 This recall involves indoor and outdoor plug in decorative light strings manufactured by Taizhou Hongpeng Colour Lanterns Co., Ltd. or Ningbo EGO International Co. Ltd. that have been widely distributed throughout Canada in numerous retail chains under a wide variety of brand names. The seasonal lights include Halloween and Christmas lights. These products can be identified by CSA file numbers 241989 and 263917 which can usually be found on the manufacturer's product identification label, which is a tag affixed to the wire of the light string. These CSA file numbers are not embossed on the plug of the light string; the numbers found on the plug relate only to that specific plug component and are not part of this recall. The following products are currently known to be affected by this recall. This list is not exhaustive and may expand as more products and importers are identified. Additionally, other importers of Taizhou Hongpeng Colour Lanterns Co., Ltd. or Ningbo EGO International Co. Ltd. that have already recalled seasonal lights from these manufacturers, or are expanding existing recalls from these manufacturers, are found at the bottom of this notice. The following products are currently known to be affected by this recall: Brand Name Importer CSA File Number ---------- -------- --------------- Holiday Collection Canadian Tire 241989 Corporation Deco Lite, Ghostly CTG Brands Inc. 263917 Ghouls Danson Decor Danson Decor Inc. 241989 No brand name Dollarama 241989 In Style Home Hardware 241989 Santa's Studio Link Product 263917 Solutions Ltd. No brand name Winnie Paper Inc. 263917 Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined that these lights may pose overheating, fire and electric shock hazards. Health Canada has received 19 reports of consumer incidents related to the use of seasonal lights manufactured by Taizhou Hongpeng Colour Lanterns Co., Ltd. and Ningbo Ego International Co. Ltd. Of those 19 incidents, four reports of shock, including two with secondary minor burns, have been recorded along with two reports of minor burns only. The number sold is unknown, but products were sold at various dollar stores, discount stores, department stores, pharmacies, drug stores, hardware stores, home improvement stores, garden stores and other independent retailers. The time period sold is unknown. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: Taizhou Hongpeng Colour Lanterns Co., Ltd. Hengjie Industrial Park Zhejiang 318056 CHINA Manufacturer: Ningbo Ego International Co. Ltd. 3/F, No.168 East Road Songjiang, Yinzhou Area, Ningbo Zhejiang 315100 CHINA Importer: Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited Toronto Ontario CANADA Importer: CTG Brands Inc. Vaughan Ontario CANADA Importer: Danson Decor Inc. St. Laurent Quebec CANADA Importer: Dollarama L.P/S.E.C. Montreal Quebec CANADA Importer: Home Hardware Stores Ltd. St. Jacobs Ontario CANADA Importer: Link Product Solutions Limited Concord Ontario CANADA Importer: Winnie Paper Inc. Montreal Quebec CANADA Consumers should check all seasonal lights and their manufacturer's product identification label for the CSA file numbers 241989 and 263917. The Manufacturer's Product Identification label is typically attached to one end of a string of lights. If your lights have either of these CSA numbers you should stop using these products immediately. Affected products cannot be identified solely by product or brand names. Consumers should return these specific products to the place where they were purchased. If there is a recall notice for your specific product noted below, then please follow the directions in that notice. 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. CHEESE BOUTIQUE: Recalls Butternut Squash Ravioli Due to Tree Nut ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 11, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Tree Nut Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Cheese Boutique, Legacy Distributors Inc., Les importations Papille, Salt Gourmet Foods Inc. Distribution: Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10181 Industry is recalling Bertagni brand Triangoli with Butternut Squash and Sweet Butternut Squash Ravioli from the marketplace because they may contain almonds and cashews which are not declared on the label. People with an allergy to almonds or cashews should not consume the recalled products described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to almonds or cashews, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. This recall was triggered by 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 products from the marketplace. Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Bertagni Triangoli 250 g Codes 8 006013 994147 with containing: Butternut 518B Squash 526A 528B 534D Bertagni Sweet 250 g Codes 8 001020 110139 Butternut containing: Squash 508C Ravioli Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/C3Ps5x CHRYSLER: Recalls Fiat 500 Models with Automatic Transmissions -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 4, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Service Campaign Mfr System: Lights And Instruments Units affected: 17516 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015578TC ID number: 2015578 Manufacturer recall number: R48 Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) Canada is conducting a voluntary Customer Satisfaction Notification Program involving certain vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) will update the Powertrain Control Module software to improve activation timing of the backup lamps. This updated software will turn the backup lamps on earlier, indicating to other road users that the driver has selected reverse gear. This action is not being conducted under the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- FIAT 500 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 COMBE INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Hair Product --------------------------------------------------------- Molly English-Bowers, writing for Madison Record, reports that a large group of men and women from across the United States are suing the manufacturers of a hair care product, alleging they have suffered injuries and severe reactions when using the product. More than 100 plaintiffs filed the lawsuit Jan. 8. in St. Clair County Circuit Court against Combe Incorporated, Combe Products Inc., Combe Manufacturing Inc. and Combe International Ltd., alleging strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, negligent representation and fraud. The defendants develop, manufacture, test, promote, label and sell the hair care products and hair dyes known as Just For Men, and have done so since at least 1987. According to the complaint, the defendants failed to adequately warn against the negative effects and risks associated with the product, even if the product was used as directed. The suit says the risks from prolonged and cumulative use include burns, scarring, allergic reactions, anaphylactic shock and skin depigmentation. In omitting, concealing and inadequately providing safety information regarding the product, the suit says, the defendants' conduct is fraudulent, unfair and unlawful. The plaintiffs seek a sum in excess of the jurisdictional requirement of the court, court costs and other relief the court may deem proper. They are represented by attorneys John. J. Driscoll and Philip Sholtz of The Driscoll Firm PC in St. Louis, and Richard W. Schulte of Wright & Schulte LLC in Vandalia, Ohio. St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-18 COOPER: Recalls 2015 Vehicles Due to Noncompliance -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 10, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Tire Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Tires Units affected: 53 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015592TC ID number: 2015592 Certain tires may not comply with Canadian Motor Vehicle Tire Safety Regulations. The tires may not meet the endurance test requirements which are prescribed in the Regulations. This could result in tire chunking and/or cracking, potentially resulting in rapid air loss and tire failure. Correction: Dealers will replace affected tires. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- COOPER 2015 COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Baked Green Pea Crisps Due to Milk ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: December 9, 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 Recalling firm: Costco Wholesale Canada Inc. Distribution: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10219 Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Calbee Snapea Crisps- 36 x 21 g 16/APR/29 0 71146 03324 5 Harvest Snaps- HHMM 3S Low Salt - Green Pea Crisps-Baked CUISINE KARO: Recalls Cheese Sandwich Wrap Products --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 9, 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: Cuisine Karo Inc. Distribution: Ontario, Quebec CFIA reference number: 10221 Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Karo French Style 215 g 15 DE 2015 29172 05556 Collection Ham and Cheese Sandwich Wrap Karo French Style 215 g 23 DE 2015 29172 05330 Collection Ham and Cheese Sandwich Wrap Karo California 200 g 15 DE 2015 29172 05561 Collection Style Turkey and Cheese Sandwich Wrap Karo California 200 g 24 DE 2015 29172 05337 Collection Style Turkey and Cheese Sandwich Wrap Karo Delux cold 230 g 24 DE 2015 29172 05403 fresh submarine Menu French style 200 g 01 DE 2015 29172 05970 ham & cheese wrap CUSTOM ULTRASONICS: Recalls System 83+ Products ----------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 4, 2015 Posting date: December 22, 2015 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type I Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-56416 Custom Ultrasonics Inc. Failed to complete validations of the Olympus Evis Exera II TJF Q180V Duodenocope processed in the System 83 Plus and the System 83 Plus 9 washer disinfectors and failed to complete validation of various high level disinfectants used with the System 83 Plus 2 and System 83 Plus 9 Washer Disinfectors. Affected products: A. SYSTEM 83+ Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer. Model or catalog number: SYSTEM 83 PLUS 2 SYSTEM 83 PLUS 9 Manufacturer: Custom Ultrasonics Inc. 144 Railroad Drive Ivyland Pennsylvania UNITED STATES DAKO NORTH: Recalls Dako Seymour Small Flap Slide Label Kits ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: December 14, 2015 Posting date: January 7, 2016 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-5654 Affected products: A. Dako Seymour Small Flap Slide Label Kit Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer. Model or catalog number: DL213 DL213 Manufacturer: Dako North America, Inc. 6392 via Real Carpinteria 93013 California UNITED STATES DEAN FOODS: Food Lion Fails to Obtain Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge J. Ronnie Greer in Greeneville, Tennessee, denied the motion of plaintiffs for class certification in the case, Food Lion, LLC, Fidel Breto, d/b/a Family Foods, On Behalf Of Themselves And The Class Of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dean Foods Company, Dairy Farmers Of America, Inc., and National Dairy Holdings, LP, Defendants, No. 2:07-CV-188 (E.D. Tenn.). Dean Foods Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a putative class action antitrust complaint (the "retailer action") was filed against Dean Foods and other milk processors on August 9, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Plaintiffs allege generally that the Company, either acting alone or in conjunction with others in the milk industry, lessened competition in the Southeastern United States for the sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retail outlets and other customers. Plaintiffs further allege that the defendants' conduct artificially inflated wholesale prices paid by direct milk purchasers. In March 2012, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, including the Company, as to all counts then remaining. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision, and in January 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment as to one of the five original counts in the Tennessee retailer action. Following the Sixth Circuit's denial of the Company's request to reconsider the case en banc, the Company petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for review. On November 17, 2014, the Supreme Court denied the Company's petition and the case returned to the district court. There are now various motions and briefs pending before the district court, including defendants' motion for summary judgment on grounds previously raised but not yet decided, and plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court heard expert testimony on June 23-24, 2015, and heard oral argument on September 17, 2015. On June 29, 2009, another putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the "indirect purchaser action"). This case was voluntarily dismissed, and the same plaintiffs filed a nearly identical complaint on January 17, 2013. The allegations in this complaint are similar to those in both the retailer action and the 2009 indirect purchaser action, but involve only claims arising under Tennessee law. The Company filed a motion to dismiss, and on September 11, 2014, the district court granted in part and denied in part that motion, dismissing the non-Tennessee plaintiffs' claims. The Company filed its answer to the surviving claims on October 15, 2014. The parties have jointly proposed that further proceedings (including any discovery) in this case be deferred until after the district court rules on the summary judgment and class certification issues in the Tennessee retailer action. "At this time, it is not possible for us to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters. In addition to the pending legal proceedings set forth above, we are party from time to time to certain claims, litigations, audits and investigations. Potential liabilities associated with these other matters are not expected to have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows," the Company said. A copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2016 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/SaMgWOfrom Leagle.com. Fidel Breto, Plaintiff, represented by Gordon Ball, W. Gordon Ball, Attorney at Law, Neil K Gilman, Hunton & Williams, R Laurence Macon, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP, Richard L Wyatt, Jr., Hunton & Williams, Ryan P Phair, Hunton & Williams, Todd M Stenerson, Hunton & Williams, John S Martin, Hunton & Williams, Karen K Gulde, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP & Thomas S Scott, Jr., Scott & Cain. Food Lion, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Michael L Converse, Hunton & Williams, LLP, Neil K Gilman, Hunton & Williams, Richard L Wyatt, Jr., Hunton & Williams, Ryan P Phair, Hunton & Williams, Sofia Luina, Hunton & Williams, LLP, Wendell L Taylor, Hunton & Williams, LLP, Doug M Garrou, Hunton & Williams, E Marie Diveley, Hunton & Williams, Gordon Ball, W. Gordon Ball, Attorney at Law, Hillary E Maki, Hunton & Williams, Jaffer M Abbasi, Hunton & Williams, John S Martin, Hunton & Williams, Karen K Gulde, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP & Michael D Meuti, Hunton & Williams. Dean Foods Company, Defendant, represented by Carolyn M. Hazard, Dechert LLP, Paul T Denis, Dechert, LLP, Paul H Friedman, Dechert, LLP, David J Stanoch, Dechert LLP, Mark S Dessauer, Hunter, Smith & Davis, Paul D Frangie, Dechert, LLP & William C Bovender, Hunter, Smith & Davis. National Dairy Holdings, L.P., Defendant, represented by Jerry L Beane, Andrews Kurth, LLP, Kay Lynn Brumbaugh, Andrews Kurth, LLP, Steven E Kramer, Kramer, Rayson LLP, Thomas M Hale, Kramer, Rayson LLP & Carolyn M. Hazard, Dechert LLP. Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas J Garland, Jr., Milligan & Coleman, Carl R Metz, Williams & Connolly LLP, Carolyn M. Hazard, Dechert LLP, G P Gaby, Milligan & Coleman, John E Schmidtlein, Williams & Connolly LLP, Kevin Hardy, Williams & Connolly, Shelley J Webb, Williams & Connolly LLP, Simon A Latcovich, Williams & Connolly LLP, Steven R Kuney, Williams & Connolly LLP & W. Todd Miller, Baker & Miller PLLC. Dairy Marketing Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Thomas J Garland, Jr., Milligan & Coleman, Carl R Metz, Williams & Connolly LLP, Carolyn M. Hazard, Dechert LLP, G P Gaby, Milligan & Coleman, John E Schmidtlein, Williams & Connolly LLP, Kevin Hardy, Williams & Connolly, Shelley J Webb, Williams & Connolly LLP, Simon A Latcovich, Williams & Connolly LLP, Steven R Kuney, Williams & Connolly LLP & W. Todd Miller, Baker & Miller PLLC. Southern Marketing Agency, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig V Gabbert, Jr., Harwell, Howard, Hyne, Gabbert & Manner, PC, Kari M Rollins, Winston & Strawn, LLP, W Gordon Dobie, Winston & Strawn, LLP, Carolyn M. Hazard, Dechert LLP & J David McDowell, Harwell, Howard, Hyne, Gabbert & Manner, PC. James Baird, Defendant, represented by Andrew T Wampler, Wilson Worley Moore Gamble & Stout, PC, Robert L Arrington, Wilson Worley Moore Gamble & Stout, PC & Carolyn M. Hazard, Dechert LLP. Gary Hanman, Defendant, represented by Misty C Watt, Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, Richard W Pectol, Pectol & Miles, Brian R Markley, Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, Carolyn M. Hazard, Dechert LLP, Daniel D Crabtree, Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP & David E Everson, Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP. Gerald Bos, Defendant, represented by Brandon J.B. Boulware, Rouse Hendricks German May PC, Charles W German, Rouse Hendricks German May PC, Bradley E Griffith, Herndon, Coleman, Brading & McKee, Carolyn M. Hazard, Dechert LLP, Jeremy M Suhr, Rouse Hendricks German May PC & Lawrence A Rouse, Rouse Hendricks German May PC. Cletes Beshears, Objector, represented by Jerry L Beane, Andrews Kurth, LLP. Allen Meyer, Objector, represented by Jerry L Beane, Andrews Kurth, LLP. Tracy Noll, Objector, represented by Jerry L Beane, Andrews Kurth, LLP. DENVER PARENT: Trial This Year in Delaware Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Denver Parent Corporation and Venoco, Inc. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that trial is expected to occur in 2016 in a class action lawsuit in Delaware. In August 2011 Timothy Marquez, the then-Chairman and CEO of Venoco, submitted a nonbinding proposal to the board of directors of Venoco to acquire all of the shares of Venoco he did not beneficially own for $12.50 per share in cash (the "Marquez Proposal"). As a result of that proposal, five lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery in 2011 against Venoco and each of its directors by shareholders alleging that Venoco and its directors had breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders in connection with the Marquez Proposal. On January 16, 2012, Venoco entered into a Merger Agreement with Mr. Marquez and certain of his affiliates pursuant to which Venoco, Mr. Marquez and his affiliates would effect the going private transaction. Following announcement of the Merger Agreement, five additional suits were filed in Delaware and three suits were filed in federal court in Colorado naming as defendants Venoco and each of its directors. In March 2013 the plaintiffs in Delaware filed a consolidated amended class action complaint in which they requested that the court determine among other things that (i) the merger consideration is inadequate and the Merger Agreement was entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the defendants and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable and (ii) the merger should be rescinded or in the alternative, the class should be awarded damages to compensate them for the loss as a resulting from of the breach of fiduciary duties by the defendants. The Colorado actions have been administratively closed pending resolution of the Delaware case. Venoco has reviewed the allegations contained in the amended complaint and believes they are without merit. Trial is expected to occur in 2016. DING HO: Recalls Cuttlefish Balls Due to Egg -------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 11, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Egg Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Ding Ho Food Inc. Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10224 Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Ding Ho Cuttlefish 318 g 2015 DEC21 6 27590 04640 1 Foods Balls DIRECTV INC: DJ's Sports Bar Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled D.J.'s Sports Bar, Inc. v. DirecTV Holdings LLC et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-09050, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-09998-BRO-JEM to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly violated and continues to violate the Sherman Act. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages and costs of suit sustained as a result of Defendants' anticompetitive and unlawful conduct and to enjoin Defendants from continuing such conduct. DIRECTV operates as a subsidiary of DIRECTV, and is based in El Segundo, California. The company provides direct-to-home digital television services and multi-channel video programming distribution (MVPD) services in the United States. It provides access to various channels of digital-quality video entertainment and CD-quality audio programming that are transmitted directly to subscribers' homes or businesses via geosynchronous satellites. The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda M Steiner, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981 4800 Facsimile: (415) 981 4846 E-mail: as@girardgibbs.com DIRECTV INC: "Lippincott" Suit Goes from N.D. to MDL 2668 --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Robert Gary Lippincott, Jr. v. DIRECTV, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-05096, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-09996-BRO-JEM to the proceeding. DIRECTV operates as a subsidiary of DIRECTV, and is based in El Segundo, California. The company provides direct-to-home digital television services and multi-channel video programming distribution (MVPD) services in the United States. It provides access to various channels of digital-quality video entertainment and CD-quality audio programming that are transmitted directly to subscribers' homes or businesses via geosynchronous satellites. The Lippincott case is being consolidated with MDL 2668 in re: National Football League's "Sunday Ticket" Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on multidistrict litigation on December 8, 2015. These actions share complex factual questions arising out of allegations that the NFL and DIRECTV have entered into anticompetitive agreements granting DIRECTV the exclusive right to broadcast certain NFL Sunday afternoon football games outside of a viewer's local television market, in violation of federal and state antitrust law. In Its December 9, 2015 Order, The MDL Panel found that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Beverly Reid O'Connell, United States District Judge. The lead case is 2:15-ml- 02668-BRO-JEM. The Plaintiff is represented by: Caleb Marker, Esq. Bradley Christopher Buhrow, Esq. Brian C Gudmundson, Esq. Jason R Lee, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 555 East Ocean Boulevard Suite 500 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (877) 500 8780 Facsimile: (877) 500 8781 E-mail: Caleb.Marker@zimmreed.com brad.buhrow@zimmreed.com brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com jason.lee@zimmreed.com - and - Arthur M Murray, Esq. MURRAY LAW FIRM 650 Poydras Street Suite 2150 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 525 8100 Facsimile: (504) 584 5249 E-mail: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Melissa D Ingalls, Esq. Robyn Eileen Bladow, Esq. Tammy Ann Tsoumas, Esq. KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 680 8400 Facsimile: (213) 680 8500 E-mail: melissa.ingalls@kirkland.com robyn.bladow@kirkland.com tammy.tsoumas@kirkland.com DISH NETWORK: Judge Approves $4.75-Mil. Settlement in FCRA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reported that a New York federal judge has granted final approval to a $4.75 million settlement in class action lawsuit against a background check company for alleged violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield agreed to the terms of the class action lawsuit settlement "which ends allegations that the background check company violated the FCRA by providing outdated information to employers which resulted in a loss of employment." The class action lawsuit claimed reports issued by the background check company contained 20-year-old charges, citations, and arrests. However, the FCRA does not allow background check reports to contain certain information older than seven years ago. The class action lawsuit claimed that the background check company denied subjects of the background checks copies of their reports upon their request in violation of the FCRA, a federal law that regulates how background check firms use information. The class action lawsuit is Ernst, et al. v. Dish Network LLC, et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-08794, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. More information about the class action lawsuit settlement was not immediately available. DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Marketing ----------------------------------------------------------- Laura Wilcoxen, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an attorney for the plaintiffs in a lawsuit alleging that discount retailer Dollar General engaged in deceptive marketing practices says that the financial damages claimed in the suit primarily affect low-income consumers. In December, California resident David Sanchez filed a class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Dolgencorp, doing business as Dollar General. The suit states that the retail chain sells its own discounted brand of motor oils, labeled "DG," alongside higher-priced standard and premium oils while failing to give sufficient warning to consumers that the DG oils are outdated and unsuitable for the majority of gasoline-powered engines currently in use. According to the suit, labels on some DG oils state that the product is not intended for use in motor vehicles manufactured after 1988, while labels on other DG oils state the product is unsuitable for engines manufactured after 1930. The suit seeks damages in excess of $5 million. Allan Kanner -- a.kanner@kanner-law.com -- of the New Orleans law firm Kanner & Whiteley LLC is among attorneys for the plaintiffs. He said that Dollar General's well-known position in the retail market -- that of a discount store primarily serving lower-income customers -- makes the allegations particularly noteworthy. "You're exploiting the economically most vulnerable people in society," Mr. Kanner said. "Those are the people that are coming in and buying this motor oil. There aren't a lot of antique car collectors doing business at Dollar General that I'm aware of." Mr. Kanner said that some consumers who purchased and used the DG oil had to have their engines completely rebuilt. He said that there is considerable legal precedent showing that the labeling on the back of the DG oil containers was not sufficient warning to consumers of the product's limitations. "You can't sell obsolete oil -- and that's what they're doing -- and they're relying on small print on the back to say that people are on notice," Mr. Kanner said. "I don't think that applies legally. Not when you consider the product placement on the can. There's a lot of case law on that, and we will cite all of the cases." DOWNER EDI: Class Action Over Waratah Train Project Set to Begin ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Dancker, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that a class action brought by a shareholder in Downer EDI over the company's troubled Waratah train project will begin despite the discovery process in the case being frustrated by a cache of company documents contained on a hard-drive infected by "ransom- ware" going missing. The class action has been brought in the Supreme Court of Victoria by Downer EDI shareholder Camping Warehouse Australia, which alleges the engineering firm mislead and deceived investors by not revealing the issues at its Waratah train project in a timely fashion. Downer took a $585 million hit to its market capitalization on June 1, 2010 when it wrote off $190 million associated with the Waratah contract to build rolling stock for Sydney's rail network due to cost overruns. According to the class action claim, Downer EDI was aware it would have to write down the value of the Waratah contract on or before January 12, 2010. The class action is being brought by serial class action litigant Mark Elliott on behalf of investors and is open to all shareholders who purchased shares ahead of Downer EDI's shock June 2010 announcement. Downer EDI settled a separate class action brought by Slater & Gordon and funded by Bentham IMF in 2014 for an amount understood to be $38 million. Lawyers for shareholders will present 10 volumes of discovered internal documents and emails between Downer EDI executives to the court to support its case. A host of current and former executives including current Downer EDI chief Grant Fenn, former CEO Geoff Knox as well as former Downer EDI chairman Peter Jolly. According to documents filed by Downer EDI's lawyer Paul Bannon of Colin Biggers & Paisley, the discovery process was frustrated by a huge number of internal Downer EDI documents being contained on a hard drive that was infected with a virus. "That hard drive has been subsequently corrupted by a crypto virus which prevents access to the content of the hard drive. Documents have been encrypted by an unknown third party who demands payment for access to be restored," Mr. Bannon said in an affidavit filed to the court in September. "I cannot presently locate that hard drive to provide any further information about the virus," Mr. Bannon added. The hard drive contained a cache of emails and other crucial internal documents. In November, Downer EDI was ordered by the Supreme Court of Victoria to allow lawyers for the investor to conduct full discovery, including copies of the emails contained on the lost and corrupted hard drive. Further documents will be sought by the investors lawyers once the trial begins, according to court documents. The company denies misleading or deceiving any of its investors and has been vigorously defending the matter. In its defense, Downer says "at all relevant times it maintained corporate governance procedures and policies to ensure adherence to all applicable regulatory requirements and best practice." Downer's June 1 announcement wiped $585 million from the company's market capitalization, which according to the class action claim reflects "the fact that information about those matters was price sensitive". The impairment came only weeks after the company hosed down speculation members of the consortium that had won the contract, including Downer, were mulling tipping more equity in to the project. DRAFTKINGS INC: "Huizar" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Sergio Huizar v. DraftKings, Inc. et al., Case No. BC602279, was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Central of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-09956-BRO-RAO to the proceeding. DraftKings provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and Canada. The company is based in Boston, Massachusetts. The defendants offer leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf, college football, and college basketball. The Plaintiff is represented by: David C Leimbach, Esq. Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq. Marcus J Bradley, Esq. MARLIN AND SALTZMAN LLP 29229 Canwood Street Suite 208 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991 8080 Facsimile: (818) 991 8081 E-mail: dleimbach@marlinsaltzman.com kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com - and - Sahag Majarian II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609 0807 Facsimile: (818) 609 0892 E-mail: sahagii@aol.com The Defendant is represented by: James P Fogelman, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 S Grand Avenue 47th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229 7234 Facsimile: (213) 229 7520 E-mail: jfogelman@gibsondunn.com DURACELL: Lawyers Get $5.7MM in Fees in Deceptive Ad Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jenna Greene, writing for Law.com, reports that at first glance, it looks like a total rip-off. Class members in a settlement involving deceptively marketed Duracell batteries collected just $345,000, but their lawyers got a whopping $5.7 million in fees. The Center for Class Action Fairness in December filed a cert petition with the U.S. Supreme Court. "This case is an object lesson in how the class action mechanism can go wrong," wrote Thomas Goldstein of Goldstein & Russell for the center, founded by tort reformer Theodore Frank and part of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Except that on closer inspection, the fee award isn't so outrageous. Given the nature of the suit, which involved millions of customers who bought a low-cost item, there's a compelling public policy argument in favor of the attorney fee payment. "I speak as a member of the class. I bought the batteries at issue: Duracell Ultra Power or Ultra Advanced, size AA or AAA, between June 2009 and July 2013. My son's Game Boy Color video game devoured them," Ms. Greene said. "We were persuaded by claims on the packaging that they lasted up to 30 percent longer than the regular "Copper Top" variety. They cost an extra 30 cents or so per battery, but hey, if it meant my son wouldn't go ballistic during a car trip because his game battery died, it was well worth it. "Were we short-changed? I have no idea. The plaintiffs lawyers -- among them Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe; Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher Goldfarb; and The Lowe Law Firm -- say the longer-lasting claims were a lie, and constituted deceptive advertising." Duracell vigorously disputes this. Represented by Jones Day and Carlton Fields, it says that the batteries lived up to their representation. We'll never know for sure. The suit settled in 2013. The remedy: If you bought the batteries, you could get a $3 per package refund, limit two per household, with no proof of purchase required (because seriously, who saves a 5-year-old battery receipt?). All you had to do was fill out a form online. If you kept your receipts, you could get up to $12 for four packages. Duracell quit making the Ultra batteries, prompted in large part by the litigation. And the company agreed to donate $6 million in batteries to charity. It's a fair remedy. Class members incurred average damages of $2.89 -- the price difference between Copper Tops and Ultras -- and on average purchased 1.4 packs during the class period. The lawyers estimated that there were 7.26 million class members. If they all submitted claims, the payout would be about $50 million. By that measure, the attorney fees of $5.7 million were 11 percent of the total fund, well below the 25 percent benchmark. But everyone knew there was no way that all class members would file claims. "I didn't. Despite ads in Better Homes & Gardens, Ebony, National Geographic, People, People en Espanol, TV Guide, USA Today, the Orlando Sentinel, and the San Francisco Chronicle, and Internet banner ads with 92 million impressions, the settlement wasn't on my radar. And even if it was -- we're talking $6. I'm busy," Ms. Greene said. "In fact, less than 1 percent of eligible class members submitted claims. That's why attorney fees vastly exceeded the benefits paid to class members." Is this bad? The Center for Class Action Fairness says the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which approved the Duracell settlement, used the wrong standard. The real measure when calculating attorney fees, it says, should be the actual, not potential, class recovery. Plaintiffs lawyers have more incentive to get the biggest award for the class, and to make sure many people file claims, the center said. But that just won't work in cases where many people are owed small amounts of money. Plaintiffs lawyers would lose money bringing those suits. And so they wouldn't be pursued. "As a class member, I care far less about collecting my $6 than sending a message to companies that they can't make stuff up and put it on their packaging," Ms. Greene said. ELEKTA BUSINESS: Recalls Mosaiq Due to Incorrect Drug Dosage ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: December 9, 2015 Posting date: December 24, 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-56452 Incorrect drug dosage due to "age limit" data item issue. When there is no valid (unexpired) patient weight entered on the same date or prior to a serum creatinine value being populated, a stale creatinine clearance (CRCL) value is being used in area under curve (AUC) dose calculations. Affected products: A. MOSAIQ Lot or serial number: v2.0 and higher Model or catalog number: MOSAIQ Manufacturer: Elekta Business Area Software Systems IMPAC Medical Systems, Inc. 100 Mathilda Place, 5th floor Sunnyvale 94086 California UNITED STATES EOS: Settles Lip Balm Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------ AJC.com, citing Refinery29, reports that a class-action lawsuit involving a consumer and EOS lip balm has been settled. The suit, filed Jan. 12 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, said Rachael Cronin, represented by criminal defense lawyer Mark Geragos, used the product and her lips became dry, cracked and bled. She also said she had multiple rashes as a result of the product. The suit which was filed "on behalf of (Cronin) herself and the putative class comprised of potentially hundreds of thousands of similarly situated consumers," said Ms. Cronin dealt with the skin reaction for 10 days. The suit sought damages and corrective advertising by EOS. Statements released by the New York-based company and the lawyer representing the consumer show they are both pleased with the outcome. "We are pleased to announce that the class-action lawsuit brought against EOS has been resolved. Our products are safe and this settlement confirms that," the brand said in a statement. "Our lip balms are hypoallergenic, dermatologist-tested, made with the highest quality ingredients, meet or exceed all safety and quality standards set by our industry, and are validated by rigorous safety testing conducted by independent labs. We love our customers, and their enjoyment of our products is our top priority. We thank them for their continued support." Mr. Geragos said he was pleased to "quickly and amicably resolve the matter with EOS lip balm products." He continued by saying, "EOS makes great products and the company is doing the right thing by adding more information about their lip balm products on packaging so that buyers can make informed choices. We will be applying to the courts to close this case." The terms of the settlement have not been released. EVERSPRING FARMS: Expands Salba brand Chia Seeds Recall ------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 9, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Everspring Farms Ltd Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10180 The food recall warning issued on November 16, 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. Everspring Farms Ltd. is voluntarily recalling Salba brand Chia Seeds - Premium Ground 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 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 Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Salba Chia Seeds- 150 g Lot # 8 57562 00128 6 Premium SSSBC150211-41 Ground BB/MA APR-2017 Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/Y7fQv6 FAN DUEL: Faces Class Action Over Use of Athletes' Likeness ----------------------------------------------------------- The Online Sports Guys reports that the cavalcade of lawsuits against Daily Fantasy Sports continues with a potential Class Action Suit filed in an Illinois Federal Court on Jan. 27. And this suit brings the potential of having the same effect the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit did on the use of College Athletes likenesses in video games. Former Northern Illinois RB Akeem Daniels is spearheading the lawsuit against Fan Duel and Draft Kings for using his and other athletes names and likenesses to make profit. The suit seeks $5 million for each complaint logged against the companies. Though at this moment nobody has joined the class action yet. According to a report in The Sporting News, up to 2,000 College Athletes would be eligible to take part in the lawsuit as plaintiffs. Daniels cites at least 13 of his own teammates as potential plaintiffs. From the Sporting News Article, a portion of the Lawsuits verbiage: "Defendant has utilized Plaintiff's name to generate revenues for itself, and 'gaming' (i.e., gambling) profits for others. Indeed, Defendant has predicated their entire business models on the notion that commercial value attends to the Plaintiff and Class Members' names, assigning 'salaries' to each Class Member -- even though the Class Members did not draw any salary of any type for playing their collegiate sport." The suit also apparently cites the risk borne by athletes that someone who participates and potentially loses at the games due to the athletes performance puts them in danger. It also cites the risk of potential "Point-Shaving" to help bring about the outcome a bettor/client of the companies may want. This might be an interesting case to follow because it essentially copies most of the terms of the O'Bannon case regarding College Athletes. And if you look at it from that perspective---Daniels raises a legitimate point. Technically speaking the kids names and likenesses are being used. And their performance is profitable for other people. Not them. Stay tuned. If this goes anywhere it may be a game changer. At least in the College World. Though it could open some professional doors too. FIGI'S COMPANIES: Recalls Classic Marzipan Due to Almonds --------------------------------------------------------- Figi's Companies, Inc. of Marshfield, WI is recalling 8 ounce packages of "Classic Marzipan" because the ingredients are not properly labeled and the product contains undeclared almonds. People who have allergies to almonds run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The recalled "Classic Marzipan" was distributed nationwide through mail orders and at one retail outlet. The product comes in a kraft colored corrugated container with red printed decorations including the Figi's Logo. It is labeled with a white and red product label in the upper right hand corner that identifies the item as 100-0034-200 "Classic Marzipan" and has a code date in a smaller yellow box in the lower left hand corner of that label. The code date will read either "5 190", "5 194", "5 253" or "5 328." The product itself is contained within a gold foil covered paperboard tray with a clear acetate cover. The package includes Figi's Special Gift Notice/Product Guarantee that is preprinted on the reverse side with the Nutritional Facts Panel for "Assorted Fruit Shaped Marzipan" and identified with the part number 380-0034-515. The shipping container also contains a promotional coupon for a discount on a future order. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the almond containing product was not labeled with ingredients nor were the presence of almonds highlighted. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the company's Bill of Material verification process. Production of the product has been suspended until the company is certain that the problem has been corrected. Consumers who have purchased or received as gifts, 8 oz. packages of Classic Marzipan are urged to return them to Figi's for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company Monday - Saturday, 7AM - 5:30PM CST at 1-800-437-3817. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/kUt3mZ FIRSTMERIT CORP: Law Firms Urge Shareholders to File Merger Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Betty Lin-Fisher, writing for Beacon Journal, reports that at least five national law firms have filed notices seeking FirstMerit Corp. shareholders for potential lawsuits to block the proposed buyout to Huntington Bancshares. But such lawsuits are commonplace and expected, said a University of Akron law professor. "It's the cost of doing a deal. You're going to get sued," said UA School of Law Professor Stefan Padfield, who primarily teaches business law. "When [companies] weigh the costs and benefits of fighting that lawsuit, [they] figure in the costs of settlement into deal costs." In 2014, shareholders filed suits challenging 93 percent of corporate mergers, up from 44 percent in 2007, according to Cornerstone Research. The average deal drew nearly five lawsuits claiming the transaction shortchanged investors. Recent studies, however, have shown the number of lawsuits on the decline -- though still large in numbers. There's usually a rush for law firms to quickly begin soliciting potential plaintiffs after a merger is announced, said Mr. Padfield. "It's almost before anybody even looks at what is in the [merger] documents, [they] file the suit first and ask questions later," he said. It usually depends upon the jurisdiction, but often a judge will look for the firm representing the top dollar amount in the largest number of shareholders to determine a lead counsel or law firm for a potential class-action suit, he said. Additionally, large institutional investors, which often have large numbers of shares in companies, usually will use their own law firms to file lawsuits blocking mergers, Mr. Padfield said. Individual investors For consumers, who often hold a small number of shares and aren't familiar with lawsuits, they usually either don't do anything -- and would be included in any potential class-action suit unless they opt out -- or they just pick a firm, he said. "Unfortunately the reality is there's a lot of unsophisticated investors. It'll probably be the first one they see," Mr. Padfield said. The legal industry has hotly debated whether such lawsuits really benefit shareholders, he said. "Some people look at it as a way for lawyers to make money. I see value of the ability to bring the suits," said Mr. Padfield. There are incentives for managers and boards of directors to soften a deal and not look out for shareholders, he said. "There's a need for outside check of the boardroom, but there should be a better way of 'Let's just assume it's going to happen,'" he said. As of Jan. 28, five law firms from New York, Texas, Pennsylvania and Delaware were soliciting FirstMerit shareholders and saying they were "investigating" the buyout. Terms of the deal Two Dallas firms in one announcement touted that one of their lawyers was a former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission attorney. Their news release said the consideration for the value of the stock in the deal "is virtually no premium over the 52-week high and significantly lower than at least one analyst's estimated value of $22.86." The deal calls for shareholders of FirstMerit to receive 1.72 shares of Huntington's common stock, and $5 in cash, for each share of FirstMerit common stock. The per share consideration is valued at $20.14 per share based on the closing price of Huntington common stock on Jan. 25, the day the deal was announced. Calls to both firms, the Briscoe Law Firm and Powers Taylor LLC, were not returned. Mr. Padfield said he's hard pressed to think of many lawsuits that have actually stopped a merger. "I don't remember the last time a merger got derailed by these fiduciary claims," he said. "My gut reaction is it's rare. Usually there's the back and forth -- both sides have an incentive not to go to court. The plaintiff's firm would hope not to invest a lot of money, and management has an incentive not to spend a lot on litigation and going to trial. There's perverse incentives to get it done on both sides." FLINT, MI: Faces Major Legal Challenges Over Tainted Water Crisis ----------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Sanburn, writing for Time, reports that four lawsuits have been filed against government officials. Crisis-struck residents of Flint, Mich. are taking the contamination of their city's water to the courts. A federal suit announced on Jan. 27 alleging that officials are still violating a federal law designed to protect the city's drinking water is one of at least four separate attempts backed by Flint citizens to get legal recourse for the ongoing crisis. Here, what each major legal challenge focuses on: 1. The Safe Drinking Water Act The federal suit filed by a group of pastors, a local Flint activist, the ACLU, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, accuses city and state officials of failing to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act, a federal law that requires municipal water systems to treat and test water for contaminants like lead. The suit asks for a "full replacement of all lead service lines in the water system at no cost to customers." 2. Negligence In November, four Flint families filed a federal lawsuit against Gov. Rick Snyder, former Mayor Dayne Walling and former Emergency Manager Darnell Earley, and argues that officials were negligent in overseeing the switch from properly treated water from Lake Huron via Detroit to the Flint River. The lawsuit is seeking monetary damages as well as lifetime medical monitoring for children with health effects from the contaminated water. 3. Falling property values A class-action suit seeking monetary damages was filed Jan. 15 in state court claiming that the water crisis destroyed property values throughout Flint. The suit alleges that state officials knew about elevated lead levels and should have made the information public. 4. Water bills An additional class-action suit was filed Jan. 19 in Genesee County asking that residents not be required to pay any past or future water bills. It's also attempting to get Genesee Circuit Judge Archie Hayman to halt any water shut-offs due to residents not paying their water bills. Water in Flint is still unsafe to drink after the city failed to use corrosion control when it switched from Lake Huron water to the Flint River for its supply in April 2014 in part to save money. State officials said on Jan. 27 that lead levels had continued to decrease. On Jan. 28, Gov. Snyder announced he was extending the state of emergency for Genesee County. "Extending this emergency will help us continue these efforts while working on long-term solutions to help Flint recover from this tragedy," Gov. Snyder said in a statement. FLINT, MI: Environmental Racism Issue Raised Amid Water Crisis -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Martinez, writing for CNN, reports that the contamination of drinking water in Flint, Michigan, has so outraged community advocates that they now pose a powerful question: Was the city neglected because it is mostly black and about 40% poor? Several advocates say yes. They charge that Flint residents are victims of "environmental racism" -- that is, race and poverty factored into how Flint wasn't adequately protected and how its water became contaminated with lead, making the tap water undrinkable. "Would more have been done, and at a much faster pace, if nearly 40 percent of Flint residents were not living below the poverty line? The answer is unequivocally yes," the NAACP said in a statement. Others go further. "While it might not be intentional, there's this implicit bias against older cities -- particularly older cities with poverty (and) majority-minority communities," said Democratic U.S. Rep. Dan Kildee, who represents the Flint area. "It's hard for me to imagine the indifference that we've seen exhibited if this had happened in a much more affluent community," he said. For the record, Flint is 57% black, 37% white, 4% Latino and 4% mixed race; more than 41% of its residents live below the poverty level, according to the U.S. Census. NAACP President and CEO Cornell Brooks drew a direct connection between Flint's socioeconomic factors and the toxic drinking water. "Environmental Racism + Indifference = Lead in the Water & Blood," he tweeted. Mr. Brooks is pressing for a definitive plan of attack. "We're trying to take action that is specific, that's focused, that's urgent and speaks to the people's needs," he said. "Talking with a deadline that has dollar symbols represents action, and that's what we're trying to do." Governor takes hard questions In an interview with CNN's Poppy Harlow, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder repeatedly said that he was taking responsibility for the crisis even as she reminded him that his then-chief of staff sent an email in July 2015 to a health department official warning of lead in the Flint drinking water. The email was released as part of a freedom of information request. "I'm frustrated by the water issue in Flint," David Muchmore wrote. "I really don't think people are getting the benefit of the doubt. Now they are concerned and rightfully so about the lead level studies they are receiving." In October 2014, General Motors stopped using Flint River water at its engine plant because the company was seeing rust of vehicle parts. Gov. Snyder said that General Motors' concern "was not a lead issue." Ms. Harlow responded, "It was the same issue of the pipes being corroded by the water, chemicals in the water, just like it is (in Flint.) It's actually the same." The governor said, "These are very technical issues. But the lead came to my attention in October, end of September, early October of 2015. We took immediate action, need to do more, did more." He said Flint has seen a 45% reduction in crime, and he touted a dental program for low-income children -- all moves his administration pushed for. "In terms of saying it happened because of the nature of the community here? Absolutely not." Gov. Snyder compared Flint's unemployment struggles and other economic woes to what people in Detroit have endured in recent years, and he said his administration is responsible for improvements there. Gov. Snyder was served with a subpoena by attorneys representing Flint residents who have filed a class-action suit. They have asked for the governor's emails and text messages going back to January 2011. Gov. Snyder has released some emails from 2014 and 2015. "Will you release all of those back to 2011, from personal and work accounts?" Ms. Harlow asked. "I released the relevant emails, my emails, that address that issue for the relevant time period," said Gov. Snyder, who has released some emails from 2014 and 2015. "We are complying with every investigation in terms of being open," he added. "We'll follow the appropriate legal process for subpoenas and other legal matters." "Again, we're complying with every investigation," Gov. Snyder said. "We'll follow the appropriate legal process for subpoenas and other legal matters. With respect to releasing my emails, I did that. This is an extraordinary case." Whether Flint's water crisis happened because the city has poor residents has been discussed in social media, particularly by filmmaker and Flint native Michael Moore. Mr. Moore said the governor should be arrested for his role in the crisis. A state plan to save $15 million on Flint's water bills may now cost $1.5 billion in clean-up, Moore said in his online petition for help from President Barack Obama. "This is a racial killing. Flint MI is 60% black. When u knowingly poison a black city, u r committing a version of genocide #ArrestGovSnyder," Moore tweeted at one point. "Just to be clear: all 102K residents of Flint have been exposed to toxic water, all of Flint's kids have ingested lead, & 10 ppl have died," Moore tweeted on another occasion. The Black Lives Matter group said African-Americans, especially those in rural and poor areas, have long been denied equal access to clean drinking water. "The crisis in Flint is not an isolated incident. State violence in the form of contaminated water or no access to water at all is pervasive in Black communities," the group said on its website. On Jan. 25, state Attorney General Bill Schuette said he is appointing an ex-prosecutor and Detroit's former FBI chief to join the investigation into Flint's water crisis, creating a "conflict wall" between the state's inquiry and the lawsuits targeting the state. The prior announced investigation will determine "whether any Michigan laws were violated in the process that created a major public health crisis for Flint residents." "I would certainly not bathe a newborn child or a young infant in this bad water, and if you can't drink the bad water, you shouldn't pay for it," Mr. Schuette said. Flint's state of emergency -- declared at municipal and state levels -- began years ago when the city suffered a financial emergency. The state took over the city's budget and decided to temporarily switch Flint's water source from Lake Huron to the Flint River to save money until a new supply line to Lake Huron was ready. The river, however, was long-known as befouled. Locals call it the "General Motors sewer." After the April 2014 switch, residents complained their water had problems. Virginia Tech researchers found the water was highly corrosive. A class-action lawsuit alleges the state Department of Environmental Quality didn't treat the water for corrosion, in accordance with federal law, and because so many service lines to Flint are made of lead, the noxious element leached into the water of the city's homes. The city switched back to the Lake Huron water supply in October, but the damage was already done to the lead pipes. The state is now handing out filters and bottled water with the National Guard. FLOWERS FOOD: Sued by Truck Drivers Over Employee Status -------------------------------------------------------- Erica Phillips, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that Flowers Foods Inc., the bakery that owns Wonder Bread, Nature's Own and Tastykake brands, is being sued in more than a dozen states by truck drivers who claim they were improperly classified as independent contractors. The lawsuits allege the company violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act by classifying drivers on its delivery routes as contractors. The suits seek payment for overtime, employee benefits and other compensation. One of the earliest suits, brought in North Carolina in 2012, was granted class-action status in March, after which 15 more were filed in other states. The most recent suit was brought in Texas, bringing the total to 18. If the company loses in court, Flowers would likely need to buy back drivers' routes and trucks, said Tim Ramey, an analyst with Pivotal Research Group. However, it could be years before the cases are resolved, other analysts say. Any ruling against Flowers would likely also affect its competitors, many of which also rely on independent drivers, said Eric Katzman, an analyst with Deutsche Bank. "At some point in the distant future, it could be a financial risk but for the moment it's just a headline risk," Mr. Katzman said. The lawsuits come as independent drivers in various sectors have successfully challenged their status in courts around the country. In 2015, FedEx Corp. agreed to pay $228 million in a settlement with thousands of its California drivers after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled they had been misclassified as independent contractors. Ride-hailing services Uber Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc. have face similar claims from drivers. Several trucking companies operating at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach -- including, most recently, three subsidiaries of XPO Logistics Inc. -- are engaged in similar litigation with independent-operator drivers. Last July, the Labor Department issued guidance suggesting businesses examine the issue of mis-classification and consider designating more of their independent contractors as employees. In an email, Flowers said it doesn't believe the lawsuits have legal merit, and that "the independent distribution model is a win-win where distributors, their customers, and the company benefit." Flowers Foods, a $3.7 billion company, is the second largest packaged bread producer in the U.S. after Grupo Bimbo S.A.B. de C.V. The company distributes its products to grocery stores and retailers such as Target Corp., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Dollar General Corp. Flowers has grown through acquisition, expanding its operations into more than 35 states. In 2015, Flowers bought the Wonder Bread brand in the liquidation of Hostess Brands LLC. Flowers has relied almost entirely on independent drivers since the 1980s. The company sells its delivery routes -- often with a company-financed note -- to drivers, who then have exclusive rights to sell and distribute Flowers products within that territory. In their legal claims, drivers say their routes aren't independent businesses because Flowers tells them what locations to service and sets pricing and procedures directly with the retailers. In court documents the company has said drivers are exempt from the FLSA because they engage in interstate commerce. In its statement, Flowers said their program "has been upheld as an independent contractor model in the past when similar claims were brought in various legal forums." FLOWERS FOODS: Defending Misclassification Suit in North Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------------- Flowers Foods, Inc. is defending against an FLSA class action lawsuit in North Carolina, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. On September 12, 2012, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division) by Scott Rehberg, Willard Allen Riley and Mario Ronchetti against the company and its subsidiary, Flowers Baking Company of Jamestown, LLC. "Plaintiffs are or were distributors of our Jamestown subsidiary who contend they were misclassified as independent contractors. The action sought class certification on behalf of a class comprised of independent distributors of our Jamestown subsidiary who are classified as independent contractors," the Company said. In March 2013, the court conditionally certified the class action for claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). On March 23, 2015, the court re-affirmed its FLSA certification decision and also certified claims under state law. FOREST RIVER: Recalls Motorhomes with Lippert Electric Steps ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: December 7, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Travel Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Structure Units affected: 763 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015581TC ID number: 2015581 On certain motorhomes equipped with Lippert Components Inc. electric entry steps, an internal bolt on the steps that attaches the fan gear assembly to the steps could fracture. This results in the fan gear disengaging from the steps, which could cause the steps to stop in an unexpected position and appear to be loose or unstable. If the steps become unstable, it could cause a person to fall, resulting in injury. Correction: Dealers will install a step retainer bracket to reinforce the operating mechanism, and all bolts of the mechanism will also be replaced. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- FOREST RIVER 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 FOREST RIVER: Recalls Stealth 2016 Model Due to Asphyxiation Risk ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 9, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Travel Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 2 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015589TC ID number: 2015589 Certain travel trailers may have been manufactured with an incorrect liquid propane (L.P.) detector and carbon monoxide detector. The installed component only includes a liquid propane detector, but not a carbon monoxide detector. If an enclosed recreational vehicle is missing a carbon monoxide detector, it would not alert the occupants to a possible elevated level of carbon monoxide, which could result in asphyxiation or carbon monoxide poisoning to the vehicle occupants. Correction: Dealers will inspect and replace the correct combination L.P. detector/carbon monoxide detector. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- FOREST RIVER STEALTH 2016, 2016 GALLAGHER BASSETT: Sued Over Slow Settlement Payments ----------------------------------------------------- Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that after saying he waited too long to get money owed him from the settlement of a personal injury lawsuit, a Cook County man is seeking legal retribution, bringing a class action on behalf of other potential plaintiffs like him against the company he has blamed for the delay in paying him, as well as other companies he said may have done the same thing to others. Ward Kifarkis filed his class action complaint Jan. 27 against Gallagher Bassett Services (GBS), of Itasca, a third-party claims processor for companies settling personal injury lawsuits. According to the complaint, GBS had represented Aldi as its claim administrator in the settlement of a third-party liability lawsuit Kifarkis had brought against the supermarket chain stemming from an injury Kifarkis allegedly suffered in June 2014. According to the lawsuit, in late October 2015, attorney Larry Drury, acting as Kifarkis' counsel, sent GBS a copy of the negotiated settlement agreement. He followed that with a demand for payment on Oct. 30, including details about Drury's ability to hold the full amount until final resolution of any health care provider liens. Under that option, Gallagher Bassett could issue the full check in the name of Drury's practice. The attorney then would hold "the full amount of any claimed rights to recovery of Medicare, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services and/or any private health insurance company's claimed rights to recovery." Although Drury allegedly made repeated requests for the money, GBS allegedly did not issue the check until Dec. 3. While the law proscribes payments from such settlements to be made with 30 days following confirmation of the settlement, Kifarkis asserted GBS failed to issue payment within the required timeframe. The complaint particularly cited a purported Oct. 29 voice mail from a GBS representative acknowledging acceptance of the release and indicating the firm was waiting for feedback from Medicare. However, resolution of Medicare's issue should not have upheld the payment, according to statute, the complaint said. Kifarkis' complaint asked the court to certify a class of plaintiffs potentially including anyone else who, dating back to 2005, had to wait too long for a third-party payment linked to "a personal injury, property damage, wrongful death or tort action" from GBS. However, Kifarkis also said he believes GBS is not the only such company allegedly taking too long to pay settlement funds. So he is also asking the court to expand the list of defendants to include a class of "all insurance companies and/or their agents and representatives" who allegedly violated the same state law, and expand the plaintiffs class to include anyone who, since 2005, experienced a delay beyond the legally required timeframe in receiving their settlement funds. Kifarkis' complaint alleged four formal counts against GBS and other potential defendants, including violation of the state law regarding settlement payments, unjust enrichment, the call for an injunction to keep GBS and other such firms from withholding payments and a declaratory judgment. The complaint anticipated the plaintiff and defendant classes could potentially "include hundreds or thousands of persons and entities." Kifarkis' complaint said he and any member of the plaintiff class are entitled to damages and interest. It called for Drury to serve as class counsel and for Gallagher Bassett's attorneys to represent the defendant class. In addition to the injunctive relief and declaratory judgment, Kifarkis, who would serve as plaintiffs' putative class representative requested damages, legal fees "and an incentive service award for the plaintiff class representative." GARDEN OF LIFE: Recalls Raw Meal Organic Shake Due to Salmonella ---------------------------------------------------------------- Garden of Life LLC is voluntarily withdrawing a limited quantity of its Raw Meal Organic Shake & Meal Chocolate, Original, Vanilla and Vanilla Chai because they have the potential to contain Salmonella Virchow. Even though Garden of Life routinely performs pathogen testing on every finished good lot to ensure safety and no product has ever tested positive for the presence of Salmonella, the company felt it was in the public's best interest to take this voluntary action. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. FDA is investigating illnesses. Every lot tested negative for the presence of Salmonella prior to release to the market. Raw Meal products are distributed throughout the United States and sold at better health food stores and natural grocers. Consumers who believe they may have a Raw Meal product affected by this recall, should look for the following lot codes prominently stamped on the underside of the plastic container. The following is the list of lots affected: PRODUCT NAME Lot Number Exp Date ------------ ---------- -------- RAW Organic Meal 10 CNT Tray 47214800 9/12017 RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Full Size 47198800 9/1/17 RAW Organic Meal Full Size 47214600 9/1/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Chai 47215500 9/1/17 Full Size RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Chai Full 47215501 9/1/17 Size RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size 47216100 9/1/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size 47225500 9/1/17 RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Full Size 47225900 9/1/17 RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Full Size 47249200 9/1/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Chai 10 CNT 47183201 9/30/17 Tray RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size 47198601 9/30/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Chai Half 47206000 9/30/17 Size RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size 47225600 9/30/17 RAW Organic Meal Half Size 47225800 9/30/17 RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Half Size 47226200 9/30/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Half Size 47226400 9/30/17 RAW Organic Meal Full Size 47236000 9/30/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla 10 CNT Tray 47248000 9/30/17 RAW Organic Meal Full Size 47248901 9/30/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size 47253900 9/30/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Half Size 47257401 9/30/17 RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Full Size 47226000 10/1/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size 47216200 10/31/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Full Size 47225601 10/31/17 RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Full Size 47226100 10/31/17 RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Half Size 47226201 10/31/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Chai Full 47226300 10/31/17 Size RAW Organic Meal Full Size 47246500 10/31/17 RAW Organic Meal Vanilla Chai Full 47247600 10/31/17 Size RAW Organic Meal Chocolate Half Size 47247800 10/31/17 "In an overabundance of caution we are taking this extreme measure because we want to ensure that you never have to wonder about the purity of any Raw Meal product," said Brian Ray, President of Garden of Life. Any Raw Meal product from a lot code not listed above is entirely safe and not affected by this recall. All Garden of Life, LLC products are manufactured in the United States at FDA and NSF audited facilities, in accordance with current Good Manufacturing Practices. No Garden of Life product has ever tested positive for salmonella. If, however, a consumer has purchased a product from any of the lot codes listed above and wishes to return it, they should return the unused portion of the product to the place of purchase for a full refund. Questions may be directed to the company at 1-866- 465-0051, Monday-Friday between the hours of 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM EST. GE MEDICAL: Recalls Phased Flex Coils Due to Thermal Injury Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 10, 2015 Posting date: December 24, 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-56468 Coil overheating can occur when the device is used in mode 2 setup. This could lead to a serious patient thermal injury. There have been no injuries reported as a result of this issue. Affected products A. PHASED ARRAY FLEX COIL Lot or serial number: 0000011-4-0019 0000011-4-0020 011-4-0128 11-4-0127 Model or catalog number: 5363393 Manufacturer: GE Medical Systems LLC 3200 North Grandview Blvd Waukesha 53188 Wisconsin UNITED STATES GENERAL CHEMICAL: Fergus Falls Sues Aluminum Sulfate Sellers ------------------------------------------------------------ Voice of Alexandria reports that Fergus Falls has joined Minneapolis, Duluth, St. Cloud and other cities in a federal class-action lawsuit against the sellers of aluminum sulfate. The chemical is used to treat wastewater and to purify drinking water. The cities claim several companies conspired to fix the price of the chemical. In a separate case, a former executive of one of the companies admitted to federal prosecutors that he tried to rig bids and fix prices. Investigators say the scheme continued for at least 17 years. The lawsuit requests a jury trial and unspecified damages. GENERAL MOTORS: Settles FTC Claims Over Used-Car Inspections ------------------------------------------------------------ Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that General Motors Co. and two major dealerships on Jan. 28 agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission complaints accusing them of touting their used-car inspections while failing to disclose that some cars were subject to open recalls to repair serious defects. The separate complaints alleged deceptive acts or practices. They said the undisclosed defects included the GM ignition switch flaw responsible for more than 100 deaths and many more serious injuries. All three companies neither admitted nor denied the allegations. "Safety is one of the biggest considerations for consumers shopping for a car," said Jessica Rich, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, in a statement. "So companies touting the comprehensiveness of their vehicle inspections need to be straight with consumers about safety-related recalls, which can raise major safety concerns." GM did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Besides GM, the complaints and consent orders involved Oregon- based Lithia Motors Inc., which has more than 100 used-car stores in the West and Midwest; and Jim Koons Management, which has 15 dealerships in the mid-Atlantic region. They are two of the nation's largest used-car dealers, the FTC said. The complaint against GM quotes its certified pre-owned vehicle advertisements, which said, "We check it, so you don't have to," and which cited its 172-point inspection and reconditioning program. "And we do check it all," the ad continued. "From the engine block to the shocks, right down to the floor mats, no major system is overlooked. If it fails a single point, we completely recondition it -- or it won't be certified." Under terms of the consent deal, which is in effect for 20 years, the companies are prohibited from misrepresenting material facts about the safety of used cars they sell. The order also prohibits them "from claiming that their used vehicles are safe or have been subject to a rigorous inspection unless they are free of unrepaired safety recalls, or unless the companies clearly disclose the existence of the recalls." The order also requires the companies to notify recent customers that the vehicles they purchased may have an open recall. The FTC voted to accept the agreements, but the deals still must be publicized in the Federal Register and be open to public comment for 30 days. After that, the commission can decide whether to make the orders final or to modify them. GENERAL MOTORS: Lawyer Claims Hilliard Struck Deal with Automaker ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the plaintiffs lawyer who first discovered the GM ignition- switch defect has lobbed a bomb against a lead counsel of the multidistrict litigation, claiming that the attorney struck a deal with GM to boost legal fees while reducing the automaker's potential liability. Lance Cooper, founding partner of The Cooper Firm in Marietta, Georgia, who resigned from the executive committee of the General Motors Co. ignition switch MDL last year, filed a motion on Jan. 27 claiming that attorney Robert Hilliard arranged with GM to put his cases up front for bellwether trials in exchange for minimizing the automaker's potential exposure. The motion comes after Hilliard, of Hilliard Munoz Gonzales in Corpus Christi, Texas, voluntarily dismissed the first bellwether case on Jan. 22 amid revelations during trial that his client, Robert Scheuer, might have lied on the stand and to his lawyers about his finances and the extent of his injuries following a 2014 crash in his Saturn Ion. Five of the six bellwether cases, including Scheuer, are Mr. Hilliard's remaining cases. Cooper's motion, filed on behalf of clients in nine cases, asks U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman to reconsider his approval of a settlement fund for the Sept. 17 deal, in which Hilliard settled 1,380 of his cases as part of a $575 million agreement. Cooper did not identify the source of the information included in his Jan. 27 motion. Mr. Hilliard, whose response is due in court on Feb. 1, immediately denied the allegations. "This latest unsupportable filing by Mr. Cooper satisfies me that he has comfortably settled into his self-appointed role as official loose cannon to this litigation. His 'sky is falling' approach, supported only by his over-use of adjectives, is both unprofessional and self-demeaning and will be substantively dealt with in our response, due Feb. 1." Mr. Cooper, who resigned from the executive committee without explanation, filed a separate motion on Jan. 25 seeking to disqualify Hilliard and the other two co-lead attorneys in the ignition switch MDL due to alleged mismanagement. He wrote in his new filing that "Mr. Hilliard apparently agreed to a high-low arrangement in the bellwether cases so that GM could limit its financial exposure in the event a jury were to return a substantial verdict against GM." Mr. Cooper continued: "There is likely only one reason why Mr. Hilliard carved out the bellwether selections from his corporate settlement with GM: he wanted to ensure that he would be the lead counsel in five out of the six bellwether trials," he wrote. "The benefit of doing so is obvious: it allows Mr. Hilliard to be compensated from settling many of his personal injury cases while maximizing the billable hours that he and his team would need in order to prepare for two (and due to GM's selections, now five) bellwether trials." Mr. Cooper is asking Judge Furman to investigate whether Hilliard arranged a "quid pro quo" with GM as part of the settlement. Judge Furman has ordered Mr. Hilliard and the other two co-leads, Steve Berman, managing partner of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, and Elizabeth Cabraser of San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, to respond to Mr. Cooper's motions by Feb. 1. Scheuer wasn't originally the first bellwether to go to trial. On Aug. 5, about a month before Mr. Hilliard's settlement with GM, the three co-lead plaintiffs counsel filed a motion to move Scheuer to the No. 1 spot. Scheuer replaced the only bellwether case not filed by Mr. Hilliard, a lawsuit brought by Nadia Yingling, which now goes to trial on May 2. GENERAL MOTORS: Hilliard Reflects on Lapses in Scheuer Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that days after the first General Motors Co. ignition-switch case collapsed midtrial in New York, Robert Hilliard, the lead plaintiff's attorney, reflected on what went wrong -- and what lessons he learned. The credibility of Hilliard's client, Robert Scheuer of Oklahoma, came under attack after GM's lawyers obtained evidence of a fabricated check and other materials that conflicted with his trial testimony. "It goes under the secret lies of people," Mr. Hilliard told The National Law Journal. "You do --everything you can to learn everything you can, and if they're determined not to be forthright, sometimes you just can't discover it." At trial, Mr. Scheuer blamed the 2014 crash of his Saturn Ion on an ignition-switch defect, over which GM recalled 2.6 million cars and trucks worldwide. The case was the first bellwether trial over GM's ignition switch. The interview with Hilliard of Corpus Christi, Texas-based Hilliard Munoz Gonzales, was edited for length and clarity. The NLJ: In the past, you've slammed some GM actions as "all saddle and no horse." This description might be appropriate for the Scheuer case. Candidly, what happened? Hilliard: We had vetted this plaintiff pretty thoroughly. This issue that came up at trial was one even GM had missed completely until someone called their hotline in the middle of trial. And the plaintiff had testified for many hours, honestly and directly on cross-examination, about very embarrassing previous medical conditions. And so there was simply no indication that apparently he had sent a text picture of a check that must have been doctored to a realtor so he could prove to the realtor he had funds necessary to buy the house. NLJ: Although nobody accused plaintiffs lawyers of knowing about the apparent fraud, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman did raise concerns about failures in discovery and vetting. What could you have done differently? Hilliard: We had no reason on such a minor issue when turning over all the rocks on big issues to believe we should chase down a realtor whose name we didn't know and [who'd] never been identified until he contacted GM and confirmed that part of the story. I didn't see any red flags. I had a team of very experienced lawyers who didn't see red flags. I had a team in Oklahoma who didn't see red flags. They had people all over Oklahoma, all over this little town, turning up everything they could, and they never found this guy. I wish the judge was right -- that with more discovery we would have found it -- but there was simply no way. NLJ: Furman also raised questions about whether this case was representative of the hundreds of other lawsuits pending against GM. Why did you consider this case a good bellwether? Hilliard: There was no subjective testimony from anyone including the plaintiff necessary to prove the engineering and mathematical science. GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Multiple 2016 Vehicle Models ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 9, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Structure Units affected: 88 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015591TC ID number: 2015591 Manufacturer recall number: 21930 On certain vehicles, the third row left lower seat frame may have welds that are not in the correct location. In the event of a crash, the seat may not perform as intended, which could increase the risk of occupant injury. Correction: Dealers will inspect and replace the lower seat frame as necessary. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- GMC ACADIA 2016 BUICK ENCLAVE 2016 CHEVROLET TRAVERSE 2016 GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Sierra 2016 Models Due to Crash Risk ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: December 9, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Light Truck & Van Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 6 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015590TC ID number: 2015590 Manufacturer recall number: 15794 On certain vehicles, a mounting stud used to secure the airbag sensing and diagnostic module (SDM) to the vehicle may have been incorrectly positioned during the assembly process. This could stress the SDM housing and cause it to fracture which could potentially allow water to enter the SDM and cause it to malfunction. If the SDM does not perform as intended, it could increase the risk of occupant injury in the event of a crash. Correction: Dealers will send the affected vehicles to a repair facility which will relocate the mounting stud and replace the SDM. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- GMC SIERRA 2016 GILEAD SCIENCES: Massachusetts AG to Probe Hep C Drug Costs ----------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Pollack, writing for The New York Times, reports that the attorney general of Massachusetts said on Jan. 27 that she had opened an inquiry into whether Gilead Sciences had violated state consumer protection laws by charging too much for its hepatitis C drugs. The notification, which was contained in a letter to the company from the attorney general, Maura Healey, is the latest challenge to the practices of Gilead, which has become the largest and most profitable biotechnology company by dominating the market for drugs used to treat both H.I.V. and hepatitis C. On Jan. 26, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a nonprofit organization that treats patients with H.I.V. and AIDS, filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate patents covering the new version of Gilead's mainstay H.I.V. drug, tenofovir. The lawsuit also says that Gilead, to maximize product life span but to the detriment of patients, delayed the introduction of the new, safer version of tenofovir until the old version was about to lose patent protection. The hepatitis C drugs, Sovaldi and Harvoni, are widely considered breakthroughs -- curing most patients in 12 weeks with few side effects. B ut Sovaldi has a list price of $1,000 per daily pill, or $84,000 for 12 weeks, and Harvoni costs $94,500. Those prices, and the great demand for the drugs, have strained the budgets of state Medicaid programs and prison systems, forcing many of them to restrict treatment to those most seriously ill. In her letter to Gilead's chief executive, John C. Martin, Ms. Healey said her office was examining whether Gilead's pricing would be an "unfair trade practice," in violation of Massachusetts law. "Because Gilead's drugs offer a cure for a serious and life- threatening infectious disease, pricing the treatment in a manner that effectively allows H.C.V. to continue spreading through vulnerable populations, as opposed to eradicating the disease altogether, results in massive public harm," she wrote, referring to the hepatitis C virus by its initials. The letter does not go into detail on how Gilead's pricing might violate the state law. A lawsuit filed by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, which said Gilead's high prices violated a California law against unfair competition, was dismissed by a federal judge. However, Ms. Healey's letter suggests her real intent was not to sue Gilead but to persuade it to voluntarily lower its prices. Gilead said on Jan. 27 that it had contacted the attorney general to request a meeting to address questions and "ensure a mutual understanding of the work we are doing to deliver a cure for H.C.V. to as many patients as possible." Gilead has argued that the prices are justified by the value provided by the drugs, curing a disease that gradually destroys the liver. Use of Sovaldi or Harvoni can stave off more expensive ailments, like liver cancer or the need for a liver transplant, down the road. The company has also argued that there are usually substantial discounts offered from the list prices, though these are typically kept secret. Insurers and others have bargained for discounts by pitting Gilead against its main competitor, AbbVie. Such bargaining should intensify with the expected regulatory approval of a new hepatitis C pill from Merck. One motivation for Ms. Healey's letter was a class-action lawsuit filed against Massachusetts' Department of Correction asking for more inmates to be treated for hepatitis C. Ms. Healey's letter said that treating everyone at the list price of Sovaldi would "easily exceed our entire budget for prisoner health care." In the H.I.V. area, Gilead has become the leading vendor based on products that combine three or four drugs into a single pill taken once a day. The bedrock drug in all those combinations has been tenofovir, which will lose patent protection in December 2017, allowing lower-priced generics to be sold. Gilead is moving to replace tenofovir in the combination pills with a modified version called tenofovir alafenamide, usually called TAF, which will have longer patent protection. TAF is more potent than tenofovir and it causes fewer side effects, particularly kidney and bone damage. The Food and Drug Administration approved the first drug containing TAF, called Genvoya, in November. In its lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court for Northern California, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation says that TAF is an obvious modification of tenofovir intended to stave off generic competition and therefore does not deserve patent protection. The lawsuit also claims that Gilead is not releasing TAF as a stand-alone drug because its patents would be too easily challenged by generic companies. By contrast, the original tenofovir is sold as a single drug under the name Viread. The lack of a stand-alone TAF makes it impossible for doctors to use that one drug in a combination with non-Gilead drugs, the suit says. The foundation, which has had a series of disputes with Gilead, also says that the company did not start clinical trials on TAF until 2011, despite presenting animal data 10 years earlier. "They waited 10 years to actually release this, and coincidentally it's one year before the patent on tenofovir expires," Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, said in an interview. "You consider how many people have suffered kidney damage and bone loss during that time." A Gilead spokeswoman said that the company believed the patents on TAF were valid. She said the company had recently filed for regulatory approval of a stand-alone version of TAF -- albeit as a treatment for hepatitis B, not H.I.V. "TAF is a novel compound," she said. "We have been and continue to work hard to develop improved H.I.V. therapies, without delay." GLAVAL: Recalls Wheelchair Lifts Due to Injury Risk --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 7, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Bus Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Structure Units affected: 10 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015582TC ID number: 2015582 On certain busses equipped with a Ricon S-Series wheelchair lift, the platform could potentially crack due to bent knuckle link arms and/or defective bearing. Overtime, the platform could separate of the rear portion of the pivot plate making the lift inoperable and putting the lift operator at risk of injury. Correction: Owners will need to make an appointment with the local Ricon Dealer to have the lift inspected and repaired. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- GLAVAL UNIVERSAL 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 GLAVAL TITAN 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 GLAVAL ENTOURAGE 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 GROUPE JEAN: Recalls Seasonal Lights Due to Shock Hazard -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 11, 2015 Posting date: December 11, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items, Tools and Electrical Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fire Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-56264 This recall involves various MAGI Decor brand seasonal lights. Product Product No. UPC ------- ----------- --- MAGI Decor white 590396 884118246440 indoor string lights - 100 miniature lights MAGI Decor 587674 884118164331 multicolour lights- 70 indoor/outdoor C-6 LED lights MAGI Decor white 587675 884118164324 lights - 70 indoor/outdoor C-6 LED lights MAGI Decor red 587676 884118164317 lights - 70 indoor/outdoor C-6 LED lights MAGI Decor blue 587677 884118164300 lights - 70 indoor/outdoor C-6 LED lights MAGI Decor red, 135751 884118246037 green and white lights - 70 indoor/outdoor C-6 LED lights MAGI Decor blue 135752 884118246044 and white lights - 70 indoor/outdoor C-6 LED lights MAGI Decor white 135753 884118246051 outdoor string lights - 100 miniature lights MAGI Decor 135758 884118246105 multicolour lights - 70 indoor/outdoor M-5 LED lights MAGI Decor pure 135759 884118246112 white lights - 70 indoor/outdoor M-5 LED lights Consumers can locate CSA file number 263917 on the self-adhesive tags affixed to the product's wire, as well as the product numbers and UPC codes on the product's packaging. Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined that the seasonal lights may pose an overheating, fire and shock hazard to consumers. Neither Health Canada nor Jean Coutu Group (PJC) Inc. has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these products. Approximately 15,500 units were sold in Canada. The recalled products were sold from September 2015 to December 2015. Manufactured in China. Importer: Groupe Jean Coutu (PJC) Inc. Longueuil Quebec CANADA Manufacturer: Ningbo Ego International Co. Ltd. 3/F, No.168 East Road Songjiang, Yinzhou Area, Ningbo Zhejiang 315100 CHINA Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled seasonal lights and return them to a Jean Coutu store to obtain a refund. For more information, consumers may contact Jean Coutu Group (PJC) Inc. by telephone at 450-646-9611 from Monday to Friday between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST, or by email. 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/BwgMar GW PHARMA: Adler Freeman Files Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of all persons or entities who purchased GW Pharmaceuticals plc ("GW Pharmaceuticals" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:GWPH) American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") between December 4, 2014 and January 8, 2016 (the "Class Period"), inclusive. Shareholders who incurred losses on shares purchased within the class period are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. If you purchased the shares of GW Pharmaceuticals during the period December 4, 2014 and January 8, 2016, inclusive, you may, no later than March 21, 2016, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. On January 10, 2016, the Sunday Times of London reported that GW Pharmaceuticals had disclosed in its annual report for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, that the Company's internal financial controls were not effective as of September 30, 2015, and further disclosed that management had determined that it lacked effective controls over its clinical trials. Specifically, that the annual report stated management lacked sufficient control to: (1) evaluate the completeness and accuracy of the calculation of clinical trial accruals due to the incorrect allocation of expenditure to clinical studies; or (2) ensure completeness of clinical trial accruals in connection with contractual progress payment liabilities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Patrick Donovan, Esq. Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis Email: gstone@whafh.com donovan@whafh.com classmember@whafh.com Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 HALLIBURTON CO: Erica P John Fund Suit Sent to N.D. Tex. -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Erica P John Fund Inc et al. v. Halliburton Company et al., Case No. 2:16-mc-00013, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16- mc-00009-M-BK to the proceeding. Halliburton is an American multinational corporation, and one of the world's largest oil field services companies, with operations in more than 80 countries. It owns hundreds of subsidiaries, affiliates, branches, brands, and divisions worldwide and employs approximately 70,000 people. The company has dual headquarters located in Houston and in Dubai. The Defendant is represented by: Patrick R. Day, Esq. JoAnna S. DeWald, Esq. HOLLAND & HART 2515 Warren Avenue, Suite 450 P O Box 1347 Cheyenne, WY 82003-1347 Telephone: (307) 778 4200 Facsimile: (307) 778 8175 E-mail: pday@hollandhart.com jsdewald@hollandhart.com - and - Simon A Latcovich, Esq. Terrance O'Donnell, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 12th Street N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 434 5000 E-mail: slatcovich@wc.com todonnell@wc.com HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Massage Therapist Files Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Nathaniel J. Hiatt, writing for The Crimson, reports that Kara Donohoe, a massage therapist for Harvard University Health Services' Center for Wellness, filed a class action lawsuit against Harvard on Jan. 25, alleging that the University has misclassified her and other employees as independent contractors, thereby denying them benefits. The lawsuit aims to recover damages for wages and benefits -- among them paid vacation, paid holidays, sick days, and the ability to take Harvard classes at a discounted price -- for the purportedly misclassified workers, which include Ms. Donohoe and "all other similarly situated," according to the lawsuit. "I would hope that Harvard would give us benefits, and I would hope that everyone else who is being misclassified at Harvard would come forward," said Ms. Donohoe, a Harvard employee for more than 11 years. "It's sad to me that these people are working just as hard as everyone else and not getting benefits." Shannon E. Liss-Riordan '90, the attorney for the case and a former Crimson editor, claims that the workers' services are performed "in the employer's usual course of business," which would qualify the workers as employees under Massachusetts state law. The Massachusetts law is three-pronged: a worker is considered a contractor if he or she is not under direction of superiors, is not part of the "usual course of business" of the employer, or has an independent business separate from their work from the employer in question. "The burden is on defendants to prove all three prongs of the law in order to prove that someone is an independent contractor," Ms. Liss-Riordan said. "Harvard would have to prove all three things." For determining whether a worker is an employee or contractor, "Massachusetts happens to have one of the strongest tests in the country," Ms. Liss-Riordan said. She added that the Massachusetts test is more protective of employees than the federal equivalent. The lawsuit could be costly to the University depending on how many plaintiffs come forward in the lawsuit. If Harvard violates Massachusetts wage law, it must pay workers three times the amount of wages that were denied to them, plus reimbursements. Ms. Liss-Riordan, who has sued the University in the past and is currently involved in a lawsuit against Uber, believes that there are "likely many other employees around Harvard who have been misclassified as contractors," although she did not know exactly how many. Employee status would also allow the plaintiffs to join a union, something Ms. Donohoe said she would "love to" do but is currently not allowed as a contractor. Ms. Donohoe began researching the distinction between employees and contractors this winter break, when she and her coworkers had to take two weeks of mandatory unpaid vacation. "I love what I do. I love my coworkers and we have a community that really utilizes us," Ms. Donohoe said. "I just wish therapists could really get acknowledged for our hard work." Lindsey Baker, spokesperson for Harvard University Health Services, wrote in an email that the University "cannot comment on personnel matters or pending litigation." HOME MAID: Recalls Meat and Poultry Ravioli and Pasta Products -------------------------------------------------------------- Home Maid Ravioli Company, Inc., a South San Francisco, Calif. establishment, is recalling approximately 38,950 pounds of meat and poultry ravioli and pasta products produced without the benefit of federal inspection and due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. Some of the products contain whey, a known allergen, and pork, neither of which are declared on the product labels. The Home Maid brand ravioli and pasta items were produced on various dates between Sept. 18, 2015, and Jan. 20, 2016. The following products are subject to recall: --- 15-oz. cardboard boxed packages containing 54 pieces of "Ravioli." --- 12-oz. cardboard boxed packages of "Ravioli." --- 5-lb. bagged and boxed packages of "Ravioli with Sauce." --- 10-lb. bagged and boxed packages of "Ravioli with Sauce." --- 12-oz. cardboard boxed packages containing 24 pieces of "Deluxe Ravioli." --- 12-oz. cardboard boxed packages containing 24 pieces of "Jumbo Deluxe Ravioli." --- 12-oz. cardboard boxed packages containing 24 pieces of "Jumbo Ravioli." --- 12-oz. cardboard boxed packages containing 48 pieces of "Ravioli Seasoned w Sausage." --- 12-oz. cardboard boxed packages containing 24 pieces of "Ravioli Seasoned w Chicken." --- 12-oz. plastic containers of "Ravioli and Spaghetti Italian Style Sauce." --- 1-qt. plastic containers of "Italian Style Pasta Sauce." --- 1-gal. plastic containers of "Italian Style Pasta Sauce." --- 10-lb. bagged and boxed packages of "Cheese Tortellini in Sauce." --- 5-lb. bagged and boxed packages of "Cheese Ravioli in Sauce." --- 10-lb. bagged and boxed packages of "Cheese Ravioli in Sauce." --- 10-lb. bagged and boxed packages of "Chicken Ravioli with Sauce, Pesto." --- 10-lb. bagged and boxed packages of "Chicken Ravioli with Sauce, Marinara Sauce." --- 5-lb. bagged and boxed packages of "Spaghetti with Sauce." 10-lb. bagged and boxed packages of "Spaghetti with Sauce." --- 5-lb. bagged and boxed packages of "Rigatoni with Sauce." --- 10-lb. bagged and boxed packages of "Rigatoni with Sauce." These items were shipped to wholesale and retail locations in California. The firm operates under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); however, the products subject to recall contain meat and poultry amounts that are amenable to FSIS. The problem was discovered by FSIS during a review of products at a different federal plant. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. HOME MAID: Recalls Beef Ravioli Products Due to Misbranding ----------------------------------------------------------- Home Maid Ravioli Company, Inc., a San Francisco, Calif. establishment, is recalling approximately 34,200 pounds of beef ravioli products due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products contain whey, a known allergen, and pork, neither of which are declared on the product labels. The products were also produced without the benefit of federal inspection. The Home Maid ravioli items were produced on various dates between Sept. 20, 2015, and Jan. 15, 2016. The following products are subject to recall: --- 15-oz. cardboard boxed packages containing 54 pieces of "Ravioli." --- 12-oz. cardboard boxed packages of "Ravioli." --- 5-lb. bagged and boxed packages of "Ravioli with Sauce." --- 10-lb. bagged and boxed packages of "Ravioli with Sauce." --- 12-oz. cardboard boxed packages containing 24 pieces of "Deluxe Ravioli." --- 12-oz. cardboard boxed packages containing 24 pieces of "Jumbo Deluxe Ravioli." --- 12-oz. cardboard boxed packages containing 24 pieces of "Jumbo Ravioli." --- 12-oz. cardboard boxed packages containing 48 pieces of "Ravioli Seasoned w Sausage." --- 12-oz. cardboard boxed packages containing 24 pieces of "Ravioli Seasoned w Chicken." --- 12-oz. plastic containers of "Ravioli and Spaghetti Italian Style Sauce." --- 1-qt. plastic containers of "Italian Style Pasta Sauce." --- 1-gal. plastic containers of "Italian Style Pasta Sauce." These items were shipped to retail locations in California. The firm operates under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); however the products subject to recall are amenable. The problem was discovered by FSIS during a review of products at a different federal plant. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls HONDA: Recalls Multiple Motorcycle Models Due to Injury Risk ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: December 4, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorcycle Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Powertrain Units affected: 254 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015577TC ID number: 2015577 On certain motorcycles, the driveshaft universal joint may not have been properly assembled and/or may not have adequate durability as the result of manufacturing errors. An incorrectly assembled or prematurely worn universal joint bearing may generate enough heat to decrease the strength of the bearing shell, which may cause the yokes to separate or the universal joint to break. If the joint breaks, it is possible it may interfere with the swing arm and lock the rear wheel while riding. Either outcome could result in loss of control and/or a crash, increasing the risk of injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace the original driveshaft with an updated drive shaft. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- HONDA 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 HOUSE OF FLAVORS: Recalls Cookie Butter Ice Cream Due to Nuts ------------------------------------------------------------- House of Flavors, Inc. is voluntarily recalling a small batch of 8 oz. cups of Purple Cow Limited Edition Cookie Butter Ice Cream, sold at Meijer stores, that contain Purple Cow Butter Pecan Ice Cream with a Purple Cow Butter Pecan lid. Consumers who may have a severe allergy or sensitivity to nuts run the risk of potentially life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. For consumers who are not allergic to nuts, there is no safety issue with this product. The company is conducting an internal audit to determine possible cause. To date, there has been one complaint and no illnesses reported related to the recalled product. Only 8 oz. cups of Purple Cow Limited Edition Cookie Butter that contain Purple Cow Butter Pecan Ice Cream with a Purple Cow Butter Pecan lid sold at Meijer with UPC Code 13733 61945 and marked Best By November 21, 2016 are affected by the recall. The product was sold at Meijer stores in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. No other Purple Cow products sold at Meijer stores are involved in the recall. House of Flavors and Meijer are taking precautionary steps, including removing all potentially-impacted products from Meijer shelves and the entire distribution system. Consumers who have purchased the recalled products should return them to the store where they were purchased for a full refund. Anyone requiring more information should contact House of Flavors consumer affairs at 1-800-930-7740, extension 2229, Monday through Friday 7 a.m. until 5 p.m. (EST). Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/fzTZST HOUSTON AMERICAN: $7 Million Silverman Settlement Has Final OK -------------------------------------------------------------- Houston American Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a Texas court hs granted final approval of the settlement of the Silverman shareholder class action suit, and as a result, the $7,000,000 litigation settlement payable and the related insurance claim receivable were each reflected as settled on the Company's balance sheet at September 30, 2015. On April 27, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and certain of its executive officers: Steve Silverman v. Houston American Energy Corp. et al., Case No. 4:12-CV-1332. The complaint generally alleged that, between March 29, 2010 and April 18, 2012, all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 and the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in making materially false and misleading statements including certain statements related to the status and viability of the Tamandua #1 well on the Company's CPO 4 prospect. Two additional class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in May 2012. The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On September 20, 2012, the court consolidated the class action lawsuits and appointed a lead plaintiff and, on November 15, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint, among other things, expanded the putative class period to November 9, 2009 to April 18, 2012 and added allegations challenging a November 2009 estimate concerning the CPO 4 prospect. On January 14, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss and, on August 22, 2013, the court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal of the complaint. On July 15, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the case. The appellate court ruling focused on the sufficiency of the pleadings in the case, made no determination regarding the merits of the factual allegations, and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In October 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated lawsuit. The settlement, which provided for a $7,000,000 payment expected to be fully funded by the Company's insurance, was subject to preliminary and final approval of the court. The parties submitted the settlement to the court for approval on December 31, 2014. The court signed an order on April 16, 2015 preliminarily approving the settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Company, through its insurer, was required to escrow settlement funds in the amount of $7,000,000. In May 2015, the Company's insurer deposited the required funds into an escrow account to fund the settlement. On July 29, 2015, the court rendered a final judgment approving the settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice. HUNGARY: U.S. Court Revives Holocaust Survivors' Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Sam Hananel, writing for ABC News, reports that a federal appeals court gave new life to a lawsuit by a group of Holocaust survivors seeking damages from Hungary for its role in the deaths of more than 500,000 Jews during World War II. The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said a 1947 peace treaty between the Allied powers and Hungary does not give Hungarian officials immunity from the lawsuit. A federal judge had dismissed the case in 2014, saying it would conflict with the treaty's terms. The lawsuit filed by 14 survivors, including four living in the United States, accuses the Hungarian government and its national railway of collaborating with the Nazis to transport Jews to death camps and seize their property. The case now returns to the lower court, which still must consider whether the case can move forward before the survivors exhaust their legal options in Hungary. In a similar lawsuit against Hungary filed in Chicago, a federal appeals court there ruled in 2015 that survivors and heirs must first pursue legal action in Hungarian courts. Writing for the court in Washington, Judge Sri Srinivasan rejected Hungary's arguments that the peace treaty offers the only means for Holocaust victims to seek compensation for property taken during the war. Srinivasan also rejected the government's claims that the case raised political questions that should not be resolved in the courts. "The wartime wrongs inflicted upon Hungarian Jews by the Hungarian government are unspeakable and undeniable," Srinivasan said. He said federal law allows the victims to pursue claims "involving the taking of the plaintiffs' property in the commission of genocide against Hungarian Jews." The survivors filed the lawsuit in 2010 with the goal of pursuing a class-action case against Hungary and its railway on behalf of all Hungarian Holocaust survivors and family members of Holocaust victims. The railroad played a key role in the genocide, transporting more than 400,000 Hungarian Jews to the Auschwitz death camp in Poland over a period of two months in 1944. Twelve of the plaintiffs were sent to Auschwitz or other Nazi concentration camps outside of Hungary and survived the ordeal. INDIANA: Mentally Ill Solitary Confinement Settlement Game Changer ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rick Callahan, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit that targets Indiana's treatment of seriously mentally ill inmates is a game- changer, a plaintiffs' attorney said on Jan. 28, that ensures the state will treat those inmates "the best we can in prison." The agreement, which took three years to reach, bars solitary confinement for most seriously mentally ill state inmates and significantly improves their access to mental health care. If a judge gives final approval to the agreement filed on Jan. 27 in federal court, it will end the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana's long-running suit that alleged solitary confinement violates those inmates' constitutional rights. The other plaintiff is the Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission, an independent state agency. The state Department of Correction has already made most of the improvements detailed in the agreement, representing "a remarkable change in mentality," ACLU of Indiana legal director Ken Falk said. "These are all prisoners who are going to be released and it's to society's advantage to treat their mental illness the best we can in prison," Mr. Falk said on Jan. 28 at a news conference. The agreement shows that the DOC has created or upgraded mental health treatment centers at four of Indiana's prisons and is now providing "minimum adequate treatment" of seriously mentally ill prisoners, including 10 hours per week of therapeutic programming and individual treatment plans for each. The four treatment centers have a total of more than 500 beds. But Mr. Falk said the DOC is still working to move seriously mentally ill inmates out of solitary confinement, which they'll track. The DOC has determined that about 5,600 of its inmates are seriously mentally ill, said Dawn Adams, executive director of the commission. Indiana's attorney general spokesman Bryan Corbin said the settlement's "approval is contingent on the court finding the proposed agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate" under federal rules. If the settlement is approved, Indiana will join several states, including New York, Pennsylvania and Michigan, that in the past decade have limited their use of solitary confinement for mentally ill inmates, often in the face of lawsuits. When the suit was filed in 2008, there were about 600 seriously mentally ill inmates in solitary confinement in Indiana's prisons, Mr. Falk said. Typically punished for fights or other disruptive acts, they were kept alone in a small cell with continuous lighting for 23 hours a day, which sometimes caused those who were mildly ill to develop "profound mental illness," he said. U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt approved class-action status for the suit in 2010. After a 2011 bench trial, she found in December 2012 that Indiana was indeed violating many mentally ill inmates' constitutional rights and ordered the parties to seek a final resolution. Some of the mentally ill inmates had faced six or more months in solitary, Adams said, but the DOC is shifting away from that and those inmates are now receiving needed mental health care. "We want people to leave these facilities being better and not wanting to commit crime. That's what's better overall for everyone," she said. INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: N.J. Court Rejects Motion to Dismiss Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Intercloud Systems, Inc. must defend itself against a securities class action lawsuit after a New Jersey court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. "In March 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against our company, our Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Mark Munro, The DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR, as purported securities advertisers and investor relations firms, and John Mylant, a purported investor and investment advisor," the Company said. "The complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of a class of certain persons who purchased our common stock between November 5, 2013 and March 17, 2014. The complaint alleges violations by the defendants (other than Mark Munro) of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and other related provisions in connection with certain alleged courses of conduct that were intended to deceive the plaintiff and the investing public and to cause the members of the purported class to purchase shares of our common stock at artificially inflated prices based on untrue statements of a material fact or omissions to state material facts necessary to make the statements not misleading. The complaint also alleges that Mr. Munro and our company violated Section 20 of the Exchange Act as controlling persons of the other defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorney and expert fees, and other unspecified litigation costs." On November 3, 2014, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an order appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel and Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP as liaison counsel for the pending actions. The lead filed an amended complaint in January 2015 adding additional third-party defendants. "We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in late January 2015 and the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in early March 2015," the Company said. "We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on March 13, 2015. Our motion to dismiss was denied by the Court on October 29, 2015." JACKSON COUNTY, FL: Settles Compass Lake Subdivision Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Deborah Buckhalter, writing for Jackson County Floridan, reports that a ceasefire appears to have taken hold after a years-long battle over issues related to Compass Lake in the Hills and the special assessment property owners there pay for certain services. Jackson County has agreed to reorganize the taxing unit at Compass Lake in the Hills as part of a settlement agreement reached in a class-action lawsuit filed by James Cowart and Linda Dutch on behalf of themselves and "all others similarly situated" in that subdivision. The agreement calls for the Municipal Services Taxing Unit to be replaced by a different kind of assessment system, a Municipal Services Benefit Unit. The MSBU will carry an annual assessment much lower than that which property owners in the subdivision have paid under the MSTU. A cap of $50 has been set for the first year in the life of the MSBU, which should begin in October, compared to the annual $135 assessment charged under the MSTU. There is cap of $75 for the following four years, with adjustments possible beyond that total after 2020-21 fiscal year. This reduction will save owners roughly $350 over the course of that five-year period, and collectively they'll realize a little more than $2.2 million in savings over the period. The agreement also requires the county to limit the use of the MSBU funds to the care of roads and facilities that benefit all the property owners. It will not, as the MSTU controversially did at points in its existence, fund recreation or law enforcement services. Mr. Cowart and some others in the subdivision have argued for years for changes in the way the monies are used as well as for the termination of the county's contract with the subdivision's Property Owners Association to have that entity manage the budget generated by the MSTU. As part of the settlement, that relationship will end. The class action as filed asked the court to find that the assessment was unlawful because the funds collected were used for certain things that do not provide a benefit to land, which was the purpose of the MSTU, and because it was not, the action argued, fairly distributed for the benefit all the parcels within the MSTU. The complaint also asked the court to order the county to pay restitution of all money paid for the special assessment since June of 2011, four years prior to the day they filed the suit. Law prohibits relief for activities prior to that term. The compromise was reached after several settlement proposals were argued. All property owners who pay into the MSTU must be offered the opportunity to opt in or opt out of the agreement. They'll have 60 days in which to notify the appropriate parties if they choose to object to the terms or request exclusion from the class. If they opt in, they agreed not to pursue any claim against the county regarding the matters covered in the settlement. If they opt out, they retain their right to seek individual relief, but may not use the settlement agreement to make their case in an individual suit. The county retains the right to withdraw from the settlement if more than 318 of the property owners affected opt out and if the governing body determines, because of that circumstance, that it would be in the best interest of the county to regroup and seek other resolution. Any delinquent assessments imposed under the old MSTU will remain due and payable to the county. As part of the agreement, the county has agreed to pay the plaintiffs' attorney's fees of $200,000, and, of that amount, $5,000 each will be paid to Cowart and Dutch as a "service award agreement" amount. The county will also have to pay its own legal fees in the case. That total is not yet available. The settlement did not specify whether the county could use funds from the assessment mechanism to pay any of the legal fees involved. JACOBY & MEYERS: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a federal judge in Newark has denied a motion by Jacoby & Meyers to dismiss a class action suit over its outsourcing of work to a litigation support company partly owned by the firm's managing partner. The judge also denied the firm's motion for sanctions against the plaintiff. The firm's motion to dismiss former client Barbara Smalls' suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was dismissed without prejudice because it constitutes a factual attack and is therefore untimely, as the defendant has not yet filed an answer in the case, U.S. District Judge Jose Linares of the District of New Jersey ruled in Smalls v. Jacoby & Meyers. The plaintiff should be allowed some discovery on the issue of jurisdiction before the motion to dismiss is re-filed, the judge said. Jacoby & Meyers' sanctions motion was denied based on the motion to dismiss being decided in favor of the plaintiff, Judge Linares said. Jurisdictional discovery will help the court sort out the question of whether Ms. Smalls' bill of more than $2,500 from the litigation services company was forgiven as a bookkeeping error, as the defense maintains, or whether it was deleted in order to tactically moot the class action suit, as the plaintiff claims, Linares said. Ms. Smalls, who retained Jacoby & Meyers for representation in a personal injury suit, sued the firm in September 2015 over its use of a company called Total Trial Services to handle certain tasks related to the case. That company is owned in part by Jacoby & Meyers managing partner Andrew Finkelstein -- afinkelstein@jmlawyer.com Ms. Smalls' suit claims work parceled out to TTS includes "the type of services which are reasonably expected to be performed by law firms as part of the services provided under a contingent retainer agreement," according to the complaint. She argues that the arrangement is used to allow plaintiffs counsel to recover more than the 33.3 percent contingency fee specified in her retainer. Jacoby & Meyers negotiated a $100,000 settlement with the insurance carrier for the defendant in Ms. Smalls' auto accident case, but she rejected the offer and the firm withdrew from the case in April 2014. Afterward, she received a bill for $2,527 from TTS for a focus group, exhibits and photographs. Jacoby & Meyers proceeded to obtain a lien against Brown for disbursements and legal fees. After Ms. Smalls sued Jacoby & Meyers, Mr. Finkelstein said in a declaration that the plaintiff was billed by TTS in error and that firm policy is to absorb the cost of TTS disbursements for clients, such as Ms. Smalls, who had not signed an agreement disclosing Finkelstein's interest in TTS. As a result, Jacoby & Meyers claims Ms. Smalls' suit is moot. Ms. Smalls, for her part, argues that her claims are not moot, citing U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case law that says defendants should not try to circumvent a class suit by mooting the named plaintiff's individual claims. Judge Linares said both arguments would need to be revisited in future briefing in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's Jan. 20 ruling in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, which held that an unaccepted settlement offer does not moot a complaint. In that case, the court expressly withheld judgment on whether other circumstances extinguishing the amount claimed or owed may moot a claim, according to Judge Linares. He noted the court's finding that, as long as the parties have "a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot." Joseph Santoli, a Ridgewood lawyer representing Ms. Smalls, said he was pleased that the ruling would allow the plaintiff to look at documents from other clients that were similarly harmed by the billing practices at issue. Mr. Santoli said he will seek to disprove the defendant's argument that the bill from TTS was due to a clerical error. James Cecchi of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello in Roseland did not return a call seeking comment on the ruling. Contact the reporter at ctoutant@alm.com JUBILANT DRAXIMAGE: Recalls Ruby-Fill Rubidium 82 Generators ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: December 7, 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-56244 This unit is recalled due to a Strontium breakthrough. Depth of distribution: One hospital in Alberta Affected products: Ruby-Fill Rubidium 82 Generator DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM Not Applicable Dosage form: Generator Strength: 1X100mCi Lot or serial number: 1570924 Order #450081119 Recalling Firm: Jubilant DraxImage Inc. 16751 Trans-Canada Highway Kirkland H9H 4J4 Quebec CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Jubilant DraxImage Inc. 16751 Trans-Canada Highway Kirkland H9H 4J4 Quebec CANADA KAM WAH: Recalls Walnut Powder Due to Peanut and Soy ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 9, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Peanut, Allergen - Soy Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Kam Wah Resources Co. Ltd. Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail Kam Wah Resources Co. Ltd. is recalling Kaixin brand Walnut Powder from the marketplace because it contains peanut and soy which are not declared on the label. People with an allergy to peanut or soy 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 peanut or soy 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 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 Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Kaixin Walnut 700 g All lots where 6 923624 800686 Powder p peanut and soy are not declared on the label. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/ctW8xJ KEHE FOOD DISTRIBUTORS: "Santana" Suit Sent to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Santana v. Kehe Food Distributors, Inc. et al., Case No. 37-02015-00038351-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No 3:15-cv-02963- LAB-DHB to the proceeding. KEHE Distributors engages in the distribution of natural and organic foods, specialty and gourmet foods, international and multicultural products, fresh products, health products, confections, snacks, and ingredients to retail outlets in North America. The company provides marketing, merchandising, and distribution services, and is based in Naperville, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.D. Henderson, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF J.D. HENDERSON 215 North Marengo Avenue, Suite 322 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 529 5891 E-mail: jdlaw@charter.net - and - Thomas D Rutledge, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS D RUTLEDGE 3555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 201 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 866 7224 Facsimile: (619) 259 5455 E-mail: rutledgelaw@cox.net The Defendant is represented by: Steve Lou Hernandez, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 284 3775 Facsimile: (310) 284 3894 stevelouesq@yahoo.com KENNER, LA: Pay Firefighters' Pension, State Supreme Court Says --------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a new decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court will cost Kenner's government hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more. The court ordered the city to factor in incentive pay, holiday pay and similar compensation when calculating pension contributions for firefighters, The New Orleans Advocate reported. The decision upheld a ruling in 2015 by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal. That ruling reversed a 24th Judicial District Court decision to dismiss the class-action lawsuit, filed in 2010 by a group of firefighters who said they were owed more in pension contributions than Kenner was paying them. The seeds for the dispute were planted in 1999. That's when Kenner merged its municipal firefighters' retirement system with the statewide system. Before then, Kenner based its pension contributions for its firefighters on their basic salary plus supplemental payments the state mandates for full-time employees. After the switch, Kenner didn't modify the way it calculated the contributions. The Supreme Court said forcing the city to consider educational, seniority, holiday and acting pay presented "no genuine issues of material fact," and it affirmed the appellate panel's ruling. Justice Jefferson Hughes of Walker dissented in part, saying neither educational nor seniority incentive pay should matter when it comes to pension contributions. The firefighters' attorney, Louis Robein, praised the high court's ruling. He said it was "extremely meticulous in analyzing the facts and very strong in its application of pension laws affecting all public employees." It is unclear exactly how much the decision will cost the city. How much each of the 90 or so plaintiffs will get in adjusted pension contributions depends on numerous variables, said Kenner's attorney in the case, Alvin Bordelon. Robein said the $832,000 figure cited by the city earlier in the case was "a good baseline." LENOVO: Class Action Over Battery Life Dismissed ------------------------------------------------ Lauren K. Ohnesorge, writing for Triangle Business Journal, reports that a class action lawsuit over Lenovo's battery life has come to an end after nearly a year of motions. The class action suit, filed in February, alleged that Lenovo, which bases its PC business in Morrisville, misrepresented the battery life of its Yoga 2 Pro laptop. The lead plaintiff, Orlando Medeiros says in his complaint that Lenovo's website assured customers that the battery would last up to nine hours, but claims it "generally provided only four to five, or at most, six hours of battery life on a full charge." According to a statement put out by K&L Gates, the firm representing Lenovo, Medeiros had lauded the laptop on social media anyway. "The named plaintiff had posted that with a few adjustments, he could achieve more than 9 hours and that he 'loved' his laptop," a statement from K&L Gates reads. In the end, it didn't matter, according to the final decree of Leo Sorokin, the judge in Massachusetts hearing the case. As the judge points out in his ruling, Medeiros doesn't detail whether he put Lenovo on notice regarding a warranty, "or that he gave Lenovo any time at all to cure the alleged breach." Judge Sorokin dismissed the case Jan. 27. LIFE FITNESS: Judge Denies FLSA Class Certification Motion ---------------------------------------------------------- Mark Tabakman, Esq. -- mtabakman@foxrothschild.com -- of Fox Rotschilds, reports that some months back, a federal judge has just denied the motion to conditionally certify a proposed class of personal trainers and instructors. A FLSA class action was filed against Life Time Fitness based on a theory that personal trainers were compelled to work off-the-clock and were not paid. The Judge found that their allegedly improper working conditions varied too much from employee to employee to permit the conditional certification of the class. The case is entitled Steger et al. v. LTF Club Operations Co. Inc. et al., and was filed in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois. U.S. District Judge Sharon J. Coleman concluded that assessing the workers' claims would mandate "highly individualized" scrutiny and defenses because the employees were paid pursuant to a complicated commission system, thereby rendering a collective action inefficient. The Court noted that testimony from the workers demonstrated that their working conditions varied, again requiring individualized attention. The Judge wrote that "the pressure that each [personal trainer] felt to work off the clock depended on his or her location, his or her job title and responsibilities, his or her department head at the particular moment, his or her productivity, and his or her personal decisions." She asserted that "although two putative plaintiffs might share one or two of these factors in common, a highly individualized analysis would nonetheless be necessary to determine the extent to which each employee worked off the clock and whether that conduct was attributable to Life Time." The proposed class would have stretched to more than one-hundred locations across the country, going back to 2011. The Judge did find that the supervisors of the employees received commissions based on department revenues and she did note that some of these supervisors pressured their employees to report fewer hours so as to minimize the "draws" taken from their particular division's cash flow. Countered against this was the undisputed fact that the Employee Handbook required workers to report all hours worked. Moreover, the testimony indicated that the five job titles sought for inclusion in the proposed class did not have "substantially identical" experiences. Thus, the Court denied the motion. The Takeaway The employer's best defense (sometimes, indeed, the only defense) is that a class is inappropriate because there is too much of a need for individual scrutiny. Consider what was at stake -- more than one hundred locations, nationwide, and several hundred employees. The potential liability for the employer would have been staggering, but now that possibility is (likely) gone forever. The employer still has some stuff to clean up here, as noted by the Judge. But now it has the time to do it. Thanks to the magic bullet defense! LIME ENERGY: Insurer Paid $2.5MM Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Lime Energy Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the entire $2.5 million payable pursuant to the settlement of a securities class action lawsuit has been paid by the Company's insurance. That case is, Jeffrey Satterfield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Lime Energy Co., John O'Rourke and Jeffrey Mistarz, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:12-cv-05704, An Order of Preliminary Approval of a settlement was filed on January 28, 2014. The parties agreed to settlement terms and an Order of Final Approval and Final Judgment was entered by the court on June 4, 2014. As part of the settlement, the Company agreed to pay $2.5 million into a settlement fund, the entire amount of which was paid by insurance. LUCY'S WEIGHT: Recalls Pink Bikini and Shorts Capsules ------------------------------------------------------ Lucy's Weight Loss System of Arlington, TX, is voluntarily recalling all lots of Pink Bikini and Shorts on the Beach Capsules in all colors, 30 count (750MG per capsule) to the consumer level. Pink Bikini and Shorts on the Beach may contain an undeclared active pharmaceutical ingredient. FDA analysis of Pink Bikini (white capsules, blue capsules and gold capsules) and Shorts on the Beach (blue capsules and gold capsules) found these products to be tainted with Sibutramine, Phenolphthalein, and/or Diclofenac, and that this active ingredients are not declared on the label of the product. Sibutramine is an appetite suppressant that was withdrawn from the U.S. market in October 2010. Sibutramine is known to substantially increase blood pressure and/or pulse rate in some patients and may present a significant risk for patients with a history of coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, arrhythmias, or stroke. Phenophthalein is an ingredient previously used in over-the- counter laxatives, but because of concerns of carcinogenicity, it is not currently approved for marketing in the U.S. Health risks associated with phenolphthalein could include potentially serious gastrointestinal disturbances, irregular heartbeat, and cancer with long-term use. Diclofenac is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). Use of diclofenac in patients already taking NSAIDS, with allergies, with underlying illnesses or with recent cardiac bypass surgery, could lead to gastrointestinal disturbances, fatal heart attack or stroke. Out of an abundance of caution, Lucy's Weight Loss System is recommending that Pink Bikini and Shorts on the Beach, in all strengths and pill colors not be consumed, as they may contain any of these undeclared active pharmaceutical ingredients and/or an unknown active pharmaceutical ingredient. Any of these undeclared ingredients would make this product an unapproved new drug for which safety and efficacy have not been established. Lucy's Weight Loss System has not received any complaints to date. The product is marketed as a weight loss dietary supplement and is packaged in clear bottle in multiple color capsules. The affected Pink Bikini and Shorts on the Beach lots include the following expiration date 7/30/2017. These products were distributed nationwide to consumers via PinkBikini.BigCartel.com and Waisted With Lucy Retail store. Lucy's Weight Loss System is notifying its customers by Press Release and email. Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact Lucy's Weight Loss System by phone (682)-308-0199 or email PBFITME@gmail.com on Monday thru Friday 10:00am to 5:30pm CST. Consumers that have recalled Pink Bikini and Shorts on the Beach should stop using and discard. Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking or using this drug product. Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax. Complete and submit the report Online: FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program Regular Mail or Fax: Download form www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178 This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. MAHINA MELE: Recalls Macadamia Nut Products Due to Salmonella ------------------------------------------------------------- Mahina Mele Farms, LLC is recalling the following products after FDA testing found Salmonella in macadamia nuts. Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. The following products are involved in the recall. They were distributed to retail stores in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Maryland, and Virginia from Oct 21-Nov 25, 2015 and involve three lot numbers 026, 027, 029. PRODUCT UPC LOT # SIZE ------- --- ----- ---- Izzie Macs! Macadamia Nuts 689076792677 026,027,029 6oz (salted) plastic bag Izzie Macs! Macadamia Nuts 689076793575 026,027,029 6oz (unsalted) plastic bag Izzie Macs! Macadamia Nuts 689076792776 026,027,029 16oz (unsalted) plastic bag Izzie Macs! Macadamia Nuts 689076792974 026,027,029 16oz (salted) plastic bag Bulk Macadamia nuts - 026,027,029 5lb bag (salted and unsalted; wholes and pieces) Baby Bruddah's Mac Nut Buttah 753182242019 026,027,029 12oz plastic tub Baby Bruddah's Chocolate Mac 73518224204 026,027,029 12oz Nut Buttah plastic tub To date, no illnesses have been reported in connection with these products. In the interest of public health and safety, we are recalling all products processed from this batch of macadamia nuts. Customers who have purchased the above products should not consume them and should return them to the store where they were purchased for a full refund or replacement. Mahina Mele Farms, LLC will reimburse the wholesaler for any returned product. These products were shipped between Oct. 21 and Nov 25, 2015 and are from LOTS 026, 027, 029. If you have any questions, call Jason or Kollette Stith at 808 328 8987, Monday-Friday, 8-4 HST This recall is being made with the knowledge of the Food and Drug Administration. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/qOaw5h MASTER HERBS: Recalls Licorice Coughing Liquid Due to Morphine -------------------------------------------------------------- Master Herbs, Inc. is voluntarily recalling ALL LOTS of Licorice Coughing Liquid, cough syrup in 100 ml bottles to the consumer level. This product has been found to contain morphine, which is an opioid, and it is not declared on the label. Opioid is an ingredient of Compound Camphor. Compound Camphor is declared on the label of the product, but not its ingredients. Consumers using this product may not be aware they are ingesting morphine. The unware ingestion of morphine can lead to life- threatening respiratory depression and death. Because the morphine contained in this product is not identified on the label there is a risk that patients who are hypersensitive to morphine could suffer severe allergic reactions. In addition young children with a respiratory illness are vulnerable to respiratory depression from opioids and should not be exposed to morphine in any event. To this date Master Herbs, Inc. is not aware of adverse events associated with use of the product. The product is used for the temporary relief of cough due to cold, minor throat and bronchial irritations. The product can also be identified by the Chinese Product Name:Licorice Coughing Liquid The product was distributed to Chinese grocery stores in various cities in California, New Jersey, Hawaii, Illinois, Ohio and Nevada. Master Herbs, Inc. is notifying its distributors and customers by phone or fax and is arranging for return of all recalled products. Consumers that have product which is being recalled should stop using the product and return it to place of purchase. Retailer and wholesalers should stop distributing the product, quarantine any remaining inventory and make arrangements to return the product. Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact Master Herbs, Inc. by phone at 626-319-9915 Monday through Friday from 10:00am - 5:00pm PST or anytime via email at 999herbs@gmail.com. Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they believe they have experienced any adverse events related with use of this product. Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax. Complete and submit the report Online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm Regular Mail or Fax: Download form www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178. This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/zAo3go MICHAEL KORS: $4.9MM Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a federal judge is set to give final approval to a nearly $4.9 million class-action settlement against Michael Kors Inc. for allegedly using misleading pricing in its outlet stores. Tags in the outlet stores listed prices as discounts from "original prices" or manufacturer's suggested retail prices that were never used, according to the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York. Class counsel Jeff Ostrow -- ostrow@kolawyers.com -- of Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg in Fort Lauderdale said he thinks the settlement will be a catalyst for change across the retail industry. "We've got seven or eight cases that are similar out there against other retailers that have outlets, and this is the first settlement of its kind," he said. "I believe it's going to change the entire industry, where all of these retailers are ultimately going to go with a fair pricing scheme." Mr. Ostrow's firm is involved in similar cases against Columbia, DSW, Guess, Kenneth Cole, Levi's and Nordstrom. Mr. Ostrow worked with his colleague Scott Edelsberg on the Michael Kors case. U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III indicated at a hearing on Jan. 29 that he planned to issue final approval in the next week or so. Class counsel asked for one-quarter of the $4.875 million settlement for attorney fees and costs. Michael Kors agreed as part of the settlement to change its pricing practices in outlet stores. Price tags will no longer refer to an "original price" or "MSRP." In-store signs will describe how pricing is determined for items sold in the outlets. NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Super Bowl Ticket Class Suit Dismissal Upheld ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that weeks ahead of Super Bowl 50, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that a federal court was correct to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed against the National Football League for allegedly violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act in selling Super Bowl tickets. A three-judge panel of the Third Circuit, in its Jan. 14 opinion, affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey's 2015 ruling, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue in federal court. "Many of us have felt the disappointment of wanting to attend a concert or athletic event only to discover that the event has sold out. When an artist or sports team is especially popular, the gap between the supply of tickets and the demand for those tickets can be enormous. Some people will be able to attend such an event; others will not," Judge Julio Fuentes wrote for the panel. "The Super Bowl is perhaps the ultimate example of an event where demand for tickets exceeds supply." According to plaintiffs Josh Finkelman and Ben Hoch-Parker's complaint, filed in the federal court January 2014, every year the NFL prints "tens of thousands of Super Bowl tickets, yet it only allocates a meager one percent of these tickets for release to the general public through a lottery system, forcing all other fans into a secondary market for the tickets where they must pay substantially more than the ticket's face value to attend one of the most popular and iconic sporting events of the year." The plaintiffs argued the profits from these secondary market sales are returned to the NFL and its franchisees in lucrative contracts with secondary ticket buyers who must purchase large blocks of tickets to regular season games of a franchise team to secure a small allotment of Super Bowl tickets. They argued the secondary market buyer then enhances their profitability by packaging their tickets into expensive deals requiring the interested fan to purchase extras, such as multi- night minimum stay hotel rooms, pre-game parties and limousine services. The practice of withholding all but one percent of its tickets to the general public constitutes a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Messrs. Finkelman and Hoch-Parker argued. But the Third Circuit said the case came down to whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring the case in federal court -- not a ticket law that is "rarely litigated." "Our inquiry is more basic. Just as the realities of supply and demand mean that not everyone who wants to attend a popular event will be able to do so, federal courts, too, are not open to everyone who might want to litigate in them," Judge Fuentes explained in the 39-page ruling. "Our courts are courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction, empowered by Article III of the Constitution to hear only 'cases' and 'controversies.' "Over time, those words have come to signify certain minimum requirements that are necessary to establish constitutional standing. These requirements are unyielding. Plaintiffs who are able to establish them will be able to sue in federal courts; others will not." Neither Mr. Finkelman nor Mr. Hoch-Parker have constitutional standing to sue in federal court, the Third Circuit concluded. "Were we to decide otherwise, anyone who purchased a Super Bowl ticket on the resale market would have standing to sue in federal court based on nothing more than conjectural assertions of causation and injury. Article III requires more," Judge Fuentes wrote. On Dec. 30, 2013, Mr. Finkelman purchased two tickets to Super Bowl XLVIII for $2,000 per ticket, which was "far in excess" of the face value of the tickets, according to the lawsuit. Mr. Hoch-Parker considered purchasing Super Bowl tickets, but ultimately decided not to because of the cost. Bruce H. Nagel of Nagel Rice LLP, which represented the plaintiffs, said in filing the litigation that fans are "getting squeezed" by the NFL's ticket sales policy. NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Trilogy Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Trilogy Holding, LLC et al. v. National Football League, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08188, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-10000-BRO-JEM to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly allow the NFL to unlawfully monopolize the market for live video presentation of professional football games in violation of Sherman Act. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief putting an end to this anticompetitive scheme and damages. National Football League owns and operates a football league in the United States and internationally. The company offers news, videos, teams, players, scores, schedules, stats, and standings; and online services, such as game rewind, field pass, game pass, and tools and widgets. The league is based in .New York, New York. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel B Rehns, Esq. Jeffrey Benjamin Dubner, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLER AND TOLL PLLC 88 Pine Street 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838 7797 Facsimile: (212) 838 7745 E-mail: drehns@cohenmilstein.com jdubner@cohenmilstein.com The Defendants are represented by: Eric S Hochstadt, Esq. James W Quinn, Esq. Yehudah L Buchweitz, Esq. WEIL GOTSHAL AND MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue 25th Floor New York, NY 10153 Telephone: (212) 310 8000 Facsimile: (212) 310 8007 E-mail: eric.hochstadt@weil.com james.quinn@weil.com yehudah.buchweitz@weil.com NEBRASKA: "Shepard" Suit May Proceed in Forma Pauperis ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Shepard v. State of Nebraska et al., was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska (4 Lincoln). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-03165-JFB-PRSE to the proceeding. The defendants are Ty Lynne Bauers, Shannon Black, Sherri Dawson, Dept of Health & Human Services, Jane and John Does, Lincoln Regional Center, Mental Health Board of Douglas Co., Courtney Miller, Norfolk Regional Center, Stephen O'Neill, Doug Peterson, Sanat Roy and State of Nebraska On Feb. 1, 2016, the Hon. Joseph F. Bataillon granted Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. "The Complaint shall be filed without payment of fees. Plaintiff is advised that the next step in his case will be for the court to conduct an initial review of his claims to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(2). The court will conduct this initial review in its normal course of business. NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Securities Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- Netsol Technologies, Inc. continues to defend a securities class action lawsuit in California, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. On July 25, 2014, purported class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and three of its current or former officers and/or directors, which have been consolidated under the caption Rand-Heart of New York, Inc. v. NetSol Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-05787 PA (SHx). Plaintiffs subsequently filed a consolidated complaint, which asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 premised on allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the Company's next generation product, NFS Ascent, and whether it was truly available on a global basis when stated. After several successful motions by the Company, the Court granted the plaintiff a final opportunity to amend the complaint on a narrowed basis. The amended complaint was filed which contained a much narrowed class period from October 2013 to November 8, 2013, eliminated all but one of the individual defendants from the suit, and limited the scope of the alleged claims. The Company has filed an answer to this final amended complaint. The Company continues to believe the amended allegations are meritless and intends to vigorously defend all claims asserted. The Company has engaged counsel and has liability insurance. Given the early stage of the litigation, however, at this time the Company is unable to form a professional judgment that an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote, and it is not possible to assess whether or not the outcome of these proceedings will or will not have a material adverse effect on the Company. * * * The case caption has been changed to In re Netsol Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:14-CV-5787 PA (PJWX)(C.D. Cal.). On November 30, 2015, District Judge Patrick J. Walsh gave his stamp of approval on a Stipulation Regarding Protective Order for Confidential and Proprietary Information. A copy of that Stipulation is available at http://is.gd/96yhrafrom Leagle.com. Attorneys for Defendants Netsol Technologies, Inc., and Najeeb Ghauri: Sean T. Prosser, Esq. Rick C. Liu, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350 San Diego, CA 92130-2594 E-mail: SProsser@perkinscoie.com RLiu@perkinscoie.com Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Rand-Heart of New York, Inc., Plaintiff Mike Clementi, and the Putative Class: Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON 440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 983-1300 Facsimile: (212) 983-0383 E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Rand-Heart of New York, Inc., Plaintiff Mike Clementi, and the Putative Class: Patrice L. Bishop, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 9430 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 400 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Tel: (212) 687-7230 Fax: (212) 490-2022 E-mail: pbishop@ssbla.com NEW JERSEY: Gibson Wins Motions to Squash Bridgegate Subpoena ------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for The American Lawyer, reports that Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher won motions in December to quash a subpoena of interview notes and metadata originating from its investigation of New Jersey's Bridgegate scandal, but came in for some scathing criticism from the judge on the case. Gibson Dunn's motion to quash the subpoena by Bridgegate defendants William Baroni and Bridget Kelly -- which sought the firm's interview notes, transcripts and recordings from its internal investigation of the case -- was granted because there was no evidence that additional materials responsive to the request exist. The firm's motion to quash the defendants' subpoena of metadata related to the investigation was also granted, based on a finding that the information is available from other sources. But U.S. District Judge Susan Wigenton in Newark criticized the firm's departure from typical procedures for internal investigations in contemporaneously summarizing 75 interviews conducted as part of its investigation. The firm said that each interview was summarized electronically by an attorney while the interview was underway, then edited into a final version, to ensure that no interview notes would be preserved, she said. The unorthodox procedure was adopted in the wake of a legislative investigation of Bridgegate and strong media interest. The judge said that she shares the defendants' frustration over Gibson Dunn's failure to take notes of its interviews in the high- profile case, work that cost taxpayers nearly $10 million. In 2014, following allegations that some staffers in his administration had engineered a massive, four-day traffic jam near the George Washington Bridge in a political payback scheme, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie hired Gibson Dunn to conduct an internal investigation into what had become known as the Bridgegate scandal. "Although GDC did not delete or shred documents, the process of overwriting their interview notes and drafts of the summaries had the same effect. This was a clever tactic, but when public investigations are involved, straightforward lawyering is superior to calculated strategy," Judge Wigenton wrote. "The taxpayers of the state of New Jersey paid GDC millions of dollars to conduct a transparent and thorough investigation. What they got instead was opacity and gamesmanship. They deserve better." But despite the court's "distaste for GDC's tactics," the judge found no basis to doubt its representations that other materials responsive to the defendants' request do not exist. In a statement, Michael Baldassare, representing former Port Authority executive director Baroni, said of the ruling, "Every taxpayer in New Jersey should read pages 6-7 of the court's opinion. We cannot say it any better." Those pages contain the judge's criticism of Gibson Dunn's investigation procedures. Gibson Dunn partner Randy Mastro -- rmastro@gibsondunn.com -- who led the investigation, did not return a call requesting comment. NEW YORK: Plaintiffs Lose Certification Bid in NYCHA Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Christine Simmons, writing for Law.com, reports that a group of plaintiffs suing the New York City Housing Authority for discrimination lost their bid for class certification after a federal judge found their attorney was inexperienced in handling class actions. Southern District Judge Shira Scheindlin said she had "serious doubts" that plaintiffs counsel Lee Sam Nuwesra, a Manhattan solo, could adequately represent the plaintiffs' interests, noting that some of his court papers were compiled by his 16-year-old daughter. "Quite aside from counsel's lack of class action experience, his performance in the present case has been so lacking as to raise doubts about his ability to diligently pursue the interests of the class," Judge Scheindlin said in Wynn v. NYCHA, 14-cv-2818. Mr. Nuwesra defended himself in court papers, saying he has had a law practice in New York City since 1993, and major parts of his practice involve labor, employment and civil rights litigation. Mr. Nuwesra claimed he was "pretty qualified" and included a list of his past employment and civil rights cases, marking some as "collective/class actions." He said his "young assistant/daughter" compiled the list. Mr. Nuwesra is representing a group of plaintiffs suing their employer, the New York City Housing Authority, under city and federal civil rights laws, alleging they have been systemically underpaid due to their race or ethnicity. The group also sued Local 237 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, alleging it engaged or encouraged discriminatory conduct. The five named plaintiffs are black or Hispanic members of Local 237, who have worked as plasterer helpers for NYCHA. They claim their pay grade is not commensurate with the work they perform. The agency's actions, they say, resulted from racial discrimination against mostly black and Hispanic caretakers in their work category. In November, Mr. Nuwesra moved to certify the case as a class action on behalf of all black and Hispanic union members who worked at NYCHA in the plaintiffs' category of work. But Judge Scheindlin found the plaintiffs failed to meet a number of requirements for certification, including failing to commit to a class definition to determine who is in the class. The very fact that plaintiffs described the class in at least four different ways makes the class unascertainable, she said. "It would be particularly inappropriate for the court to craft the specific class definition in the first instance where, as here, the plaintiffs have failed to do so themselves." Further, Judge Scheindlin said, plaintiffs have not met their burden of proving the claims of the class members are typical of the class as a whole. Turning to adequacy of counsel, the judge said the issue is particularly important in the class action context where the class is bound by the result of the litigation. "I have serious doubts that plaintiffs' counsel can adequately represent the interests of the proposed class," she said, noting that both defendants also challenge counsel's adequacy. Addressing Mr. Nuwesra's list of prior cases, Judge Scheindlin said it was compiled "apparently without any oversight from counsel," as it double counted a case and the Wynn case was listed as class-action experience. Perhaps most revealing, she said, is that while some cases may have been filed as class actions, all were settled or were dismissed before reaching the class certification stage. As far as she could tell, this was the first motion for class certification that Mr. Nuwesra has filed. Local 237's lawyer, Robert McGovern, of counsel at Archer, Byington, Glennon & Levine, said the case now proceeds on the claims of the five named plaintiffs but not as a class. He said he thinks the ruling was properly decided. NYCHA's attorney, Roger Briton -- BritonR@jacksonlewis.com -- a principal at Jackson Lewis, declined to comment. NOBLE SPOON: Recalls Beef and Chicken Entree Products ----------------------------------------------------- The Noble Spoon, a Santa Rosa, Calif. establishment, is recalling approximately 289 pounds of beef and chicken entree products that were produced without the benefit of federal inspection and do not have a federal mark of inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The fresh beef and chicken items were produced on Jan. 27 and Jan. 28, 2016. The following products are subject to recall: --- 12-oz. sealed plastic trays containing "THE NOBLE SPOON, Chicken Carbonara." --- 12.5-oz. sealed plastic trays containing "THE NOBLE SPOON, Chicken Picatta." --- 12.5-oz. sealed plastic trays containing "THE NOBLE SPOON, Meatloaf & Potatoes with bacon and cheddar cheese." --- 13-oz. sealed plastic trays containing "THE NOBLE SPOON, Spaghetti & Meatballs." --- 13-oz. sealed plastic trays containing "THE NOBLE SPOON, John Ash Signature Dish, Campanelle Pasta Bolognese." --- 13-oz. sealed plastic trays containing "THE NOBLE SPOON, John Ash Signature Dish, Mexican Pot Roast." --- 14.5-oz. sealed plastic trays containing "THE NOBLE SPOON, Chicken Enchiladas." --- 15-oz. sealed plastic trays containing "THE NOBLE SPOON, Chicken Burrito." The products subject to recall did not undergo federal inspection and do not bear an establishment number or USDA mark of inspection. The products subject to recall have the Sell-by dates of "02 03" or "02 04" printed on the back of the packaging. The items were shipped to retail locations in Marin and Sonoma counties in California. The problem was discovered by FSIS while conducting surveillance activities at retail establishments. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. NV ENERGY: Sides with SolarCity on Net-Metering Rules ----------------------------------------------------- Jason Graul, writing for Business Finance News, reports that in a turn of events, NV Energy sides with SolarCity on net-metering rules. SolarCity's fate has taken yet another turn. NV Energy which was earlier accused of being the only beneficiary of new net-metering rules, has announced in a press release on January 25, that it would propose allowing the old rate structure for existing customers. NV Energy president and CEO Paul Caudill said: "This grandfathering proposal is being offered in recognition of NV Energy's desire to treat all customers, including those who had previously made a decision to install rooftop solar, fairly." Nevada's Public Utilities Commission's (PUC) decision to amend its policies for the solar industry flared controversy. The PUC passed an order in December 2015, to increase service charges for solar panel users, for the use of the power grid, and to reduce the payments they receive for the export of power to the grid. The decision was criticized by solar companies, which accused NV Energy of being the only beneficiary of the policy. SolarCity, the largest renewable energy company in the US, along with SunRun, decided to cease sales and installment operations in the state which led to more than 600 job losses in the state. SolarCity argued that the decision is unjust; and even implied that Governor Sandoval had firstly, encouraged people to go solar and then charged them for doing so. However, Lyndon Rive- CEO of SolarCity remained optimistic that once the Commission understands the real impact, they would revert back their decision. Stoppage of operations and the resultant job cuts at solar companies, triggered concerns within the department. Governor Sandoval, referred to these events as "Bullying the regulators", that fueled a war of words between the CEO and the Governor. Afterwards, Patricia Farley -- a Republican Senator for the state and lead author of the bill said she was "concerned" over the reaction from SolarCity, in a phone interview to Bloomberg. The lead author expressed her belief over the PUC as she said that "I have to assume that the PUC would do the right thing". However, she hinted that that the people who had relied on old rates should be offered a "remedy". Things did not cool down even then as people of Nevada gathered around the PUC's headquarters in Las Vegas to protest the decision while regulators convened for the first time to discuss the impact of higher fees. This was followed by a class-action lawsuit against NV Energy by two solar customers who contend that it committed "consumer fraud" with them and others. Now finally there appears to be sunlight at the end of the tunnel as Nevada's PUC has approved the state's Consumer Protection Bureau's request to reconsider its earlier decision. NV Energy has stated that it would submit a proposal on February 1, to the Commission to recommend that existing solar customers should be allowed to remain under the old net-metering rules over a transition period of 20 years. The proposal by NV Energy has boosted investors' confidence in SolarCity stock, as it has increased by around 13% since then. ONE SOURCE: Set to Settle Former Clients' Class Suit for $1.6MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Miller, writing for LA Times, reports that a talent listing service would have to pay about $1.6 million -- including cash and services -- to resolve a case affecting thousands of former clients under a class-action settlement preliminarily approved by a federal judge in Los Angeles. The company, One Source Talent of Troy, Mich., charges people a monthly fee of $40 to access a database of audition and employment opportunities in the entertainment industry. One of its customers, Briana Keen, 24, of Running Springs filed a civil suit against it in 2014, contending the company used an improper contract that violated the Krekorian Talent Scam Prevention Act. One Source did not admit wrongdoing in the settlement agreement tentatively approved by U.S. District Court judge James V. Selna. Anthony Toma, the owner of One Source, said it made sense to settle the case because of the expense associated with defending a class action. "Our settlement is not an admission of liability but simply a business decision," he said. Under the terms approved in a preliminary decision by Selna, about 8,100 people who used One Source from April 14, 2010, to May 31, 2015, would get three months of free use of One Source, a service valued at $974,640. Class members who submit a claim form will also be entitled to a share of $611,000, after deductions for legal fees and costs. That could come out to about $130 per person, according to court records. Additionally, about 120 other One Source clients who wanted to cancel their accounts but were denied a refund will get $500 each. "I'm glad that I was able to help the people who used this company," said attorney Jeffrey Wilens, who represents Keen. "It is discouraging that it is so tough to get a settlement in these kinds of cases and I was glad to get one here." One Source was the subject of a Times story in December that examined alleged abuses by talent listing services and explored their role in the Hollywood economy. These companies, and others in the business of working with talent, have come under increased scrutiny from state legislators, who've passed at least five laws since 2000 to prevent mistreatment. The settlement is scheduled for final approval in June. The Krekorian Act went into effect in 2010. It regulates talent representatives and companies that work with actors, models and musicians. The Los Angeles city attorney's office has prosecuted six cases under the law. The legislation was spearheaded by Los Angeles City Councilman Paul Krekorian when he was a state assemblyman. The law makes it illegal for listing services to charge clients for auditions and requires that they make clear -- in written contracts that include boldface type -- that they are not talent agencies, among other provisions. Krekorian said in a statement to The Times that he hoped Keen's case would inspire other people who have been allegedly wronged to "seek civil redress." "This case is important because it highlights that private individuals, on their own, can go after agents and companies that scam the public, whether or not there is also a criminal prosecution happening," he said. In addition to providing information about auditions, listing services typically offer to promote their clients on a Web page with a photograph, resume and reel. They often require an initial payment of up to $600 and monthly fees that range from $20 to $40. The website for One Source, which until recently had an office in West L.A., proclaims "no more what ifs" and promises "we make dreams come true." But Keen's lawsuit alleges that One Source used a contract that did not have a Krekorian Act-complaint cancellation policy and did not follow rules stipulating how a listing service must make clear in a contract that it is not a talent agency. Toma said his company denied wrongdoing. This fall, One Source's West L.A. office closed and later reopened as Nine9 the UnAgency. Toma said that One Source had rebranded as Nine9. The renamed company is "geared at educating the consumer," Toma said. "We provide service to the estimated 99% of aspiring actors, models and other entertainment industry professionals who are unable to secure a contract with an agency." OPKO HEALTH: Settlement Hearing Held in Bio-Reference Merger Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- OPKO Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a hearing was scheduled for January 5, 2016, to consider approval of the settlement reached in the case, In re Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc. Shareholder Litigation. Following the announcement of entry into an agreement and plan of merger with Bio-Reference, four putative class action complaints challenging the merger were filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Bergen County (the "Court"). After the complaints were filed, on July 24, 2015, the parties executed a stipulated consent order that the actions would be consolidated for all purposes, including trial, in the Chancery Division under Docket No. C-207- 15, bearing the caption In re Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc. Shareholder Litigation. The complaints name Bio-Reference, OPKO, a wholly-owned merger subsidiary of OPKO ("Merger Sub") and members of the Bio-Reference board as defendants. The complaints generally allege, among other things, that members of the Bio-Reference board breached their fiduciary duties to Bio-Reference's shareholders by agreeing to sell Bio-Reference for an inadequate price and agreeing to inappropriate deal protection provisions in the merger agreement that may preclude Bio-Reference from soliciting any potential acquirers and limit the ability of the Bio-Reference board to act with respect to investigating and pursuing superior proposals and alternatives. The complaints also allege that Bio-Reference, OPKO and Merger Sub have aided and abetted the Bio-Reference board members' breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaints sought injunctive relief enjoining Bio-Reference and OPKO from consummating the merger at the agreed upon price unless and/or until the defendants cured their breaches of fiduciary duty (or, in the event the merger is consummated, rescinding the merger or awarding rescissory damages). The complaints also sought to recover costs and disbursement from the defendants, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees. In August, the parties executed a memorandum of understanding reflecting terms of a settlement, which was replaced in September 2015 by a stipulation and agreement of compromise, settlement and release resolving all matters between them. On September 25, 2015, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and setting a scheduling for the Court's final review of the settlement and notice to the class. A settlement hearing was scheduled for January 5, 2016. PAYPAL: Settles Suit Over Accounts Suspension for $3.2-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------- Mary-Ann Russon, writing for International Business Times, reports that there's nothing more upsetting than buying or selling items online, having fraud occur and then having to argue with PayPal because the online payments processing service won't take your side, leading to funds being held, holds being placed on your account or even having your account suspended. Although it's not an issue that happens to everybody, many users have long reported stories like this about PayPal on online forums and social media, and finally, it seems that things might be about to change. If you live in the US and had this happen to you, whether you are a former or current PayPal user, you might potentially be in line for a very small amount of damages. A five-year-long class action lawsuit between Zepeda vs PayPal, which accused PayPal and its former partner eBay of improperly handling disputed transactions on PayPal accounts and also improperly placing holds and reserves on funds on accounts for up to or exceeding 180 days, or suspending or closing accounts against users' wishes, is now coming to an end as PayPal has finally agreed to settle. The plaintiffs, who used PayPal as sellers, claim that the online payments processing service did not inform them about what activity had occurred in order to cause PayPal to take the action of freezing the account, and that PayPal had further failed to allow the affected users to remedy the situation in order to avoid any holds being placed on their accounts in future. PayPal paying up to avoid going to trial To be clear, PayPal has not admitted that it did anything wrong, but the payments service has agreed to pay out a proposed $3.2m (GBP2.25m) settlement anyway as it wishes to "avoid the expense and uncertainty of trial". At the moment, the final approval hearing date has not yet been set by the court, so the final settlement amount could still change, but former and current PayPal members residing in the US who had an active PayPal account between 19 April 2006 and 5 November 2015 and had a hold or reserve placed on their account, or had their account was closed or suspended by PayPal during this period, are now invited to submit a claim. In addition, PayPal has had to agree that it will revise its User Agreement terms and will disclose how it deals with fraud and risk. The firm has also agreed to change how it deal with requests for information, and it will have to disclose to users why holds, reserves or limitations have been put on PayPal accounts, as long as the disclosure does not jeopardise PayPal's security requirements. Funnily enough, in October 2012, PayPal tried to ban members from submitting class action lawsuits against it if they signed its updated User Agreement, however it seems that this must not have stood up in court, since PayPal users who had an account up until 5 November 2015 are included in the class action. And while this class action lawsuit isn't applicable to the UK, by PayPal having to change how it deals with its users, this could filter down to how PayPal works in the UK and other countries too. How to claim damages from PayPal's class action settlement If you qualify to be a claims class member, then you are entitled to submit either a basic or alternate claim. A basic claim means that you will be entitled to a payment that is calculated by looking at the dollar amount on the longest reserve or hold that was placed on your account, which means you can expect to receive between $3-$440. On the other hand, an alternate claim means that you are seeking payment for your actual damages caused by PayPal's mishandling of your account, and in this case, you could claim up to $2,000. There is currently no deadline set for submitting claims, but if you believe you are affected by this issue or know someone who is, you should aim to submit your claim now. PETTERS CO: Liquidation Plan Set Up for Ponzi Scheme Victims ------------------------------------------------------------ Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that Miami attorneys from Meland Russin & Budwick helped craft a more than $160 million liquidation plan to repay victims of one of the largest Ponzi schemes in history. Michael Budwick, Sol Genet and Peter Russin represent the trustee for two South Florida-based hedge funds that were major lenders to Petters Co. Inc., whose owner Tom Petters diverted the funds as part of a $3.65 billion fraud. Palm Beach Finance Partners LP and Palm Beach Finance II LP suffered about $651 million in cash basis losses, the second- largest amount a lender lost in the scheme, according to a disclosure statement filed with the Jan. 15 bankruptcy liquidation plan in Minnesota. The funds lent about $8.6 billion and were paid about $8 billion. The two hedge funds filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the Southern District of Florida in 2009 after Petters' fraud was uncovered. Kapila Mukamal consultant Barry Mukamal in Miami was designated as trustee. The proposed liquidation plan will substantively consolidate several debtors so they can pay victims from a single asset pool to avoid the risks and costs of further litigation while providing "fair, equitable and reasonable treatment to all creditors," according to the disclosure statement. The debtors have $161.5 million in cash from avoidance actions and asset sales, including about $133 million in the Petters Group Worldwide estate and $26,000 in the Petters Co. Inc. estate. The debtors are still pursuing legal claims that are likely to increase the pool, the statement said. "The Chapter 11 liquidating plan proposed by Barry Mukamal along with the other major creditors in the PCI bankruptcy, as well as the PCI Chapter 11 trustee, is a watershed event in the Petters bankruptcy case," Mr. Budwick said in an email. "The parties met in mediation in early September and then continued to hammer out a consensual plan which will pave the way for a substantial recovery for the victims of the Petters Ponzi scheme, the third-largest fraud in United States history." Mr. Mukamal is now pursuing a conspiracy claim bankruptcy court against GE Capital Corp. "for its joinder and complicity in this massive fraud," Mr. Budwick said. That case is before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Paul Hyman in West Palm Beach. Mr. Petters is serving a 50-year sentence at federal prison in Leavenworth, Kansas, for orchestrating the scheme. He was found guilty in 2009 of wire fraud, mail fraud, conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering and money laundering, according to the Justice Department. PHILIPPE CHOW: Workers Sue Over Unlawful Wage Practices ------------------------------------------------------- Lia Eustachewich, writing for New York Post, reports that workers at Philippe Chow's three restaurants in New York were stiffed on tips and forced to perform "completely menial and humiliating tasks" like killing rodents and cleaning up "walls sprayed with blood from butchering animal carcasses," a new Manhattan federal lawsuit charges. Eighteen servers, bus people, runners, bartenders and barbacks filed the class-action suit on Jan. 27, seeking to end "unlawful wage practices for once and for all and change the culture of mistreatment directed towards service employees" at the eateries. "It is totally unacceptable for Philippe to hold itself out as a high-end restaurant catering to affluent New Yorkers but meanwhile its largely immigrant workers are treated like complete second- class citizens," said the plaintiffs' lawyer, David Gottlieb. The employees also say they hung out of windows to clean the panes and had to clean skylights. Abraham Merchant, CEO of Merchant Hospitality, which took ownership of the restaurants in 2013, said the company is reviewing the complaint and characterized the plaintiffs as "disgruntled." PINNACLE FOODS: Recalls Chili Products Due to Misbranding --------------------------------------------------------- Pinnacle Foods, Inc., a Fort Madison, Iowa establishment, is recalling approximately 549,539 pounds of chili products due to misbranding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products contain Monosodium Glutamate (MSG), which is not declared on the product label. The Armour Chili items were produced on various dates in Sept. 2015, and Nov. 2015. The following products are subject to recall: 14-oz. cans of "Armour Chili No Beans" with Best By Dates: Best By SEP-08-18 Best By SEP-10-18 Best By SEP-13-18 Best By SEP-20-18 Best By SEP-21-18 Best By SEP-27-18 Best By SEP-28-18 Best By NOV-10-18 Best By NOV-11-18 Best By NOV-22-18 Best By NOV-23-18 Best By NOV-24-18 The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST. 2AD" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to retail locations nationwide. The problem was discovered by the firm. The firm received new product labels in Sept. 2015; these new labels no longer listed MSG. However, the firm continued to use their old seasoning on products, which does contain MSG. Upon discovery of the discrepancy, all affected product within the firm's control was placed on hold. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/SpzY95 PRA GROUP: Virginia Court Declines to Certify Proposed Class ------------------------------------------------------------ Tim Bauer, writing for Inside Arm, reports that a Federal Judge in Virginia denied a motion to certify a class action case against an arm of publicly traded debt buyer PRA Group (PRAA). The lawsuit, Dykes v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (PRA) (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10308, Case number: 1:15cv110) was originally filed exactly one year earlier, on January 28, 2015. Plaintiff claimed that PRA violated the FDCPA by sending her three (3) debt collection notices in Spanish rather than English. Plaintiff never indicated she preferred to receive correspondence in Spanish and she does not speak or understand Spanish. The Plaintiff sought class certification for a class defined as follows: All consumers with Virginia addresses, who: (a) within one year of January 28, 2015 (b) were sent a debt collection letter in Spanish by Defendant PRA in a form materially identical or substantially similar to the letter attached to Plaintiff's Complaint as Exhibit A; and (c) the letter was not returned by the postal service as undelivered. Discovery revealed that PRA began corresponding with Plaintiff in Spanish after receiving a response in Spanish from a phone call to a number which a LexisNexis skip-tracing search indicated was connected with Plaintiff. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff alleged that PRA soon realized that this number was not connected with Plaintiff and struck it from its register, but continued to correspond with Plaintiff in Spanish. Each of the three Spanish letters sent to Plaintiff contains language which, when translated, notifies the reader that "[t]his letter comes from a collection agency and its intention is to collect a debt. Any information that is obtained will be used for that purpose." There were no allegations by the Plaintiff that the substance of the Spanish collection letters contained false statements or information; but simply that they were just written in Spanish, a language Plaintiff could not read. The Memorandum Opinion from the Honorable James C. Cacheris reviews the standards for class action certification. First, the Judge discussed the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governing class actions (Rule 23): A party seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with the Rule -- that is, he must be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact, etc. In order to be certified, "a proposed class must satisfy Rule 23(a) and one of the three sub- parts of Rule 23(b). The relevant rule reads: (a) Prerequisites. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. (b) Types of Class Actions. A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if: (1) prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class members would create a risk of: (A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class; or (B) adjudications with respect to individual class members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; (2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole; or (3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The matters pertinent to these findings include: (A) the class members' interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and (D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action. Plaintiff argued that each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and both the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) have been met for the proposed class. PRA challenged the validity of the Plaintiff's proposed class definition which hinges on the putative class members' Spanish literacy." PRA also challenged the validity of what it believes would be the properly defined class as failing to satisfy ascertainability, commonality, typicality, and numerosity. The Court agreed with the PRA that the class described by Plaintiff in her memorandum in support is both incorrectly defined and lacking commonality. The Court also found that even were the class properly defined, it would be fatally deficient with respect to ascertainability and numerosity. The Judge wrote: Any proper definition of the class would have to be limited to individuals who received the Spanish-language dunning letters without first indicating that they primarily speak Spanish or that they would like to receive correspondence in Spanish. Because it is facially apparent that Plaintiff's proposed class contains many individuals who did not suffer harm at the hands of the Defendant, the Court declines to certify her proposed class. QC HOLDINGS: "Lee" Case Parties Expect to Complete Deal ------------------------------------------------------- QC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the parties in the Lee class action lawsuit in Canada expected to complete a settlement by the end of 2015. On October 18, 2011, Matthew Lee, an alleged Alberta, Canada resident sued Direct Credit, all of its subsidiaries and three former directors of those subsidiaries in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in a purported class action. The plaintiff alleged that Direct Credit and its subsidiaries violated Canada's criminal usury laws by charging interest on its loans at rates higher than 60%. The parties have settled the case. The Company's share of the settlement amount and ancillary expenses, net of indemnification from the prior owners of Direct Credit, is $500,000 (Canadian). The settlement will involve refunds and credits to class members dating back to 2001. The deadline for eligible customers to make a claim was July 21, 2015. The parties expect that they will complete the settlement by the end of 2015. QC HOLDINGS: Settles "Stemple" Suit for $1.5 Million ---------------------------------------------------- QC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the parties in the "Stemple" class action lawsuit in California have reached a tentative settlement for $1.5 million. On August 13, 2012, the Company was sued in the United States District Court for the South District of California in a putative class action lawsuit filed by Paul Stemple. Mr. Stemple alleges that the Company used an automatic telephone dialing system with an "artificial or prerecorded voice" in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, et seq. On September 5, 2014, the district court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The certified class consists of persons and/or entities who were never customers of the Company, but whose 10-digit California area code cell phone numbers were listed by the Company's customers in the "Employment" and/or "Contacts" fields of their loan applications, and who the Company allegedly called using an Automatic Telephone Dialing System for the purpose of collecting or attempting to collect an alleged debt from the account holder, between August 13, 2008 and August 13, 2012. In October 2015, the parties reached a tentative settlement for $1.5 million. As of October 16, 2015, there is no signed memorandum of understanding reflecting the settlement, however. Though the case was limited to California residents, the parties have agreed to settle the case on a nationwide basis. Settlement of the case is dependent upon court approval. Assuming there are no major obstacles to settlement, it is possible the parties will finalize the settlement and begin notifying potential claimants by early 2016. The Company recorded an accrual of $1.5 million during third quarter 2015 associated with the tentative settlement of this legal matter as the loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. QC HOLDINGS: Calif. Judge Dismisses "Marquez" Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- QC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that on April 20, 2015, the Company was sued in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in a putative class action lawsuit filed by Mike Marquez. Mr. Marquez alleges that the Company was violating California law when it allegedly failed to notify California residents that it was recording phone calls it made to cell phones. The Company has reached a tentative settlement of this matter for an immaterial amount. The Company was to finalize the settlement by the end of 2015. In a Dec. 15 order, available at http://is.gd/Baw94Qfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Christina A. Snyder held that pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties to dismiss this case with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the entire case is dismissed with prejudice as to the named Plaintiffs, and without prejudice as to the putative class. Each party shall bear its own costs and expenses. The case is, MIKE MARQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. QC FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., and QC HOLDINGS, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-02884-CAS-PJW (C.D. Cal.). Mike Marquez is represented by Todd M Friedman, Esq., Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq., and Suren N Weerasuriya, Esq., at the Law Offices of Todd Friedman PC; Joshua B Swigart, Esq., at Hyde and Swigart; and Matthew M Loker, Esq., Jason A Ibey, Esq., and Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq., at Kazerouni Law Group, APC. QC Financial Services, Inc., and QC Holdings, Inc., are represented by Andrew John Demko, Esq., Gregory S Korman, Esq., and Stuart M Richter, Esq., at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP. QUORN: Sued in California Over Mycoprotein ------------------------------------------ Abby Haglage, writing for The Daily Beast, reports that in the eyes of some vegetarians, Quorn's meat-free "chicken" nuggets are as good as McDonald's. Sold everywhere from Whole Foods to Target, the company's products are a veritable success in the states. But while the flavor is appealing, the alleged main ingredient behind the "protein" has some cringing and others incensed: mold. A false advertising class action lawsuit, filed in California, is the newest development in a battle food health experts have been waging for decades. Like the lawsuit, it centers on the main ingredient in Quorn's meatless selections, a product called mycoprotein. Mycoprotein originates from a fungus in the U.K. A patented product, it's not only the main ingredient in Quorn's foods -- it's their entire business model. The company has survived multiple lawsuits in the past decade over its origin but this one, which attacks its advertising, is decidedly different. While food health experts go to bat for the lawsuit, spokesmen from Quorn insist that the lawsuits have no merit. Will the $830 million company beat the mold crusaders once again? Kimberly Birbower, the plaintiff in the class action suit, argues that mycoprotein is not a "mushroom-based protein" as the company asserts, but a "fermented mold" -- something customers deserve to know. "Had Quorn disclosed the truth -- that its products are actually made of mold--Plaintiff and consumers would not have purchased Quorn's products," the complaint reads. Birbower, who first began buying the company's products in 2015, says Quorn's claim that mycoprotein is "the same or substantially similar to a mushroom, truffle, or morel" is nonsense. "Quorn's representations [is] clearly designed to deceive consumers," she says. Birbower's lawsuit is a new approach to tackling Quorn's alleged mold-driven product, which others have done through lawsuits attempting to prove that it's unsafe. The history of mycoprotein dates back to the 1960s, when it was created by a U.K. scientist who feared a protein shortage was imminent. Derived from a fungus called Fusarium venenatum, it was eventually grown in large fermentation tanks. The product was approved for human consumption in 1985 and named for Quorn, a village in Leicester. After enjoying success in Ireland and the U.K., it was released in the United States in 2002. Not long after, health experts began expressing concerns -- many of them based on the fact its health effects were largely unknown. In America, it was approved by the Federal Drug Administration with what's called a GRAS notification -- something that more or less qualifies it as safe for "general food use." Less than a year later, Michael Jacobson, the executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, filed a petition asking the FDA to reconsider the terms of this. Jacobson argued that Quorn should have to clarify the origin of mycoprotein on the package -- changing it from "mushroom in origin" to "fungus." His concern was fueled by reports that people had responded negatively to the fungus, which the FDA had not reviewed. Specifically, he pointed to a study from 1977 in which 10 percent of the 200 subjects who consumed Quorn became ill with "nausea, vomiting, and stomach ache." When the FDA denied his petition, Jacobson created a website for consumers to report adverse reactions. Today, it houses more than 2,000 examples. One is that of Kathy Cardinale, a 43-year-old advertising executive, who says that she became "violently ill" after eating Quorn's chicken patties. "I felt like the soles of my feet were going to come out of my mouth, I was vomiting so hard," she said. "Once I began to research Quorn online I realized I wasn't alone . . . It was unbelievable to me that the company knew this was going on and wasn't warning consumers." While most reactions seem to involve nausea and vomiting, a few reports allege that the consumption of mycoprotein in Quorn's products turned fatal. Last March, the parents of an 11-year-old boy sued Quorn claiming that an allergy to the fungus, which they weren't aware the product contained, led to their son's death. Quorn, for its part, has vigorously denied the accusations, saying that the intolerance rates of mycoprotein are far below that of wheat and soy. In the case of the 11-year-old boy, they point to the final coroner's report, which found that he succumbed to an asthma attack. In a lengthy statement to The Daily Beast, Quorn "vehemently" denied the claims made in the California lawsuit. "We take great care to meticulously list the ingredients in each of our meat alternative products. This is why our packaging contains some of the most descriptive language of any food product on the market today," a spokesperson wrote. Quorn said that the company is not only "fully compliant" with FDA regulations, but that it "exceeds the agency's standards" by offering additional information. After successful delivery of 3 billion meals in 16 countries, the company says it's standing behind its "nutritious, great-tasting foods that are safe to eat and sustainable to our environment." "We regret that Ms. Birbrower claims to have been unhappy with her purchase. But we will continue to stand behind our products, and intend to strongly defend the company against these misguided assertions," the spokesman said in closing. Despite the denial that their products are dangerous, the company added a warning label in 2015 cautioning consumers about "rare adverse reactions." The note describes mycoprotein as "a member of the fungi/mold family" -- the exact language Birbower takes issue with. Beyond inaccurate, she claims this information is "intentionally buried" on the box so that it "would not be read by ordinary consumers." Jacobson and the rest of his team at CSPI stand by their original theory that mycoprotein is unsafe. In an article from 2002, the center quoted a Cornell University mycologist who painted an interesting picture of Quorn's claim that mycoprotein is "mushroom based," saying: "Mushrooms are as distantly related to Quorn's fungus as humans are to jellyfish." QUOTIENT TECHNOLOGY: Calif. Court Sustains Demurrer in Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Quotient Technology Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a California court has sustained defendants' demurrer in a consolidated stockholder class action lawsuit, with leave to amend. "On March 11, 2015, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was filed against us, the members of our board of directors, certain of our executive officers and the underwriters of our initial public offering ("IPO"): Nguyen v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. CGC-15-544654 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County)," the Company said. "The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act and seeks unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who purchased stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus for our IPO." Plaintiff Nguyen requested and obtained a dismissal without prejudice of his San Francisco action and filed another complaint with substantially the same allegations in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, Nguyen v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15- CV-278777 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Mar. 30, 2015). Three other complaints with substantially the same allegations have also been filed: O'Donnell v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278399 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Mar. 20, 2015); So v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278774 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Mar. 30, 2015); and Silverberg v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278891 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Apr. 2, 2015). On May 7, 2015, the Santa Clara court consolidated the Nguyen, So and Silverberg actions with the O'Donnell action. On July 23, 2015, defendants filed a demurrer to the consolidated complaint. The Court held a hearing on the Company's demurrer, along with a case management conference, on November 6, 2015 (moved from October 30). The Court sustained defendants' demurrer with leave to amend. "We intend to defend this litigation vigorously. Based on information currently available, we believe that the potential for liability for the above claims is remote," the Company said. RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Stolen Rent ---------------------------------------------------- Jeannie O'Sullivan, writing for Law360, reports that Re/Max Holdings Inc. and one of its New Jersey franchises were hit with a putative class action alleging a property manager employed by the franchise stole tenants' rent payments and security deposits, in violation of fraud and security deposit laws. In a Jan. 19 complaint filed in Burlington County Superior Court, plaintiffs Eric and Elizabeth Rideman say Re/Max and Windstar Associates LLC of Moorestown failed to prevent Randal Maher -- who faced criminal charges over the same allegations -- from converting the rent and security deposits. REASBECK CONSTRUCTION: "Bayless" Labor Suit Moved to W.D. Kansas ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Bayless v. Reasbeck Construction, Inc., Case No. 15JO-CC00284, was removed from the Johnson County Circuit Court of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01027-ODS to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly failed to properly pay all compensation -- including straight time and overtime compensation in violation of the Missouri Minimum Wage Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff also asserts claims under Missouri common law. Reasbeck Construction was founded in 2000 and is based in Warrensburg, Missouri. The Company's line of business includes the construction of nonresidential buildings. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Dake, Esq. Athena M. Dickson, Esq. Eric W Smith, Esq. Rik N. Siro, Esq. SIRO SMITH DICKSON, PC 1621 Baltimore Avenue Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 471 4881 Facsimile: (816) 471 4883 E-mail: rdake@sirosmithdickson.com adickson@sirosmithdickson.com esmith@sirosmithdickson.com rsiro@sirosmithdickson.com - and - Michael A Hodgson EMPLOYEE & LABOR LAW GROUP OF KANSAS CITY LLC 3699 SW Pryor Road Lee's Summit, MO 64082 Telephone: (913) 890 3529 Facsimile: (816) 945 2120 E-mail: mike@elgkc.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael L. Blumenthal, Esq. Camille L Roe, Esq. SEYFERTH BLUMENTHAL & HARRIS LLC 4801 Main Street, Suite 310 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 756 0700 Facsimile: (816) 756 3700 E-mail: mike@sbhlaw.com camille@sbhlaw.com RITE-A-WAY SERVICES: Sued for Plumbing Technicians' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- On January 20, 2016, the San Francisco employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit against Rite-A-Way Services, Inc. alleging that the company failed to lawfully compensate their Plumbing Technicians for all their time spent working. The class action lawsuit against Rite-A-Way Services, Inc. is currently pending in the Sonoma County Superior Court, Case No SCV258287. The class action Complaint filed against the plumbing service company by the San Francisco labor law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik alleges that Rite-A-Way Services failed to have a policy or practice which provided a full off-duty, thirty minute uninterrupted meal break to the Plaintiff and Plumbing Technicians. The lawsuit claims that the company's alleged failure to provide the legally required meal and rest breaks is evidenced by the company's business records which contain no record of these breaks. As a result, the Complaint asserts Plumbing Technicians working for Rite-A-Way Services allegedly forfeited meal and rest breaks without additional compensation. Furthermore, the Complaint alleges the the Plumbing Technicians performed the manual task of installing and repairing plumbing equipment for Rite-A-Way Services and were allegedly paid on a piece-rate basis. The Complaint alleges that the Plumbing Technicians were not paid minimum and overtime wages to which they were entitled to because of Defendant's alleged failure to record all time worked. Specifically, the Complaint claims that the Plumbing Technicians should have been paid minimum and overtime wages for their non-production time. The Plaintiff is represented by: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik Telephone Number: (866) 771-7099 SASAC: "Brooke" Suit Moved from E.D. Va. to MDL 2047 ---------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Brooke, et al. v. State Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council, Case No. 2:15-cv-00506, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans). The Eastern Louisiana District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-06632-EEF-JCW to the proceeding. The class action lawsuit was brought by the Plaintiffs who are owners and residents of real property containing problematic Chinese manufactured drywall that was designed, manufactured, imported, distributed, delivered, supplied, marketed, inspected, installed, or sold by the Defendants. SASAC supervises the State-owned assets of enterprises engaged in drywall production, including Taishan. SASAC oversees 150 large central state-owned assets and enterprises, including CNBM Group. SASAC owns 100% of CNBM Group. CNBM Group. Taishan is a foreign corporation doing business in several States, including but not limited to, Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. TTP is a foreign corporation doing business in several States, including but not limited to, Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The Brooke case is being consolidated with MDL 2047 in re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation. The Court modified Pretrial Order No. 1 through Pretrial Order No. 1A to reflect that the stay in effect shall not impede counsel's obligation to timely enter their appearance on behalf of their client(s) upon effectuation of service on their client. The purpose of the stay on motion practice was to allow counsel to focus on organization and coordination. The case has now reached the stage where an organizational structure is in place and the MDL Court has coordinated with the state courts. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Eldon E. Fallon, United States District Judge. The lead case is 2:09-md-02047-EEF-JCW. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard James Serpe, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD J. SERPE, P.C. Crown Center, Suite 310 580 East Main Street Norfolk, VA 23510-2322 Telephone: (757) 233 0009 Facsimile: (757) 233 0455 E-mail: rserpe@serpefirm.com SCOTTRADE INC: "Hine" Suit Moved from S.D. Cal. to E.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Hine v. Scottrade, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02213, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01954-CEJ to the proceeding. Scottrade provides investment products, online trading services, and market research tools for investors and traders. The company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Elliot Adler, Esq. 402 W. Broadway, Suite 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 531 8700 Facsimile: (619) 342 9600 E-mail: elliotadler@gmail.com - and - Geoff Spreter, Esq. SPRETER LAW FIRM, APC 402 W Broadway, Suite 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 865 7986 E-mail: geoff@spreterlaw.com - and - James Jason Hill, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595 3001 Facsimile: (619) 595 3000 E-mail: jhill@ckslaw.com - and - Timothy Gordon Blood, Esq. Paula R. Brown, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338 1100 Facsimile: (619) 338 1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com pbrown@bholaw.com - and - Timothy D Cohelan, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595 3001 Facsimile: (619) 595 3000 E-mail: tcohelan@ck-lawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Brandi Lynne Burke, Esq. Christopher M. Hohn, Esq. David M. Mangian, Esq. Helen Byungsun Kim, Esq. Thomas E. Douglass, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN, LLP One US Bank Plaza St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 552 6598 Facsimile: (314) 552 7598 E-mail: bburke@thompsoncoburn.com chohn@thompsoncoburn.com dmangian@thompsoncoburn.com hkim@thompsoncoburn.com tdouglass@thompsoncoburn.com SLATER & GORDON: Shareholders Join Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Herald Sun reports that hundreds of aggrieved Slater & Gordon shareholders have signed up to a class action organized by rival law firm Maurice Blackburn. The action, which now has more than 1750 shareholders, was launched to investigate what Maurice Blackburn says were serious governance issues that caused a "corporate catastrophe" at the world's first publicly listed law firm. The details have emerged in another horror week for Slater & Gordon, with its share price plunging 14 per cent on Jan. 27 to 63c after it delayed the -- announcement of its cashflow figures. Slater & Gordon also confirmed last night it was considering closing two offices in the UK, with 51 jobs at risk. Maurice Blackburn pledged to pursue compensation for shareholders who were affected when Slater & Gordon's market value plummeted $1.8 billion in 2015. Maurice Blackburn's national head of class actions, Andrew Watson, told the Herald Sun the class action included "some high net worth individuals" and strong interest from institutional investors. "We're lucky in Australia we've got these actions in the enforcement mix to complement the work of ASIC and the ACCC," Mr. Watson said. "Without these actions, aggrieved retail and institutional investors wouldn't be able to hold large organizations to account. "These class actions are a really strong example of how a market- based mechanism can work to retain the integrity of our sharemarket by enforcing higher standards of corporate governance." Slater & Gordon told the Australian Securities Exchange that it would not provide an update on its cashflow until February 29, despite saying it would be announced in January. "The company continues to work with its auditors and advisers to finalise its half-year result, including statutory gross operating cashflow," a statement said. Slater & Gordon spokeswoman Angela Bell confirmed the company was weighing up whether to renew leases at its UK offices in Derby and Failsworth, Manchester. "All staff working at those offices have been made aware that there is the possibility of redundancy," she said. "However, there may be other opportunities within Slater & Gordon if a decision is made not to renew the leases." SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: "Collier" Suit Goes from E.D. Mo. to N.D. Ga. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Collier et al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-01844, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Rome). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00017- HLM to the proceeding. As of July 26, 1989, Smithkline Beckman Corporation, Inc. was acquired by SmithKline Beecham Limited. Smithkline Beckman Corporation manufactures and markets pharmaceutical products including fine perfumes, liniments, tonics, hair oil, cough medicine, home remedies, poison ivy lotion, iron tablets, and lozenges, cold remedies, and peptic ulcer medication products. SNAPP'S FERRY: Recalls Ground Beef Products Due to E. Coli ---------------------------------------------------------- Snapp's Ferry Packing Company, an Afton, Tenn. establishment, is recalling approximately 410 pounds of beef product that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The ground beef item was produced on Nov. 20, 2015. The following product is subject to recall: 5-lb. packages of "Ground Beef," with a packaging date of Nov. 20, 2015. The product subject to recall bears establishment number "Est. 9085" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The item was distributed to restaurants in the Knoxville, Tenn. area. None of this product was sold at retail. The problem was discovered on Jan. 19, 2016, when a positive result for E. coli O157:H7 from FSIS testing was traced back to the establishment as a result of an ongoing illness investigation in Tennessee. FSIS is continuing to work with our public health partners at the Tennessee Department of Health and Knox County Health Department on this investigation and will provide updated information as it becomes available. E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause dehydration, bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps 2-8 days (3-4 days, on average) after exposure the organism. While most people recover within a week, some develop a type of kidney failure called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). This condition can occur among persons of any age but is most common in children under 5- years old and older adults. It is marked by easy bruising, pallor, and decreased urine output. Persons who experience these symptoms should seek emergency medical care immediately. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beef that has been cooked to a temperature of 160ø F. The only way to confirm ground and boneless beef products are cooked to a temperature high enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measures internal temperature. SOUTHCOAST FINANCIAL: Faces Class Suit over BNC Deal ---------------------------------------------------- Southcoast Financial Corporation is defending a class action lawsuit over the Company's planned merger with BNC Bancorp, Southcoast said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. On August 14, 2015, the Company entered into a definitive agreement with BNC Bancorp ("BNC") the holding company for Bank of North Carolina, pursuant to which BNC will acquire all of the common stock of the Company in a stock transaction valued at approximately $95.5 million, based on the closing price of BNC common stock on August 13, 2015. The transaction, which is subject to regulatory approval, the approval of the shareholders of the Company, and other customary conditions, is expected to close in the first quarter of 2016. On October 12, 2015, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a class action lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas for the Ninth Judicial District, State of South Carolina, County of Charleston, captioned Matthew Sciabucuchi v. Southcoast Financial Corporation, Case No. 2015-CP10-5500. On October 26, 2015, the suit was removed to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina and assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-04352-DCN. The Complaint names as defendants the Company, the current members of the Company's board of directors and BNC. The Complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class of shareholders of the Company's common stock and seeks an order that it is properly maintainable as a class action. The Complaint alleges that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder value in connection with the proposed merger of the Company and BNC and also alleges that BNC aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The Complaint further alleges that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders by improperly securing for themselves certain benefits not shared equally by the Company's shareholders and by approving certain terms and conditions in the merger agreement that may be adverse to potential alternate acquirors of the Company. The Complaint seeks injunctive relief to prevent the completion of the merger or rescission of the merger and recissory damages, an accounting to determine damages sustained by the putative class, and costs including plaintiffs' attorneys' and experts' fees. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Complaint are without merit. SUNEDISON INC: Continues to Defend Against "Jones" Suit ------------------------------------------------------- SunEdison, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company continues to defend against the case, Jerry Jones v. SunEdison, Inc., et al. On December 26, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by plaintiff, Jerry Jones, purportedly on behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of SunEdison's 401(k) Savings Plan (the "Plan") between September 4, 2007 and December 26, 2008, inclusive. The complaint asserted claims against SunEdison and certain of its directors, employees and/or other unnamed fiduciaries of the Plan. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached certain fiduciary duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, generally asserting that the defendants failed to make full disclosure to the Plan's participants of the risks of investing in SunEdison's stock and that the company's stock should not have been made available as an investment alternative in the Plan. The complaint also alleges that SunEdison failed to disclose certain material facts regarding SunEdison's operations and performance, which had the effect of artificially inflating SunEdison's stock price. On June 1, 2009, an amended class action complaint was filed by Mr. Jones and another purported participant of the Plan, Manuel Acosta, which raises substantially the same claims and is based on substantially the same allegations as the original complaint. However, the amended complaint changes the period of time covered by the action, purporting to be brought on behalf of beneficiaries of and/or participants in the Plan from June 13, 2008 through the present, inclusive. The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, including losses the participants and beneficiaries of the Plan allegedly experienced due to their investment through the Plan in SunEdison's stock, equitable relief and an award of attorney's fees. No class has been certified and discovery has not begun. The company and the named directors and employees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was fully briefed by the parties as of October 9, 2009. The parties each subsequently filed notices of supplemental authority and corresponding responses. On March 17, 2010, the court denied the motion to dismiss. The SunEdison defendants filed a motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, certification for interlocutory appeal, which was fully briefed by the parties as of June 16, 2010. The parties each subsequently filed notices of supplemental authority and corresponding responses. On October 18, 2010, the court granted the SunEdison defendants' motion for reconsideration, vacated its order denying the SunEdison defendants' motion to dismiss, and stated that it will revisit the issues raised in the motion to dismiss after the parties supplement their arguments relating thereto. Both parties filed briefs supplementing their arguments on November 1, 2010. On June 28, 2011, plaintiff Jerry Jones filed a notice of voluntary withdrawal from the action. On June 29, 2011, the court entered an order withdrawing Jones as one of the plaintiffs in this action. The parties each have continued to file additional notices of supplemental authority and responses thereto. On September 27, 2012, the SunEdison defendants moved for oral argument on their pending motion to dismiss; plaintiff Manuel Acosta joined in the SunEdison defendants' motion for oral argument on October 9, 2012. On March 24, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss but the plaintiffs filed, and the court in April 2014 granted, a motion to stay entry of final judgment pending a Supreme Court decision in a case that could have implications in this matter. That Supreme Court case was decided in June 2014, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration with the district court, based on that Supreme Court decision. "We believe that we continue to have good reason for a dismissal and intend to vigorously defend this motion," the Company said. SunEdison believes the class action is without merit, and will assert a vigorous defense. SUNEDISON INC: Reviewing Class Suits over TerraForm Global IPO -------------------------------------------------------------- SunEdison, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is still in the preliminary stages of reviewing the allegations made in the class actions regarding the TerraForm Global IPO. On October 23, 2015 and October 30, 2015, separate purported class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo (the "Superior Court") against SunEdison, TerraForm Global, certain officers and directors of TerraForm Global and SunEdison and each of the underwriters of TerraForm Global's August 5, 2015 initial public offering (the "class action"). Additionally, on October 29, 2015 and November 5, 2015, separate purported class action lawsuits were filed in in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California (the "District Court" and, together with the Superior Court, the "Court") against the same defendants. The class action plaintiffs in each of the lawsuits assert claims under Section 11, 12(a)(2) and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The class action complaints in each of the lawsuits allege, among other things, that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material information in the Registration Statement for TerraForm Global's August 5, 2015 initial public offering regarding SunEdison and its recent operating results and business strategy. Among other relief, the class action complaints seek class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the Court should deem just and proper. SunEdison and TerraForm Global intend to defend the class action lawsuits vigorously. SunEdison is still in the preliminary stages of reviewing the allegations made in the complaints and, as a result, is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of such lawsuits or that an adverse resolution of these lawsuits would not have a material adverse effect on SunEdison's consolidated financial position and results of operations. SUNEDISON INC: Wagner Firm Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- The Wagner Firm on Jan. 28 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Easter District of Missouri on behalf of a class (the "Class") of purchasers of SunEdison, Inc. ("SunEdison" or the "Company") (NYSE: SUNE) securities between February 19, 2014 and January 6, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court no later than February 1, 2016 to serve as lead plaintiff. Please contact Avi Wagner at 310-491-7949, or at avi@thewagnerfirm.com to discuss this matter. Between August 6, 2015, and January 7, 2016, SunEdison shares experienced significant drops due to issues relating to the Company's debt obligations, liquidity, and the Company's relationship with its yieldcos. The complaint charges SunEdison and certain of its officers and directors with violations of federal securities laws. Specifically, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was facing liquidity issues after engaging in various costly acquisitions; (2) that the Company had unsustainable levels of debt; (3) that the Company's yieldcos were overpaying SunEdison for projects; (4) that the Company's yieldco business model was unsustainable; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Avi Wagner, Esquire, of The Wagner Firm, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at 310-491-7949, or by e-mail to avi@thewagnerfirm.com SYNGENTA SEEDS: "Dreibodt" Suit Moved from W.D. Tex. to Kansas -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled David Dreibodt, et al. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00011, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City). The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-02065-JWL- JPO to the proceeding. Syngenta produces crop protection products and seeds. The company produces herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides, and seeds for field crops, vegetables, and flowers. The company is based in Basil, Switzerland. The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Michael Moore, Esq. THE MOORE LAW FIRM 4900 North 10th Street, Ste. E-2 McAllen, TX 78504 Telephone: (956) 631 0745 Facsimile: (888) 266 0971 The Defendants are represented by: Mark R. Trachtenberg, Esq. HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2100 Houston, TX 77010-2007 Telephone: (713) 547 2000 Facsimile: (713) 547 2600 - and - Stephen E. Walraven, Esq. LANGLEY & BANACK, INC. Trinity Plaza II 745 East Mulberry, Ninth Floor San Antonio, TX 78212-3166 Telephone: (210) 736 6600 Facsimile: (210) 735 6889 - and - Thomas G. Haskins Jr., Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 2100 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1250 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 258 4111 Facsimile: (214) 258 4199 TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Agrawal" Suit Goes to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Agrawal v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., Case No. CIV 536468, was transferred from the San Mateo County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-06322-WHO to the proceeding. According to the complaint, Plaintiff brought this class action lawsuit against the Defendants who issued allegedly issued false and misleading offering materials of common stocks. TerraForm Global owns and operates contracted power generation assets. The Company offers wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and hybrid energy solutions. The company is based in Bethesda, Maryland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Brian Edward Cochran, Esq. David Conrad Walton, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288 4545 Facsimile: (415) 288 4534 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com bcochran@rgrdlaw.com davew@rgrdlaw.com - and - Frank James Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP 600 West Broadway, Suite 1540 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 230-0063 Fax: (619) 255-1856 E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com The Defendants are represented by: Sara B. Brody, Esq. Jaime Allyson Bartlett, Esq. Norman J. Blears, Esq. Sarah Alison Hemmendinger, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 Califonia Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 772 1200 Facsimile: (415) 772 7400 E-mail: sbrody@sidley.com jbartlett@sidley.com nblears@sidley.com shemmendinger@sidley.com TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Badri" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Anton Badri v. Terraform Global, Inc. et al., Case No. CIV 536536, was removed from the San Mateo Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of California Northern District (San Jose). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-06323-BLF to the proceeding. According to the complaint, Plaintiff brought this class action lawsuit against the Defendants who issued allegedly issued false and misleading offering materials including review of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings, as well as regulatory filings and reports, securities analysts' reports and advisories. TerraForm Global owns and operates contracted power generation assets. The Company offers wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and hybrid energy solutions. The company is based in Bethesda, Maryland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Albert Y. Chang, Esq. Francis A. Bottini Jr., Esq. Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq. Bottini and Bottini, Inc. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 914 2001 Facsimile: (858) 914 2002 E-mail: achang@bottinilaw.com fbottini@bottinilaw.com sammirati@bottinilaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Sara B. Brody, Esq. Jaime Allyson Bartlett, Esq. Norman J. Blears, Esq. Sarah Alison Hemmendinger, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 Califonia Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 772 1200 Facsimile: (415) 772 7400 E-mail: sbrody@sidley.com jbartlett@sidley.com nblears@sidley.com shemmendinger@sidley.com TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Iron Workers Pension Fund Moved to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. Terraform Global, Inc. et al., Case No. CIV536468, was removed from the San Mateo County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv- 06328-WHO to the proceeding. According to the complaint, Plaintiff brought this class action lawsuit against the Defendants who allegedly issued false and misleading offering materials including review of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings, as well as regulatory filings and reports, securities analysts' reports and advisories. TerraForm Global owns and operates contracted power generation assets. The Company offers wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and hybrid energy solutions. The company is based in Bethesda, Maryland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Robbins, Esq. George Carlos Aguilar, Esq. Jay Nabil Razzouk, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-3350 Telephone: (619) 525 3990 Facsimile: (619) 525 3991 E-mail: notice@robbinsarroyo.com GAguilar@robbinsarroyo.com jrazzouk@robbinsarroyo.com The Defendant is represented by: Sara B. Brody, Esq. Jaime Allyson Bartlett, Esq. Norman J. Blears, Esq. Sarah Alison Hemmendinger, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 Califonia Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 772 1200 Facsimile: (415) 772 7400 E-mail: sbrody@sidley.com jbartlett@sidley.com nblears@sidley.com shemmendinger@sidley.com TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Fraser" Suit Moved to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Fraser v. Wuebbels et al., Case No. CIV535963, was removed from the Superior Court County of San Mateo, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-06326-WHO to the proceeding. The Defendant allegedly issued false and misleading offering materials including review and analysis of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings, press releases and media reports, and publicly available information. Brian Wuebbles is the President and CEO of TerraForm Global Inc. TerraForm Global owns and operates contracted power generation assets. The Company offers wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and hybrid energy solutions. The company is based in Bethesda, Maryland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ex Kano S. Sams II, Esq. Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Lesley F Portnoy, Esq. Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201 9150 Facsimile: (310) 201 9160 E-mail: esams@glancylaw.com info@glancylaw.com lportnoy@glancylaw.com rprongay@glancylaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Sara B. Brody, Esq. Jaime Allyson Bartlett, Esq. Norman J. Blears, Esq. Sarah Alison Hemmendinger, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 Califonia Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 772 1200 Facsimile: (415) 772 7400 E-mail: sbrody@sidley.com jbartlett@sidley.com nblears@sidley.com shemmendinger@sidley.com - and - Stephen D. Hibbard, Esq. SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 3800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 616 1100 Facsimile: (415) 616 1199 E-mail: shibbard@shearman.com TETRAPHASE PHARMA: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Tetraphase" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:TTPH) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Tetraphase securities between March 5, 2015 and September 8, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The Complaint alleges that the Company and certain insiders issued materially false and misleading statements to investors. In particular, the Complaint alleges that the Company made positive statements about the efficacy and potential for its drug Eravacycline to achieve approval by the FDA, despite knowledge that a pivotal portion of its IGNITE2 phase 3 clinical trial for Eravacycline would fail to achieve its primary endpoint of statistical non-inferiority compared to the antibiotic Levofloxacin. On September 8, 2015, the Company announced that the pivotal portion of its IGNITE2 phase 3 clinical trial of Eravacycline did not achieve its primary endpoint. Following this news, shares of the Company fell from a close of $44.78 on September 8, 2015, to a close of $8.36 per share on September 10, 2015 -- a loss of more than 80% in market value. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 28, 2016. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. E-mail: gegleston@gme-law.com Gainey McKenna & Egleston Telephone: (212) 983-1300 TOPHAT LOGISTICAL: Delivery Drivers File Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a group of delivery drivers for a business specializing in the home delivery of appliances, furniture and other products on behalf of a number of retailers, have brought a class action lawsuit against the shipping company, alleging the company has improperly classified its drivers as independent contractors, shorting them earnings in the process. On Jan. 26, plaintiffs Cedric Morris, Paxton Williams and Donovan Jameson filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against TopHat Logistical Solutions LLC, alleging violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and unjust enrichment. The complaint said TopHat is based in suburban Bloomingdale; the company's website indicated it is based in Lake Geneva, Wis. The plaintiffs, represented by attorneys with the firms of Siegel & Dolan, of Chicago, and Lichten & Liss-Riordan, of Boston, said they are also seeking damages on behalf of a class of other plaintiffs which they estimated could number in the thousands. According to the complaint, Morris, of Maywood, worked for TopHat as a driver from 2010-2015; Williams, of Bellwood, from 2011-2015; and Jameson, from 2013-2014. The complaint alleged the drivers were all classified as independent contractors, by TopHat, which, according to its website, delivers various large products for such retailers as Sears, hhGregg, Grand Appliance and TV, Sleepy's and MattressFirm, among others. However, while the plaintiffs said they and other drivers were classified as independent contractors, subject to an agreement they signed with TopHat, they said the way TopHat managed their drivers should instead qualify them as employees, under the law. "The behavioral and financial control manifested over the drivers by TopHat, both under the terms of their contracts and in fact, demonstrates that they are TopHat's employees," the complaint stated. The complaint said TopHat required drivers to report to TopHat's facility between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. "six to seven days a week" to receive their route assignments and deliveries list; to wear uniforms; to make deliveries in a manner and in a time mandated by TopHat; submit to background checks and drug tests; to receive authorization from TopHat for any "helper" the drivers might bring along; to operate their vehicles under TopHat's Department of Transportation number; and to check in with TopHat after each delivery or carry GPS devices, among other stipulations. The drivers said they routinely worked 12-14 hours a day, but TopHat would deduct "certain expenses directly from plaintiffs' checks, including deductions for insurances . . . equipment, truck rentals and uniforms," as well as costs of "damage" from "unsatisfactory" deliveries, and additional penalties for "lateness" or "uncompleted deliveries." Yet, the complaint said, TopHat requires drivers to pay for their own fuel, vehicle maintenance costs and "payments to helpers." The complaint said, by "mischaracterizing" its drivers as independent contractors, TopHat "evades employment related obligations, such as social security contributions, workers' compensation coverage and state disability and unemployment compensation." "TopHat illegally shifts these costs . . . to plaintiffs," the complaint alleged. The drivers asked the court to certify a class of other plaintiffs, including anyone who "contracted to provide delivery services . . . to TopHat" in Illinois. The complaint asked the court to order TopHat to pay unspecified damages, including restitution for all deductions from drivers' paychecks; unpaid wages, with interest; statutory damages; and attorneys' fees. TRUECAR INC: N.Y. Court Narrows Car Dealers' Suit ------------------------------------------------- District Judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York granted, in part, and denied, in part, TrueCar, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the case is, DEPENDABLE SALES & SERVICE, INC., Plaintiffs, v. TRUECAR, INC., Defendant, No. 15-cv-1742(PKC)(S.D.N.Y.). "TrueCar's motion to dismiss is granted as to the "bait-and- switch," "financing," "transparency" and "rebate" advertisements. It is denied as to the "no haggle" and "factory invoice" advertisements," Judge Castel said. TrueCar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that on March 9, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York (the "NY Lanham Act Litigation"). The complaint in the NY Lanham Act Litigation, purportedly filed on behalf of numerous automotive dealers who are not participating on the TrueCar platform, alleges that the Company has violated the Lanham Act as well as various state laws prohibiting unfair competition and deceptive acts or practices related to the Company's advertising and promotional activities. The complaint seeks injunctive relief in addition to over $250 million in damages as a result of the alleged diversion of customers from the plaintiffs' dealerships to TrueCar Certified Dealers. The Plaintiffs in the Dependable Sales case are 162 auto dealerships located throughout the United States. On April 7, 2015, the Company filed an answer to the complaint. Thereafter, the plaintiffs amended their complaint, and on July 13, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Company believes that the amended complaint is without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. A copy of the Court's January 6, 2016 Memorandum and order is available at http://is.gd/KED82Nfrom Leagle.com. Dependable Sales and Service, Inc., Plaintiff, is represented by: Leonard Anthony Bellavia, Esq. Steven H Blatt, Esq. BELLAVIA GENTILE & ASSOCIATES, LLP 200 Old Country Road, Suite 400 Mineola, NY 11590 Tel: 516-873-3000 - and - Robert E. Chudakoff, Esq. Thomas Williams, Esq. Victoria Langton, Esq. ULMER & BERNE LLP Skylight Office Tower 1660 West 2nd Street, Suite 1100 Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1448 Tel: (216) 583-7126 E-mail: rchudakoff@ulmer.com vlangton@ulmer.com Other plaintiffs include, but are not limited to, Drew Ford, Beaver Motors Inc., Key Chrysler Jeep & Dodge, Inc., Westbury Jeep Chrysler Dodge, Inc., Rafferty Subaru, Inc., Valley Motors, Inc., Catanese Volkswagen, Inc., Arnold Chevrolet, LCC, Bellavia Buick, Inc., World Auto Group, Inc., Paul Miller, Inc., Paul Miller Performance, L.L.C., Paul Miller GT, Inc., Paul Miller Sportscar,Inc., G.S. Autoplex, LLC, L&S Motors Inc., Westchester Autoplex, Inc., D.L. New Rochelle Auto Sales, LLC, N.R. Automotive, Inc., Haldeman Ford of Kutztown, Inc., Genesee Valley Motors, Inc., Genesse Valley Ford LLC, Tustin Buick GMC, Inc., Sam Boswell Motors, Inc., Cascade Auto Group, Salerno Duane, Inc., Park Ford Of Mahopac Inc., Cobb Auto Sales, Inc., Hoffman Ford, Inc., Hoffman of Hartford, Inc., Hoffman Motors of New London Inc., Hoffman of Simsbury, Hoffman of Simsbury, Hoffman of Simsbury, Hoffman of West Simsbury, Inc., Hoffman Ford, Inc., C.S.I. Motors, Inc., Fitz Motors, Inc., Biener Auto Group, Inc., Brentlinger Enterprises, Truecar, Inc., Defendant, is represented by: Benjamin Maxwell Arrow, Esq. Harold Paul Weinberger, Esq. Norman Christopher Simon, Esq. KRAMER, LEVIN, NAFTALIS & FRANKEL, LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Tel: 212-715-9100 Fax: 212-715-8000 E-mail: barrow@kramerlevin.com hweinberger@kramerlevin.com nsimon@kramerlevin.com TRUECAR INC: Wants Calif. Securities Action Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------- TrueCar, Inc. is seeking dismissal of a securities class action lawsuit in California, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. On May 27, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the "Federal Securities Litigation") by Satyabrata Mahapatra naming the Company and two other individuals not affiliated with the Company as defendants. On June 15, 2015, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Errata and Correction purporting to name Scott Painter and Michael Guthrie as individual defendants in lieu of the two individual defendants named in the complaint. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs amended their complaint. As amended, the complaint in the Federal Securities Litigation seeks an award of unspecified damages, interest and attorneys' fees based on allegations that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects and performance. Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that during the putative class period, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's business practices violated unfair competition and deceptive trade practice laws (i.e., the issues raised in the NY Lanham Act Litigation); (ii) the Company acts as a dealer and broker in car sales transactions without proper licensing, in violation of various states' laws that govern car sales (i.e., the issues raised in the CNCDA Litigation); and (iii) as a result of the above, the Company's registration statements, prospectuses, quarterly and annual reports, financial statements, SEC filings, press releases, and other statements and documents were materially false and misleading at times relevant to the amended complaint and putative class period. The amended complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from May 16, 2014 to July 23, 2015. On October 19, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Based on the preliminary nature of the proceedings in this case, the outcome of this legal proceeding, including the anticipated legal defense costs, remains uncertain; accordingly, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome or reasonably estimate the probability of or the range of loss, if any, for this action. As a result, no loss accrual has been recorded in the Company's consolidated financial statements related to this matter. If this matter is not resolved in the Company's favor, losses arising from the results of litigation or settlements, as well as ongoing defense costs, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. TRUECAR INC: Calif. State Court Suit Dismissed ---------------------------------------------- TrueCar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that plaintiffs in a securities class action lawsuit in California state court have voluntarily dismissed their case. On August 11, 2015, the Company, certain of its executives and directors, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering and secondary offering were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in California Superior Court under the federal securities laws (the "California State Court Securities Litigation"). The complaint filed by Ning Shen and William Fitzpatrick, alleged that the Company's registration statements in connection with the offerings contained false or misleading statements of material facts, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects, and performance. On September 2, 2015, following the Company's removal of the action from California state court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit "without prejudice," which means that the California State Court Securities Litigation is currently resolved, but that it could be re-filed at a later date. Because this case is currently resolved, no loss accrual has been recorded in the Company's consolidated financial statements related to this matter. If the California State Court Securities Litigation is re- filed at a later date, or if additional similar litigation, such as the Federal Securities Litigation, is filed against the Company, and if such litigation is not resolved in the Company's favor, losses arising from the results of litigation or settlements, as well as ongoing defense costs, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. UNITED STATES: Newspaper Intervenes in Border Patrol Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Rob O'Dell, writing for Arizona Central, reports that the Arizona Republic has intervened to unseal records in a class-action suit that alleges inadequate and inhumane conditions in the Border Patrol's migrant detention facilities in southern Arizona. The motion asked U.S. District Court Judge David Bury to unseal a preliminary injunction by the plaintiffs in the case that details what they contend is the inadequate, unsafe and unhealthy conditions migrants face in southern Arizona detention centers run by Customs and Border Protection. The federal government filed a motion to seal the injunction and all the exhibits, which include pictures and videos. In mid-January, Bury approved the class-action status of a lawsuit filed by several civil- and immigration-rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, on behalf of two unnamed women who were detained and Norlan Flores, who has been detained twice. For years, migrants caught by the Border Patrol in southern Arizona have complained about dirty and overcrowded cells, being deprived of adequate food and water, and not receiving adequate medical care. They have a name for these frigid detention rooms: Las hieleras, Spanish for the freezers. The motion said that "the public has an undeniable interest in monitoring a civil case concerning the allegedly inhumane conditions experience by civil border detainees lodged in government facilities" and that the government "provides no compelling reason why they should be allowed to continue to litigate this action in secret, immune from public scrutiny." The government argued to seal the records because "release of the photographs and videos would violate the privacy rights of depicted detainees." It argued release of the documents could impact privacy rights of Border Patrol agents and also would "allow unsavory individuals to escape from, gain access to or otherwise manipulate Border Patrol facilities." The Republic's attorney, said the government's actions has allowed basic court records to be hidden from public view for months in a case of acute public interest. "There are serious allegations of inhumane conditions at Border Patrol facilities," said Nicole Carroll, The Republic's Vice President of News and Editor. "This issue is a public concern and should not be litigated in secret. The public has a right to know what is happening in those facilities and in that courtroom." UTZ QUALITY FOODS: "Cummings" Suit Goes to Mass. Dist. Court ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Cummings v. UTZ Quality Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-06595, was removed from the Middlesex Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-14242-WGY to the proceeding. UTZ Quality Foods manufactures and supplies snack foods. The Company provides potato chips, pretzels, snacks and assortments, gift boxes and tins, and chocolate products. The company is based in Hanover, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen M. Hurley, Esq. Philip J. Gordon, Esq. GORDON LAW GROUP 585 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 536 1800 Facsimile: (617) 536 1802 E-mail: khurley@gordonllp.com pgordon@gordonllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Richard J. Reibstein, Esq. Jaclyn M. Essinger, Esq. PEPPER HAMILTON LLP 620 Eighth Avenue, 37th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 808 2722 E-mail: essingej@pepperlaw.com VOLKSWAGEN AG: May Buy Back Non-Emission Compliant Diesel Cars -------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Ewing, writing for The New York Times, reports that Volkswagen may buy back some diesel cars in the United States if it cannot make them compliant with air quality rules fast enough, a lawyer for the company says. The statement, made during a court hearing by Robert Giuffra, a lawyer defending Volkswagen against class-action suits by owners of tainted diesel vehicles, was the clearest indication yet that the company, which is based in Wolfsburg, Germany, may not have the technology to bring emissions for some of the cars into line with regulations without hurting performance and fuel economy. Mr. Giuffra spoke during a hearing in United States District Court in San Francisco, although his remarks did not attract wide attention at the time. Volkswagen officials have indicated that the company might buy back some cars in the United States. Mr. Giuffra's comments suggested that option has become more likely. Volkswagen could probably find a solution eventually, Mr. Giuffra said. He added, "The question though is one of timing. "And for some of the vehicles it may well be that the timing is too far into the future," he said, according to a transcript of the hearing. "So we might have to do a buyback or some sort of a solution like that for some subset of the vehicles, but that hasn't been determined yet." Volkswagen faces hundreds of lawsuits from diesel owners and independent dealers who say they are stuck with cars that have fallen in value after the company admitted rigging them to cheat on emissions tests. The number of affected vehicles was put at 575,000 during the San Francisco hearing. From September, when the Environmental Protection Agency first accused Volkswagen of emissions cheating, to the end of December, prices for VW diesels have dropped nearly 16 percent, according to data compiled by Kelley Blue Book. Some owners report steeper declines. Volkswagen has not found a way to reduce emissions that satisfies federal and California regulators. In any case, the company would still face legal claims from owners if the cars' performance suffered and the vehicles lost resale value as a result. It may be simpler just to buy cars back, or offer owners generous trade- ins on new Volkswagen vehicles. "We have no comment other than to say that Volkswagen continues to work cooperatively with E.P.A. and CARB to resolve these issues as quickly as possible with approved remedies for the affected vehicles," the company said, referring to California's Air Resources Board. In Europe, where most of the 11 million vehicles are, Volkswagen is planning to update the engine software and in some cases add a part intended to reduce emissions by improving air flow into the engine. But that solution will not work in the United States because of stricter limits on nitrogen oxide, a pollutant linked to lung ailments and smog. It is particularly difficult for Volkswagen to fix older vehicles equipped with less effective emissions equipment than was installed on newer cars. About 320,000 of the Volkswagen diesel cars sold in the United States are equipped with the first generation of the motor, known as the EA 189, that is at the heart of the scandal. Those motors, which began appearing in the United States in the 2009 model year, have a device known as a nitrogen oxide trap that is considered less effective. Those cars are probably the most likely candidates for buybacks. Larger diesel vehicles such as the Touareg sport utility vehicle and Audi Q7, as well as Passat sedans since 2012, have a system that uses the chemical urea to neutralize nitrogen oxide. That kind of emission control is considered more effective and has little or no effect on fuel economy. The nitrogen oxide traps, by contrast, hurt fuel mileage and acceleration when the traps are fully deployed. That may be the reason Volkswagen programmed the cars to reduce emissions controls except when engine software detected that the car was undergoing tests. The Golf, Jetta and Beetle did not get the urea chemical systems until 2015. Volkswagen faces many class-action lawsuits from owners and some used-car dealers. The hearing in San Francisco on Jan. 21 was so crowded that lawyers spilled out of the courtroom into the corridor. After the session, Judge Charles R. Breyer of United States District Court appointed a steering committee of 21 lawyers representing VW owners and dealers to try to negotiate a settlement with the company. The negotiations will be overseen by Robert S. Mueller III, a former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who was appointed settlement master in the case. Elizabeth J. Cabraser, a veteran San Francisco lawyer who specializes in consumer fraud cases, will be lead lawyer for the plaintiffs. Judge Breyer said during the hearing that the civil cases were not a "whodunit" focused on who at Volkswagen was responsible for the cheating. "It is more of a case of how do we fix what was done," he said. "If it can't be fixed, then what is fair and just compensation for the people who have been damaged by this matter?" Mr. Giuffra of the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell said that the solution "needs to be a sustainable fix, and a fix that actually works, because we don't want to do something that we think is a fix and doesn't turn out to be a fix." WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Pepperoni Pizza Products Due to Misbranding ---------------------------------------------------------------- Whole Foods/North Atlantic Kitchens, an Everett, Mass. establishment, is recalling approximately 73,898 pounds of pepperoni pizza products due to misbranding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The product is labeled as containing uncured beef pepperoni. However, the pizzas contain uncured pork pepperoni, which is not declared on the product label. Some individuals have a sensitivity or intolerance to pork. The fresh pizza items were produced Jan. 5, 2015, through Jan. 22, 2016. The following products are subject to recall: --- 10-oz. vacuum-sealed packages of "WHOLE FOODS MARKETS, PIZZA, PEPPERONI, 8". --- 19-oz. vacuum-sealed packages of "WHOLE FOODS MARKETS, PIZZA, PEPPERONI, 12". The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST. 20234" inside the USDA mark of inspection and Sell-by dates of Jan. 12, 2015 through Jan. 30, 2016 printed on the packaging. These items were shipped for wholesale and retail sale in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island. The problem was discovered by FSIS during a label review at the establishment and occurred as a result of a change in ingredient suppliers. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. ZIMBABWE: Judge Dismisses Suit Challenging Teachers Recall ---------------------------------------------------------- Jonga Kandemiiri, writing for Voice of America, reports that Labour Court judge Justice Godfrey Musariri dismissed a case in which the Progressive Teachers' Union of Zimbabwe (PTUZ) was challenging a move by the government to recall teachers currently on leave. Sources said Justice Musariri noted that the case was not fit for a group action, meaning to say that PTUZ availed itself instead of individual teachers affected by the move. The judge also said the matter did not qualify to be heard as an urgent case. This coincided with the announcement by Labour Minister Priscah Mupfumira that no teachers should go on leave until the government finds money to pay relief staff. PTUZ general secretary Raymond Majongwe said even though they are disappointed with the outcome, their lawyer will file fresh papers containing the names of the affected teachers. "This is a set-back but what we want to make known is that as workers we are ready to take them head-on," said Majongwe. * Class Action, Mass Tort Trial Lawyers Tops Earners ---------------------------------------------------- According to Manhattan Institute's James Copland, lawsuits play a major role in the American economy: the direct costs of tort litigation alone are roughly one-tenth the entire health care sector, and that figure excludes various settlements and classes of litigation, as well as forgone research and investment and wasteful practices encouraged by litigation risk, including defensive medicine. "Trial Lawyers, Inc." behaves like the biggest of businesses, as it generates cash from traditional profit centers (asbestos, tobacco, and insurance), explores potential growth markets (lead paint, mold, and regulated industries), and develops new products (such as suits against the fast-food industry). The U.S. litigation industry's top earners are those who represent large numbers of plaintiffs, either through class-action lawsuits or mass-tort product-liability suits. Trial lawyers have become more sophisticated in their strategies: rather than paying individuals to serve as plaintiffs, class-action lawyers now make perfectly legal contributions to politicians who control litigation for public-employee pension funds; rather than chasing ambulances to find clients, mass-tort lawyers have developed sophisticated marketing strategies that take advantage of the Internet and social-media platforms to attract the people whose claims constitute their books of business. In some respects, things have improved since the Manhattan Institute launched its first Trial Lawyers, Inc. report in 2003: in addition to prosecutors stopping some of the worst frauds, the U.S. Supreme Court and other judicial decision makers have modified some rules for the better; state legislatures have continued to modify laws to deter litigation abuse; and Congress passed the landmark Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which prevented class-action lawyers from shopping large national cases to the most favorable state courts. A complete copy of the publication is available at: http://www.insideronline.org/reader.php?id=5oGk * EEOC May File Discrimination Suits for Group of Workers --------------------------------------------------------- P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may file a single suit to gain recovery for a group of workers who have been subjected to discriminatory employment practices, rather than file multiple individual suits, a federal judge has ruled. U.S. District Judge Mark R. Hornak of the Western District of Pennsylvania's ruling in EEOC v. FedEx Ground Package System allows the EEOC to continue its lawsuit against FedEx, in which the commission represents 17 deaf individuals who claimed FedEx didn't make adequate accommodations for them in their jobs as package handlers. The decision was in response to FedEx's motion to dismiss the case. FedEx claimed the EEOC could not represent a class of plaintiffs because each claim was too individualized and fact- specific. FedEx argued that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the EEOC had to file a series of one-off lawsuits for each of the plaintiffs. However, Judge Hornak wrote in his opinion that the EEOC has authority to bring such suits under the ADA for the purpose of eliminating systematic employment discrimination. "The EEOC has broad power to 'prevent any person from engaging in any unlawful employment practice,'" Judge Hornak said. "Specifically, the EEOC is authorized to bring civil actions against discriminating employers." The purpose of EEOC litigation is twofold, Judge Hornak said. "First, and most obviously, the EEOC can bring a suit on behalf of particular individuals, lending its institutional and societal heft to an effort to remedy discrete events of employment discrimination. EEOC litigation also serves an entirely separate and distinct purpose: the vindication of rights protected by federal anti-discrimination laws. That purpose exists wholly apart from securing relief for individual victims; indeed the injury that the EEOC was designed to remedy is the violation itself and not only the actual harm imposed on an employee or applicant for employment." The point of the EEOC, Judge Hornak said, was to litigate for public interest, not just for individual plaintiffs. FedEx relied on the 2009 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case of Hohider v. UPS in arguing that varied claims under the ADA can't be litigated on a consolidated basis because of the fact-specific inquiry needed in each -- individual case. However, Judge Hornak said Hohider didn't apply to the case at hand because it dealt with private class actions. Additionally, Judge Hornak said the plaintiffs in Hohider had little in common. "There was no unifying disability, or even a unifying job, position, or decisional process that brought them together. Thus, a court would have to determine whether each individual 'with or without reasonable accommodation, [could] perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires,'" Judge Hornak said. He added the claims in the EEOC's case against FedEx are more narrow than the ones in Hohider. "Here, the claimants and potential beneficiaries of relief facially share a common disability -- being deaf or hard-of- hearing," Judge Hornak said. "And the claimants are employed in or applicants for a common position: package handler. Further, the minimum qualifications for becoming a package handler (being 18 years old and passing a criminal background check), are commonly applicable, easily identifiable, and provable if true, even with respect to the as-yet-unknown aggrieved individuals." The first step in determining whether the claims can go forward, according to Judge Hornak, is whether the individual plaintiffs are "qualified" under the ADA -- a factor upon which both parties agreed was necessary. However, there was a difference in opinion when it came to FedEx's argument that a pattern or practice of discrimination had to be shown in order to move forward. The EEOC argued that discriminatory practices by themselves are not legal claims, but part of an evidentiary framework. * Self-Driving Technology May Impact Auto Injury litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for Law.com, reports that research into cars that drive themselves appears to be heading into the fast lane, carrying with it the promise of fewer deaths and injuries from car accidents. That could also mean fewer cases for attorneys who handle automotive injury litigation, but opinions differ on how much of a threat driverless cars pose to lawyers' livelihoods. The volume of road accidents is widely predicted to decline as self-driving technology is adopted, although just when and how much is less clear. An October 2015 white paper from consultant KPMG on autonomous cars' effect on the auto insurance industry predicted that the number of accidents per vehicle would decline 80 percent by 2040. Automated systems in self-driving cars will reduce vulnerability to human error, the cause of most crashes, said Stephen Wu, an attorney representing technology companies in the autonomous vehicle industry. "There will be a diminishment in the amount of work that's being done for auto accidents. If I were in that field right now, I would be looking for alternatives. I feel a prudent practitioner in that field should be looking at related practice areas," said Mr. Wu, of Silicon Valley Law Group in San Jose, California. "There are going to be people who are right now making a living representing people who are injured in auto accidents because of negligence of drivers on the road or products that fail or liability arising from failure of a government entity to make a road safe -- I believe that work will decrease over time." Still, while suits focusing on driver error will likely decline as more and more self-driving cars take to the roads, the new technology is not foolproof and accidents won't be completely eliminated, according to Mr. Wu. And when a self-driving car is involved in a crash, passengers will need lawyers who can unravel the reason its complex systems failed, and potentially bring claims related to the vehicles' sensors, software and data inputs, Mr. Wu said. "You may see a shift from one group of plaintiffs' lawyers to another group of plaintiffs' lawyers. Nevertheless, you will see the aggregate number of cases reduced," Mr. Wu said. Still, auto accident lawyers who expand their knowledge of technological issues will benefit, he said. The magnitude of the decline in injuries from auto crashes as autonomous cars are introduced is hard to predict, said Hilary Rowen, an insurance regulatory lawyer at Sedgwick in San Francisco who studies insurance issues related to self-driving cars. The year 2020 is often mentioned as the date when self-driving technology will be ready for market, but Ms. Rowen said she's skeptical and thinks that date will be pushed back. Cars are already being sold with more and more semi-autonomous features, such as lane departure warnings and automated parallel parking, and Ms. Rowen said she thinks the auto industry will "tiptoe up to (self-driving technology) gradually" rather than immediately jump to completely self-driving cars. And whenever autonomous cars do become available, they will share the roads with human-operated vehicles for the foreseeable future, given that the average age of vehicles on American roads is 11 years, according to Ms. Rowen, who is the American Bar Association's tort trial and insurance practice section observer to the Uniform Law Commission Study Committee on Self-Driving Cars. Ms. Rowen is "skeptical that the most optimistic projections [for accident reduction] will materialize in anything less than a 40- year projection," but she nonetheless expects "a significant reduction in bodily injury frequency and severity and in property frequency." That said, body damage to self-driving cars will be especially costly to repair, she said. When self-driving cars do take to the roads in large numbers, Ms. Rowen said she foresees a short-term bump in suits over "novel litigation and causation issues." Since some cars will offer the choice of driver control or autonomous control, there will likely be disputes over whether a crash was caused by human error or technology, she said. And there also may be coverage disputes revolving around whether a case involves a products liability claim or a garden-variety private passenger vehicle accident, Ms. Rowen said. That period will taper off as new and novel fact patterns work their way through courts of appeal, she said. Ms. Rowen said she anticipates a second phase starting when insurance companies and lawyers begin to discern common accident patterns with autonomous cars. Demand for legal services from crash victims will decrease "in the longer term," and that business "may not go to the same people" who represent such clients today, according to Ms. Rowen. To avoid being left out, practitioners should "gear up their expertise" and become local experts on issues such as, for example, "how you'd handle black box data," she said. Autonomous cars are developing along three separate paths, according to Ms. Rowen -- traditional cars with increasingly sophisticated driver assistance features; cars that have operator controls but can also be fully autonomous; and fully-autonomous vehicles with no steering wheels, accelerators or brake pedals. The third type of vehicle will be used in a narrow range of settings such as surface streets in cities and suburbs, she said. In addition, she noted, vehicle ownership patterns are expected to change, as jitney-like services allow some households to go from owning multiple cars to owning just one. The leader in developing self-driving technology is Google, according to a report from IHS Inc., a provider of business information and analysis, which estimates the company has invested nearly $60 million so far in the arena. Google researchers have expertise not available to traditional auto companies because they can leverage the company's other areas of investment, such as robotics, drones, artificial intelligence and machine learning, according a November 2015 IHS report. Lawyers who represent injured parties and insurance companies in auto accident litigation don't seem worried about the changes self-driving cars are expected to bring. Mario Delano of Campbell, Foley, Delano & Adams in Asbury Park, who represents defendants in auto injury litigation, said he's skeptical of the notion that self-driving cars will lead to a decline in cases, noting that he thinks many drivers will be reluctant to choose an autonomous vehicle. "I think there's going to be a significant section of the population that's not going to want to lose control over driving their own cars," Mr. Delano said. Mr. Delano said auto accident lawyers who are in mid-career will likely be able to reach retirement before having their practices disrupted by self-driving cars. However, younger attorneys who handle auto injury cases would be wise to expand their horizons through continuing legal education courses in areas such as products liability, said Mr. Delano, a member of DRI's insurance law committee. John Sakson, who is co-managing director and chair of the personal injury and workers' compensation group at Stark & Stark in Lawrenceville, said he doubts work will dry up for attorneys representing auto accident victims. Calling a reduction in crashes "a laudable goal," Mr. Sakson said he'd "like to have that problem of, 'Where are we going to find our work?' but it's not going to happen." Mr. Sakson said his firm is not preparing for an end to auto injury litigation, noting that factors such as bad weather, motorists who drive with worn tires and truck drivers who put in long hours at the wheel without a break will continue to cause accidents. "When I started in this business, 37 years ago, people were saying the personal injury business is going to be dead. Tragically, while we all hope for a society where no one is injured needlessly, that's a utopian goal. I believe vehicles are still going to collide with vehicles, people are going to operate under conditions that are less than ideal and things are going to happen," Mr. Sakson said. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Marine Transport's Bid to Junk "Quinlan" OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- Marine Transport Lines, Inc., moves to dismiss plaintiffs William E. Bartel, David C. Peebles and Julie Quinlan's complaint based on the expiration of the statute of limitations. The Plaintiffs oppose the motion arguing that they are entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. The Plaintiff does not dispute that if equitable tolling does not apply, the action would be time-barred. The Plaintiffs seek equitable tolling of the statute of limitations on the basis that Marine misled the Maritime Asbestos Clinic into believing that Marine had waived its personal jurisdictional objections. The Plaintiffs also seek tolling because the federal courts delayed deciding the jurisdictional issue for nearly two decades. Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County, granted the motion to dismiss. Judge Moulton held that his decision is about whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an equitable toll of the statute of limitations under the circumstances, where Quinlan's complaint was dismissed based on the lack of jurisdiction. The problem with the plaintiffs' arguments is that they ignore the prior actions and inactions of their counsel, Judge Moulton further held. The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to WILLIAM E. BARTEL, AND DAVID C. PEEBLES administrators of the Estate of EUGENE QUINLAN, deceased, and JULIE QUINLAN, individually, Plaintiffs, v. MARINE TRANSPORT LINES, INC., WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORP. & JOHN CRANE INC., Defendants. Docket No. 190360/2014, Seq. 003, 2015 NY Slip Op 32371(U). A full-text copy of the Decision dated December 10, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/e3oJFUfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Recommends Dismissal of 2 Cos. in "Shaw" --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware recommended that the court dismiss Defendants Bay Valley Pulp and Paper Co. and Bird Escher Wyss, Inc., from the case captioned RALPH ELLIOTT SHAW and JOAN SANDERSON SHAW Plaintiffs, v. ANDRITZ INC., et al., Defendants, C.A. No. 1:15-cv-00725-SLR-SRF (D. Del.) without prejudice. The court entered an order to show cause, on or before December 15, 2015, why this court should not recommend that Bay Valley and Bird Escher be dismissed from the action. Plaintiffs Ralph Elliott Shaw and Joan Sanderson Shaw have not responded to the order to show cause. A full-text copy of the Report and Recommendation dated December 21, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/XUImmkfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs are represented by Michael L. Sensor, Esq. -- Lundy Law of Delaware, LLC & Charles E. Soechting, Jr., Esq. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Affirms Ruling for Cos. in "Garnes" ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs-Appellants estate of Otis Garnes and his eight surviving children appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants MCIC Inc., General Electric Corporation, Wallace and Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, SB Decking Inc., and Wayne Manufacturing Company. The district court held that the appellants failed to provide evidence of exposure to any products manufactured or installed by MCIC, Wallace and Gale, SB Decking, or GE sufficient to meet the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test for substantial-factor causation in Maryland negligence cases alleging asbestos exposure. Because the appellants could not meet that test, their claims failed as a matter of law, the district court held. The district court further held that the plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine dispute as to whether Wayne is subject to personal jurisdiction. The court found that Wayne, a Virginia corporation, did not have sufficient "minimum contacts" with Maryland to permit an exercise of personal jurisdiction consistent with the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms the district court's judgment. The case is LISA COVINGTON, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Otis Garnes, Deceased; MARQUISE GARNES; JOYCE GARNES; MARVIN GARNES; ARNETTA HUDSON; DELORSE ALCINDOR; LINDA EDWARDS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and OTIS GARNES, Plaintiff, v. MCIC, INC., Its Remaining Director Trustees, Robert I. McCormick, Elizabeth McCormick and Patricia Schunk; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; WALLACE & GALE ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST, Successor to the Wallace & Gale Company; SB DECKING, INC.; WAYNE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees, and OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS CO., f/k/a Owens- Illinois, Incorporated; DURABLA MANUFACTURING COMPANY; UNIVERSAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY; SELBY, BATTERSBY & COMPANY; A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY; CBS CORPORATION, f/k/a Westinghouse and B. F. Sturtevant; PREMIER REFRACTORIES, f/k/a J.H. France Refractories Company; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.; RHI REFRACTORIES AMERICA, f/k/a RHI AG; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO.; H.B. FULLER COMPANY, f/k/a Amchem Products, Inc., f/k/a Benjamin Foster; INTERNATIONAL PAPER CORPORATION, f/k/a Champion International Corporation, f/k/a U.S. Plywood Corp. & Champion Papers, Inc.; COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC., Individually and as Successors in Interest to Crouse Hinds Co; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; FERRO ENGINEERING, Division of Oglebay Norton Co.; FOSECO, INC.; GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES LLC; SQUARE D COMPANY, Individually and as Successor in Interest to Electric Controller and Manufacturing Co; GREEN, TWEED & CO., Individually and as Successor in Interest to Palmetto Inc.; E.L. STEBBING & CO., INC.; HAMPSHIRE INDUSTRIES, INC., f/k/a John H. Hampshire Company; CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, Individually and as Successor to Bestwall Gypsum Co.; KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., Individually and as Successor In Interest to Benjamin Foster Co., Amchem Products, Inc. H.B. Fuller Co., Aventis Cropscience USA, Inc., Rhone-Poulenc AG Company, Inc., Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. and Rhodia, Inc.; PFIZER CORPORATION; GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY; KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., f/k/a Allied Signal, Inc., Successor to Bendix Corporation; DITCH BOWERS & TAYLOR, INC.; TPC CORP., Individually and as Successor in Interest to Wareheim Air Brakes; WAREHEIM AIR BRAKES, INC.; WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; PNEUMO-ABEX CORPORATION, Successor in Interest to Abex Corporation; GL&V DORR-OLIVER INCORPORATED, Individually and/or as Successors in Interest to Keeler Boiler Works and Dorr- Oliver Boiler Co.; AMERICAN STANDARD, INC., Individually and as Succesor in Interest to Kewanee Boiler Manufacturing Co., Westinghouse Air Brake Company and Union Switch & Signal; CRANE CO., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Chapman Valve Co., Deming Pumps, Cochrane Corp., Cochrane, Inc., Crane Pumps and Pacific Steel Boiler Co; GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION; UNIROYAL, INC.; AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC.; ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY; ALLITE GASKETS; FLEXITALLIC GASKET CO., INC.; MELRATH GASKET, INC.; PARAMOUNT PACKING & RUBBER CO.; PHELPS PACKING & RUBBER CO.; WORTHINGTON PUMP, INC., f/k/a Dresser Pump Division; WAYNE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION; DANA CORPORATION; BABCOCK & WILCOX COMPANY; CROKER, INCORPORATED; NATIONAL GYPSUM COMPANY; QUIGLEY COMPANY, INC., a Subsidiary of Pfizer, Inc.; WARREN PUMPS, INC.; ALFA LAVAL, INC., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Sharples, Inc., Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. and DeLaval Separator Co.; ALLIS CHALMERS; DRESSER-RAND CO., f/k/a Terry Turbines, Individually and as Parent Corporation and Successor-in-Interest to Terry Steam Turbines; FMC CORPORATION, individually and Successor-in-Interest to Peerless Pumps and Stearns Electric Co.; I.M.O. INDUSTRIES, INC., f/k/a DeLaval Turbine, Inc., f/k/a Delaval, Inc., f/k/a IMP Delaval, Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to DeLaval Turbine, Inc. and Warren Pumps, Inc; MCGRAW EDISON COMPANY, Individually and as Successor-in- Interest to Worthington Pumps, Worthington Pumps, Inc. and Turbodyne Corp.; FOSTER WHEELER LLC; FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION; HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC., Defendants, v. JOHN CRANE INCORPORATED, Third Party Defendant, No. 14-2055. A full-text copy of the Decision dated January 5, 2016, is available at http://is.gd/sasSXofrom Leagle.com. Harry Goldman, Jr., Esq., Robert Gordon Skeen, Esq. -- SKEEN, GOLDMAN, LLP & John Amato, IV, Esq. -- jamato@gmelaw.com -- GOODMAN, MEAGHER & ENOCH, LLP, for Appellants. Mitchell Y. Mirviss, Esq. -- mymirviss@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP, David William Allen, Esq. -- dwa@gdldlaw.com -- GOODELL, DEVRIES, LEECH & DANN, LLP, Frank Ford Loker, Jr., Esq. -- floker@milesstockbridge.com -- MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C., Louis Eberhardt Grenzer, Jr., Esq. -- lgrenzer@bodie-law.com -- BODIE, DOLINA, HOBBS, FRIDDELL & GRENZER, P.C, Donald Stephen Meringer, Esq. -- dmeringer@meringerlaw.com -- MERINGER, ZOIS & QUIGG, LLC for Appellees. Theodore F. Roberts, Esq. -- tfroberts@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP, Scott M. Richmond,Esq. -- srichmond@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP, David J. Quigg, Esq. -- dquigg@meringerlaw.com -- MERINGER, ZOIS & QUIGG, LLC, Derek P. Roussillon, Esq. -- droussillon@milesstockbridge.com -- MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C., Terri Goldberg, Esq. -- tgoldberg@gdldlaw.com -- GOODELL, DEVRIES, LEECH & DANN, LLP, Aaron L. Moore, Esq. -- amoore@gdldlaw.com -- GOODELL, DEVRIES, LEECH & DANN, LLP for Appellees. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Revises Scheduling Order in "Macqueen" ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Warren Pumps, LLC, filed a motion to resolve a discovery dispute that has arisen in the case captioned MARGUERITE MACQUEEN, individually and as the surviving spouse of David MacQueen, deceased, Plaintiff, v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 13-831-SLR-CJB. Consolidated. The parties' discovery dispute in this case turns on the meaning of the term "follow-up discovery" in the District Court's September 30, 2015 Order. Warren asserts that Plaintiff Marguerite Macqueen's Notice seeking a deposition of Warren's Rule 30(b)(6) representative should be stricken, because the areas of inquiry and requested documents set out therein stretch too broadly beyond the scope of the District Court's Order. The Plaintiff disagrees, and believes that the Order permits her to take any discovery relevant to her claims from Remaining Defendants, whether related to product identification discovery first obtained from HII. Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted Warren's Motion. The deposition notices served upon Warren and Remaining Defendants are stricken. Furthermore, in order to streamline the remainder of the limited discovery period permitted by the District Court, the Court modified the Revised Scheduling Order to provide, among other things, that the deadline for the Plaintiff to request follow-up discovery from Remaining Defendants is March 25, 2016, and the deadline for resolution of all product identification discovery is May 6, 2016. A full-text copy of the Memorandum Order dated December 18, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/4emC8Xfrom Leagle.com. Marguerite MacQueen, Plaintiff, is represented by Thomas C. Crumplar, Esq. -- Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Elizabeth Barnes Lewis, Esq. -- Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A. & Raeann Warner, Esq. -- Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A. Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, is represented by Jessica Lee Tyler, Esq. -- JLTyler@mdwcg.com -- Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Attorney Awarded $18K for Estate Administration ---------------------------------------------------------------- The administrator of Douglas A. Bender's estate filed a petition for approval of separate fees for estate administration, reserved by the Court in the August 6, 2015 Order. The Petitioner originally requested the sum of $12,000 be held in escrow to cover these fees. The attorney affirmation submitted by local/administrative counsel, Coughlin & Gerhart, LLP, discloses that in preparing the original petition, counsel overlooked a prior estate billing in the amount of $8,956 already paid by LK from funds held in escrow, bringing the total requested for legal fees of administrative counsel to $18,931, plus disbursements in the amount of $1,339. The Petitioner asks that these fees and disbursements be paid from the net proceeds of the settlement, before distribution of the balance to the distributees. Limited Letters of Administration were issued to Bonnie Bender, widow of the decendent, on June 25, 2012. The only asset of this estate is a cause of action for pain and suffering, related to the decedent's asbestos exposure, commenced by decedent and his spouse before he died, and continuing thereafter with an additional wrongful death claim. The Surrogate's Court, Broome County, determines that the sum of $18,000 is a reasonable and appropriate fee for C&G as local/administrative counsel in this proceeding. The disbursements submitted by C&G in the amount of $1,339 are allowed from the net settlement proceeds. The legal fees allowed to C&G are to be paid proportionately by Levy Konigsberg, LLP, and referring counsel, Melissa Smith, Esq., from the fees awarded in the Orders of Adequacy. The case is MATTER OF DOUGLAS A. BENDER, DECEASED , 2012-364, 2015 NY Slip Op 51929(U). A full-text copy of the Decision dated December 17, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/5Ie38gfrom Leagle.com. Rachel A. Abbott, Esq. -- RAbbott@cglawoffices.com -- of Coughlin & Gerhart, LLP Trial counsel, Robin B. Blumenrkranz, Esq. of Levy Konigsberg, LLP, Referring counsel, Melissa Smith, Esq. -- melissasmith@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin for Petitioner Bonnie Bender. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Wins Summary Judgment in "Ahnert" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Beverly Ahnert filed a third lawsuit naming many of the same defendants. Again, she alleges that Daniel Ahnert suffered from asbestos related diseases including without limitation asbestosis. Now, however, she includes the malignant mesothelioma diagnosis from January 4, 2011. Defendant Foster Wheeler raises four arguments in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment: (1) the Wisconsin Worker's Compensation Act provides plaintiffs exclusive remedy that immunizes Foster Wheeler, as the employer, from the strict liability and negligence claims; (2) plaintiff is unable to show that Daniel Ahnert was exposed to or otherwise inhaled asbestos fibers from any product distributed, supplied or installed by Foster Wheeler; (3) the Wisconsin construction statute of repose bars plaintiff's claims; and (4) the evidence fails to support plaintiff's punitive damages claim. Judge C. N. Clevert, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment and the case is dismissed as to Foster Wheeler. The case is BEVERLY AHNERT, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Daniel Ahnert, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF WAUSAU, FOSTER WHEELER LLC, PABST BREWING COMPANY, SPRINKMANN SONS CORPORATION, WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 13-C-1456 (E.D. Wis.). A full-text copy of the Order dated January 5, 2016, is available at http://is.gd/fb8pTgfrom Leagle.com. Beverly Ahnert, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Daniel Ahnert, Deceased,, Plaintiff, is represented by Jin Ho Chung, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd, Daniel B Hausman, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd, Robert G McCoy, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd & Michael P Cascino, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Police Officer's Whisteblower Suit Remanded ---------------------------------------------------------------- Officer Paul Zenak, a Philadelphia police officer who previously worked at a Police Athletic League (PAL) youth center, commenced an action in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against PAL, the City of Philadelphia, J. Bailey Builders, LLC, and the Wissinoming United Methodist Church. Officer Zenak's action asserted claims arising under, inter alia, the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law, the Philadelphia False Claims Ordinance and a negligence theory. Before trial, the City filed a "Motion in Limine to Bifurcate the Trial and Deny Plaintiff a Jury Trial on His Whistleblower and False Claims Counts. The City's Motion to Bifurcate was denied without prejudice and the City was directed to raise it with the trial judge. Thereafter, the City filed a Second Motion to Bifurcate with the trial court requesting that Officer Zenak be denied a jury trial on his whistleblower and false claims counts. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court's Order denying Officer Zenak's post-trial motion and reversed the trial court's Orders denying the City's post-trial motions. This matter is remanded to the trial court to make independent findings of fact and conclusions of law on Officer Zenak's whistleblower claim or, in its discretion, hold a new bench trial. The case is Paul Zenak, v. Police Athletic League of Philadelphia, City of Philadelphia Appeal of: City of Philadelphia Officer Paul Zenak, Appellant, v. Police Athletic League of Philadelphia, Nos. 1194 C.D. 2014, 1801 C.D. 2014. A full-text copy of the Order dated January 6, 2016 is available at http://is.gd/joKLMyfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sprinkmann Loses Summary Judgment in "Ahnert" -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Sprinkmann Sons Corporation moves for summary judgment on plaintiff Beverly Ahnert's negligence, strict product liability, and punitive damages claims. According to the complaint, Sprinkmann sold, installed and removed asbestos products and manufactured asbestos-containing products that caused Daniel Ahnert's asbestosis and malignant mesothelioma. Sprinkmann alleges that there is no evidence of exposure to asbestos- containing products installed or supplied by Sprinkmann and no evidence supporting a punitive damages claim. Judge C.N. Clevert, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied Sprinkmann's and Employers Insurance Company of Wausau's motion for summary judgment. The case is BEVERLY AHNERT, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Daniel Ahnert, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF WAUSAU, PABST BREW ING COMPANY, SPRINKMANN SONS CORPORATION, W ISCONSIN ELECTRIC POW ER COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 13-C-1456. A full-text copy of the Order dated January 6, 2016, is available at http://is.gd/eQbF8Ofrom Leagle.com. Beverly Ahnert, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Daniel Ahnert, Deceased,, Plaintiff, is represented by Jin Ho Chung, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd, Daniel B Hausman, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd, Robert G McCoy, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd & Michael P Cascino, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, Defendant, is represented by James A Niquet, Esq. -- jniquet@crivellocarlson.com -- Crivello Carlson SC & Travis J Rhoades, Esq. -- trhoades@crivellocarlson.com -- Crivello Carlson SC. Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, Defendant, is represented by James A Niquet, Crivello Carlson SC & Travis J Rhoades, Crivello Carlson SC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pabst's Summary Judgment Bid in "Ahnert" Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pabst Brewing Company moves for summary judgment on plaintiff Beverly Ahnert's claims that asbestos-containing products on the Pabst premises caused Daniel Ahnert to contract asbestos-related diseases. Judge C.N. Clevert, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied Pabst's motion for summary judgment. The case is BEVERLY AHNERT, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Daniel Ahnert, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF WAUSAU, PABST BREW ING COMPANY, SPRINKMANN SONS CORPORATION, W ISCONSIN ELECTRIC POW ER COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 13-C-1456. A full-text copy of the Order dated January 6, 2016, is available at http://is.gd/IwPkRmfrom Leagle.com. Beverly Ahnert, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Daniel Ahnert, Deceased,, Plaintiff, is represented by Jin Ho Chung, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd, Daniel B Hausman, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd, Robert G McCoy, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd & Michael P Cascino, Esq. -- Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd. Pabst Brewing Company, Defendant, is represented by Michael T Antikainen, Esq. -- mantikainen@heplerbroom.com -- Hepler Broom LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Velan Valve Wins Summary Judgment in "Bell" ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendant Velan Valve Corp. filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Velan asserts that the proffered evidence is insufficient to establish that the Decedent was exposed to any products manufactured by Velan or that these products were a substantial factor in the Decedent's lung cancer. Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that the record does not contain enough evidence -- direct or circumstantial --to create a genuine issue of material fact. The case is SHARON BELL, Executor of the Estate of Mr. Richard W. Bell, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. THE ABB GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-1338-SMY-SCW. A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated January 5, 2016 is available at http://is.gd/FQygCgfrom Leagle.com. Sharon Bell, Plaintiff, is represented by Ben A. Vinson, Jr., Esq. -- Vinson Law, John D Sloan, Jr, Esq. -- Sloan, Bagley, Hatcher & Perry, Zane T. Cagle, Esq. -- Cagle Law Firm, LLC & Clay Zelbst, Esq. -- Sloan, Bagley, Hatcher & Perry. Velan Valve Corp., Defendant, is represented by Carl J. Geraci, Esq. -- cgeraci@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, Esq. -- mchessler@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss "Clark" ----------------------------------------------------- Defendants BASF Corporation, et al., filed motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the lawsuit filed by John Clark and Michele Clark. The Plaintiffs' responses were due between October 22, 2015, and December 3, 2015. However, the Plaintiffs failed to file a response to any of the pending motions to dismiss. Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that the Defendants are not incorporated nor do not maintain their principal place of business in Illinois. Further, the Defendants' affiliations with Illinois are not so continuous and systematic as to render Defendants at home in Illinois, Judge Yandle held. The case is JOHN CLARK and MICHELE CLARK, Plaintiffs, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-995-SMY- PMF. A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated January 6, 2016, is available at http://is.gd/c0RtoCfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs are represented by Allyson M. Romani, Esq. -- Shrader & Associates LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Ordered to Disclose Settlement Terms ----------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Texaco Inc. moves to dismiss Ann M. South's Jones Act complaint based on a release signed in connection with a settlement of her husband Mason South's 1997 Jones Act/maritime action. The release settled Mason South's lawsuit for damages caused by exposure to products manufactured, sold or used by Texaco including known and unknown injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos, silica, smoke and carcinogenic chemicals except for benzene products. The release provides that it is interpreted under the Jones Act and general maritime law. Texaco also seeks sanctions. The Plaintiff opposes the motion based on the heightened release standards of the Federal Employment Liability Act ("FELA"). In response, Texaco maintains that FELA is inapplicable, but even under heightened requirements of FELA, Texaco maintains that the release is still enforceable. Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied Texaco's motions for summary judgment and sanctions and ordered the Plaintiff to serve a copy of the Decision and Order with notice of entry on the defendant immediately. Judge Moulton further ordered the plaintiff's counsel to disclose the settlement amount paid to the plaintiff immediately. The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to ANN M. SOUTH, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of MASON T. SOUTH, deceased. Plaintiff, v. CHEVRON CORPORATION, individually and as successor by merger to TEXACO, INC. et al., Defendants, Docket No. 190029/2015, Sequence No. 004, 2016 NY Slip Op 30011(U). A full-text copy of the Decision dated January 4, 2016, is available at http://is.gd/yIhMEtfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: South African Asbestos Mines to be Rehabilitated ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ghana News reported that global programme and construction consultancy Turner & Townsend is providing quantity surveying expertise as part of a major programme by the South African government to close and rehabilitate some 660 abandoned asbestos mines and shafts in various regions around the country. "So far we have worked with the SRK Consulting team on nine abandoned asbestos mine sites in the Northern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal and Limpopo," says Gordon Bulmer, senior quantity surveyor of Turner & Townsend. "With three of these now closed and completed, we are currently involved on a further six mine sites, while we are preparing tenders on another three, with possible additional projects in the pipeline. "It is a privilege to work on projects of this nature and scale, which will make a difference to the health and safety of communities and the environments surrounding the mines. Apart from the well-researched health issues of asbestosis, a chronic lung disease, some of the mines are located next to water courses which pose further environmental and health risks." "The projects vary in complexity, therefore a key requirement of being awarded the bid for the asbestos mines was our ability to provide the highest standard of quantity surveying expertise in a flexible and agile way. SRK Consulting's confidence in our professionalism is testimony of our global reputation in this field. "While each mine site is different, the quantity surveyor in this particular government rehabilitation programme plays a key role-- both in terms of advance planning as well as control or containment of costs throughout the projects." The rehabilitation programme falls under the Department of Mineral Resources, which appointed Mintek -- a global leader in minerals processing and metallurgical engineering products and services, to provide the professional project management. SRK Consulting has taken the engineering design lead on these projects over the past three years, as a sub-contractor to Mintek, delivering the conceptual design, final design, quality control and project management. Chosen for its international track record and world-leading expertise, Turner & Townsend has been selected by SRK as one of the teams supporting the ongoing government programme. "We are involved in these projects from the very outset when the engineer draws up the preliminary design, from the point of preparing the tender document and putting a price to it for budgeting purposes, and again to financially manage the project. This includes making monthly payment assessments, evaluating any changes in design or unexpected site conditions, through to final project completion," says Bulmer. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dumped at Borders Tourist Attraction -------------------------------------------------------------- Border Telegraph reported that asbestos-riddled debris was found dumped at the entrance to a popular tourist attraction, Jedburgh Sheriff Court heard. Police officers who came across the 10-ton pile of demolition waste containing the hazardous material soon discovered it came from a house four miles away which was being renovated. Donald McAllister -- who runs a roofing, joinery and building firm -- claimed he gave a man GBP700 to dispose of the debris. But instead it was taken from the village of Lanton and dumped four miles away at the entrance to the Harestanes Countryside Visitor Centre near Ancrum on the B6400 road close to the A68. At Jedburgh Sheriff Court McAllister, 46, pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to take proper steps to dispose of the building waste under the Environmental Protection Act. Sheriff Peter Paterson said it was unfortunate the offence could only attract the maximum penalty of a fine and that further sanctions were not available. He deferred sentence to allow McAllister to provide a full set of accounts from his business RJB and documentation from the job of re-placing the roof of the property in Lanton. Prosecutor Keith Jones from the Crown office's wildlife and environment crime unit described how the Harestanes Countryside Visitor Centre was a popular attraction with families and dog walkers and at the time of the offence, July 23, was busy due to the school holidays. He said the police received a call about a pile of roofing debris had been dumped at the entrance and they inspected the site. Samples were taken and it was later confirmed it contained white asbestos called chrysolite which is hazardous. Scottish Borders Council were called in to remove the demolition waste to a special site with the bill coming to GBP1,768.80. Mr Jones said it was established the building material had come from a house in Lanton which was having its roof replaced and spoke to the owner who confirmed McAllister was carrying out the work and was to be paid GBP8,500 in cash for the week's work. He continued: "Police were able to trace the suspect and he was taken to Hawick Police Station where he was interviewed regarding the matter and made a full and frank confession. As owner of the business and an employer he was responsible for the proper disposal of hazardous asbestos and roofing debris." McAllister said he had paid a Charlie O'Connor to take the debris away from the house at Lanton. But Mr Jones added it was the Crown's understanding that McAllister made no enquiry as to where the demolition waste was being taken and he had a duty of care to ensure O'Connor had the appropriate licence to allow him to remove the debris. The court heard that McAllister , who lives at his wife's caravan park in Bonnybridge , Stirlingshire, and plans to set up a new business in Ireland, had a previous conviction for dishonesty. Defence lawyer Ed Hulme said:"He accepts he did not make the necessary enquiries to ensure the proper disposal of the waste. It is his position he paid this man GBP700 to take it away." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Poisoned by Asbestos-Covered Husband ----------------------------------------------------------- Joey Millar, writing for Mail Online, reported that an elderly Yorkshire widow died four decades after she was poisoned by hugs and kisses from her asbestos-covered husband, it is claimed. Jack Briggs unwittingly exposed his wife of over 50 years to the deadly substance every time he came home from work at a BBA Aviation Plc factory covered in dust. Paula, who would further expose herself as she washed her husband's dirty laundry, emptied his work bag and swept the dusty floor, died of an asbestos-related cancer in 2014. Their daughter, Lisa Wharton, is now suing the aircraft repair and support company for up to GBP110,000 in damages on behalf of her mother's estate. In a High Court claim, the family's lawyers claim the company did not do enough to protect the couple from exposure to asbestos dust when Mr Griggs worked at their factory in Cleckheathon, West Yorkshire in the 1970s and 1980s. Ms Wharton's lawyer Peter Cowan explained: 'Jack Briggs returned home from work with the defendant each day in his work clothing and footwear. 'He would greet the deceased with a hug and a kiss. He would then go about his activities in the house. 'Later on he would remove his dusty clothing and place it in the laundry basket. 'The deceased would later sort the clothing from the laundry basket, shaking off the dust from the work clothing and in particular removing the dust which had gathered in the trouser turnups and in the various pockets.' Mrs Briggs would then sweep dust off the kitchen floor, porch and pantry before shaking out his work bag, which was also full of the toxic dust. Mr Cowan claims that Mr Briggs' former employers ought to have known of the risk they were exposing him and his family to. The labourer died aged 76, when he suffered a brain haemorrhage at home in September 2011. His wife died in August three years later at the age of 79. The claim for damages, has been lodged at the High Court in London. However the defence to the action was not available from the court and the contents of the writ have yet to be tested in evidence before a judge. A spokesperson for BBA Aviation Plc said: 'It is not appropriate to discuss ongoing legal proceedings. BBA Aviation no longer operates in asbestos-using industries.' ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crawley Down Man Dies Due to Asbestos Exposure --------------------------------------------------------------- Crawley and Horley reported that a Crawley Down man who was exposed to asbestos in his work as a mechanic died of an industrial disease. An inquest into the death of Brian Suckling, 63, of Buckley Place, was held in Horsham on January 28. Mr Suckling spent most of his career working with motor vehicles, and was exposed to asbestos while working at Crawley Down Garage as a 16-year-old in 1968. The inquest heard he was required to mix asbestos powder with water with his bare hands -- the paste would be used to absorb heat when welding. Health and safety concerns were non-existent at the time, the coroner's officer said. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2015 with symptoms of breathlessness, a cough and chest pain. He died on January 6 at the Princess Royal Hospital in Haywards Heath. The cause of death was advanced mesothelioma. West Sussex coroner Penny Schofield said: "Mr Suckling was exposed to asbestos during the 1960s and early 1970s and this took place while he was in the course of his employment. "I will record that he died from an industrial disease." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Launches GBP100K Damages Claim ----------------------------------------------------- David Knights, writing for Telegraph & Argus, reported that the widow of a man killed by deadly asbestos poisoning has launched a GBP100,000 damages claim against his former employer. Fred Barrett died, aged 87, in 2014 from mesothelioma, an incurable asbestos-related cancer of the lining of the lungs. He left behind his wife of over 65 years, Pamela, who is now suing for damages for the loss of her husband. Lawyers representing Mrs Barrett, 82, of Raines Drive, Bradley, near Skipton, claim Mr Barrett's death was caused by exposure to asbestos at work. He had worked at Johnson & Johnson's factory in Gargrave, near Skipton, from 1948 until 1984, his widow's legal team says in a High Court writ. It was there that he was exposed to poisonous asbestos dust, Mrs Barrett's lawyer, Paul Glanville, claims. In the writ, lodged in London, Mr Glanville accuses Johnson & Johnson of failing to protect Mr Barrett from exposure. He said: "There was hot water and steam pipework running all over the plant. The pipework was lagged with insulation that contained asbestos. "The lagging was removed and replaced for repair work. The deceased was working close by when this process was being carried out. "The deceased was exposed to and inhaled much asbestos dust and thereby contracted mesothelioma." Mr Glanville claims that the employer failed to take measures necessary to prevent Mr Barrett inhaling asbestos dust. Johnson & Johnson's defence to the action was not available from the court and the contents of the writ have yet to be tested in evidence before a judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Awards Summary Judgment to 7 Cos. ------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a federal court in Delaware had adopted a report and recommendation entered in an asbestos case, agreeing with the magistrate judge that seven of the named defendants were entitled to summary judgment. In the Jan. 26 memorandum, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware also found, however, that the magistrate judge correctly denied similar motions filed by five additional asbestos defendants. Arthur Dumas alleged that during his 20-year service in the U.S. Navy, he was exposed to asbestos-containing products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Denies 2 Cos.'s Summary Judgment Bids ----------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an Illinois federal court has denied motions for summary judgment filed by two asbestos defendants, ruling that the plaintiff had established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he was exposed to asbestos- containing products manufactured by both of the companies. In two separate orders issued Jan. 28, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied motions for summary judgment by Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., and Excelsior Packing & Gasket Co. Steven Watts contended in his lawsuit that he was exposed to asbestos fibers while working as a warehouse worker. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Blames GE for Husband's Death ---------------------------------------------------- Molly English-Bowers, writing for Madison Record, reported that a South Carolina woman is suing General Electric, alleging exposure to asbestos during his working life led to her husband's death. Patricia Hubert, of Summerville, South Carolina, individually and as special administrator for the estate of Robert Hubert, filed the lawsuit Jan. 15, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against General Electric Company, alleging negligence, loss of consortium and wanton and willful conduct. According to the complaint, after spending his entire working life around asbestos-containing products manufactured by the defendant, Robert Hubert deceased was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Jan. 27, 2015. The suit says Hubert was exposed to, inhaled, ingested or absorbed large amounts of asbestos fibers, the suit alleges, and this led to his diagnosis. As a result, the lawsuit says, Hubert experienced great pain and suffering, mental anguish, physical disability and eventually died. He wasn't able to keep working, thereby losing wages, and his death has left his family without his means of support, the suit states. Monies have been spent for medical and funeral expenses as well, according to the suit. Patricia Hubert seeks at least $50,000 for each of the three counts. She is represented by attorneys Allyson M. Romani and Ross D. Stomel of Shrader & Associates LLP of Houston. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case number 16-cv-51 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Water Corp. Failed Workers Exposed to Asbestos --------------------------------------------------------------- ABC News reported that the risk to workers who were exposed to asbestos on a maintenance project was low, the Water Corporation says, despite an investigation finding the organisation failed on multiple occasions to identify the danger and inform staff and contractors. The investigation was ordered in 2015 after nearly 140 workers were potentially exposed to asbestos while renovating the Minnivale Reservoir near Wyalkatchem, in the WA Wheatbelt. It was only after the work was completed that the presence of asbestos in caulking material being removed became known. An investigation carried out by external firm Glossop consultancy, found a variety of grinding tools were used to complete the job and some of the workers were not wearing respirators. A re-enactment was carried out at another reservoir near Wagin to try to determine the level of risk. The report concluded that while chrysotile asbestos was detected in nearly all of the samples taken, the exposure levels not did exceed those set by the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. A separate internal report found the Water Corporation was aware of the presence of asbestos at the Minnivale site but failed to inform contractors of the risk. It found there were gaps in the Water Corporation's asbestos management process and project delivery process and that the two were not well-integrated. No safe level of asbestos exposure: Opposition Labor spokesman Dave Kelly described the report as damning. "This report confirms what we've been saying, that the risk to the staff involved should have been well known to the Water Corporation," he said. "I find it odd that the Water Corporation and the Government are still trying to play down the level of risk. "In the modern workplace there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos, so I don't think there's any good news for the Government in this report at all." In a statement, Water Corporation chief executive Sue Murphy apologised and said she believed the report would reassure workers. "I am sincerely sorry for the concern this news no doubt caused our employees and contractors, and I want to assure not only these people, but also the Western Australian public, we are taking full responsibility in every respect," she said. "An analysis of about 1,000 projects carried out in recent years shows no other such failure to communicate the risk of asbestos, but we are taking all necessary steps to prevent this situation from ever occurring again." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Japan Gov't Ordered to Pay for Damages ------------------------------------------------------- The Japan Times reported that a court ordered the state and nine makers of building materials to pay JPY216 million ($1.8 million) in damages to former construction workers and their families for illnesses they developed after being exposed to asbestos at construction sites. A total of 27 plaintiffs, including former workers who developed lung cancer and mesothelioma, had sought a total of JPY1 billion in damages from the state and 32 supply makers, saying the state knew of the need to take measures against asbestos exposure by 1971 and that the makers should take responsibility over asbestos products they made and sold. In the first domestic court ruling to recognize the material makers' responsibility from a series of similar damages suits filed over asbestos exposure, the Kyoto District Court ordered the makers to pay about JPY110 million to 23 of the 27 plaintiffs. "It is highly probable that the construction materials sold by the makers" caused damage to the plaintiffs, the presiding judge, Kazumi Higa, said in handing down the ruling. The court also ordered the state to pay about JPY100 million to 15 of the plaintiffs, saying it should have recognized by 1971 at the latest that the workers could develop illnesses by spraying asbestos. The state has been ordered to pay damages in four earlier rulings over the use of asbestos-linked construction materials. The Osaka District Court on Jan. 22 held the state responsible while rejecting plaintiffs' claims against the makers. In the latest trial, the state argued it took proper measures against asbestos exposure at an appropriate time while the supply makers claimed the perpetrator cannot be specifically identified. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Awards Summary Judgment to Crane Co. ----------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a South Carolina federal court has awarded summary judgment to Crane Co. in an asbestos case, finding that while there was evidence suggesting that some of the defendant's valves required asbestos-containing gaskets, there was no evidence that Crane Co. actually incorporated the harmful material into the products it sold. In the Jan. 27 opinion, the U.S. District Court for District of South Carolina wrote that the plaintiffs' failure to include evidence on this point was "fatal" to their claims. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Removal Underway at Maplewood Post Office Bldg. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Mann, writing for The Village Green, reported that local residents were excited to see activity inside the former Maplewood Post Office building on Maplewood Avenue in recent days. Workers can be seen removing windows and pulling them inside the building; the path along the south side of the building (facing Village Coffee) leading the NJ Transit tunnel has been cordoned off. Post House Developer Joe Forgione says that the workers are removing the windows for asbestos abatement -- there is asbestos in the caulking -- in order to obtain demolition permits from the Maplewood Building Department. Like what you're reading? Help support community journalism and The Village Green by subscribing to our daily newsletter. Click here. "We need to show the building department that we have disposed of the windows properly," Forgione told Village Green. Windows are being pulled inside in order to ensure public safety, he explained. (Forgione noted that he has had numerous requests from residents for the windows; however, he said he cannot provide windows to anyone due to the asbestos.) Forgione added that much of the asbestos abatement work has been timed so as not to inconvenience commuters who use the path to the train tunnel. "We're being extra cautious. We don't want to inconvenience anybody." Mayor Vic DeLuca confirmed that "demolition of the building will take place after permits are obtained from the Township" and added that "a demolition plan is still being prepared and will be reviewed by the Building Department prior to issuing demolition permits." Maplewood Director of Community Relations Annette DePalma outlined the work of the Post Office Project Construction Mitigation Committee in an article published by Village Green in early January. DePalma said that demolition should begin sometime in February. The Post Office building is being demolished to make way for a mixed-use development with ground floor commercial space and 20 apartment on the second and third floors. A partially submerged subfloor will contain parking. ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Board Cancel Classes After Asbestos Find ---------------------------------------------------------------- Central Illinois Proud reported that the Midland School District has canceled all classes. "We have a problem, and we have to fix it," Midland Superintendent Rolf Siversten said. Dangerous amounts of mold, asbestos, and lead paint in the school is what caused this whole thing. The school board made this decision at an emergency school board meeting. A yearly health inspection of midland elementary school that took place on January 15th. After that inspection, an outside agency was called in to do sample tests. The results of the test were released and the data revealed the mentioned hazards in the school. The board decided they wanted to conduct even more tests on the school before they decide how they want to fix the problems. "We should not want to send our students or staff in that building," said board member Bernie Kargol in the meeting. "We need to do that entire test first before we know what we're sending them back into. We know what these sample spots say. What does the rest of the building say?" Superintendent Siversten told WMBD that they would post updates on the situation on their Facebook page. ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Devon Residents Die Following Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------- Herald Express reported that three people from South Devon have died having been exposed to asbestos during their lives. Richard Alan Bridge, 64, of Woodland Park Nursing Home in Torquay, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in August 2015. During his time working as a car mechanic, Richard had been exposed to asbestos when working on brake pads. He subsequently developed breathing problems and died at his home on January 15 2016. The cause of death has been ascertained as malignant mesothelioma of the left pleural cavity. Inquest opens into death of retired Newton Abbot shop keeper Brixham woman, 96, died after taking large amount of paracetamol Bernard David Bourne, 78, of Luscombe Close, Ipplepen, died at home on December 22 2015. During the course of his working life it was believed that David had been exposed to asbestos. Although he had not worked directly with asbestos, he had worked in a factory where the pipes were lagged with it. In 2010, he was diagnosed as suffering with mesothelioma. The cause of death has been ascertained as malignant mesothelioma of the left pleural cavity. Brenda Arcus nee Wakenell, 81, of Mallands Residential Home, Abbotskerswell, died on January 2 2016. In 1960's and 70's Brenda was employed at a builder's merchants and it is believed that whilst working that she was exposed to asbestos. Her condition subsequently deteriorated and in November 2015 she had a CT scan which showed that she had a large right sided pleural effusion. This was believed to be related to the asbestos exposure. The cause of death has been ascertained as malignant mesothelioma. Inquests into the three deaths have been opened and adjourned to a later date. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Husband Unwittingly Caused Wife's Death -------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Hirst, writing for The Huddersfield Daily Examiner, reported that an elderly Dewsbury widow died four decades after she was poisoned by hugs and kisses from her asbestos-covered husband, it is claimed. Jack Briggs unwittingly exposed his wife, Paula, to the deadly substance every time he came home from work at a factory in Cleckheaton. However, he had himself died before his wife of over 50 years fell ill with mesothelioma, an asbestos-related cancer, in 2014. Lawyers for Mrs Briggs' family now say her husband's former employer was responsible for the widow's death. In a High Court writ it is claimed that BBA Aviation Plc did not do enough to protect the couple, of Chickenley, Dewsbury, from exposure to asbestos dust. The couple's daughter, Lisa Wharton, is suing for up to GBP110,000 in damages on behalf of her mother's estate. "Jack Briggs returned home from work with the defendant each day in his work clothing and footwear," says her lawyer, Peter Cowan. "He would remove his boots in the porch and shake off the worst of the dust from them before placing them in the pantry. "He would greet the deceased with a hug and a kiss. He would then go about his activities in the house. "Later on he would remove his dusty clothing and place it in the laundry basket. "The deceased would later sort the clothing from the laundry basket, shaking off the dust from the work clothing and in particular removing the dust which had gathered in the trouser turnups and in the various pockets. "Having done so, she would place the clothing in the washing machine. "She would have to sweep up the dust off the kitchen floor, porch and pantry which had been shed from her husband's footwear, clothing and person. "She would shake out his work bag, which was also contaminated with asbestos fibres and dust. "As a result of the deceased's said exposure to asbestos fibres and dust, she suffered injury and death." The writ explains how Mr Briggs had worked as a labourer at a factory in Cleckheaton and at the Queens Mill Warehouse in the 1970s and 1980s. There, it is claimed, he was exposed to large quantities of asbestos dust -- taking it home on his clothing and boots, and in his hair. Mr Cowan claims that Mr Briggs' former employers ought to have known of the risk they were exposing him and his close family to. Mr Briggs died, aged 76, after suffering a brain haemorrhage at his home in September 2011. His wife fell ill in March 2014 when she became short of breath. She died in August 2014, aged 79. The writ, claiming damages, was lodged at the High Court in London. However the defence to the action was not available from the court and the contents of the writ have yet to be tested in evidence before a judge. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reservoir Asbestos Could Have Been Detected ------------------------------------------------------------ The Australian Associated Press reported that there were multiple opportunities for asbestos to be identified during work on the Minnivale Reservoir, but contractors were uninformed, Western Australia's Water Corporation has found. A total of 138 people visited or worked on the refurbishment of the Minnivale Reservoir, about 180km north-east of Perth, between March and September. An investigation into the exposure of employees and contractors also established that the asbestos-containing material removed from the site was contained either at a landfill facility or on- site. Extensive sampling of the Minnivale Reservoir site did not identify any asbestos fibres, the Water Corporation said. An independent expert in asbestos risk management also conducted a re-enactment of grinding work undertaken at the reservoir and found that asbestos was not present at a concentration exceeding the workplace exposure standard set by the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. Water Corporation chief executive Sue Murphy said she was sorry for the concern caused to employees and contractors. "I want to assure not only these people, but also the West Australian public, we are taking full responsibility in every respect," she said. "An analysis of about 1000 projects carried out in recent years shows no other such failure to communicate the risk of asbestos but we are taking all necessary steps to prevent this situation from ever occurring again." Ms Murphy said the Corporation's governance, processes and accountabilities for asbestos management had been reviewed. But the Community and Public Sector Union/Civil Service Association says the government "took its eye off the ball" and unnecessarily exposed people to asbestos. Assistant secretary Rikki Hendon said the incident occurred because the Water Corporation was too busy cutting back its workforce at the request of the state government while the project was taking place. "This is about the most serious process failure you can have where people's safety and well-being is compromised," she said. Opposition spokesman for water, Dave Kelly, has called for an independent inquiry into the incident. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Royal Navy Veteran Seeking Cancer Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- BBC News reported that a Royal Navy veteran who is living with incurable cancer says he is waiting to hear if he will get any compensation. Fred Minall, 74, of Northampton, said he was diagnosed with mesothelioma in October after working with asbestos as a naval engineer from 1958 to 1963. He is campaigning to get compensation in line with payouts he says civilian employees are entitled to. Mark Lancaster, defence minister, said the Ministry of Defence (MoD) was "reviewing the options". Cut-off date Mr Minall said his diagnosis was related his service on HMS Trafalgar, where asbestos was used to insulate pipes. He said he was not entitled to compensation because he was diagnosed before a cut-off date of 16 December 2015. "The asbestos had to be removed and replaced by hand and we were covered head-to-foot in the white asbestos powder -- we'd get it in our eyes and up our noses," he said. "I've got severe back pain, chest pain and feel pretty grotty all the time. "What dates have got to do with it is beyond my comprehension, and they've got to step forward and pay us proper compensation in line with our civilian counterparts." Mr Minall said he had about two months to live and wanted his three sons to benefit from any compensation payment. Northampton South MP David Mackintosh has backed his case and told the House of Commons it was "an anomaly that we need to look at". In a statement issued by the MoD, Mr Lancaster said: "Whether [compensation] should be applied to this group is a complex issue that has been the subject of much discussion." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Adelaide Buildings Need Urgent Asbestos Removal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Miles Kemp, writing for The Advertiser, reported that buildings used by an elite private school and a state high school require "urgent action" to remove asbestos, and are among several dozen in the Parklands earmarked for clean-up, an Adelaide City Council audit has found. The council register shows seven buildings, of the 24 in which asbestos needs to be removed, required urgent action: Scotch College Rowing Club, Unley/Norwood High School Rowing Club, University of Adelaide change rooms, Jolley's Boathouse building, University of Adelaide machinery shed, a hockey club building and a gardener's store and toilets. The organisations affected are using council-owned buildings and are working with the council to fix the problems. A spokesman for Scotch College said the building would not be used until the issue was resolved. A spokesman for the Department of Education said in relation to the Unley/Norwood High School Rowing Club: "The department is seeking advice and will work with the council in relation to their actions for remediation of the asbestos issues raised in the report". In total, 24 buildings in the audit needed action to remove dangerous asbestos, which mainly included dust and debris lying around as well as broken sheeting, in 56 asbestos was found but considered safe if it was not broken or disturbed in the future and in 33 buildings no asbestos was not found. Anti-asbestos diseases advocates have praised the audit initiative, which is part of making council-owned building asbestos-free by 2018. The audit revealed one serious incident, in 2013, when an asbestos-insulated boiler exploded due to a gas build-up. The seven buildings earmarked for "urgent action", along with another five, will have asbestos removed by mid year. Adelaide City Council manager of infrastructure Phillip Burton said that in total, the organisation owned 174 buildings, including the town hall, which was the oldest municipal building in the country. Most buildings are in the Parklands and 76 were already asbestos- free, he said. "Council has set a target to be asbestos-free by mid-2018, which will make it the first capital city council in Australia with such credentials,'' Mr Burton said. Mr Burton said the audits began in 2014 with a software program rating the removal of asbestos within buildings in order of priority, from Category 1 to Category 4, and there were no longer any of the worst category 1 or 2 buildings in the council area. "We completed a comprehensive audit of all one-hundred and seventy-four Council buildings in 2014, and from there we have facilitated the removal of all category one and two asbestos hazards from our buildings," said Phillip. "The results we have achieved so far, really are a testament to our commitment to the safety and comfort of all who use our city and when you consider the time frame in which we have achieved this, we believe we have good reason to be proud.'' Mr Burton said that by June, the category 3 asbestos hazards which had been identified in ten buildings would be removed. He said the aim was to remove category 4 asbestos from 88 buildings which under asbestos safety guidelines, only needed reinspection and assessment every five years. "During the process, we have seen an amazing cultural shift within our organisation and in those we work with -- where before people were reluctant to report asbestos, they are now on the front foot, approaching us for advice and assistance with its removal,'' he said. Asbestos Diseases Society of South Australia president Ian Sheppard called on all councils to follow the lead of Adelaide City Council and provide comprehensive public information about any dangerous asbestos which needs to be removed from public buildings. "This is something Adelaide City Council they have done under the own steam and had every one of their buildings inspected,'' he said. "I think it is wonderful and if only all the other councils is South Australia would do the same bloody thing we would be happy. The rest of them virtually couldn't care less.'' Mr Sheppard said the 640-page 2015 council document, which was obtained by The Advertiser using the Freedom of Information Act, should be uploaded on the council website as a model example of how to rid publicly-owned buildings of the material. Mr Sheppard said one serious incident was raised in the document, when in 2013 an asbestos-insulated boiler exploded due to a gas build up. "That is not a good look at all, that is for sure,'' Mr Sheppard said. Airborne asbestos is known to cause around 700 deaths in Australia from lung disease each year and the mineral was commonly used in building materials and as insulation up to the 1980s. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Concerns Raised Over Block Redevelopment --------------------------------------------------------- Tom McIlroy, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that the ACT government won't consider calls from neighbouring residents for the Northbourne House office block to be redeveloped in line with strict Mr Fluffy asbestos removal rules. Residents of the Monarch apartment building in Turner expressed strong concerns about the removal of dangerous amosite and chrysotile asbestos in debris, dust and sheeting and have called for the development application process to be reopened. The 10-storey former Defence building is set to be redeveloped as a 176 room hotel and apartment development. A hazardous materials report notes the presence of friable and bonded asbestos, including some with the second highest risk rating. Other materials found in the building include lead paint synthetic mineral fibres and congener materials. Residents of the apartment complex next door told the government's Environment and Planning Directorate that some local property owners could have missed the opportunity to consider the application as the process was conducted over the Christmas period. In 2014, the building was the subject of a two-day investigation after a disproved claim about the presence of loose-fill asbestos dating back to the 1990s. In the submission, Monarch residents Colin Farlow and Karen Gallie called for an extension of the public consultation process to allow for the government's asbestos taskforce and WorkSafe ACT to provide feedback. The public response period closed on January 14. They argued the guidelines developed as part of the Mr Fluffy loose-fill asbestos buyback scheme could create "different classes" of Canberra citizens, if not applied to large, non- residential developments like Northbourne House. "The health of Canberrans is paramount and must be put above any economic considerations. Like the neighbours of Mr Fluffy homes, all local residents ought to be advised of the process for and timing of the removal of asbestos in Northbourne House, regardless of whether or not they have read the development application." The Mantra Hotel group is building a full-service hotel with a mix of 136 rooms and 40 suites across eight accommodation levels, as well as a restaurant and bar, conference rooms, gym and car parking. Future stages of the precinct, dubbed Midtown, would also include terraces with 27 residential apartments while a future commercial development could be built on green space at the corner of Northbourne Avenue and Macarthur Avenue. The development application includes the demolition of the existing three storey office annex and multi-storey carpark and underground car parking added. The residents cite the federal government's strategic plan for asbestos management and awareness, including principles for prevention of exposure such as evidence-based decision making, transparency and precaution. "As Monarch residents we live directly adjacent to Northbourne House and are deeply concerned that activities associated with the proposed development carry unacceptable risks and potentially terminal consequences to our health and welfare if they are not conducted in a transparent, regulated and stakeholder-involved manner," the submission said. "We also believe that current processes for dealing with the hazardous materials in a commercial building in close proximity to residential properties may not be sufficient to manage risks to residents and passers-by and are inconsistent with processes adopted for residential properties adjoining or near to so-called Mr Fluffy homes." A government spokeswoman said removal of bonded or friable asbestos in this building would be undertaken by licensed asbestos assessors and removalists with WorkSafe ACT assessments. "There would be no risk during removal to neighbouring residents," she said. "There are no plans to re-notify the development application at this time. The [application] is currently under assessment by the Planning and Land Authority. The submission received will be considered in the assessment process and will form part of the final decision." Mantra Group sales director Kent Davidson said the company had no involvement in the development phase of the project and would not comment. A second development application for a new six storey, mixed use building on David Street will be notified for a 15 business-day period. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Fined Over Inspection of Shop --------------------------------------------------------- Roane County News reported that James Kilby Jr., a Morgan County contractor, was fined in December for failing to conduct an asbestos inspection before beginning demolition work. The work in question was at a property located at 206 Ruritan Road in Harriman. The order assessing the $1,500 fine was signed by Michelle Walker Owenby, director of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation's Division of Air Pollution Control. The property, which is known as the old Citgo Market, is owned by Chandubhai Patel. He was also fined $1,500. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fly-Tippers Dump Toxic Waste in Derby Garage ------------------------------------------------------------- Derby Telegraph reported that hazardous asbestos is feared to have been dumped in a Derby garage after it was broken into. The site is at the end of Thorndike Avenue, Alvaston, where several garages are owned by Derby Homes. It is not known whether the break-in and the dumping of the suspected asbestos are connected or separate incidents. It happened between January 11 and January 29. Two other piles of rubbish have been dumped at the site. People living in the area have called on Derby City Council to install CCTV or block off the area so it can only be used by people who rent the garages. A sticker on a lamppost at the site claims it is monitored by CCTV there but Derby Homes -- the social housing arm of Derby City Council -- says there is none and has no plans to install it Lisa Woodward, 42, of Alvaston, rents the garage that was broken into and said police had told her it could be asbestos. She said raiders had got in by "yanking off" a padlock. She added that one of the piles of rubbish -- mostly large plastic bags -- had been there for about a week and the other -- comprising wood, car parts and rubble -- had been there since "the end of last year". Mrs Woodward said: "If it is asbestos it's dangerous because there are kids mucking about around there." Maurice Sharpe, 80, of Thorndike Avenue, said fly-tipping was a regular problem at the garages. He said: "There was asbestos there a couple of months ago. The garages are used for storage rather than for cars so people don't go down there a lot. I think it needs CCTV but how much would that cost?" A 65-year-old woman who would not be named, said she lived in Baker Street, where gardens back on to the garage site and that rubbish blew from it in to people's backyards. The woman said: "The situation appears to be getting worse. It ought to be blocked off so only people that rent the garages can get on to the site." Councillor Alan Graves, who represents Alvaston, suspects the rubbish was dumped by people working on properties. He said: "They are dumping it there instead of taking it to the proper council tip. It's clearly very dangerous to be dumping asbestos in peoples' garages." There are at least four signs up in the area warning people that fly-tipping is a criminal offence with maximum penalties of a GBP50,000 fine and/or a 12-month prison sentence. A Derby Homes spokeswoman said: "We already have an established team who work to deal with fly-tipping, among other issues. Staff carry out regular inspections across our estates. Staff also carry out weekly visits to hot spots, or areas where we have historically had a higher frequency of litter issues. "Where reports of fly-tipping indicate an immediate threat to the public's health or safety, we will deal with these as a matter of urgency." She said a housing officer was due to visit the site and organise clearance. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure at Home Increasing, Study Says -------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Muller, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported that overall rates of asbestos-related cancers may have slowed, but exposure to the toxic material is increasingly occurring at home, according to a report in the Australian Medical Journal. The report said patterns of exposure had changed since the importation and production of asbestos was banned in 2004. A common source of home insulation in the 1960s and 1970s, asbestos is known to cause asbestosis and deadly cancers such as malignant mesothelioma. Previously, exposure was worst for miners and builders working directly with the material but cases are increasingly occurring at home, according to researcher Arthur Musk from Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital in Perth. New cases included tenants and residents of affected homes, particularly those who attempted to remove asbestos insulation without proper protection, Professor Musk said. While the potential exposure to asbestos in homes is "nothing like the occupational exposure of tradesmen", Professor Musk warned that any exposure was always a risk. "The reason asbestos was so good in industry ... was that it's indestructible," Professor Musk said. "Once the fibres get down into the lung, they don't go away. So the risk of getting mesothelioma continues to increase for 30 or 40 years after you've breathed in the stuff." According to the report, new cases of malignant mesothelioma have "levelled off" at 50 cases per million men each year, while the rate is tenfold lower for women in Australia. Professor Musk said doctors must remain "vigilant" in their diagnosis, as often symptoms of asbestos-related cancers are indistinguishable from smoking-related lung cancers. "As exposure to asbestos in the community declines, it will be increasingly unlikely that clinicians will be mindful of the condition and diligent in taking an asbestos exposure history," Professor Musk said. "It's only now that we are getting asbestos out of our environment that the rates [of malignant mesothelioma] are going to go down." In July 2015, the ACT government released a list of 1022 properties affected by asbestos insulation during the 1960s and 1970s, known as "Mr Fluffy". The potentially deadly insulation may have affected up to 30,000 people who owned or rented the Canberra houses. Government-funded demolitions of the affected houses began in mid- 2015. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Increased Waste Leads to Illegal Dumping --------------------------------------------------------- Beth Swantek, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that every few months, Andrew Morrison gets a call about a pile of asbestos that's been illegally dumped. Morrison, the owner of Andrew's Asbestos Solutions in Victoria, Australia, says the cost of proper asbestos disposal sometimes makes people feel forced to find their own solution. But when it comes to asbestos, cutting corners can lead to harmful exposures and serious health risks, including mesothelioma and other cancers. "They'll ring up wanting to do the right thing, but they can't believe how much it costs," he told the Sydney Morning Herald report. Much of Morrison's business includes removing asbestos from old outbuildings present on most farms throughout the state and disposing of it safely. He says many farmers don't call him, but they decide instead to bring the building down themselves and haul the asbestos waste somewhere out in the bush. Growing National Problem According to an Australian federal government report, an estimated 44 pounds of asbestos-contaminated waste is generated for each person in the country annually. "Waste policy is driven by the requirements of most waste, but asbestos is a real exception," report author Joe Pickin of consultant group Blue Environment said. The volume of asbestos waste the country will need to dispose of is expected to increase by about 2.8 percent annually over the next 20 years, yet there's no effective plan in place to manage the growing burden. As the asbestos accumulates, landfills willing to accept the deadly waste are on the decline. The report warns of a national trend to replace landfills with transfer stations that are less likely to accept asbestos, which complicates the problem. Those that do accept asbestos hike the prices. "Fees for the disposal of asbestos are set by private landfill operators and when the costs are high, it leads to illegal dumping, asbestos being hidden in general waste or diversion to distant sites, increasing the risks," Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency chief executive Pete Tighe said. No wonder Australia faces this dilemma. The country ranked highest in asbestos use per capita from the 1950s to the 1970s, mainly because of asbestos demands for construction materials and textile mills. Now commensurate with that use, Australia ranks second in the world for deaths from mesothelioma, a fatal cancer caused by breathing asbestos fibers. Since the 1980s, more than 10,000 people in the nation died from the disease. Decrease in Asbestos Landfills Not Just in Australia The shrinking number of landfills in nearby New Zealand means waste with or without asbestos frequently travels across district lines. In the last ten years, New Zealand's landfills have declined from 300 to about 56 as a result of guideline changes. Currently, about 12,000 tons of asbestos-contaminated fill from Canterbury received approval for dumping in Dunedin. The deal reportedly numbered in the millions of dollars. "It's just good waste management, really," Catherine Irvine of the Dunedin City Council said. "There are sites that can take this material, and because so many landfills are closing down across the country, waste is moving across districts on a regular basis." Disposal of Asbestos Across the Pacific In 2015, an effort to reduce waste disposal costs spawned rabid public debate in Guam. The Guam Environmental Protection Agency proposed to begin dumping asbestos in Layon Landfill, departing from the island's decades- long ban on asbestos disposal. The current approach to asbestos disposal involves hauling an estimated 100 tons of contaminated fill each year across the ocean to approved disposal sites in Nevada and other locations on the U.S. mainland. According to Pacific Daily News, Guam could save 70 percent on disposal costs by disposing of asbestos on the island rather than shipping it off. Many elected officials spurned the idea, however, arguing the savings aren't worth the danger asbestos poses to nearby residents. Layon landfill sits near the village of Inarajan, where Doris Lujan serves as mayor. She says she and her constituents would protest any plans to dump asbestos into the already problematic landfill, which continually emits foul odors in the Inarajan community. Asbestos Dumping in Europe Protestors in Ireland flatly rejected an idea to dump asbestos in West Belfast in November 2015. The backlash came after quarry company Whitemountain filed an application to dump an expected 300 tons of asbestos per year in its Black Mountain Quarry site. Sinn F‚in, Ireland's Republican Party, organized the opposition, which according to The Irish News demanded the company withdraw its application. "People are very concerned with regards to all this toxic waste on their doorstep -- and what if there is an accident when waste is going in or out?" Sinn F‚in parliament member Paul Maskey said. A petition circulated with hundreds adding their name to the list while Whitemountain declined to comment. North America and Its Issues with Asbestos Disposal "The people who want to avoid regulation, they're going to dump it wherever they can," Jim Caya, general manager of the Canadian demolition firm Green Demo, said in a Global News report. WorkSafe BC in Vancouver, British Columbia, initiated a crackdown on renovation and demolition as a result of asbestos-contaminated wallboard, sheetrock and other contaminated products in older homes. "Asbestos disease is on the increase in this province. We have more workers today dying of asbestos-related disease than ever in the history of WorkSafe BC," Al Johnson, vice president of prevention at WorksSafe BC, said. The increased stringency in regulation results in long lines at the dump to dispose of the toxic building materials, and according to Caya, also increases illegal dumping of asbestos-contaminated wallboard on municipal land and parks. "It's a very serious issue -- it's not just the dumping of the materials. The issue is someone has ripped it out from somewhere where people have been contaminated," Caya said. Asbestos Disposal Is a Global Problem Around the world, asbestos disposal creates a dilemma for local, state and federal municipalities. As dumping sites decrease and regulation increases, the issue of where to put the harmful waste escalates. Morrison claims an asbestos disposal job that used to take him two hours now takes five or six because he has to travel a farther distance to dump the toxic materials. "To me it makes my business fairly expensive and it just encourages people to do the wrong thing," he said. Pickin admits Australia lacks an answer. "I don't think you would say that there is a good strategic plan in any state or even nationally," he concedes. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Bricklayer Diagnosed with Mesothelioma --------------------------------------------------------------- North-West Evening Mail reported that a retired Barrow council bricklayer is appealing to his former colleagues to come forward in a bid to find out how and where he was exposed to asbestos. Dennis Pearson, 66, from Stainton, was diagnosed with mesothelioma, which is caused by exposure to asbestos and affects the lining of the lungs, in August 2015 after suffering with shortness of breath. He believes the disease developed due to exposure to asbestos decades ago, during his working life. The father-of-one told his legal team at Irwin Mitchell that during his time working for Barrow Corporation between 1964 and 1971, which later became Barrow Borough Council, he worked on a number of building sites in the town. He explained that he was involved in building new council houses in Barrow and that asbestos was commonly used in the construction of buildings at this time. He recalled as an apprentice bricklayer, cutting down large sheets of asbestos with a hand saw or angle grinder, which would lead to asbestos dust and fibres being released into the working environment. Mr Pearson also recollected building an extension on the Victoria Girls' School, which required him to remove asbestos-lagging from pipework in the existing building. He also recounted maintaining boilers at schools operated by Barrow Corporation and working alongside other tradesmen who repaired pipework. He said asbestos was often disturbed during repair work and that the environment was often very dusty, he was never provided with protective equipment or training on how to handle asbestos correctly. Mr Pearson said: "I'm still struggling to fully come to terms with my mesothelioma diagnosis and what that means for my future. Since my diagnosis my health has begun to deteriorate and I don't have as much energy as I used to. "I recall regularly working with asbestos while I was employed by the council and that we were not provided with breathing masks or other protective equipment to prevent our exposure to it. "Now I'm appealing to my former colleagues who worked on council buildings in Barrow alongside me to come forward and help provide my legal team with the information they need to get me the answers I'm looking for." Anyone with information is asked to contact Emma Tordoff at Irwin Mitchell in Manchester. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vets, Teachers Push Congress to Reject FACT Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lydia Wheeler, writing for The Hill, reported that veterans, first responders and teachers are urging lawmakers to reject legislation that would require asbestos victims to share personal information when seeking compensation in court. Two letters were sent to Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) ahead of the committee hearing voicing opposition to the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency, or FACT Act introduced by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). In their letter to Grassley and the committee's Ranking Member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), veterans from 17 organizations, including the Air Force Sergeants Association (AFSA), the National Defense Council and Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA), said the bill puts many of their veterans, who are ill and likely dying from asbestos-triggered diseases, at a greater risk of becoming victims of identity theft. The FACT Act would require trusts to file quarterly reports on their public bankruptcy dockets that include personal information on the victims making demands for payments and the basis for payments made. "The bill is a cynical ploy by the asbestos industry to avoid compensating its victims who are seeking justice in court -- many of whom are veterans who were doubly exposed; first while in uniform and when they went on to work for companies that knowingly exposed them to the deadly fiber," the veteran groups said in their letter. A spokesman for the Senate Judiciary Committee said that the hearing is being held to explore possible legislative fixes to bring about greater transparency and accountability in the asbestos trust system. Republicans have argued that these trusts -- accounts set up under the bankruptcy code to pay victims of asbestos-related diseases -- need to be protected to prevent fraudulent or inflated claims from drawing down on this finite funding. The hearing comes about a month after the House passed the FACT by adding it to another piece of legislation that set new limits on class-action lawsuits. The International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) also sent a letter calling on members of Congress to oppose the bill. "Victims of asbestos exposure, including first responders and teachers, among many other dedicated public employees, are entitled to compensation from the companies that caused their illnesses," they said. "S. 357, however, would give companies an unfair advantage over asbestos victims seeking justice for their injuries -- speciously touted as a "transparency bill," the measure actually is designed to help the asbestos industry avoid paying victims through delay tactics and waste of scarce trust resources set aside for victims." Alex Formuzis, of the Environmental Working Group Action Fund said the overwhelming opposition to the bill should send a strong message to the Judiciary Committee and the rest of the Senate. "Supporting legislation that would almost certainly put tens of thousands of innocent Americans, including veterans and firefighters, at risk of identity theft should be a non-starter for lawmakers," he said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Measure Sacks Kansas's Worker Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ Tim Carpenter, writing for The Topeka Capital-Journal, reported that the Kansas environmental regulatory agency requested a House committee support repeal of a 30-year-old law requiring annual training certification by Kansas officials of workers performing asbestos abatement. Adoption of legislation sought by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment wouldn't undermine federal mandates applicable to people stripping the cancer-causing substance from building floors, pipes and other areas. In addition, KDHE still would share responsibility with federal officials for inspection of asbestos job sites or for responding to complaints about improper removal. John Mitchell, director of the environment division at KDHE, told the House Energy and Environment Committee that House Bill 2516 would drop from state law redundant training provisions that exist in federal law. "To be clear," he said, "this bill does not remove the need for worker training -- only for a specific KDHE training course. Federal laws are doing the job just fine." Mitchell said asbestos company employees would be expected to comply with federal training mandates, but about 900 individuals no longer would be subject to annual KDHE certification standards on training. A requirement that asbestos companies be licensed by the state would remain on the books, he said. The bill, which could be subject to a committee vote, would alter a legal requirement Kansas operators of asbestos abatement companies retain records for six years. Under the measure, records would have to be kept for three years. "I'd like to know if that's an arbitrary number. Asbestos is scary stuff," said Rep. Annie Kuether, D-Topeka. Andy Sanchez, a lobbyists who represents Kansas AFL-CIO, expressed opposition to the House bill because of the potential health risk from diminishing the state's regulatory position on asbestos. "Certification does offer some degree of public accountability, and that documentation is meaningful in an industry where class- action lawsuits seem to go hand-in-hand," Sanchez said. Mitchell said he didn't know how many KDHE inspectors were engaged in monitoring asbestos eradication, nor did he know how many companies or individuals had been caught operating without proper certification. He said violations had been reported in the past. Mark Schreiber, vice president for government affairs at Westar Energy, said the company endorsed the bill sponsored by KDHE. He said the agency had sufficient oversight to maintain high standards for asbestos workers, despite removal of the state certification component. "Asbestos remediation work has sufficient dangers to require expertise to protect both workers and those that will occupy those areas after remediation," Schreiber said. In 1985, public alarm about handling of asbestos being pulled from Kansas public schools led to adoption of state regulations. Inferior removal work in schools led the state to implement training and certification restrictions, Mitchell said. "With no regulation in place," Mitchell said, "some asbestos abatement companies were doing sloppy work, which resulted in more problems for the schools. This brought about concerns for the health of students and faculty in these school buildings." Federal law in 1990 set new training requirements for asbestos workers, and Kansas stopped imposing the state-established training mandate. Kansas continued with the certification process to verify adequate worker training, he said. Under the bill pending in the House, KDHE would stop doing the training certifications. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuit in Kentucky Opens --------------------------------------------------- James Mayse, writing for Messenger-Inquirer, reported that the first arguments in a lawsuit filed by a former Owensboro woman who claims she contracted asbestos-associated cancer from asbestos brought home on her husband's clothes while he was working as an insulator at several regional companies, were heard in Daviess Circuit Court. Doris White, who now lives in Louisville, has mesothelioma, a form of cancer closely tied to exposure to asbestos fibers. White is suing a number of companies, including Alcoa, Big Rivers Electric Cooperative, General Electric, Goodyear, York, Amec Foster Wheeler and Triangle Enterprises. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canadian Federal Gov't Still Using Asbestos ------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Ireton, writing for CBC News, reported that the news agency has confirmed the federal government continues to use asbestos- containing materials in the construction and renovation of federal buildings, even though asbestos is a known carcinogen and toxin. The World Health Organization recommends replacing asbestos with safer substitutes. But both the Canada Revenue Agency and Public Services and Procurement (formerly Public Works) have confirmed that they continue to use asbestos in construction projects. "It's appalling, but unfortunately, it's not surprising," said Laura Lozanski, occupational health and safety officer at the Canadian Association of University Teachers, a group that for years has been lobbying for the removal of asbestos from public buildings. "That they're continuing to use a known carcinogen in the workplace is just unbelievable," said Lozanski. Denis St-Jean, national health and safety officer with the Public Service Alliance of Canada said Canada still imports construction products that contain asbestos. Unions asking for asbestos building registry The PSAC is part of Ban Asbestos Canada, a group which recently sent a letter to Prime Minister Trudeau asking for legislation to ban the use, export and import of asbestos, as many other countries including the European Union and Australia have already done. "This practice needs to be ceased immediately," said St-Jean. "We're also asking that the use of any asbestos containing material be withdrawn from any federally funded infrastructure projects from the federal government." The Canadian Labour Congress says that in fact the use of asbestos cement pipe is on the rise in Canada and is increasingly being installed in federally funded infrastructure projects in Ontario and Quebec through the former federal governement's New Building Canada Fund. The CLC also said that imports of asbestos related items is on the increase in Canada. Several unions continue to call for a Canadian registry of asbestos-containing buildings that have public access. Non-friable asbestos still in use A spokesman for the Canada Revenue Agency confirmed the use of asbestos, but said the use is controlled. "Its use is limited to non-friable forms (not easily broken into smaller pieces) and is strictly controlled under the Asbestos Products Regulations," said Philippe Brideau, a media relations advisor with the Canada Revenue Agency. But Lozanski and other health and safety officers argue that non- friable asbestos eventually breaks down over time and becomes a danger. "This continued putting forward that it's non-friable and it's safe is complete nonsense and should not be used by people who should know better," said Lozanski. The Public Services and Procurement department also confirmed in a statement to CBC that the department continues to use asbestos- cement pipes in new or renovated buildings because "the National Building Code still allows for the use of non-friable asbestos- cement products." "Asbestos-cement pipes normally have a life cycle of 70 years and are often found in tall buildings since they provide better sound insulation against falling water compared to cast iron pipes," Jessica Kingsbury, a media relations officer with the public services department said in a statement. Asbestos abatement ongoing Right now, the parliament buildings are undergoing millions of dollars of renovations which includes the abatement of asbestos that's documented to have infected federal workers over the years. Ian Culbert, executive director of the Canadian Public Health Association said to find out these asbestos products are still legal and being used is a concern to his association. "I don't believe anyone believes asbestos is a legal product for the building trades anymore," said Culbert. "You'd think the federal government would be the last landlord to be using that kind of a product." Recently, updated figures from Statistics Canada reveal the number of cases and deaths from mesothelioma -- a deadly cancer caused primarily by workplace asbestos exposure -- have continued to rise and show no signs of abating. Exposure to asbestos doesn't guarantee illness, but there is concern because the latency period can be 10 to 40 years. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Substantial Relief Needed for Japan Victims ------------------------------------------------------------ The Yomiuri Shimbun reported that the court has blamed nonfeasance on the part of the state and construction material makers. In a class-action lawsuit filed by former construction workers and others seeking compensation for damage caused by asbestos at construction sites, the Kyoto District Court ordered the state and nine construction material makers to each pay just over JPY100 million in damages to the plaintiffs. The compensation called for in the latest ruling can be considered substantial. Asbestos, which was cheap and offered superior fire resistance, was imported in large quantities from the 1970s through the 1990s and was used as construction material and for other purposes. At construction sites where the materials were processed, fine particles that included asbestos fiber were said to have been generated in large amounts. In the lawsuit, 27 plaintiffs, including bereaved family members, tried to establish the responsibility of both the state and material makers for causing lung cancer and other health problems among those who inhaled asbestos at construction sites. The court pointed out that the state must have been aware of the health hazards of asbestos by the early 1970s. In light of this, the court concluded that the state should have made it mandatory for business operators to have their workers wear dust masks and to use tools equipped with dust collectors at construction sites, and to label the asbestos-containing construction materials with a warning of a possible health hazard. The court acted rationally in taking a grave view of the state's negligence, as the government failed to take sufficient countermeasures, while prioritizing housing construction. Due responsibility of makers Of the five similar lawsuits, the courts have recognized the state's responsibility in four cases. The judicial trend of ruling against the state, albeit at the stage of a district court, seems to be taking hold. To be noted this time is that the court has gone as far as to put the blame on construction material makers for the first time in the series of lawsuits. Construction workers usually move from one workplace to another. Because of such itinerant working patterns, court rulings until now had turned down compensation claims against construction material makers, saying that it was impossible to identify the materials that had caused health damage. On the assumption that a construction worker works at more than 10 different workplaces in a year, the Kyoto court has ordered those makers with more than a 10 percent market share to pay compensation. It may be debatable whether drawing a line at 10 percent market share is appropriate. Yet those makers that failed to put a warning on the materials ought to assume their due responsibility, we believe. After the health damage due to asbestos was identified around a machine maker's mill in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture, the asbestos health damage relief law came into effect in 2006. On the basis of this law, the government has given relief to people living near such plants, and workers who were not recognized for industrial accident compensation. Just like the plaintiffs of the latest case, however, there were many who complained that compensation for absence from work and the cost of medical expenses alone was not sufficient. Considering that after asbestos has been inhaled, it takes 20 to 50 years for the ill effects to appear, health damage among construction workers will surely come to light on a nationwide scale in the years ahead. Supporting organizations are calling for a compensation fund to be established jointly by the government and construction material makers. The government should discuss relief measures with such a proposal in mind. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has Until June to Perfect Appeals ------------------------------------------------------------ The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, on January 19, 2016, enlarged to the June 2016 Term Crane Co.'s time to perfect appeal in the following cases: * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to McLAUGHLIN, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Motion No. M-6099 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/TYZXI5from Leagle.com. * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to HISCHE, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Motion No. M-6105 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/SlowPYfrom Leagle.com. * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to ENGLE, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Motion No. M-6098 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/QjYNmEfrom Leagle.com. * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to BATTIPAGLIA, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, Motion No. M-6100 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/GZw2kZfrom Leagle.com. * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to D'ANDRADE, v. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, Motion No. M-6101 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/rvyjIFfrom Leagle.com. * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to PORTA, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, Motion No. M-6107 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/PhOXCefrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Suit vs. JPMorgan Officers Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Delaware, in an order dated January 28, 2016, affirmed the judgment of the Court of Chancery on the basis of and for the reasons assigned in its May 21, 2015 decision in the case captioned ASBESTOS WORKERS LOCAL 42 PENSION FUND, derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant, JPMorgan Chase & Co., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff Below-Appellant, v. LINDA B. BAMMANN, et al., Defendants Below-Appellees, and JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., Nominal Defendant Below-Appellee, No. 322, 2015. In the May 21, 2015 Decision, the Chancery Court granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Verified Derivative Complaint for Failure to Plead Demand Futility. The Plaintiff in this case is a stockholder of JPMorgan Chase & Co., seeking derivatively to hold those at the helm accountable for the damage caused by the so-called London whale. The Plaintiff seeks to sue the directors (and certain officers) of JPMorgan under a theory based on the rationale of the Court's decision In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation. A full-text copy of the Jan. 28, 2016 Decision is available at http://is.gd/98x3Glfrom Leagle.com. A full-text copy of the May 21, 2015 Decision is available at http://is.gd/LdudUefrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Had $648MM Litigation Reserve at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc. has $176 million in asbestos insurance receivable and $648 million in asbestos litigation reserve for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2015, according to the Company's preliminary first quarter results disclosed in a Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 25, 2016. A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at http://is.gd/bC4FSY Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that provides products, services and solutions to industries. The Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers products, technologies and resources in key markets including personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage, coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation, refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing, cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care products. ********* 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 2016. 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 * * *