Monday, October 22, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 209
AMAZON: Customers Notified of E-Book Price-Fixing Settlement Terms
AMERICAN APPAREL: Plea to Dismiss Amended Securities Suit Pending
AQUA-LEISURE: Agrees to $650,000 Fine Over Defective Baby Boats
BARCLAYS: Sued by Home Owners' Over Libor Manipulation
BEST BUY: 9th Circuit Revives "Robot Calls" Class Action
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of Mini Cooper Class Action
CITIGROUP ALTERNATIVE: Faces $400-Mil. Investor Class Action
COX COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Antitrust Class Action
DOLE FRESH: Recalls 12 oz. Bags of Dole American Blend Salad
DOLLAR TREE: Investigates Allegations in California Class Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Still Awaits Appeal Ruling in Discrimination Suit
ELECTRONIC ARTS: February 7 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
GREAT WOLF: Still Awaits Ruling on Merger-Related Suit Settlement
INDIEPUB ENTERTAINMENT: Dismissal of "Ricker" Suit Appealed
INTERLINE BRANDS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suit
ISRAEL ELECTRIC: Tel Aviv Court Approves Class Action
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Over Mesh Side-Effects
JOSEPH BRANT: $9-Mil. Out-of-Court Settlement Awaits Approval
KASEL ASSOCIATED: Recalls Boots & Barkley Pig Ears and Dog Treats
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Judge Tosses Key Claims in Suit vs. Ex-officers
LINEBARGER GOGGAN: Judge Certifies Delinquent Tax Class Action
MOLYCORP INC: "Albano" Class Suit Remains Pending in Colorado
MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Discrimination Class Action
MORTGAGE LAW: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Foreclosure Scam
NBC UNIVERSAL: Faces Overtime Class Action
NEW ENERGY: Securities Class Suit Still Pending in New York
PREMERA BLUE: Sued Over Limited Autism Therapy Coverage
PUBLIX SUPER: Recalls 11 oz. Premium Frozen Tempura Shrimp
SAN DIEGO GAS: Faces Class Action Over Apartment, Condo Burglaries
SUMMER INFANT: $1.6MM Deal in Baby Monitors Lawsuit Gets Court OK
TEXAS: TMLIRP Sued Over Injured Workers' Settlement Recoupment
TORN AND GLASSER: Recalls In-Shell Peanuts and Organic Butter
TRANSS1 INC: Securities Class Action Remains Pending in N.C.
TYSON FOODS: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
UNITED EDUCATION: Sued for Misleading Students on Dental Program
UNITED STATES: Illegally Withheld Judge Salary Raises, Cir. Says
WAL-MART STORES: Wins Bid to Dismiss Gender Bias Class Action
WALT DISNEY: Workers File Overtime Class Action
ZUNGUI HAIXI: Court Issues Securities Class Action Leave Order
* PwC Sees Slowdown in Federal Securities Class Action Filings
Jeff John Roberts, writing for paidContent, reports that Amazon is
notifying customers who bought an ebook in the last two years of
the potential for a refund and other retailers will soon follow
suit. The process is part of a long, complicated class action
Kindle users received an e-mail notice this weekend from Amazon
that they may be eligible for a refund of up to $1.32 per ebook.
But they should not hold their breath waiting to about collect.
The e-mail notice is part of a process to resolve a price-fixing
case brought by state governments. It calls for retailers like
Amazon and Barnes & Noble to inform customers about the settlement
during the next two months so that any objectors can speak up
before a "fairness hearing" slated for February.
The refunds in question amount to $1.32 for New York Times
bestsellers purchased from HarperCollins, Simon&Schuster or
Hachette between April 2010 and May of 2012. For older titles,
customers will receive 25 or 32 cents. Should the deal go
forward, customers will eventually receive a credit to their ebook
account or, in some cases, a check in the mail.
While customers can "object," the reality is that only a tiny
percentage ever do in these type of settlements. Instead, the
February hearing is likely to provide an occasion for more
posturing between those who like the deal (Amazon and the
government) and those who don't (Apple and two holdout publishers,
Penguin and Macmillan.)
Amazon is already using the settlement notice process to trumpet
its view of events.
"In addition to the account credit, the settlements impose
limitations on the publishers' ability to set e-book prices. We
think these settlements are a big win for customers and look
forward to lowering prices on more Kindle books in the future,"
said the Amazon e-mail, according to The Wall Street Journal.
The three settling publishers are in favor of the deal because it
allows them to escape the purgatory of expensive class action
proceedings and, presumably, because it will result in some of the
$69 million they are to pay coming back to them as a result of
customers using the credits for new purchases.
Any customer payments will not occur anytime soon, however,
because the final settlement must still be approved after the
February hearing. While US District Judge Denise Cote has
indicated she is strongly in favor, the deal could be delayed if
Apple and the two publishers hold out and the settlement ends up
before an appeals court. The upshot is that the earliest
consumers will see any refund is next spring; alternately, if the
process drags out, it could take until 2014.
A California court has yet to issue a ruling on a motion to
dismiss an amended consolidated securities class action complaint
against American Apparel, Inc., according to the Company's August
14, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.
Four putative class action lawsuits, entitled Anthony Andrade v.
American Apparel, et al., Case No. CV106352 MMM (RCx), Douglas
Ormsby v. American Apparel, et al., Case No. CV106513 MMM (RCx),
James Costa v. American Apparel, et al., Case No. CV106516 MMM
(RCx), and Wesley Childs v. American Apparel, et al., Case No.
CV106680 GW (JCGx), were filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on August 25, 2010, August
31, 2010, August 31, 2010, and September 8, 2010, respectively,
against American Apparel and certain of the Company's officers and
executives on behalf of American Apparel shareholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between December 19, 2006 and
August 17, 2010. On December 3, 2010, the four lawsuits were
consolidated for all purposes into a case entitled In re American
Apparel, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV106352 MMM
(JCGx) (the Federal Securities Action). On March 14, 2011, the
Court appointed the firm of Barroway Topaz, LLP (now Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP) to serve as lead counsel and Mr. Charles
Rendelman to serve as lead plaintiff. On April 29, 2011, Mr.
Rendelman filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint against
American Apparel, certain of the Company's officers, and Lion,
alleging two causes of action for violations of Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the 1934 Act, and Rules 10b-5 promulgated under Section
10(b), arising out of alleged misrepresentations contained in the
Company's press releases, public filings with the SEC, and other
public statements relating to (i) the adequacy of the Company's
internal and financial control policies and procedures; (ii) the
Company's employment practices; and (iii) the effect that the
dismissal of over 1,500 employees following an Immigration and
Customs Enforcement inspection would have on the Company.
Plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified amount, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable relief as the Court may
deem proper. On May 31, 2011, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Federal Securities Action. On January 13, 2012, the
Court dismissed the Federal Securities Action, with leave to
amend. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 27, 2012.
The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on March 30,
2012. A hearing on the motion was heard on May 21, 2012. The
Court took the matter under submission. Discovery is stayed in
the Federal Securities Action, as well as in the Federal
Derivative Action, pending resolution of motions to dismiss the
Federal Securities Action.
American Apparel, Inc. and its subsidiaries is a vertically-
integrated manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of branded
fashion basic apparel products and designs, manufactures and sells
clothing and accessories for women, men, children and babies. The
Company sells its products through the wholesale distribution
channel supplying t-shirts and other casual wear to distributors
and screen printers, as well as direct to customers through its
retail stores located in the United States, and internationally.
In addition, the Company operates an online retail e-commerce
website. At June 30, 2012, the Company operated a total of 252
retail stores in 20 countries, including the United States, Canada
and 18 other countries.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that
Aqua-Leisure Industries, Inc., of Avon, Massachusetts, has agreed
to pay a civil penalty of $650,000. The penalty agreement
[http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr13/aqualeisure.pdf]has
been accepted provisionally by a 4-0 vote of the Commission.
The settlement resolves CPSC staff allegations that Aqua-Leisure
knowingly failed to report a defect involving its inflatable baby
boats to CPSC immediately, as required by federal law. The leg
strap in the seat of baby boats manufactured from August 2002 to
July 2008 can tear, causing children to unexpectedly fall into or
under the water, posing a risk of drowning.
In 2001, Aqua-Leisure and CPSC conducted a recall of 90,000 "Sun
Smart" inflatable baby boats
[http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml02/02051.html]after
receiving 12 reports of the seats tearing and causing children to
fall into the water. Four children became completely submerged
before a caregiver was able to reach them. No injuries were
After the 2001 recall, Aqua-Leisure continued to produce different
versions of the inflatable baby boats, which also became the
subject of consumer complaints. Between July 2003 and July 2006,
Aqua-Leisure became aware of 17 incidents involving inflatable
baby boats sold after the 2001 recall in which the seats "fell
out," "ripped," "failed," "tore," "split" or "separated,"
including four incidents in which a baby boat seat ripped, causing
children to fall into the water unexpectedly. By October 31,
2008, Aqua-Leisure was aware of at least 24 consumer complaints
regarding several models of inflatable baby boats since the 2001
recall but did not adequately inform the CPSC until May 2009.
Aqua-Leisure and CPSC announced a recall of 4 million inflatable
baby boats
[http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09261.html]on
July 2, 2009. The baby boats were sold nationwide from December
2002 through June 2009 for between $8 and $15. By the date of the
recall, there were 31 reports of the boat seats tearing, causing
children to fall into or under the water. No injuries were
Federal law requires manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to
report to CPSC immediately (within 24 hours) after obtaining
information reasonably supporting the conclusion that a product
contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard,
creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or fails
to comply with any consumer product safety rule or any other rule,
regulation, standard, or ban enforced by CPSC.
In agreeing to the settlement, Aqua-Leisure denies CPSC staff
allegations that its inflatable baby boats could create an
unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or contained a
defect that could create a substantial product hazard, or that
Aqua-Leisure violated the reporting requirements of the Consumer
Product Safety Act.
Pursuant to the Consumer Product Safety Act, CPSC must consider
the appropriateness of the penalty to the size of the business of
the person charged, including how to address undue adverse
economic impacts on small businesses. Aqua-Leisure is a small
business as set forth in the Small Business Administration
guidelines regarding size of business.
According to Reuters' Stephen Mangan, the Financial Times reported
on Oct. 8 that home owners have filed a class action suit in New
York against 12 of the world's major banks, claiming that Libor
manipulation made mortgage repayments more expensive than they
should have been.
It is the first class-action lawsuit filed by home owners,
according to the newspaper, which said other class action suits
have been brought by investors and municipalities.
The five lead plaintiffs include Annie Bell Adams, a pensioner who
had her home repossessed and whose subprime mortgage was
securitized into Libor-based collateralized debt obligations and
sold by banks to investors, the FT said.
The suit alleges that traders at banks in Europe and North
America, including Barclays, Bank of America and UBS, were
incentivized to manipulate the London interbank offered rate to a
higher rate on certain dates on which adjustable mortgage interest
rates were reset.
This resulted in homeowners paying more between 2000 and 2009, the
FT quoted the complaint as saying.
The plaintiffs, who have lost thousands of dollars each, could
number 100,000, their Alabama-based attorney John Sharbrough was
quoted by the FT as saying. He declined to give a figure on the
total damages his clients are seeking.
Faith in the Libor interest rate system, which underpins more than
$300 trillion of contracts and loans from U.S. mortgages to
Japanese interest-rate swaps, plummeted after Barclays was fined
in June for rigging it. Other banks are under investigation.
Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Oct. 17 revived a class action
claiming that Best Buy pesters customers with unsolicited "robot"
A copy of the Opinion in Chesbro v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., No. 11-
35784 (9th Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/ui7fME
Megan Stride, writing for Law360, reports that BMW of North
America LLC asked a California federal court on Oct. 12 to toss a
putative class action alleging it concealed a safety defect in its
Mini Cooper vehicles, saying the plaintiff's counsel brought
nearly identical allegations in another suit dismissed last year.
The car company wants out of named plaintiff, Sonya Perry's suit
alleging that BMW made failed to make disclosures in its
advertising about an allegedly defective power steering system its
model year 2002 through 2009 Mini Coopers.
Courthouse News Service reports that investors demand $400 million
from Citigroup Alternative Investments, in a federal class action
involving the Citigroup-sponsored CSO Fund.
Courthouse News Service reports that an antitrust class action
claims Cox Communications forces subscribers of premium cable
channels to rent the set-top boxes from Cox, in Federal Court.
Dole Fresh Vegetables is voluntarily recalling a limited number of
cases of Dole American Blend salad in 12 oz. bags, coded A275208A
or B, with Use-by date of October 17 and UPC 7143000933, due to a
possible health risk from Listeria monocytogenes. Dole Fresh
Vegetables is coordinating closely with regulatory officials. No
illnesses have been reported in association with the recall.
The product code and Use-by date are in the upper right-hand
corner of the package; the UPC code is on the back of the package,
below the barcode. The salads were distributed in 10 U.S. states
(Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Wisconsin).
No illnesses have been reported in association with the recall.
This precautionary recall notification is being issued due to an
isolated instance in which a sample of Dole American Blend salad
yielded a positive result for Listeria monocytogenes in a random
sample test conducted by the Tennessee Department of Agriculture.
No other salads are included in the recall. Only the specific
Product Codes, UPC codes and October 17, 2012 Use-by date
identified above are included in the recall. Consumers who have
any remaining product with these Product Codes should not consume
it, but rather discard it. Retailers and consumers with questions
may call the Dole Food Company Consumer Response Center at (800)
356-3111, which is open 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (Pacific Time)
Monday - Friday.
Dole Fresh Vegetables customer service representatives are already
contacting retailers and are in the process of confirming that the
recalled product is being removed from the stream of commerce.
Listeria monocytogenes is an organism that can cause foodborne
illness in a person who eats a food item contaminated with it.
Symptoms of infection may include fever, muscle aches,
gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea or diarrhea. The illness
primarily impacts pregnant women and adults with weakened immune
systems. Most healthy adults and children rarely become seriously
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its August 16, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
ended July 28, 2012, that it is currently investigating
allegations asserted in a class action lawsuit in California.
In July 2012, a former non-exempt hourly associate who alleges his
primary duty was to work the cash register, on behalf of himself
and those similarly situated, filed a Complaint under the
California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), in a California
state court, alleging the Company failed to provide suitable
seating as allegedly required by state law. The Company has
removed the case to federal court, filed its Answer to the
Complaint and is currently investigating the plaintiff's
allegations. No Scheduling Order has been entered.
The Company says it will vigorously defend itself in the matter.
The Company does not believe that any of these matters against it
will, individually or in the aggregate, have a material effect on
its business or financial condition. The Company cannot give
assurance, however, that one or more of these lawsuits will not
have a material effect on its results of operations for the period
in which they are resolved. Based on the information available to
the Company, including the amount of time remaining before trial,
the results of discovery and the judgment of internal and external
counsel, the Company is unable to express an opinion as to the
outcome of these matters and cannot estimate a potential range of
Dollar Tree, Inc. -- http://www.dollartreestoresinc.com--
operates discount variety stores in the United States and Canada.
Its stores offer merchandise primarily at the fixed price of
$1.00. The Company operates its stores under the names of Dollar
Tree, Deal$, Dollar Tree Deal$, Dollar Giant, and Dollar Bills.
The Company was founded in 1986 and is based in Chesapeake,
In 2009, 34 plaintiffs filed a class action Complaint in a federal
court in Virginia, alleging gender pay and promotion
discrimination under Title VII against Dollar Tree, Inc. In 2010,
the case was dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The appeal has been
fully briefed by the parties and oral arguments were conducted in
January 2012. The parties await a decision of the appellate court
which is expected in 2012.
No further updates were reported in the Company's August 16, 2012,
for the quarter ended July 28, 2012.
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that
Electronic Arts can settle antitrust claims by paying $27 million
and releasing exclusivity rights to league-branded football video
games, a federal judge ruled.
After granting preliminary approval of the settlement on Oct. 12,
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken scheduled a fairness hearing
for Feb. 7, 2013.
In 2008, lead plaintiffs Geoffrey Pecover and Jeffrey Lawrence
claimed that EA killed off competing football video games by
partnering with the National Football League, the National
Collegiate Athletic Association, the Collegiate Licensing Co. and
the Arena Football League.
By monopolizing the market for these games, EA was free to hike up
the prices of its own games and gouge customers, according to the
EA denied the allegations as well as any wrongdoing, eventually
filing the joint settlement on July 20, 2012.
The agreement bars the Redwood City, Calif.-based developer from
renewing its exclusive NCAA and CLC football licenses for at least
five years after they expire in 2014. EA must also refrain from
grabbing exclusive rights to the AFL for five years.
The settlement will not affect EA's exclusive licensing with the
NFL, even though the "Madden NFL" video game was central to the
original lawsuit.
The $27 million settlement fund will go to consumers who purchased
"Madden NFL," "NCAA Football" or "American Football League" games
published between Jan. 1, 2005, and June 21, 2012.
Consumers are entitled to up to $6.79 for games released for play
on the XBox, Playstation 2, PC or GameCube platforms. Those who
purchased titles released for play on the XBox 360, Playstation 3
or Wii platorms can claim up to $1.95 per game.
Prospective class members must submit their claims by March 5,
Members who want to opt out and keep their right to sue EA
separately about the same legal claims must do so by Dec. 10,
Class settlements designed to resolve lawsuits related to a merger
deal Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. entered into with K-9 Holdings,
Inc., have yet to be approved by the courts, according to the
Company's August 14, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
On March 12, 2012, Great Wolf Resorts entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger with K-9 Holdings, Inc., (Parent), and K-9
Acquisition, Inc., (Merger Sub) and a direct wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, Merger Sub agreed to commence a tender offer to acquire
all of the outstanding shares of common stock of the Company at a
purchase price of $5.00 per share, net to the holder in cash,
without any interest and subject to any withholding taxes, to be
followed by a merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company with
the Company surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (the
Merger). The items of this Merger Agreement were amended on April
6, 2012, April 18, 2012 and April 20, 2012, culminating in a new
Offer Price of $7.85 per share.
The consummation of the Offer and the Merger are subject to
various closing conditions, including the tender of at least 50%
of the Common Shares and other customary conditions. The Offer is
not subject to a financing condition. The Merger Agreement also
includes customary termination provisions for both the Company and
Parent and provides that, in connection with the termination of
the Merger Agreement under specified circumstances, the Company
will be required to pay Parent a termination fee of up to $10,467
(including reimbursement for certain expenses).
On March 14, 2012, a class action complaint was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company, its directors,
Apollo Management VII, L.P., Parent and Merger Sub. In that case,
the plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of stockholders,
sought to enjoin the proposed transaction that was the subject of
the Merger Agreement. Seven other lawsuits followed, four of
which were filed in Delaware Chancery Court, two in the Circuit
Court, Civil Division for Dane County in the State of Wisconsin
(the Wisconsin State-court Actions), and one in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (the
Wisconsin Federal-court Action). The Delaware cases were
consolidated into a single action (the Delaware Action).
On April 25, 2012, the parties to the Delaware Action and the
Wisconsin State-court Actions reached an agreement in principle to
settle those cases. The proposed settlement, which is subject to
court approval following notice to the class and a hearing,
provides for the dismissal with prejudice of plaintiffs'
complaints and of all claims asserted therein. On April 30, 2012,
the parties to the Wisconsin Federal-court Action agreed to settle
that case, subject to court approval of the proposed class-wide
settlement in the Delaware Action and entry of a final order
dismissing the Delaware Action in its entirety. Pursuant to their
agreement, the parties to the Wisconsin Federal-court Action filed
with the court, on April 30, 2012, a stipulation providing that
the Action be voluntarily dismissed with respect to all defendants
and that such dismissal will be with prejudice as to the plaintiff
upon the consummation of the settlement of the Delaware Action.
The Company, the members of the Board of Directors, Apollo
Management VII, L.P., Parent and Merger Sub each have denied, and
continue to deny, that they committed or attempted to commit any
violation of law or breach of fiduciary duty owed to the Company
and/or its stockholders, aided or abetted any breach of fiduciary
duty, or otherwise engaged in any of the wrongful acts alleged in
all of these cases. All of the defendants expressly maintain that
they complied with their fiduciary and other legal duties.
However, in order to avoid the costs, disruption and distraction
of further litigation, and without admitting the validity of any
allegation made in the actions or any liability with respect
thereto, the defendants have concluded that it is desirable to
settle the claims against them on the terms reflected in the
proposed settlements.
The proposed settlements are subject to customary conditions
including completion of appropriate settlement documentation. In
addition, the parties to the Delaware Action and the Wisconsin
State-court Actions have acknowledged that the plaintiffs and
their counsel in those cases intend to petition the appropriate
court or courts for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in
connection with the cases. Any award of fees and expenses to
plaintiffs' counsel is subject to approval by the appropriate
court or courts, and the defendants have reserved the right to
oppose the amount of any petition for fees and expenses.
The proposed settlements are not final, and no fee petition has
yet been submitted or approved. Due to these uncertainties, the
Company is unable to predict the outcome of the litigations or to
quantify any impact they may eventually have on it. An
unfavorable outcome in these cases could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial condition and results of
Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. is a family entertainment resort company.
It is an owner, licensor, operator and developer in North America
of drive-to, destination family resorts featuring indoor
waterparks and other family-oriented entertainment activities
based on the number of resorts in operation. The Company operates
and licenses resorts under its Great Wolf Lodge(R) brand name.
An appeal has been lodged challenging the dismissal of a
securities class action filed by Bruce Ricker against indiePub
Entertainment, Inc., according to the Company's August 14, 2012,
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.
On July 22, 2011, Bruce E. Ricker, individually and on behalf of
all purchasers of the common stock of the Company from July 7,
2010 through April 15, 2011, filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio. Mr. Ricker was appointed lead plaintiff on
October 19, 2011, and he filed an amended complaint on December
12, 2011. The amended comlaplaint alleges that the Company, Mark
Seremet, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and David Fremed,
the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, knowingly or
recklessly violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making false
material statements in connection with certain financial
statements of the Company or by failing to disclose material
information in order to make the financial statements not
misleading. Specifically, the amended complaint relies upon the
Company's April 15, 2011 restatement of its unaudited consolidated
financial statements for the three months ended March 31, 2010,
the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, and the three and
nine months ended September 30, 2010, as the basis for its
allegations that the Company's financial statements filed for
those periods contained materially false statements. Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was then
fully briefed and argued to the court on May 10, 2012. On July 30,
2012, the court issued an opinion and order granting the motion to
dismiss in its entirety, dismissing all claims and closing the
case. On August 2, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
as to the dismissal.
indiePub Entertainment, Inc., formerly Zoo Entertainment, Inc., is
a developer, publisher and distributor of interactive
entertainment software for digital distribution channels.
Interline Brands, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding
to settle a merger-related class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's August 16, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
On August 1, 2012, Interline Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), began mailing the definitive proxy statement (the
"Definitive Proxy Statement") relating to the special meeting of
stockholders of the Company, which was scheduled for August 29,
2012, to vote upon, among other things, the proposal to adopt the
previously announced Agreement and Plan of Merger, entered into on
May 29, 2012 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among the Company,
Isabelle Holding Company Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Parent"),
and Isabelle Acquisition Sub Inc., a Delaware corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"). Parent is an
affiliate of GS Capital Partners VI Fund, L.P. One or more
investment funds managed by P2 Capital Partners, LLC will also own
an interest in Parent at the closing of the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement.
As previously disclosed in the Definitive Proxy Statement, a
purported stockholder class action complaint, Diane P. Cohen v.
Interline Brands, Inc., et al., was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware on June 13, 2012, against the Company,
each member of the Company's Board of Directors, GS Capital
Partners VI Fund, L.P., P2 Capital Partners, LLC, Parent and
Merger Sub.
The defendants vigorously deny all liability with respect to the
facts and claims alleged in the lawsuit, and specifically deny
that any further supplemental disclosure was required under any
applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. However, solely to
avoid the risk of delaying or adversely affecting the merger and
the related transactions and to minimize the expense of defending
the lawsuit, the defendants have agreed to a settlement.
On August 14, 2012, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the lead plaintiff regarding the settlement of
the action. In connection with the settlement, the Company agreed
to make certain additional disclosures to its stockholders, which
are contained in this Current Report on Form 8-K. The memorandum
of understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a
stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be
subject to customary conditions, including the consummation of the
merger and court approval following notice to the Company's
stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy
of the settlement which, if finally approved by the court, will
resolve all of the claims that were or could have been brought in
the actions being settled, including all claims relating to the
merger, the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection
therewith. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the
parties contemplate that the lead plaintiff's counsel will
petition the court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to
be paid by the Company. There can be no assurance that the
parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or
that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties
were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may
be terminated.
The settlement will not affect the timing of the merger or the
amount of merger consideration to be paid in the merger.
Arutz Sheva reports that the Tel Aviv District Court approved on
Oct. 14 the filing of a class action suit by 512 residents of the
Gush Etzion bloc of Judean Jewish communities against the Israel
Electric Company for damages resulting from disruptions and
cutoffs of power. In rejecting electric-company claims, the court
ruled that the outages exceeded the norms for Israel and the
Jerusalem region in particular.
The court said the utility had to provide power in accordance with
the national average, without specifying how. Another hearing was
scheduled for next month.
Marty Silk, writing for The Australian Associated Press, reports
that lawyers representing women suffering severe side-effects from
a surgical mesh say their class action may be the biggest in
Australian history.
Shine Lawyers partner Rebecca Jancauskas says up to 20,000 women
could join the case filed in the Federal Court on Oct. 15 against
the local arm of US pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson
Medical, which distributes the mesh.
"We estimate that it will be the biggest class action that
Australia has seen," she told AAP.
The mesh is used for the treatment of prolapse, when an organ
drops from its normal position in the body.
The condition occurs when the tissue that binds an organ in place
becomes weak, typically after pregnancy or childbirth.
The mesh is implanted to reinforce the vagina walls.
Many women have suffered severe complications from the mesh,
including organ perforation and erosion, infections, bleeding,
urinary problems and pain or discomfort during sex.
Ms. Jancauskas said the women affected had suffered huge losses.
"That includes pain and suffering, care and assistance, medical
expenses and economic loss," she said.
"The literature available globally paints a very concerning
picture in terms of the unacceptably high failure and complication
rates concerning this product.
"This product is not of medical quality and should not have been
on the market," she said.
About 60 women have joined the court action so far.
Ms. Jancauskas expects the date of the first hearing to be
announced within the next month.
According to ABC News, the transvaginal mesh has helped many women
who have suffered prolapsed organs by assisting their muscles with
support, but for a significant number it has caused life-changing
The case cast fresh light on the system of approvals because the
mesh was introduced without any pre-market testing.
When Julie Davis was younger she had a plan to travel the world,
meet the man of her dreams and settle down to have a family.
She succeeded, but along the way she endured a traumatic birth and
some terrible consequences.
"I'd had a very bad forceps delivery with my first child who's now
10 and I had to wait until all my children were born to fix a very
significant bladder prolapse," Ms. Davis said.
"From my understanding it was the worst kind of prolapse because
the bladder was actually outside my body.
The surgery itself was way more traumatic and devastating than I
had imagined.
It is a common problem, but there was a relatively new product to
Australia -- transvaginal mesh -- that could be stitched in near
the top of the vagina to help the pelvic floor muscles support the
internal organs, much like a sling.
"The surgery itself was way more traumatic and devastating than I
had imagined," Ms. Davis said.
"I just felt unwell all the time, I was in pain, a lot of pain,
discomfort down below.
"I also had this feeling -- lack of energy, like my body was
fighting something all the time."
While her husband shouldered the load of earning an income and
running the household, Julie, who was only in her 40s, was forced
to use a mobility scooter.
For her, walking was painful, so too was sex, and the emotional
toll was almost too much.
"It did get to the point where I just actually was chronically
depressed and I had to go to see a GP and go on antidepressants,"
she said.
"There was one point [when] I was driving my car and I was just
thinking, 'jeez, it would be easy just to turn the wheel at Curl
Curl headland and just go off', because I felt that desperate."
It was after this that Ms. Davis sought out a new surgeon,
urogynaecologist Richard Reid.
He says the mesh was acting like a cheese grater in her body and
had literally rubbed a hole in the wall of her vagina.
"When the mesh is put underneath the bladder, the bladder moves
back and forth as it fills and it moves back and forth during
intercourse," Dr. Reid said.
"Because mesh scar is fundamentally quite fibrous and the bladder
is very soft, we call this compliance mismatch, which means the
same as rubbing a piece of cheese over a metal grater; the metal
grater is obviously harder than the cheese."
Research published last May in the New England Journal of Medicine
found mesh kits had "higher short-term rates of successful
treatment" but also "higher rates of surgical complications and
post-operative adverse events".
Two months later, in July 2011, the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) in the United States issued a formal warning saying they
were a "greater risk" with "no evidence of greater clinical
benefit".
Johnson & Johnson removed its product from sale earlier this year
and class actions are already underway in America and Canada, and
now Australia.
This prolapse mesh class action that has been commenced in the
Federal Court has the potential to be the biggest product class
action that Australia has ever seen.
Certain classes of medical devices may be sold without adequate
testing if they are going to be used in a similar way to existing
Mesh kits had already been very successful in treating urinary
incontinence, an area where there is not the same friction from
internal organs.
"So the system was set up and the device companies have used the
system," Dr. Reid said.
"I think that with the wisdom of hindsight, it would have been
more prudent for them to have done more testing before it was
released, but in many I see the primary fault is the system didn't
think out what was going to happen."
It is not the first legal trouble for Johnson & Johnson in
Last year a class action was launched over its DePuy hip
replacement device which left hundreds of patients poisoned and
seriously disabled.
In 2010, the company faced similar legal proceedings over its knee
replacement products.
Just like the mesh kits, neither product had undergone pre-market
clinical trials.
"Given that this is now the third product class action that
Johnson & Johnson has faced in three years, it should raise some
serious concerns about their product safety standards,"
Ms. Jancauskas said.
The company has issued a statement saying:
Johnson & Johnson Medical continues to have confidence in the
safety and efficacy of these products.
The decision to discontinue these products was based on their
commercial viability in light of changing market dynamics, and is
not related to safety or efficacy.
This is not a product recall, and based on this notification it is
not necessary for women who have received one of these products to
take any action.
"For more than a decade, our organization has invested in the
research, development and clinical study of products to treat a
wide range of pelvic disorders.
"We remain committed to advancing the standard of care for women's
health and will continue to offer safe and effective treatment
options for women."
Some are angry at the Australian regulator, the Therapeutic Goods
Administration (TGA).
Senator Nick Xenophon, who was part of a parliamentary inquiry
into the hip devices, says he is concerned that similar problems
are still happening.
"Well this is another instance of regulatory failure. The TGA is
meant to be a watchdog of these devices but it's failed time and
time again," Senator Xenophon said.
"This is the third serious instance in the last 12 months. After
the problems with hip replacements, breast implants and now this,
[it] indicates there are some serious systemic problems with the
TGA."
And while America's FDA issued its warning to consumers last year,
there has been no such move from the TGA.
In a statement, it explained that it held a detailed review in
2010 and found the complication rate was low and depended on the
skill of the surgeon, but that it would continue to monitor the
situation.
Ms. Davis says "it's been a tough road" and she has now had her
mesh surgically removed.
She and husband Tim are desperately hoping that after four years
and five surgeries, there is something to look forward to.
"I hope that we're over the hill now and start rebuilding our
lives again in the way that we planned to begin with," Mr. Davis
"We had great plans and great ideas of how we wanted to build our
life, with the children et cetera, and I feel that life has been
running away from us and we haven't been able to sit back and
enjoy some of it."
Joan Walters, writing for The Spec.com, reports that a $9-million
out-of-court settlement has been drawn up for a judge's approval
in a class-action lawsuit launched by patients and families after
a deadly outbreak of C. difficile at Joseph Brant Memorial
The Burlington hospital disclosed in the spring of 2008 that 91
patients infected with the virulent superbug had died and a total
of 225 had been infected in a C. diff outbreak that was longer and
deadlier than originally thought.
About 200 potential claimants are covered by the lawsuit,
originally launched for $50 million. The statement of claim
alleged the hospital was not properly cleaned, maintained and
disinfected -- allegations which have never been proven in court.
Pat O'Sullivan, one of the lawsuit's representative plaintiffs,
said she is happy there will now be closure. She said she was
"never in it for the money."
Ms. O'Sullivan became the face of C. diff when her story of
checking herself out of Joseph Brant to save her own life after
knee surgery galvanized public attention.
"I wouldn't care if I didn't get a penny," she said on Oct. 15.
"What it means to me is that the powers that be at the hospital,
this has been brought so forcefully in front of them and that they
had to deal with it. This made them stand up and take notice."
The case remains Ontario's worst outbreak to date of C. diff,
which overran the hospital from May 2006 to December 2007 and
triggered a public uproar over patient safety.
Settlement documents filed in court say the hospital "does not
admit any wrongdoing or liability."
A lawyer for the hospital said Joseph Brant officials do not
intend to comment while the matter is still before the courts.
The settlement must still be approved by Justice Deena Baltman,
the judge who certified the class action a year ago this month.
That hearing will take place Dec. 10.
Hamilton lawyer Stanley M. Tick, who represents the claimants with
Windsor lawyer Harvey Strosberg, said the team is "satisfied it's
a good settlement."
He called it a hard-fought negotiation that resulted in what many
of the plaintiffs wanted, which was more than just compensation.
"What this was about was that it wouldn't happen again," said
Mr. Tick.
The hospital-wide outbreak saw some people who had been admitted
for routine surgery succumb to complications. The highly
contagious intestinal bacteria produces toxic diarrhea, vomiting,
fever and in severe cases, perforation of the bowel and death.
In the years since the outbreak, the hospital has significantly
improved procedures and cleaning protocols, invested heavily in
infection control and made other changes recommended by experts.
The agreement would apportion money according to the length of
time claimants were affected by C. diff. Mr. Tick said the bulk
would be in the category where patients died, or had symptoms of
the infection for more than 90 days. In that case, the estate of
the patient -- or the surviving patient -- would receive $15,000
and the family of the patient would receive $21,000.
The category of claimants with symptoms lasting between 31 and 90
days would get $10,000, and their families would receive $2,000.
For 30 or fewer days of infection, the figures are $3,000 to the
patient and $1,000 for their families.
There is also a sum of $714,000 available to patients in the
highest category who may have had additional issues as a result of
the infection, such as a heart attack. Another $714,000 will be
paid to OHIP in what Mr. Tick explained was money the health
insurance plan would not have had to spend were it not for the
The settlement documents show that lawyers for the plaintiffs will
be paid $1.122 million, for partial fees and out-of-pocket
disbursements to date, plus 15 per cent of what their clients
receive in payments. There is also a sum -- capped at $375,000 --
to pay a court-appointed administrator to oversee the settlement
and apportion the money.
Kasel Associated Industries of Denver, Colorado, is voluntarily
recalling its BOOTS & BARKLEY ROASTED AMERICAN PIG EARS AND BOOTS
& BARKLEY AMERICAN VARIETY PACK DOG TREATS product because it may
be contaminated with Salmonella. Salmonella can sicken animals
that eat these products and humans are at risk for salmonella
poisoning from handling contaminated pet products, especially if
they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact
with the pet products or any surfaces exposed to these products.
Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Rarely,
Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial
infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation,
and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these symptoms
after having contact with this product should contact their
healthcare providers.
Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only
decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Infected but
otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or
humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has any
of these signs, please contact your veterinarian.
The recalled Roasted Pig Ears and Variety Pack Dog Treats were
distributed nationwide through Target retail stores in August
The Roasted Pig Ears product comes in a clear plastic bag
containing 12 pig ears marked with UPC bar code 647263899158. The
Variety Pack product also comes in a clear plastic bag weighing 32
oz and marked with UPC bar code 490830400086.
Kasel Industries is recalling lot number BESTBY 13SEP2014DEN for
both products because this lot code tested positive for the
Salmonella bacteria through analysis by the Colorado Department Of
No illnesses have been reported to date in animals or humans in
connection with this product.
The recall was the result of a routine sampling by the Colorado
Department of Agriculture that revealed finished products
contained the Salmonella bacteria. The Company has ceased
distribution of any lots that have possible contamination of the
bacteria. No other products made by Kasel Associated Industries
are included in the recall of the 12 count packages of Roasted Pig
Ears and the 32 oz Variety Pack Dog Treats.
Consumers who have purchased the 12 count packages of Roasted Pig
Ears and the 32 oz Variety Pack Dog Treats are urged to return
them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact Kasel Associated Industries at (800) 218-
4417 Monday thru Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mountain
Daylight Time.
Linda Sandler and Christie Smythe, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that a federal judge dismissed some key claims in a class
action lawsuit against former officers of Lehman Brothers Holdings
Inc., including claims based on repurchase agreements, known as
Repo 105, as well as claims based on overvalued real estate.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan mostly
accords with an earlier decision. The California plaintiffs,
seven public entities and an insurance company, can proceed with
limited claims against some former executives including ex-
Chairman Richard Fuld, according to an opinion filed by Judge
Kaplan in U.S. District Court on Oct. 15.
Mr. Fuld, 66, was chief executive officer of New York-based
Lehman, once the fourth-largest U.S. investment bank, before its
2008 bankruptcy. In August 2011, he agreed to settle a different
investor lawsuit using a $90 million payment from the defunct
firm's insurers. Those investors, like these in the ongoing suit,
blamed Lehman officers and directors for losses on Lehman
securities.
A bankruptcy examiner said Lehman foundered because of too much
debt, which it tried to hide from investors, and risky real estate
investments.
Patricia Hynes, a lawyer for Mr. Fuld, didn't immediately respond
to an e-mail seeking comment on Judge Kaplan's opinion.
Now out of bankruptcy and paying creditors by installments, Lehman
continues to sell assets to try to raise its planned payments by
2016 or so of 18 cents on the dollar.
The California entities purchased Lehman securities from Oct. 25,
2004, through March 31, 2008, and accused management of misleading
investors about key aspects of the company's business, according
to the opinion.
Judge Kaplan found that there was sufficient evidence for the
lawsuit to stand only for a few specific instances of
misrepresentations. Those included a Dec. 13, 2007, annual report
from Lehman and a Nov. 6, 2007, executive committee meeting.
"The examiner's report concluded that a trier of fact could find
that Repo 105 transactions were used to create a materially
misleading picture of Lehman's financial condition beginning in
late 2007," Judge Kaplan said in the ruling.
Mr. Fuld will also have to face allegations that he fraudulently
gifted a multimillion-dollar Jupiter Island, Florida, residence to
his wife, Kathleen Fuld, for $100 in November 2008, according to
the opinion.
"The allegation that the Fulds at the time of the transfer
believed that they would incur debts beyond their ability to pay
would permit proof of the obvious," Judge Kaplan said.
Joseph Cotchett, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, didn't immediately
return a call for comment.
The bankruptcy case is In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., 08-
13555, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York
(Manhattan).
Amos Maki, writing for Memphis Commercial Appeal, reports that a
federal judge has certified a case against a company that collects
delinquent taxes for Memphis as a class-action suit.
The move could affect thousands of Memphis residents who paid 20
percent fees to Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson collection
service when settling their delinquent tax accounts.
"We're glad the court certified the case and we'll have our day in
court," said attorney Frank Watson, who is representing the
plaintiffs in the case.
The issue in court is whether Linebarger can charge a 10 percent
fee or a 20 percent fee for collecting the delinquent taxes.
U.S. Dist. Judge Samuel "Hardy" Mays Jr. certified the lawsuit as
a class action.
Attorney David Cook, who is representing Linebarger, said the suit
"deals with the legal interpretation of two Tennessee statutes
which provide for additional charges to be levied against
delinquent taxpayers" when they have to be sued for collection.
A state law says attorneys pursuing back taxes cannot receive
compensation greater than 10 percent of all delinquent fees
collected.
Another statute says a 10 percent penalty can be imposed on those
whose taxes are delinquent, and that the penalty will go to the
attorney suing to collect the back taxes.
Linebarger has interpreted that wording to allow for a total fee
of 20 percent, while the plaintiffs say the two statutes limit the
fees that can be charged at 10 percent.
The office of the Shelby County Attorney believes the plaintiffs
are right, and that delinquent tax attorneys can only collect a 10
percent fee. In a 2010 opinion, the office said the fee is
limited to a "10 percent penalty, which includes the delinquent
tax attorney fee, for the prosecution of the suit . . ."
Linebarger won a no-bid contract from former Memphis mayor Willie
Herenton in 2004 to collect delinquent city taxes. Under the
contract, the city does not pay Linebarger any direct fees. But
the firm charges tardy taxpayers delinquent fees in addition to
the taxes they owe.
The firm's primary target in Memphis is delinquent property taxes
on homes and businesses. The debts must be 17 months past due
before the city turns them over to the firm.
Meanwhile, Linebarger's contract with the city expires in
December, which means the administration of Mayor A C Wharton will
have to decide whether to retain the firm.
A purported class action lawsuit captioned Angelo Albano,
Molycorp, Inc., et al., remains pending, according to the
In February 2012, a purported class action lawsuit captioned,
Angelo Albano, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Molycorp, Inc., et al., was filed against the Company
and certain of its executive officers in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado. This federal court action alleges,
among other things, that the Company and those officers violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with statements relating to its third quarter fiscal 2011
financial results and fourth quarter 2011 production guidance that
the Company had filed with or furnished to the SEC, or otherwise
made available to the public. The plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified damages and other relief. The Company believes the
allegations are without merit and that it has valid defenses to
such allegations. The Company says it intends to defend this
action vigorously. The Company is unable to provide meaningful
quantification of how the final resolution of these claims may
impact its future consolidated financial position or results of
Molycorp, Inc. -- http://www.molycorp.com-- engages in the
production and sale of rare earth oxides in the western
hemisphere. The Company's rare earth products include oxides,
metals, alloys, and magnets for various inputs in existing and
emerging applications comprising clean energy technologies,
multiple high-tech uses, defense applications, and water treatment
technology. The Company primarily owns and operates the Molycorp
Mountain Pass facility, an open-pit mine containing rare earth
deposits outside of China located in San Bernardino County,
California. It also intends to produce and sell rare earth oxides
and rare metals in Europe; and rare earth alloys in the United
States. Molycorp, Inc. is headquartered in Greenwood Village,
Colorado.
The Associated Press reports that Morgan Stanley is being accused
of discriminating against black homeowners and violating federal
civil rights laws by providing strong incentives to a subprime
lender to originate mortgages that were likely to go unrepaid.
The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, was filed on Oct. 15
by the American Civil Liberties Union and others on behalf of five
Detroit residents and Michigan Legal Services.
The five homeowners in the lawsuit received their loans from
subprime lender New Century Mortgage Corp., which has since
collapsed.
The lawsuit claims Morgan Stanley pushed New Century to issue
certain types of loans with no concern about risk, because it made
its profit at the outset when the investment bank bundled the
loans into securities and sold them.
An e-mail was sent to Morgan Stanley seeking comment but there was
no immediate response.
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action accuses these
defendants of running a foreclosure rescue scam: The Mortgage Law
Group aka The Law Offices of Macey, Aleman & Searns; Kelly Patrick
Silbert Esq.; Attorney Processing Solutions LLC; and Marla Pica,
in Cuyahoga County Court.
Courthouse News Service reports that a production coordinator
claims NBC Universal Media and Oxygen Media stiffed her and others
for overtime, in a federal class action.
New Energy Systems Group continues to defend itself against a
consolidated securities class action complaint in New York,
according to the Company's August 14, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
In February 2012, two separate securities class action complaints
were filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors. The complaints alleged the Company issued
materially false and misleading statements and omitted to state
material facts that rendered its statements misleading as they
related to the Company's financial performance, business
prospects, and financial condition, and that the defendants failed
to prevent such statements from being issued or corrected, during
a putative class period between April 15, 2010 and November 14,
2011. The complaints seek, among other relief, compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees. On May 10, 2012, the Court
consolidated the two complaints for all purposes under the caption
In re New Energy Systems Group Sec. Litig., and appointed a lead
plaintiff. The Company believes it is likely that a consolidated
amended complaint will be filed shortly. The Company has not yet
responded to either complaint, but the Company believes the
lawsuit has no merit and intends to vigorously defend against it.
While certain legal defense costs may be later reimbursed by the
Company's insurance carrier, no reasonable estimate of the
litigation or related legal fees on the financial statements can
be made as of the date of this statement.
New Energy Systems Group, incorporated under the laws of the State
of Nevada on March 27, 2001, operates its business through its
wholly owned subsidiaries E'Jenie Technology Development Co., Ltd,
Shenzhen Anytone Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen NewPower
Technology Development Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Kim Fai Solar Energy
Technology Co., Ltd., companies incorporated under the laws of the
People's Republic of China. Through its subsidiaries, the Company
manufactures and distributes lithium battery, battery shells and
related application products primarily in China.
Courthouse News Service reports that Premera Blue Cross breaches
contract by denying or limiting coverage for autism therapy, a
class action claims in King County Court.
Publix Super Markets is issuing a voluntary recall for 11oz Publix
Premium Frozen Tempura Shrimp. The dipping sauce packet included
with the product contains soy that is not declared on the
packaging. Publix discovered this during internal product
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to soy run the
risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume products containing soy.
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with the
product.
"As part of our commitment to food safety, potentially impacted
product has been removed from all store shelves," said Maria
Brous, Publix media and community relations director. "Consumers
who have purchased the product in question may return it to their
local store for a full refund."
Publix customers with additional questions may call Publix's
Customer Care Center at 1-800-242-1227 or visit Publix's Web site
at http://www.publix.com/. Customers also can contact the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration at 1-888-SAFEFOOD (1-888-723-3366).
Publix is privately owned and operated by its 153,500 employees,
with 2011 sales of $27.0 billion. Currently Publix has 1,061
stores in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee.
The company has been named one of FORTUNE's "100 Best Companies to
Work For in America" for 15 consecutive years. In addition,
Publix's dedication to superior quality and customer service is
recognized as tops in the grocery business, most recently by an
American Customer Satisfaction Index survey. For more
information, visit the Company's Web site, http://www.publix.com/
Eric Wolff, writing for North County Times, reports that burglars
are getting access to special utility entrances and using them to
steal from apartments and condos, according to a class-action suit
filed last month against San Diego Gas & Electric Co.
Apartment and condo complexes must, by state law, provide
utilities with locked access to perform maintenance. As the
electric utility, SDG&E becomes the key manager for these access
ways for other utilities like cable or telephone, according to the
complaint. SDG&E hasn't been effectively managing who has access
to the keys, making it easier for criminals to get into buildings.
In court documents, SDG&E argued the case should not go forward on
legal grounds, but the utility did not dispute the facts of the
Marc Guerra, one of the named plaintiffs, brought the case to get
SDG&E to change its procedures.
"We decided on the lawsuit to see if they could come up with a
better way to track and manage the keys," Mr. Guerra said.
Mr. Guerra lives in Aperture San Diego, a condominium complex in
Little Italy in San Diego. The complex has storage cages near the
parking garage on the ground floor. SDG&E controls key access to
a special entrance to the garage for service workers. Entry to
the garage grants access to the area with the storage area,
although getting into the main living space requires a key fob.
In 2010 and again early last year, Mr. Guerra noticed things
stolen from his storage, particularly expensive woodworking tools.
He started talking to fellow apartment owners and discovered they
were having similar problems. As a member of his homeowners
association board, he persuaded the property manager to show him
security video of the access area.
"When we reviewed the video, there were a number of times when
these burglaries were occurring, people getting access to through
the SDG&E gateway," Mr. Guerra said.
Mr. Guerra and John Davis, another Aperture resident and one of
the attorneys leading the suit, arranged for an SDG&E
representative to come to a board meeting. But the meeting did
not go well, from their perspective.
"They basically told us to go pound sand," Mr. Guerra said. "They
said, 'We make these keys and distribute these keys, but we have
no way of keeping track if they've been lost or illegally
distributed.'"
Management of the keys became the crux of the class-action suit
Mr. Davis brought, with Mr. Guerra as the named plaintiff.
"The primary goal of the lawsuit is to obtain a change in business
practices, not necessarily to get money damages for class
members," Mr. Davis said.
SDG&E filed a response to the suit asking a judge to dismiss the
"SDG&E's tariff requires that the customer provide 24-hour access
to the facilities. These keys are used to access SDG&E's
facilities when necessary," said Erin Coller, a spokeswoman for
the utility. "So far nothing has shown that SDG&E's key was used
in this event."
The case marks the second high-profile lawsuit for the utility
this month. On Oct. 11, 10News reported a suit alleging racism
among SDG&E employees.
An Illinois federal court granted in May final approval of a
$1.675 million settlement resolving a consumer class action
complaint against Summer Infant Inc. filed by purchasers of baby
monitors, according to the Company's August 14, 2012, Form 10-Q
quarter ended June 30, 2012.
In October 2009, a purported class action suit was filed in the
State of Illinois against the Company and Toys 'R' Us alleging
violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act and similar laws in other states, the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, negligence and other claims relating to analog video
baby monitors. In December 2009, the case was removed to the
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division. In January 2012, a proposed settlement
agreement was filed with the court and preliminary approval of the
settlement was received. On May 16, 2012, the court finalized its
approval of the settlement. The settlement certifies for the
purposes of the settlement only a class consisting of all persons
residing within the United States and Puerto Rico who purchased or
received as a gift certain of the Company's analog video monitors
between December 9, 2004 and January 11, 2012. Under the
settlement, the Company paid $1,675,000 to be distributed among
the plaintiffs and to cover administrative costs and attorneys'
fees and costs in exchange for a release of all claims by the
class members. The Company will also disclose in advertising
(including on the Web site) and analog video monitor packaging
that broadcast signals of analog video monitors are susceptible to
reception by other monitors within an unimpeded range of 300 feet.
Of the total settlement cost, approximately $506,000 was covered
under existing insurance policies, with the remaining $1,169,000
to be paid by the Company. The Company has no further
obligations related to this legal matter.
Summer Infant Inc. is a designer, marketer, and distributor of
branded durable juvenile health, safety and wellness products (for
ages 0-3 years) that are sold principally to large North American
and United Kingdom retailers. The Company currently sells and
distributes products in various product categories including
nursery audio/video monitors, safety gates, durable bath products,
bed rails, nursery products, booster and potty seats, bouncers,
travel accessories, high chairs, swings, feeding products, car
seats, and nursery furniture.
Michelle Keahey, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reports
that a state-wide class action has been filed that challenges the
right of the Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool to
seize portions of injured workers' third party settlements as
recoupment for its case management expenses.
Jose Montalvo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed suit against Texas Municipal League
Intergovernmental Risk Pool (TMLIRP), on Oct. 12 in the Eastern
District of Texas, Marshall Division.
The lawsuit challenges the right of the TMLIRP to seize portions
of injured workers' third party settlements as recoupment of case
management expenses it incurred under Texas workers' compensation
Specifically, Mr. Montalvo alleges that TMLIRP included in its
subrogation liens certain claims administration expenses that are
not subject to recoupment through subrogation.
Mr. Montalvo objected to the demanded for the reimbursement of
these expenses and TMLIRP seized the proceeds from the responsible
third part without any form of due process or compensation,
according to the suit.
Mr. Montalvo claims he was deprived of his property rights in
violation of the 5th Amendment and his rights under the due
process clause of the 14th Amendment.
According to the lawsuit, in the last four years TMLIRP has paid
more than $13 million to case management companies for
administrative services and has recouped more than $8 million in
subrogation recoveries taken from class members' third party
The defendant is accused of deprivation of property without due
process and breach of contract.
The plaintiff is seeking an award of damages that include all case
management expenses collected by the defendant from injured
employees' third party recoveries, plus interest, attorney's fees
and court costs.
Mr. Montalvo is represented by James A. Holmes of the Law Office
of James Holmes P.C. in Henderson.
U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap is assigned to the case.
Case No. 2:12-cv-00655
Torn and Glasser, Inc. of Los Angeles, California 90021, is
voluntarily recalling Salted in-shell product (packaged after
November 9, 2011), and one lot of Organic Peanut Butter (packaged
January 13, 2012) because it has the potential to be contaminated
with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.
This decision to recall was made due to the expanded recall of
peanut products by Sunland (to include Salted in-shell, and
Organic peanuts) due to the potential of contamination with
Salmonella. The Torn and Glasser recalled products contain
peanuts supplied by the Sunland Peanut Processing Plant located in
Portales, New Mexico.
The recalled product was distributed from November 9, 2011, to
October 15, 2012, in CA, AZ, NV, TX, CO, ID, MO, NJ, NM, OK, UT.
The following Products and lots are affected:
ITEM # PRODUCT DESCRIPTION PACK SIZE UPC CODE
------ ------------------- --------- --------
450-175 Salted in Shell Peanuts 24/12 oz bags 72488980310
- Gless Ranch Label.
LOTS AFFECTED: 0112; 0522; 0932. Lot code marking can be found
on the front label.
450-248 Salted in Shell Peanuts 24/16 oz bag 646670306785
- Sun Harvest Label.
LOTS AFFECTED: Best by Dates: 06/16/12; 05/09/12; 08/13/12;
07/08/12; 09/09/12; 10/22/12; 11/18/12; 11/26/12;
12/12/12; 02/05/13; 03/24/13; 03/30/13. Lot code
marking can be found on the back corner next to
the seal.
450-195 Salted in-shell Peanuts 50 lb Bulk Bag none
LOTS AFFECTED: Bags marked with P.O. numbers: 34569; 35025;
35567; 35786; 36356; 36845; 37501; 38241; 38840.
Lot code marking can be found on the white tag
adhered to the bag.
450-185 Salted in-shell Peanuts 25 lb Bulk Case none
- Torn and Glasser bulk
LOTS AFFECTED: 0172; 0322; 0332; 0342; 0392; 0452; 0522; 0552;
0562; 0752; 0802; 0882; 0962; 1022; 1172;1232;
1302; 1312; 1422; 1562; 1652; 1802; 1882; 2052;
3151; 3201; 3231; 3271; 3331; 3341; 3531. Lot
code marking can be found on the bottom of the
450-245 Salted in-shell Peanuts 24/1 lb 72488858664
- Torn and Glasser retail label
LOTS AFFECTED: 0872; 1382; 1572; 2082; 2202; 2422; 2502; 3221.
Lot code marking can be found on the back corner
next to the seal.
SP450- Salted in Shell Peanuts 25 lb case/ 206561XXXXXX
185 - Sprouts label 12 bags (last 6
LOTS AFFECTED: Best by dates: 03/11/12; 03/17/12; change for
03/18/12; 03/25/12; 03/30/12; each package
04/26/12; 05/12/12; 05/18/12; - random
06/03/12; 06/06/12; 06/08/12; weight)
06/13/12; 06/16/12; 06/21/12;
11/23/12; 12/05/12; 12/19/12; 01/05/13; 02/02/13.
Lot code marking can be found on the front label.
342-007 Organic Peanut Butter 12/ 14 oz Tubs none
LOTS AFFECTED: Lot 0132 (produced January 13, 2012). Lot code
marking can be found on the side label.
To date, Torn and Glasser, Inc. has not received any complaints
concerning illness on any of these lot numbers. Consumers who
have purchased any of the recalled products are urged not to eat
them and to return products to the place of purchase for a full
refund.
Consumers can contact the Company at 1-310-605-4900/1-800-282-6887
for information regarding this recall. The phone will be manned
from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time).
This recall is being conducted in cooperation with the United
States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
In January 2012, TransS1 Inc. received notice that a class action
lawsuit had been filed in the U.S. District Court Eastern
District, North Carolina, on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons other than the defendants who purchased the Company's
common stock between February 21, 2008 and October 17, 2011. The
Company is in the process of responding to the lawsuit. The
Company is unable to predict what impact, if any, the outcome of
this matter might have on our consolidated financial position,
results of operations, or cash flows.
Headquartered in Wilmington, North Carolina, TranS1 Inc. is a
medical device company focused on designing, developing and
marketing products to treat degenerative conditions of the spine
affecting the lower lumbar region.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
Chicken Wyngz products that have been recalled by Tyson Foods,
The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product. Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/lq7hvN,in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.
Nationwide, State-Wide, or Area-Wide Distribution
Retailer Name Location
------------- --------
Bottom Dollar Stores in Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio,
Food Lion Stores in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,
and West Virginia
Hannaford Stores in New York and New England
H-E-B Stores in Texas
Kroger Nationwide
Price Chopper Stores in Connecticut, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont
Publix Stores in Florida and Georgia
Redner's Markets Stores in Delaware, Maryland and
Roundy's Stores in Wisconsin and greater Chicago
Shaw's Supermarkets Stores in Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont
Wal-Mart Nationwide
Wegmans Stores in Maryland, New Jersey,
New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia
Weis Stores in Maryland, New Jersey,
New York, Pennsylvania and
Specific Store-Wide Distribution (Stores and Location)
Retailer Name City and State
------------- --------------
Davis Monthan Davis Monthan, Arizona
Luke Air Force Base Commissary Glendale, Arizona
Camp Pendleton Commissary Camp Pendleton, California
Fort Irwin Fort Irwin, California
Imperial Beach Naval Imperial Beach, California
Air Station Commissary
San Diego Naval Base Commissary San Diego, California
Price Chopper Torrington, Connecticut
Dover AFB Commissary Dover AFB, Delaware
Bolling AFB Commissary Washington, DC
Aberdeen Commissary Aberdeen, Maryland
Andrews AFB Commissary Andrews AFB, Maryland
Fort Meade Commissary Fort Meade, Maryland
Fort Detrick Commissary Frederick, Maryland
Patuxent River NAS Commissary NAS Patuxent River, MD
Walter Reed Commissary Silver Spring, Maryland
McGuire AFB Commissary McGuire AFB, New Jersey
Picatinny Arsenal Commissary Picatinny Arsenal, NJ
Fort Hamilton Commissary Brooklyn, New York
Camp Lejeune Commissary Camp Lejeune, NC
Fort Bragg North Commissary Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Fort Bragg South Commissary Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Seymour Johnson AFB Commissary Goldsboro, North Carolina
Cherry Point MCAS Commissary Cherry Point, NC
New River Commissary Jacksonville, NC
Carlisle Barracks Commissary Carlisle Barracks, PA
Price Chopper Dunmore, Pennsylvania
C.E. Kelly SF Commissary Oakdale, Pennsylvania
Tobyhanna Commissary Tobyhanna Army Depot, PA
Fort Buchanan Commissary Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico
Fort Myer Commissary Arlington, Virginia
Dahlgren Commissary Dahlgren, Virginia
Fort Belvoir Commissary Fort Belvoir, Virginia
Fort Eustis Commissary Fort Eustis, Virginia
Fort Lee Commissary Fort Lee, Virginia
Langley AFB Commissary Langley AFB, Virginia
Norfolk NAVSTA Commissary Norfolk, Virginia
Portsmouth NNSY Commissary Portsmouth, Virginia
Quantico MCB Commissary Quantico MCCB, Virginia
Oceana NAS Commissary Virginia Beach, Virginia
Sugar Grove Commissary Sugar Grove, West Virginia
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action accuses the
United Education Institute of recruiting students for its dental
assistant program with high pressure tactics and false and
misleading statements, in Superior Court.
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that Congress
illegally withheld cost-of-living salary raises from federal
judges in six different years, the Federal Circuit ruled,
overturning 11-year-old precedent.
In 2009, six judges led by Peter Beer filed a class action against
the United States for failing to pay certain cost-of-living
adjustments in violation of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 and the
compensation clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The act requires automatic adjustment of judicial salaries each
year based on the Employment Cost Index. The raise can be
withheld only if severe economic conditions make the salary
adjustment "inappropriate."
Congress withheld the salary adjustments for federal judges in
2007 and 2010, citing a lack of funds, but other federal employees
received the cost-of-living adjustment.
Judges had challenged these actions before, but the Federal
Circuit had upheld the withdrawal of promised cost-of-living
adjustments in 2001.
That case, Williams v. United States, concerned unadjusted
judicial wages for 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1999. When the court
decided Williams, it relied on the Supreme Court's 1980 decision
in United States v. Will.
In 2010, based on Williams, the Court of Appeals shot down the
judges' newer demands. It had affirmed dismissal even after the
Supreme Court ordered "consideration of the question of
preclusion" in 2011, but the judges finally found victory last
week in a rehearing en banc.
"This court en banc now overrules Williams and instead determines
that the 1989 Act triggered the Compensation Clause's basic
expectations and protections," Chief Judge Randall Rader wrote for
a 10-member majority.
"The founders of this nation understood the connections amongst
protections for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,
protections for judicial independence, and protections for
judicial compensation. . . . As explained in The Federalist
Papers, '[n]ext to permanency in office, nothing can contribute
more to the independence of the judges than a fixed provision for
their support,'" Judge Rader said, quoting Alexander Hamilton.
Overturning its decision in Williams, the court held that "the
1989 act set a clear formula for calculation and implementation of
those maintaining adjustments. Thus, all sitting federal judges
are entitled to expect that their real salary will not diminish
due to inflation or the action or inaction of the other branches
of government. The judicial officer should enjoy the freedom to
render decisions -- sometimes unpopular decisions -- without fear
that his or her livelihood will be subject to political forces or
reprisal from other branches of government."
Congress may set up a new scheme for paying judges and managing
cost of living increases, but any changes may not affect sitting
judges, the court found.
"If a future Congress wishes to undo [its] promises, it may, but
only prospectively," Judge Rader wrote. "Any restructuring of
compensation maintenance promises cannot affect currently-sitting
Article III judges."
On remand, the Court of Federal Claims must calculate the judges'
damages and the additional compensation to which they are
entitled.
"As relief, appellants are entitled to monetary damages for the
diminished amounts they would have been paid if Congress had not
withheld the salary adjustments mandated by the act," Judge Rader
wrote. "On remand, the Court of Federal Claims shall calculate
these damages as the additional compensation to which appellants
were entitled since January 13, 2003 -- the maximum period for
which they can seek relief under the applicable statute of
limitations. In making this calculation, the Court of Federal
Claims shall incorporate the base salary increases which should
have occurred in prior years had all the adjustments mandated by
the 1989 act had actually been made."
The majority emphasized the need to protect the separation of
powers that the Constitution ensconced in the three branches of
government.
"The judiciary, weakest of the three branches of government, must
protect its independence and not place its will within the reach
of political whim," Judge Rader wrote. "The precise and definite
promise of COLAs [cost of living adjustments] in the 1989 act
triggered the expectation-related protections of the compensation
clause. As such, Congress could not block these adjustments once
promised."
Judge Timothy Dyk penned a 10-page dissent joined by Judge William
Bryson that said the majority overstepped.
"In short, neither the dissent from denial of certiorari in
Williams nor the Supreme Court's remand in this case can be read
as an invitation for this court to perform reconstructive surgery
on Will," Judge Dyk wrote. "The Supreme Court may distinguish its
own opinions by limiting them to their facts, or choose to
overrule them, but that is not an option for this court."
Judge Kathleen O'Malley, who joined the majority opinion in full,
also filed a concurring opinion joined by Judges Haldane Mayer and
Richard Linn. Judge Evan Wallach authored his own concurring
opinion.
A copy of the decision in Beer et al. v. United States, No. 2010-
5012 (Fed. Cir.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/12/Beer.pdf
Margaret Cronin Fisk, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, doesn't have
to face class-action gender-discrimination claims in a federal
court lawsuit in Texas, a judge ruled.
Wal-Mart was accused in the lawsuit of discriminating against
women in pay and promotions in the company's Texas region, which
included some stores in neighboring states. The suit sought to
represent all women hourly and salaried workers, below store
managers, employed by Wal-Mart and Sam's Club in the region.
The lawsuit was filed last year after the U.S. Supreme Court
rejected a nationwide class action claiming gender discrimination.
U.S District Judge Reed O'Connor dismissed the Texas class
complaint on Oct. 15, finding that the lawsuit was filed too late.
The plaintiffs' class claims "are barred by the statute of
limitations, and should be dismissed," Judge O'Connor said in a
19- page decision. He also dismissed the suit by lead plaintiff,
Stephanie Odle. Judge O'Connor allowed other individual claims to
go forward.
The case is one of four regional lawsuits filed against Wal-Mart,
the world's largest retailer, since the U.S. Supreme Court
decision in June 2011. A similar suit is pending in California,
and complaints were filed this month in Florida and Tennessee.
"We are pleased that the district court has dismissed the class
action claims, recognizing the individuals must pursue their own
claims," Theodore Boutrous Jr., a lawyer for Wal- Mart, said in an
"You can't piggyback one class action on top of another,"
Mr. Boutrous said. "This class action was based on the same
theories that were rejected by the Supreme Court."
The plaintiffs will be appealing, Joseph Sellers, their attorney,
said on Oct. 15 in a phone interview.
"We're going to continue with the other cases and hope we can get
this one overturned," he said.
The plaintiffs said in court papers opposing dismissal that the
nationwide class action covered 41 company regions. They said the
Texas lawsuit limited itself to three Wal-Mart regions and two
Sam's Club regions.
"Within this area plaintiffs challenge the decisions of a discrete
group of managers who made the pay and promotion decisions,"
lawyers for the women wrote. Those managers "have long known
about gender disparities" yet "have failed to take remedial
While the nationwide class action was pending, the statute of
limitations on claims was set aside, or tolled, until a final
court decision. Rules in the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans
restrict "the tolling to subsequent individual lawsuits and not
further class actions," Judge O'Connor said. This allows the
individuals to pursue claims, while barring a class action, he
The court based its decision on an outdated ruling from the
federal appeals court in New Orleans, Sellers said.
"The court felt bound by a decision by the Fifth Circuit that's
25-years old," he said. "It's no longer valid." Subsequent
decisions have supplanted that ruling, he said. The plaintiffs
will be appealing Judge O'Connor's decision to the 5th Circuit.
Ms. Odle, who was one of the original plaintiffs in the national
class action, was blocked by the Oct. 15 ruling from pursuing her
suit because of a prior court decision.
Judge O'Connor found that she had been dismissed from the
nationwide case prior to the Supreme Court's 2011 decision.
The federal appeals court in San Francisco in 2010 found that
class members who didn't work for Wal-Mart when the complaint was
filed, "lacked standing to pursue injunctive or declaratory
relief," Judge O'Connor said.
"The class of former employees neither moved to stay the mandate,
nor appealed this issue to the Supreme Court," Judge O'Connor
said. "Once the mandate issued, it constituted a final adverse
determination as to Odle's claims," he said. Ms. Odle failed to
file a separate lawsuit in time, Judge O'Connor said.
"Our view is that she wasn't dismissed," Mr. Sellers, the
plaintiffs' lawyer, said on Oct. 15. The appeals court "remanded
her claim" to the trial court in San Francisco to "consider class
certification under a different standard," he said.
Wal-Mart lost a bid to dismiss a similar gender class action in
California last month. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San
Francisco said a reduced class limited to California workers
"could be certified."
The women could pursue their claims as a group if they made a
"showing consistent with the Supreme Court's decision" that a
nationwide class action isn't appropriate, Judge Breyer said.
The Texas case is Odle v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 3:11- cv-02954,
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas).
The California case is Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 01- cv-
02252, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The Supreme Court case is Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 10-
00277, U.S. Supreme Court (Washington).
Courthouse News Service reports that The Walt Disney Co. stiffs
workers for overtime and business expenses, a class action claims
in Superior Court.
This notice is directed to all persons, wherever they may reside
or be domiciled, who acquired securities of Zungui Haixi
Corporation ("Zungui") during the period from and including
December 11, 2009 to and including August 22, 2011 (the "Proposed
Class Period").
On October 9, 2012, The Honourable Mr. Justice P. M. Perell of the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the proposed class
proceeding styled Zaniewicz et al. v Zungui Haixi Corporation., et
al., Court File No. CV-11-436360-00CP (the "Action") granted leave
to Jerzy Zaniewicz and Edward Clarke (the "Plaintiffs"), pursuant
to section 138.8 of the Ontario Securities Act, RSO 1990, c S. 5,
to assert, as against the Defendants Fengyi Cai, Jixu Cai and
Yanda Cai (the "Cai Brothers"), the statutory cause of action for
misrepresentation in certain core documents of Zungui (the "Leave
Order").
The Leave Order means that the Plaintiffs can assert, under Part
XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act, that the Defendant Cai
Brothers each have liability for alleged misrepresentations in
Zungui's secondary market disclosure documents disseminated during
the Proposed Class Period.
Leave is a preliminary procedural matter. The merits of the
claims in the Action, and the allegations of fact on which the
claims are based, have not been finally determined by the Court.
Leave has not yet been obtained against any Defendants other than
the Cai Brothers. The Defendants other than the Cai Brothers have
appeared in the Action and deny that the claims in the Action have
merit.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice offices cannot answer any
questions about the matters in this notice. The claim, orders of
the court and other information are available on the Plaintiffs'
counsel's Web site at http://www.classaction.ca
Questions relating to the Action should be directed by e-mail or
telephone to the Plaintiff's counsel:
Nicholas C. Baker, Esq.
Siskinds LLP
680 Waterloo Street
London, ON N6A 3V4
Tel: 1.800.461.6166 ext. 7868 (toll free)
E-mail: nicholas.baker@siskinds.com
According to PricewaterhouseCooper's Securities Litigation Update
released on Oct. 15, the activity of federal securities class
action filings through September 30, 2012 has been slower when
compared to the same time period in 2011. Specifically, the
number of cases filed through the third quarter of 2012 totaled
137 cases, compared to 142 cases filed through September 30, 2011.
If filings continue at a similar rate, 183 federal securities
class actions are expected to be filed by year end compared to a
total of 191 filings made in 2011 -- a decrease of approximately
4.2 percent -- just above the annual average (180) of cases filed
since the enactment of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Foreign companies were named in 27 cases (20 percent) filed thus
far in 2012. This is a significant decrease when compared to the
percentage of foreign filings in 2011, which represented 32
percent (or 46 cases) of total filings for the first nine months
of 2011. The decline in filings against China-based companies[1]
appears to be the leading cause for this downward shift. The
number of filings against China-based companies (13) in 2012
through the end of the third quarter accounted for 48 percent of
foreign filings, as compared to 65 percent (or 30 cases) of
foreign filings during the comparable period in 2011. This
declining trend of filings against China-based companies through
the third quarter of 2012 is a continuation of the declining trend
that began in the third quarter of 2011, when the number of
filings declined from 23 cases in the first half of 2011 to 14
cases in the second half of 2011, as noted in PwC's 2011
Securities Litigation Study. As described further below, the
decline in China-related cases has also led to a decline in
accounting-related cases filed against foreign issuers and the
number of filings in the Ninth Circuit.
Plaintiff attorneys continue to focus their attention on merger
and acquisition ("M&A") related litigation, but to a lesser extent
than in 2011 and similar to those levels seen in 2010. M&A-
related filings represented 20 percent of cases through September
30, 2012 (28 cases), whereas in 2010 and 2011 such M&A-related
filings represented 21 percent (27 cases) and 25 percent (36
cases) of total cases for the comparable period, respectively.
While it may be premature to draw conclusions from these figures
regarding the trend in M&A-related filings, it is worth noting
that the overall level of M&A deal activity decreased during the
latter half of 2011 and continued into 2012, potentially
indicating that there may be a fewer number of "targets" for
plaintiff attorneys.
Accounting-related cases during the first three quarters of 2012
represented 31 percent of filings, which is a nine percentage
point decrease from the percentage of filings during the
comparable period in 2011 (40 percent). Through the third quarter
of 2012, the most common accounting-related allegations were
inadequate internal controls and improper revenue recognition,
which were cited in 63 percent and 26 percent of accounting-
related cases, respectively. Foreign cases represented 33 percent
of the accounting-related cases filed in 2012, which is a 24
percentage point decrease from 2011 -- likely caused by the
decrease in cases filed against China-based companies. The most
prevalent accounting-related allegations in these foreign cases
were internal controls estimates and overstatement of assets.
An emerging trend thus far in 2012 is the return of pharmaceutical
efficacy cases, with eight filings through the end of the third
quarter during 2012 as compared to just one case in all of 2011.
These pharmaceutical efficacy cases helped contribute to the
health[2] industry having the largest number of filings (32) of
any industry, which represents 23 percent of total filings through
the first three quarters of 2012, boosting the health industry by
11 percentage points over 2011 filings during the comparable
Filings in the high-technology and energy industries were the
second largest through Q3 of 2012, each with 14 percent of
filings, a decrease from 26 percent through Q3 of 2011 for high-
technology, and a slight increase from 11 percent for energy. The
financial services industry represented only nine percent of
filings through the third quarter of 2012, a decrease of two
percentage points over the comparable period in 2011.
"Based on filings in the first nine months of 2012, it seems the
decline in health industry cases in 2011 was short lived," said
Patricia A. Etzold, securities litigation partner with PwC. "With
the increased number of pharmaceutical efficacy cases and
accounting cases filed in the health industry thus far in 2012,
there is a strong likelihood the health industry will, for the
first time since the passage of the PSLRA, have more class action
lawsuits than any other industry by year-end. The high-technology
or financial services industries dominated filings in all prior
years."
The most active circuits continue to be the Second and Ninth, with
27 percent and 18 percent of the cases filed thus far in 2012,
respectively. When compared to cases filed during the comparable
period in 2011, these statistics reflect a slight increase from 25
percent of cases filed in the Second Circuit, and a significant
decrease from 31 percent of cases filed in the Ninth Circuit.
This decrease in the Ninth Circuit is most likely attributable to
the decline in the number of cases filed against China-based
companies thus far in 2012. Although there is a similar decrease
in cases against China-based companies filed in the Second
Circuit, this is offset by an increase in the number of cases
filed against a diverse group of industries.
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.