Paste the Client Id and Client Secret in the Environment variables “envClientId” and “envClientSecret”. Paste the flow Id of your workflow in the corresponding collection variable.
This will generate a user profile identified by a unique x-hf-session token (returned in the header of the response). This identifier is required for next steps so paste the value in the corresponding collection variable and hit save. In the body, all the fields on the next form step are returned along with a
unique id for each field.
Path Variables flowid 652ffb712e470e32d625ba7e
curl --location 'https://api.workflow.prod.trulioo.com/interpreter-v2/flow/652ffb712e470e32d625ba7e'
{
"canGoBack": false,
"elements": [
{
"id": "652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c459",
"name": "Name of business",
"role": "company_name",
"type": "text",
"validations": [
{
"type": "required"
}
]
},
{
"id": "652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c463",
"name": "Business registration number",
"role": "company_nr",
"type": "text",
"validations": [
{
"type": "required"
}
]
},
{
"id": "652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45a",
"name": "Country of incorporation",
"role": "company_country_incorporation",
"type": "country_select",
"validations": [
{
"type": "required"
}
]
},
{
"id": "652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45d",
"name": "VAT number",
"role": "company_vat",
"type": "text",
"validations": [
{
"type": "required"
}
]
},
{
"id": "652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45e",
"name": "City",
"role": "company_city",
"type": "text",
"validations": [
{
"type": "required"
}
]
},
{
"id": "652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45f",
"name": "State",
"role": "company_state",
"type": "text",
"validations": [
{
"type": "required"
}
]
},
{
"id": "652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45b",
"name": "State Province",
"type": "text",
"validations": [
{
"type": "required"
}
]
},
{
"id": "652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45c",
"name": "ZIP code",
"role": "company_zip",
"type": "text",
"validations": [
{
"type": "required"
}
]
}
],
"id": "652ffb772e470e32d625ba7f",
"type": "form"
}
In the case of Business Verification, you need to send a business’ details required for Business Insights. In the body, include the ids of each field returned in Step 1 and the values for each field.
Path Variables flowid 652ffb712e470e32d625ba7e
{
"652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c459":"MICROSOFT CORPORATION",
"652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c463":"600413485",
"652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45a":"US",
"652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45d":"91-1144442",
"652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45e":"Redmond",
"652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45f":"WA",
"652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45b":"WA",
"652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45c":"123"
}
curl --location 'https://api.workflow.prod.trulioo.com/interpreter-v2/submit/652ffb712e470e32d625ba7e' \
--header 'x-hf-session;' \
--data '{
"652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c459":"MICROSOFT CORPORATION",
"652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c463":"600413485",
"652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45a":"US",
"652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45d":"91-1144442",
"652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45e":"Redmond",
"652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45f":"WA",
"652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45b":"WA",
"652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45c":"123"
}'
{
"id": "652ffbe0c792412ab8e9c50f",
"type": "end"
}
You will need an authorization token in order to retrieve a user (Business user in this case) profile. Utilise Get Authorisation Token to retrieve a bearer token for Step 4. Paste the value in the accessToken collection variable.
Body urlencodedclient_id {{envClientId}} client_secret {{envClientSecret}} grant_type client_credentials scope workflow.studio.api
curl --location 'https://auth-api.trulioo.com/connect/token' \
--header 'Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded' \
--data-urlencode 'client_id={{envClientId}}' \
--data-urlencode 'client_secret={{envClientSecret}}' \
--data-urlencode 'grant_type=client_credentials' \
--data-urlencode 'scope=workflow.studio.api'
{
"access_token": "eyJhbGciOiJSUzI1NiIsImtpZCI6IkQ0NENDOTU1RkQ1N0RGNjVBMDNDMTAyNkExRDkxODE0IiwidHlwIjoiSldUIn0.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.TFN77JHhAfKLS777qNoAdfzULwTWcH7KdYsCXBw22OKk5YFZCWGsS9u9TZNy3ZWfPLkCVXY9xl_cvfIyRQAmEirN54MYdvVst65QorXwU0ticF7ciZsTf3YHkKBFpCHzN5kZRBYr3L2fgEToqU68AElgTtxBzg1-GD2-xVsHc5makgR9YAiQZeQW17mMAhXTH18ShCnJ5GwDxzVkdSaqiEWNFnDXaMADY_G9Yx59YoX9cFf7TZhgAt198NmHE_-EEe5omK3FZHMU9JbQ0VlElPw5-bmRueSa75_B0NhTrFVYa7mVuvZEM5zGoM01JMyOUsETXv6j7pj2ggNtx_TVRA",
"expires_in": 1800,
"token_type": "Bearer",
"scope": "workflow.studio.api"
}
This will retrieve details of the user profile including data submitted for all fields and high level service response for the verification. You will get the Transaction Record IDs for each of the services run (Business Insights and Business Watchlist Screening). This is different from the Transaction Id which will not be used (Transaction Id - identifies a transaction when it is submitted and Transaction Record ID - identifies a transaction when it’s been completed). Paste the Transaction Record ID in the corresponding collection variable.
Path Variables x-hf-session
curl --location 'https://api.workflow.prod.trulioo.com/export/v2/query/client/:x-hf-session'
{
"id": "652ffdca3d000026006a4c3f",
"created": 1697643978,
"lastModified": 1697644271,
"profileType": "NORMAL",
"flowData": {
"652ffb712e470e32d625ba7e": {
"id": "652ffb712e470e32d625ba7e",
"completed": true,
"fieldData": {
"652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45d": {
"id": "652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45d",
"name": "VAT number",
"value": [
"91-1144442"
]
},
"652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45e": {
"id": "652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45e",
"name": "City",
"value": [
"Redmond"
]
},
"652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45a": {
"id": "652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45a",
"name": "Country of incorporation",
"value": [
"US"
]
},
"652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45f": {
"id": "652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45f",
"name": "State",
"value": [
"WA"
]
},
"652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45b": {
"id": "652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45b",
"name": "State Province",
"value": [
"WA"
]
},
"652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c459": {
"id": "652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c459",
"name": "Name of business",
"value": [
"MICROSOFT CORPORATION"
]
},
"652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45c": {
"id": "652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45c",
"name": "ZIP code",
"value": [
"123"
]
},
"652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c463": {
"id": "652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c463",
"name": "Business registration number",
"value": [
"600413485"
]
}
},
"fileData": {},
"serviceData": [
null,
{
"timestamp": 0,
"serviceStatus": "COMPLETED",
"match": false,
"transactionInfo": {
"accountName": "Workflow Workshops Customer Success-BWS-BWS-FW3-10",
"accountIdentifier": "40d98123-46d4-497f-b505-2cf49e42a0d1",
"countryCode": "US",
"date": "2023-10-18T15:51:15.165688",
"transactionId": "89eea530-1bb8-4a19-84f3-8bbfbeb6ecb1",
"transactionRecordId": "208676d5-2765-d611-de30-a1e652750cbf",
"userName": "Workflow Workshops Customer Success-Service-Worker-1676997664"
},
"watchlistResults": {
"Advanced Business Watchlist": {
"watchlistStatus": "Potential Hit",
"watchlistHitDetails": {
"wlHitsNumber": 0,
"amHitsNumber": 100,
"pepHitsNumber": 0
}
}
},
"secondaryMatch": null
},
{
"timestamp": 0,
"serviceStatus": "COMPLETED",
"match": true,
"transactionInfo": {
"accountName": "Workflow Workshops Customer Success-BI-Business Insights-12",
"accountIdentifier": "5b067223-d76b-4f94-809b-658e9f9e72f6",
"countryCode": "US",
"date": "2023-10-18T15:51:36.85723",
"transactionId": "a464d9ba-3e45-4605-8d37-08d200a57a33",
"transactionRecordId": "20560551-1258-ced6-c41c-cee1a351e8b9",
"userName": "Workflow Workshops Customer Success-Service-Worker-1676997664"
},
"secondaryMatch": null,
"businessStatus": "Active"
}
]
}
},
"status": "PENDING_REVIEW"
}
Under the Authorization tab, click on Generate New Access Token, click Proceed and then click on Use Token. This generates a unique token using the Client Id and Client Secret to authorize this API call. Get the pdf report of the transaction associated with the Transaction Record ID entered in the collection
variable
Path Variables transactionId Retrieved via Retrieve Profile
Under the Authorization tab, click on Generate New Access Token, click Proceed and then click on Use Token. This generates a unique token using the Client Id and Client Secret to authorize this API call. Get transaction details will provide additional details on the service response including datasource granular per field match/nomatch/missing results. Since you have both Business Insights and Business Watchlist Screening in the workflow, you will need to run this call with the Transaction Record ID of both services one by one.
Path Variables transactionRecordID
curl --location 'https://api.trulioo.com/v3/verifications/transactionrecord/:transactionRecordID'
{
"InputFields": [
{
"FieldName": "BusinessRegistrationNumber",
"Value": "600413485"
},
{
"FieldName": "PostalCode",
"Value": "123"
},
{
"FieldName": "RegistrationDetails",
"Value": "true"
},
{
"FieldName": "ArticleOfAssociation",
"Value": "true"
},
{
"FieldName": "BusinessName",
"Value": "MICROSOFT CORPORATION"
},
{
"FieldName": "RegisterReport",
"Value": "true"
},
{
"FieldName": "AnnualReport",
"Value": "true"
},
{
"FieldName": "JurisdictionOfIncorporation",
"Value": "WA"
},
{
"FieldName": "City",
"Value": "Redmond"
},
{
"FieldName": "TaxIDNumber",
"Value": "91-1144442"
},
{
"FieldName": "EnhancedProfile",
"Value": "true"
},
{
"FieldName": "StateProvince",
"Value": "WA"
}
],
"TransactionID": "a464d9ba-3e45-4605-8d37-08d200a57a33",
"UploadedDt": "2023-10-18T15:51:13.342777",
"CompletedDt": "2023-10-18T15:51:36.85723",
"CountryCode": "US",
"ProductName": "Identity Verification",
"Record": {
"TransactionRecordID": "20560551-1258-ced6-c41c-cee1a351e8b9",
"RecordStatus": "match",
"DatasourceResults": [
{
"DatasourceName": "BRNValidation",
"DatasourceFields": [],
"AppendedFields": [
{
"FieldName": "BRN Name",
"Data": "Washington UBI Number"
},
{
"FieldName": "BRN Country",
"Data": "US"
},
{
"FieldName": "BRN Jurisdiction",
"Data": "Washington"
},
{
"FieldName": "BRN Type",
"Data": "Provincial Business Number"
},
{
"FieldName": "BRN Mask",
"Data": "#########"
},
{
"FieldName": "BRN Length",
"Data": "9"
},
{
"FieldName": "BRN Description",
"Data": "Business ID/Corparate ID issued by Secretary of State (SOS)"
},
{
"FieldName": "UserInputBRNMask",
"Data": "#########"
},
{
"FieldName": "TaxIDNumberName",
"Data": "Washington UBI Number"
},
{
"FieldName": "TaxIDNumberCountry",
"Data": "US"
},
{
"FieldName": "TaxIDNumberJurisdiction",
"Data": "Washington"
},
{
"FieldName": "TaxIDNumberType",
"Data": "Provincial Business Number"
},
{
"FieldName": "TaxIDNumberMask",
"Data": "#########"
},
{
"FieldName": "TaxIDNumberLength",
"Data": "9"
},
{
"FieldName": "TaxIDNumberDescription",
"Data": "Business ID/Corparate ID issued by Secretary of State (SOS)"
},
{
"FieldName": "TaxIDNumberUserInputMask",
"Data": "#########"
},
{
"FieldName": "TaxIDNumberUserInputMask",
"Data": "#########"
},
{
"FieldName": "ComprehensiveViewMetadata",
"Data": "{\"UsedForComprehensiveView\":false}"
}
],
"Errors": [],
"FieldGroups": []
},
{
"DatasourceName": "Business Essentials 400497",
"DatasourceFields": [
{
"FieldName": "Address1",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "PostalCode",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "City",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "UnitNumber",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "StreetName",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "StreetType",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "BusinessName",
"Status": "match"
},
{
"FieldName": "DUNSNumber",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "BuildingName",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "Suburb",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "StateProvinceCode",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "BuildingNumber",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "BusinessRegistrationNumber",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "taxidnumber",
"Status": "match"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondAddress1",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondBuildingName",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondBuildingNumber",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondCity",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondPostalCode",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondState",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondStreetName",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondStreetType",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondSuburb",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondUnitNumber",
"Status": "missing"
}
],
"AppendedFields": [
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedLocations",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedLocations\":[]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "ComprehensiveViewMetadata",
"Data": "{\"UsedForComprehensiveView\":true}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedMetadata",
"Data": "{\"Sources\":[\"IRS\"],\"UpdateData\":[{\"Type\":\"CompanyProfileLastUpdate\",\"Date\":{\"Day\":\"18\",\"Month\":\"10\",\"Year\":\"2023\"}},{\"Type\":\"DataRetrievalDate\",\"Date\":{\"Day\":\"18\",\"Month\":\"10\",\"Year\":\"2023\"}}]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedRegistrationNumbers",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedRegistrationNumbers\":[{\"Number\":\"911144442\",\"Type\":\"7 - TIN and Name combination matches with ITIN Records\"}]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedBusinessNames",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedBusinessName\":[]}"
}
],
"Errors": [],
"FieldGroups": []
},
{
"DatasourceName": "Business Insights 433673",
"DatasourceFields": [
{
"FieldName": "Address1",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "PostalCode",
"Status": "nomatch"
},
{
"FieldName": "City",
"Status": "match"
},
{
"FieldName": "UnitNumber",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "StreetName",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "StreetType",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "BusinessName",
"Status": "match"
},
{
"FieldName": "TradestyleName",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "DUNSNumber",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "BuildingName",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "Suburb",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "StateProvinceCode",
"Status": "match"
},
{
"FieldName": "BuildingNumber",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "BusinessRegistrationNumber",
"Status": "match"
},
{
"FieldName": "JurisdictionOfIncorporation",
"Status": "match"
},
{
"FieldName": "PreviousName",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "taxidnumber",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondAddress1",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondBuildingName",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondBuildingNumber",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondCity",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondPostalCode",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondState",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondStreetName",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondStreetType",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondSuburb",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondUnitNumber",
"Status": "missing"
}
],
"AppendedFields": [
{
"FieldName": "BusinessName",
"Data": "MICROSOFT CORPORATION"
},
{
"FieldName": "BusinessRegistrationNumber",
"Data": "600413485"
},
{
"FieldName": "JurisdictionOfIncorporation",
"Data": "WA"
},
{
"FieldName": "BusinessReferenceID",
"Data": "6752894315066EDF44D4D97A2BBECBEE"
},
{
"FieldName": "City",
"Data": "Redmond"
},
{
"FieldName": "PostalCode",
"Data": "98052-8300"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedLocations",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedLocations\":[{\"LocationType\":\"Registered Address\",\"Address1\":\"1 Microsoft Way\",\"StreetName\":\"Microsoft\",\"StreetType\":\"Way\",\"City\":\"Redmond\",\"StateProvinceCode\":\"WA\",\"PostalCode\":\"98052-8300\",\"CountryCode\":\"US\"}]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "OwnershipCompanyReturned",
"Data": "False"
},
{
"FieldName": "Warning",
"Data": "ArticleOfAssociation not supported. RegistrationDetails not supported. RegisterReport not supported. No Shareholders/UBO found."
},
{
"FieldName": "OriginalBusinessLegalForm",
"Data": "WA PROFIT CORPORATION"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedIncorporationDetails",
"Data": "{\"JurisdictionOfIncorporation\":\"WA\",\"BusinessLegalForm\":\"WA PROFIT CORPORATION\",\"OriginalBusinessLegalForm\":\"WA PROFIT CORPORATION\",\"DayOfIncorporation\":\"22\",\"MonthOfIncorporation\":\"09\",\"YearOfIncorporation\":\"1993\",\"DerivedBusinessAgeInMonths\":\"366.1\"}"
},
{
"FieldName": "ComprehensiveViewMetadata",
"Data": "{\"UsedForComprehensiveView\":true}"
},
{
"FieldName": "OriginalBusinessStatus",
"Data": "ACTIVE"
},
{
"FieldName": "BusinessStatus",
"Data": "Active"
},
{
"FieldName": "Address1",
"Data": "1 Microsoft Way"
},
{
"FieldName": "StreetName",
"Data": "Microsoft"
},
{
"FieldName": "StreetType",
"Data": "Way"
},
{
"FieldName": "StateProvince",
"Data": "WA"
},
{
"FieldName": "YearOfIncorporation",
"Data": "1993"
},
{
"FieldName": "MonthOfIncorporation",
"Data": "09"
},
{
"FieldName": "DayOfIncorporation",
"Data": "22"
},
{
"FieldName": "BusinessLegalForm",
"Data": "WA PROFIT CORPORATION"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedRegistrationNumbers",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedRegistrationNumbers\":[{\"Number\":\"600413485 WA\",\"Type\":\"Business Registration Number\"},{\"Number\":\"INR2EJN1ERAN0W5ZP974\",\"Type\":\"Legal Entity Identifier\"}]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedStockExchanges",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedStockExchanges\":[]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedMetadata",
"Data": "{\"Sources\":[\"Washington Secretary of State\"],\"UpdateData\":[{\"Type\":\"CompanyProfileLastUpdate\",\"Date\":{\"Day\":\"18\",\"Month\":\"10\",\"Year\":\"2023\"}},{\"Type\":\"DirectorsOfficersLastUpdate\",\"Date\":{\"Day\":\"18\",\"Month\":\"10\",\"Year\":\"2023\"}},{\"Type\":\"DataRetrievalDate\",\"Date\":{\"Day\":\"18\",\"Month\":\"10\",\"Year\":\"2023\"}},{\"Type\":\"OwnershipLastUpdate\",\"Date\":{\"Day\":\"18\",\"Month\":\"10\",\"Year\":\"2023\"}}]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedBusinessNames",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedBusinessName\":[{\"Name\":\"MICROSOFT CORPORATION\",\"Type\":\"Returned Business Name\",\"UsedForMatching\":true},{\"Name\":\"MICROSOFT CORPORATION\",\"Type\":\"Input Business Name\",\"UsedForMatching\":true}]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedDirectorsOfficers",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedDirectorsOfficers\":[{\"GivenName\":\"\",\"Surname\":\"\",\"FullName\":\"BENJAMIN O (BEN) ORNDORFF\",\"Position\":\"Officer\",\"Designation\":\"GOVERNOR\",\"Type\":\"Unknown\"},{\"GivenName\":\"\",\"Surname\":\"\",\"FullName\":\"SEE GOVERNORS ON FILE\",\"Position\":\"Officer\",\"Designation\":\"GOVERNOR\",\"Type\":\"Unknown\"},{\"GivenName\":\"\",\"Surname\":\"\",\"FullName\":\"CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY\",\"Position\":\"Agent\",\"Designation\":\"Agent\",\"Type\":\"Unknown\"}]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedCompanyOwnershipHierarchy",
"Data": "{\"Ownerships\":[{\"UniqueId\":\"1\",\"FullName\":\"MICROSOFT CORPORATION\",\"BeneficiaryType\":\"Root Business\",\"BusinessEntityType\":\"Business\",\"FullAddress\":[\"1 MICROSOFT WAY REDMOND WA 98052-8300 UNITED STATES\"],\"City\":\"Redmond\",\"StateProvinceCode\":\"WA\",\"PostalCode\":\"98052-8300\",\"CountryCode\":\"US\",\"LegalForm\":\"WA PROFIT CORPORATION\",\"DegreeOfSeparation\":0,\"Status\":\"Active\"}],\"Relationships\":[],\"OwnershipSummary\":{\"TotalOwnershipCount\":0,\"MaximumDegreeOfSeparation\":0,\"TotalAllocatedOwnershipPercentage\":0.0,\"OrganizationsCount\":0,\"IndividualsCount\":0,\"UnknownsCount\":0}}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedCommunication",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedCommunication\":[]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedShareCapitals",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedShareCapitals\":[]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedIndustries",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedIndustries\":[]}"
}
],
"Errors": [],
"FieldGroups": []
},
{
"DatasourceName": "Business Insights 480052",
"DatasourceFields": [
{
"FieldName": "PostalCode",
"Status": "nomatch"
},
{
"FieldName": "UnitNumber",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "StreetName",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "StreetType",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "BusinessName",
"Status": "match"
},
{
"FieldName": "TradestyleName",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "DUNSNumber",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "BuildingName",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "Suburb",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "StateProvinceCode",
"Status": "match"
},
{
"FieldName": "BuildingNumber",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "BusinessRegistrationNumber",
"Status": "match"
},
{
"FieldName": "JurisdictionOfIncorporation",
"Status": "match"
},
{
"FieldName": "taxidnumber",
"Status": "match"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondAddress1",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondBuildingName",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondBuildingNumber",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondCity",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondPostalCode",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondState",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondStreetName",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondStreetType",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondSuburb",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondUnitNumber",
"Status": "missing"
}
],
"AppendedFields": [
{
"FieldName": "BusinessName",
"Data": "Microsoft Corporation"
},
{
"FieldName": "BusinessRegistrationNumber",
"Data": "600413485"
},
{
"FieldName": "JurisdictionOfIncorporation",
"Data": "WA"
},
{
"FieldName": "OriginalBusinessLegalForm",
"Data": "Corporation"
},
{
"FieldName": "PostalCode",
"Data": "98052-8300"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedLocations",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedLocations\":[{\"LocationType\":\"Primary Address\",\"Address1\":\"1 Microsoft Way,Redmond, WA 98052-8300\",\"BuildingNumber\":\"1\",\"StreetName\":\"Microsoft\",\"StreetType\":\"Way\",\"City\":\"Redmond\",\"StateProvinceCode\":\"WA\",\"PostalCode\":\"98052-8300\"},{\"LocationType\":\"Mailing Address\",\"Address1\":\"PO Box 9163,Farmingdale, NY 11735-9163\",\"City\":\"Farmingdale\",\"StateProvinceCode\":\"NY\",\"PostalCode\":\"11735-9163\",\"POBox\":\"PO Box 9163\"}]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "OwnershipCompanyReturned",
"Data": "False"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedIncorporationDetails",
"Data": "{\"JurisdictionOfIncorporation\":\"WA\",\"BusinessLegalForm\":\"Corporation\",\"OriginalBusinessLegalForm\":\"Corporation\"}"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondAddress1",
"Data": "1 Microsoft Way"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondBuildingNumber",
"Data": "1"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondPostalCode",
"Data": "98052-8300"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondState",
"Data": "WA"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondStreetName",
"Data": "Microsoft"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondStreetType",
"Data": "Way"
},
{
"FieldName": "ComprehensiveViewMetadata",
"Data": "{\"UsedForComprehensiveView\":true}"
},
{
"FieldName": "DUNSNumber",
"Data": "081466849"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedRegistrationNumbers",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedRegistrationNumbers\":[{\"Number\":\"911144442\",\"Type\":\"Federal Taxpayer Identification Number (US)\"},{\"Number\":\"60128\",\"Type\":\"Commercial And Government Entity Code\"},{\"Number\":\"91-1144442\",\"Type\":\"Federal Taxpayer Identification Number (US)\"},{\"Number\":\"600413485\",\"Type\":\"Business Registration Number (US)\"},{\"Number\":\"FMVPEWNJGLM1\",\"Type\":\"US General Services Administration Unique Entity Identifier\"}]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "TaxIDNumber",
"Data": "911144442, Federal Taxpayer Identification Number (US); 91-1144442, Federal Taxpayer Identification Number (US)"
},
{
"FieldName": "OriginalBusinessStatus",
"Data": "Active"
},
{
"FieldName": "BusinessStatus",
"Data": "Active"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedCommunication",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedCommunication\":[{\"Value\":\"4258828080\",\"Type\":\"Telephone\"},{\"Value\":\"www.microsoft.com\",\"Type\":\"Website\"}]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedIndustries",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedIndustries\":[{\"Code\":\"513210\",\"CodeType\":\"North American Industry Classification System 2022\",\"Description\":\"Software Publishers\"},{\"Code\":\"7371\",\"CodeType\":\"US Standard Industry Code 1987 - 4 digit\",\"Description\":\"Custom computer programming\"},{\"Code\":\"73729902\",\"CodeType\":\"D&B Standard Industry Code\",\"Description\":\"Business oriented computer software\"},{\"Code\":\"513210\",\"CodeType\":\"North American Industry Classification System 2022\",\"Description\":\"Software Publishers\"},{\"Code\":\"513210\",\"CodeType\":\"North American Industry Classification System 2022\",\"Description\":\"Software Publishers\"},{\"Code\":\"7372\",\"CodeType\":\"US Standard Industry Code 1987 - 4 digit\",\"Description\":\"Prepackaged software services\"},{\"Code\":\"35770000\",\"CodeType\":\"D&B Standard Industry Code\",\"Description\":\"Computer peripheral equipment, nec\"},{\"Code\":\"73710301\",\"CodeType\":\"D&B Standard Industry Code\",\"Description\":\"Computer software development\"},{\"Code\":\"334118\",\"CodeType\":\"North American Industry Classification System 2022\",\"Description\":\"Computer Terminal and Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing\"},{\"Code\":\"73729901\",\"CodeType\":\"D&B Standard Industry Code\",\"Description\":\"Application computer software\"},{\"Code\":\"73729905\",\"CodeType\":\"D&B Standard Industry Code\",\"Description\":\"Operating systems computer software\"},{\"Code\":\"173\",\"CodeType\":\"D&B Hoovers Industry Classification\",\"Description\":\"Software\"},{\"Code\":\"7372\",\"CodeType\":\"US Standard Industry Code 1987 - 4 digit\",\"Description\":\"Prepackaged software services\"},{\"Code\":\"7372\",\"CodeType\":\"US Standard Industry Code 1987 - 4 digit\",\"Description\":\"Prepackaged software services\"},{\"Code\":\"73720000\",\"CodeType\":\"D&B Standard Industry Code\",\"Description\":\"Prepackaged software\"},{\"Code\":\"513210\",\"CodeType\":\"North American Industry Classification System 2022\",\"Description\":\"Software Publishers\"},{\"Code\":\"I\",\"CodeType\":\"D&B Standard Major Industry Code\",\"Description\":\"Services\"},{\"Code\":\"541511\",\"CodeType\":\"North American Industry Classification System 2022\",\"Description\":\"Custom Computer Programming Services\"},{\"Code\":\"5829\",\"CodeType\":\"NACE Revision 2\",\"Description\":\"Other software publishing\"},{\"Code\":\"7372\",\"CodeType\":\"US Standard Industry Code 1987 - 4 digit\",\"Description\":\"Prepackaged software services\"},{\"Code\":\"3577\",\"CodeType\":\"US Standard Industry Code 1987 - 4 digit\",\"Description\":\"Mfg computer peripheral equipment\"}]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedDirectorsOfficers",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedDirectorsOfficers\":[{\"GivenName\":\"BRADFORD\",\"Surname\":\"SMITH\",\"FullName\":\"BRADFORD L SMITH\",\"Position\":\"Vice-Chairman,President\",\"Designation\":\"Vice Chairperson,President\",\"Type\":\"Individual\"},{\"GivenName\":\"AMY\",\"Surname\":\"HOOD\",\"FullName\":\"AMY E HOOD\",\"Position\":\"Executive Vice-President,Chief Financial Officer\",\"Designation\":\"Executive Vice President,Chief Financial Officer\",\"Type\":\"Individual\"},{\"GivenName\":\"CHRISTOPHER\",\"Surname\":\"CAPOSSELA\",\"FullName\":\"CHRISTOPHER C CAPOSSELA\",\"Position\":\"Executive Vice-President,Officer\",\"Designation\":\"Executive Vice President,Officer\",\"Type\":\"Individual\"},{\"GivenName\":\"KATHLEEN\",\"Surname\":\"HOGAN\",\"FullName\":\"KATHLEEN T HOGAN\",\"Position\":\"Executive Vice-President,Officer\",\"Designation\":\"Executive Vice President,Officer\",\"Type\":\"Individual\"},{\"GivenName\":\"ALICE\",\"Surname\":\"JOLLA\",\"FullName\":\"ALICE L JOLLA\",\"Position\":\"Vice-President,Officer\",\"Designation\":\"Vice President,Officer\",\"Type\":\"Individual\"},{\"GivenName\":\"PAVAN\",\"Surname\":\"DAVULURI\",\"FullName\":\"PAVAN DAVULURI\",\"Position\":\"Officer\",\"Designation\":\"Officer\",\"Type\":\"Individual\"},{\"GivenName\":\"APARNA\",\"Surname\":\"CHENNAPRAGADA\",\"FullName\":\"APARNA CHENNAPRAGADA\",\"Position\":\"Vice-President\",\"Designation\":\"Vice President\",\"Type\":\"Individual\"},{\"GivenName\":\"Satya\",\"Surname\":\"Nadella\",\"FullName\":\"Satya Nadella\",\"Position\":\"Chairman of the Board,Chief Executive Officer\",\"Designation\":\"Chairman of the Board,Chief Executive Officer\",\"Type\":\"Individual\"}]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedStockExchanges",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedStockExchanges\":[{\"Ticker\":\"MSFT\",\"Exchange\":\"NASDAQ\",\"Country\":\"US\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSF\",\"Exchange\":\"Dusseldorf\",\"Country\":\"DE\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSF\",\"Exchange\":\"Bulgarian\",\"Country\":\"BG\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSF\",\"Exchange\":\"Munich\",\"Country\":\"DE\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSFT-RM\",\"Exchange\":\"Moscow\",\"Country\":\"RU\"},{\"Ticker\":\"0QYP\",\"Exchange\":\"London\",\"Country\":\"GB\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSF\",\"Exchange\":\"XETRA\",\"Country\":\"DE\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSFT\",\"Exchange\":\"Buenos Aires\",\"Country\":\"AR\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSFT\",\"Exchange\":\"Mexican\",\"Country\":\"MX\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSFT_KZ\",\"Exchange\":\"KASE (Kazakhstan)\",\"Country\":\"KZ\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSF0\",\"Exchange\":\"Frankfurt\",\"Country\":\"DE\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSF\",\"Exchange\":\"Berlin\",\"Country\":\"DE\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSFT\",\"Exchange\":\"NEO Exchange\",\"Country\":\"CA\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSFT\",\"Exchange\":\"Lima\",\"Country\":\"PE\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSFT80X\",\"Exchange\":\"Thailand\",\"Country\":\"TH\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSFT34\",\"Exchange\":\"San Paulo\",\"Country\":\"BR\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSFT\",\"Exchange\":\"Italian\",\"Country\":\"IT\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSF\",\"Exchange\":\"Stuttgart\",\"Country\":\"DE\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSFT\",\"Exchange\":\"Ukrainian\",\"Country\":\"UA\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSF\",\"Exchange\":\"Frankfurt\",\"Country\":\"DE\"},{\"Ticker\":\"04338\",\"Exchange\":\"Hong Kong\",\"Country\":\"HK\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSFT\",\"Exchange\":\"Vienna\",\"Country\":\"AT\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSF\",\"Exchange\":\"Hannover\",\"Country\":\"DE\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSF0\",\"Exchange\":\"Munich\",\"Country\":\"DE\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSF\",\"Exchange\":\"Euronext Brussels\",\"Country\":\"BE\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSF\",\"Exchange\":\"Hamburg\",\"Country\":\"DE\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSFT\",\"Exchange\":\"Santiago\",\"Country\":\"CL\"}]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedMetadata",
"Data": "{\"Sources\":[\"Dun & Bradstreet\"],\"UpdateData\":[{\"Type\":\"CompanyProfileLastUpdate\",\"Date\":{\"Day\":\"29\",\"Month\":\"8\",\"Year\":\"2023\"}},{\"Type\":\"DirectorsOfficersLastUpdate\",\"Date\":{\"Day\":\"29\",\"Month\":\"8\",\"Year\":\"2023\"}}]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedBusinessNames",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedBusinessName\":[{\"Name\":\"MICROSOFT CORPORATION\",\"Type\":\"Input Business Name\",\"UsedForMatching\":true},{\"Name\":\"Microsoft Corporation\",\"Type\":\"Returned Business Name\",\"UsedForMatching\":true}]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "BuildingNumber",
"Data": "1"
},
{
"FieldName": "StreetName",
"Data": "Microsoft"
},
{
"FieldName": "StreetType",
"Data": "Way"
},
{
"FieldName": "StateProvince",
"Data": "WA"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedShareCapitals",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedShareCapitals\":[]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedCompanyOwnershipHierarchy",
"Data": "{\"Ownerships\":[{\"UniqueId\":\"1\",\"FullName\":\"Microsoft Corporation\",\"BeneficiaryType\":\"Root Business\",\"BusinessEntityType\":\"Business\",\"FullAddress\":[\"1 Microsoft Way\"],\"City\":\"Redmond\",\"StateProvinceCode\":\"WA\",\"PostalCode\":\"98052-8300\",\"CountryCode\":\"US\",\"LegalForm\":\"Corporation\",\"DegreeOfSeparation\":0,\"Status\":\"Active\"}],\"Relationships\":[],\"OwnershipSummary\":{\"TotalOwnershipCount\":0,\"MaximumDegreeOfSeparation\":0,\"TotalAllocatedOwnershipPercentage\":0.0,\"OrganizationsCount\":0,\"IndividualsCount\":0,\"UnknownsCount\":0}}"
},
{
"FieldName": "BusinessLegalForm",
"Data": "Corporation"
}
],
"Errors": [],
"FieldGroups": []
},
{
"DatasourceName": "Business Insights 653985",
"DatasourceFields": [],
"AppendedFields": [
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedLocations",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedLocations\":[]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedIncorporationDetails",
"Data": "{}"
},
{
"FieldName": "ComprehensiveViewMetadata",
"Data": "{\"UsedForComprehensiveView\":false}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedRegistrationNumbers",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedRegistrationNumbers\":[]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedCommunication",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedCommunication\":[]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedShareCapitals",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedShareCapitals\":[]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedIndustries",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedIndustries\":[]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedStockExchanges",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedStockExchanges\":[]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedDirectorsOfficers",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedDirectorsOfficers\":[]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedCompanyOwnershipHierarchy",
"Data": "{\"Ownerships\":[],\"Relationships\":[],\"OwnershipSummary\":{\"TotalOwnershipCount\":0,\"MaximumDegreeOfSeparation\":0,\"TotalAllocatedOwnershipPercentage\":0.0,\"OrganizationsCount\":0,\"IndividualsCount\":0,\"UnknownsCount\":0}}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedMetadata",
"Data": "{\"Sources\":[],\"UpdateData\":[]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedBusinessNames",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedBusinessName\":[]}"
}
],
"Errors": [],
"FieldGroups": []
},
{
"DatasourceName": "Comprehensive View",
"DatasourceFields": [
{
"FieldName": "Address1",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "PostalCode",
"Status": "nomatch"
},
{
"FieldName": "City",
"Status": "match"
},
{
"FieldName": "UnitNumber",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "StreetName",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "StreetType",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "BusinessName",
"Status": "match"
},
{
"FieldName": "TradestyleName",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "DUNSNumber",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "BuildingName",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "Suburb",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "StateProvinceCode",
"Status": "match"
},
{
"FieldName": "BuildingNumber",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "BusinessRegistrationNumber",
"Status": "match"
},
{
"FieldName": "JurisdictionOfIncorporation",
"Status": "match"
},
{
"FieldName": "PreviousName",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "taxidnumber",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondAddress1",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondBuildingName",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondBuildingNumber",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondCity",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondPostalCode",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondState",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondStreetName",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondStreetType",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondSuburb",
"Status": "missing"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondUnitNumber",
"Status": "missing"
}
],
"AppendedFields": [
{
"FieldName": "BusinessName",
"Data": "MICROSOFT CORPORATION"
},
{
"FieldName": "BusinessRegistrationNumber",
"Data": "600413485"
},
{
"FieldName": "JurisdictionOfIncorporation",
"Data": "WA"
},
{
"FieldName": "BusinessReferenceID",
"Data": "6752894315066EDF44D4D97A2BBECBEE"
},
{
"FieldName": "City",
"Data": "Redmond"
},
{
"FieldName": "PostalCode",
"Data": "98052-8300"
},
{
"FieldName": "OwnershipCompanyReturned",
"Data": "False"
},
{
"FieldName": "OriginalBusinessLegalForm",
"Data": "WA PROFIT CORPORATION"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedIncorporationDetails",
"Data": "{\"JurisdictionOfIncorporation\":\"WA\",\"BusinessLegalForm\":\"WA PROFIT CORPORATION\",\"OriginalBusinessLegalForm\":\"WA PROFIT CORPORATION\",\"DayOfIncorporation\":\"22\",\"MonthOfIncorporation\":\"09\",\"YearOfIncorporation\":\"1993\",\"DerivedBusinessAgeInMonths\":\"366.1\"}"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondAddress1",
"Data": "1 Microsoft Way"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondBuildingNumber",
"Data": "1"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondPostalCode",
"Data": "98052-8300"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondState",
"Data": "WA"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondStreetName",
"Data": "Microsoft"
},
{
"FieldName": "SecondStreetType",
"Data": "Way"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedLocations",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedLocations\":[{\"LocationType\":\"Registered Address\",\"Address1\":\"1 Microsoft Way\",\"StreetName\":\"Microsoft\",\"StreetType\":\"Way\",\"City\":\"Redmond\",\"StateProvinceCode\":\"WA\",\"PostalCode\":\"98052-8300\",\"CountryCode\":\"US\"},{\"LocationType\":\"Primary Address\",\"Address1\":\"1 Microsoft Way,Redmond, WA 98052-8300\",\"BuildingNumber\":\"1\",\"StreetName\":\"Microsoft\",\"StreetType\":\"Way\",\"City\":\"Redmond\",\"StateProvinceCode\":\"WA\",\"PostalCode\":\"98052-8300\"},{\"LocationType\":\"Mailing Address\",\"Address1\":\"PO Box 9163,Farmingdale, NY 11735-9163\",\"City\":\"Farmingdale\",\"StateProvinceCode\":\"NY\",\"PostalCode\":\"11735-9163\",\"POBox\":\"PO Box 9163\"}]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "OriginalBusinessStatus",
"Data": "ACTIVE"
},
{
"FieldName": "BusinessStatus",
"Data": "Active"
},
{
"FieldName": "Address1",
"Data": "1 Microsoft Way"
},
{
"FieldName": "StreetName",
"Data": "Microsoft"
},
{
"FieldName": "StreetType",
"Data": "Way"
},
{
"FieldName": "StateProvince",
"Data": "WA"
},
{
"FieldName": "YearOfIncorporation",
"Data": "1993"
},
{
"FieldName": "MonthOfIncorporation",
"Data": "09"
},
{
"FieldName": "DayOfIncorporation",
"Data": "22"
},
{
"FieldName": "BusinessLegalForm",
"Data": "WA PROFIT CORPORATION"
},
{
"FieldName": "TaxIDNumber",
"Data": "911144442, Federal Taxpayer Identification Number (US); 91-1144442, Federal Taxpayer Identification Number (US)"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedCommunication",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedCommunication\":[{\"Value\":\"4258828080\",\"Type\":\"Telephone\"},{\"Value\":\"www.microsoft.com\",\"Type\":\"Website\"}]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedIndustries",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedIndustries\":[{\"Code\":\"513210\",\"CodeType\":\"North American Industry Classification System 2022\",\"Description\":\"Software Publishers\"},{\"Code\":\"7371\",\"CodeType\":\"US Standard Industry Code 1987 - 4 digit\",\"Description\":\"Custom computer programming\"},{\"Code\":\"73729902\",\"CodeType\":\"D&B Standard Industry Code\",\"Description\":\"Business oriented computer software\"},{\"Code\":\"7372\",\"CodeType\":\"US Standard Industry Code 1987 - 4 digit\",\"Description\":\"Prepackaged software services\"},{\"Code\":\"35770000\",\"CodeType\":\"D&B Standard Industry Code\",\"Description\":\"Computer peripheral equipment, nec\"},{\"Code\":\"73710301\",\"CodeType\":\"D&B Standard Industry Code\",\"Description\":\"Computer software development\"},{\"Code\":\"334118\",\"CodeType\":\"North American Industry Classification System 2022\",\"Description\":\"Computer Terminal and Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing\"},{\"Code\":\"73729901\",\"CodeType\":\"D&B Standard Industry Code\",\"Description\":\"Application computer software\"},{\"Code\":\"73729905\",\"CodeType\":\"D&B Standard Industry Code\",\"Description\":\"Operating systems computer software\"},{\"Code\":\"173\",\"CodeType\":\"D&B Hoovers Industry Classification\",\"Description\":\"Software\"},{\"Code\":\"73720000\",\"CodeType\":\"D&B Standard Industry Code\",\"Description\":\"Prepackaged software\"},{\"Code\":\"I\",\"CodeType\":\"D&B Standard Major Industry Code\",\"Description\":\"Services\"},{\"Code\":\"541511\",\"CodeType\":\"North American Industry Classification System 2022\",\"Description\":\"Custom Computer Programming Services\"},{\"Code\":\"5829\",\"CodeType\":\"NACE Revision 2\",\"Description\":\"Other software publishing\"},{\"Code\":\"3577\",\"CodeType\":\"US Standard Industry Code 1987 - 4 digit\",\"Description\":\"Mfg computer peripheral equipment\"}]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedDirectorsOfficers",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedDirectorsOfficers\":[{\"GivenName\":\"\",\"Surname\":\"\",\"FullName\":\"BENJAMIN O (BEN) ORNDORFF\",\"Position\":\"Officer\",\"Designation\":\"GOVERNOR\",\"Type\":\"Unknown\"},{\"GivenName\":\"\",\"Surname\":\"\",\"FullName\":\"SEE GOVERNORS ON FILE\",\"Position\":\"Officer\",\"Designation\":\"GOVERNOR\",\"Type\":\"Unknown\"},{\"GivenName\":\"\",\"Surname\":\"\",\"FullName\":\"CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY\",\"Position\":\"Agent\",\"Designation\":\"Agent\",\"Type\":\"Unknown\"},{\"GivenName\":\"BRADFORD\",\"Surname\":\"SMITH\",\"FullName\":\"BRADFORD L SMITH\",\"Position\":\"Vice-Chairman,President\",\"Designation\":\"Vice Chairperson,President\",\"Type\":\"Individual\"},{\"GivenName\":\"AMY\",\"Surname\":\"HOOD\",\"FullName\":\"AMY E HOOD\",\"Position\":\"Executive Vice-President,Chief Financial Officer\",\"Designation\":\"Executive Vice President,Chief Financial Officer\",\"Type\":\"Individual\"},{\"GivenName\":\"CHRISTOPHER\",\"Surname\":\"CAPOSSELA\",\"FullName\":\"CHRISTOPHER C CAPOSSELA\",\"Position\":\"Executive Vice-President,Officer\",\"Designation\":\"Executive Vice President,Officer\",\"Type\":\"Individual\"},{\"GivenName\":\"KATHLEEN\",\"Surname\":\"HOGAN\",\"FullName\":\"KATHLEEN T HOGAN\",\"Position\":\"Executive Vice-President,Officer\",\"Designation\":\"Executive Vice President,Officer\",\"Type\":\"Individual\"},{\"GivenName\":\"ALICE\",\"Surname\":\"JOLLA\",\"FullName\":\"ALICE L JOLLA\",\"Position\":\"Vice-President,Officer\",\"Designation\":\"Vice President,Officer\",\"Type\":\"Individual\"},{\"GivenName\":\"PAVAN\",\"Surname\":\"DAVULURI\",\"FullName\":\"PAVAN DAVULURI\",\"Position\":\"Officer\",\"Designation\":\"Officer\",\"Type\":\"Individual\"},{\"GivenName\":\"APARNA\",\"Surname\":\"CHENNAPRAGADA\",\"FullName\":\"APARNA CHENNAPRAGADA\",\"Position\":\"Vice-President\",\"Designation\":\"Vice President\",\"Type\":\"Individual\"},{\"GivenName\":\"Satya\",\"Surname\":\"Nadella\",\"FullName\":\"Satya Nadella\",\"Position\":\"Chairman of the Board,Chief Executive Officer\",\"Designation\":\"Chairman of the Board,Chief Executive Officer\",\"Type\":\"Individual\"}]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedStockExchanges",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedStockExchanges\":[{\"Ticker\":\"MSFT\",\"Exchange\":\"NASDAQ\",\"Country\":\"US\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSF\",\"Exchange\":\"Dusseldorf\",\"Country\":\"DE\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSF\",\"Exchange\":\"Bulgarian\",\"Country\":\"BG\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSF\",\"Exchange\":\"Munich\",\"Country\":\"DE\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSFT-RM\",\"Exchange\":\"Moscow\",\"Country\":\"RU\"},{\"Ticker\":\"0QYP\",\"Exchange\":\"London\",\"Country\":\"GB\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSF\",\"Exchange\":\"XETRA\",\"Country\":\"DE\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSFT\",\"Exchange\":\"Buenos Aires\",\"Country\":\"AR\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSFT\",\"Exchange\":\"Mexican\",\"Country\":\"MX\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSFT_KZ\",\"Exchange\":\"KASE (Kazakhstan)\",\"Country\":\"KZ\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSF0\",\"Exchange\":\"Frankfurt\",\"Country\":\"DE\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSF\",\"Exchange\":\"Berlin\",\"Country\":\"DE\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSFT\",\"Exchange\":\"NEO Exchange\",\"Country\":\"CA\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSFT\",\"Exchange\":\"Lima\",\"Country\":\"PE\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSFT80X\",\"Exchange\":\"Thailand\",\"Country\":\"TH\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSFT34\",\"Exchange\":\"San Paulo\",\"Country\":\"BR\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSFT\",\"Exchange\":\"Italian\",\"Country\":\"IT\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSF\",\"Exchange\":\"Stuttgart\",\"Country\":\"DE\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSFT\",\"Exchange\":\"Ukrainian\",\"Country\":\"UA\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSF\",\"Exchange\":\"Frankfurt\",\"Country\":\"DE\"},{\"Ticker\":\"04338\",\"Exchange\":\"Hong Kong\",\"Country\":\"HK\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSFT\",\"Exchange\":\"Vienna\",\"Country\":\"AT\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSF\",\"Exchange\":\"Hannover\",\"Country\":\"DE\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSF0\",\"Exchange\":\"Munich\",\"Country\":\"DE\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSF\",\"Exchange\":\"Euronext Brussels\",\"Country\":\"BE\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSF\",\"Exchange\":\"Hamburg\",\"Country\":\"DE\"},{\"Ticker\":\"MSFT\",\"Exchange\":\"Santiago\",\"Country\":\"CL\"}]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedShareCapitals",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedShareCapitals\":[]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedMetadata",
"Data": "{\"Sources\":[\"Washington Secretary of State\",\"Dun & Bradstreet\",\"IRS\"],\"UpdateData\":[{\"Type\":\"CompanyProfileLastUpdate\",\"Date\":{\"Day\":\"29\",\"Month\":\"8\",\"Year\":\"2023\"}},{\"Type\":\"DirectorsOfficersLastUpdate\",\"Date\":{\"Day\":\"29\",\"Month\":\"8\",\"Year\":\"2023\"}},{\"Type\":\"DataRetrievalDate\",\"Date\":{\"Day\":\"18\",\"Month\":\"10\",\"Year\":\"2023\"}},{\"Type\":\"OwnershipLastUpdate\",\"Date\":{\"Day\":\"18\",\"Month\":\"10\",\"Year\":\"2023\"}}]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedRegistrationNumbers",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedRegistrationNumbers\":[{\"Number\":\"600413485 WA\",\"Type\":\"Business Registration Number\"},{\"Number\":\"INR2EJN1ERAN0W5ZP974\",\"Type\":\"Legal Entity Identifier\"},{\"Number\":\"911144442\",\"Type\":\"Federal Taxpayer Identification Number (US)\"},{\"Number\":\"60128\",\"Type\":\"Commercial And Government Entity Code\"},{\"Number\":\"91-1144442\",\"Type\":\"Federal Taxpayer Identification Number (US)\"},{\"Number\":\"600413485\",\"Type\":\"Business Registration Number (US)\"},{\"Number\":\"FMVPEWNJGLM1\",\"Type\":\"US General Services Administration Unique Entity Identifier\"}]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedBusinessNames",
"Data": "{\"StandardizedBusinessName\":[{\"Name\":\"MICROSOFT CORPORATION\",\"Type\":\"Returned Business Name\",\"UsedForMatching\":true},{\"Name\":\"MICROSOFT CORPORATION\",\"Type\":\"Input Business Name\",\"UsedForMatching\":true}]}"
},
{
"FieldName": "DUNSNumber",
"Data": "081466849"
},
{
"FieldName": "StandardizedCompanyOwnershipHierarchy",
"Data": "{\"Ownerships\":[{\"UniqueId\":\"1\",\"FullName\":\"Microsoft Corporation\",\"BeneficiaryType\":\"Root Business\",\"BusinessEntityType\":\"Business\",\"FullAddress\":[\"1 Microsoft Way\"],\"City\":\"Redmond\",\"StateProvinceCode\":\"WA\",\"PostalCode\":\"98052-8300\",\"CountryCode\":\"US\",\"LegalForm\":\"Corporation\",\"DegreeOfSeparation\":0,\"Status\":\"Active\"}],\"Relationships\":[],\"OwnershipSummary\":{\"TotalOwnershipCount\":0,\"MaximumDegreeOfSeparation\":0,\"TotalAllocatedOwnershipPercentage\":0.0,\"OrganizationsCount\":0,\"IndividualsCount\":0,\"UnknownsCount\":0}}"
}
],
"Errors": [],
"FieldGroups": []
},
{
"DatasourceName": "Language Intelligence",
"DatasourceFields": [],
"AppendedFields": [
{
"FieldName": "ComprehensiveViewMetadata",
"Data": "{\"UsedForComprehensiveView\":false}"
}
],
"Errors": [],
"FieldGroups": []
}
],
"Errors": [],
"Rule": {
"RuleName": "RuleScript - BusinessVerify_v114",
"Note": "1 Records Match(BusinessName)"
}
},
"Errors": []
}
{
"InputFields": [
{
"FieldName": "BusinessName",
"Value": "MICROSOFT CORPORATION"
}
],
"TransactionID": "89eea530-1bb8-4a19-84f3-8bbfbeb6ecb1",
"UploadedDt": "2023-10-18T15:51:12.516705",
"CompletedDt": "2023-10-18T15:51:15.165688",
"CountryCode": "US",
"ProductName": "Identity Verification",
"Record": {
"TransactionRecordID": "208676d5-2765-d611-de30-a1e652750cbf",
"RecordStatus": "nomatch",
"DatasourceResults": [
{
"DatasourceName": "Advanced Business Watchlist",
"DatasourceFields": [],
"AppendedFields": [
{
"FieldName": "WatchlistState",
"Data": "Potential Hit"
},
{
"FieldName": "WatchlistData",
"Data": {
"num_WL_hits": 0,
"num_AM_hits": 100
}
},
{
"FieldName": "WatchlistHitDetails",
"Data": {
"WL_results": [],
"AM_results": [
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Publish Date December 9, 2020 Phishing campaign spoofs Microsoft domain. Is lack of DMARC enforcement to blame? Bradley Barth Follow @bbb1216bbb Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Print Share by Email Building 92 at Microsoft Corporation headquarters in Redmond, Washington. (Coolcaesar, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons) An email security company says its researchers observed a spear phishing campaign that exactly spoofed a Microsoft email domain to trick Office 365 users. This suggests Microsoft’s servers were not enforcing protective DMARC authentication protocols when communications were received – and perhaps still are not. The campaign, according to a blog post published by the company Ironscales, uses a lure that suggests the recipient has important email messages that have been quarantined, and must click a link to salvage them. The phishing email reportedly alludes to a hosted email security feature that Microsoft introduced last September as a way to salvage emails that are wrongly labeled as spam, or phishes by the company’s Exchange Online Protection filtering service. Authored by Vice President of Research & Developer Lomy Ovadia, the blog post said that nearly 100 of Ironscales’ customers across multiple industries – including financial services, health care, insurance, manufacturing, utilities, and telecommunications – have received this phishing email, which appears to come from the sender domain address [email protected] According to the report, the emails were able to pass secure email gateways due to a lack of DMARC, otherwise known as Domain Message Authentication Reporting. “Our research found that Microsoft servers are not currently enforcing the DMARC protocol, meaning these exact domain spoofing messages are not being rejected by gateway controls, such as Office 365 EOP and ATP,†Ovadia wrote. “Any other email service that respects and enforces DMARC would have blocked such emails. It remains unknown as to why Microsoft is allowing a spoof of their very own domain against their own email infrastructure.” DMARC works by authenticating an email sender’s identity using DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) and Sender Policy Framework (SPF) standards. DMARC users also set a policy for whether emails that don’t pass validation should be rejected, quarantined or allowed by the email servers that receive them. Asked to comment on Ironscales’ findings and scathing assessment, Microsoft asserted that it does leverage DMARC and other protections. “Contrary to claims in the third-party report, Office 365 has rich in-built controls to block domain spoofing emails and enforces DMARC checks. We encourage all customers to make sure they have deployed the latest security controls in Office 365, enabled multifactor authentication for Office 365 and train[ed] their end users to observe caution when clicking on links from unknown senders,†said a Microsoft spokesperson. Microsoft also said that DMARC checks actually “happened in this instance,†and that, in addition, the company has gone beyond by “leveraging our unique cloud-base[d] spoof intelligence that enables domain spoofing protection to domains that have not enforced DMARC.†Moreover, the company said that Office 365 and Microsoft Defender for Office 365 “employs a multi-layered filtering engine that looks at multiple aspects of an email using AI to block malicious mails from reaching end users and constantly learn from latest attack vectors.†Valimail, an email security firm that, together with Microsoft, offers a comprehensive email solution for Microsoft 365 customers, designed to stop content-based phishing attacks, defended Microsoft. “The Ironscales report is not correct,” said Seth Blank, vice president of standards and new technologies at Valimail. “Microsoft does enforce DMARC policies on inbound mail, for domains which have it configured. However, for domains with a DMARC ‘reject’ policy (like Microsoft.com), Microsoft doesn’t reject messages entirely, as most mail receivers do: Instead, it treats messages that fail authentication as spam, and puts the messages in the recipients’ ‘Junk’ folder, or optionally in quarantine that an account admin can review, depending on the organization’s Microsoft 365 security settings. In other words, messages that fail DMARC won’t be spotted in an M365 inbox, but they can still be retrieved — for instance, when a user is in their ‘Junk’ folder.” Ironscales has held firm. A spokesman responded to Microsoft’s comments with the following reply: “Whether or not Microsoft users have deployed the latest security controls, enabled multi-factor authentication or trained their users to be phishing aware is irrelevant as to why this email spoofing attack bypassed technical controls using specifically the Microsoft.com domain. Microsoft is on the record as having partnered with Agari for DMARC enforcement, making the protocol a default setting that doesn’t require manual configuration. Unfortunately, our research, which we stand by completely, proves that the combined Microsoft and Agari solution is not blocking spoofed emails, although they claim this is the default.†IRONSCALES further countered that the phishing emails in questions landed in inboxes and not the junk folders as Vailmail stated. Security awareness training programs teach employees to look at an incoming email’s sender address to ensure that it is authentic. But if a phishing email perfectly mimics a company’s legitimate domain, then that is one less clue that recipients have to determine that they are being scammed. “You have 3 quarantined messages in your quantine [sic] portal as of 12/2/2020. You can choose what happens to them,†said a sample phishing email purporting to come from Microsoft, Ironscales reported. The link included in the email supposedly leads to a portal, but actually leads to a phishing page that captures victims’ O365 login credentials, which if stolen could potentially be sold on the dark web. In his blog post, Ovadia recommended that companies configure their defenses for DMARC, and also implemented “advanced mailbox-level email security that continuously studies every employee’s inbox to detect anomalies based on both email data and metadata extracted from previously trusted communications.†Joseph Neumann, director of offensive security at Coalfire, told SC Media that companies like Microsoft “are prioritizing protecting incoming mail and are less focused on protecting external. Additionally, Microsoft and other CSPs [communications service providers] that provide this service also have other mitigations in place that they feel reduce the dependence on DMARC. For example, not accepting external emails from domains it controls email for. However, this doesn’t stop rogue entities from using the lack of DMARC to phish organizations’ customers and entities.†Ray Kelly, principal security engineer at WhiteHat Security, also noted that DMARC can be “incredibly difficult†for large organizations to maintain, and that even in cases where DMARC is in place, it can sometimes result in legitimate emails getting blocked from inboxes, which is also problematic. “Companies such Microsoft, with a vast amount of domains and constant network changes, can easily break email for an enormous amount of users when using DMARC,†said Kelly. “Many companies that utilize DMARC have their policy set to ‘none’ [which allows potentially fradulent emails to still be sent] rather than ‘reject’ in fear that it will stop legitimate emails from being delivered.†Topics: Cybercrime Email Security Phishing Suspicious email aimed to get users to give up Office 365 credentials ",
"URL": "https://www.scmagazine.com/home/security-news/phishing/phishing-campaign-spoofs-microsoft-domain-is-lack-of-dmarc-enforcement-to-blame/"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Cruise, the autonomous vehicle subsidiary of the Detroit giant, was the first company to get a green light for a robotaxi service in California.General Motors (GM) - Get General Motors Company Report had taken a lead in the race to develop the technologies that would make a car completely self-driving. Its subsidiary Cruise in fact obtained authorization from the Californian authorities on June 2 to operate robotaxis in San Francisco. Basically, self-driving vehicles that can carry people to and from wherever they want to go in the city from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. and only when there’s no \"heavy rain, heavy fog, heavy smoke, hail, sleet, or snow.”The rides are limited to \"select streets in San Francisco,” the California Public Utilities Commission said last June. The cars involved can only drive at a maximum speed of 30 mph.This decision was a first in California and in particular in San Francisco where the inhabitants have been accustomed for a few years to seeing different companies from Cruise to Waymo (Alphabet (GOOGL) - Get Alphabet Inc. Report) circulating self-driving vehicles equipped with cameras and sensors.None of these firms, however, had been authorized to charge potential customers and circulate their vehicles on the streets of the city without a human being ready to take the wheel in the event of a problem.Cruise's Robotaxi Involved in CrashBy getting the green light from the authorities for even a limited robotaxi service, Cruise had thus won a huge victory, giving GM and its partners - Walmart (WMT) - Get Walmart Inc. Report and Honda (HMC) - Get Honda Motor Company Ltd. Report - a strong argument to brag about their technological advances against the competition. GM is Cruise's majority shareholder. But the legacy carmaker also has partners like Honda, Walmart and Microsoft (MSFT) - Get Microsoft Corporation Report in this adventure.But the day after the authorization was granted, an autonomous vehicle (AV) from Cruise found itself in a collision due to a defect which subsequently forced the startup to recall vehicles in order to resolve the problem.Cruise \"is recalling certain automated driving systems (ADS),\" the company said in recent documents filed with the National High Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). \"The software may, in certain circumstances when making an unprotected left, cause the ADS to incorrectly predict another vehicle's path or be insufficiently reactive to the sudden path change of a road user.\"An incident related to this defect has been identified. It happened on June 3 and involved \"an oncoming vehicle traveling well above the speed limit in a restricted right-turn/bus-only lane.\"As the Cruise AV turned left and began traversing the intersection, the car \"predicted that the oncoming vehicle, which was traveling approximately 40 mph in the 25 mph right-turn lane, would turn right and directly into the path of the Cruise AV. After the Cruise AV braked to avoid colliding with the front end of the oncoming vehicle, the oncoming vehicle suddenly moved out of the right-turn lane and proceeded straight through the intersection colliding with the rear right quarter panel of the Cruise AV,\" the company said.It added that the ADS had to decide between two different risk scenarios and chose the one with the least potential for a serious collision at the time, before the oncoming vehicle’s sudden change of direction. Software UpdateAbout 80 Cruise vehicles were affected out of 100. The firm said it has voluntarily recalled the vehicles to update the software. The repairs were carried out in July.\"Cruise has determined this scenario would not recur after a software update installed on all affected vehicles on July 6, 2022,\" the company said. \"Cruise released a new software update that, among other things, improves the ADS’s predictive performance in various ways, including conditions similar to the singular, exceptional event that is the subject of this filing. Cruise has determined that the ADS would have selected a different path that averted the collision.\"However, the company would like to point out that it conducted an investigation including the police report on the incident. Its findings show that the other car was at fault.\"The police report found, among other things, the 'party at most fault' for the collision was the other vehicle, which was 'traveling in the ... right turn only lane at a speed that was greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for the safety of others on the roadway.'\"TheStreet, Inc. All rights reserved. Action Alerts PLUS is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.",
"URL": "https://www.mcclatchy-wires.com/incoming/article265351711.html"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "The founder of the e-commerce giant Amazon had lost an honorary title in recent weeks.The humiliation did not last long. The earthquake that occurred in the hushed environment of the largest fortunes on the planet in mid-September seems to have completely disappeared. It does not seem to have left any traces and even appears as a distant memory.Everything even seems to be back to normal, that you even wonder if there was even a tremor. Jeff Bezos, the former richest man in the world, on Sept. 16 lost his title as the second richest man in the world to Indian businessman Gautam Adani.The information has gone around the world as Americans, and more particularly the titans of tech, have dominated the rankings of the world's big fortunes for several years. The duo formed by Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, and Bezos at the top of these rankings has become a form of routine for those who love them.Bezos Is Back on TopThe founder and executive chairman of tech and online-retail giant Amazon (AMZN) - Get Amazon.com Inc. Report on Sept. 16 had dropped to No. 3, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. That day, Bezos had a fortune estimated at slightly below $147 billion, compared to $147 billion for the Indian tycoon Gautam Adani, the Indian billionaire and chairman of Adani Group, an industrial conglomerate. Two weeks later, Bezos regained his second place. He is worth $136 billion as of Sept. 30, according to Bloomberg Billionaires Index. He is preceded by Musk, the CEO of Tesla (TSLA) - Get Tesla Inc. Report, whose fortune is estimated at $236 billion. Adani fell to fourth place with a fortune of $130 billion. Bernard Arnault, the CEO of the French luxury group LVMH (LVMHF) , returned to third place with a fortune estimated at $131 billion.The fifth richest man in the world is Bill Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft (MSFT) - Get Microsoft Corporation Report, who is worth $105 billion.If Bezos regained his title, the billionaire remains the person who has lost the most money among the members of the Top 10 since January. His fortune has indeed decreased by $56.5 billion in nine months.Adani Is Only Rising BillionaireArnault lost $47.4 billion during that time, while Gates' fortune is down $32.8 billion and Musk's is down $32.2 billion. Most of the wealth of these billionaires is based on the stakes they have in their respective companies. The shocks that the financial markets have been undergoing for several months are thus the cause of the decline in the fortunes of the richest.Adani, on the other hand, is the only billionaire in the Top 10 to have seen his fortune increase since January. He is now worth $53.6 billion dollars more than at the start of 2022.At the beginning of the year, Adani became the richest person in Asia, ahead of his countryman Mukesh Ambani. Ambani ranked 10th richest person in the world with an estimated fortune of $82.7 billion.The rise of Adani began during the covid-19 pandemic. In March 2020, his net wealth was valued over $6 billion. Since then, his fortune has increased by a factor of almost 25. Adani, 60, is not well-known in the West. Born in 1962 in Ahmedabad in western India, Adani comes from a modest family of seven children whose father was a small textile merchant. A self-made executive, Adani started working at age 16 at the diamond dealer Mahendra Brothers, where he was responsible for sorting precious stones.In 1988, he founded a commodity trading firm that would become the Adani conglomerate. Zuckerberg Continues to DeclineAdani has grown the group by acquiring companies with debt. Adani group has become the most valuable company in India. The company holds mines, ports and power plants. It owns a dozen commercial ports and is present in coal, electricity and renewable energy. It also has diversified into airports, data centers and defense.The Top 10 richest people in the world is dominated by tech tycoons. The co-founders of Alphabet (GOOGL) - Get Alphabet Inc. Report, the parent company of Google, Larry Page and Sergey Brin are respectively the seventh and eighth richest people in the world with fortunes estimated at $88.7 billion and $84.9 billion respectively. Iconic investor Warren Buffett is sixth with a net worth of $94.2 billion, while Steve Ballmer is ninth with a net worth of $83.3 billion.Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of social networking giant Meta Platforms (META) - Get Meta Platforms Inc. Report, has been ejected from the frontrunners and is only 23rd richest on the planet. He is currently worth $50.9 billion after losing $74.6 billion since January.The collapse of Zuckerberg's fortune coincides with the stock market crash of Meta, which faces tough competition from TikTok, and Apple's decision to give iPhone owners the choice to decide which apps can track their movements online.Action Alerts PlusThe Best Ideas For You To Build WealthA members-only investing club that helps you grow your portfolio with real-time trade alerts, analysis of major market events, and key opportunities.Real-Time Trade Alerts24/7 Access To The PortfolioPortfolio Price TargetsLearn moreTheStreet, Inc. All rights reserved. Action Alerts PLUS is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.",
"URL": "https://www.mcclatchy-wires.com/incoming/article266711306.html"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "The Tatoosh went up for sale a few months ago.It is taking a few years to sell off Microsoft (MSFT) - Get Microsoft Corporation Report co-founder Paul Allen's collection of real estate and luxury yachts -- after the business and tech magnate died in 2018 at the age of 65, an estate chaired by his sister has been organizing an ongoing sell-off.In August, the estate sold eight homes in Washington's Mercer Island for a combined $67.1 million. And while it is not exactly a home, much less eight, Allen's \"Octopus\" superyacht sold to Swedish pharmaceuticals billionaire Roger Samuelsson after originally being listed for $325 million. Even though the final sales price was not disclosed, the estate had earlier lowered the asking price to $278 million.The 414-foot Octopus was not Allen's only superyacht. At around the same time, Allen's estate also listed the 303-foot-long Tatoosh for $90 million.A $90 Million Yacht PurchaseThis yacht was on the market for longer but eventually sold to an undisclosed buyer this week. Stuart Larsen, a yacht broker with Fort Lauderdale's Fraser Yachts, represented the sale.\"Tatoosh\" is a Chinook word for breast and is also the name of a wilderness area in a Washington state park -- it is not entirely clear why Allen chose to give it that name in particular. Allen bought the yacht from telecommunications magnate Craig McCaw in 2001 for $100 million; McCaw, in turn, had it custom-built by German ship company Nobiskrug.\"Custom-built by German shipyard Nobiskrug, the 92.4M/303'02\" TATOOSH was one of the finest superyachts available on the market today,\" Fraser Yachts wrote in a blog post announcing the purchase.Tatoosh underwent a remodeling in 2001 meant to make it look more modern. At the time of purchase, it came with two helicopter pads, large tenders, swimming pool, beach club, elevator, and cinema as just some of the onboard amenities.Fittingly of the \"superyacht\" title, the Tatoosh also comes with 11 staterooms that would each fit up to 19 guests. It is also the 60th largest yacht in the world, behind ones like the 162.5-meter eclipse owned by Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich.Too Many Yachts, Too Little TimeAllen's sister Jody Allen has been the executor in charge of the estate and has been on a mission to whittle it down as per her late brother's instructions. One of the estate's biggest assets is the Seattle Seahawks football team -- although Jody Allen has repeatedly said that they are not planning to sell it for the time being.Even before his death, Allen had said that his yachts had started to weigh on him. \"They’re too big, and there are too many of them,\" Allen said of them at a 2011 presentation in Seattle's Town Hall.While superyachts are often criticized for their role in ostentatious displays of wealth, they recently became the subject of much attention after government officials stepped up efforts to seize ones belonging to Russian oligarchs as part of the sanctions placed amid the country's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.In May, the government of Fiji seized the 348-foot Amadea yacht belonging to Suleiman Kerimov -- the oligarch worth over $14 billion had already been under sanctions from the U.S. Treasury Department since 2018 over alleged money laundering but was subject to new ones due to his close ties to President Vladimir Putin amid the invasion.TheStreet, Inc. All rights reserved. Action Alerts PLUS is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.",
"URL": "https://www.mcclatchy-wires.com/incoming/article268340032.html"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "The rout in financial markets since January has claimed a big casualty: tech billionaires.The market rout is a personal disaster for many investorsApart from the defensive sectors and energy, the rest of the economy is impacted by the uncertainties surrounding growth.The aggressive increase in interest rates by the Federal Reserve to crush inflation, which is at its highest in 40 years, has raised fears of a sharp slowdown in economic activity. These fears are a bad blow for growth assets like tech groups that are bets on the future.Unsurprisingly, tech groups have been struggling for several months. The same tech companies didn't help matters by issuing dire warnings about the economic situation.\"We are being a bit more responsible through one of the toughest macroeconomic conditions underway in the past decade, I think it’s important that as a company, we pull together to get through moments like this,\" Sundar Pichai, chief executive officer of Alphabet (GOOGL) - Get Alphabet Inc. Report told employees last month.Big Tech WreckedGoogle's parent company is in austerity mode: the company has canceled the next version of its Pixelbook laptop and dissolved the team responsible for building it. It has also made cuts at its Area 120 tech incubator whose goal was to keep some of the company’s talent in-house. The Mountain View, Calif.-based firm has also cut several perks, travel and entertainment budgets.\"For the first 18 years of the company, we basically grew quickly basically every year, and then more recently our revenue has been flat to slightly down for the first time,\" Meta Platforms' (META) - Get Meta Platforms Inc. Report CEO Mark Zuckerberg told employees on Sept. 30.He added that the company, which employed 83,553 people as of June 30, up 32% from 63,404 as of June 30, 2021, will be \"somewhat smaller\" by the end of 2023.These various cost reduction measures seem to mark the end of a glorious era for Silicon Valley, which in recent years has become the favorite destination for talent. After having been one of the great beneficiaries of the covid-19 pandemic, tech is today one of the biggest victims of the downturn in growth.There is also another way to look at the disaster caused to the sector by the current economic uncertainty: the fortunes of tech billionaires.Musk, Bezos, Gates, Zuck All in the RedIn the Bloomberg Billionaires Index's top 25 fortunes, there are nine U.S. tech billionaires, six of whom are in the top 10. As of Oct. 15, these nine billionaires have together lost $386 billion in personal wealth since January.Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of social media giant Meta Platforms, is the one whose fortunes have shrunk the most. It has lost $77.7 billion since January. Next comes the richest an in the world. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla (TSLA) - Get Tesla Inc. Report, the world's largest fortune, lost $72.5 billion. Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon (AMZN) - Get Amazon.com Inc. Report is worth $62.7 billion less than at the beginning of January. Bezos is no longer the second richest man in the world. He gave up this position to the French businessman Bernard Arnault, CEO of the luxury group LVMH (LVMHF) (Dior, Louis Vuitton etc...)Bill Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft (MSFT) - Get Microsoft Corporation Report and the fifth-richest person in the world, lost $33.3 billion, while Steve Ballmer, the former CEO of the software giant, saw his fortune decrease by $23.7 billion. Ballmer is the ninth richest in the world. Larry Page, the seventh richest on the planet and co-founder of Alphabet, is worth $39.0 billion less than in January, while Sergey Brin, the other co-founder of the internet giant saw his fortune drop by $37.9 billion. Brin is ranked 8th world's richest person.Finally, Larry Ellison, the founder of Oracle (ORCL) - Get Oracle Corporation Report and eleventh richest man in the world, has seen his net wealth decrease by $26.7 billion since January, while that of Michael Dell, founder of Dell Technologies (DELL) - Get Dell Technologies Inc. Class C Report and 24th richest man in the world, is worth $12.0 billion less compared to January.The fortunes on paper of these tech billionaires are mainly based on their actions within their companies. Some will say that the decline in their wealth is a return to normal after it soared during the pandemic.Interestingly, only six people in the top 25 wealthiest people on the planet have seen an increase in their wealth since January. Among them is Chinese tech tycoon Zhang Yiming, whose wealth has increased by $10.4 billion since January, making him the 20th-richest person on the planet. He is the founder of Bytedance, the parent company of popular short video platform TikTok and its Chinese version Douyin.TheStreet, Inc. All rights reserved. Action Alerts PLUS is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.",
"URL": "https://www.mcclatchy-wires.com/incoming/article267388142.html"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Software giant hasn't said it will protect user data in wake of Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe.Microsoft plans to assist women financially and will cover travel expenses for abortions since Roe v. Wade was overturned but remains tight-lipped about protecting consumer data.The tech giant is mum about ensuring privacy and deleting data such as geolocation since some people will have to travel to other states to obtain an abortion, a major concern for women and other supporters of abortion rights. Data such as texts and web searches can be used against women and people either seeking abortions or providing support since as travel or housing in states that are making aid a criminal offense. Will Microsoft Comply with a Subpoena?Microsoft (MSFT) - Get Microsoft Corporation Report has not addressed whether it will delete the location history of individuals or other data and whether it would comply with requests for subpoenas from law enforcement agencies.When TheStreet reached out with specific questions about whether data would be eliminated from the servers or if the company would comply with subpoenas, Microsoft declined to comment.Tech behemoth Alphabet's Google (GOOGL) - Get Alphabet Inc. Report took a proactive stance on Friday and said it would eliminate some user data, such as geolocation.Google said it will delete a person's location history for going to an abortion clinic and has been more proactive than other tech companies such as Apple (AAPL) - Get Apple Inc. Report who have also remained silent on this topic.People who use mapping apps from Google will have more privacy since the company said it will delete location histories for various locations such as abortion clinics and domestic violence shelters. The change will take place in the \"coming weeks,\" Jen Fitzpatrick, a senior vice president of Core wrote in a blog post on July 1.The company's change in policy was in response to people who sought to limit the amount of information collected on them since several states have indicated they would conduct abortion investigations and prosecutions.Google said it plans to delete the location history after a person has visited medical facilities such as abortion clinics, domestic violence shelters, counseling centers, fertility centers, addiction treatment facilities, cosmetic surgery clinics, weight loss clinics and others.Multi-Factor AuthenticationConsumers can also change and delete their personal information at any time for Google Fit and Fitbit, a fitness monitoring device. \"For example, Fitbit users who have chosen to track their menstrual cycles in the app can currently delete menstruation logs one at a time, and we will be rolling out updates that let users delete multiple logs at once,\" Fitzpatrick wrote.Whether Microsoft will change its stance remains unknown. The company has only discussed how they would support women financially if they plan to travel to other states to seek an abortion, which was mentioned by Microsoft President Brad Smith said in an interview with GeekWire last week at his office in Redmond, Washington.\"And so our first principle is to honor the ability of our employees to continue to make their own choices, to enable women who work at Microsoft to travel to another state, if that is what they want to need to do, for this type of medical service, an abortion,\" he said.One step that the company took in late May was to turn on multi-factor authentication and changing other default settings,\"One of the concerns, even criticisms, that some people had was that we were not doing everything we could to protect people using our products, because we didn’t turn on so much by default,\" Smith said. While Smith did not address the issue of securing more privacy for consumers, he said Microsoft has \"more work to do.\"\"How do we ensure that our processes are working well, and especially as we come out of COVID, and we try to find our way towards whatever the new normal is going to be, let’s make sure that we continue to improve in this space. And we have But I hope that people know how committed we are to doing it.Microsoft's Current Privacy PolicyMicrosoft has numerous applications and software, including Outlook.com, Skype, OneDrive, or Xbox or a personal Microsoft email account.The company does allow people to view the data about them that is saved to the cloud.\"Your privacy dashboard is the place where you can view and clear data that Microsoft saves to the cloud,\" the company said. \"This data includes your browsing and Bing search history, location data, apps and services activity, and more.\"Microsoft allows consumers to view their data and delete it, although eliminating it has to be completed separately.The company says that people can delete their search history from Bing, files from OneDrive, emails, calendar and contacts via Outlook.com, chats and conversations from Skype, but only some data can be eliminated from Xbox via the website or console.TheStreet, Inc. All rights reserved. Action Alerts PLUS is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.",
"URL": "https://www.mcclatchy-wires.com/incoming/article263231393.html"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Business100 Highest Paid CEOs in America By Ben Wittstein, Stacker News On 2/6/21 at 11:00 AM EST Share Share on Facebook Share on TwitterShare on LinkedIn Share on PinterestShare on RedditShare on Flipboard Share via Email Comments Business CEO Business Netflix FacebookAmong the hotly contested debates in the contemporary United States is what to make of the vast discrepancy that exists between the salaries of the country's top-earning CEOs and the average worker within their companies. While some people are outraged by the fact that Walmart CEO Doug McMillon raked in more than 1,000 times what his median employee made in 2017, others argue that the ratio is justified and not indicative of a problem in need of rectifying. Alex Edmans of the Harvard Business Review likens the discrepancy to that of a band's lead singer and bassist, alluding to the fact that people who perform tasks of varying levels of importance in a company ought to receive compensation that reflects these differing contributions. Ore Huiying / Getty Images for Netflix Using data from the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, Stacker listed the 100 highest-paid CEOs in the United States according to what they made in 2019 or 2020. The data is accurate as of Jan. 14, 2021, and any changes in the company or its CEO are noted with an asterisk.Read on to see how much the chief executives of top companies made.You may also like: What retirement is like in 50 places around the world Tada Images / Shutterstock 100. Richard Wallace (KLA Corporation)- 2019 salary: $20,512,367 - Median worker pay: $85,968 (239:1 ratio) BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Getty Images 99. Darius Adamczyk (Honeywell International Inc.)- 2019 salary: $20,525,104 - Median worker pay: $69,513 (295:1 ratio) SOPA Images / Getty Images 98. David Meredith (Everbridge, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $20,536,615 - Median worker pay: $75,599 (272:1 ratio) Sundry Photography / Shutterstock 97. Matthew Murphy (Marvell Technology Group Ltd.)- 2020 salary: $20,624,344 - Median worker pay: $152,014 (136:1 ratio) Grant Lamos IV / Getty Images 96. Marc Holliday (SL Green Realty Corp.)- 2019 salary: $20,990,016 - Median worker pay: $71,887 (292:1 ratio) Rick Diamond / Getty Images 95. W. McMullen (The Kroger Co.)- 2020 salary: $21,129,648 - Median worker pay: $26,790 (789:1 ratio) chainarong06 / Shutterstock 94. Chad Richison (Paycom Software, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $21,138,558 - Median worker pay: $64,408 (328:1 ratio) JHVEPhoto / Shutterstock 93. Juan Alaix (Zoetis Inc.)- 2019 salary: $21,145,419 - Median worker pay: $76,949 (275:1 ratio) Michael Vi / Shutterstock 92. David Ricks (Eli Lilly and Company)- 2019 salary: $21,283,242 - Median worker pay: $96,290 (221:1 ratio) Kimberly White / Getty Images for TechCrunch) 91. John Foley (Peloton Interactive, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $21,359,700You may also like: The Top 73 College Majors Where Most Students Go on to Grad School Christian Petersen / Getty Images 90. Andrew Wilson (Electronic Arts Inc.)- 2020 salary: $21,365,751 - Median worker pay: $97,986 (218:1 ratio) Drew Angerer / Getty Images 89. Christopher Nassetta (Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $21,374,121 - Median worker pay: $43,695 (489:1 ratio) Patrick McMullan / Getty Images 88. Fabrizio Freda (The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $21,435,428 - Median worker pay: $30,733 (697:1 ratio) lev radin / Shutterstock 87. Leonard Schleifer (Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $21,455,117 - Median worker pay: $139,055 (154:1 ratio) Riccardo Savi / Getty Images for Concordia Summit) 86. Gregory Hayes (Raytheon Technologies Corp.)- 2019 salary: $21,538,847 - Median worker pay: $76,417 (282:1 ratio) Dmitry Kalinovsky / Shutterstock 85. Richard Gonzalez (AbbVie Inc.)- 2019 salary: $21,610,598 - Median worker pay: $155,885 (139:1 ratio) JHVEPhoto / Shutterstock 84. William Stone (SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $21,620,325 - Median worker pay: $133,054 (162:1 ratio) Drew Angerer / Getty Images 83. Mary Barra (General Motors Company)- 2019 salary: $21,630,867 - Median worker pay: $106,715 (203:1 ratio) SOPA Images / Getty Images 82. Samuel Allen (Deere & Company)- 2019 salary: $21,697,885 - Median worker pay: $80,267 (270:1 ratio) R.Danyliuk / Shutterstock 81. James Robo (NextEra Energy, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $21,877,597 - Median worker pay: $129,735 (168:1 ratio)You may also like: The 50 Most Common Jobs Women Held 100 Years Ago Rick T. Wilking / Getty Images 80. C. McMillon (Walmart Inc.)- 2020 salary: $22,105,350 - Median worker pay: $22,484 (983:1 ratio) Steven Ferdman / Getty Images 79. Andre Calantzopoulos (Philip Morris International Inc.)- 2019 salary: $22,125,060 - Median worker pay: $54,086 (396:1 ratio) Syda Productions / Shutterstock 78. Ari Bousbib (IQVIA Holdings, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $22,139,776 - Median worker pay: $118,891 (186:1 ratio) picture alliance via Getty Images 77. Stephen Angel (Linde Plc)- 2019 salary: $22,475,878 - Median worker pay: $43,216 (520:1 ratio) MIND AND I / Shutterstock 76. Therese Tucker (BlackLine, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $22,552,158 - Median worker pay: $176,747 (128:1 ratio) Bennett Raglin / Getty Images for iHeartMedia 75. Robert Pittman (iHeartMedia, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $22,868,420 - Median worker pay: $56,068 (408:1 ratio) GLENN CHAPMAN/AFP / Getty Images 74. Steven Mollenkopf (QUALCOMM Incorporated)- 2019 salary: $23,065,052 - Median worker pay: $90,259 (256:1 ratio) Win McNamee / Getty Images 73. Ajay Banga (Mastercard Incorporated)- 2019 salary: $23,249,977 - Median worker pay: $138,142 (168:1 ratio) BERTRAND GUAY/AFP / Getty Images 72. Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $23,415,973 - Median worker pay: $247,883 (94:1 ratio) Mark Schiefelbein/Pool / Getty Images 71. Darren Woods (Exxon Mobil Corporation)- 2019 salary: $23,494,929 - Median worker pay: $173,712 (135:1 ratio)You may also like: These Are the Most Sleep-Deprived Professions Jan Orlowski / Shutterstock 70. Gregory Brown (Motorola Solutions, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $23,619,990 - Median worker pay: $93,750 (252:1 ratio) JHVEPhoto / Shutterstock 69. Stephen Squeri (American Express Company)- 2019 salary: $23,796,002 - Median worker pay: $64,803 (367:1 ratio) Scott Olson / Getty Images 68. Nikesh Arora (Palo Alto Networks, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $23,885,839 - Median worker pay: $219,722 (109:1 ratio) Jonathan Weiss / Shutterstock 67. Gary Heminger (Marathon Petroleum Corporation)- 2019 salary: $24,129,164 - Median worker pay: $27,507 (877:1 ratio) Matej Kastelic / Shutterstock 66. Jay Horgen (Affiliated Managers Group, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $24,197,628 - Median worker pay: $160,697 (151:1 ratio) A_stockphoto / Shutterstock 65. Michael Lamach (Trane Technologies Plc)- 2019 salary: $24,217,128 - Median worker pay: $54,757 (442:1 ratio) Michael Kovac / Getty Images 64. Alfred Kelly Jr. (Visa Inc.)- 2019 salary: $24,265,771 - Median worker pay: $142,494 (170:1 ratio) val lawless / Shutterstock 63. Ronald Rittenmeyer (Tenet Healthcare Corporation)- 2019 salary: $24,288,660 - Median worker pay: $53,714 (452:1 ratio) FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP / Getty Images 62. Laurence Fink (BlackRock, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $24,308,254 - Median worker pay: $133,644 (182:1 ratio) Spotmatik Ltd / Shutterstock 61. Alan Miller (Universal Health Services, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $24,473,240 - Median worker pay: $38,931 (629:1 ratio)You may also like: These States Have the Highest Earning Politicians Ken Wolter / Shutterstock 60. James Cracchiolo (Ameriprise Financial, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $24,516,930 - Median worker pay: $106,428 (230:1 ratio) Jonathan Weiss / Shutterstock 59. H. Culp Jr. (General Electric Company)- 2019 salary: $24,553,788 - Median worker pay: $50,471 (486:1 ratio) Paul Morigi / Getty Images for Fortune 58. David Solomon (The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $24,657,737 - Median worker pay: $138,854 (178:1 ratio) Bob Riha, Jr. / Getty Images 57. Sheldon Adelson (Las Vegas Sands Corp.)- 2019 salary: $24,680,118 - Median worker pay: $42,228 (584:1 ratio) JIM WATSON/AFP / Getty Images 56. N. Linebarger (Cummins Inc.)- 2019 salary: $25,116,751 - Median worker pay: $73,480 (342:1 ratio) JIM WATSON/AFP / Getty Images 55. Alex Gorsky (Johnson & Johnson)- 2019 salary: $25,365,777 - Median worker pay: $76,000 (334:1 ratio) Tom Williams / Getty Images 54. Michael Corbat (Citigroup Inc.)- 2019 salary: $25,508,761 - Median worker pay: $52,988 (482:1 ratio) Michael Loccisano / Getty Images 53. Daniel Schulman (PayPal Holdings, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $25,825,473 - Median worker pay: $70,405 (367:1 ratio) Ken Wolter / Shutterstock 52. Charles Robbins (Cisco Systems, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $25,829,833 - Median worker pay: $142,593 (181:1 ratio) Steven Ferdman / Getty Images 51. Elizabeth Barrett (UroGen Pharma Ltd.)- 2019 salary: $25,900,823 - Median worker pay: $223,867 (116:1 ratio)You may also like: The Highest Paying Jobs That Require No Degree Roy Rochlin / Getty Images 50. Marc Benioff (salesforce.com, inc.)- 2020 salary: $25,969,494 - Median worker pay: $167,750 (155:1 ratio) John Lamparski / Getty Images 49. Brian Moynihan (Bank of America Corporation)- 2019 salary: $26,039,213 - Median worker pay: $94,256 (276:1 ratio) Michael Vi / Shutterstock 48. Mohan Maheswaran (Semtech Corporation)- 2020 salary: $26,095,955 - Median worker pay: $84,458 (309:1 ratio) bogdanhoda / Shutterstock 47. Neil Kumar (BridgeBio Pharma, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $26,334,063 UfaBizPhoto / Shutterstock 46. Glenn Fusfield (OneSpaWorld Holdings Ltd.)- 2019 salary: $26,381,708 Steven Ferdman / Getty Images 45. Michael Neidorff (Centene Corporation)- 2019 salary: $26,438,425 - Median worker pay: $68,987 (383:1 ratio) Rusty Russell / Getty Images 44. Samuel Hazen (HCA Healthcare, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $26,788,251 - Median worker pay: $56,012 (478:1 ratio) Tada Images / Shutterstock 43. Jeffery Yabuki (Fiserv, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $27,601,026 - Median worker pay: $65,254 (423:1 ratio) ERIC PIERMONT/AFP / Getty Images 42. Kenneth Frazier (Merck & Co., Inc.)- 2019 salary: $27,648,475 - Median worker pay: $95,621 (289:1 ratio) JHVEPhoto / Shutterstock 41. Gary Norcross (Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $27,658,117 - Median worker pay: $59,235 (467:1 ratio)You may also like: Best Place to Live in Every State John Moore / Getty Images 40. John Legere (T-Mobile US, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $27,756,690 - Median worker pay: $62,195 (446:1 ratio) Scott Olson / Getty Images 39. Miles White (Abbott Laboratories)- 2019 salary: $27,802,817 - Median worker pay: $84,434 (329:1 ratio) JHVEPhoto / Shutterstock 38. Thomas Fanning (The Southern Company)- 2019 salary: $27,865,185 - Median worker pay: $167,872 (166:1 ratio) Tada Images / Shutterstock 37. Joseph Gorder (Valero Energy Corporation)- 2019 salary: $28,200,511 - Median worker pay: $272,417 (103:1 ratio) JHVEPhoto / Shutterstock 36. William Brown (L3Harris Technologies, Inc.)- 2020 salary: $29,037,879 - Median worker pay: $58,426 (269:1 ratio) JIM WATSON/AFP / Getty Images 35. Daniel O'Day (Gilead Sciences, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $29,107,854 - Median worker pay: $173,264 (169:1 ratio) Bobby Kotick / Wikimedia Commons 34. Robert Kotick (Activision Blizzard, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $30,122,896 - Median worker pay: $94,308 (319:1 ratio) JHVEPhoto / Shutterstock 33. David Ossip (Ceridian HCM Holding, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $30,180,957 JHVEPhoto / Shutterstock 32. Ryan Lance (ConocoPhillips)- 2019 salary: $30,363,744 - Median worker pay: $186,334 (163:1 ratio) Kimberly White / Getty Images for PARS EQUALITY CENTER 31. Hamid Moghadam (Prologis, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $30,383,438 - Median worker pay: $117,751 (258:1 ratio)You may also like: Jobs That Might Not Exist in 50 Years Fortune Live Media / Flickr 30. Marillyn Hewson (Lockheed Martin Corporation)- 2019 salary: $30,913,982 - Median worker pay: $154,883 (200:1 ratio) Ken Wolter / Shutterstock 29. Michael O'Sullivan (Burlington Stores, Inc.)- 2020 salary: $31,056,597 - Median worker pay: $11,583 (3,030:1 ratio) World Economic Forum / Wikimedia Commons 28. James Dimon (JPMorgan Chase & Co.)- 2019 salary: $31,612,616 - Median worker pay: $80,431 (393:1 ratio) Owen Hoffmann / Getty Images 27. James Gorman (Morgan Stanley)- 2019 salary: $31,642,395 - Median worker pay: $127,414 (248:1 ratio) Kevin Tichenor / Shutterstock 26. Greg Garland (Phillips 66)- 2019 salary: $31,900,878 - Median worker pay: $188,738 (169:1 ratio) Robert Scoble / Wikimedia Commons 25. Randall Stephenson (AT&T Inc.)- 2019 salary: $32,032,925 - Median worker pay: $98,630 (325:1 ratio) John Lamparski / Getty Images 24. Mario Gabelli (GAMCO Investors, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $32,236,004 Justin Sullivan / Getty Images 23. Michael Wirth (Chevron Corporation)- 2019 salary: $33,070,662 - Median worker pay: $140,063 (236:1 ratio) Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc / Getty Images 22. Charles Scharf (Wells Fargo & Company)- 2019 salary: $34,286,574 - Median worker pay: $65,931 (550:1 ratio) Cineberg / Shutterstock 21. Donald Umpleby III (Caterpillar Inc.)- 2019 salary: $34,519,129 - Median worker pay: $65,132 (530:1 ratio)You may also like: Youngest Billionaires in America Joshua Rainey Photography / Shutterstock 20. Brian Roberts (Comcast Corporation)- 2019 salary: $36,370,183 - Median worker pay: $78,869 (461:1 ratio) MANDEL NGAN/AFP / Getty Images 19. Larry Merlo (CVS Health Corporation)- 2019 salary: $36,451,749 - Median worker pay: $46,140 (790:1 ratio) Ore Huiying / Getty Images for Netflix 18. Reed Hastings (Netflix, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $38,577,129 - Median worker pay: $202,931 (190:1 ratio) John Lamparski / Getty Images 17. Shantanu Narayen (Adobe, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $39,145,631 - Median worker pay: $147,115 (266:1 ratio) Sundry Photography / Shutterstock 16. William McDermott (ServiceNow, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $41,682,335 Drew Angerer / Getty Images 15. Lachlan Murdoch (Fox Corporation)- 2019 salary: $42,111,103 Spencer Platt / Getty Images 14. Dara Khosrowshahi (Uber Technologies, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $42,428,233 The India Today Group / Getty Images 13. Patrick Gelsinger (VMware, Inc.)- 2020 salary: $42,549,725 - Median worker pay: $139,046 (306:1 ratio) Stephen Brashear / Getty Images 12. Satya Nadella (Microsoft Corporation)- 2019 salary: $42,910,215 - Median worker pay: $172,512 (249:1 ratio) Monica Schipper / Getty Images 11. Miguel Patricio (The Kraft Heinz Company)- 2019 salary: $43,297,480 - Median worker pay: $42,689 (1,034:1 ratio)You may also like: 30 of the Most Bizarre Inventions in History Scott Olson / Getty Images 10. Gregory Maffei (Liberty Media Corp.)- 2019 salary: $44,045,070 - Median worker pay: $93,055 (473:1 ratio) James Goulden Photography / Getty Images for SXSW 9. Martine Rothblatt (United Therapeutics Corporation)- 2019 salary: $45,635,037 - Median worker pay: $196,979 (232:1 ratio) Roy Rochlin / Getty Images 8. David Zaslav (Discovery, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $45,843,912 - Median worker pay: $79,343 (578:1 ratio) Scott Olson / Getty Images 7. Benjamin Silbermann (Pinterest, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $46,222,113 Kimberly White / Getty Images for Vanity Fair 6. Robert Iger (The Walt Disney Company)- 2019 salary: $47,517,762 - Median worker pay: $52,184 (911:1 ratio) Sopotnicki / Shutterstock 5. John Plant (Howmet Aerospace Inc.)- 2019 salary: $51,712,578 - Median worker pay: $55,497 (934:1 ratio) Maddie Meyer / Getty Images 4. James Dolan (Madison Square Garden Sports Corp.)- 2019 salary: $54,116,491 - Median worker pay: $18,650 (2,902:1 ratio) Victor Moussa / Shutterstock 3. Lisa Su (Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.)- 2019 salary: $58,534,288 - Median worker pay: $96,874 (604:1 ratio) picture alliance / Getty Images 2. Robert Swan (Intel Corporation)- 2019 salary: $66,935,100 - Median worker pay: $96,300 (695:1 ratio) Alex Wong / Getty Images 1. Sundar Pichai (Alphabet Inc.)- 2019 salary: $280,621,552 - Median worker pay: $258,708 (1,085:1 ratio)You may also like: 25 Companies You Might Not Know Are Owned By Disney Request Reprint & Licensing, Submit Correction or view Editorial Guidelines ",
"URL": "https://www.newsweek.com/100-highest-paid-ceos-america-1566645"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Publish Date January 11, 2021 ‘I’ll Teams you’: Employees assume security of links, file sharing via Microsoft comms platform Bradley Barth Follow @bbb1216bbb Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Print Share by Email Pictured: a building at Microsoft Corporation headquarters in Redmond, Washington. (Coolcaesar/CC BY-SA 4.0via Wikimedia Commons) Microsoft Teams is prone to the same phishing hazards, impersonation scams and privacy violations as email is, yet many users naïvely treat this and other workplace communications platforms with inherent trust. As a result, they often share sensitive information too freely or click links and open attachments that in an email they might ignore, warns a new report. Over the past year, the rapid adoption and increased usage of platforms such as Teams, Slack or Google Hangouts due to COVID-19 has only increased the likelihood that a growing number of cybercriminals will try to take advantage of this misplaced trust. “As workers move away from email and use messaging platforms… malicious actors have followed them. With a lack of training and awareness of risks, users are willing to share more on business messaging platforms, as they think other users can be trusted,†said Chris Hazelton, director of security solutions at Lookout. Consequently, it is up to employers to ensure that their workers are properly trained in the responsible usage of these applications. Released today, the Microsoft Teams Security Report was authored by cloud email security company Avanan, a Microsoft partner that analyzed nearly 200 enterprise customers over a two-month span in a quest to seek out vulnerabilities, exploits and attacks related to Teams usage. Gil Friedrich, CEO of Avanan Gil Friedrich, CEO of Avanan, told SC Media in an interview that when adversaries target prospective victims, there is a notable difference between email and Teams. With email, anyone can directly reach out to any known email addresses of choice, but a Teams message requires that the sender and recipient are part of the same group account or channel. But users shouldn’t assume this makes them safe, as this is not as great of an obstacle as it appears. The problem is that group accounts can quickly become large and unwieldly with multiple third-party partners all on the same channel. And if just one user among these partners is compromised and ultimately impersonated, then all members of that channel can potentially be tricked. “And so you should be more careful in those environments with data you share as well as that with the things you download, etc., because you can’t really control the security of your partners,” said Friedrich to SC Media. Indeed, one of the most significant discoveries by Avanan researchers was an actual malware attack directed against an unnamed financial firm that was working with a third-party partner organization with whom it communicated via a shared Teams channel. Apparently, the partner had one of its accounts compromised for a year. Cleverly, the malicious actors didn’t immediately force the issue and attack. Instead, they performed reconnaissance, collected intel and strategically waited for an organic opportunity to send a malicious file. Only after the hackers observed a request for files, did they strike, sending a malicious zip file that purportedly contained the requested documents. In reality, the zip file actually included a Remote Access Trojan that enables desktop monitoring and control. “In order to evade detection in this new medium, hackers would rather wait for when they can make the biggest impact with the least possible detection,†the report says. For that reason, a Teams-based phishing campaign might exhibit more strategic patience on the part of the attacker than an email-based phishing campaign. Friedrich said that Avanan blocked the attack, and the financial firm at least temporarily expelled outside organizations from its Teams channel, limiting it to internal communications. But how was the initial third-party compromise accomplished in the first place? According to the report, there are various ways to hijack or steal one’s Team account credentials. For starters, Teams uses the same credentials as Microsoft 365. So if someone’s Microsoft 365 credentials are stolen, so are his or her Teams credentials. Additionally, Avanan discovered viral malicious GIF image of a cat that was uploaded to Teams and shared with users. Clicking on it would allow malicious hackers to harvest a user’s session token, and then impersonate that individual. The Avanan report also notes how some organizations allow external users to join a group and create an account using any random identity and photo they so choose – a feature that could result in an impersonation scam. Indeed, the aforementioned financial institution attackers leveraged this very feature, disguising themselves as a legitimate user. Importantly, the study also noted that Teams users can pose a danger to themselves even without the interference of an attacker. For instance, some users share highly sensitive data via Teams with users who are both inside and outside of their immediate organizations – thereby running the risk of data loss or even privacy violations. “Users may assume that others in a group can be trusted, believing users are vetted before being added. This can lead to leakage of corporate data that would not otherwise be shared,” said Hazelton. “Teams [the product]… has the inherent ability to mislead users that all others are on the same side. The psychology of information security plays a role here,†said Mark Kedgley, chief technology officer at New Net Technologies. “Collaboration requires a certain level of trust, which is often established by management directives (‘We are going to cooperate with company XYZ; the NDA is already in place’), which adds to the misleading. The need to differentiate between each business partnership and what kind of information can be shared is also often diminished as staff is not properly trained.†In one case, a hospital customer of Avanan that uses Teams was found to liberally share patients’ medical information with hundreds of end users via the platform. “Medical staff generally know the security rules and risk of sharing information via email, but ignore those when it comes to Teams. In their mind, everything can be sent,†the report states. For example, “medical information, procedures and family circumstances of a minor, was shared together with her name and social security number,†the report says. And while the use of Teams might help doctors communicate quickly to make life-saving decisions, it still shows they may need more guidance on use of the platform. “When companies use Teams, they assume it is internal and unmonitored. Accordingly, the end-user behavior we identified during this analysis observed free sharing of all data. End-users freely share files, data, spreadsheets and sensitive information, often without thinking,†the report says. “There’s something very casual, almost instantaneous” about many of these conversations, said Friedrich. Original cartoon courtesy of Avanan. Indeed, Teams is built for quick communication among parties with a shared interest. Because of that, links in chats are not scanned. Files are scanned as they’re saved to OneDrive, but only for known malware signatures and not in real time – so in that sense it’s easier to sneak in malware undetected. (Adding Microsoft ATP protection helps, though this too can be bypassed by determined attackers.) “The way around it is to educate your users to be more careful with that content and just to know that this is how this platform behaves,” explained Friedrich. Malware, impersonation and lateral attackers were identified as the most popular threats affecting Teams users. Additionally, Avanan researchers foundation a zero-click cross-site scripting vulnerability that Microsoft repaired last December. In addition to better training and education, experts had suggestions for how companies can reduce the risk of such threats. “More focus on least privilege is needed as it’s still too common for users to run with local admin rights,†said Kedgley. Additionally, organizations should follow “config hardening guidance from the CIS or STIG playbooks.” Email and office applications provide a whole bunch of hardened settings to combat malware and phishing, but too few organizations make use of them. Change control and vulnerability management as core security controls should be in place as well. “Organizations need to add security in the cloud and across all the endpoints: laptops, phones, and tablets – wherever these conversations are taking place,” said Hazelton. “This will allow organizations to identify phishing attacks as they happen, and quickly react when malware is introduced through a messaging platform.†Friedrich said Microsoft was a cooperative partner throughout the study. “They have all the interest to make [Teams] as secure as possible for their customers. So we got a lot of support from from their engineering team,” including having advanced access to the Teams API. Microsoft did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Topics: Application security Phishing Privacy Google outage tied to authentication system outage, not supply chain attacks ",
"URL": "https://www.scmagazine.com/application-security/ill-teams-you-employees-assume-security-of-links-file-sharing-via-microsoft-comms-platform/"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "STAY TUNED On Fox News: Fox & Friends , 6 a.m. ET: An exclusive interview with Defense Sec. Patrick Shanahan. Former DNC Chair Donna Brazile on the top headlines of the morning. Former NFL player John Urschel on what math teachers can learn from football coaches. A behind-the-scenes look at the first Fox Nation summit. Tucker Carlson Tonight , 8 p.m. ET: Part 2 of Tucker's special series, \"Homelessness in America.\" Hannity , 9 p.m. ET: Special guests include: U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. Fox Nation : Fox Nation Summit - An opportunity for Fox fans in Scottsdale, Ariz. to meet and greet our Fox Nation hosts, participate in interactive events, and be part of the studio audience for a live Fox Nation special. Fox Nation stars will also have a Q-and-A with fans. Click here to find out more. On Fox Business: Mornings with Maria , 6 a.m. ET: Special guests include: George Papadopoulos, former adviser to President Trump; Chris Hogan, host of \"The Chris Hogan Show\"; Bob Herbold, retired executive vice president and chief operating officer of Microsoft Corporation and managing director of the Herbold Group, LLC, Varney & Co. , 9 a.m. ET: U.S. Sens.John Thune, R-S.D.; John Kennedy, R-La.; Bob Portman, R-Ohio. On Fox News Radio: The Fox News Rundown podcast : \"Carter Page on the Mueller report\" - Carter Page was acting as candidate Donald Trump’s foreign policy adviser during the 2016 presidential campaign when he found himself at the center of why the Mueller report got started. He joins the podcast to share his story. The families of 911 victims were in court Monday, in hopes a judge will force the FBI to declassify documents and release names of those who allegedly helped Al Qaeda from inside the U.S. Fox News' David Lee Miller and former FBI investigator Bill Daly weigh in. Plus, commentary by Karol Markowicz, columnist for FOXNews.com and the New York Post. Want the Fox News Rundown sent straight to your mobile device? Subscribe through Apple Podcasts , Google Play , and Stitcher . The Brian Kilmeade Show , 9 a.m. ET: A.B. Stoddard, associate editor and columnist at RealClearPolitics, and former U.S. Rep. Allen West will take on the top headlines of the day. Shannon Bream and David Cone will give the inside stories on their respective new books.",
"URL": "https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/today-on-fox-news-march-14-2019"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Microsoft will pay $26 million to settle claims that it violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act when a handful of Hungarian employees inflated margins on software sales to fund an improper payment scheme. Tech is not your friend. We are. Sign up for The Tech Friend newsletter. ArrowRight Microsoft didn’t admit or deny wrongdoing, according to the settlement documents. But in an email to employees Monday, President and Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith said that the claims “involved employee misconduct that was completely unacceptable” and that the employees involved and the partners with whom they worked “behaved in a wholly unethical manner.” From 2013 to 2015, senior employees in Microsoft’s Hungary operations sold software to local resellers at a discount, and those partners, in turn, sold the products to the Hungarian government at closer to full prices, the Wall Street Journal reported last summer. In one 2014 case, Microsoft Hungary employees received a 27.85 percent discount for software to be sold to Hungary’s National Tax and Customs Administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission, one of the U.S. agencies with which Microsoft settled, said in a cease-and-desist order Monday. The reseller handling that account didn’t pass along the full discount and used a portion of the difference “to fund improper payments to government officials,” the agency said. While the SEC noted that Microsoft cooperated with the investigation, it said in an order Monday, that the company did not have “sufficient procedures in place to determine whether the discount requests were legitimate and whether the approved discounts were being passed on to end customers.” The agency said that the “improper payments” generated $13.78 million in business for Microsoft. The company agreed to pay that amount to the SEC plus $2.78 million in interest. The company’s Hungarian subsidiary also entered into a nonprosecution agreement with the Justice Department and agreed to pay it $8.75 million. U.S. probes whether partners of Microsoft bribed foreign officials The SEC also cited instances of poor accounting controls in Saudi Arabia, Thailand and Turkey that led to delays in detecting employee abuse. Rather than elaborate kickback schemes, the agency found, for example, a $440,000 “slush fund” in Saudi Arabia “used to pay travel expenses for Saudi government employees and for gifts, furniture, laptops, tablets and other equipment for government agencies.” Federal regulators have previously investigated Microsoft’s tactics in China, Italy and Romania for violations of foreign corruption laws. The company declined to say whether any other investigations are ongoing. “It’s not appropriate for us to speak on behalf of the government about the status or existence of any inquiries,” Microsoft spokesman Dominic Carr said. Though tech giants such as Google and Facebook have faced fierce scrutiny recently for missteps that have eroded trust , Microsoft has largely avoided criticism. The software giant has even called for greater regulation of facial recognition software, saying the technology is too important for tech giants to police themselves. But allegations of kickbacks and bribery in tech are unusual, even if the total fine is relatively small. “Although Microsoft Hungary did not voluntarily self-disclose the misconduct, Microsoft Hungary received credit for its and Microsoft Corporation’s substantial cooperation with the Department’s investigation and for taking extensive remedial measures,” the Justice Department said in a news release announcing the settlement. Smith noted that the company fired four employees there and terminated business relationships with four resellers. He also said that Microsoft has strengthened its anti-bribery programs and that it has used machine learning to help root out potentially corrupt schemes by employees. Microsoft’s payment is scant relative to some recent payouts for violations of the foreign corruption law. Last month, Walmart agreed to pay $282 million to settle federal criminal and civil charges that it ignored evidence of internal corruption for years that helped fuel its massive overseas expansion. In Walmart’s case, executives were aware of problems with anti-corruption programs at its foreign subsidiaries, including in Mexico, Brazil and China, but failed to act, according to court documents. Is floating a $50 million Trump Tower penthouse for Vladimir Putin illegal? Though Smith said there was a need for “strong laws and effective enforcement by agencies such as the DOJ and the SEC,” the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has its detractors, including President Trump. He told CNBC in 2012, “It’s a horrible law, and it should be changed,” arguing that it is wrong for U.S. prosecutors to hold company’s accountable for conduct abroad.",
"URL": "https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/07/22/microsoft-pay-million-settle-probe-into-hungarian-kickback-scheme/"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Publish Date September 27, 2019 Fileless malware campaign abuses legit tools Node.js and WinDivert Bradley Barth Follow @bbb1216bbb Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Print Share by Email An attack campaign targeting primarily the U.S. and Europe is leveraging two legitimate tools, the Node.js framework and WinDivert, to install “fileless” malware that appears to either turn victims’ systems into proxies or perpetrates click fraud. Researchers from both Microsoft Corporation and Cisco Talos yesterday filed separate reports warning of this campaign, which they have named Nodersok or Divergent, respectively. Microsoft, which discovered the campaign in mid-July, said thousands of machines have been targeted in the last several weeks alone, the majority of which belong to consumers. However, roughly three percent of attacks have hit organizations, particularly educational institutions. The U.S. has been targeted 60 percent of the time, followed by the U.K. (21 percent), Germany (8 percent), Italy (5 percent), France (3 percent) and Sweden (1 percent). “The campaign is particularly interesting not only because it employs advanced fileless techniques, but also because it relies on an elusive network infrastructure that causes the attack to fly under the radar,” said Microsoft’s blog post report, authored by the Microsoft Defender ATP Research Team. Users are typically infected while browsing online, either by clicking on a malicious HTA file or when served a malvertisement. The JavaScript code in the HTA file downloads a second-stage component, which in turns launches PowerShell commands by hiding the encoded command text inside of an environment variable. These commands then download and execute multiple encrypted components with various functions. Among these components are Node.exe from Node.JS — a framework that can execute JavaScript outside of a web browser — and a shellcode to run WinDivert (Windows Packet Divert), a user-mode packet capture-and-divert package. “The use of NodeJS is not something commonly seen across malware families,” said Talos in its own blog post report. Microsoft and Talos diverge on what the actual purpose of Divergence is. The former believes its purpose is to turn infected machines into zombie proxies, while the latter believes click fraud is the end game, noting that the malware is similar to other fileless malware families, especially Kovter. Fileless malware programs that use legitimate tool to function are considered a particularly troublesome threat because it allows attackers to reduce their footprint and give threat researchers little forensic evidence to work with. Topics: Cybercrime Malvertising Malware Recommended For You You must be a registered member of SC Media to post a comment Please register or login first to post a comment. Login Register Attackers trojanize Windows Narrator tool to spy on Asian tech firms ",
"URL": "https://www.scmagazine.com/home/security-news/malware/fileless-malware-campaign-abuses-legit-tools-node-js-and-windivert/"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Monday, July 22, 2019 Hungary Subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation Agrees to Pay $8.7 Million in Criminal Penalties to Resolve Foreign Bribery Case Microsoft Magyarország Számítástechnikai Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft. (Microsoft Hungary), a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation, has agreed to pay a criminal penalty of more than $8.7 million to resolve the government’s investigation into violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) arising out of a bid rigging and bribery scheme in connection with the sale of Microsoft software licenses to Hungarian government agencies. Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman of the Southern District of New York and Assistant Director Robert Johnson of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division made the announcement. According to Microsoft Hungary’s admissions, beginning by at least 2013 and continuing until at least 2015, a senior executive and other employees of Microsoft Hungary participated in a scheme to inflate margins in the Microsoft sales channel in connection with the sale of Microsoft software licenses to Hungarian government agencies. In furtherance of that scheme, Microsoft Hungary executives and employees falsely represented to Microsoft that steep discounts were necessary to conclude deals with resellers who bid for the opportunity to sell Microsoft licenses to government customers. In actuality, the savings were not passed on to the government customers, but instead were used for corrupt purposes and were falsely recorded as “discounts” and stored in various tools and databases on Microsoft servers in the United States in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Microsoft Hungary entered into a nonprosecution agreement and agreed to pay a criminal penalty of $8,751,795 to resolve the matter. The Department reached this resolution based on several factors. Although Microsoft Hungary did not voluntarily self-disclose the misconduct, Microsoft Hungary received credit for its and Microsoft Corporation’s substantial cooperation with the Department’s investigation and for taking extensive remedial measures. For example, Microsoft Hungary terminated four licensing partners and Microsoft Corporation has implemented an enhanced system of compliance and internal controls, company-wide, to address and mitigate corruption risks. Accordingly, the criminal penalty reflects a 25 percent reduction off the bottom of the applicable U.S. Sentencing Guidelines fine range for the company’s full cooperation and remediation. In a related matter with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Microsoft Corporation agreed to pay to the SEC disgorgement and prejudgment interest totaling approximately $16,565,151 for conduct in Hungary. The case is being investigated by the FBI’s New York Field Office. Trial Attorneys Derek J. Ettinger and Della Sentilles of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Lai of the Southern District of New York are handling the case. The Fraud Section is responsible for investigating and prosecuting all FCPA matters. Additional information about the Justice Department’s FCPA enforcement efforts can be found at www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa . Attachment(s): Download Non-Prosecution Agreement & Statement of Facts Component(s): Criminal Division USAO - New York, Southern Press Release Number: 19-791",
"URL": "https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/hungary-subsidiary-microsoft-corporation-agrees-pay-87-million-criminal-penalties-resolve"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Elon Musk, the only member of this club, was recently ejected following the fall in the market value of Tesla.It is arguably the most elite club in the world. One of those clubs whose entrance looks like the labors of Hercules. Very, very few managed to get in. It is rare to find more than two members at the same time. At the beginning of the year, only one person was often encountered there. That person is Elon Musk, the visionary and whimsical CEO of Tesla (TSLA) - Get Tesla Inc. Report, SpaceX, Twitter (TWTR) - Get Twitter Inc. Report, and two other companies.This club is that of billionaires whose fortune reaches at least $200 billion. Until a few days ago Musk was the only member of this prestigious club but much criticized by liberals who see it as the symbol of the continuous widening of the gap between the haves and the have-nots.Musk's fortune has shrunk by $80.4 billion since January and stands at $190.0 billion as of November 5, according to Bloomberg Billionaires Index. However, he remains the richest man in the world.Musk owes his immense fortune to his Tesla shares. The evolution of the price of Tesla shares thus has an impact on the evolution of the billionaire's fortune. If the electric vehicle maker's stock goes down, it negatively impacts Musk's net wealth on paper.The Top 10 Impacted by Tech WoesSince January, Tesla has seen its market value melt by more than $450 billion, certainly affected by the zero-covid policy in China, the continuous disruptions to supply chains and the soaring prices of raw materials. But the company is also impacted by concerns surrounding the entire tech sector as the economic slowdown could turn into a recession.This macroeconomic environment has important consequences in the ranking of the world's largest fortunes since the top 10 is dominated by Silicon Valley tycoons.The French businessman Bernard Arnault is the second richest man in the world but the fortune of the CEO of the luxury company LVMH (LVMHF) has decreased by $34.4 billion to $144 billion since January.It is the Indian businessman Gautam Adani who is the third richest man on the planet with a fortune estimated at $133 billion. Adani, who is the head of an industrial conglomerate, is the only personality in the top 10 to have seen his fortune increase since January. It's up $56.2 billion.Jeff Bezos is 4th with a fortune valued at $114 billion. The fall of the Amazon founder is the consequence of the sharp drop in the market value of the e-commerce giant, which has been ejected from the club of companies with a market value of more than $1 trillion. Amazon (AMZN) - Get Amazon.com Inc. Report warned that the next few months were going to be very difficult. Bezos has lost $78.4 billion since January.Zuckerberg, the Big LoserBill Gates, co-founder of software giant Microsoft (MSFT) - Get Microsoft Corporation Report is the fifth richest man in the world with an estimated fortune of $107 billion, down $31.4 billion since January.Legendary investor Warren Buffet comes in 6th. He is worth $100 billion. Buffett, often hailed for his sound investments, has seen his fortune melt by $8.64 billion since January.There are no other billionaires above $100 billion. The other four members of the top 10 have wealth ranging from $90 billion to $80 billion. Larry Ellison is ranked 7th with a fortune estimated at $90.9 billion. The co-founder of Oracle (ORCL) - Get Oracle Corporation Report lost $16.3 billion this year.Indian businessman Mukesh Ambani is 8th with an estimated wealth of $89 billion, down $986 million in 2022.Larry Page, co-founder of Alphabet (GOOGL) - Get Alphabet Inc. Report, parent company of Google, is 9th with a net wealth of $81.4 billion, down $47 billion since January. The internet juggernaut recently warned that tough times are ahead.Steve Ballmer, the former CEO of Microsoft, is 10th with a fortune valued at $79.7 billion. His net wealth has decreased by $26 billion since January.It is important to note the downfall of Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of the social media empire Meta Platforms (META) - Get Meta Platforms Inc. Report whose disputed bets on the metaverse contributed to the stock market plunge of the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. Zuckerberg is only the 29th richest person in the world with a fortune valued at $35.2 billion, down $90.3 billion since January.TheStreet, Inc. All rights reserved. Action Alerts PLUS is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.",
"URL": "https://www.mcclatchy-wires.com/incoming/article268366487.html"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Facebook (Meta) founder Mark Zuckerberg saw their fortunes go in opposite directions at the end of the week.The fortunes of tech moguls come and go with the stock market performance of their respective companies. When Amazon (AMZN) - Get Amazon.com, Inc. Report stock surged Friday on Wall Street if anyone was to rub their hands and do their math it was Jeff Bezos, the founder of the e-commerce giant.Bezos saw his fortune soar by nearly $19 billion in one day.Bezos Was Once the Richest Man in the WorldThe former richest man in the world took advantage of his group's historic day on the stock market after results that delighted investors.Bezos, who holds 9.85% of the capital of the e-commerce giant according to figures from FactSet, now has a personal fortune estimated at $183 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. He remains behind Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX whose fortune is estimated at 239 billion dollars. Much like Musk, the bulk of Bezos' personal fortune is based on the shares he owns in his companies.His ex-wife, MacKenzie Scott, who recently changed the codes of philanthropy, is also one of the big winners of Amazon's crazy stock market day on Friday, February 4. Her personal fortune grew by $6.54 billion in one day. Scott owns 3.43% of Amazon's stocks according to FactSet. She is the 26th richest person in the world, according to the Bloomberg ranking.Amazon Had a Huge One-Day IncreaseInternet behemoth Amazon AMZN set a new record on Friday when its stock reached the largest increase in market capitalization in history during one day's trading session.Amazon's stock added $191 billion in market value after rising 14% on Friday. This record by Amazon surpasses the one set by Apple (AAPL) - Get Apple Inc. Report just last week when its strong earnings report added $179 billion in value the following day. The previous record for a one-day market cap gain globally was the increase of $597 billion in November 2007 by PetroChina Co (PTR) - Get PetroChina Co. Ltd. Report. If February smiles at Jeff Bezos, another multi-billionaire is in tears. Mark Zuckerberg, the founding CEO of Facebook (FB) - Get Meta Platforms Inc. Class A Report, saw his fortune drop by $36.1 billion in 48 hours. He had to drop a few places in the ranking of the largest fortunes on the planet. Mr. Zuckerberg can always console himself with a fortune estimated at $89.4 billion.Zuckerberg lost almost $30 billion in 24 hours on Thursday following a bad earnings report by Meta, parent company of social media giants Facebook and Instagram.JPMorgan analyst Doug Anmuth said Meta is seeing a \"significant slowdown\" in advertising growth while \"embarking on an expensive, uncertain, multi-year transition\" to the metaverse, the new buzzword in the tech world.It is not to be excluded that Zuckerberg redoes his fortune or that Bezos sees his diminish as things change quickly in the world of tech. Technology stocks are considered as risky assets, in other words the movements, even for big names like Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Google (GOOGL) - Get Alphabet Inc. Class A Reportor even Microsoft (MSFT) - Get Microsoft Corporation Report, can be violent in one direction or the other.Jeff Bezos, for example, lost some $20 billion in the rout of the technology sector in January.However, these large figures will not help the reputation of Bezos, whose image is currently being damaged by reports saying that the Dutch city of Rotterdam will temporarily dismantle part of a historic bridge so that Amazon founder's yacht can fit through it, likely this summer.Bezos’ boat, now called Y721, is being built in the neighboring city of Alblasserdam. It needs to pass through Rotterdam to make it to the North Sea or English channel, but it’s too tall for the Koningshaven Bridge.TheStreet, Inc. All rights reserved. Action Alerts PLUS is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.",
"URL": "https://www.mcclatchy-wires.com/incoming/article258100353.html"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Greg Abel bought shares of Berkshire for the first time since he was promoted to vice chairman.Greg Abel, the apparent successor to Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) - Get Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Report (BRK.B) - Get Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Report, who is intended to serve as the CEO of the conglomerate, bought $68 million of the company's shares. Before the purchase that was revealed in four Form 4 filings on Oct. 3 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Abel owned relatively few shares of the company for someone in his position. Until the purchases last week, Abel only owned about $2.7 million of stock or 2,363 of Class B shares and five Class A shares, according to the 2022 proxy statement filed this March.Abel bought 168 Berkshire Hathaway Class A shares through the Gregory Abel Revocable Trust on behalf of a family trust that includes his wife, children and other family members.He paid in a range of $405,000 to $408,000 per class A share for the Berkshire stock, which closed Monday at $413,300.Abel used the proceeds from selling his 1% stake in the company's Berkshire Hathaway Energy for $870 million to purchase these shares.Abel began his tenure first at MidAmerican Energy in 1992, becoming its CEO in 2008. Berkshire acquired the company in 1999 and changed its name to Berkshire Hathaway Energy.In 2018, Abel was promoted to become Berkshire's vice chairman overseeing its dozens of non-insurance businesses. He received $19 million in compensation for each of the past three years, which was set by Buffett.That amount was also awarded to Ajit Jain, a vice chairman who oversees the insurance businesses of the behemoth.Unlike other major public companies, Berkshire's executives do not receive stock compensation. Buffett, who has set the policy for the conglomerate's executives, believes that shares of his company are commodities.Berkshire's executives and directors all purchase the company's shares in the open market like retail investors.The timing of the stock purchase could be fortuitous since the company's shares have dropped by 8% so far in 2022, but are still beating the S&P 500, which has fallen by 22%. Shares of Berkshire have fallen by 24% from its March peak.In 2021, Buffett said publicly that Abel would succeed him. But Buffett, who is now 92, has not indicated when he might retire. Charlie Munger, the right hand man of Buffett who serves as a vice chairman, is 98.Buffett said that Jain would be next in line.“The directors are in agreement that if something were to happen to me tonight it would be Greg who’d take over tomorrow morning,” Buffett said. “If, heaven forbid, anything happened to Greg tonight then it would be Ajit. They’re both wonderful guys.”Warren Buffett's son, philanthropist Howard Buffett, 67, would likely take over his father's position on the board. Howard Buffett was been a board member of Berkshire since 1993 and would serve as non-executive chairman. Howard Buffett, who runs a charitable foundation and has worked as a farmer, was never in the running to take over Berkshire.Warren Buffett, along with Bill Gates, founder and former CEO of Microsoft (MSFT) - Get Microsoft Corporation Report, and Melinda Gates, were the founders of the Giving Pledge, a pact by several billionaires who commit to donating the majority of their massive wealth during their lifetime or in their wills.Warren Buffett still owns a 16% stake in Berkshire that is worth about $95 billion. He has already donated half his holdings during the past 16 years to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, plus other philanthropies.TheStreet, Inc. All rights reserved. Action Alerts PLUS is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.",
"URL": "https://www.mcclatchy-wires.com/incoming/article266823731.html"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Tech billionaires have lost a good share of their wealth in 2022.Silicon Valley founders and CEOs have had a rough year so far, losing billions of dollars in net worth.Technology company billionaires make up 6 of the top 10 biggest losers so far this year, with losses approaching a quarter of a trillion dollars for the group.Leading this dubious list is Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, now called Meta Platforms (META) - Get Meta Platforms Inc. Report. Zuckerberg is down by a massive $70.8 billion, or 56%, so far this year.But have no fears, he still ranks as the 20th richest billionaire as of Sept. 18, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. Zuckerberg, who is only 38 years old, is still worth $54.7 billion, outranking Michael Dell of the namesake PC company and Changpen Zao, founder of Binance.com, the largest cryptocurrency trading platform in the world in terms of trading volume.Zuckerberg is not the only tech tycoon having a tough year. Jeff Bezos recently lost his title of the world's second richest man to Indian tycoon Gautam Adani.Bezos, the founder and executive chairman of tech and online-retail giant Amazon (AMZN) - Get Amazon.com Inc. Report fell to the number three spot at 10:38 a.m EST on Sept. 16.He had a fortune estimated at $145.8 billion compared with $146.9 billion for Adani who ended the day with a fortune of $147 billion.The day started with Adani at No. 3 and Bezos at No. 2.Meta has faced some challenges in 2022, similar to other tech companies. Shareholders have been impatient and the stock has fallen 56.4% year-to-date, losing $70.8 billion in valuation.The social media company that operates Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, is among companies that lost tens of billions of dollars in market cap during the trading week ending Sept. 16.A little over a year ago Facebook joined the prestigious club of companies worth at least $1 trillion with a market cap of $1.078 trillion set on Sept. 7, 2021. In July, Facebook announced its first quarterly revenue decline since going public in 2012.Competition from TikTok, the short video platform company, has been fierce and could be stealing market share from Facebook, which had 2.93 billion monthly active users as of June 30.TheStreet SmartsTheStreet’s Single Smartest Insight From The DayExclusive newsletter delivered to your inbox daily covering important investing topics pulled from TheStreet’s premium content.Cut Through The NoiseYour Personal Financial AdvisorInvesting Cheat SheetLearn moreThe economic slowdown and a probable recession also have pressured the company's bottom line, which is supported by advertising.Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, signed the Giving Pledge in 2015 to commit to donating the majority of their massive wealth, along with Bill Gates, founder and former CEO of Microsoft (MSFT) - Get Microsoft Corporation Report and Berkshire Hathaway's (BRK.A) - Get Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Report CEO Warren Buffett. The Giving Pledge was created by Buffett, Melinda French Gates and Bill Gates.TheStreet, Inc. All rights reserved. Action Alerts PLUS is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.",
"URL": "https://www.mcclatchy-wires.com/incoming/article266047096.html"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer speaks about what the company is planning next.With the video game industry on track to make $200 billion in 2022 and reach a worth $435 billion by 2028, it's no surprise that its biggest players are jocking for power.While the number one revenue slot still belongs to Chinese conglomerate Tencent (TCEHY) , Sony (SONY) - Get Sony Group Corporation American Depositary Shares Reportholds position #2 thanks to the $18.28 billion it raked in over the course of 2021.Microsoft (MSFT) - Get Microsoft Corporation Report came in at number four in 2021. But it's aggressively pushing for a higher ranking -- which is a large part of why it announced its intent to acquire video game publisher Activision Blizzard (ATVI) - Get Activision Blizzard Inc Report in 2022 for $68.7 billion. Activision Blizzard has a full slate of major name hits in the video game world, from the \"Call of Duty\" and \"Diablo\" franchises to \"Candy Crush Saga,\" which is gained ownership of when it purchased mobile developer King in 2016.However, the path to such a mammoth acquisition has been anything but easy. Activision Blizzard dealt with its own share of scandal in 2021, with CEO Bobby Kotick tangled up in allegations of sexual harassment and facing accusations of trying to ditch the company in the Microsoft sale to dodge liability. The harassment claims have since been settled.The Microsoft/Activision deal also went on pause after the U.K. Competition Authority, which initially launched a probe into the deal, moved its investigation into phase II.TheStreet's Martin Baccarat reports, \"They're very worried about the impact it would have on the broader competition conditions in not only the U.K. economy but around the world for video games. So, it not only increases the likelihood that Microsoft will have to make some remedies to make those watchdogs happy, but also that other competition authorities around the world will want to put their oar in the water on this deal before it closes next year as well.\"Now, Microsoft has made clear that it has no intentions of slowing down on its quest for glory (and well, money).Microsoft Intends to Keep Buying CompaniesMicrosoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer seems unphased by the potential slowdown of the Activision Blizzard acquisition, instead focusing on his future goals for the division.\"This is such a competitive market, I don't think we get to press pause on anything,\" Spencer said in an interview with CNBC. \"Tencent is the largest gaming company on the planet today and they continue to heavily invest in gaming content and game creators. Sony is a larger business than we are today and they continue to invest.\"While Spencer didn't get specific about what Microsoft may want to acquire next, he made it clear that his plan is to continue pushing the company forward.\"We strive to be a major player here. We want to deliver great content for our players. And we're going to remain active, whether that's investing in our internal teams that are already building great games that we know and love, whether its building new partnerships...the work for us never ends. I want to make sure Xbox is at the forefront of innovation and competition.\"Previously Microsoft has acquired an impressive list of game studios, including Mojang (\"Minecraft\"), 343 Industries (\"Halo\"), and ZeniMax Media (\"Fallout\").TheStreet, Inc. All rights reserved. Action Alerts PLUS is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.",
"URL": "https://www.mcclatchy-wires.com/incoming/article265953896.html"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "The billionaire is the main key to the success of the manufacturer of premium electric vehicles.Elon Musk is undoubtedly the architect of Tesla's (TSLA) - Get Tesla Inc. Report success. Investors are acknowledging this by placing enormous faith in the electric vehicle maker whose promises of becoming a tech empire have made it the world's sixth most valuable company by market capitalization just behind Apple (AAPL) - Get Apple Inc. Report, Saudi Aramco, Microsoft (MSFT) - Get Microsoft Corporation Report, Alphabet (GOOGL) - Get Alphabet Inc. Report and Amazon (AMZN) - Get Amazon.com Inc. Report. Investors appear convinced that as long as Musk is in charge, Tesla will continue to disrupt the automotive industry and beyond technology. Any sign that the billionaire may be focusing his attention and energy less on Tesla is likely to send investors into serious fright. This is what happened in the past three months with the launch of a $44 billion takeover bid for microblogging website Twitter (TWTR) - Get Twitter Inc. Report by Musk. This offer was the start of a saga marked by twists, public clashes and now a legal battle after Musk withdrew his offer due, he claims, to Twitter's bad faith regarding the number of fake accounts, or spam bots, present on the platform. A five-day trial is scheduled for October unless the two sides reach a settlement by then.Investor concern can be seen in the decline of Tesla stock since the offer was first made. Shares have lost 27.4% of their value to $742.50 at the time of writing. On April 13, the date before Musk's offer, Tesla stock closed at $1,022.37. However, this drop is also part of a context of general decline in the markets, on growing fears of a recession.'I'm Committed'For investors and Tesla fans worried that the Twitter saga will distract the tech tycoon, Musk just sent a reassuring message \"Things obviously changed dramatically in the last three years, from near life or death to a company with consistent cash flow and industry leading margins. I'm wondering if you can comment on your personal role in the company and whether you see that changing in terms of your role and time spent at the company over the next three or four years,\" an analyst asked the billionaire during Tesla's second quarter earnings' call on July 20. \"I think you you said a couple of things [like] you wouldn't be on calls unless there's something unusual and you've been on every call since then.\"Musk responded, first humorously, then seriously.\"I have done a lot of unusual things, let's face it,\" the entrepreneur said. \"If there's only good news, I won't be on the call. But a tough situation like with shutdowns in China, then then I'll be on a call, relatively speaking [if] there's bad news.\"\"If all we have is good news then I won't be on the call,\" he smiled.Then he got serious again.\"I'm committed,\" Musk continued. \"I'll work [at]Tesla; I can usefully advance the cause of sustainability and autonomy.\"The company announced stronger-than-expected second-quarter earnings on July 20, although its profit margins narrowed amid surging input costs. Revenues rose 41% from last year to $16.94 billion. Gross automotive margins were 27.9%, a 500 basis point decline from last year.TheStreet, Inc. All rights reserved. Action Alerts PLUS is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.",
"URL": "https://www.mcclatchy-wires.com/incoming/article263676838.html"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "New York, NY ( STL.News ) MSCI Inc. (NYSE: MSCI), a leading provider of critical decision support tools and services for the global investment community, announced today that Rajat Taneja , President of Technology for Visa Inc., has been appointed to serve as an independent director on MSCI’s Board of Directors (the “Board”), effective June 1, 2021. Mr. Taneja will serve as a member of the Audit Committee of the Board. Following the appointment of Mr. Taneja, the Board will be comprised of 10 directors. “I am pleased to welcome Rajat to the MSCI Board,” said Henry A. Fernandez, MSCI’s Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer. “Rajat has 30 years of global technology, innovation, and research and development experience, and I am confident that he will provide invaluable insight into the continuing transformation of MSCI’s data and technology capabilities as we seek to increasingly leverage cutting edge data processing technologies, democratize the data points underlying our solutions and deliver enhanced user experiences, ” added Mr. Fernandez. “This is an exciting time to join the MSCI Board, and I look forward to working with my fellow board members and advising MSCI’s management team on the next evolution of MSCI’s data and technology strategy,” said Mr. Taneja. “I welcome the opportunity to contribute to MSCI’s future growth and to help MSCI pursue its mission of empowering its clients to build better portfolios for a better world,” added Mr. Taneja. Mr. Taneja, age 56, has held the role of President of Technology for Visa Inc. (“Visa”) since September 2019. He joined Visa in November 2013 and served as Executive Vice President of Technology and Operations until August 2019. Before joining Visa, Mr. Taneja was Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of Electronic Arts Inc. from October 2011 until November 2013. From August 1996 until October 2011, he served in various roles at Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”), including as the Corporate Vice President, Commerce Division. At Microsoft, Mr. Taneja led the development and deployment of commerce and transaction technologies across its connected services, its online digital advertising platforms, and its first business online service offering. Mr. Taneja served on the board of directors of Ellie Mae from June 2015 until April 2019, including its Technology and Cybersecurity Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. Mr. Taneja holds a Bachelor of Engineering from Jadavpur University and a Master of Business Administration from Washington State University. Post Views: 208",
"URL": "https://www.stl.news/rajat-taneja-appointed-to-msci-inc-board-of-directors/449247/"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "The top iPhone and iPad apps on App StoreThe top iPhone and iPad apps on App StoreBy The Associated PressMarch 31, 2020, 4:11 PM2 min read2 min readShare to FacebookShare to TwitterEmail this article The top iPhone and iPad apps on App Store for week ending March 29th Top Paid iPhone Apps: 1. Minecraft, Mojang 2. Monopoly, Marmalade Game Studio 3. TouchRetouch, ADVA Soft GmbH 4. Procreate Pocket, Savage Interactive Pty Ltd 5. The Game of Life, Marmalade Game Studio 6. Exploding Kittens, Exploding Kittens 7. Bloons TD 6, Ninja Kiwi 8. Grand Theft Auto: San Andrea,s Rockstar Games 9. Geometry Dash, RobTop Games AB 10. Papa's Freezeria To Go!, Flipline Studios Top Free iPhone Apps: 1. ZOOM Cloud Meetings, Zoom 2. TikTok - Make Your Day, TikTok Inc. 3. Hangouts Meet by Google, Google LLC 4. Houseparty, Life On Air, Inc 5. Google Classroom, Google LLC 6. Perfect Cream, Playgendary Limited 7. Microsoft Teams, Microsoft Corporation 8. Home Restoration, Panteon 9. Pizzaiolo!, Geisha Tokyo Inc. 10. Save The Girl!, Lion Studios Top Paid iPad Apps: 1. Minecraft, Mojang 2. Procreate, Savage Interactive Pty Ltd 3. Monopoly, Marmalade Game Studio 4. GoodNotes 5, Time Base Technology Limited 5. Notability, Ginger Labs 6. Teach Your Monster to Read, Teach Monster Games Ltd. 7. XtraMath, XtraMath 8. Duet Display, Duet, Inc. 9. The Game of Life, Marmalade Game Studio 10. Bloons TD 6, Ninja Kiwi Top Free iPad Apps: 1. ZOOM Cloud Meetings, Zoom 2. Google Classroom, Google LLC 3. Perfect Cream, Playgendary Limited 4. Hangouts Meet by Google, Google LLC 5. Wheel Smash, Rollic Games 6. Blend It, 3D SayGames LLC 7. Google Chrome, Google LLC 8. ABCmouse.com, Age of Learning, Inc. 9. Messenger Kids, Facebook, Inc. 10. Save The Girl!, Lion StudiosComments (0)Share to FacebookShare to TwitterEmail this article The top iPhone and iPad apps on App Store for week ending March 29th Top Paid iPhone Apps: 1. Minecraft, Mojang 2. Monopoly, Marmalade Game Studio 3. TouchRetouch, ADVA Soft GmbH 4. Procreate Pocket, Savage Interactive Pty Ltd 5. The Game of Life, Marmalade Game Studio 6. Exploding Kittens, Exploding Kittens 7. Bloons TD 6, Ninja Kiwi 8. Grand Theft Auto: San Andrea,s Rockstar Games 9. Geometry Dash, RobTop Games AB 10. Papa's Freezeria To Go!, Flipline Studios Top Free iPhone Apps: 1. ZOOM Cloud Meetings, Zoom 2. TikTok - Make Your Day, TikTok Inc. 3. Hangouts Meet by Google, Google LLC 4. Houseparty, Life On Air, Inc 5. Google Classroom, Google LLC 6. Perfect Cream, Playgendary Limited 7. Microsoft Teams, Microsoft Corporation 8. Home Restoration, Panteon 9. Pizzaiolo!, Geisha Tokyo Inc. 10. Save The Girl!, Lion Studios Top Paid iPad Apps: 1. Minecraft, Mojang 2. Procreate, Savage Interactive Pty Ltd 3. Monopoly, Marmalade Game Studio 4. GoodNotes 5, Time Base Technology Limited 5. Notability, Ginger Labs 6. Teach Your Monster to Read, Teach Monster Games Ltd. 7. XtraMath, XtraMath 8. Duet Display, Duet, Inc. 9. The Game of Life, Marmalade Game Studio 10. Bloons TD 6, Ninja Kiwi Top Free iPad Apps: 1. ZOOM Cloud Meetings, Zoom 2. Google Classroom, Google LLC 3. Perfect Cream, Playgendary Limited 4. Hangouts Meet by Google, Google LLC 5. Wheel Smash, Rollic Games 6. Blend It, 3D SayGames LLC 7. Google Chrome, Google LLC 8. ABCmouse.com, Age of Learning, Inc. 9. Messenger Kids, Facebook, Inc. 10. Save The Girl!, Lion Studios ",
"URL": "https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/top-iphone-ipad-apps-app-store-69898275"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "The top iPhone and iPad apps on App StoreThe top iPhone and iPad apps on App StoreBy The Associated PressMarch 24, 2020, 4:12 PM2 min read The top iPhone and iPad apps on App store week ending March 3rd Top Paid iPhone Apps: 1. Minecraft, Mojang 2. Heads Up!, Warner Bros. 3. Monopoly, Marmalade Game Studio 4. Procreate Pocket, Savage Interactive Pty Ltd 5. TouchRetouch, ADVA Soft GmbH 6. Bloons TD 6, Ninja Kiwi 7. Geometry Dash, RobTop Games AB 8. NBA 2K20, 2K 9. The Game of Life, Marmalade Game Studio 10. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Rockstar Games Top Free iPhone Apps: 1. ZOOM Cloud Meetings, Zoom 2. TikTok - Make Your Day, TikTok Inc. 3. Google Classroom, Google LLC 4. Perfect Cream, Playgendary Limited 5. Ultimate Disc, SUPERSONICS STUDIOS LTD 6. Hangouts Meet by Google, Google LLC 7. Spiral Roll, Voodoo 8. Brain Test: Tricky Puzzles, Unico Studio LLC 9. Microsoft Teams, Microsoft Corporation 10 .Disney+, Disney Top Paid iPad Apps: 1. Minecraft, Mojang 2. Procreate, Savage Interactive Pty Ltd 3. GoodNotes 5, Time Base Technology Limited 4. Notability, Ginger Labs 5. XtraMath, XtraMath 6. Monopoly, Marmalade Game Studio 7. Duet Display, Duet, Inc. 8. Bloons TD 6, Ninja Kiwi 9. Geometry Dash, RobTop Games AB 10. Vizref, Studio Pixanoh Top Free iPad Apps: 1. ZOOM Cloud Meetings ,Zoom 2. Google Classroom, Google LLC 3. ABCmouse.com, Age of Learning, Inc. 4. Perfect Cream, Playgendary Limited 5. Disney+, Disney 6. Epic! - Kids’ Books and Videos, Epic Creations, Inc. 7. Spiral Roll, Voodoo 8. Google Chrome, Google LLC 9. Seesaw: The Learning Journal, Seesaw Learning, Inc. 10. Ultimate Disc, SUPERSONICS STUDIOS LTDComments (0) The top iPhone and iPad apps on App store week ending March 3rd Top Paid iPhone Apps: 1. Minecraft, Mojang 2. Heads Up!, Warner Bros. 3. Monopoly, Marmalade Game Studio 4. Procreate Pocket, Savage Interactive Pty Ltd 5. TouchRetouch, ADVA Soft GmbH 6. Bloons TD 6, Ninja Kiwi 7. Geometry Dash, RobTop Games AB 8. NBA 2K20, 2K 9. The Game of Life, Marmalade Game Studio 10. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Rockstar Games Top Free iPhone Apps: 1. ZOOM Cloud Meetings, Zoom 2. TikTok - Make Your Day, TikTok Inc. 3. Google Classroom, Google LLC 4. Perfect Cream, Playgendary Limited 5. Ultimate Disc, SUPERSONICS STUDIOS LTD 6. Hangouts Meet by Google, Google LLC 7. Spiral Roll, Voodoo 8. Brain Test: Tricky Puzzles, Unico Studio LLC 9. Microsoft Teams, Microsoft Corporation 10 .Disney+, Disney Top Paid iPad Apps: 1. Minecraft, Mojang 2. Procreate, Savage Interactive Pty Ltd 3. GoodNotes 5, Time Base Technology Limited 4. Notability, Ginger Labs 5. XtraMath, XtraMath 6. Monopoly, Marmalade Game Studio 7. Duet Display, Duet, Inc. 8. Bloons TD 6, Ninja Kiwi 9. Geometry Dash, RobTop Games AB 10. Vizref, Studio Pixanoh Top Free iPad Apps: 1. ZOOM Cloud Meetings ,Zoom 2. Google Classroom, Google LLC 3. ABCmouse.com, Age of Learning, Inc. 4. Perfect Cream, Playgendary Limited 5. Disney+, Disney 6. Epic! - Kids’ Books and Videos, Epic Creations, Inc. 7. Spiral Roll, Voodoo 8. Google Chrome, Google LLC 9. Seesaw: The Learning Journal, Seesaw Learning, Inc. 10. Ultimate Disc, SUPERSONICS STUDIOS LTD ",
"URL": "https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/top-iphone-ipad-apps-app-store-69771201"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Publish Date November 29, 2019 Dexphot malware uses fileless techniques to install cryptominer Bradley Barth Follow @bbb1216bbb Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Print Share by Email Microsoft Corporation yesterday revealed its discovery of a polymorphic malware that uses fileless techniques to execute a cryptomining program on victimized machines. Dubbed Dexphot, the malware was first observed in October 2018 when Microsoft detected a campaign that “attempted to deploy files that changed every 20 to 30 minutes on thousands of devices,” according to a blog post published yesterday by the Microsoft Defender ATP Research Team. At one point, on June 18, Microsoft saw reports of Dexphot-related malicious behavior in close to 80,000 machines, though that number dropped to under 10,000 by July 19. Dexphot sports a complex attack chain that relies largely on legitimate processes (aka living off the land) to ultimately execute the payload. According to Microsoft, the process chain involves five files: an installer with two URLs, an MSI package file, a password-protected ZIP archive, a loader DLL, and an encrypted data file with three executables. These executables are loaded via process hollowing, a fileless technique that involves replacing the contents of a legitimate system process with malicious code. According to Microsoft, Dexphot typically uses SoftwareBundler:Win32/ICLoader and its variants as an early-stage loader to drop and run the Dexphot installer. Additionally, the malware abuses msiexec.exe to install the MSI package file; unzip.exe to extract files from the ZIP archive; rundll32.exe for loading the loader DLL; and svchost.exe, tracert.exe and setup.exe for process hollowing. Other abused legit processes include schtasks.exe and powershell.exe. The malware is polymorphic in a number of ways, Microsoft explains. The aforementioned MSI package can contain a varying mix of files, file names can differ, the passwords for extracting files can change, and the contents of each loader DLL can vary, as can the data found in the ZIP file. “Because of these carefully designed layers of polymorphism, a traditional file-based detection approach wouldn’t be effective against Dexphot,” Microsoft states in its blog post. Often, but not always, the MSI package contains an obfuscated batch file that checks for antivirus products, for an additional defense against detection. To generate persistence, Dexphot relies on a pair of monitoring services — installed as executables during the process hollowing phase of the infection chain — to ensure that the malware is running smoothly. If any of Dexphot’s processes have been halted, the monitors force a re-infection via a PowerShell command. Dexphot also gains an additional layer of persistence by using schtasks.exe to set up scheduled tasks that routinely update the malware components. “Dexphot is not the type of attack that generates mainstream media attention; it’s one of the countless malware campaigns that are active at any given time,” Microsoft concludes in its report. “Its goal is a very common one in cybercriminal circles – to install a coin miner that silently steals computer resources and generates revenue for the attackers – yet Dexphot exemplifies the level of complexity and rate of evolution of even everyday threats, intent on evading protections and motivated to fly under the radar for the prospect of profit. Topics: Cryptocurrency Malware You must be a registered member of SC Media to post a comment Please register or login first to post a comment. Login Register Leave a Reply Cancel replyYou must be logged in to post a comment. Stantinko botnet’s monetization strategy shifts to cryptomining ",
"URL": "https://www.scmagazine.com/home/security-news/dexphot-malware-uses-fileless-techniques-to-install-cryptominer/"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Publish Date July 18, 2019 Microsoft demos vote verification tool, warns of ongoing foreign meddling Bradley Barth Follow @bbb1216bbb Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Print Share by Email Microsoft Corporation yesterday began publicly demonstrating its free and open-source secure electronic voting solution, ElectionGuard, warning that such innovations are necessary as adversarial nations continue to target the American people and U.S. businesses. In a blog post announcing the demo, Microsoft Corporate Vice President of Customer Security and Trust Tom Burt said that in the past year alone, the company has notified close to 10,000 customers that the were the target of a nation-state-sponsored cyberattack. About 84 percent of these attacks targeted enterprise customers, while the remainder were aimed at consumers’ personal email accounts. Iran, North Korea and Russia were the main sources of this malicious activity, Burt added. Burt also said since its August 2018 debut, AccountGuard, Microsoft’s threat notification service for political campaigns, parties, and democracy-focused NGOs, has issued 781 notices to organizations, warning that they were targeted by nation-state attackers. Although the service has been extended to 26 countries, 95 percent of these attacks targeted U.S.-based entities. Microsoft’s ElectionGuard product will be available in software development kit form via GitHub later this summer. The solution assigns an encryption-enabled verification mechanism that distributes unique tracking codes to voters, which they can later enter into a website to independently confirm that their votes were counted and not altered. Burt said that the demo, which is taking place at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado, “will show how ElectionGuard can enable end-to-end verifiable elections for the first time while retaining the familiarity and certainty of paper ballots. The demo will provide voters with a printed record of their votes, which they can check and place into a physical ballot box, with verification through the web portal serving as a supplemental layer of security and verifiability.” Burt said that multiple election technology suppliers – collectively responsible for building and selling more than half of the voting systems in the U.S. – are partnering with Microsoft to incorporate its technology into their systems. The company is also working with Columbia University’s Columbia World Projects initiative to pilot the technology in the 2020 elections. Topics: APT Cyber Espionage Election Coverage Network Security Recommended For You You must be a registered member of SC Media to post a comment Please register or login first to post a comment. Login Register Mirai malware sets sights on enterprise IoT devices ripe for picking ",
"URL": "https://www.scmagazine.com/home/security-news/microsoft-demos-vote-verification-tool-warns-of-ongoing-foreign-meddling/"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Using dividend-paying stocks as the backbone of a diversified portfolio Opens a New Window. is a wonderful thing. However, those new to investing might have some questions about dividends. But knowing what a dividend is and how dividends work is only half the battle, since knowing how to make the best use of dividends can set you on the path to true financial freedom. Here's a dividend investing guide that will provide you with a basic understanding of what dividends are and help you create your own dividend portfolio strategy. What is a dividend? Continue Reading Below A stock investment is, at its core, a claim on the long-term stream of cash flows generated by a business, or the money generated by the business. There are different ways to benefit from these cash flows, with the two main sources being an increase in stock prices due to growth in the business, referred to as capital appreciation, and cash distributions funded by the ongoing cash flows the business generates. Dividends are a form of cash distribution and represent a tangible return that you can then use for other purposes. A dividend-paying company is, essentially, writing a check to its shareholders out of the profits it generates. For investors who use a broker, which is most investors, that check will simply be a deposit that shows up on your brokerage statement. Dividends are generally paid to shareholders at regular intervals, with quarterly being the most frequent timing in the United States. However, dividends can also be paid monthly, semiannually, annually, and even on a one-off basis, in the case of \"special\" dividends. (There's more information on the frequency topic below.) To help with the processing of dividends, there are a few key dates to watch, most notably the ex-dividend date, which is the first trading day on which a future dividend payment isn't included in a stock's price. After the ex-dividend date, a stock trades as if it has already paid the dividend. If you buy the stock before that date, you get the dividend. If you buy the stock after the ex-dividend date, you don't receive the dividend. This all may sound a little complicated right now, but after spending a little time understanding dividends, you'll see that they're pretty easy to get your head around. Despite their simplicity, however, they can have a huge impact on your financial life. A real-world example will probably help here. ExxonMobil Corporation (NYSE: XOM) pays quarterly dividends in March, June, September, and December. Between January 1 of 2009 and December 31 of 2018, the company's stock fell roughly 15%. But investors who took those quarterly dividends and bought more Exxon stock (known as reinvesting) would have achieved a gain over the 10-year span of 15%. This is because they were buying stock all along, increasing their investment with the dividends they received. Are dividends a good thing? Advertisement For some investors, dividends are great...for others, dividends are a nuisance. In the end, whether you think dividends are good or bad will really depend on your investment approach and temperament. For example, some investors use their dividends to supplement their Social Security Opens a New Window. check during retirement. Such investors love dividends. Other investors, those who wish to avoid taxes or who are still building a nest egg, might prefer to see a company reinvest all of its cash into the business to spur higher levels of growth. Investors like that might deem dividends a waste of cash. Some investors might also prefer to see cash used to buy back stock Opens a New Window. instead of pay dividends. Buying back stock is another way in which companies can return cash to shareholders without actually distributing the money to shareholders. The ownership interest in a company is spread across the total number of shares a company issues. By reducing the number of shares outstanding via a buyback, the company gets to spread earnings over a smaller share base Opens a New Window. . So every share is awarded a larger piece of the company's earnings, which, in turn, increases earnings-per-share growth. Since earnings are a key metric by which company success is graded by investors, higher earnings generally lead to higher share prices. Some companies like to use share buybacks because they don't actually have to complete buybacks even if they announce them. This provides more flexibility in case the business environment changes. Investors tend to react poorly if dividend payments are reduced even if a company is facing hard times. How are dividends decided? At the most basic level, the chief executive officer Opens a New Window. of a company makes a recommendation to the board of directors Opens a New Window. on what he or she believes is an appropriate dividend policy. Often there is no specific public policy to go off of, just the dividend history. But some companies do make public their dividend goals. For example, some companies target a percentage of earnings or cash flow. Brookfield Renewable Partners , for example, targets 70% of distributable cash flow, a non-GAAP measure that shows how much cash it could pay if it wanted to. That said, the intent is to keep growing the dividend along with the partnership's growth, so it will hover around that target over time. You should check to see if a company has a stated policy, but often you'll be stuck with nothing more than the history. It's important to note that the CEO isn't the one making the final call here; the board of directors is. This collection of individuals comprises the elected representatives of the shareholders. They are effectively the boss of the CEO and have the final say on key issues, including how a company's profits should be used. Dividends are a big piece of that story. So the board takes the CEO's advice, discusses it, and votes on what it believes the dividend should be. The types of issues a board might look at include, but are not limited to, the company's profitability, available cash, leverage, and future capital needs. A key issue to keep in mind here is that while a company's earnings are an important consideration in this process, dividends actually come out of cash flow. Earnings are an accounting measure dictated by a standard set of rules that try to tie revenues and earnings to specific time periods. Cash going in and out of the company, or cash flow, doesn't work the same way. For example, a big capital investment like a truck will be paid for when it is bought, reducing the cash a company has the day it is acquired. But for earnings purposes, the cost will get spread across the useful life of the truck, since it is getting used a little bit each quarter. This is called depreciation, and it has no impact on cash flow, but it can be a notable issue for earnings. Since dividends are paid out of and impact a company's cash, with little to no impact on earnings, the cash flow statement Opens a New Window. is where dividend payments are reflected. This statement actually tracks the cash that is going in and out of the company during a set period of time. Going back to the truck example above, a company's earnings may be lowered by depreciation expenses for that expense for years, but the cash going in and out of the company won't be impacted because the money was already spent. So the cash a company has available may actually be more in a given period than the earnings a company reports. This helps explain how a company can pay more in dividends than it earns, since noncash charges, like depreciation, can lower earnings while having little to no impact on the cash a business is generating. At the end of the day, the cash flow statement is closer to how you might look at your own finances. While the earnings statement is important, the cash flow statement is the best way to see if a company can actually afford the dividend it is paying. Some key dividend dates There are some important processing issues involved when it comes to dividends, largely related to timing. The first is the declaration date, which is when a company announces its dividend plans to the market. In this statement, in addition to the actual dividend amount, it will report the record date, the ex-date, and the payment date Opens a New Window. . To understand this process, it may help to look at a real-life example. On October 31, 2018, ExxonMobil put out a news release informing investors and the public about its intention to pay a fourth-quarter dividend of $0.82 per share. That news release was the declaration of the dividend. In addition to the amount, the company also reported that the dividend would be paid on December 10 to shareholders of record as of November 13. The payment date is the day on which shareholders will receive the dividend. The record date is effectively the day the company makes the list of all of its shareholders. The only date that wasn't included in the release was the ex-dividend date, which is generally two business days prior to the record date to account for the time needed to clear stock transactions. (In this case, the ex-dividend date was November 9 because of a weekend.) This date was not in the press release but was reported on the company's website. Purchase the stock on or prior to that date and you will be eligible for the dividend; buy after the record date and the previous owner will get the dividend. In effect, the ex-date is the specific date on which the stock will trade without the dividend included in the price. For most investors, particularly those with a long-term view, these dates will not be too big an issue. However, if you are looking to buy a stock, you might want to double-check the dates just in case. You'd rather get a dividend than miss it by a day or two because you procrastinated. Some investors, meanwhile, try to capture dividends by investing around these dates. Dividend capturing is a strategy Opens a New Window. in which investors only hold stocks long enough to receive the disbursement before moving on to another stock. In this way, the investor can invest in many dividend stocks with the same money and \"capture\" more dividends. Although this sounds like a great idea, it is complicated and time consuming. There's another technicality that complicates the dividend capture approach: Dividends are technically a return of retained earnings Opens a New Window. (a balance sheet Opens a New Window. item). As such, the stock price logically should fall by the amount of the dividend once it hits the ex-dividend date. There's also the risk that the stock price could be moved by company news or events in the broader market during the holding period. So you will generate income from the dividend you collect, but you could end up with an offsetting capital loss when you sell the shares. It's very possible that the net benefit will be less than you might hope, and thus, most investors shouldn't get involved with dividend capturing. Some key dividend metrics Now that you've got the important dates to keep in mind, you'll want to understand some of the key metrics you'll see when researching dividend stocks. The most prominent is the dividend yield Opens a New Window. . This is generated by taking the most recent dividend payment and multiplying it by the dividend frequency (how many times a year the dividend is paid) and then dividing by the current stock price. The higher the yield the better for most income investors, but only up to a point. Abnormally high yields can indicate heightened levels of risk. A good reference point for investors is to compare a stock's yield to that of the S&P 500 Index to get a sense of whether it is high or low, since market conditions can change over time. Yields should also be compared to those of direct peers to get a sense of how high or low a yield is, since some industries tend to offer higher yields than others. Note that some data services will provide a trailing dividend yield, which takes historical dividends that were paid (usually over the last 12 months) instead of looking at the current dividend and multiplying by the frequency. Another metric that investors focus on is the payout ratio Opens a New Window. . This can be derived by taking the dividend and dividing by the company's earnings per share. Although dividends don't get paid out of earnings, this gives an idea of how easily a company can afford its dividend. The lower the payout ratio the better, with ratios over 100% worthy of additional research (noting that some industries, such as real estate investment trusts, almost always have payout ratios over 100% because of heavy depreciation expenses). This figure can be calculated over different time periods, but it is usually looked at quarterly, over the trailing 12 months, or annually. Some investors will also look at yield on purchase price. You calculate yield on purchase price by taking the current dividend per share and dividing it by your average cost per share. This is a number that is, obviously, specific to each individual investor. It is most appropriate for investors who have owned a dividend-paying stock for a very long time and for those who have used dollar-cost averaging to create their position. For example, if you had purchased Microsoft Corporation on the first business day of 1995 for $26.95 (the highest price on that day), the dividend was a scant $0.32 per share per year, providing investors with a roughly 1.2% dividend yield. By the end of 2018, the dividend had grown to $1.68 per share per year. That's a yield on purchase price of 6.2%! How often are dividends paid? Dividend yield and the payout ratio bring an element of time into the dividend discussion. In the United States, most companies pay four dividends a year, or one each quarter. That, however, is just one option. Some companies, like Realty Income , a real estate investment trust Opens a New Window. , pay dividends monthly. (There aren't too many monthly dividend stocks, which is a shame, since the dividend checks from these companies end up closely mimicking a regular paycheck, thus simplifying the budgeting process for investors.) Others pay twice a year, or semiannually. An example here would be Disney , which pays in January and July. Many European companies, meanwhile, only pay two times a year, with one small interim payment followed by a larger \"final\" payment. Most U.S. companies pay the same amount each time. Some companies only pay one time a year, such as Cintas , which tends to wait until near calendar year-end to pay its annual dividend. To properly figure out the dividend yield and payout ratios of these companies, you need to take the dividend frequency into consideration. Note that some data services don't get this step right, leading to erroneous data. So you should always go to a company's website to double-check any dividend statistic that seems unusual. There's one more thing to keep in mind here as well. Sometimes companies pay special dividends Opens a New Window. . These are payments that are made outside of their typical dividend schedule. An example is Kinder Morgan Canada , which sold a large asset in 2018 Opens a New Window. and chose to distribute a portion of the cash it generated to shareholders via a one-time distribution. Such dividends shouldn't be considered in the yield or payout ratio, since they are unusual events. That said, some companies have a history of paying special dividends on a regular basis, like L Brands , though it hasn't done so lately, showing that such extra payments shouldn't be relied on. Not all dividends are paid in cash To complicate things even more, dividends aren't always paid in cash. Sometimes a company pays a stock dividend, through which it issues each investor additional shares of the company. One great example is Tootsie Roll Industries , which has a very small cash dividend but also generally pays out a small stock dividend each year. The net benefit for investors is that the number of shares they own increases over time. Other times, a spin-off is effected via a stock dividend in a new company. This happens when a company gives shareholders freshly created shares in one of its operating divisions so that it can break the division off as its own public company. One of the classic examples of this was the 1984 breakup of AT&T , lovingly referred to as Ma Bell, into a long-distance company of the same name and seven so-called Baby Bells. The Baby Bells owned the local telephone companies serving various regions of the United States. For every 10 shares of AT&T, investors received one share in each of the seven regional phone companies. This move broke AT&T from one company into eight. All of that said, stock dividends are generally not the norm, though a small number of companies do have long histories of paying regular stock dividends. What's a dividend cut? So far so good, but dividends don't always go up. Sometimes when a company is facing financial trouble, it has to cut its dividend. Investors usually don't like dividend cuts, as noted above, and will sell companies that cut or that they believe are likely to cut. This is why you need to use caution when looking at companies with high yields and high payout ratios, as both could be a sign that the current dividend isn't sustainable. That said, some companies have variable dividends, so their dividends are expected to go up and down over time. Dividend changes at companies like this have to be looked at differently because the dividend policy is often more important than the dividend payment. Wheaton Precious Metals is a good example here. The company targets 30% of the average cash generated by operating activities over the previous four quarters. And it pays out exactly that amount, regardless of whether it is more or less than the previous dividend. This is noteworthy because Wheaton generates revenue by selling precious metals, the prices of which can be volatile. What is a DRIP? An acronym you'll frequently hear associated with dividends is DRIP Opens a New Window. , which stands for dividend reinvestment plan. Many companies allow you to buy stock from them directly and then use the dividends to automatically buy additional shares over time. Sometimes companies offer incentives for this, such as slightly-below-market reinvestment prices, and usually these transactions will not incur brokerage trading fees. A few companies require that you buy stock from a third party and then transfer the shares to the company's plan. The big deal here, however, is that you are using the dividend to buy more shares. That's basically dollar-cost averaging Opens a New Window. , or spreading your purchases over time. This is a service that many brokerages offer for free today (without the incentive of below-market prices). So you can often do the same thing without the need to open and monitor multiple accounts with different companies, which is what you would be left with if you enrolled in multiple company-sponsored DRIP plans. If you like to keep your life as simple as possible, ask your broker if it offers free dividend reinvestment. What are Dividend Kings, Aristocrats, Champions, Challengers, and Contenders? Dividend investing is a big thing, and investors have taken to using shorthand terms to describe dividend companies. Kings, Aristocrats Opens a New Window. , Champions, Challengers, and Contenders are some of the \"in the know\" terms you'll want to be fluent with. Each represents a different streak of annual dividend hikes: All of these terms are associated with longtime dividend payers. Some are formal lists that are maintained by companies like Standard & Poor's (and used to create investment products like exchange-traded funds, or ETFs Opens a New Window. ), while others are informal lists maintained by volunteers and available for free at websites like The DRiP Investing Resource Center Opens a New Window. . Lists such as these are a great starting point when looking for dividend stocks, since companies with a long history of increasing dividends have proven that they place a high value on rewarding investors. What is a dividend trap? A dividend trap is yet another term you'll hear to describe a dividend stock, only this one isn't positive at all. Essentially, a dividend trap is a stock with a high yield backed by a dividend that looks unsustainable. A good example here is rural telecom Opens a New Window. Frontier Communications (NASDAQ: FTR). In 2017, the company paid four quarterly dividends of $0.60 per share despite the fact that it was bleeding red ink the entire time. With no earnings, its dividend coverage ratio was actually negative. Its business had been struggling for some time under the weight of deteriorating financial results and a heavy debt load left behind from acquisitions. The company ended up eliminating the dividend in 2018. However, as 2017 progressed, the dividend yield went from around 10% or so to an unbelievable 50% as the stock plummeted from more than $50 per share to roughly $6.75. A yield of 10% is high and deserves extra attention, particularly at a highly leveraged money-losing company. But a yield of 50% is completely ridiculous -- the stock market was sending a very loud warning signal. Before you jump on a fat dividend yield, make sure you do a little digging to ensure that the high yield isn't a result of material financial troubles and, equally important, a high likelihood of a dividend cut. You want to do your best to avoid dividend traps like Frontier. Do dividends tell you anything about valuation? Often investors look at a price-to-earnings ratio Opens a New Window. to see if a stock is trading cheaply or richly. P/E is just price divided by earnings, much like a dividend yield is simply dividend payment divided by stock price. They are both relative measures. P/E tells you how much investors are willing to pay for each dollar a company earns, and dividend yield, roughly, tells you the level of income generation investors expect from a company over time. Truth be told, on their own, P/E and dividend yield don't tell you all that much about valuation. However, when you compare them to a company's own history or to a broader group (like an index or direct industry peers), you can start to see valuation patterns. For example, Hormel Foods ' (NYSE: HRL) dividend spiked above 2% in late 2017, toward the high end of the company's historical yield range. Its P/E at the time was around 19, having fallen from more than 30 in early 2016. Essentially, the dividend yield was telling a similar story to the P/E ratio. There are usually reasons why companies trade with low valuations; in this case, a shift in consumer buying habits toward fresh food over the prepackaged fare that dominated Hormel's portfolio had spooked Wall Street. But for long-term investors, a high relative dividend yield can be a buying opportunity. Hormel, for reference, started to shift its business mix via acquisitions that augmented its scale in fresh categories, notably including the deli aisle. By the end of 2018, Hormel's yield was roughly 1.8% and the P/E was back up to around 22. Dividend taxes: Uncle Sam gets his due No discussion of dividends would be complete without mentioning taxes. The government wants to get its due of these payments. You will receive tax forms from your broker or DRIP plan that outline what dividends you have received in a given year, and that information must be included in your income when you do taxes. That said, tax laws change over time, so the tax rate you'll pay on dividend income will vary. Dividends often receive preferential tax treatment. All dividends, meanwhile, are not created equal. Opens a New Window. Some companies include return of capital in their dividends. Opens a New Window. Such dividends are considered a return of a portion of your original investment and don't get taxed when you receive them. They reduce your cost basis when you sell, thus increasing your capital gains Opens a New Window. (which is the difference between what you paid for an investment and what you sold it for, assuming you made a profit on the transaction). Other companies, notably real estate investment trusts, are structured as pass-through entities because they pass much of their income to investors in exchange for avoiding corporate-level taxation. Most if not all of the dividends they pay are treated as regular income -- just like your salary. These types of dividends are often referred to as unqualified. Qualified dividends, meanwhile, are the norm. This type of dividend is paid by most U.S. companies and gets taxed at special rates. As an example, in 2018, qualified dividends paid to a couple filing jointly with earnings less than $77,200 a year don't get taxed at all. Such a couple making less than $479,000 but more than $77,200 would see their dividends taxed at a 15% rate. And a couple making more than $479,000 a year would see a dividend tax rate of 20%. Taxes are a complex topic, and you should consult an accountant for an in-depth discussion here. But rest assured that you need to let Uncle Sam know about your dividends, or the IRS will be sure to hunt you down and extract its pound of flesh. That said, there's a workaround on the tax front if you really don't want to pay taxes on your dividends: a Roth IRA. Like taxes, retirement accounts are complex, and a full discussion is beyond the scope of this article. But a Roth IRA is funded with money on which you have already paid taxes, and distributions in retirement are tax free. So if you put dividend stocks into a Roth IRA, you would, effectively, be generating tax-free income. This is not the case for a traditional IRA, which is funded with pre-tax earnings...in this case, every penny you pull out is taxed as income. If the idea of using a Roth IRA to generate tax-free income sounds enticing, it's probably worth taking the time to talk to your accountant. 10 stocks we like better than ExxonMobil When investing geniuses David and Tom Gardner have a stock tip, it can pay to listen. After all, the newsletter they have run for over a decade, Motley Fool Stock Advisor , has quadrupled the market.* David and Tom just revealed what they believe are the ten best stocks Opens a New Window. for investors to buy right now… and ExxonMobil wasn't one of them! That's right -- they think these 10 stocks are even better buys. See the 10 stocks Opens a New Window. *Stock Advisor returns as of March 1, 2019 Teresa Kersten, an employee of LinkedIn, a Microsoft subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool’s board of directors. Reuben Gregg Brewer Opens a New Window. owns shares of ExxonMobil and Hormel Foods. The Motley Fool owns shares of and recommends Walt Disney. The Motley Fool owns shares of Microsoft. The Motley Fool recommends Cintas. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy Opens a New Window. .",
"URL": "https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/your-definitive-dividend-investing-guide"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Microsoft cloud push powers ongoing growth By The Associated Press REDMOND, Wash. — Jan 30, 2019, 6:03 PM ET 0 Shares Email Star The Associated PressFILE- In this Oct. 7, 2018, file photo a Microsoft Surface station is seen on the sidelines before an NFL football game between the Houston Texans and the Dallas Cowboys in Houston. Microsoft Corporation reports earnings Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2019. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip, File) 0 Shares Email Microsoft's ongoing growth as a provider of cloud computing services helped drive its fiscal second-quarter net income of $8.42 billion, an improvement after a loss in the same period a year earlier. The Redmond, Washington-based company said Wednesday it had profit of $1.08 per share. Earnings, adjusted for pretax expenses, were $1.10 per share. Shares dipped almost 1.5 percent in after-hours trading. Revenue from the company's flagship Azure cloud computing platform grew 76 percent. But the company saw a 5 percent revenue hit in Windows software supplied to other PC manufacturers. It attributed the decline in part to a short supply of Intel chips late last year. Microsoft's results topped Wall Street expectations. The average estimate of 14 analysts surveyed by Zacks Investment Research was for earnings of $1.09 per share. The software maker posted revenue of $32.47 billion in the period, which also topped Street forecasts. Twelve analysts surveyed by Zacks expected $32.45 billion. Microsoft shares have risen slightly more than 4 percent since the beginning of the year, while the Standard & Poor's 500 index has risen almost 7 percent. In the final minutes of trading on Wednesday, shares hit $105.97, an increase of 14 percent in the last 12 months. ————— Parts of this story were generated by Automated Insights (http://automatedinsights.com/ap) using data from Zacks Investment Research. Access a Zacks stock report on MSFT at https://www.zacks.com/ap/MSFT 0 Shares Email Star Comments Add Interests Customize your news feed by choosing the topics that interest you. To save your interests across all devices Log In or Sign Up » Add Interests Customize your news feed by choosing the topics that interest you. To save your interests across all devices Log In or Sign Up » Microsoft cloud push powers ongoing growth How a high school student 'stumbled upon' Apple's FaceTime bug and tried to report it Computers may one day recognize voices as well as humans Apple disables Group FaceTime after bug allows iPhone users to listen in before call Samsung quarterly operating profit fell on slower demand Reboot: Tonga hopes to restore internet access by weekend Apple busts Facebook for distributing data-sucking app The Latest: Nevada looking at legal options for plutonium Patients in Northwest measles outbreak traveled to Hawaii Tesla posts small 4Q profit, expects to make money this year Airbus says its data was hacked, no risk to commercial jets Facebook reports robust profit, revenue gains; stock rises At least 8 dead in dangerous, paralyzing cold blast Border security talks begin with no sign of compromise to avert a government shutdown Ban government shutdowns? Some Republicans and Democrats want to make it the law Fact Check: Trump's tales of duct-taped women and prayer rugs at US-Mexico border Congressional Republicans question FBI tactics used on Roger Stone Medicare-for-all fight reveals early fissures in 2020 Democratic primary Who is Stacey Abrams, the Democrat who will respond to Trump's State of the Union? Author of new book on Democratic fractures: Biden 'sensitive' to Warren's criticism Border security talks begin as Congress grapples with scope of negotiations What is the Federal Reserve? Barr confirmation vote delayed after Democrats raise Mueller report concerns Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti passes on 2020 presidential bid Senior lawmakers from both parties target rising drug prices in hearings Welcome to 2020: Obstacles for Trump and a wide-open Democratic race, poll finds Bolton stokes questions, confusion with '5,000 troops' note during Venezuela briefing ",
"URL": "https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/microsoft-cloud-push-powers-ongoing-growth-60736079"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Facebook Inc. (NASDAQ:FB) appears to be paying attention to its impact on the environment, pledging that its new data center in Iowa will be 100 percent powered by wind energy. The company’s data center in Altoona is expected to go online in early 2015, and it will be powered entirely by a wind project in nearby Wellsburg, which Facebook helped to develop, according to Energy Manager Today , a trade publication. The wind project will add 138 megawatts of capacity to the grid in Iowa, more than what the data center is expected to consume annually in coming years. Facebook has said it wants the energy mix for its data centers worldwide to reach 25 percent clean and renewable energy by 2015. That commitment came after a two-year Greenpeace campaign , which saw 700,000 people demand that Facebook use clean energy, and not coal, to power its data centers. After Facebook relented, the campaign ended in December 2011. The company said in June that a planned data center in Sweden will be powered entirely by hydroelectric energy. Other tech companies pledging to better manage their energy needs include Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) and Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT). Google said in June it would power its next data center in Finland with wind energy, and Microsoft said in March that it had made its Dublin data center significantly more-energy efficient. The data center in Iowa will be Facebook’s fourth, according to a company blog post . Google has at least six data centers in the U.S.",
"URL": "https://www.ibtimes.com/facebooks-fb-renewable-energy-all-wind-power-data-center-iowa-1474432"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "I’ve been passionate about increasing women’s participation in computer science for more than 25 years. While the number of undergraduate women pursuing some STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) fields like biology and chemistry has steadily increased over the past couple of decades, women’s participation in computer science has actually been declining . Indeed, within the last 20 years, the percentage of undergraduate women who received computer science degrees plummeted by almost 40 percent. According to the National Science Foundation , in 1995, 29 percent of bachelor’s degrees in computer science were awarded to women; by 2012, the most recent year for which NSF data is available, only 18 percent of computer science undergraduates were women. The Computing Research Association (CRA) reports even lower numbers. CRA’s annual Taulbee Survey of over 100 major computer science departments in North America found that by the mid-2000s, the percentage of women graduating with computer science bachelor’s degrees averaged 14 percent. For me, this issue is both personal and global. Working to Remove Barriers I’m a mathematician and a computer scientist. Back when I was getting my PhD in math, there were very few women in my field. Despite receiving discouragement because of my gender, I worked hard. And I excelled. I went on to take up leadership roles in many places: IBM, University of British Columbia, Princeton and now Harvey Mudd. I’ve been the first woman in nearly all these positions. I know the struggles that can hinder women when they are working in a predominantly male field . I also know firsthand how computer science and technology make for a great career, offering a good income , work-life balance and opportunities to travel. They also offer a chance to make significant contributions to the world, by working on important societal problems. I want young women to have these opportunities. I’ve been working on this issue for decades. When I came to Harvey Mudd College in 2006, the computer science department was averaging only about 10 percent women majors. The faculty had decided to make significant changes to attract more women. They redesigned their introductory computer science courses to focus less on straight programming and more on creative problem-solving. They included topics to show the breadth of the field and the ways in which it could benefit society. In order to reduce the intimidation factor for women and other students with no prior coding experience, they split the course into two sections, black and gold (Harvey Mudd’s colors), with black for those who had prior programming experience and gold for those with no prior experience. This worked wonders to create a supportive atmosphere. Making the Field Exciting for Women Instead of traditional homework, which can be isolating, the faculty assigned team-based projects so students coded together. And most importantly, they made the courses fun. The intro computer science courses went from being the least-liked course in our core curriculum to being the most popular. After the courses were introduced in 2007, we saw an immediate and steady increase in the percentage of female students majoring in computer science. Within four years, we went from averaging around 10 percent women majors to averaging 40 percent. We have continued to average 40 percent since 2011. In addition, faculty created early summer research opportunities designed for students who had completed only one or two computer science courses, and encouraged their first-year female students to participate. A number of studies have shown that research experiences for undergraduate students increase retention and confidence in STEM fields, factors that are particularly important for women and minorities . Harvey Mudd’s female students who participated in early computer science research projects indeed reported greatly increased interest in the discipline and a boost in confidence. They realized they could do the work of a computer scientist and that they enjoyed it as well. We also send large contingents of women students each year to the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing, the largest conference for women working in technology fields. At this event, students get to see role models and are excited about the many amazing technology career paths they can pursue. Other institutions are starting to take up our approaches. For instance, the Building Recruiting and Inclusion for Diversity (BRAID) initiative that we launched with the Anita Borg Institute is working to build computer science diversity at 15 academic institutions. We are about to offer our intro computer science course as a free massive open online course (MOOC) on edX , so professors and students can access the course materials. There’s Still Work to Be Done However, many barriers and challenges remain. The National Science Foundation’s most recent (2012) report shows that computer science has the lowest proportion of women receiving bachelor degrees of all the STEM fields. The percentage dipped to a mere 11 percent from 2007 to 2009 and gradually returned to 14 percent by 2013 to 2014. Computer science should be a required part of secondary education, but a lot of schools don’t have computer science teachers. Most young people who go to college today have not had much exposure to computer science . We also have to combat the cultural belief that some people are simply born with math, science or computer talent and others are simply “not good at it.” There’s lots of research that shows that persistence and hard work play a much larger role in success in any area of science and engineering than “native ability.” Another serious challenge is posed by the media portrayal of careers in technology, which builds certain stereotypes. I want people to think about how we can change our images of who we consider to be competent in technology. At the moment, the image of the computer scientist is limited to a white or Asian male. One thing we know for sure is that you get better solutions if you have more diverse teams working on them. We need the female perspective to get the best solutions to very pressing problems. Need for Diversity We also need more African Americans, Latinos and Latinas, poets, football players and artists involved in creating technology. Right now there is unfilled demand for computer science grads and not just in the tech industry. I want computer science and technology to be a world that embraces everyone who has passion, ability and interest, whether they look like the dominant group or not. Today, computer science touches all industries. Its products are embedded in our daily lives. Addressing the significant problems of the world—from climate change to health care to poverty—will involve technology. I think the world will be an incredibly exciting place and we will see amazing technological developments when we create a much more diverse tech community. Maria Klawe is president at Harvey Mudd College . She serves on the boards of Microsoft Corporation and Broadcom Corporation , as well as the nonprofits Math for America and EdReports . Klawe is a past president of the Association of Computing Machinery in New York, past chair of the board of trustees of the Anita Borg Institute for Women and Technology in Palo Alto and a past trustee of the Institute for Pure and Applied Mathematics in Los Angeles. She has held leadership positions with the American Mathematical Society , the Computing Research Association , the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics and the Canadian Mathematical Society . She is a trustee for the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in Berkeley. Until recently, she was a member of the Stanford Engineering Advisory Council and the Advisory Council for the Computer Science Teachers Association . She was elected as a fellow of the Association of Computing Machinery in 1996 and as a founding fellow of the Canadian Information Processing Society in 2006. Harvey Mudd College receives funding from many organizations, including the Ahmanson Foundation, the Annenberg Foundation, the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation, the Arthur Vining Davis Foundations, Camille & Henry Dreyfus Foundation, Edison International, the Hearst Foundations, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Honeywell, Intel Corporation, the Fletcher Jones Foundation, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the National Institute of Standards & Technology, the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Ralph M. Parsons Foundation, Research Corporation for Science Advancement and the John Stauffer Charitable Trust. This article first appeared in The Conversation .",
"URL": "https://www.newsweek.com/how-can-we-encourage-more-women-study-computer-science-341652"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Updated | Microsoft Corporation has agreed to buy LinkedIn Corporation for $26.2 billion in its biggest-ever deal, combining the software giant's fast-growing cloud services business with the world's largest online network for professionals. The offer of $196 per share represents a premium of 49.5 percent to LinkedIn's Friday closing price. LinkedIn's shares were jumped 48 percent to $194.28 before the opening bell on Monday. Microsoft's shares were down 3.3 percent. \"Today is a re-founding moment for LinkedIn,\" Reid Hoffman, chairman of LinkedIn's board, said in a statement. Jeff Weiner will remain chief executive of LinkedIn, reporting to Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. \"I have always had a great admiration for LinkedIn,\" Nadella said in a video on Microsoft's website. \"I have been talking with Reid and Jeff for a while ... I have been thinking about this for a long time.\" The deal is expected to close in 2016, the companies said in a joint statement. Microsoft said it would issue new debt to fund the deal. After the deal, LinkedIn will become part of Microsoft's productivity and business processes unit. This article has been updated with additional details about the deal.",
"URL": "https://www.newsweek.com/microsoft-acquiring-linkedin-469668"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "U.S. stocks tumbled Wednesday with the technology sector, the largest sector weight in the S&P 500, acting as the primary culprit. The tech-heavy Nasdaq-100 Index shed 4.40 percent while the Technology Select Sector Index dropped 4.85 percent. Not all traders were frowning, however. Positioning in some leveraged inverse technology exchange traded funds (ETFs) indicates some traders were prepared for Wednesday's technology tumble. Continue Reading Below What Happened Among inverse leveraged technology ETFs, the Direxion Daily Technology Bear 3X Shares (NYSE: TECS Opens a New Window. ) is one of traders' favorites. TECS looks to deliver triple the daily inverse Opens a New Window. returns of the Technology Select Sector Index. More From Benzinga JPMorgan Finds Multiple Reasons To Turn Bullish On Lumentum Opens a New Window. Some Traders Were Prepared For Wednesday's Tech Slide Opens a New Window. Wall Street Sees Worst Day in 8 Months: ETF Winners & Losers Opens a New Window. That index includes exposure to companies in the following industries: computers and peripherals; software; diversified telecommunications services; communications equipment; semiconductors and semi-conductor equipment; internet software and services; IT services; electronic equipment, instruments and components; wireless telecommunication services; and office electronics, according to Direxion . TECS can serve as a short-term hedge on long positions in Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL Opens a New Window. ) and Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ: MSFT Opens a New Window. ) because those two stocks combine for over a quarter of the underlying index's weight. Advertisement Why It's Important Flows data indicate some traders were bracing for the retreat in technology stocks prior to Wednesday. For the 30 days ended Oct. 9, 2018, traders added an average of almost $128,600 a day to the bearish TECS, according to Direxion data . TECS was not the only bearish technology ETF traders displayed enthusiasm for over that period. During that time frame, the Direxion Daily Semiconductor Bear 3X Shares (NYSE: SOXS Opens a New Window. ) averaged daily inflows of nearly $301,000. SOXS attempts to deliver triple the daily inverse returns Opens a New Window. of the PHLX Semiconductor Sector Index. What's Next Earnings season will soon test the validity of the short technology thesis. From Oct. 22 through Nov. 2, about two-thirds Opens a New Window. of the Technology Select Sector Index delivers quarterly results. Over the same period, about 40 percent of the PHLX Semiconductor Sector Index reports earnings. Related Links: A New IPO ETF. Opens a New Window. Bell Tolls For These Leveraged ETFs Opens a New Window. . 2018 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.",
"URL": "https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/some-traders-were-prepared-for-wednesdays-tech-slide"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Whirlpool Corporation (NYSE: WHR), Amgen Inc. (NASDAQ: AMGN), and Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ: MSFT) are very different companies, but they all share one thing in common: Our Motley Fool contributors think now's a good time to add them to dividend portfolios. What makes these companies special? Read on to learn why Whirlpool could be a bargain-bin buy because of tariffs, Amgen could benefit from dividend growth thanks to new drugs, and Microsoft's big bet on the cloud makes it a savvy buy. Take this high-yield stock for a spin Continue Reading Below Sean Williams Opens a New Window. (Whirlpool): Although I've probably beaten the door down on Whirlpool in recent months as its share price has continued to decline, I'm going to do it once again. When it comes to top-tier dividend stocks, few if any look more attractive than appliance kingpin Whirlpool. There's little denying that Whirlpool is going through some tough times at the moment. In particular, the trade war building between the U.S. and other markets, including China, has pushed up the company's steel and aluminum costs, which in turn have coerced it to raise its prices in the United States. Since this is Whirlpool's most lucrative market, higher costs and weaker sales from consumer sticker shock have hurt its sales and profitability. But the thing to remember, here, is that Whirlpool has been down this road many times before. After all, it is a cyclical company. Its management team understands how to manage its expenditures and shift its focus to higher-growth regions. In recent years, the company has been buying its way into Asia Opens a New Window. , which offers a double-digit annual growth opportunity. We've also been down a similar path before, where Whirlpool has had to raise its unit prices to account for rising raw material costs. And while sticker shock is a genuine concern, it tends to last only for a few quarters. Historically, the U.S. economy has spent 86% of the time since the end of World War II in a period of economic expansion, and that bodes well for a brand-name appliance maker. Fundamentally, dipping your toes in the water also appears to make a lot of sense. At a forward P/E of just 7.6, Whirlpool is as cheap as it's been in a decade Opens a New Window. . And, as the icing on the cake, it's parsing out a 3.6% yield. It's not the flashiest or fastest-growth dividend stock by any means, but it should get the job done for your portfolio if you buy and hold for a minimum of five years. Advertisement A double-digit dividend grower Todd Campbell Opens a New Window. ( Amgen): It's not the highest income producing stock in biopharma, but Amgen may offer an opportunity for upside that shouldn't be ignored by income investors. Following a 15% year-over-year increase to its dividend, its shares yield a competitive 2.7%, and thanks to new drug approvals and a packed R&D pipeline, there should be plenty of dividend-friendly cash flow to support future dividend hikes. Amgen's pipeline hasn't stirred investors' imaginations as much as pipelines at smaller upstarts, but some important wins over the past few years are allowing revenue to grow despite slowing sales of its older drugs, including Neupogen, Epogen, and Enbrel. After a study showed Opens a New Window. it reduces the risk of major cardiovascular events, sales of the company's cholesterol-lowering biologic Repatha jumped 78% year over year to $148 million last quarter. Blincyto, a drug targeting a specific form of leukemia, saw sales climb 40% year over year to $60 million, and sales of Prolia, an osteoporosis drug, grew 21% to $610 million last quarter. Overall, Amgen's sales clocked in at $6.1 billion in Q2, up 4% from last year, and its EPS increased 17% to $3.83. Management now expects its top line to exceed $22.5 billion this year, up from prior guidance of at least $21.9 billion, and its EPS to eclipse $13.30, up from its prior estimate of at least $12.80. Recent approvals, including Aimovig, a migraine drug, Parsabiv, a drug used to prevent calcium from being released by bones in dialysis patients, and Kanjinti, a biosimilar approved in the EU as an alternative to the blockbuster cancer drug Herceptin, all support future sales and profit growth. R&D projects, including a biosimilar to the $18 billion plus Humira and slate of immuno-oncology drugs could also move the needle for investors. You need to take another look at this tech giant Chris Neiger Opens a New Window. (Microsoft): Yes, there are plenty of other companies out there that can beat Microsoft's current dividend yield of about 1.6%, but what the company lacks in yield it more than makes up for in other areas. First, consider that Microsoft has a 14-year history of consecutively raising its dividend, and its dividend payments only make up about 40% of the company's free cash flow, which means it has plenty of room to increase its dividend over time Opens a New Window. . Additionally, investors should take Microsoft's cloud-computing revenue growth and potential in mind. In the fourth quarter of 2017, the company grew its Intelligent Cloud sales by 23%, and it now makes up about a one-third of the company's total revenue. The company's cloud-computing Opens a New Window. growth over the past few years has helped Microsoft become the No. 2 public cloud-computing company, right behind Amazon . That's important for investors to take note of because this market will be worth an estimated $300 billion just three years from now. Finally, Microsoft grew total revenue in the fourth quarter by 17% year over year, to $30.1 billion, thanks to increasing sales from its Productivity and Business Process segment (up 13%) and its More Personal Computing segment (up 17%). With this tech giant's sales firing on all cylinders and its potential to continue benefiting from the cloud-computing market, investors would be wise to give Microsoft's stock strong consideration. 10 stocks we like better than Microsoft When investing geniuses David and Tom Gardner have a stock tip, it can pay to listen. After all, the newsletter they have run for over a decade, Motley Fool Stock Advisor , has quadrupled the market.* David and Tom just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks Opens a New Window. for investors to buy right now... and Microsoft wasn't one of them! That's right -- they think these 10 stocks are even better buys. Click here Opens a New Window. to learn about these picks! *Stock Advisor returns as of August 6, 2018 Teresa Kersten is an employee of LinkedIn and is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. LinkedIn is owned by Microsoft. Chris Neiger Opens a New Window. has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. Sean Williams Opens a New Window. has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. Todd Campbell Opens a New Window. owns shares of Amgen and Microsoft. His clients may have positions in the companies mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends Amgen. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy Opens a New Window. .",
"URL": "https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/3-top-dividend-stocks-to-buy-right-now"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Cloud computing is big business. Public cloud spending is expected to grow 18% year over year to an estimated $260 billion in 2017, according to Opens a New Window. market research company Gartner . That growth is expected to skyrocket to $411 billion by 2020. Continue Reading Below Gartner states that the growth in cloud computing will be driven by \"the migration of infrastructure to the cloud and increased demand from increasingly compute-intensive workloads (such as artificial intelligence Opens a New Window. [AI], analytics and Internet of Things [IoT]).\" The market size of this opportunity is attracting the biggest names in technology. Investors looking to profit from this growing trend should consider Amazon.com (NASDAQ: AMZN) , Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ: MSFT) , and Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOGL) (NASDAQ: GOOG) , the clear leaders in the cloud computing revolution. Company 2016 IaaS Revenue (in millions) 2016 Market Share % YOY Growth Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) $9,775 44.2 45.9% Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) $1,579 7.1 61.1% Alibaba (NYSE: BABA) $675 3.0 126.5% Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) (NASDAQ: GOOGL) $500 2.3 100% Rackspace $484 2.2 5% All others 9,147 41.2 13.2% What is cloud computing? Cloud computing Opens a New Window. in its simplest terms is the storing and accessing of computer programs and data over the internet. These services are typically used as needed or on demand. The \"cloud\" referred to in cloud computing is the internet, so called because, in the early days online, some diagrams used the image of clouds to depict a concept that was not as widely understood as it is today. Continue Reading Below ADVERTISEMENT In some instances, a business may need additional computing resources, and making a large capital investment for additional servers or software might not be practical. This is especially true when trying to meet peak or seasonal demand. Cloud computing can provide a cost-effective solution. There are several types of services that are covered under the broad heading of cloud computing. Infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS) allows companies to rent time and space on servers on a pay-as-you-go basis, and the segment is expected to post the most substantial growth over the next five years. Software-as-a-service (SaaS) is -- as the name implies -- the use or delivery of software applications via the internet. These normally require a subscription and the provider will typically handle any regular maintenance updates and security patches. Microsoft Office 365 is a great example of this. Platform-as-a-service (PaaS) provides the platform, environment, and tools necessary to for the development, running, and testing of apps and software. A software developer kit like Google's App Engine is a good illustration. Cloud computing can also be used for file storage, backup and recovery, and data analytics. Almost anything that can be accomplished locally can be done in the cloud. Amazon When it comes to cloud computing, Amazon is the 800-pound gorilla in the room. The company debuted Amazon Web Services (AWS) in 2006 as a way of renting unused space on its massive server farms, and in doing so, pioneered the IaaS market. From those humble beginnings, AWS has become Amazon's fastest growing and most profitable business segment. To give this some perspective, Synergy Research Group estimates that Amazon's cloud business is \"bigger than it next five largest competitors combined.\" According to Gartner's Magic Quadrant Opens a New Window. Amazon is the undisputed frontrunner in IaaS and has been for the last decade. It controls an estimated 40% of the market and a significant lead over its next nearest competitor. The company also leads in the integrated IaaS+PaaS market. AWS offers a wide variety of pay-as-you-go services including database storage, application services, analytics, and artificial intelligence. In the third quarter 2017, AWS saw net sales grow 55% year over year, producing 10% of Amazon's revenue and all of its profit. In fact, AWS is currently subsidizing the company's e-commerce business, which is operating at a loss. The reason the cloud computing segment contributed so much is because of its really massive operating margins. Of the $4.6 billion in revenue generated by AWS, it produced operating income of $1.17 billion -- operating margins of over 25%. The customer list for AWS is a veritable Who's Who of well-known companies, including Netflix, Inc. , Ancestry.com, Expedia, Inc. , Live Nation Entertainment , and Hulu. Microsoft Microsoft is a significant player in more than one segment of cloud computing. The company is the leader in the SaaS market according to Synergy Research Group Opens a New Window. . Microsoft is also a key player in the IaaS market, with its Azure cloud platform second to only AWS, with an estimated 11% market share. The company is also the only other company in the \"leader\" quadrant, according to Gartner, which estimated Azure's end-of-2016 revenue run rate at approximately $3 billion. Azure has been seeing robust adoption, particularly among those with a penchant for Microsoft products and working environment. While Azure's offerings are still dwarfed by AWS, the company continues to beef up Azure to include additional services and its expertise to help customers with deployment. In the most recent quarter, Microsoft's Office commercial products grew 10%, largely the result of commercial revenue from Office 365, which jumped 42% year over year. The company's intelligent cloud segment grew 17% year over year, with revenue from its Azure Cloud increasing 90% over the prior-year quarter. Google Google is known for its ubiquitous search, but because of the data centers and server farms needed to facilitate that business, the company has effectively been a cloud company since day one. Google places a distant third in the cloud computing arena, garnering an estimated 6% of the market. It should be noted that while the company has had a platform offering since 2008, it didn't enter the IaaS market until 2013. Google Cloud has made remarkable headway in a relatively short time, and the company has been aggressively playing catch-up. Urs Hölzle, Google's senior vice president of technical infrastructure, has stated that he believes that within several years, the company's cloud computing will generate as much revenue as its advertising business. Two years ago, the company hired Diane Greene, co-founder of VMWare to run its cloud business. Ms. Green believes that Google Cloud could take on AWS for the top spot as early as 2022. Google also believes its world-class artificial intelligence will attract an increasing number of cloud customers. The company is a pioneer in the field of AI Opens a New Window. , and during its third quarter 2017 earnings conference call, Google CEO Sundar Pichai stated, \"Customers tell us they are switching to Google Cloud Platform because of our prowess in data analytics and machine learning.\" For the three months ended September 30, 2017, Google's \"other revenues\", which includes cloud computing and the Google Play app store, grew 40% year over year to $3.4 billion and amounted to 12% of Google's revenue, up from 11% in the prior year period. Final thoughts Cloud computing is still a relatively young concept, having been pioneered by Amazon in 2006. Cisco 's Global Cloud Index report estimates that annual global cloud traffic will grow at a compound annual growth rate of 30% between 2015 and 2020 and more than quadrupled during that time. The report also forecasts that over the same five years, public cloud workloads will grow from 49% of the total to 68%. This continuing migration to the cloud will provide a growing and lucrative opportunity for cloud providers. The market leaders in cloud computing will provide a way for businesses to tap into technological advances such as cybersecurity, the internet of things, and artificial intelligence. According to John Dinsdale, a Chief Analyst and Research Director at Synergy Research Group, \"it is becoming increasingly difficult for cloud providers outside of the leading pack to make an impression on the market share rankings.\" The early movers in this field will continue to reap the benefits for years and possibly decades to come. 10 stocks we like better than Amazon When investing geniuses David and Tom Gardner have a stock tip, it can pay to listen. After all, the newsletter they have run for over a decade, Motley Fool Stock Advisor , has tripled the market.* David and Tom just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks Opens a New Window. for investors to buy right now... and Amazon wasn't one of them! That's right -- they think these 10 stocks are even better buys. Click here Opens a New Window. to learn about these picks! *Stock Advisor returns as of November 6, 2017 John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Teresa Kersten is an employee of LinkedIn and is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. LinkedIn is owned by Microsoft. Danny Vena Opens a New Window. owns shares of Alphabet (A shares), Amazon, and Netflix. The Motley Fool owns shares of and recommends Alphabet (A shares), Alphabet (C shares), Amazon, and Netflix. The Motley Fool recommends Cisco Systems, Expedia, and Live Nation Entertainment. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy Opens a New Window. .",
"URL": "http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/12/02/3-top-cloud-computing-stocks-to-buy-now.html"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "As of this writing, the price of a single bitcoin token has risen 1,001% over the past 52 weeks. That figure is likely to have changed by the time you read this, and it's a coin toss whether bitcoin will move up or down from here. Continue Reading Below Bitcoin has created a lot of wealth in a hurry, but many investors stay away from this asset-less asset to focus on more substantial investments. And if you believe in digital currency as an idea but can't be convinced that bitcoin itself will stick around for the long haul, you can invest in bitcoin-like ideas by leaning on some household-name stocks. So we asked a few of your fellow investors here at The Motley Fool how traditional stocks can do a better job of managing your nest egg than through a risky bitcoin bet. Read on to see how they came up with Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ: MSFT) , IBM (NYSE: IBM) , and Oracle (NYSE: ORCL) . Told you they would sound familiar, didn't I? Buy shares in a business Danny Vena Opens a New Window. (Microsoft): As an accountant, I haven't invested in bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency because there aren't any underlying assets. This is more speculation than investing at this point, particularly in light of the 700% gain in bitcoin this year, which has all the makings of a bubble. The distributed database used by the underlying blockchain technology, however, could potentially revolutionize a number of different industries. Continue Reading Below ADVERTISEMENT Investors looking to invest in blockchain could choose to invest in a company that has a solid and growing business, provides necessary services to other companies, and is itself making a play in the area of blockchain. For me, that company is Microsoft. Known for its ubiquitous Office Suite of productivity software and the Internet Explorer browser, Microsoft has invested in a number of other areas that could significantly propel growth, like its investments in the areas of artificial intelligence Opens a New Window. and blockchain. Microsoft's Azure Cloud has become the strongest competitor to Amazon.com 's (NASDAQ: AMZN) Web Services (AWS) and has been closing the gap, according to research company Gartner. The company recently announced its Azure blockchain-as-a-service suite that offers numerous blockchain apps and \"supports an ever-growing number of distributed ledger technologies that address specific business and technical requirements.\" This is on top of an already thriving business. In its most recent quarter Opens a New Window. , Microsoft's revenue grew to $24.5 billion, a billion higher than consensus estimates, while earnings per share grew 17%. Business network site LinkedIn contributed $1.1 billion to revenue in the quarter and is seeing record levels of engagement. A big, blue bet on the blockchain industry at large Anders Bylund Opens a New Window. (IBM): There is no doubt in my mind that blockchain technologies will change the world for the better. What's less clear is exactly which digital tokens will hit the mainstream in a big way. Bitcoin, for example, is an early winner but may not survive in the long run. If you're interested in blockchain solutions but not ready to place your bets among the current assortment of cryptocurrencies and token chains, you should look into companies driving blockchain research for the long run. At the forefront of that effort, you'll find good old IBM. Big Blue is doing serious research on blockchain technologies Opens a New Window. , having already produced several dozen patents in that field. The company is finding ways to pair blockchain ledgers up with its world-leading artificial-intelligence tools under the IBM Watson banner. The next step is finding commercial applications and paying customers for all this. That's happening, too. IBM recently launched a blockchain-based platform to help food retailers track their wares from production to final sale, with a focus on food safety. Some of the largest food producers and grocery store chains in the world are already on board. Real-world implementations should follow in the next couple of years. Another IBM-powered blockchain tool is helping money center banks track their financial trading. Canadian banks use Big Blue's blockchain platforms to track and verify the identity of their customers. And on and on it goes. IBM provides the technology platform, helps clients develop blockchain-based tools to meet their needs, keeps driving the whole technology forward, and is building a large business opportunity for the long haul. So IBM is a strong blockchain play for patient investors. On top of that, the stock currently trades at the bargain-basement level of 11 times forward earnings while offering a cash-backed dividend yield of 3.9%. This is a winning investment in many ways, and IBM also puts you right at the center of the exploding blockchain industry -- without binding your investment to bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency in particular. The database king Tim Green Opens a New Window. (Oracle): Bitcoin is one application of blockchain technology. The success of blockchain does not imply the success of bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency, much like the success of the internet didn't imply the success of every overheated dot-com stock nearly 20 years ago. If you want to bet on blockchain technology without a stomach-churning amount of risk, digital trinkets aren't the answer. Given that blockchain is a type of database, it makes sense that Oracle is investing in the technology. The database giant launched its enterprise-grade blockchain cloud service in October, which promises to speed up business processes, reduce risk, and increase efficiency for its customers. Blockchain isn't the only major initiative Oracle is undertaking. The company announced the Oracle Autonomous Database Cloud Opens a New Window. , a cloud database service powered by the next-generation Oracle Database 18c. The Autonomous Database Cloud aims to lower costs by automating processes, using machine learning to tune performance and upgrade and patch itself automatically. Oracle is promising 99.995% up-time along with prices that handily undercut AWS. Like many legacy tech giants, Oracle finds itself in need of innovation. With the company's investments in blockchain technology and cloud computing, it's taking the steps necessary to maintain its database dominance. 10 stocks we like better than IBM When investing geniuses David and Tom Gardner have a stock tip, it can pay to listen. After all, the newsletter they have run for over a decade, Motley Fool Stock Advisor , has tripled the market.* David and Tom just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks Opens a New Window. for investors to buy right now... and IBM wasn't one of them! That's right -- they think these 10 stocks are even better buys. Click here Opens a New Window. to learn about these picks! *Stock Advisor returns as of November 6, 2017 John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Teresa Kersten, an employee of LinkedIn, a Microsoft subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Anders Bylund Opens a New Window. owns shares of Amazon and IBM. Danny Vena Opens a New Window. owns shares of Amazon. Timothy Green Opens a New Window. owns shares of IBM. The Motley Fool owns shares of and recommends Amazon. The Motley Fool also owns shares of Oracle. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy Opens a New Window. .",
"URL": "http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/11/21/forget-bitcoin-youre-better-off-buying-these-3-stocks.html"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": " Last Updated: October 17 2019 Article by Michael Koch, Daniel Cohen and Julie RosenthalGoodmans LLP In an expansion of section 36 of the Competition Act, an eight member majority of the Supreme Court has ruled that \"umbrella purchasers\" can be class members in price-fixing class actions. Umbrella purchasers are consumers who purchased products neither manufactured nor supplied by any conspirator in the price fixing, but who were nonetheless subjected to higher prices due to the price \"umbrella\" created by that price-fixing. This decision could have a significant impact on the potential damages payable by price-fixing conspirators. Background Pioneer Corp v. Godfrey dealt with a class action brought on behalf of all persons in British Columbia who purchased \"optical disc drives\" or products containing such drives (such as video game consoles). The defendants comprise a relatively large group, four of whom are alleged to account for approximately 94% of the optical disc drives sold in British Columbia during the relevant time. At the heart of the claim is an allegation that the defendants conspired to fix the prices they charged for the disc drives. The plaintiff claims damages under the Competition Act (the \"Act\") as well as for common law conspiracy. The claim was certified as a class action by the British Columbia Supreme Court, and that order was upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The claim was brought not only on behalf of persons who purchased products manufactured by the defendants, but also on behalf of persons who purchased disc drives (or products containing disc drives) that were manufactured by companies other than the defendants (referred to as \"umbrella purchasers\"). The plaintiff seeks damages in respect of those allegedly excessive prices as well as in respect of the prices charged on goods manufactured by the defendants. The Supreme Court had confirmed inPro-Sys Consultants v. Microsoft Corporation (\"Pro-Sys\") that \"indirect purchasers\" of products manufactured by the defendants could claim under section 36 for allegedly inflated prices, but had never before ruled on whether such prices paid by umbrella purchasers could also be the subject of a claim under the Act. Umbrella Purchasers The Supreme Court determined that umbrella purchasers could indeed advance claims under section 36 of the Act. The theory behind holding price-fixers liable to these purchasers is that a competitor, outside the cartel, might raise the price for their products in order to meet the market – as the Court described it, \"[I]n short, a rising tide lifts all boats.\" The Court found that the words of the Act, which provide a cause of action to any person who has \"suffered loss or damage as a result of\" the defendant's illegal conduct, did not narrow the class of claimants to those who purchased products directly from the defendants or who were indirectly supplied by the defendants. Moreover, the Court focused on the purpose of the Act – to provide consumers with \"competitive prices and product choices\" – as supporting claims by umbrella purchasers. The Court also focused on the ability of these claims to promote deterrence, an aspect of private enforcement under Canadian law that has lagged the law in the US, where treble damages are recoverable by plaintiffs in civil suits to deter criminal conduct. Finally, the Court determined that barring a class of purchasers who were intended by the defendants to pay higher prices as a result of their price-fixing is inconsistent with the compensatory goal of the Act. This same focus on the umbrella effects as the \"intended consequence\" of the defendants' anti-competitive behaviour influenced the Court's ruling that permitting umbrella claims would not lead to \"indeterminate liability\". It is premature to predict the impact of this ruling on the case before the Court or in any other civil action for price-fixing, and the Court acknowledged that \"this is not to say that umbrella purchasers' actions will not be complex or otherwise difficult to pursue\" from the perspective of leading evidence that shows a causal link between loss suffered and the defendant's conduct. Additional Findings In addition to its ruling extending section 36 claims to umbrella purchasers, the Court's decision also touched upon two important matters in class action law. First, the Court held that aggregate damage provisions in class action regimes are purely remedial and cannot be used to establish liability. Regardless of whether aggregate damages are certified as a common issue, the trial judge must be satisfied that any individuals who participate in a damage award actually suffered a loss. Second, the Court reiterated its decision in Pro-Sys, finding that for loss-related questions to be certified as common issues, plaintiffs need only demonstrate an expert methodology sufficiently credible or plausible to show that the loss reached the requisite purchaser level. It is not necessary that the methodology be able to show that each and every class member at that level suffered damage or identify those who did or did not. To discuss the Court's decision or competition or class action matters more generally, please contact the authors or any member of our Class Action or Competition Law Groups. The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on in that way. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com. Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article. Do you have a Question or Comment?Click here to email the AuthorInterested in the next Webinar on this Topic?Click here to register your Interest ContributorMichael KochGoodmans LLP Email FirmView Website Events from this Firm More from this Firm More from this Author News About this Firm Authors Michael KochDaniel CohenJulie Rosenthal More Popular Related Articles on Anti-trust/Competition Law from Canada Making It Rain: Supreme Court Allows Umbrella Purchaser Claims Torys LLP On September 20, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its long-awaited decision in an important competition class action. Pioneer Corp. v. Godfrey (Godfrey) Competition Bureau Reinforces Its Focus On Non-Notifiable Transactions McCarthy Tétrault LLP Transactions involving traditional manufacturing and services companies have received inquiries in addition to those in the digital sector. Supreme Court Of Canada Determines That Limitation Period Contained In S. 36(4)(a)(i) Of The Competition Act Is Subject To Discoverability Dentons In Pioneer Corp. v. Godfrey, 2019 SCC 42, an 8-1 majority of the Supreme Court of Canada determined that the discoverability rule applies to the limitation period in s. Supreme Court Of Canada Issues Landmark Competition Class Action Decision In Godfrey Appeals Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Today, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a landmark competition class action decision in Toshiba Corporation, et al v Neil Godfrey and Pioneer Corporation, et al v Neil Godfrey. Competition Class Actions In Canada: The Supreme Court Resets The Ground Rules Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP In a landmark decision that was released this morning, the Supreme Court has revisited and reset the ground rules governing the availability of collective relief for consumers in Canada In association with Mondaq Advice Centres (MACs) Competition and Antitrust International Trade and Anti-Corruption Business Valuation and Financial Loss More Advice CentersRelated Topics Anti-trust/Competition Law Antitrust, EU Competition Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration Class Actions Related Articles The Godfrey Decision: Competition Class Action Certification Made (Even) Easier McMillan LLP Making It Rain: Supreme Court Allows Umbrella Purchaser Claims Torys LLP Competition Bureau Reinforces Its Focus On Non-Notifiable Transactions McCarthy Tétrault LLP Supreme Court Class Action Decision In Godfrey Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP Supreme Court Of Canada Clarifies Procedures For Class-Action Certification Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP Up-coming Events Search Region / Country...WorldwideLatin AmericaEuropeAsia PacificMiddle EastAsiaEuropean UnionBrazilCanadaChinaIrelandNetherlandsSwitzerlandUnited Arab EmiratesUKUnited StatesTopic...Accounting and AuditAnti-trust/Competition Law- Antitrust, EU Competition - Cartels, MonopoliesConsumer Protection- EducationCorporate/Commercial Law- M&A/Private EquityEmployment and HR- Contract of Employment- Discrimination, Disability & Sexual Harassment- Employee Benefits & Compensation- Employee Rights/ Labour Relations- Employment Litigation/ Tribunals- Health & Safety- Energy Law- RenewablesFamily and Matrimonial- Wills/ Intestacy/ Estate PlanningFinance and Banking- Financial Services- Fund Management/ REITsFood, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences- Food and Drugs Law- HealthcareInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-structuring- Financial Restructuring- Insolvency/Bankruptcy- Insurance Laws and ProductsIntellectual Property- CopyrightLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration- Disclosure & Electronic Discovery & PrivilegeMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment- Advertising, Marketing & BrandingPrivacy- Data ProtectionReal Estate and Construction- Real Estate- Industry Updates & Analysis- Knowledge Management- TechnologyTax- Corporate Tax- Sales Taxes: VAT, GST- Tax AuthoritiesTechnology- Fin Tech- New Technology- SecurityWealth Management- Wealth & Asset ManagementShow More FiltersTimeframe...This WeekNext Two WeeksNext MonthNext QuarterEvent Type...BriefingBusiness BreakfastConferenceOtherPodcastRoundtableSeminarSpeaking EngagementSymposiumVideo/ AudioWebinarWorkshopLocation...Brazil- Sao PauloCanada- Calgary- Edmonton- Ontario- Toronto- VancouverChina- Beijing- ShanghaiIreland- DublinNetherlands- RotterdamSwitzerland- LausanneUK- Birmingham- LondonUnited Arab Emirates- DubaiUnited States- California- Dallas- Los Angeles- New York- San Diego- San Francisco- Washington- Washington, DCGO Tools Print Font Size:Translation ChannelsMondaq on Twitter Free News Alert Custom RSS Feed Contact Us | Your Privacy | Feedback © Mondaq® Ltd 1994 - 2019 All Rights Reserved Login / Register Free News Alert Privacy/ Cookies Terms & Conditions About Mondaq Unsubscribe TOPICS| REGIONS| COMPARATIVE GUIDES| ADVICE CENTRE| ABOUT ",
"URL": "http://mondaq.com/canada/x/853524/Antitrust Competition/Supreme Court Allows Pricefixing Class Action On Behalf Of Umbrella Purchasers To Proceed"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Theft of password or account information is cited as a concern for 47 per cent of respondents. Around 55 per cent of global respondents are experiencing multiple online risks, yet only 16 per cent say they take multiple proactive steps to help protect themselves and their data, the second annual Microsoft Computing Safety Index has found. The research was conducted by Microsoft Corporation to mark this year’s international Safer Internet Day. This year the MCSI also examined mobile safety behaviours, discovering that although less than half of respondents (42 per cent) run software updates on their personal computers, only 28 per cent run regular updates on their mobile devices, potentially compounding their risk. “Mobile devices often have just as much, if not more, valuable personal information stored on them as a home computer, making mobile devices equally attractive to data-stealing criminals,” Microsoft’s incoming chief online safety officer Jacqueline Beauchere said. “The latest MCSI results demonstrate that no matter where or how people access the internet, exercising safer online habits is essential. There are steps that people can take and technologies that they can employ to help prevent them from becoming a victim.” The MCSI surveyed more than 10,000 PC, smartphone and tablet users in 20 countries and regions about their personal approach to online safety and assigned a point scale of 0 to 100 based on their answers. The global average score was 34 for PC online safety and 40 for mobile. Countries surveyed in the MCSI were Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Singapore, Spain, South Korea, Turkey, the UK and the US. Theft of password or account information was cited as a concern for 47 per cent of respondents, with 33 per cent saying they use secure websites and 28 per cent saying they avoid using open wi-fi spots on their mobile devices. More than 45 per cent of respondents said they worry about computer viruses, with fewer than half (44 per cent) turning and leaving on firewalls, and just more than half (53 per cent) installing antivirus software on their PCs. Around 45 per cent of those surveyed said they worry about having their identity stolen, yet only 34 per cent have a personal identification number to unlock their mobile device, and just 38 per cent say they educate themselves about the latest steps to help prevent identity theft.",
"URL": "https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/Microsoft-study-finds-consumers-do-little-to-mitigate-online-risks.457512"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Microsoft CEO pours cold water on Yahoo interest He dismisses speculation Microsoft is interested in buying Yahoo Inc. Sydney: Microsoft Corporation Chief Executive Steve Ballmer dismissed speculation that the software giant might still be interested in buying Yahoo Inc, sending shares of the Internet company down 14 per cent. \"We made an offer, we made another offer. We moved on,\" Ballmer told a business luncheon in Sydney on Friday, when asked for the company's plans after a planned Web search advertising partnership between Yahoo and Google Inc fell through this week. \"We tried at one point to do a partnership around search and that didn't work either, and we moved on and they moved on. We are not interested in going back and re-looking at an acquisition. I don't know why they would be either, frankly,\" Ballmer said. He added that he thought there were still opportunities for some kind of partnership around search. Ballmer's comments came two days after Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang told an Internet conference in San Francisco that he believed a deal with Yahoo was still the best option for Microsoft. Both companies lag Google in the Web search market. Shares of Yahoo surged earlier this week on speculation that it and Microsoft were in advanced talks, after Google pulled out of the search ad deal with Yahoo. Yahoo officials later said that the rumours were untrue. Microsoft abandoned an unsolicited $47.5 billion takeover bid for Yahoo in May, after the Internet company had rejected its $33-per-share offer as too low. In June, Google and Yahoo announced that their planned search ad partnership, which Yahoo had struck as a way of fending off Microsoft. The two delayed implementation to allow the US Justice Department to review the deal, but Google this week withdrew from the pact rather than face a protracted legal fight after antitrust regulators had concerns. Yahoo shares fell $2.05 to $11.91 in morning trading on the Nasdaq, while Microsoft shares were up 1.92 per cent at $21.28. Also Watch Sacred Games: Casts Talk About Their Journey, Roles and Anurag Kashyap Thursday 09 August , 2018 Padwomen: Chandigarh Teens Are Making Sanitary Napkins To Help Underprivileged Thursday 09 August , 2018 World Tribal Day: Indian Politicians Try To Garner Votes Thursday 09 August , 2018 Watch: Inside India’s First Ikea Store Tuesday 07 August , 2018 Sunset in Chennai: DMK Patriarch M Karunanidhi No More Microsoft coropration Steve Ballmer Yahoo Inc.",
"URL": "https://www.news18.com/news/business/microsoft-ceo-pours-cold-water-on-yahoo-interest-301277.html"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Washington : In a proposal that will hit Indian IT companies the most, US software giant Microsoft Corporation has suggested a whopping fee of $10,000 (over Rs 5 lakh) for a new category of H1B visas and $15,000 (more than Rs 7.5 lakh) for permanent residency or Green Card. Both the new categories of H-1B and Green Cards, according to the Microsoft plan, would have an annual capacity of 20,000 and would be restricted to STEM (science, technology, engineering and math). According to Microsoft, the proposed hike could see nearly $5billion raised in over a decade. The money thus raised, according to the US company, would be used for the STEM education programs. Microsoft is getting in on the H1B visa act. Reuters. Given that Indian techies grab the maximum number of H-1B visas, such a proposal, if accepted by the Congress, would hit the Indian IT companies the most. The Microsoft proposal comes even as visiting External Affairs Minister, SM Krishna, is expected to raise the issue of the hike in fees of H-1B visas, in his meeting with the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in New York early this week. The proposal was revealed at a Washington-based think-tank gathering last week by Brad Smith, general counsel & executive vice president, legal & corporate Affairs, of Microsoft. He said the money thus raised would be used to generate the necessary skilled manpower in the coming years. Microsoft currently has an opening of 6,000 jobs in the country, of which more than 3,400 jobs are reserved for researchers, developers and engineers. \"An effective national talent strategy therefore needs to combine long-term improvements in STEM education in the United States with targeted, short-term, high-skilled immigration reforms.\" \"If done right, the latter can help fund the former, and our white paper outlines specific recommendations,\" he said. Microsoft, he said, believes this initiative should include, among other things, funding for states to strengthen K-12 STEM education. This is by providing additional resources to recruit and train STEM teachers, broaden access to computer science in high school and expand higher education capacity to produce more STEM degrees. In his speech, Smith said Congress should create a new, supplemental category with 20,000 visas annually for STEM skills that are in short supply. \"In addition, Congress should take advantage of prior unused green cards by making a supplemental allocation of 20,000 new green card slots for workers with STEM skills, Smith said. Simultaneously, Microsoft released \"A National Talent Strategy\" policy paper with details of its proposals. \"To provide employers with immediate access to the highly talented STEM professionals that their businesses need, a new allocation of 20,000 H-1B visas for foreign nationals with a US bachelor's degree or equivalent foreign degree in a STEM discipline should be established,\" said the 32-page policy paper. To qualify for these visas, it said, employers would be required to make an investment of $10,000 toward the development of future American STEM workers for each visa sought from the new allocation. According to the policy paper, Microsoft conceded, this proposal will not solve the broad shortage of H-1B visas overall, given the stark disparity between the current supply of H-1B visas and the demand for skilled workers. \"But it will make an appreciable impact in addressing the talent crisis many businesses face today due to the shortage of high skilled STEM workers,\" it said. \"In addition to improving the ability of private-sector employers to meet their STEM-based workforce needs, full utilisation of this new allocation of visas would generate $200 million in investments for the American STEM pipeline annually. \"The incentive of immediate visa availability for STEM professionals would also connect participating employers? staffing strategies today directly to the effort to rebuild the American STEM pipeline for tomorrow,? it added. Microsoft s recommends recapturing 20,000 unused employment based green card numbers annually to reduce the green card backlog and generate up to $300 million per annum for new investments in the American STEM pipeline. This would help address the backlog and enable employers to retain targeted high-skilled foreign workers and attract the best and brightest from around the world. \"To qualify for these green card numbers, employers would invest $15,000 for the development of future American STEM workers for each green card number made available through recapture\", the policy paper said. The green card numbers should be assignable only to employees who already have an approved PERM labour certification and/ or I-140 immigrant visa petition, making them eligible for immediate processing of their green card applications, it said. \"Based on our own analysis, we believe that it would be fair and feasible to require an investment of $10,000 for each of these new STEM visas and $15,000 for each of these new STEM green cards. PTI",
"URL": "https://www.firstpost.com/business/microsoft-pushes-for-h1b-visa-fee-to-be-hiked-to-10k-474935.html"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "T R O U B L E D C O M P A N Y R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 31, 2006, Vol. 10, No. 128 Headlines360 GLOBAL: Defaults on $20MM Promissory Note Issued to Met LifeABB LUMMUS: Gets Final Court Okay on $320 Million DIP FinancingABB LUMMUS: Bankruptcy Services Okayed as Claims & Balloting AgentABB LUMMUS: Withdraws Request to Employ FTI Consulting as AdvisorACCESS WORLDWIDE: Posts $1.2 Million Net Loss in First QuarterACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Incurs $4.2 Million Net Loss in 1st QuarterADELPHIA COMMS: Dispute Ensues Over Bank Lenders DistributionADELPHIA: Barbs on Multi-Mil. Suit with Devon Trustee ContinuesADELPHIA COMMS: TCR Sports Wants FCC to Condition Sale to ComcastADVANCED COMMS: Posts $284,621 Net Loss in 2006 3rd Fiscal QuarterAH-DH APARTMENTS: Hires McGuire Craddock as Bankruptcy CounselAH-DH APARTMENTS: DB Holdings Taps PronskePatel as Bankr. CounselAIR CANADA: Settles Misconduct Litigation with Westjet AirlinesALLIED HOLDINGS: Court Approves 4th Amendment to DIP Loan PactALLIED HOLDINGS: Inks Amended Delivery Agreement with HondaAMERICAN ACHIEVEMENT: Restates 2005 Annual ReportAMERICAN CELLULAR: To Purchase Highland Cellular for $95 MillionAPPLETON PAPERS: Solicits Consents to Amend Senior Notes ContractARMSTRONG WORLD: Parent Company Earns $28 Million in First QuarterASARCO LLC: FCR & Asbestos Panel Balks at Estimation ProtocolASARCO LLC: Alvarez & Marsal Okayed as Fin'l & Turnaround AdvisorASARCO LLC: Encycle Trustee Wants to Hire American AppraisersATA AIRLINES: Inks Stipulation Allowing GOAA's Claim for $2 Mil.BAYOU GROUP: Files for Chapter 11 Protection in New YorkBAYOU GROUP: Voluntary Chapter 11 Case SummaryBERRY-HILL GALLERIES: Court Sets June 15 as Governmental Bar DateBIJOU-MARKET: Court Sets July 3 as Deadline for Filing of ClaimsBUCKEYE TECHNOLOGIES: Posts $795,000 Net Loss in 2006 1st QuarterCATHOLIC CHURCH: Dufresne Wants Portland's Claim Estimation DeniedCATHOLIC CHURCH: Tucson Panel Wants to Settle Claim for $367,500CATHOLIC CHURCH: Portland Asks Court to Disallow Claim No. 437CERVANTES ORCHARDS: Deere Says Disclosure Statement is IncompleteCHEMTURA CORP: Gets $85 Million from Water Additives Unit SaleCLARION TECHNOLOGIES: Posts $2.4 Mil. Net Loss in First QuarterCLEAN EARTH: Gets Interim Access to $750,000 DIP FinancingCLEAN EARTH: Has Until June 30 to File Chapter 11 PlanCLEAN EARTH: Court Approves Phil Daetwyler's Retention as COOCMS ENERGY: Posts $27 Million Net Loss in 2006 First QuarterCOMCAST CORP: Earns $466 Million in First Quarter Ended March 31DEATH ROW: U.S. Trustee Appoints Five-Member Creditors CommitteeDND TECHNOLOGIES: March 31 Balance Sheet Upside Down by $6.9 Mil.EASYLINK SERVICES: Posts $376,000 Net Loss in 2006 First QuarterELECTRIC CITY: Post $1.9 Million Net Loss in 2006 1st Fiscal Qtr.ELEPHANT TALK: Posts $487,146 Net Loss in 2006 First Fiscal Qtr.ENRON CORP: Ct. Dismisses Suit v. Caisse de Depot & Australia BankENRON CORP: Asks Court to Approve United Illuminating SettlementENRON CORP: Broadband Unit Demands $1.01M Debt Payment from i2ENTECH ENVIRONMENTAL: Posts $463,449 Net Loss in 2006 1st QuarterEPIXTAR CORP: Morrison Brown Replaces McClain & Co. as AuditorsEPIXTAR CORP: EICCG Wants to Sell Accounts Receivable to WFCBFORD MOTOR: S&P Puts Nine Related Debts' Low-B Ratings on WatchFRIENDLY ICE: Posts $1.8 Mil. Net Loss in 1st Quarter Ended Apr. 2FTS GROUP: Posts $5.9 Million Net Loss in 2006 1st Fiscal QuarterFUNCTIONAL RESTORATION: Hires SulmeyerKupetz as Bankruptcy CounselFUNCTIONAL RESTORATION: Panel Hires Pachulski Stang as CounselFUNCTIONAL RESTORATION: Taps Xroads Solutions as Financial AdvisorGLOBAL HOME: Court Okays Conway as Restructuring ConsultantsGSI GROUP: Repurchases Part of 12% Senior Notes for $7.4 MillionGULF COAST: Creditors Panel Wants Winstead Sechrest as CounselHAWS & TINGLE: Amends Chapter 11 Plan & Disclosure StatementINVERNESS MEDICAL: Expects to Spend $16.8 Mil. on Plant ClosuresIWT TESORO: McGladrey & Pullen Raises Going Concern DoubtJ. CREW: Earns $3.8 Million in Fiscal Year Ended Jan. 28, 2006JERNBERG INDUSTRIES: Wants Court to Approve PBGC Settlement AccordKIWA BIO-TECH: Posts $184,443 Net Loss in 2006 1st Fiscal QuarterKL INDUSTRIES: Hires Laner Muchin as Special Labor CounselKL INDUSTRIES: Court Approves RSM McGladrey as Financial AdvisorL-3 COMMS: Jury Awards OSI $125.6MM in Damages in N.Y. SuitLARRY'S MARKETS: Gets Interim Nod on Winterbauer as Labor CounselLEVITZ HOME: Landlords Want to Collect Unpaid RentsLEVITZ HOME: Court Grants Lease Assumption and Assignment PleaLOVESAC CORP: Gets Court Okay to Hire Squire Sanders as CounselLOVESAC CORP: Governmental Units Can File Claims Until July 31MIAD SYSTEMS: Amends Annual 2005 Report & Two 2006 Fiscal QuartersMIRANT CORP: Proposes to Acquire NRG Energy for $8 BillionMIRANT CORP: Acquisition Proposal Undervalues NRG EnergyNCP MARKETING: Files Plan & Disclosure Statement in NevadaNATIONAL MENTOR: To Buy Back $150 Mil. of 9-5/8% Sr. Sub. NotesNES RENTALS: Accepts $850MM Purchase Offer from Diamond CastleNEW ORLEANS: Chase Attempting to Arrange a $150 Million LoanNORSHIELD ASSET: Chapter 15 Petition SummaryNORTHWEST AIRLINES: Wants to Advance Employee Defense CostsNORTHWEST AIRLINES: Honeywell Wants $889,644 Claim PaidNRG ENERGY: Rejects Mirant Corp.'s $8 Billion Acquisition ProposalNRG ENERGY: Board Believes Mirant Corp.'s Proposal Undervalues NRGONEIDA LTD: U.S. Trustee Appoints Three-Member Equity CommitteeONEIDA LTD: Court Okays Otterbourg Steindler as Panel's CounselOPTINREALBIG.COM: Judge Tallman Dismisses Chapter 11 CasesORIS AUTOMOTIVE: BBK Okayed to Provide Management Support ServicesOWENS CORNING: Wants to Expand Ernst & Young's Scope of EmploymentPARTS PLUS: Del. Bank. Court Closes Remaining Chapter 11 CasePATH 1: Posts $1.7 Million Net Loss in Quarter Ended March 31PBS HOLDING: March 31 Balance Sheet Upside Down by $486,382PLIANT: Wells Fargo Says Plan Violates Indentures & Bankr. CodeREFCO INC: Must Produce Documents for Noteholders' CommitteeREFCO INC: Chapter 7 Trustee Can Liquidate Customer ClaimsROO GROUP: Posts $2.6 Mil. Net Loss in 2006 First Fiscal QuarterSAINT VINCENTS: Queens Hospital Sale Hearing Set for June 26SAINT VINCENTS: Sets Up Staten Island Sale Bidding GuidelinesSAINT VINCENTS: Wants to Pay $375,000 Break-up Fee to CastletonSENSOR SYSTEM: Weinberg & Company Raises Going Concern DoubtSERACARE LIFE: Can Use Cash Collateral on Interim BasisSIERRA HEALTH: Earns $32.7 Million in 2006 First Fiscal QuarterSILICON GRAPHICS: Can Continue Workers' Compensation ProgramSILICON GRAPHICS: Wants to Hire Ordinary Course ProfessionalsSILICON GRAPHICS: Seeks Court Nod for Compensation ProceduresTRANSAX INTERNATIONAL: Auditor Raises Going Concern DoubtUSA COMMERCIAL: U.S. Trustee Names 7-Member Contract Rights PanelUSG CORP: Settles CCR, et al., Performance Bond Dispute for $13MMUSG CORP: Illinois Revenue Dept. Demands $2.49MM in Tax PaymentsVARIG S.A.: Mitsui Says U.S. Court Protection is InappropriateVERILINK CORP: Court Okays William Gibbons as Local Bankr. CounselVERILINK CORP: Bankruptcy Administrator Appoints 7-Member PanelWORLDCOM INC: Inks Stipulation Expunging Bernard Ebbers' ClaimsWORLDCOM INC: Settles Philadelphia's Admin. Tax Claims for $432KZOOMERS HOLDING: Inks $3.5 Mil. Financing Deal with D'Alessandro* Upcoming Meetings, Conferences and Seminars *********360 GLOBAL: Defaults on $20MM Promissory Note Issued to Met Life----------------------------------------------------------------360 Global Wine Co., currently owning 50% of the membership unitsof Kirkland Knightsbridge, LLC, guaranteed the existing obligationof KKLLC for a promissory note originally issued in the amount of$20,000,000, to Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. That promissorynote is now delinquent and Met Life notified KKLLC on April 4,2006 that the loan balance has been accelerated and is due in itsentirety.The amount due Met Life as of March 31, 2006 was $21,186,832,including interest of $1,227,499 that has been accruing at adefault rate of 18% per annum since Dec. 1, 2005.Met Life said it would be initiating a foreclosure action againstthe KKLLC assets securing the promissory note as well as assets ofKirkland Cattle Co. and other assets of KKLLC owner LarryKirkland. The Company does not have the financial capacity toremedy this loan balance demand. Financial StatementsThe Company reported a net loss of $123.2 million on $4.23 millionrevenues for the three months ended March 31, 2006, as compared toa net loss of $1.7 million on $449,000 revenues for the threemonths ended March 31, 2005.As of March 31, 2006, the Company's balance sheet showed a$25.66 million stockholder's deficit and a strained liquiditywith $18.37 million in total current assets available to pay$142.9 million in total current liabilities due within the next12 months. About 360 Global WineHeadquartered in Napa Valley, California, 360 Global Wine Company-- http://www.360wines.com/-- is a California based wine producer and marketer of wine brands. 360 Global Wine Company's extensiveand diverse portfolio includes premium wines and ultra-premiumluxury wine brands, all with an emphasis on superior quality.ABB LUMMUS: Gets Final Court Okay on $320 Million DIP Financing--------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware allowed ABBLummus Global Inc., on a final basis, to obtain up to $320 millionof debtor-in-possession financing from ABB Treasury Center (USA)Inc. and ABB Holdings, Inc. The DIP Financing is composed of a$120 million unsecured revolving credit facility and a $200million credit enhancement facility.The Debtor told the Court that it needs the financing for theorderly continuation of its business operations. In addition, theDebtor pointed out that its ability to obtain sufficient workingcapital and liquidity through the incurrence of new debt is vitalto its successful reorganization.As adequate protection, the Debtor grants ABB Treasury and ABBHoldings superpriority claims and liens on all of its assets.Objections to the Final DIP Order from any committee appointed inthe Debtor's case are due today.Headquartered in Houston, Texas, ABB Lummus Global Inc. --http://www.abb.com/lummus/-- offers advanced process technologies, project management, engineering, procurement andconstruction-related services for the oil and gas, petroleumrefining and petrochemical process industries. The group overseesthe construction of process plants and offshore facilities. Thecompany filed for chapter 11 protection on Apr. 21, 2006 (Bankr.D. Del. Case No. 06-10401). Jeffrey N. Rich, Esq., at Kirkpatrick& Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP, represents the Debtor. LauraDavis Jones, Esq., at Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl Young, Jones &Weintraub, LLP, serves as the Debtor's co-counsel. An InformalAsbestos Claimants' Committee has been formed in the Debtor's caseand is represented by Richard B. Schiro. Joseph D. Frank, Esq.,at Frank/Gecker LLP serves as the Asbestos Committee's counsel.No Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors has been appointed inthe Debtor's case. When the Debtor filed for protection from itscreditors, it estimated more than $100 million in assets anddebts.ABB LUMMUS: Bankruptcy Services Okayed as Claims & Balloting Agent------------------------------------------------------------------The Honorable Judith K. Fitzgerald of the U.S. Bankruptcy Courtfor the District of Delaware authorized ABB Lummus Global Inc. toemploy Bankruptcy Services, LLC, as its claims, balloting, andnoticing agent, nunc pro tunc to April 21, 2006.Bankruptcy Services will: (a) prepare and serve required notices in the Debtor's bankruptcy case, including: (1) a notice of the commencement of the chapter 11 case and the initial meeting of creditors under Section 341(a) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code; (2) a notice of the claims bar date, if any; (3) notices of objections to claims; (4) notices of any hearings on the Disclosure Statement and confirmation of the Plan, as each may be amended; and (5) other miscellaneous notices as the Debtor or this Court may deem necessary or appropriate for an orderly administration of the bankruptcy case; (b) within five business days after the service of a particular notice, file with the Clerk's Office a certificate or affidavit of service that includes: (1) a copy of the notice served; (2) an alphabetical list of persons on whom notice was served, along with their addresses; and (3) the date and manner of service; (c) continue to provide necessary services in connection with prepetition balloting activities; (d) maintain copies of all proofs of claim and proofs of interest filed in the Debtor's case; (e) maintain an official claims register in the Debtor's case by docketing all proofs of claim and proofs of interest in a claims database that includes information on: (1) the name and address of the claimant or interest holder and any agent thereof, if the proof of claim or proof of interest was filed by an agent; (2) the date the proof of claim or proof of interest was received by BSI or the Court; (3) the claim number assigned to the proof of claim or proof of interest; and (4) the asserted amount and classification of the claim; (f) implement necessary security measures to ensure the completeness and integrity of the claims register; (g) transmit to the Clerk's Office a copy of the claims register on a weekly basis, unless requested by the Clerk's Office on a more or less frequent basis; (h) maintain an up-to-date list for all entities that have filed proofs of claim or proofs of interest and make that list available upon request to the Clerk's Office or any party-in-interest; (i) maintain and update a website containing up-to-date information regarding significant events and deadlines in the Debtor's bankruptcy case and copies of some court documents, like the Plan and Disclosure Statement; (j) provide access to the public for examination of the proofs of claims or proofs of interest filed in the Debtor's bankruptcy case without charge during regular business hours; (k) record and provide notice of all transfers of claims pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2001(e), if directed to do so by the Court; (l) promptly comply with further conditions and requirements as the Clerk's Office or the Court may at any time prescribe; and (m) provide other claims processing, noticing, balloting, and related administrative services as may be requested from time to time by the Debtor.Kathy Gerber, a senior vice president at Bankruptcy Services, LLC,discloses that the Firm's professionals bill: Designation Hourly Rate ----------- ----------- Senior Managers/On-Site Consultants $225 Other Senior Consultants $185 Programmer $130 - $160 Associate $135 Data Entry Staff $40 - $60Bankruptcy Services charges $225 per hour for schedulepreparation.Ms. Gerber assures the Court that Bankruptcy Services does notrepresent any interest adverse to the Debtor or its estate and is\"disinterested\" as that term is defined in Section 101(14) of theBankruptcy Code.Headquartered in Houston, Texas, ABB Lummus Global Inc. --http://www.abb.com/lummus/-- offers advanced process technologies, project management, engineering, procurement andconstruction-related services for the oil and gas, petroleumrefining and petrochemical process industries. The group overseesthe construction of process plants and offshore facilities. Thecompany filed for chapter 11 protection on Apr. 21, 2006 (Bankr.D. Del. Case No. 06-10401). Jeffrey N. Rich, Esq., at Kirkpatrick& Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP, represents the Debtor. LauraDavis Jones, Esq., at Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl Young, Jones &Weintraub, LLP, serves as the Debtor's co-counsel. An InformalAsbestos Claimants' Committee has been formed in the Debtor's caseand is represented by Richard B. Schiro. Joseph D. Frank, Esq.,at Frank/Gecker LLP serves as the Asbestos Committee's counsel.No Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors has been appointed inthe Debtor's case. When the Debtor filed for protection from itscreditors, it estimated more than $100 million in assets anddebts.ABB LUMMUS: Withdraws Request to Employ FTI Consulting as Advisor-----------------------------------------------------------------ABB Lummus Global Inc., informed the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for theDistrict of Delaware that it is withdrawing its request to employFTI Consulting, Inc., as its financial advisor.The U.S. Trustee for Region 3 had objected to the Debtor'sretention of FTI citing that, George P. Stamas, Esq., a partner atKirkland & Ellis LLP, is currently an officer and director of FTI.Kirkland & Ellis represents the Debtor's parent, ABB Holdings,Inc.The Trustee also contended that FTI served as the financialadvisor of David Austern, the future claims representative inCombustion Engineering's case and the Combustion Engineeringtrust. The trustee says that this creates both an appearance ofimpropriety and a real actual conflict with FTI acting as Lummus'financial advisor while at the same time having served the futureclaims representative in Combustion Engineering's case.The Trustee further argued that the proposed engagement suggeststhat FTI will have indemnification and limitation of liabilityprovisions that are not warranted and may be inconsistent withprior decisions of the bankruptcy court in this district.Headquartered in Houston, Texas, ABB Lummus Global Inc. --http://www.abb.com/lummus/-- offers advanced process technologies, project management, engineering, procurement andconstruction-related services for the oil and gas, petroleumrefining and petrochemical process industries. The group overseesthe construction of process plants and offshore facilities. Thecompany filed for chapter 11 protection on Apr. 21, 2006 (Bankr.D. Del. Case No. 06-10401). Jeffrey N. Rich, Esq., at Kirkpatrick& Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP, represents the Debtor. LauraDavis Jones, Esq., at Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl Young, Jones &Weintraub, LLP, serves as the Debtor's co-counsel. An InformalAsbestos Claimants' Committee has been formed in the Debtor's caseand is represented by Richard B. Schiro. Joseph D. Frank, Esq.,at Frank/Gecker LLP serves as the Asbestos Committee's counsel.No Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors has been appointed inthe Debtor's case. When the Debtor filed for protection from itscreditors, it estimated more than $100 million in assets anddebts.ACCESS WORLDWIDE: Posts $1.2 Million Net Loss in First Quarter--------------------------------------------------------------Access Worldwide Communications, Inc., reported financial resultsfor the three months ended March 31, 2006.Access reported a net loss of $1.2 million for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2006, compared to $600,000 loss for the first quarter of2005. The decline, although offset by the increased profit in theCompany's Business Services Segment, was the result of thedecrease in revenues from the Company's Pharmaceutical ServicesSegment along with the increase in interest expense on itsborrowings. Total weighted average common shares outstanding forthe quarters ended March 31, 2006 and March 31, 2005, were16,889,039 and 11,177,052, respectively.The Company's revenues decreased $0.4 million, or 3.8%, to$10 million for the three months ended March 31, 2006, compared to$10.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2005.Revenues for the Pharmaceutical Segment decreased $1.9 million, or27.9%, to $4.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2006,compared to $6.8 million for the three months ended March 31,2005. The decrease was primarily attributed to a reduction ofrevenue of $1.1 million in our medical education business. Thisreduction was caused primarily by a decrease in work beingperformed for three significant customers at the Company's medicaleducation division, which accounted for a loss in revenue ofapproximately $978,000 when compared quarter over quarter. Thefurther reduction was caused by a decrease in revenue of $800,000in Access' pharmaceutical communication business, which wasprimarily the result of a change in programs for two significantcustomers.One of these customers replaced an inbound program, which was inplace in the first quarter of 2005 and ended in August of 2005,with another similar program that has not had as successful anenrollment as the program that it replaced, thus causing adecrease in revenue.The other customer has two large programs, which previously hadteleservice representatives dedicated to their programs only, butnow utilize the Company's shared pool of representatives thatserve more than one client at a time. This change was requestedby the customer due to budget cut backs and has decreased theamount per billable hour that the Company charges the customer forthese programs.Revenues for the Business Segment, which includes the Company'smultilingual communications business, increased $1.5 million, or41.7%, to $5.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2006,compared to $3.6 million for the three months ended March 31,2005. The increase in revenues was primarily attributed to therevenue generated in our Philippines communication center of $0.8million that had not yet begun operations as of the first quarterof 2005. Additionally, the Company experienced a 20% increase inrevenues domestically due to the acquisition of a significant newcustomer and from increased programs with two existing customers.Full-text copies of the Company's first quarter financialstatements for the three months ended March 31, 2006, areavailable for free at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?a2a Going Concern DoubtBDO Seidman, LLP, in West Palm Beach, Florida, raised substantialdoubt about Access Worldwide Communications, Inc.'s ability tocontinue as a going concern after auditing the Company'sconsolidated financial statements for the years endedDec. 31, 2005, and 2004. The auditors pointed to the Company'srecurring losses from operations, negative cash flows, andaccumulated deficit.Headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida, Access WorldwideCommunications, Inc. (OTCBB: AWWC) -- http://www.accessww.com/-- is an established marketing company that provides a variety ofsales, communication and medical education services. Its spectrumof services includes medical meetings management, medicalpublishing, editorial support, clinical trial recruitment, patientcompliance, multilingual teleservices, product stocking anddatabase management, among others. Access Worldwide has about1,000 employees in offices throughout the United States and thePhilippines.At March 31, 2006, Access Worldwide Communications, Inc.'s balancesheet showed a $6,105,582 stockholders' deficit compared to a$5,060,322 deficit at Dec. 31, 2005.ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Incurs $4.2 Million Net Loss in 1st Quarter------------------------------------------------------------------Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., disclosed its financial results forthe first quarter ended March 31, 2006, to the Securities andExchange Commission on April 26, 2006.For the year ended March 31, 2006, the Company reported a $4.2million net loss on $3.9 million of net revenues, compared to a$1.9 million net loss on $1.9 million of net revenues for the yearended Dec. 31, 2005.As of March 31, 2006, the Company's balance sheet showed totalassets of $2 million and total debts of $9.4 million, resulting in$7.3 million deficit.A full-text copy of Acura Pharmaceuticals' Quarterly Report isavailable for free at http://researcharchives.com/t/s?a1c Going Concern DoubtBDO Seidman, LLP, expressed doubt about Acura Pharmaceuticals'ability to continue as a going concern after auditing theCompany's 2005 financial statements. The auditing firm pointed tothe Company's recurring losses from operations and net capitaldeficiency at Dec. 31, 2005.Headquartered in Palatine, Illinois, Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc.-- http://www.acurapharm.com/-- is a specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in research, development and manufacture ofinnovative and proprietary abuse deterrent, abuse resistant andtamper resistant formulations intended for use in orallyadministered opioid-containing prescription analgesic products.Acura is actively collaborating with contract researchorganizations for laboratory and clinical evaluation and testingof product candidates formulated with its Aversion(R) Technology.ADELPHIA COMMS: Dispute Ensues Over Bank Lenders Distribution-------------------------------------------------------------The Official Committee of Equity Security Holders appointed in thechapter 11 cases of Adelphia Communications Corporation and itsdebtor-affiliates supports the Official Committee of UnsecuredCreditors' request to hold back the distributions to be made tothe prepetition bank lenders under the ACOM Debtors' ModifiedFourth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization. ObjectionsThe ACOM Debtors note that pursuant to a Court order approvingthree related agreements between the ACOM Debtors and theSecurities Exchange Commission, the Debtors and the Department ofJustice, and the Debtors and Rigas Family, dated May 26, 2005,the ACOM Debtors are required to oppose the Creditors Committee'srequest and are not permitted to propose a plan that withholdsany distribution to the Bank Lenders by reason of the pendency ofthe Bank Lender Avoidance Complaint unless ordered to do so bythe Court.According to Marc Abrams, Esq., at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, inNew York, the Debtors' agreement to oppose any hold back requestwas intended to formalize a \"handshake\" deal between the BankLenders and the Debtors, and to facilitate the Bank Lenders'cooperation and, ultimately, acceptance of the Plan.Mr. Abrams notes that while the Creditors Committee's Hold Backrequest as framed aims to preserve valuable estate assets,depending on the rate at which interest would accrue on any heldback distributions, the motion may result in incremental interestcosts of more than $400,000,000.Thus, the ACOM Debtors ask the Court to deny the OfficialCommittee of Unsecured Creditor's request to hold backdistributions to prepetition bank lenders until the Courtdetermines the rate of interest, if any, required to be paid onheld back distributions and the impact of that interest accruedon the feasibility of the Plan.Several parties-in-interest agree that the payment of the bankclaims under the terms of the Plan is required under theGovernment Settlement Order and appropriate under the standardsof Rule 9019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure: a. various Administrative Agents: -- Wachovia Bank National Association, -- Bank of America, N.A., -- the Bank of Nova Scotia -- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., -- Citibank, N.A., and -- Bank of Montreal; b. these Nominal Agents: -- ABN AMRO Bank N.V., -- Barclays Bank PLC, -- CIBC, INC., -- Merrill Lynch Capital Corp., -- PNC Bank, National Association, -- Societe Generale, S.A. -- Calyon New York Branch -- Bank of New York, & Bank of New York Company, Inc., and -- Credit Suisse, Cayman Branch, & the Royal Bank of Scotland; c. the Ad Hoc Committee of Non-Agent Secured Lenders; d. the Toronto-Dominion Bank; and e. various investment banks, namely: -- ABN AMRO Inc., -- BNY Capital Markets, Inc., -- Barclays Capital Inc., -- Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., -- CIBC World Markets Corp., -- Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., -- J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., -- Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, -- PNC Capital Markets, Inc., -- Scotia Capital (USA) Inc., -- SunTrust Capital Markets, Inc., -- TD Securities (USA) LLC, and -- Banc of America Securities LLC, and its affiliate, Fleet Securities, Inc.The Non-Agent Committee asks the Court to reject the CreditorsCommittee's request because it attempts to use Section 502(d) todisallow the Non-Agent Committee members' claims. Under theplain language of Section 502(d) and established case law, theCreditors Committee must obtain adjudication on its avoidanceactions before raising Section 502(d).The Bank of Montreal contends that the Plan represents areasonable settlement and compromise of the allowance anddistribution issues.The Toronto-Dominion Bank relates that pursuant to a prepetitioninterest rate swap agreement between TD Bank and ChelseaCommunications, Inc., one of the Debtors, TD Bank holds a generalunsecured claim against Chelsea. Although TD Bank is a nameddefendant in the Bank Action Litigation, the litigation do notspecifically allege that TD Bank received any transfers orproperty from Chelsea that could be recoverable by Chelsea as aresult of the Bank Action.Accordingly, TD Bank asks the Court to deny the CreditorsCommittee's request to the extent that the request seeks todisallow or hold back a distribution to TD Bank on account of theChelsea Swap Claim. Section 502(d) provides no basis to disallowor hold back a distribution on TD Bank's Chelsea Swap Claim whenChelsea has no valid avoidance recovery claim against TD Bank onaccount of the Bank Action, Patrick L. Hayden, Esq., atMcGuireWoods LLP, in New York, argues.The Investment Banks note that the Plan provides for the paymentin cash of the Bank Lender Fee Claims. As affiliates of the BankLenders, some or all of the Investment Banks are holders of BankClaims arising from indemnification to which they are entitledunder the relevant Prepetition Credit Agreements. Those claimsconstitute Bank Claims under the Plan. Since the Committee hasnot sought relief against the Investment Banks, the references inits request to the treatment of Bank Claims should not beconstrued to apply to Bank Claims held by the Investment Banks.However, in an abundance of caution to the extent the CreditorsCommittee's request could be construed to affect Bank Claims heldby the Investment Banks, the Investment Banks ask the Court todeny the Creditors Committee's request. Plaintiffs Slam Investment Banks' ResponseThe putative class action plaintiffs in a lawsuit pending beforethe United States District Court for the Southern District of NewYork captioned In re Adelphia Communications Corp. Securities &Derivative Litigation, 03 MD 1529(LLM), believes it would bewrong to uphold or consider the response of the variousinvestments banks in connection with the Creditors' Committee'srequest to hold back distribution.As previously reported, the Investment Banks assert that as\"affiliates of the Banks\" they are \"holders of Bank Claimsarising from indemnification to which they are entitled under therelevant Prepetition Credit Agreements.\"The Plaintiffs tell Judge Gerber that they are not quite sureexactly what point the Investment Banks are trying to make.\"If they are saying that simply because they may be affiliates ofthe Banks, the Prepetition Credit Agreements entitle them toindemnification without regard to whether the underlying claimsrelate to those agreements, the [Plaintiffs] disagree and submitthere is no principled basis for the position. And if they aresaying that as holders of Bank Claims they are entitled toindemnification even as to claims arising out of theirunderwriting activities, there is similarly no merit to theargument,\" John H. Drucker, Esq., at Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman& Leonard, P.A., in New York, argues.The Class Action Plaintiffs never understood that the securitieslaw claims they assert against the Investment Banks in theSecurities Class Action relate to the Creditors Committee's HoldBack Motion and do not believe there is any credible, good faithargument that those claims could give rise to \"Bank Claims\", Mr.Drucker explains.Mr. Drucker informs the Court that if the Investment Banks pushthe issue in connection with the Hold Back Motion despite thetransparent lack of merit to any argument that claims relating tounderwriting activities are Bank Claims, it could materiallyimpact the third-party release issue under the ACOM Debtors' Planof Reorganization. This is because the Debtors would no doubtclaim that if the Bank Claims included underwriting claims and ifthose claims were indemnifiable, the Debtors' exposure to theBanks might be increased in amounts to create confirmationissues, Mr. Drucker says. Creditors Committee InsistsThe Creditors Committee insists that: (a) the Bank Lenders' entitlement to receive distributions on the Effective Date has not been \"settled\" because: -- the Government Settlement does not assure that the Bank Lenders will receive distributions on the Effective Date; and -- the ACOM Debtors' Plan of Reorganization does not \"settle\" the Bank Lenders' entitlement to Effective Date distribution; (b) Section 502(d) requires the Hold Back of the Bank Lenders' distributions; and (c) as a matter of law, the Bank Claims are not entitled to interest at the contract rate after the Effective Date.Based in Coudersport, Pa., Adelphia Communications Corporation --http://www.adelphia.com/-- is the fifth-largest cable television company in the country. Adelphia serves customers in 30 statesand Puerto Rico, and offers analog and digital video services,high-speed Internet access and other advanced services over itsbroadband networks. The Company and its more than 200 affiliatesfiled for Chapter 11 protection in the Southern District of NewYork on June 25, 2002. Those cases are jointly administered undercase number 02-41729. Willkie Farr & Gallagher represents theACOM Debtors. PricewaterhouseCoopers serves as the Debtors'financial advisor. Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP, andKlee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff & Stern LLP represent the OfficialCommittee of Unsecured Creditors. (Adelphia Bankruptcy News,Issue No. 134; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)ADELPHIA: Barbs on Multi-Mil. Suit with Devon Trustee Continues---------------------------------------------------------------Devon Mobile Communications Liquidating Trust and the ACOMDebtors stipulate that the Devon Trustee's complaint regardingACOM's breach of duty to fund operations is dismissed withprejudice. Each party bears its own costs. Motions for Summary JudgmentThe Liquidating Trustee assigned in Devon Mobile Communications'chapter 11 case asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York for a summary judgment that AdelphiaCommunications Corporation and its debtor-affiliates, as the alterego of Devon Mobile Communications, L.P., is liable to the DevonTrustee: -- for the $80,000,000 debt that the Devon Trustee is unable to pay; -- for $80,000,000 under the doctrine of deepening insolvency; -- for $53,046,674 on account of its receipt of fraudulent conveyances from Devon; -- for $53,046,674 as the result of its breach of the Agreement of Limited Partnership of Devon.In a separate pleading, the ACOM Debtors ask the Court forsummary judgment in their favor.Judge Morris denies the parties' summary judgment motions onfraudulent conveyance and breach of limited partnershipagreement. Judge Morris finds that material issues of fact existas to: -- whether the transfers made on August 31, 2001; October 26, 2001; November 23, 2001; December 7, 2001; and February 19, 2002, were returns of capital or repayment of undocumented intercompany loans; -- whether the transfer of the Florida License sale proceeds were an improper return of capital, or fraudulent conveyances; -- whether the funds were ultimately used to pay Devon's ongoing operating liabilities; -- whether the Devon Trustee received reasonably equivalent value for the transfers; and -- whether the Devon trustee was left undercapitalize by the transfers.The Court denies the Devon Trustee's request for summary judgmentin its entirety.The Court grants ACOM's request for summary judgment onfraudulent conveyance and breach of services agreement. TheCourt finds that as of February 7, 2002, the transfer of$22,100,000 was a transfer of funds initially provided by theACOM Debtors, and therefore did not diminish the Devon Trustee'sassets and could have not been a fraudulent conveyance or havecaused the Devon trustee any contract damages.On the deepening insolvency allegation, Judge Morris finds thatthe Devon Trustee failed to adequately allege that ACOM prolongedthe Devon Trustee's life in breach of a separate duty owed to theDevon Trustee or any of its constituency.Judge Morris also rules that the Devon Trustee does not havestanding to assert an alter ego claim against ACOM.In a separate order, Judge Morris denies in its entirety the ACOMDebtors' request for summary judgment with regards to itscounterclaims for breaches of contracts and agreements under theGeneral Dynamics Agreement where ACOM guaranteed Devon'sobligations: -- the General Dynamics Claim against ACOM for $34,908,731, plus consequential damages, interest, attorney's fees, costs and expenses in defending the Claim; -- $34,908,731 representing Devon's failure to indemnify ACOM under its implied obligation under the Partnership Agreement, plus consequential damages, interest, attorney's fees, costs and expenses in defending the General Dynamics Claim; and -- $34,908,731 in violation of Devon's equitable duty to indemnify ACOM, plus consequential damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred in defending the General Dynamics Claim. Motions in LimineThe Devon Trustee asks the Court to: a. preclude the ACOM Debtors' expert, Glenn Pomerantz, from testifying on subjects that the Devon Trustee was prevented from exploring at deposition; b. preclude Mr. Pomerantz from testifying at trial in support of the irrelevant theory that Devon could have survived by selling its PCS Licenses; c. limit the ACOM Debtors' evidence and argument in accordance with the limits they placed on their Rule 30(b)(6) depositions testimony; and d. exclude a certain expert, Susan M. Simmons, from testifying at trial to facts and opinions she failed to supply during her deposition.The ACOM Debtors ask the Court to deny the Devon Trustee'smotions in limine because: a. the Devon Trustee failed to follow the discovery rules governing discovery disputes; and b. their witnesses properly responded to deposition questions.Joanne B. Wills, Esq., at Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg &Ellers LLP, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, asserts that themotions in limine are nothing more than a \"veiled discoverymotion.\" The Devon Trustee has needlessly wasted the Court's andthe ACOM Debtors' time with the motions in limine, Ms. Willssays.However, the Devon Trustee asserts that: -- it was not required to confer with the ACOM Debtors before filing the motions in limine; -- it gave the ACOM Debtors a full and fair opportunity to provide the required deposition testimony, which they have spurned; -- it is entitled to an order precluding Mr. Pomerantz from testifying: a. on subjects that it was prevented from exploring at deposition by ACOM Debtors' instructions not to answer; b. in support of his theory that Devon could have survived by selling its PCS Licenses; and -- it is entitled to an order limiting the ACOM Debtors' evidence and argument in accordance with the limits they placed on their Rule 30(b)(6)deposition testimony. Court Denies Motions in LimineFor reasons stated in open Court, Judge Morris denied the DevonTrustee's motions in limine. ACOM Debtors Amend CounterclaimsThe ACOM Debtors ask the Court to enter a declaratory judgment intheir favor that to the extent ACOM is required to pay any moniesto General Dynamics pursuant to ACOM's guarantee of Devon'sobligations to General Dynamics, ACOM is entitled to a dollar-to-dollar indemnification from the Liquidating Trust.The ACOM Debtors' counterclaims have been further amended toreflect that the ACOM Debtors assert counterclaims for breach andunjust enrichment under the Bridge Financing pursuant to theterms of the Limited Partnership Agreement: -- unpaid obligations under the Bridge Financing amounting to not less than: * $56,277,605; or * $106,277,605, if the Court determines that the Florida License Sale Proceeds were not used to pay Devon vendors for work and services provided by those vendors to Devon; and -- damages of: * $56,277,605; or * $106,277,605, if the Court determines that the Florida License Sale Proceeds were not used to pay Devon vendors for work and services provided by those vendors to Devon. Devon Trustee Answers ACOM's CounterclaimsThe Devon Mobile Communications Liquidating Trust asserts that: -- the ACOM Debtors fail to state a [counter]claim on which relief can be granted; -- the ACOM Debtors' counterclaims, if any are found to have merit, must be offset by amount that they took from Devon Mobile Communications, L.P.; -- the ACOM Debtors' counterclaims on the counts of: * breach of contract to the Devon L.P. Agreement, * breach of implied indemnity contract, * equitable indemnity, and * contribution, are barred in whole or in part because they: (1) are contingent claims for indemnification or contribution and are therefore disallowable pursuant to Section 502(e)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code; and (2) are subrogated by any ACOM Debtors' unpaid amount of those claims, pursuant to Section 509(c). -- the ACOM Debtors' allegedly \"advanced\" funds should all be characterized as equity instead of debt, contrary to what the ACOM Debtors describe it; -- the ACOM Debtors' claims are barred, in whole or part, by the doctrine of equitable subordination pursuant to Section 510(c); -- the ACOM Debtors are obligated to the Devon Trustee thus entitling them to set-off, recoupment or other equitable rights; -- the ACOM Debtors' claims are barred, in whole or part, to the extent they were asserted after the Court-approved bar date; and -- the ACOM Debtors' claims are barred, in whole or part, because of the ACOM Debtors' inequitable conduct and of Devon being the alter ego and instrumentality of the ACOM Debtors.The ACOM Debtors ask the Court to strike the Devon Trustee'saffirmative defense asserting that the ACOM Debtors' claims arebarred because Devon was the alter ego and instrumentality of theACOM Debtors.Joanne B. Wills, Esq. at Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg &Ellers LLP, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, argues that the DevonTrustee's assertion is a predicament on the same theory of asummary judgment that the Court had already granted to the ACOMDebtors. Judge Morris already ruled that the Devon Trustee doesnot have standing to bring that claim.Despite the summary judgment in favor of the ACOM Debtors, theDevon Trustee indicated that it will press its affirmativedefense at trial, Ms. Wills relates.Ms. Wills further asserts that the Devon Trustee will prejudicethe ACOM Debtors by forcing it to defend at trial against a claimon which it has already prevailed at summary judgment.For reasons stated in open court, the Court denied the ACOMDebtors' request to strike that affirmative defense asserted bythe Devon Trustee. Joint Pretrial OrderPursuant to a Joint Pretrial Order, the parties agree that: * As of April 3, 2006, the Devon Trustee asserts claims for: (a) $50,760,000 on account of these transfers, as amended, which may be avoided as fraudulent conveyances: Payment Date Payment Amount ------------ -------------- 08/03/01 $3,000,000 08/10/01 33,000,000 08/30/01 975,000 10/04/01 13,500,000 10/26/01 40,000 11/23/01 20,000 12/07/01 130,000 02/20/02 95,000 (b) the same $50,760,000 as damages arising from the ACOM Debtors' material breaches of the Limited Partnership Agreement. * As of April 3, 2006, the ACOM Debtors assert counterclaims: (a) for breach and unjust enrichment under the Services Agreement dated December 29, 2000: -- service fees of not less than $2,000,000; -- consolidated purchase fees of not less than $5,315,351; and (b) for breach and unjust enrichment under the Bridge Financing pursuant to the terms of the Limited Partnership Agreement: -- unpaid obligations under the Bridge Financing amounting to not less than $56,277,605; and -- $50,011,488 in damages. (c) for breach and unjust enrichment under a brokerage fee agreement in connection with the purchase and sale of certain Devon FCC Licenses, brokerage fees for $1,440,000 relating to the sale of the Fort Pierce license; and (d) for obligations relating to a contract for the provision of telephone services entered into with ACC Telecommunication of VA, in which Devon failed to pay the invoiced charges: -- $1,701,818 in damages plus consequential damages, interest, and costs for the breach; and -- $1,701,818 for damages representing Devon's unjust enrichment. * In connection with the indemnity provisions of the Devon L.P. Agreement, the General Dynamics Agreement, and the General Dynamics Guaranty; Devon's equitable duty of indemnity; and Devon's contribution obligation under the General Dynamics Agreement and the General Dynamics Guaranty, the ACOM Debtors ask the Court: (a) for a declaratory judgment of their right to indemnification with the indemnification amount to be determined through the adjudication of the General Dynamics claim in the ACOM Debtors' claims resolution process; and (b) to award them attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred in defending the General Dynamics ACC Claim.Based in Coudersport, Pa., Adelphia Communications Corporation --http://www.adelphia.com/-- is the fifth-largest cable television company in the country. Adelphia serves customers in 30 statesand Puerto Rico, and offers analog and digital video services,high-speed Internet access and other advanced services over itsbroadband networks. The Company and its more than 200 affiliatesfiled for Chapter 11 protection in the Southern District of NewYork on June 25, 2002. Those cases are jointly administered undercase number 02-41729. Willkie Farr & Gallagher represents theACOM Debtors. PricewaterhouseCoopers serves as the Debtors'financial advisor. Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP, andKlee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff & Stern LLP represent the OfficialCommittee of Unsecured Creditors. (Adelphia Bankruptcy News,Issue No. 134; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)ADELPHIA COMMS: TCR Sports Wants FCC to Condition Sale to Comcast-----------------------------------------------------------------David C. Frederick, Esq., at Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans& Figel, P.L.L.C., in Washington, D.C., representing TCR SportsBroadcasting Holding, L.L.P., tells the Federal CommunicationsCommission that the sale of substantially all of AdelphiaCommunications Corporation's assets to Time Warner, Inc., andComcast Corporation should not proceed without significantconditions placed on it.In a letter dated May 16, 2006, Mr. Frederick reminded the FCCthat TCR Sports argued that Comcast had \"improperly[discriminated] against TCR in an effort to undo TCR's agreementwith [Major League Baseball] to obtain the broadcast rights forthe [Washington Nationals baseball team games] for Comcast'swholly owned subsidiary.\" TCR Sports further argued that thediscrimination reflected not only Comcast's effort to favor itsown affiliate but also its desire to extend its monopoly positionin the multi-channel video programming distributor market.According to the Associated Press, Comcast is refusing to carryMid-Atlantic Sports Network, the registered trade name of TCRSports, because of a dispute with Peter Angelos arising from hisplans to move Baltimore Orioles baseball team games telecasts toMASN after its deal with Comcast expires.Mr. Angelos, the owner of the Baltimore Orioles, controls MASN.Mr. Frederick argues that Comcast's proposed acquisition of ACOMwould only increase Comcast's incentive and ability to carry outthose program carriage discriminations.Based on a letter dated April 6, 2006, from Comcast's President,Stephen B. Burke, to MLB Commissioner Allah H. Selig, Mr.Frederick notes that Comcast has expressly proposed to MLB that: -- the 2005 agreement between the Baltimore Orioles baseball team and MLB be \"terminate[d]\"; -- the Nationals receive local television rights contrary to that agreement; and -- Comcast broadcast Nationals' games, presumably via its affiliated regional sports network, Comcast SportsNet.Mr. Frederick informs FCC that the demands demonstrate in clearterms that Comcast's objective is to acquire exclusive access tovaluable regional sports programming, thus, advancing interestsof its affiliated regional sports network while solidifying itsmonopoly position in the MVPD market at the same time.Mr. Frederick also notes that Mr. Burke's letter demonstratesthat Comcast has no legitimate business justification for itsfailure to carry TCR Sports and that Comcast's conduct can beexplained only as an unlawful discrimination.Mr. Frederick also informs the FCC that at a congressionalhearing on April 17, David L. Cohen, Comcast's executive vicepresident, emphasized that Comcast's aim was to undo the 2005agreements between TCR Sports and MLB.Mr. Frederick also refers the FCC to a letter dated April 17,2006, from Mr. Cohen to Mr. Angelos in which Mr. Cohen confirmsthat Comcast will not agree to carry TCR Sports' programming ofNationals games unless TCR Sports agrees to abrogate itsMarch 28, 2005, agreement with MLB.Mr. Frederick relates that meetings between the officials of TCRSports and Comcast resulted in no carriage agreement becauseComcast refused to even discuss the terms of carriage unless TCRSports either: -- gives Comcast equity in the network that produces Nationals games; or -- abrogates its agreement with MLB.Mr. Frederick concludes that the ACOM Sale Transaction willincrease Comcast's incentives and power to use its dominantpositions in both the regional sports programming market in themid-Atlantic and the cable distribution network to harm competingnon-affiliated regional sports networks, like TCR Sports, andrival MVPD distributions.Accordingly, TCR Sports asks the FCC to amend the terms ofconditions in the event that FCC approves the ACOM SaleTransaction.Based in Coudersport, Pa., Adelphia Communications Corporation --http://www.adelphia.com/-- is the fifth-largest cable television company in the country. Adelphia serves customers in 30 statesand Puerto Rico, and offers analog and digital video services,high-speed Internet access and other advanced services over itsbroadband networks. The Company and its more than 200 affiliatesfiled for Chapter 11 protection in the Southern District of NewYork on June 25, 2002. Those cases are jointly administered undercase number 02-41729. Willkie Farr & Gallagher represents theACOM Debtors. PricewaterhouseCoopers serves as the Debtors'financial advisor. Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP, andKlee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff & Stern LLP represent the OfficialCommittee of Unsecured Creditors. (Adelphia Bankruptcy News,Issue No. 134; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)ADVANCED COMMS: Posts $284,621 Net Loss in 2006 3rd Fiscal Quarter------------------------------------------------------------------Advanced Communications Technologies, Inc., filed its thirdquarter financial statements for the three months ended March 31,2006, with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 19, 2006.The Company reported a $284,621 net loss on $2,552,055 of revenuesfor the three months ended March 31, 2006.At March 31, 2006, the Company's balance sheet showed $4,916,779in total assets, $2,702,465 in total liabilities, and $2,214,314in stockholders' equity.The Company's March 31 balance sheet also showed strainedliquidity with $1,659,563 in total current assets available to pay$2,514,727 in total current liabilities coming due within the next12 months.Full-text copies of the Company's financial statements for thethree months ended March 31, 2006, are available for free athttp://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?a13 Going Concern DoubtAs reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Dec. 2, 2005,Weinberg & Company, PA, expressed substantial doubt about AdvancedCommunications Technologies, Inc.'s ability to continue as a goingconcern after auditing the Company's financial statements for thefiscal years ended June 30, 2005, and 2004. The auditing firmpointed to the Company's net loss and negative cash flow fromoperations.Based in New York, Advanced Communications Technologies, Inc.,specializes in the technology aftermarket service and supplychain, known as reverse logistics. Its wholly owned subsidiaryand principal operating unit, Encompass Group Affiliates, Inc.,acquires and operates businesses that provide computer andelectronics repair and end-of-life cycle services.AH-DH APARTMENTS: Hires McGuire Craddock as Bankruptcy Counsel--------------------------------------------------------------AH-DH Apartments, Ltd., and its debtor-affiliates obtainedauthority from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern Districtof Texas to employ McGuire, Craddock & Strother, P.C., as theirbankruptcy counsel.As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on April 20, 2006,the Debtors told the Court that DB Holdings, LLC, a debtor-affiliate that filed for bankruptcy protection on April 10, 2006,will employ its own bankruptcy counsel.The Debtors told the Court that McGuire Craddock is expected toperform legal services necessary during their chapter 11 cases.The Debtors disclosed that the Firm's professionals bill: Professional Hourly Rate ------------ ----------- Partners $250 - $350 Associates $175 - $235The lead counsel for this engagement, J. Mark Chevallier, Esq.,bills $320 per hour. The Debtors inform the Court that DalcorRealty, LLC, a direct or indirect equity owner of each of theDebtors, has paid the Firm a $160,000 retainer.Mr. Chevallier assured the Court that his firm is a \"disinterestedperson\" as the term is defined in Section 101(14) of theBankruptcy Code and does not hold or represent any interestadverse to the Debtors' estates.Headquartered in Plano, Texas, AH-DH Apartments, Ltd., owns 16apartment complexes. The company and three of its affiliatesfiled for chapter 11 protection on Mar. 22, 2006 (Bank. E.D. Tex.Case No. 06-40355). J. Mark Chevallier, Esq., at McGuire Craddock& Strother, P.C., represents the Debtors. When the Debtors filedfor protection from their creditors, they estimated assets anddebts between $50 million and $100 million.DH Holdings Limited Partnership and DH Holdings GP, Inc., filedfor chapter 11 protection on Apr. 8, 2006 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. CaseNos. 06-40479 and 06-40480). Another affiliate, DB Holdings, LLC,filed for chapter 11 protection on Apr. 10, 2006 (Bankr. E.D. Tex.Case No. 06-40484). The Debtors' chapter 11 cases are jointlyadministered under Case No. 06-40355.AH-DH APARTMENTS: DB Holdings Taps PronskePatel as Bankr. Counsel-----------------------------------------------------------------DB Holdings, LLC, a debtor-affiliate of AH-DH Apartments, Ltd.,asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Texasfor authority to employ Pronske & Patel, P.C. as its bankruptcycounsel.PronskePatel will: (a) provide legal advice with respect to Debtor's powers and duties as debtor in possession in the continued operation of its business and the management of its property; (b) take all necessary action to protect and preserve the Debtor's estate, including the prosecution of actions on behalf of the Debtor, the defense of any actions commenced against the Debtor, negotiations concerning litigation in which the Debtor is involved, and objections to claims filed against the Debtor's estate; (c) prepare on behalf of the Debtor all necessary motions, answers, orders, reports, and other legal papers in connection with the administration of its estate herein; (d) assist the Debtor in preparing for and filing one or more disclosure statements in accordance with Section 1125 of the Bankruptcy Code; (e) assist the Debtor in preparing for and filing one or more plans of reorganization at the earliest possible date; (f) perform any and all other legal services for the Debtor in connection with the Chapter 11 case; and (g) perform such legal services as the Debtor may request with respect to any matter, including, but not limited to, corporate finance and governance, contracts, antitrust, labor, and tax.Gerrit M. Pronske, Esq., a partner at PronskePatel, discloses thathe bills $500 per hour and Rakhee V. Patel, Esq., also a partnerat PronskePatel, bills $290 per hour. Mr. Pronske furtherdiscloses that the Firm's professionals bill: Professional Hourly Rate ------------ ----------- Partners $500 - $290 Legal Assistants $130Mr. Pronske assures the Court that his firm is a \"disinterestedperson\" as the term is defined in Section 101(14) of theBankruptcy Code and does not hold or represent any interestadverse to the Debtors' estates.Headquartered in Plano, Texas, AH-DH Apartments, Ltd., owns 16apartment complexes. The company and three of its affiliatesfiled for chapter 11 protection on Mar. 22, 2006 (Bank. E.D. Tex.Case No. 06-40355). J. Mark Chevallier, Esq., at McGuire Craddock& Strother, P.C., represents the Debtors. When the Debtors filedfor protection from their creditors, they estimated assets anddebts between $50 million and $100 million.DH Holdings Limited Partnership and DH Holdings GP, Inc., filedfor chapter 11 protection on Apr. 8, 2006 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. CaseNos. 06-40479 and 06-40480). Another affiliate, DB Holdings, LLC,filed for chapter 11 protection on Apr. 10, 2006 (Bankr. E.D. Tex.Case No. 06-40484). The Debtors' chapter 11 cases are jointlyadministered under Case No. 06-40355.AIR CANADA: Settles Misconduct Litigation with Westjet Airlines---------------------------------------------------------------In 2003-2004, certain members of WestJet Airlines Ltd. managementengaged in an extensive practice of covertly accessing a passwordprotected proprietary employee web site maintained by Air CanadaInc. to download detailed and commercially sensitive informationwithout authorization or consent from Air Canada. This practicewas undertaken with the knowledge and direction of the highestmanagement levels of WestJet and was not halted until discoveredby Air Canada.This conduct was both unethical and unacceptable and WestJetaccepts full responsibility for such misconduct. WestJetsincerely regrets having engaged in this practice and unreservedlyapologizes to Air Canada and Mr. Robert Milton.As a full settlement, WestJet has agreed to pay Air Canada'sinvestigation and litigation costs of $5.5 million and hasaccepted Air Canada's request that WestJet make a donation in theamount of $10 million in the name of Air Canada and WestJet tochildren's charities across the country.Air Canada has accepted WestJet's apology and withdrawn its claimsin light of this settlement. All legal proceedings between theparties have been terminated. Both parties have expressed adesire to turn the page on this unfortunate chapter with finalityand are pleased that children's charities across Canada will alsobenefit from this settlement arrangement. About WestjetWestJet Airlines Ltd. -- http://www.westjet.com/-- was founded in 1996 by Clive Beddoe, Mark Hill, Tim Morgan and Donald Bell, fourCalgary entrepreneurs who saw an opportunity to provide low fareair travel across western Canada. The airline operates a fleet ofBoeing aircraft featuring new Next-Generation 737 aircraft withleather seats and more legroom. Transborder service commenced inthe fall of 2004 to the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco,Phoenix, Fort Lauderdale, Tampa, Orlando, and New York. Serviceto Palm Springs began in January 2005. WestJet is publicly tradedon the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol WJA. About Air CanadaAir Canada -- http://www.aircanada.com/-- together with Air Canada Jazz and other business units of parent company ACEAviation Holdings Inc. provide scheduled and charter airtransportation for passengers and cargo to more than 150destinations, vacation packages to over 90 destinations, as wellas maintenance, ground handling and training services to otherairlines.Canada's flag carrier is recognized as a leader in the global airtransportation market by pursuing a strategy based on value-addedcustomer service, technical excellence and passenger safety. * * *As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on April 24, 2006,Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised the long-term corporatecredit rating on ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. to 'B+' from 'B',while affirming the 'B' long-term corporate credit rating on itswholly owned subsidiary, Air Canada. The outlook on both entitiesremains stable.ALLIED HOLDINGS: Court Approves 4th Amendment to DIP Loan Pact--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgiaapproved the Fourth Amendment to Allied Holdings, Inc.'s CreditAgreement with General Electric Capital Corporation, MorganStanley Senior Funding, Inc., Marathon Structured Financing Fund,L.P., GECC Capital Markets Group, Inc., and other lenders.The Court also approves the Consent Agreement between the Debtorsand the lenders. The Consent Agreement extends until May 30,2006, the date by which Allied is required to deliver to theLenders the Company's audited financial statements for the fiscalyear ended December 31, 2005, and other related deliveriesrequired under the terms of the DIP Facility.In addition, the Court overruled the Objections filed by theOfficial Committee of Unsecured Creditors against certain terms ofthe amendment.As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on May 16, 2006, theCommittee asserted that any amendment to the Debtors' DIP FacilityAgreement should: * resolve existing defaults; * not expand the scope -- and increase the amount -- of prepayment premiums; * not force the Debtors to obtain additional financing without adequate justification; * not place the Debtors at risk of default; and * assure that all future benchmarks are likely to be attainable.New advances must also not be subject to the Default Rate ofInterest, Richard B. Herzog, Jr., Esq., at Nelson Mullins Riley &Scarborough, LLP, in Atlanta, Georgia, asserted.Mr. Herzog informed the Court that the Debtors' Fourth Amendmentto their Credit Agreement and Loan Documents extends theprepayment premium to Term Loan A, Term Loan B, the ProtectiveOveradvance, or all three. The Amendment does not guarantee theDebtors any additional funding. It merely provides for additionaladvances \"up to $5,000,000\" to be advanced by the Term Loan BAgent \"in its discretion,\" Mr. Herzog said.To obtain approval of the Fourth Amendment, the Committee askedthe Court to require the Debtors to show whether: 1) the proposed financing is an exercise of sound and reasonable business judgment; 2) alternative financing is available on any other basis; 3) the proposed financing is in the best interest of the estates and their creditors; 4) any better offers, bids, or timely proposals are before the Court; 5) the proposed financing is necessary to preserve the assets of the estates, and is necessary, essential and appropriate for the continued operation of the Debtors' businesses; 6) the terms of proposed financing are fair, reasonable and adequate, given the circumstances of the Debtors and their postpetition lenders; and 7) the financing agreement was negotiated in good faith and at arm's-length between the Debtors and their postpetition lenders.Headquartered in Decatur, Georgia, Allied Holdings, Inc. (OTC PinkSheets: AHIZQ.PK) -- http://www.alliedholdings.com/-- and its affiliates provide short-haul services for original equipmentmanufacturers and provide logistical services. The Companyand 22 of its affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection onJuly 31, 2005 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Case Nos. 05-12515 through05-12537). Jeffrey W. Kelley, Esq., at Troutman Sanders, LLP,represents the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. Henry S.Miller at Miller Buckfire & Co., LLC, serves as the Debtors'financial advisor. Anthony J. Smits, Esq., at Bingham McCutchenLLP, provides the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors withlegal advice and Russell A. Belinsky at Chanin Capital Partners,LLC, provides financial advisory services to the Committee. Whenthe Debtors filed for protection from their creditors, theyestimated more than $100 million in assets and debts. (AlliedHoldings Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 22; Bankruptcy Creditors'Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)ALLIED HOLDINGS: Inks Amended Delivery Agreement with Honda----------------------------------------------------------- Allied Holdings, Inc., and its debtor-affiliates ask the U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia forpermission to assume an Amended Agreement with American HondaMotor Co., Inc., effective as of May 19, 2006.Allied Systems, Ltd., and Honda entered into a motortransportation contract in April 2002. Pursuant to the Agreement,Allied Systems provides delivery and transportation services toHonda in return for which Honda makes payments in accordance withagreed rate terms.In January 2006, the parties amended the Agreement to reflect,among others, modifications to rate terms, a fuel surchargeprovision, and an extension to the original term.Thomas R. Walker, Esq., at Troutman Sanders LLP, in Atlanta,Georgia, notes that the Debtors have provided the terms of theAgreement, as amended, to counsel for the Debtors' postpetitionlenders and counsel for the Official Committee of UnsecuredCreditors, subject to confidentiality agreements. Upon request,the Debtors will provide a copy of the Second Amendment to theCourt for in camera review.Mr. Walker says the terms of the Amendment are fair and favorableto the Debtors. The Amended Agreement will be also be valuableto the Debtors' ongoing business operations.\"By extending the Agreement and modifying rate terms, theAmendment will provide Allied Systems with increased revenue flowstarting in April 2006 and continuing through the followingyears,\" Mr. Walker explains.The Debtors' request must be approved because they have met thestandard required to assume an executory contract, Mr. Walkertells Judge Mullins.Headquartered in Decatur, Georgia, Allied Holdings, Inc. (OTC PinkSheets: AHIZQ.PK) -- http://www.alliedholdings.com/-- and its affiliates provide short-haul services for original equipmentmanufacturers and provide logistical services. The Companyand 22 of its affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection onJuly 31, 2005 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Case Nos. 05-12515 through05-12537). Jeffrey W. Kelley, Esq., at Troutman Sanders, LLP,represents the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. Henry S.Miller at Miller Buckfire & Co., LLC, serves as the Debtors'financial advisor. Anthony J. Smits, Esq., at Bingham McCutchenLLP, provides the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors withlegal advice and Russell A. Belinsky at Chanin Capital Partners,LLC, provides financial advisory services to the Committee. Whenthe Debtors filed for protection from their creditors, theyestimated more than $100 million in assets and debts. (AlliedHoldings Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 22; Bankruptcy Creditors'Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)AMERICAN ACHIEVEMENT: Restates 2005 Annual Report-------------------------------------------------American Achievement Corporation and AAC Group Holding Corp.determined that the financial statements included in the Company'sQuarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended Feb. 25,2006, and Nov. 26, 2005, and Annual Report on Form 10-K for theyear ended Aug. 27, 2005, should no longer be relied upon becauseof the need to restate the financial statements.The restatements correct the revenue recognition policy for classring and certain graduation products sales through independentsales representatives to recognize revenue at the time rings andcertain graduation products are delivered to the student customerrather than at the time rings and certain graduation products areshipped to the independent sales representatives.The restatements result in a deferral of previously recognizedrevenue and related selling costs from the date of shipment ofrings and certain graduation products to sales representatives tothe date of delivery of these products to the student customer.Full-text copies of the amended financial statements are availablefor free at: the year ended Aug. 27, 2005 http://researcharchives.com/t/s?9f7 quarterly report ended Nov. 26, 2005 http://researcharchives.com/t/s?9f8 quarterly report ended Feb. 25, 2006 http://researcharchives.com/t/s?9f9Austin, Texas-based American Achievement Corporation -- http://www.cbi-rings.com/-- provides products associated with graduation and important event commemoration, with a legacy basedon the delivery of exceptionally well-crafted products, includingclass rings, yearbooks, graduation products, achievementpublications and affinity jewelry through in-school and retaildistribution. AAC's premier brands include: Balfour andArtCarved, providers of class rings and graduation products; ECI,publisher of Who's Who Among American High School Students(R);Keepsake Fine Jewelry; and Taylor Publishing, publisher ofyearbooks. AAC has over 2,000 employees and is majority-owned byFenway Partners. * * *As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on April 4, 2006,Moody's Investors Service upgraded AAC Group Holding Corp.'scorporate family rating to B1 from B2 and American AchievementCorporation's senior secured credit facilities to Ba3 from B1 andits senior subordinated notes to B2 from B3. Moody's alsoaffirmed the Caa1 rating for AAC Group Holding Corp.'s seniordiscount notes.As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on March 17, 2006,Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its bank loan ratingfor American Achievement Corp. to 'BB-' from 'B+', and raised therecovery rating to '1' from '3'.AMERICAN CELLULAR: To Purchase Highland Cellular for $95 Million----------------------------------------------------------------American Cellular Corporation, a subsidiary of DobsonCommunications Corporation, agreed to purchase Highland CellularLLC, which provides cellular wireless service to southern WestVirginia and two adjacent counties in Virginia. The market isprimarily south of markets that Dobson owns and operates in WestVirginia, southern Ohio and Pennsylvania, and western Maryland.The $95 million purchase is subject to customary closingconditions and approval by the Federal Communications Commission,which Dobson expects to gain in the second half of 2006.Highland serves approximately 51,000 subscribers, and its markethas a population of approximately 352,000, which will nearlydouble Dobson's market population in West Virginia. The purchaseincludes 25 MHz of 850 MHz spectrum over West Virginia 7 RSA,McDowell and Wyoming counties in WV 6 RSA, and Bland and Tazewellcounties in Virginia 2 RSA. Beckley and Bluefield are the twolargest cities in the region, which also includes the southernportion of the Monongahela National Forest.Highland has been operating its markets since 1991 under the brandname of Cellular One(R), the brand name owned and used by DobsonCommunications. Highland provides GSM, TDMA and analog wirelessservice on a network that includes 75 cell sites, eight of whichare company-owned.Highland also owns PCS spectrum over West Virginia 5 RSA, McDowelland Wyoming counties in WV 6 RSA, most of WV 7 RSA, and sixadditional, adjacent counties in VirginiaHeadquartered in Oklahoma City, American Cellular Corp. (Nasdaq:DCEL) -- http://www.americancellular.net/-- is a rural and suburban provider of wireless communications services in theUnited States. The company provides wireless telephone service inportions of Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, NewYork, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Wisconsin.The company offers digital voice, data and other feature servicesto subscribers through Global System for Mobile Communications,General Packet Radio Service, Enhanced Data for GSM Evolution, andTime Division Multiple Access, digital networks. At Dec. 31,2005, the company's wireless telephone systems covered a totalpopulation of 5.2 million and had approximately 669,700subscribers with an aggregate market penetration of 13.0%.American Cellular's 10% Senior Notes due 2011 carry Standard &Poor's B- rating.APPLETON PAPERS: Solicits Consents to Amend Senior Notes Contract-----------------------------------------------------------------Appleton Papers Inc. commenced, on May 26, 2006, a consentsolicitation to amend certain provisions of the indenturesgoverning its 8.125% Senior Notes due 2011 and 9.75% SeniorSubordinated Notes due 2014.The proposed amendments will permit Appleton to make distributionsto Paperweight Development Corp., the parent company of Appleton,to allow Paperweight to make certain payments that are required byAppleton's employee stock ownership plan and applicable laws, andto make other related changes to the restricted payments covenantand the definitions in the each of the indentures.The consent solicitation is scheduled to expire at 11:59 p.m., NewYork City time, on June 9, 2006, unless extended.The proposed amendments to each indenture will require, on orprior to the expiration date, the consent of note holders of atleast a majority in aggregate principal amount of each of thesenior notes and senior subordinated notes that are outstanding asof May 25, 2006.In consideration of the holders' consent to the proposedamendments, Appleton is offering to make a cash payment of $10 foreach $1,000 principal amount of notes held as of May 25, 2006, forwhich consents have been received prior to the expiration date andnot validly revoked.Additional information concerning the terms and conditions of theconsent solicitation and copies of the Consent SolicitationStatement and related documents may be obtained from theinformation agent: Global Bondholders Services Corporation 65 Broadway, Suite 723 New York, New York 10006 Telephone (212) 430-3774 (banks and brokers) Toll Free (866) 952-2200Questions regarding the consent solicitation may be directed to: UBS Securities LLC Attn: Liability Management Group Telephone (203) 719-4210 Toll Free at (888) 722-9555 ext. 4210 About AppletonHeadquartered in the Appleton, Wisconsin, Appleton Papers Inc. -- http://www.appletonideas.com/-- uses ideas that make a difference to create product solutions through its development and use ofcoating formulations and applications as well as encapsulation,security, printing and packaging technologies. The Companyproduces carbonless, thermal, security, and performance packagingproducts and provides secure and specialized print services.Appleton has manufacturing operations in Wisconsin, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and the United Kingdom, employsapproximately 3,300 people, and is 100% employee-owned.ARMSTRONG WORLD: Parent Company Earns $28 Million in First Quarter------------------------------------------------------------------Armstrong Holdings, Inc., the parent company of Armstrong WorldIndustries, Inc., disclosed its financial results for the firstquarter ended March 31, 2006, to the Securities and ExchangeCommission on April 26, 2006.For the year ended March 31, 2006, the Company reported $28million of net income on $876.6 million of net revenues, comparedto a $3 million net loss on $840.7 million of net revenues for theyear ended Dec. 31, 2005.As of March 31, 2006, the Company's balance sheet showed totalassets of $4.6 billion and total debts of $5.9 billion, resultingin $1.3 billion stockholders' deficit.A full-text copy of Armstrong Holdings' Quarterly Report isavailable for free at http://researcharchives.com/t/s?a1e About Armstrong WorldHeadquartered in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Armstrong WorldIndustries, Inc. -- http://www.armstrong.com/-- the major operating subsidiary of Armstrong Holdings, Inc., designs,manufactures and sells interior floor coverings and ceilingsystems, around the world.The Company and its debtor-affiliates filed for chapter 11protection on December 6, 2000 (Bankr. Del. Case No. 00-04469).Stephen Karotkin, Esq., at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, and RussellC. Silberglied, Esq., at Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.,represent the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. The Debtorstapped the Feinberg Group for analysis, evaluation, and treatmentof personal injury asbestos claims.Mark Felger, Esq. and David Carickhoff, Esq., at Cozen andO'Connor, and Robert Drain, Esq., Andrew Rosenberg, Esq., andAlexander Rohan, Esq., at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &Garrison, represent the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.The Creditors Committee tapped Houlihan Lokey for financial andinvestment advice. The Official Committee of Asbestos PersonalInjury Claimant hired Ashby & Geddes as counsel.When the Debtors filed for protection from their creditors, theylisted $4,032,200,000 in total assets and $3,296,900,000 inliabilities.ASARCO LLC: FCR & Asbestos Panel Balks at Estimation Protocol-------------------------------------------------------------Robert C. Pate, Future Claims Representative, informs the Courtthat since the approval of the Stipulation realigning the partiesin the Adversary Proceeding, ASARCO LLC has asked for approval ofan estimation protocol in connection with its derivativeasbestos-related liabilities.The FCR asserts that Phase I of the Estimation Motion is ashocking reversal and is duplicative of the Adversary Proceeding.Debra L. Innocenti, Esq., at Oppenheimer, Blend, Harrison, &Tate, Inc., at San Antonio, Texas, points out that both Phase Iand the Estimation Motion seek determination of ASARCO'sderivative liability for asbestos claims against its AsbestosSubsidiary Debtors.Ms. Innocenti argues that since ASARCO has already filed aComplaint, ASARCO has already joined the issues presented in theEstimation Motion and has selected the forum and proceduralvehicle for litigating the derivative asbestos claims, and nocompelling reason exists to abandon that selection.According to the \"first filed rule,\" where two actions involvingoverlapping issues and parties are pending in two federal courts,there is a strong presumption that favors the forum of the first-filed suit.In addition, Ms. Innocenti contends that ASARCO's sudden desireto move ahead towards confirmation with alacrity is artificial.ASARCO must resolve a number of more important challenges beforeit will be in a position to propose a plan of reorganization toits creditors. A determination of ASARCO's derivative asbestosliability is not the most significant impediment to ASARCO'sprogress in its Chapter 11 case, Ms. Innocenti argues. If itwere, ASARCO should have proceeded with greater urgency in theprosecution of the Adversary Proceeding, which has been on filefor nearly 10 months.By attempting to dispose of the alter ego claims in anaccelerated and abbreviated fashion, ASARCO is asking thoseclaimants to fight this litigation not only with \"both hands tiedbehind their backs, but blindfolded and with both legs hobbledfor good measure,\" Ms. Innocenti says.If the FCR determines that he must participate in the riggedcontest, Ms. Innocenti says, the FCR will join with noinstitutional knowledge, no formal discovery and limited informalfact development. The proposed shotgun schedule is inadequateand unjust considering that the FCR has not been able to conductany investigation beyond procuring public documents, to shedlight on which witnesses should be called, Ms. Innocenti asserts.If the FCR determines that he must not participate in the riggedcontest, any resulting order finding that no alter ego liabilityexists would not bind future asbestos claimants. The FCR isspecifically appointed for the purposes of due process -- toprotect the rights and interests of future claimants, ensuringthere will be assets available in the future to pay future andunknown claims on relative par with current claimants.In light of ASARCO's attempt to short change the future claimantsof a meaningful discovery and litigation process for their alterego claims, it appears that to adequately represent the futureasbestos claimants, the FCR may need to decline to participate inPhase I of the estimation hearing, Ms. Innocenti says.Regardless of whether the FCR participates, ASARCO's estate willlikely have a Pyrrhic victory in a judgment by the Court findingthat no alter ego exists, Ms. Innocenti asserts. The judgmentwill have no binding authority on future asbestos claimants ifthe FCR does not participate in the proposed estimation hearingand will likely be overturned as an exploitive, collusiveproceeding that did not afford future asbestos claimants trulyzealous representation if the FCR does not participate. The onlycertain outcome will be a waste of judicial resources and theDebtors' estates. Asbestos CommitteeNotwithstanding the Parties' expressed intent that the resolutionof the Alter Ego Theories asserting that ASARCO is liable for theasbestos liabilities of the Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors wouldtake place through the current Adversary Proceeding, ASARCOaltered its position by filing the Estimation Motion, Jacob L.Newton, Esq., at Stutzman, Bromberg, Esserman & Plifka, APC, inDallas, Texas, notes.Mr. Newton asserts that the proposed Estimation Motion attemptsto short-circuit the current adversary proceeding and deny theAsbestos Committee's constituents their right to a meaningful dayin court.The proposed estimation procedures deny the Plaintiffs theprocedural protections, and place the current adversaryproceeding on a fast track -- a track so fast as to deny all dueprocess rights to the Debtors' asbestos claimants.Mr. Newton adds that ASARCO's proposed Phase I schedule of theEstimation Motion gives the Asbestos Committee and the FCR notime to conduct discovery, an omission that is particularlyunfair since the Asbestos Committee has outstanding requests forproduction of documents to ASARCO that have remained unsatisfiedsince October 2004.In proffering procedures that give the Plaintiffs only six weeksto conduct any discovery and in limiting the Plaintiffs to onlythree witnesses, Mr. Newton says, ASARCO is effectively forcingthe Asbestos Committee and the FCR to pick among the variouslegal theories that ASARCO itself has identified as potentiallyvalid.Mr. Newton also asserts that asbestos victims, who have beenstayed from pursuing recovery for their injuries based onASARCO's bankruptcy petition, deserve nothing less than a full,non-truncated trial of the merits of their claims against ASARCO,including the full gamut of procedural and due process rights.While the Asbestos Committee recognizes the Debtors' need toobtain a reliable estimate of their asbestos liabilities, theAsbestos Committee asserts that a typical asbestos estimationproceeding, using the Debtors' pre-bankruptcy asbestos historyand expert projections of present and future liabilities, is theoptimal method for determining the scope of the Debtors' asbestosliabilities.Headquartered in Tucson, Arizona, ASARCO LLC -- http://www.asarco.com/-- is an integrated copper mining, smelting and refining company. Grupo Mexico S.A. de C.V. isASARCO's ultimate parent. The Company filed for chapter 11protection on Aug. 9, 2005 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 05-21207).James R. Prince, Esq., Jack L. Kinzie, Esq., and Eric A.Soderlund, Esq., at Baker Botts L.L.P., and Nathaniel PeterHolzer, Esq., Shelby A. Jordan, Esq., and Harlin C. Womble, Esq.,at Jordan, Hyden, Womble & Culbreth, P.C., represent the Debtorin its restructuring efforts. Lehman Brothers Inc. provides theASARCO with financial advisory services and investment bankingservices. Paul M. Singer, Esq., James C. McCarroll, Esq., andDerek J. Baker, Esq., at Reed Smith LLP give legal advice tothe Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and David J.Beckman at FTI Consulting, Inc., gives financial advisoryservices to the Committee. When the Debtor filed for protectionfrom its creditors, it listed $600 million in total assets and$1 billion in total debts.The Debtor has five affiliates that filed for chapter 11protection on April 11, 2005 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case Nos. 05-20521through 05-20525). They are Lac d'Amiante Du Quebec Ltee, CAPCOPipe Company, Inc., Cement Asbestos Products Company, LakeAsbestos of Quebec, Ltd., and LAQ Canada, Ltd. Details abouttheir asbestos-driven chapter 11 filings have appeared in theTroubled Company Reporter since Apr. 18, 2005.Encycle/Texas, Inc. (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 05-21304), Encycle,Inc., and ASARCO Consulting, Inc. (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No.05-21346) also filed for chapter 11 protection, and ASARCO hasasked that the three subsidiary cases be jointly administeredwith its chapter 11 case. On Oct. 24, 2005, Encycle/Texas' casewas converted to a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding. The Courtappointed Michael Boudloche as Encycle/Texas, Inc.'s Chapter 7Trustee. Michael B. Schmidt, Esq., and John Vardeman, Esq., atLaw Offices of Michael B. Schmidt represent the Chapter 7Trustee. (ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 22; BankruptcyCreditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000).ASARCO LLC: Alvarez & Marsal Okayed as Fin'l & Turnaround Advisor-----------------------------------------------------------------Judge Schmidt of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the SouthernDistrict of Texas in Corpus Christi authorizes ASARCO LLC toemploy Alvarez & Marsal LLC as its financial and restructuringadvisors on an interim basis.ASARCO's Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors has untilJune 1, 2006, to file an objection. If the Committee does notfile a timely objection, the Court's Order will become final.As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on May 11, 2006,Alvarez & Marsal will provide consulting services to ASARCO'sBoard of Directors under a two-phase program: A. Phase I * Assist ASARCO in cash flow forecasting, management and reporting, business plan analysis and forecasting, development of financial, accounting and operational information and reports and other business management and bankruptcy case administration issues; * Evaluate financial, accounting, purchasing and supply chain, tax, commercial and other administrative and business-management functions and capacity of ASARCO, develop a plan to improve ASARCO's administrative and business-management functions and capacity; and * Present the results to ASARCO's Board of Directors. B. Phase II * Continue to provide the services described in Phase I and implement the plan approved by ASARCO's Board relative to Phase I; and * Provide other advisory management services as may be requested by ASARCO and agreed by Alvarez & Marsal, pursuant to an amendment to be executed by the parties and approved by the Board.The Debtors will pay Alvarez & Marsal's services on a hybridfixed-fee and hourly-basis compensation structure: (a) $150,000, plus reimbursement for expenses, for services in Phase I; and (b) Customary hourly rates, subject to a 25% discount, for all services it will provide after May 4, 2006: Professionals Hourly Rates ------------- ------------ Managing Directors $475 - $675 Directors $375 - $450 Associates $300 - $350 Analysts $150 - $225Headquartered in Tucson, Arizona, ASARCO LLC -- http://www.asarco.com/-- is an integrated copper mining, smelting and refining company. Grupo Mexico S.A. de C.V. isASARCO's ultimate parent. The Company filed for chapter 11protection on Aug. 9, 2005 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 05-21207).James R. Prince, Esq., Jack L. Kinzie, Esq., and Eric A.Soderlund, Esq., at Baker Botts L.L.P., and Nathaniel PeterHolzer, Esq., Shelby A. Jordan, Esq., and Harlin C. Womble, Esq.,at Jordan, Hyden, Womble & Culbreth, P.C., represent the Debtorin its restructuring efforts. Lehman Brothers Inc. provides theASARCO with financial advisory services and investment bankingservices. Paul M. Singer, Esq., James C. McCarroll, Esq., andDerek J. Baker, Esq., at Reed Smith LLP give legal advice tothe Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and David J.Beckman at FTI Consulting, Inc., gives financial advisoryservices to the Committee. When the Debtor filed for protectionfrom its creditors, it listed $600 million in total assets and$1 billion in total debts.The Debtor has five affiliates that filed for chapter 11protection on April 11, 2005 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case Nos. 05-20521through 05-20525). They are Lac d'Amiante Du Quebec Ltee, CAPCOPipe Company, Inc., Cement Asbestos Products Company, LakeAsbestos of Quebec, Ltd., and LAQ Canada, Ltd. Details abouttheir asbestos-driven chapter 11 filings have appeared in theTroubled Company Reporter since Apr. 18, 2005.Encycle/Texas, Inc. (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 05-21304), Encycle,Inc., and ASARCO Consulting, Inc. (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No.05-21346) also filed for chapter 11 protection, and ASARCO hasasked that the three subsidiary cases be jointly administeredwith its chapter 11 case. On Oct. 24, 2005, Encycle/Texas' casewas converted to a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding. The Courtappointed Michael Boudloche as Encycle/Texas, Inc.'s Chapter 7Trustee. Michael B. Schmidt, Esq., and John Vardeman, Esq., atLaw Offices of Michael B. Schmidt represent the Chapter 7Trustee. (ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 22; BankruptcyCreditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000).ASARCO LLC: Encycle Trustee Wants to Hire American Appraisers-------------------------------------------------------------Mike Boudloche, the Chapter 7 trustee of Encycle/Texas, Inc.,seeks authority from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the SouthernDistrict of Texas in Corpus Christi to employ American Appraisers,Inc. American Appraisers will assist the trustee in appraisingand evaluating 61 acres of real property in Corpus Christi, Texas.Mr. Boudloche says AAI employees have extensive knowledge andexperience in rendering real estate appraisals in Nueces County,Texas, and other areas.AAI will be paid $5,000, with a retainer of $2,500.Sidney H. Smith, III, president of American Appraisers, Inc.,assures the Court that his firm does not represent any adverseinterest against Encycle/Texas, and is a \"disinterested person\"as defined in Section 101(14).Headquartered in Tucson, Arizona, ASARCO LLC -- http://www.asarco.com/-- is an integrated copper mining, smelting and refining company. Grupo Mexico S.A. de C.V. isASARCO's ultimate parent. The Company filed for chapter 11protection on Aug. 9, 2005 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 05-21207).James R. Prince, Esq., Jack L. Kinzie, Esq., and Eric A.Soderlund, Esq., at Baker Botts L.L.P., and Nathaniel PeterHolzer, Esq., Shelby A. Jordan, Esq., and Harlin C. Womble, Esq.,at Jordan, Hyden, Womble & Culbreth, P.C., represent the Debtorin its restructuring efforts. Lehman Brothers Inc. provides theASARCO with financial advisory services and investment bankingservices. Paul M. Singer, Esq., James C. McCarroll, Esq., andDerek J. Baker, Esq., at Reed Smith LLP give legal advice tothe Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and David J.Beckman at FTI Consulting, Inc., gives financial advisoryservices to the Committee. When the Debtor filed for protectionfrom its creditors, it listed $600 million in total assets and$1 billion in total debts.The Debtor has five affiliates that filed for chapter 11protection on April 11, 2005 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case Nos. 05-20521through 05-20525). They are Lac d'Amiante Du Quebec Ltee, CAPCOPipe Company, Inc., Cement Asbestos Products Company, LakeAsbestos of Quebec, Ltd., and LAQ Canada, Ltd. Details abouttheir asbestos-driven chapter 11 filings have appeared in theTroubled Company Reporter since Apr. 18, 2005.Encycle/Texas, Inc. (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 05-21304), Encycle,Inc., and ASARCO Consulting, Inc. (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No.05-21346) also filed for chapter 11 protection, and ASARCO hasasked that the three subsidiary cases be jointly administeredwith its chapter 11 case. On Oct. 24, 2005, Encycle/Texas' casewas converted to a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding. The Courtappointed Michael Boudloche as Encycle/Texas, Inc.'s Chapter 7Trustee. Michael B. Schmidt, Esq., and John Vardeman, Esq., atLaw Offices of Michael B. Schmidt represent the Chapter 7Trustee. (ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 22; BankruptcyCreditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000).ATA AIRLINES: Inks Stipulation Allowing GOAA's Claim for $2 Mil.----------------------------------------------------------------The Hon. Basil H. Lorch of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for theSouthern District of Indiana approved the stipulation between ATAAirlines, Inc., and the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority in itsentirety. Claim No. 2052 will be allowed as a Class 6 Generalunsecured Claim for $2,000,000, in full and complete satisfactionof the Claim and the Objection. Stipulation Reducing GOAA's Claim to $2,000,000Before their bankruptcy filing, ATA and the Greater OrlandoAviation Authority entered into an Airlines-Airport Lease and UseAgreement dated January 1, 1996.On May 27, 2005, GOAA filed Claim No. 2052 asserting a $5,878,929unsecured non-priority claim.In June 2005, the Reorganizing Debtors sought and obtained theCourt's authority to reject their Agreement with the GOAA. TheReorganizing Debtors also objected to Claim No. 2052.After arm's-length negotiations, the Reorganizing Debtors and theGOAA settled their dispute and agreed that: (a) Claim No. 2052 will be allowed as a Class 6 General unsecured Claim for $2,000,000, in full and complete satisfaction of the Claim and the Objection; and (b) they will exchange mutual releases.Headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, ATA Airlines, owned by ATAHoldings Corp. -- http://www.ata.com/-- is the nation's 10th largest passenger carrier (based on revenue passenger miles) andone of the nation's largest low-fare carriers. ATA has one of theyoungest, most fuel-efficient fleets among the major carriers,featuring the new Boeing 737-800 and 757-300 aircraft. Theairline operates significant scheduled service from Chicago-Midway, Hawaii, Indianapolis, New York and San Francisco to over40 business and vacation destinations. Stock of parent company,ATA Holdings Corp., is traded on the Nasdaq Stock Exchange. TheCompany and its debtor-affiliates filed for chapter 11 protectionon Oct. 26, 2004 (Bankr. S.D. Ind. Case Nos. 04-19866, 04-19868through 04-19874). Terry E. Hall, Esq., at Baker & Daniels,represents the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. Daniel H.Golden, Esq., Lisa G. Beckerman, Esq., and John S. Strickland,Esq., at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, represents theOfficial Committee of Unsecured Creditors. When the Debtors filedfor protection from their creditors, they listed $745,159,000 intotal assets and $940,521,000 in total debts. (ATA AirlinesBankruptcy News, Issue No. 54; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service,Inc., 215/945-7000)BAYOU GROUP: Files for Chapter 11 Protection in New York--------------------------------------------------------The Bayou (Domestic) Hedge Funds filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcyrelief on May 30, 2006 in New York. Under the direction of JeffMarwil, the domestic Bayou entities' independent fiduciary andpartner at Jenner & Block, with the outside counsel of H. JeffreySchwartz, partner in the bankruptcy and corporate reorganizationand insolvency practice at Dechert LLP, the failed hedge fund willpursue recoveries for the benefit of defrauded investors under theprotection of Chapter 11.In connection with filing Chapter 11, Bayou filed lawsuits againstformer investors who allegedly received fictitious profits and aninequitably large return of their principal investments. Mr.Marwil said that he expects that \"Bayou will file additional suitsagainst the remaining former investors to recover proceeds offraudulent conveyances for the benefit of innocent investors whohave received little, if anything, from Bayou.\" He further statedthat \"the pendency of the Chapter 11 cases will provide aconvenient venue to efficiently investigate and pursue formerinvestors and other non-investor, third-parties allegedlycomplicit in the fraud, with the goal of assuring an equality ofdistribution among all of Bayou's investors. It is patentlyunfair that certain former investors received all of their moneyback, plus profit, while other investors received nothing. Thesecases will be about equality of distribution, fairness andequity,\" he said.Jeff J. Marwil, a partner at Jenner & Block, was appointed onApril 28, 2006 as the federal equity receiver charged with theduty to, among other things, seek recoveries for defraudedinvestors who invested approximately $450 million, and otherwiseadminister the liquidation of the domestic Bayou hedge funds. Heis a member of Jenner & Block's Bankruptcy, Workout and CorporateReorganization Practice and serves on the Firm's ManagementCommittee. Mr. Marwil is AV Peer Review Rated, Martindale-Hubbell's highest peer recognition for ethical standards and legalability. He has a diverse practice with extensive experience inboth the boardroom and the courtroom, and regularly advisesfiduciaries in distressed situations.The Bayou on-shore entities are being advised by H. JeffreySchwartz, partner at the law firm of Dechert LLP, with assistanceof partners Edward A. McDonald and Gary J. Mennitt and associateElise Scherr Frejka. Mr. Schwartz has more than 25 years of majorreorganization and restructuring experience and was recognized inChambers USA, Ohio -- Bankruptcy/Restructuring 2004, 2005 and BestLawyers in America, 2004, 2005. He has extensive experience inthe reorganization practice under the Bankruptcy Code.Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, Bayou Hedge Funds operates andmanages hedge funds. The Company's founder, Samuel Israel III,and chief financial officer Daniel Marino, have been charged withfraud and conspiracy for defrauding investors of more than $450million in hedge funds and using the funds for personal use.BAYOU GROUP: Voluntary Chapter 11 Case Summary----------------------------------------------Debtor: Bayou Group, LLC Jeff J. Marwil, Esq. c/o Jenner & Block LLP One IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 Tel: (312) 923-2619 Fax: (312) 923-2719Bankruptcy Case No.: 06-22306Debtor affiliates filing separate chapter 11 petitions: Entity Case No. ------ -------- Bayou Management, LLC 06-22305 Bayou Superfund, LLC 06-22307 Bayou No Leverage Fund, LLC 06-22308 Bayou Affiliates Fund, LLC 06-22309 Bayou Accredited Fund, LLC 06-22310 Bayou Fund, LLC 06-22311 Bayou Advisors, LLC 06-22312 Bayou Equities, LLC 06-22313Type of Business: The Debtors operate and manage hedge funds. The Debtors' founder, Samuel Israel III, and chief financial officer Daniel Marino, have been charged with fraud and conspiracy for defrauding investors of more than $450 million in hedge funds and using the funds for personal use. Jeff J. Marwil, Esq., a partner at Jenner & Block LLP, has been appointed receiver and sole managing member of the Debtor and its affiliates.Chapter 11 Petition Date: May 30, 2006Court: Southern District of New York (White Plains)Judge: Adlai S. Hardin Jr.Debtors' Counsel: Elise Scherr Frejka, Esq. Dechert LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10112 Tel: (212) 649-8734 Fax: (212) 698-3599Estimated Assets: More than $100 MillionEstimated Debts: More than $100 MillionThe Debtors did not file a list of their 20 largest unsecuredcreditors.BERRY-HILL GALLERIES: Court Sets June 15 as Governmental Bar Date-----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New Yorkset June 15, 2006, as the deadline for all government entitiesowed money by Berry-Hill Galleries, Inc., and its debtor-affiliate, Coram Capital LLC, on account of claims arising priorto Dec. 8, 2005, to file their proofs of claim.Government units must file written proofs of claim on or beforethe June 15 Claims Bar Date either by mail to: U.S. Bankruptcy Court Southern District of New York Attn: Berry-Hill/Coram Claims Processing Bowling Green Station, P.O. Box 5187 New York, New York 10274-5187 or courier: U.S. Bankruptcy Court Southern District of New York Attn: Berry-Hill/Coram Claims Processing One Bowling Green, Room 534 New York, New York 10004-1408Headquartered in New York, New York, Berry-Hill Galleries, Inc.-- http://www.berry-hill.com/-- buys paintings and sculpture through outright purchase or on a commission basis and alsoexhibits artworks. The Debtor and its affiliate, Coram CapitalLLC, filed for chapter 11 protection on Dec. 8, 2005 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Case Nos. 05-60169 & 05-60170). Robert T. Schmidt, Esq.,at Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel, LLP, represents the Debtorsin their restructuring efforts. When the Debtors filed forprotection from their creditors, they estimated assets between$10 million and $100 million and debts between $1 million and$50 million.BIJOU-MARKET: Court Sets July 3 as Deadline for Filing of Claims----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Californiaestablished July 3, 2006 as the deadline for filing proofs ofclaims in Bijou-Market, LLC's chapter 11 cases.All proofs of claim must be filed with the Clerk of the BankruptcyCourt, and sent either by mail or courier to this address: Office of the Clerk U.S. Bankruptcy Court Northern District of California 19th Floor, 235 Pine Street, San Francisco, CA 94104Bijou-Market, LLC -- http://www.msclive.com/-- operates an adult entertainment facility on Market Street in San Francisco. Thecompany filed for chapter 11 protection on Feb. 28, 2006 (Bankr.N.D. Calif. Case No. 06-30118). Michael St. James, Esq., at St.James Law, P.C., represents the Debtor in its restructuringefforts. No Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors has beenappointed in this case to date. When the Debtor filed forprotection from its creditors, it listed assets totaling $620,458and debts totaling $66,308,352.BUCKEYE TECHNOLOGIES: Posts $795,000 Net Loss in 2006 1st Quarter-----------------------------------------------------------------Buckeye Technologies, Inc., reported a $795,000 net loss on $181.4million of net revenues for the first quarter ended March 31,2006, compared to $4 million of net income on $180.9 million ofnet revenues for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.As of March 31, 2006, the Company's balance sheet showed totalassets of $969.7 million and total debts of $688.3 million.A full-text copy of Buckeye Technologies' Quarterly Report isavailable for free at http://researcharchives.com/t/s?a22Headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee, Buckeye Technologies, Inc. --http://www.bkitech.com/-- is a leading manufacturer and marketer of specialty fibers and nonwoven materials. The Company currentlyoperates facilities in the United States, Germany, Canada, andBrazil. Its products are sold worldwide to makers of consumer andindustrial goods. * * *As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on March 9, 2006,Standard & Poor's Ratings Services revised its outlook on BuckeyeTechnologies Inc. to negative from stable. At the same time,Standard & Poor's affirmed its ratings, including the 'BB-'corporate credit rating, on the Memphis, Tennessee-based specialtypulp producer.CATHOLIC CHURCH: Dufresne Wants Portland's Claim Estimation Denied------------------------------------------------------------------Nathan DuFresne asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District ofOregon to deny the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon's request toestimate his claim.Karl I. Mullen, Esq., in Portland, Oregon, argues that due to theArchdiocese's motions and actions, Mr. DuFresne was not able toobtain the discovery needed to establish the value of his claim.Disclosing much of Mr. DuFresne's evidence at this point wouldgreatly harm his ability to prove his case at trial.Mr. Mullen asserts that Mr. DuFresne's claims should be estimatedat $2,250,000 as average value.There is no need to estimate, Mr. Mullen contends. The face valueof all of the claims is substantially less than the value of theArchdiocese's assets.Moreover, the evidence that Mr. DuFresne submitted is sufficientto establish the face value of his claim, Mr. Mullen says. Inaddition, estimation is not a proper procedure in thecircumstances of Mr. DuFresne's case and the bankruptcy case.Mr. DuFresne, therefore, asks the Court to estimate his claims at$2,250,000 average value, or at its face value -- $919,700 ascompensatory damages and $9,000,000 as punitive damages.The Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon filed for chapter 11protection (Bankr. Ore. Case No. 04-37154) on July 6, 2004.Thomas W. Stilley, Esq., and William N. Stiles, Esq., at SussmanShank LLP, represent the Portland Archdiocese in its restructuringefforts. Albert N. Kennedy, Esq., at Tonkon Torp, LLP, representsthe Official Tort Claimants Committee in Portland, and scores ofabuse victims are represented by other lawyers. David A. Forakerserves as the Future Claimants Representative appointed in theArchdiocese of Portland's Chapter 11 case. In its Schedules ofAssets and Liabilities filed with the Court on July 30, 2004, thePortland Archdiocese reports $19,251,558 in assets and$373,015,566 in liabilities. (Catholic Church Bankruptcy News,Issue No. 59; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)CATHOLIC CHURCH: Tucson Panel Wants to Settle Claim for $367,500----------------------------------------------------------------To avoid the risks of litigation, the Official Committee of TortClaimants and the holder of Claim No. 79 entered into astipulation with the Diocese of Tucson resolving the dispute overthe Claim.The Tort Claimants Committee asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court forthe District of Arizona to approve the Stipulation.The terms of the Stipulation are: (a) Claimant No. 79 will have an Allowed Tort Claim for $367,500. Claimant No. 79 waives any claims for further distributions afforded to Settling Tort Claimants pursuant to the Diocese's Plan of Reorganization; (b) Claimant No. 79 will immediately receive an initial distribution amount. The Initial Distribution Amounts for each Tier are: (i) Tier 1: $100,000; (ii) Tier 2: $200,000; (iii) Tier 3: $425,000; (iv) Tier 4: $600,000; and (v) California Tier: $300,000. The claims of parents or spouses of Claimant No. 79, who have Tort Claims, will receive 5% of the highest amount recovered by Claimant No. 79 as provided in the Plan. The Stipulation with each Relationship Tort Claimant is consistent with the terms of the Plan; (c) The Committee agree that the distributions and any other compensation being made to Claimant No. 79 pursuant to the Stipulation and the Plan are for compensation of his or her claims for physical injury. The Committee further agree that it would cooperate with Claimant No. 79 and the Claimant's attorneys to draft and execute the appropriate documents to allow the Claimant to place all or any portion of the distributions in an annuity or structured settlement, if the Claimant elects; (d) To the extent it is necessary to determine the full extent of the Diocese's liability to Claimant No. 79 on account of Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 4, California Tier Claims or Relationship Tort Claims, the parties agree that the determinations will be made in a proceeding which may be before the Bankruptcy Court; provided, however, that notwithstanding the amount of the liability, Claimant No. 79 agree: -- to be bound by the terms of the Plan in accordance with the Stipulation; and -- not to seek further or additional recovery from the Diocese so long as the Plan provides for treatment of the Claimant's tort claims in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation. O'Connor ObjectsOn behalf of claimant Brian O'Connor, Walter F. Wood, Esq., inTucson, Arizona, asserts that the proposed settlement of ClaimNo. 79 does not comport with the provisions of the Plan.Mr. Wood notes that the Tucson Diocese's Plan provides a tieredstructure for all of the claims of purported victims. Each tiercontained a specific set of facts that denominated andcharacterized that tier. Each tier was assigned a compensatorydollar amount that would be paid to a claim holder upon approvaland \"tiering\" of the claim.Each tier also has the capability of receiving additional paymentsfrom the funding pool if certain factors occurred, or did notoccur, Mr. Wood notes. Part of the funding pool was money setaside for future claimants, which will be distributed among thetiers when and if no future claimants timely file claims.The risk of receiving more than the initial distribution falls tothose who have previously negotiated their specific tier placementbased upon the treatment of tiers set out in the Plan, Mr. Woodpoints out.Mr. Wood argues that the proposed settlement gives no authorityfor creating a special \"tier\" or class for Claim No. 79 and offersno \"consideration\" for the treatment.According to Mr. Wood, his client, Mr. O'Connor, settled andagreed to a Tier 2 claim based on the provisions of the Plan thatcalled for the risk of future recovery to be born equally by allvictims within a tier.Thus, Mr. O'Connor, in his personal capacity, asks the Court todeny the settlement agreement entered into by the Tort Committeeand the Diocese with Claimant No. 79. Tort Committee RepliesMr. O'Connor misapprehends both the operation of the Plan and thenature of the settlement, Warren J. Stapleton, Esq., at StinsonMorrison Hecker LLP, in Phoenix, Arizona, asserts.Although the Plan sets out a tiered structure for resolution oftort claims, that does not prohibit a tort claimant from reachinga settlement outside of the tier structure, Mr. Stapletoncontends.\"[N]owhere in his objection does Objector identify language in thePlan which would prevent the parties from reaching a negotiatedsettlement,\" Mr. Stapleton says.Mr. Stapleton tells the Court that the Committee disputedClaimant No. 79's claim to a Tier 3 placement, although it did notdispute placement in Tier 2. The Committee acknowledged thatthere was nevertheless some risk that Claimant No. 79 would begiven a Tier 3 placement after discovery and litigation before aspecial arbitrator.To avoid the litigation and the risk that the Special Arbitratorwould award Claimant No. 79 placement in Tier 3, a one-time cashsettlement was reached for the projected amount that a Tier 2claimant is likely to ultimately receive.The circumstances of individual tort claims are unique, Mr.Stapleton points out. \"[Mr. O'Connor], himself chose settlementon the terms offered him rather than litigation.\"Hence, the Tort Committee asks the Court to approve the settlementwith Claimant No. 79.Tort claimant John Doe XXIII supports the Tort Committee'sarguments. Diocese of TucsonThe Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Tucson filed forchapter 11 protection (Bankr. D. Ariz. Case No. 04-04721) onSeptember 20, 2004, and delivered a plan of reorganization to theCourt on the same day. Susan G. Boswell, Esq., Kasey C. Nye,Esq., at Quarles & Brady Streich Lang LLP, represent the TucsonDiocese. (Catholic Church Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 58Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)CATHOLIC CHURCH: Portland Asks Court to Disallow Claim No. 437--------------------------------------------------------------The holder of Claim No. 437 filed his proof of claim against theArchdiocese of Portland in Oregon on April 28, 2005.The Archdiocese scheduled the deposition on April 18, 2006. Butneither Claimant No. 437, nor his lawyer, appeared for thedeposition.For this reason, the Archdiocese asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Courtfor the District of Oregon to: (a) disallow Claim No. 437 in its entirety; and (b) compel Claimant No. 437 to pay the appearance fee for the court reporter and the videographer, incurred as a result of his non-compliance.Margaret Hoffmann, Esq., at Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, PC, inPortland, Oregon, relates that at the initial phase of discovery,all of Claimant No. 437's allegations were \"recent enough\" to fallwithin the criminal statute of limitations for child sex abuse.The Archdiocese subsequently asked Judge Perris to compel ClaimantNo. 437 to submit to a deposition. The Archdiocese asserted thatClaimant No. 437's testimony was integral to the: -- resolution of Fifth Amendment issues; and -- the Archdiocese's ability to resolve claims of other claimants involving the same accused priest.Since that time, Ms. Hoffmann further relates that she madeseveral attempts to schedule Claimant No. 437's deposition. InNovember 2005, Claimant No. 437's attorney wrote the Archdiocese,explaining that the deposition cannot be conducted because hecannot locate his client. Claimant No. 437's Counsel RespondsOn behalf of Claimant No. 437, Gary Bisaccio, Esq., in Portland,Oregon, tells Judge Perris that Ms. Hoffman arranged for a courtreporter and videographer to appear for a deposition she knewwould not take place.Mr. Bisaccio also tells the Court that, on several occasions, hetold Ms. Hoffman that his client did not wish to submit to adeposition. He also told Ms. Hoffman not to incur costs relatedto the proceeding. But Ms. Hoffman went on to arrange for thedeposition.Hence, Mr. Bisaccio asks the Court to charge the depositionexpenses against the Archdiocese.Mr. Bisaccio, in a separate pleading, asks the Court to berelieved as counsel for Claimant No. 437.Mr. Bisaccio says Claimant No. 437 has refused to communicate andcooperate with him, a conduct, which has, in effect,constructively relieved him of his ability and obligation toproceed on the Claimant's behalf. The Archdiocese of PortlandThe Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon filed for chapter 11protection (Bankr. Ore. Case No. 04-37154) on July 6, 2004.Thomas W. Stilley, Esq., and William N. Stiles, Esq., at SussmanShank LLP, represent the Portland Archdiocese in its restructuringefforts. Albert N. Kennedy, Esq., at Tonkon Torp, LLP, representsthe Official Tort Claimants Committee in Portland, and scores ofabuse victims are represented by other lawyers. David A. Forakerserves as the Future Claimants Representative appointed in theArchdiocese of Portland's Chapter 11 case. In its Schedules ofAssets and Liabilities filed with the Court on July 30, 2004, thePortland Archdiocese reports $19,251,558 in assets and$373,015,566 in liabilities. (Catholic Church Bankruptcy News,Issue No. 59; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)CERVANTES ORCHARDS: Deere Says Disclosure Statement is Incomplete----------------------------------------------------------------- Deere Credit, Inc. objects to the disclosure statement filed byCervantes Orchards & Vineyards, LLC for lack of adequateinformation.Deere Credit questions, among others, the Debtor's revenue andexpense projections for 2006 through 2009.Deere Credit asserts that the projections should include: a) information allowing creditors to understand the revenue assumptions by the Debtor; b) information showing how the payments proposed in the Plan will work into the Debtor's cash flow; and c) detailing any contributions to be made by the Debtor's related entities to support the Plan.Additionally, Deere Credit wants the Disclosure Statement amended.According to the Debtor's valuation, Deere Credit is anoversecured creditor and is entitled to full value of its claimunder the Plan. However, Deere Credit argues that the DisclosureStatement did not accurately reflect the amount of its claim.Headquartered in Sunnyside, Washington, Cervantes Orchards andVineyards LLC filed for chapter 11 protection on Aug. 19, 2005(Bankr. E.D. Wash. Case No. 05-06600). R. Bruce Johnston, Esq.,at Law Offices of R. Bruce Johnston represents the Debtor in itsrestructuring efforts. No Official Committee of UnsecuredCreditors has been appointed in this case. When the Debtor filedfor protection from its creditors, it listed estimated assets of$10 million to $50 million and estimated debts of $1 million to$10 million.CHEMTURA CORP: Gets $85 Million from Water Additives Unit Sale--------------------------------------------------------------Chemtura Corporation completed the sale of its Industrial WaterAdditives business to an affiliate of Close Brothers PrivateEquity LLP, a U.K. firm, on May 15, 2006. In connection with thistransaction the company received $85 million in cash. Excludedfrom the sale is the LiquiBrom(R) product line. Proceeds from thesale will be used primarily for debt reduction.\"We are very happy to announce the completion of this transaction,which we believe will benefit all parties. Industrial WaterAdditives is a strong enterprise, which we expect will do wellwith Close Brothers, but it doesn't fit our strategy ofconcentrating on core businesses that will produce the greatestresults for us,\" said Chemtura Chairman and CEO Robert L. Wood.No facilities were included in the transaction. Chemtura willcontinue to manufacture products in its Adrian, Mich., andTrafford Park, U.K. facilities and sell to the purchaser viasupply agreements. Industrial Water Additives' approximately 40non-manufacturing employees will become employees of BWA WaterAdditives, a CBPE affiliate. BWA will act as distributor for theLiquiBrom product line. There will be no gain or loss booked onthe transaction, which is expected to be dilutive to earnings by$0.01 in 2006 and $0.02 in 2007.Industrial Water Additives had pro forma 2005 revenues ofapproximately $80 million, excluding the LiquiBrom product line.Industrial Water Additives is a major producer of organic,polymer-based antiscalants and corrosion inhibitors and bromine-based biocides. Its Belclene(R), Belcor(R), Belgard(R),Belite(R), Bellacide(R), Bellasol(R), Belsperse(R), BromiCide(R),Flocon(R) and LiquiBrom products help to control scale, corrosion,foam and problem organisms in industrial cooling, industrial andmunicipal wastewater treatment, pulp and paper processing, foodprocessing, and desalination processes. About Chemtura CorporationHeadquartered in Middlebury, Connecticut, Chemtura Corporation(NYSE: CEM) -- http://www.chemtura.com/-- is a global manufacturer and marketer of specialty chemicals, crop protectionand pool, spa and home care products. With pro forma 2005 salesof $3.9 billion, the company has approximately 7,300 employeesaround the world. * * *As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Mar 17, 2006,Standard & Poor's Ratings Services revised its outlook onMiddlebury, Connecticut-based Chemtura Corp. to positive fromstable and affirmed the existing 'BB+' ratings.As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Sept. 26, 2005,Moody's Investors Service affirmed Ba1 ratings on all of ChemturaCorporation's outstanding $1.27 billion of senior unsecured debtobligations, and changed the outlook on the company's ratings tonegative from stable.CLARION TECHNOLOGIES: Posts $2.4 Mil. Net Loss in First Quarter---------------------------------------------------------------Clarion Technologies, Inc., filed its financial results for thefirst quarter ended April 1, 2006, with the Securities andExchange Commission on May 16, 2006.For the three months ended April 1, 2006, the company reported a$2.4 million net loss on $35.8 million of net revenues compared toa $2.8 million net loss on $32.3 million of net revenues for thequarter ended April 2, 2005.At April 1, 2006, the company's balance sheet showed total assetsof $73.6 million and total debts of $108.7 million, resulting in a$91.7 million stockholders' deficit. As of April 1, 2006, theCompany's accumulated deficit widened to $123.9 million from a$118.3 million accumulated deficit at Dec. 31, 2005.A full-text copy of Clarion Technologies' Quarterly Report isavailable for free at http://researcharchives.com/t/s?9ee Going Concern DoubtAs reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on April 27, 2006,BDO Seidman, LLP, raised substantial doubt about ClarionTechnologies, Inc.'s ability to continue as a going concern afterit audited the company's financial statements for the year endedDec. 31, 2005. The auditing firm points to the company'srecurring losses from operations, working capital deficit,accumulated deficit and violation of certain covenants in its loanagreements.Headquartered in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Clarion Technologies,Inc. -- http://www.clariontechnologies.com/-- creates products and parts for the automotive, furniture and consumer goodsindustry.CLEAN EARTH: Gets Interim Access to $750,000 DIP Financing----------------------------------------------------------The Hon. Joseph M. Scott of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for theEastern District of Kentucky in Lexington allowed Clean EarthKentucky, LLC, and its debtor-affiliate, Clean Earth EnvironmentalGroup, LLC, on an interim basis, to obtain postpetition securedloans of up to $750,000 from US Acquisition, LLC.US Acquisition is successor-in-interest to National City Bank ofKentucky. When they filed for bankruptcy, the Debtors hadapproximately $14 million in disputed secured and unsecured debtsowed to the bank.The Debtors tell the Court that the DIP loan proceeds will be usedto pay their employees and finance their operations pursuant tothe New Loan Agreement.As security for the New Obligations, the Debtors grant the lendersvalid, perfected, and enforceable security interests and liens.US Acquisition's lien in the collateral will be a first priority,senior, perfected lien securing the full amount of the NewObligations.Headquartered in Cynthiana, Kentucky, Clean Earth Kentucky, LLC --http://www.cleanearthllc.com/-- manufactures specialized sewer machines, street sweepers, and refuse trucks. The Company and itsaffiliate, Clean Earth Environmental Group, LLC, filed for chapter11 protection on Jan. 24, 2006. (Bankr. E.D. Ky. Case No.06-50052). Laura Day DelCotto, Esq., at Wise DelCotto PLLC,represents the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. R. ScottWilliams, Esq., at Haskell Slaughter Young & Rediker, LLC,represents the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. Whenthe Debtors filed for protection from its creditors, theyestimated individual assets and debts between $10 million to$50 million.CLEAN EARTH: Has Until June 30 to File Chapter 11 Plan------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Kentuckyextended until June 30, 2006, the period within which Clean EarthKentucky, LLC, and Clean Earth Environmental Group, LLC, have theexclusive right to file their chapter 11 Plan. The Debtors alsohave until Aug. 30, 2006, to solicit acceptances of that Plan.The Debtors tell the Court that the extension will give them moretime to formulate their disclosure statements and plans. They addthat it will allow them to focus on the operations left afterselling part of their assets and to determine how best to usethese operations in their restructuring efforts.Headquartered in Cynthiana, Kentucky, Clean Earth Kentucky, LLC --http://www.cleanearthllc.com/-- manufactures specialized sewer machines, street sweepers, and refuse trucks. The Company and itsaffiliate, Clean Earth Environmental Group, LLC, filed for chapter11 protection on Jan. 24, 2006. (Bankr. E.D. Ky. Case No.06-50052). Laura Day DelCotto, Esq., at Wise DelCotto PLLC,represents the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. R. ScottWilliams, Esq., at Haskell Slaughter Young & Rediker, LLC,represents the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. Whenthe Debtors filed for protection from its creditors, theyestimated individual assets and debts between $10 million to $50million.CLEAN EARTH: Court Approves Phil Daetwyler's Retention as COO-------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Kentuckyapproved the request of Clean Earth Kentucky, LLC, and Clean EarthEnvironmental Group, LLC, to retain Phil Daetwyler as their ChiefOperating Officer, nunc pro tunc to May 2, 2006.The Debtors believe that Mr. Daetwyler is well qualified and ableto oversee the Debtors' operations in a cost-effective, efficientand timely manner. Mr. Daetwyler will be paid $150,000 per annumplus benefits, and other bonuses.To the best of the Debtors' knowledge, Mr. Daetwyler is a\"disinterested person\" as that term is defined in Section 101(14)of the Bankruptcy Code.Headquartered in Cynthiana, Kentucky, Clean Earth Kentucky, LLC --http://www.cleanearthllc.com/-- manufactures specialized sewer machines, street sweepers, and refuse trucks. The Company and itsaffiliate, Clean Earth Environmental Group, LLC, filed for chapter11 protection on Jan. 24, 2006. (Bankr. E.D. Ky. Case No.06-50052). Laura Day DelCotto, Esq., at Wise DelCotto PLLC,represents the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. R. ScottWilliams, Esq., at Haskell Slaughter Young & Rediker, LLC,represents the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. Whenthe Debtors filed for protection from its creditors, theyestimated individual assets and debts between $10 million to $50million.CMS ENERGY: Posts $27 Million Net Loss in 2006 First Quarter------------------------------------------------------------CMS Energy incurred a net loss of $27 million for the firstquarter of 2006 compared to a net income of $150 million in thesame quarter of 2005.The expected reversal of $74 million of mark-to-market gainsrecorded in 2005 was the primary factor in the loss. Mark-to-market is a non-cash accounting adjustment that primarily reflectschanges in the value of certain natural gas contracts.The Company's adjusted results for the first quarter of 2006,excluding mark-to-market effects, were net income of $48 millioncompared to $73 million in the same period for 2005. The year-over-year drop in the adjusted results, excluding mark-to-market,was caused primarily by lower gas and electric sales due to muchwarmer weather during the quarter compared to the first quarter of2005, including the warmest January on record.CMS Energy maintained its guidance for 2006 adjusted earnings,excluding mark-to-market impacts, of about $1 per share. TheCompany reiterated that its 2006 reported earnings are likely tobe substantially lower than its adjusted earnings because of theexpected reversal of mark-to-market gains and losses frompotential asset sales. CMS Energy isn't providing specificreported earnings guidance because of the uncertainties associatedwith those factors.\"The weather and high natural gas prices have been challenging.However, operating performance continues to be strong, and wecontinue to make progress on our plan\" said David Joos, presidentand chief executive officer of CMS Energy.CMCMS Energy is an integrated energy company, which has as itsprimary business operations an electric and natural gas utility,natural gas pipeline systems, and independent power generation. * * *As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Feb. 2, 2006,Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its 'BB' long-termcorporate credit ratings on public utility holding company, CMSEnergy Corp., and its regulated utility subsidiary, ConsumersEnergy Co., and removed the ratings from CreditWatch with negativeimplications.Standard & Poor's also affirmed its 'B-1' short-term corporatecredit rating on CMS and removed the rating from CreditWatch withnegative implications. S&P said the outlook is stable.As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Dec. 12, 2005,Fitch Ratings has assigned a rating of 'BB-' to CMS Energy Corp.'s$125 million issuance of 6.875% senior unsecured notes, dueDec. 15, 2015. Fitch said the Rating Outlook for CMS isStable.COMCAST CORP: Earns $466 Million in First Quarter Ended March 31----------------------------------------------------------------Comcast Corporation disclosed its financial results for the firstquarter ended March 31, 2006, to the Securities and ExchangeCommission on April 28, 2006.For the year ended March 31, 2006, the Company reported $466million of net income on $5.9 billion of net revenues, compared to$143 million of net income on $5.4 million of net revenues for theyear ended Dec. 31, 2005.As of March 31, 2006, the Company's balance sheet showed totalassets of $103 billion and total debts of $62.9 billion.A full-text copy of Comcast Corp.'s Quarterly Report is availablefor free at http://researcharchives.com/t/s?a25Headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Comcast Corp. --http://www.comcast.com/-- provides cable, and other consumer entertainment and communication products and services in theUnited States.Comcast Corp.'s preferred stock carries Moody's InvestorsService's Ba1 Rating.DEATH ROW: U.S. Trustee Appoints Five-Member Creditors Committee----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Trustee for Region 16 appointed five creditors to serveon an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in Death RowRecords Inc. and its debtor-affiliates' chapter 11 cases: 1. Afeni Shakur c/o Brian Bloom, Esq., Cozen O'Connor 777 S. Figueroa Street, Ste 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: 213-892-7900 212-453-3750 2. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro LLP c/o Mark L. Block, Esq. 10250 Constellation Blvd., 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: 340-282-6240 Fax: 310-550-2920 3. Amanda Metcalf, Esq., 29 Marin Bay Park Court San Rafael, CS 94901 415-454-0945 4. Lydia Harris c/o David Lally, Esq. 26895 Aliso Creek Road Suite B663 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Tel: 949-349-0022 Fax: 949-349-0019 5. Dwayne Baudy c/o Joseph E. Porter, III, Esq. 206 3rd Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Tel: 562-493-3940 Fax: 562-493-3670Official creditors' committees have the right to employ legal andaccounting professionals and financial advisors, at the Debtors'expense. They may investigate the Debtors' business and financialaffairs. Importantly, official committees serve as fiduciaries tothe general population of creditors they represent. Thosecommittees will also attempt to negotiate the terms of aconsensual chapter 11 plan -- almost always subject to the termsof strict confidentiality agreements with the Debtors and othercore parties-in-interest. If negotiations break down, theCommittee may ask the Bankruptcy Court to replace management withan independent trustee. If the Committee concludes reorganizationof the Debtors is impossible, the Committee will urge theBankruptcy Court to convert the chapter 11 cases to a liquidationproceeding.Headquartered in Compton, California, Death Row Records Inc. --http://www.deathrowrecords.net/-- is an independent record producer. The company and its owner, Marion Knight, Jr., filedfor chapter 11 protection on April 4, 2006 (Bankr. C.D. Calif.Case No. 06-11205 and 06-11187). Daniel J. McCarthy, Esq., atHill, Farrer & Burrill, LLP, and Robert S. Altagen, Esq.,represent the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. When theDebtors filed for protection from their creditors, they listedtotal assets of $1,500,000 and total debts of $119,794,000.DND TECHNOLOGIES: March 31 Balance Sheet Upside Down by $6.9 Mil.-----------------------------------------------------------------DND Technologies, Inc., filed its first quarter financialstatements for the three months ended March 31, 2006, with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on May 19, 2006.The Company reported a $417,823 net loss on $1,988,370 of totalrevenues for the three months ended March 31, 2006.At March 31, 2006, the Company's balance sheet showed $3,243,398in total assets and $10,199,072 in total liabilities, resulting ina $6,955,674 stockholders' deficit.The Company's March 31 balance sheet also showed strainedliquidity with $2,979,915 in total current assets available to pay$10,175,792 in total current liabilities coming due within thenext 12 months.Full-text copies of the Company's financial statements for thethree months ended March 31, 2006, are available for free athttp://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?a1a Going Concern DoubtAs reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on May 22, 2006,Farber Hass Hurley & McEwen LLP raised substantial doubt about DNDTechnologies, Inc.'s ability to continue as a going concern afterauditing the Company's consolidated financial statements for theyear ended Dec. 31, 2005. The auditor pointed to the Company'slosses, negative working capital, receipt of a license agreementtermination notice for its agreement with a major supplier, anddefault on the majority of its term debt.Headquartered in Chandler, Arizona, DND Technologies, Inc.'s(OTCBB: DNDT) operating subsidiary, Aspect Systems, Inc. --http://www.aspectsys.com/-- supplies semiconductor manufacturing equipment and complete after-market support, which includes spareparts and assemblies, and various engineering services. Throughlicensing agreements negotiated with Lam Research Corporation andAxcelis Technologies, Inc., ASI has become the original equipmentmanufacturer of AutoEtch plasma etch systems originally designedby Lam, and plasma etch and strip products manufactured on the ASIMX-1 and ASI MX-10, and the Arista and Arista Dual platforms. ASIalso offers new and refurbished support products including a widearray of sub-assemblies, both consumable and non-consumable repairand process related parts, and remanufactured temperature controlunits that are designed to maintain critical operatingtemperatures for the plasma systems.EASYLINK SERVICES: Posts $376,000 Net Loss in 2006 First Quarter----------------------------------------------------------------EasyLink Services Corporation generated $18.5 million of revenuesfor the first quarter of 2006 ended March 31, 2006, as compared to$18.5 million during the fourth quarter of 2005 and $20.4 millionin the first quarter of 2005.The Company reported a $376,000 net loss during the first quarter,in contrast to a $2,741,000 net loss for the same period in 2005.The Company's cash and cash equivalents balance at the end of thefirst quarter 2006 was $4.1 million as compared to $6.3 million asof Dec. 31, 2005. The decline in cash includes principal paymentson existing debt of $1.6 million as required by the Company'samended Credit agreement with Wells Fargo Foothill.Subsequent to March 31, 2006, EasyLink raised $5.4 million in newequity financing. Approximately $3 million of the proceeds wereused to prepay a portion of the Company's debt with Wells Fargo asrequired by the Credit Agreement that reduced its debt remainingwith Wells Fargo to $5.8 million as of April 30, 2006. Thebalance of the proceeds totaling $2.4 million will be used forworking capital purposes. For the quarter ended March 31, 2006,net cash from operating activities was approximately breakeven.Thomas Murawski, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officerof EasyLink, said, \"The first quarter of 2006 was a strong quarterfor us in several key areas including a 10.6% quarterly revenueincrease in our Transaction Management Services.\"Total revenue was about even with last quarter; however, based onimproved sales productivity we have sufficient momentum to enableus to forecast the second quarter of 2006 to be the first quarterwith total revenue growth since we became EasyLink Services.\"This positive outcome is the result of the diligent execution ofour strategy to re-architect our company around TransactionManagement Services to put the company on a sustainable growthfooting. Transaction Management Services represented 25% of totalcompany revenue in the first quarter, up from 18% a year ago.\"We expect this percentage to increase to between 27% to 30%during the second quarter of 2006 driven by the growth in ourTransaction Management Services which includes the anticipatedclosure of a software sale that would generate a one time feerather than recurring revenue.\"In summary, EasyLink has made a good start to 2006, and ourrevenue, implementation, retention and pipeline indicators arefavorable for the second quarter as well, which should driveforecasted revenue growth.\"Looking beyond just the numbers, our team sees continualreaffirmation of our strategy on a daily basis with our existingcustomers and new prospects. While it's clear that EasyLink'scorporate execution is improving, most recently through salesproductivity gains and on a continuous basis through Six Sigma, itis also becoming increasingly apparent that the demand for ourunique mix of outsourced business process automation services ison the increase.\"We see this through increased requests for proposal from Fortune500 companies, activity and interest at trade events, inboundinquiries through our websites and telesales group, projectopportunities arising from our existing customer base, and thenumber and quality of customer appointments our sales team hasevery week. It's an exciting time for all of us at EasyLink.\" Going Concern DoubtAs reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on May 16, 2006,Grant Thornton LLP expressed substantial doubt about EasylinkServices Corporation's ability to continue as a going concernafter it audited the Company's financial statement for the yearended Dec. 31, 2005. The accounting firm pointed to the Company'shistory of operating losses as well as its $542.0 millionaccumulated deficit and $9.5 million working capital deficit atDec. 31, 2005.Headquartered in Piscataway, New Jersey, Easylink ServicesCorporation (NASDAQ: EASY) -- http://www.EasyLink.com/-- provides outsourced business process automation services to medium andlarge enterprises, including 60 of the Fortune 100, to improveproductivity and competitiveness by transforming manual and paper-based business processes into efficient electronic businessprocesses.ELECTRIC CITY: Post $1.9 Million Net Loss in 2006 1st Fiscal Qtr.-----------------------------------------------------------------Electric City Corp. filed its first quarter financial statementsfor the three months ended March 31, 2006, with the Securities andExchange Commission on May 15, 2006.The Company reported a $1,956,605 net loss on $1,146,345 ofrevenues for the three months ended March 31, 2006.At March 31, 2006, the Company's balance sheet showed $7,151,691in total assets, $5,637,860 in total liabilities, and $2,371,899in stockholders' equity.Full-text copies of the Company's financial statements for thethree months ended March 31, 2006, are available for free athttp://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?a14 Going Concern DoubtAs reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on March 30, 2006,BDO Seidman, LLP, expressed substantial doubt about Electric CityCorp.'s ability to continue as a going concern after auditing theCompany's financial statements for the years ended Dec. 31, 2005and 2004. The auditing firm pointed to the Company's recurringlosses from operations. About Electric CityHeadquartered in Elk Grove Village, Illinois, Electric City Corp.-- http://www.elccorp.com/-- is a leading developer, manufacturer and integrator of energy savings technologies and performancemonitoring systems. Electric City is comprised of threeintegrated operating companies that provide customers with totalenergy solutions. With thousands of customer installations acrossNorth America, Electric City has been reducing customers'operating costs for over 20 years. By linking its customers'sites, the Company is developing large-scale, dispatchable, demandresponse systems we call Virtual Negawatt Power Plan. The Companyis developing its first VNPP(R) development - a 50-Megawattnegative power system for ComEd in Northern Illinois, a second 27-Megawatt system with PacifiCorp in the Salt Lake City area, and apilot program in Ontario, Canada with Enersource.ELEPHANT TALK: Posts $487,146 Net Loss in 2006 First Fiscal Qtr.----------------------------------------------------------------Elephant Talk Communications, Inc., filed its first quarterfinancial statements for the three months ended March 31, 2006,with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 22, 2006.The Company reported a $487,146 net loss on $2,173,260 of revenuesfor the three months ended March 31, 2006.At March 31, 2006, the Company's balance sheet showed $14,559,744in total assets, $11,259,757 in total liabilities, $950,016 inminority interest, and $2,349,971 stockholders' equity.The Company's March 31 balance sheet also showed strainedliquidity with $4,051,485 in total current assets available to pay$7,833,427 in total current liabilities coming due within the next12 months.Full-text copies of the Company's financial statements for thethree months ended March 31, 2006, are available for freehttp://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?a07 Going Concern DoubtJimmy C. H. Cheung & Co., in Hong Kong, raised substantial doubtabout Elephant Talk Communications, Inc.'s ability to continue asa going concern after auditing the Company's consolidatedfinancial statements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005. Theauditor pointed to the Company's loss, negative working capital,and stockholders' and accumulated deficiencies.Elephant Talk Communications, Inc., is a voice-over-internet-protocol telecommunications and mobile short message service andother value added telecom services provider in China. With itscompletion of acquisition of Beijing China Wind, the Companyprovides its mobile value added services to over 1 millioncustomers in China. Its services include short message service,ring tone/wall-paper downloads and mobile e-commerce services.Its international call services are provided through an integratednetwork infrastructure comprising both the packet-switched systemand circuit switched system focusing on the Asia Pacific regionand the U.S.ENRON CORP: Ct. Dismisses Suit v. Caisse de Depot & Australia Bank------------------------------------------------------------------The Honorable Arthur J. Gonzalez of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court forthe Southern District of New York dismissed an adversaryproceeding Enron Corporation and its debtor-affiliates commencedto recover payments to Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec andNational Australia Bank. CLO TransactionIn December 1999, Enron monetized a portfolio of loan facilitiesowned by Enron North America Corp. and certain other Enronaffiliates pursuant to a \"collateralized loan obligation\"transaction. Several entities were formed including ENA CLO IHolding Company I L.P. and ENA CLO I Trust in connection with theCLO transaction.As part of the CLO transaction, the contents of the portfolio ofloan facilities were transferred to CLO Holding. The CLO Trustissued several classes of notes with maturities in 2014. Theproceeds of the CLO Notes were used to purchase the sole limitedpartnership interest in CLO Holding.Security for the Notes was provided by CLO Trust's limitedpartnership interest in CLO Holding, without recourse to CLOTrust or any other entity. Thus, the source of funds from whichthe CLO Trust could make payments to holders of the CLO Notes wasCLO Holding. Repayment of the CLO Notes was dependent uponpayment to CLO Holding by the obligors of the collateralizedloans included in the portfolio of loan facilities.In 2000, the value of CLO Holding's portfolio of loan facilitiesdeclined. In September 2000, Enron provided credit support forthe Notes by granting a \"put option\" to CLO Holding. Enron wasobligated to purchase from CLO Holding up to $113,000,000 indefaulted portfolio loans. Enron did not receive a premiumpayment in return for its granting of the put option.In December 2000 and, again, in June 2001, CLO Holding exercisedits rights pursuant to the put option. CLO Holding transferredthe funds received as a result of exercising its rights under theput option to the CLO Trust. In turn, the CLO Trust transferredthe Put Transfers to certain holders of CLO Notes, includingCaisse de Depot and Australia Bank.In exchange, the subsequent transferees of the Put Transferstransferred their CLO Notes to Enron.The portfolio of loan facilities continued to decline in value asa result of payment defaults on the underlying loans. In spring2001, Enron purchased all of the then-outstanding CLO Notes fromcertain of the holders at face value plus accrued interest. Theprice Enron paid to purchase the CLO Notes was above marketvalue. Enron Wants to Avoid Put TransfersIn 2003, Enron sued institutional investors holding the CLONotes, including Caisse de Depot and Australia Bank. Enronalleged that the Put Transfers are avoidable, pursuant to Section548(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code, as constructive fraudulenttransfers of its interest in property. Enron argued that the PutTransfers were recoverable from the defendants as mediatetransferees pursuant to Section 550(a)(2).Caisse de Depot and Australia Bank sought dismissal of thecomplaint. The Defendants argued that as mediate, or subsequent,transferees of the Put Transfers, the transfers of a debtor'sinterest in property must be avoided under the Bankruptcy Codeagainst the initial transferee prior to Enron seeking recoveryfrom them pursuant to Section 550(a).The Defendants asserted that they were two-steps removed from thealleged fraudulent transfers. They pointed out that after CLOHolding exercised the put option, Enron paid the funds to CLOHolding as initial transferee. In turn, CLO Holding transferredthe funds to the CLO Trust, an immediate transferee. The CLOTrust then distributed those funds to holders of the CLO Notes,including the Defendants.The Defendants also argued that Enron's failure to bring anavoidance action against the initial transferee resulted from itsown decision not to commence the action prior to the running ofthe statute of limitations. To the extent Enron argues, inequity, that an avoidance action could not be brought within thestatute of limitations because CLO Holdings, as the initialtransferee, was dissolved, the Defendants assert that Enronitself caused the dissolution.Enron countered that it may seek recovery from mediatetransferees regardless of whether it has first avoided thetransfers as to the initial transferee. Enron said it mustmerely establish that the transfers are avoidable. Court Dismisses ActionJudge Gonzalez found merit on the Defendants' arguments. Indismissing the complaint, Judge Gonzalez held that the plainlanguage of Section 550(a) requires that the transfer first beestablished as improper and avoided under one of the avoidancesections of the Bankruptcy Code prior to actual recovery from anytransferee. Because Enron's complaint does not seek to initiallyavoid the transfer as against the initial transferee, thecomplaint seeking recovery from the Defendants is properlydismissed as against them.Allowing Enron to merely show that the initial transfer wasavoidable prior to recovery rather than actually establishingthat it were avoided would lead to an absurd result in thecontext of the two separate statutes of limitations found inSections 546(a) and 550(f), Judge Gonzalez said. Section 550(a)applies to the recovery from the initial transferee as well as torecovery from subsequent transferees. Section 550(f) providesthe applicable statute of limitations for recovery actions underSection 550(a).According to Judge Gonzalez, if Enron were only necessary toestablish that the transfer was avoidable, then the Section546(a) statute of limitations for commencing an avoidance actionwould be rendered nugatory; as the trustee could still recovereven from the initial transferee under the \"avoidable\" theoryeven though an avoidance action had not been commenced within therequisite two-year statute of limitations.Even if equitable considerations were sufficient to eliminate thestatutory requirement that the transfer first be avoided, JudgeGonzalez said the equitable arguments presented by Enron wouldnot warrant avoidance of the Put Transfers because Enron hadopportunity to bring the avoidance action against the initialtransferee and Enron, itself, caused the dissolution of theinitial transferee, making the avoidance action against theinitial transferee impossible. About EnronHeadquartered in Houston, Texas, Enron Corporation filed forchapter 11 protection on December 2, 2001 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. CaseNo. 01-16033) following controversy over accounting procedures,which caused Enron's stock price and credit rating to dropsharply. Judge Gonzalez confirmed the Company's Modified FifthAmended Plan on July 15, 2004, and numerous appeals followed. TheDebtors' confirmed chapter 11 Plan took effect on Nov. 17, 2004.Martin J. Bienenstock, Esq., and Brian S. Rosen, Esq., at Weil,Gotshal & Manges, LLP, represent the Debtors in theirrestructuring efforts. Luc A. Despins, Esq., Matthew Scott Barr,Esq., and Paul D. Malek, Esq., at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy,LLP, represent the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.(Enron Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 173; Bankruptcy Creditors'Service, Inc., 15/945-7000)ENRON CORP: Asks Court to Approve United Illuminating Settlement----------------------------------------------------------------Reorganized Enron Corporation and its debtor-affiliates ask JudgeArthur J. Gonzalez of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York to approve their settlement agreement withThe United Illuminating Company, and UIL Holdings Corporation.Before the Debtors filed for bankruptcy, Enron Power Marketing,Inc., entered into various transactions with United Illuminating,pursuant to which certain amounts are owed to EPMI. As creditsupport for the contracts, Enron Corp. and UIL Holdings eachissued certain guaranties, Mark C. Ellenberg, Esq., at Cadwalader,Wickersham & Taft LLP, in New York, relates.On Jan. 31, 2003, EPMI filed Adversary Proceeding No. 03-02065against the UIL Parties, seeking declaratory relief and damagesunder some of the Contracts.The UIL Parties filed their answer and affirmative defenses toEPMI's allegations on March 6, 2003.Following discussions, the parties negotiated the SettlementAgreement. They agree that: (1) the UIL Parties will make a settlement payment to the applicable Reorganized Debtor or Debtor; (2) they will mutually release each other from all claims related to the Contracts and Guaranties; (3) they will execute a stipulation providing for the dismissal, with prejudice, of the Adversary Proceeding; (4) two general unsecured claims will be deemed as filed by United Illuminating and automatically allowed as: (i) a Class 6 Claim for $7,900,000 in favor of Bear Stearns Investment Products, Inc., as assignee of United Illuminating, against EPMI; and (ii) a Class 185 Claim for $7,900,000 in favor of Bear Stearns, as assignee of United Illuminating, against Enron; and (5) All scheduled liabilities in favor of the UIL Parties will be deemed irrevocably withdrawn, with prejudice, and to the extent applicable, expunged in their entirety.Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Enron Corporation filed forchapter 11 protection on December 2, 2001 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. CaseNo. 01-16033) following controversy over accounting procedures,which caused Enron's stock price and credit rating to dropsharply. Judge Gonzalez confirmed the Company's Modified FifthAmended Plan on July 15, 2004, and numerous appeals followed. TheDebtors' confirmed chapter 11 Plan took effect on Nov. 17, 2004.Martin J. Bienenstock, Esq., and Brian S. Rosen, Esq., at Weil,Gotshal & Manges, LLP, represent the Debtors in theirrestructuring efforts. Luc A. Despins, Esq., Matthew Scott Barr,Esq., and Paul D. Malek, Esq., at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy,LLP, represent the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.(Enron Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 173; Bankruptcy Creditors'Service, Inc., 15/945-7000)ENRON CORP: Broadband Unit Demands $1.01M Debt Payment from i2--------------------------------------------------------------Enron Broadband Services, Inc., provided services and products toi2 Technologies, Inc., pursuant to a Network Services Agreement,dated as of September 17, 2000.Barry J. Dichter, Esq., at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, inNew York, relates that i2 Technologies presently owes a$1,014,912 matured debt to EBS that is past due.The matured debt includes $223,898 of interest calculated asprescribed in the Services Agreement from the due date of theapplicable invoice through March 31, 2006.EBS has made a demand on i2 Technologies for payment of amountsthat it owes to EBS, but until now, i2 has refused the pay itsobligations, Mr. Dichter tells Judge Gonzalez.Hence, EBS asks the Court to: (1) declare that i2 Technologies owes a $1,014,912 matured debt to EBS and compel i2 to pay its obligations; (2) declare that i2 Technologies' failure to pay the matured debt constitutes a violation of Sections 362(a)(3), 362(a)(7) and 542(b) of the Bankruptcy Code; and (3) award EBS its costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred in connection with its efforts to obtain i2 Technologies' compliance with its obligations, together with accrued interest.Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Enron Corporation filed forchapter 11 protection on December 2, 2001 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. CaseNo. 01-16033) following controversy over accounting procedures,which caused Enron's stock price and credit rating to dropsharply. Judge Gonzalez confirmed the Company's Modified FifthAmended Plan on July 15, 2004, and numerous appeals followed. TheDebtors' confirmed chapter 11 Plan took effect on Nov. 17, 2004.Martin J. Bienenstock, Esq., and Brian S. Rosen, Esq., at Weil,Gotshal & Manges, LLP, represent the Debtors in theirrestructuring efforts. Luc A. Despins, Esq., Matthew Scott Barr,Esq., and Paul D. Malek, Esq., at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy,LLP, represent the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.(Enron Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 172; Bankruptcy Creditors'Service, Inc., 15/945-7000)ENTECH ENVIRONMENTAL: Posts $463,449 Net Loss in 2006 1st Quarter-----------------------------------------------------------------Entech Environmental Technologies, Inc., filed its first quarterfinancial statements for the three months ended March 31, 2006,with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2006.The Company reported a $463,449 net loss on $1,765,036 of revenuesfor the three months ended March 31, 2006.At March 31, 2006, the Company's balance sheet showed $1,930,530in total assets and $2,891,181 in total liabilities, resulting ina $1,100,345 stockholders' deficit.The Company's March 31 balance sheet also showed strainedliquidity with $1,411,571 in total current assets available to pay$2,891,181 in total current liabilities coming due within the next12 months.Full-text copies of the Company's financial statements for thethree months ended March 31, 2006, are available for free athttp://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?a16 Going Concern DoubtAs reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Feb. 27, 2006,Mendoza Berger & Company, LLP, expressed substantial doubt aboutEntech Environmental Technologies, Inc.'s ability to continue asa going concern after it audited the Company's financialstatements for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2005. The auditingfirm pointed to the Company's significant losses.The Company's former auditors, Russell Bedford StefanouMirchandani LLP, also expressed substantial doubt about Entech'sability to continue as a going concern after auditing theCompany's financial statements for fiscal year 2004. About EntechEntech Environmental Technologies, Inc., fka Cyber PublicRelations, Inc., through its H.B. Covey subsidiary, providesconstruction and maintenance services to petroleum servicestations in the southwestern part of the United States of America,and provides installation services for consumer home products inSouthern California.The HBC subsidiary is a 58-year old construction and maintenancecompany that specializes in construction and maintenance servicesfor the retail petroleum industry, commercial and industrialusers, municipal organizations, and in support of major equipmentmanufacturers.EPIXTAR CORP: Morrison Brown Replaces McClain & Co. as Auditors---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida inMiami authorized Epixtar Corp. and its debtor-affiliates to employMorrison, Brown, Argiz & Farra, LLP, as their auditors.The Debtors retained Morrison Brown to: a) audit their consolidated financial statements for the period ended Dec. 31, 2005, in connection with the filing of their form 10-K and any form 10-Q with the Securities and Exchange Commission; and b) perform other work necessary in connection with the preparation of and filing of any documents required by the SEC.The hourly rates for Morrison Brown's professionals expected towork on this engagement ranges from $150 to $400. Morrison Brownrequested a $50,000 retainer from the Debtors.Frank Gonzalez, at Morrison Brown, assures the Court that his firmis \"disinterested\" as that term is defined in Section 101(14) ofthe Bankruptcy Code.McClain & Company, LC, previously served as the Debtors' auditors.McClain withdrew from the engagement in April 2006 afterdisagreeing with the Debtors' management.As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on May 29, 2006,McClain identified weaknesses in internal controls during itsaudit of the Debtor's financial statements for the year endedDec. 31, 2005. The control weaknesses eventually gave rise to thefirm's questions regarding the judgment of the Debtors'management. About EpixtarBased in Miami, Florida, Epixtar Corp. -- http://www.epixtar.com/-- fdba Global Assets Holding, Inc., aggregates contact centercapacity and robust telephony infrastructure to delivercomprehensive, turnkey services to the enterprise market. TheCompany and its debtor-affiliates filed for chapter 11 protectionon Oct. 6, 2005 (Bank. S.D. Fla. Case No. 05-42040). Michael D.Seese, Esq., at Kluger, Peretz, Kaplan & Berlin, P.L., representsthe Debtors in their restructuring efforts. Glenn D. Moses, Esq.,at Genovese Joblove & Battista, P.A., represents the Company'sOfficial Committee of Unsecured Creditors. When the Debtors filedfor protection from their creditors, they listed total assets of$30,376,521 and total debts of $39,158,724.EPIXTAR CORP: EICCG Wants to Sell Accounts Receivable to WFCB-------------------------------------------------------------Debtor Epixtar International Call Center Group, Inc., asks theU.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida inMiami for permission to: -- sell its pre-bankruptcy and post-bankruptcy accounts receivable to Wells Fargo Business Credit, Inc., free and clear of all liens; -- obtain debtor-in-possession financing from Wells Fargo pursuant to its factoring agreement; and -- grant Wells Fargo a super-priority lien and priority over administrative claims in relation to factored accounts receivable.Howard J. Berlin, Esq., at Kluger, Peretz, Kaplan & Berlin, P.L.,tells the Court that EICCG's sale of its accounts receivable isnecessary for the continuing operation of its business. It willalso help preserve collateral value for the benefit of securedcreditors and maximize distributions to unsecured creditors. Factoring AgreementEICCG's factoring agreement with WFBC is essentially similar tothe factoring agreement between WFBC and another debtor, EpixtarMarketing Corp., which was previously approved by the Court.As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Nov. 3, 2005, thefactoring agreement allows the Debtors to sell and assign certainof its accounts receivable to WFBC.In consideration for the assignment, WFBC pays the Debtors aninitial cash payment equal to 80% of the face of amount of thereceivable. Upon collection of the receivable, WCFB pays theDebtors the 20% balance, less customary fees and charges.The Debtors are required to repurchase the receivables in theevent that the account becomes disputed or uncollectible. Sincethe Debtors remain liable for the factored accounts pendingcollection by WFBC, the 80% initial payment is treated as advancedfunds and are considered as DIP loans. EICCG requires authorityto obtain financing from WFBC in light of the mechanics of theirfactoring agreement with WFBC. About EpixtarBased in Miami, Florida, Epixtar Corp. -- http://www.epixtar.com/-- fdba Global Assets Holding, Inc., aggregates contact centercapacity and robust telephony infrastructure to delivercomprehensive, turnkey services to the enterprise market. TheCompany and its debtor-affiliates filed for chapter 11 protectionon Oct. 6, 2005 (Bank. S.D. Fla. Case No. 05-42040). Michael D.Seese, Esq., at Kluger, Peretz, Kaplan & Berlin, P.L., representsthe Debtors in their restructuring efforts. Glenn D. Moses, Esq.,at Genovese Joblove & Battista, P.A., represents the Company'sOfficial Committee of Unsecured Creditors. When the Debtors filedfor protection from their creditors, they listed total assets of$30,376,521 and total debts of $39,158,724.FORD MOTOR: S&P Puts Nine Related Debts' Low-B Ratings on Watch---------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services placed its ratings on nine U.S.single-issue synthetic ABS transactions related to Ford Motor Co.(Ford; BB-/Watch Neg/B-2) and Ford Motor Credit Co. (Ford Credit;BB-/Watch Neg/B-2) on CreditWatch with negative implications.The May 25, 2006, placement of the ratings on Ford, Ford Credit,and all related entities on CreditWatch with negative implicationsdoes not have any immediate rating impact on the Ford-related ABSsupported by collateral pools of consumer auto loans or autowholesale loans.Each of the securitizations with ratings placed on CreditWatchnegative is weak-linked to the long-term corporate credit, seniorunsecured debt, or preferred stock ratings for Ford or FordCredit. Either Ford or Ford Credit provides the underlyingcollateral or referenced obligations in the affectedsecuritizations.The May 25, 2006, placement of Ford, Ford Credit, and all relatedentities on CreditWatch with negative implications reflectsStandard & Poor's increasing concerns about Ford's performance in2006 amid deteriorating product mix and market share in NorthAmerica and persistently high commodity costs generally.Ratings Placed On Creditwatch Negative: Corporate Backed Trust Certificates, Ford Motor Co. Debenture-Backed Series 2001-36 Trust Rating Class To From Role ----- -- ---- ---- A-1 BB-/Watch Neg. BB- Underlying collateral A-2 BB-/Watch Neg. BB- Underlying collateral Corporate Backed Trust Certificates, Ford Motor Co. Note-Backed Series 2003-6 Trust Rating Class To From Role ----- -- ---- ---- A-1 BB-/Watch Neg. BB- Underlying collateral CorTS Trust for Ford Debentures Rating Class To From Role ----- -- ---- ---- Cert. BB-/Watch Neg. BB- Underlying collateral CorTS Trust II for Ford Notes Rating Class To From Role ----- -- ---- ---- Certs. BB-/Watch Neg. BB- Underlying collateral PPLUS Trust Series FMC-1 Rating Class To From Role ----- -- ---- ---- Certs. BB-/Watch Neg. BB- Underlying collateral PreferredPLUS Trust Series FRD-1 Rating Class To From Role ----- -- ---- ---- Certs. BB-/Watch Neg. BB- Underlying collateral SATURNS Trust No. 2003-5 Rating Class To From Role ----- -- ---- ---- Units BB-/Watch Neg. BB- Underlying collateral Trust Certificates Series 2002-1 Trust Rating Class To From Role ----- -- ---- ---- A-1 BB-/Watch Neg. BB- Underlying collateral STEERS Credit-Backed Trust Series 2002-3 F Rating Class To From Role ----- -- ---- ---- Certs. B-/Watch Neg. B- Referenced obligationFRIENDLY ICE: Posts $1.8 Mil. Net Loss in 1st Quarter Ended Apr. 2------------------------------------------------------------------Friendly Ice Cream Corporation incurred a $1.8 million net lossfor the first quarter ended April 2, 2006, compared to a net lossof $3 million reported for the three months ended April 3, 2005.Total revenues were $125.7 million in the first quarter of 2006,an increase of $4 million, or 3.3%, as compared to total revenuesof $121.7 million for the first quarter of 2005. Revenuesincreased in all business segments.Restaurant revenues were $95.3 million in the first quarter of2006, an increase of $2.2 million, or 2.3%, as compared torestaurant revenues of $93.1 million for the first quarter of2005. Comparable restaurant sales increased 4.8% for company-operated restaurants and 0.6% for franchised restaurants for thequarter ended April 2, 2006 compared to the quarter ended April 3,2005. Restaurant revenues include a reduction of $3.2 million dueto the re-franchising of 16 company-operated restaurants over thelast fifteen months.Foodservice revenues were $26.9 million in the first quarter of2006, an increase of $1.6 million, or 6.3%, as compared tofoodservice revenues of $25.3 million for the first quarter of2005. Franchise revenues were $3.5 million in the first quarterof 2006, an increase of $0.2 million, or 9.1%, as compared tofranchise revenues of $3.3 million for the first quarter of 2005.As of Jan. 1, 2006, the Company had 11 restaurants that werereported as \"held for sale\" in accordance with Statement ofFinancial Accounting Standards No. 144, \"Accounting for theImpairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets\".During the quarter ended April 2, 2006, the Company sold five ofthese restaurants. These transactions resulted in gross proceedsof $5.1 million and a net gain on disposal of $2.9 million.The net gain on disposal, along with the operating results of theproperties held for sale, was reported separately as discontinuedoperations. Income from discontinued operations was $2.6 millionin the 2006 first quarter as compared to a loss from discontinuedoperations of $0.4 million in the prior year first quarter.As a result of the loss for the current quarter and the Company'sintent to continue recording a full valuation allowance ondeferred tax assets until an appropriate level of profitability issustained, the benefit from income taxes was $0.0 million for thethree months ended April 2, 2006. The benefit from income taxeswas $0.7 million for the three months ended April 3, 2005. Performance HighlightsIn the first quarter of 2006, Friendly's continued to pursue itskey strategic objectives to 1) stabilize and improve profit incompany-operated restaurants, 2) aggressively grow throughfranchising and 3) stabilize and improve profit in its retailbusiness. Key business highlights for the quarter include: -- Ongoing improvements to the Friendly's dining experience based on feedback from the new Internet-based guest feedback system; -- The opening of one new company-operated restaurant; -- The re-franchising of one company-operated restaurant, which resulted in a gain on franchise sales of restaurant operations and properties of $0.9 million; and -- Continued growth in the number of supermarket chains that carry Friendly's decorated cakes, which are now being sold in 700 supermarkets.John L. Cutter, Chief Executive Officer and President of FriendlyIce Corporation stated, \"We are pleased with our first quarterresults. Comparable sales of 4.8% for company-operatedrestaurants exceeded our expectations.\"We believe we have the right strategies in place to support long-term sales and profitability growth. Our current marketingmessage is especially relevant in a challenging consumerenvironment.\"Each promotion features one to three new products combined with avalue added free sundae. With these promotions, we have launcheda television campaign with a new tag line \"Get in. Get Friendly.\"The commercials feature families sharing memorable moments overfood and ice cream at Friendly's. The tag line re-enforces theessence of the brand.\"Friendly Ice Cream Corporation (AMEX: FRN) -- http://www.friendlys.com/-- is a vertically integrated restaurant company serving signature sandwiches, entrees and ice creamdesserts in a friendly, family environment in 530 company andfranchised restaurants throughout the Northeast. The company alsomanufactures ice cream, which is distributed through more than4,500 supermarkets and other retail locations. With a 70-yearoperating history, Friendly's enjoys strong brand recognition andis currently remodeling its restaurants and introducing newproducts to grow its customer base. * * *As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on March 24, 2006,Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its corporate creditrating on restaurant operator Friendly Ice Cream Corp. to 'B-'from 'B'. The senior unsecured debt rating was also lowered to'CCC+' from 'B-'. The outlook is negative.FTS GROUP: Posts $5.9 Million Net Loss in 2006 1st Fiscal Quarter-----------------------------------------------------------------FTS Group, Inc., filed its first quarter financial statements forthe three months ended March 31, 2006, with the Securities andExchange Commission on May 15, 2006.The Company reported a $5,955,143 net loss on $1,633,614 ofrevenues for the three months ended March 31, 2006.At March 31, 2006, the Company's balance sheet showed $7,151,691in total assets, $5,637,860 in total liabilities, and $1,513,831in stockholders' equity.The Company's March 31 balance sheet also showed strainedliquidity with $1,096,833 in total current assets available to pay$3,885,009 in total current liabilities coming due within the next12 months.Full-text copies of the Company's financial statements for thethree months ended March 31, 2006, are available for free athttp://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?a12 Going Concern DoubtAs reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on May 15, 2006,R. E. Bassie & Co. in Houston, Texas, raised substantial doubtabout FTS Group, Inc.'s ability to continue as a going concernafter auditing the Company's consolidated financial statements forthe year ended Dec. 31, 2005. The auditor pointed to theCompany's recurring losses from operations. About FTS GroupFTS Group, Inc., develops and acquires businesses primarilyin the wireless industry. Through FTS Wireless, Inc., awholly-owned subsidiary, acquires and develops a chain ofretail wireless locations in the Gulf Coast market of Florida. Asof March 1, 2006, the Company operates nine retail wirelesslocations in Florida.FUNCTIONAL RESTORATION: Hires SulmeyerKupetz as Bankruptcy Counsel------------------------------------------------------------------Functional Restoration Medical Center, Inc., obtained permissionfrom the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District ofCalifornia to employ SulmeyerKupetz as its bankruptcy counsel.SulmeyerKupetz will: a) examine the creditors' claims to determine their validity; b) advise and counsel the Debtor in connection with legal issues, including: i) use of cash collateral, ii) sale or lease of property of the estate, iii) obtain credit, iv) assumption and rejection of unexpired leases and executory contracts, v) request for security interests, vi) relief from automatic stay, and vii) payment of prepetition debts; c) negotiate with the creditors holding potentially secured and unsecured claims for a plan of reorganization; d) draft a chapter 11 plan and disclosure statement; and e) object to claims as may be appropriate.Daniel A. Lev, Esq., a member at SulmeyerKupetz, disclosed thatthe Firm's professionals bill: Professional Hourly Rate ------------ ----------- Members and Senior Counsel $375 - $600 Of Counsel $375 - $500 Associates $250 - $400SulmeyerKupetz received a $50,000 prepetition retainer with aremaining balance of $48,961.Mr. Lev assured the Court that his Firm is disinterested as thatterm is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code.Headquartered in Encino, California, Functional RestorationMedical Center, Inc. is the second largest owner and operator ofMRI centers in Southern California. The Debtor filed for chapter11 protection on Mar. 9, 2006 (Bankr. C.D. Calif. Case No. 06-10306). Daniel A. Lev, Esq., at SulmeyerKupetz, represents theDebtor in its restructuring efforts. When the Debtor filed forprotection from its creditors, its estimated assets and debtsbetween $10 million and $50 million.FUNCTIONAL RESTORATION: Panel Hires Pachulski Stang as Counsel--------------------------------------------------------------The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors appointed in thebankruptcy case of Functional Restoration Medical Center, Inc.,asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District ofCalifornia for authority to employ Pachulski Stang Ziehl YoungJones & Weintraub LLP as its counsel.Pachulski Stang will: a) assist, advise, and represent the Committee in its consultations with the Debtor regarding the administration of this case; b) assist, advice, and represent the Committee in analyzing the Debtor's assets and liabilities, investigating the extent and validity of liens and participating in and reviewing any proposed asset sales, any asset dispositions, financing arrangements and cash collateral stipulations or proceedings; c) assist, advise, and represent the Committee in any manner relevant to reviewing and determining the Debtor's rights and obligations under leases and other executory contracts; d) assist, advise, and represent the Committee in investigating acts, conduct, assets, liabilities and the Debtor's financial condition, the Debtor's business operation and the desirability of the continuance of any portion of the business, and any other matters relevant to this case or to the formulation of a plan; e) assist, advise, and represent the Committee in its participation in the negotiation, formulation, and drafting of a plan of liquidation or reorganization; f) provide advice to the Committee on the issues concerning the appointment of a trustee or examiner under Section 1104 of the Bankruptcy Code; g) assist, advise, and represent the Committee in the performance of all of its duties and powers under the Bankruptcy Code and the Bankruptcy Rules and in the performance other services as are in the interests of those represented by the Committee; and h) assist, advise, and represent the Committee in the evaluation of claims and on any litigation matters.Hamid R. Rafatjoo, Esq., at Pachulski Stang, discloses that hebills at $395 per hour. A copy of the hourly rates for the Firm'sother attorneys and paralegals is available for free at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?a0dMr. Rafatjoo assures the Court that the firm is a \"disinterestedperson\" as the term is defined in Section 101(14) of theBankruptcy Code and does not hold or represent any interestadverse to the Debtors' estates.Headquartered in Encino, California, Functional RestorationMedical Center, Inc. is the second largest owner and operator ofMRI centers in Southern California. The Debtor filed for chapter11 protection on Mar. 9, 2006 (Bankr. C.D. Calif. Case No. 06-10306). Daniel A. Lev, Esq., at SulmeyerKupetz, represents theDebtor in its restructuring efforts. XRoads Solutions Group, LLC,serves as its financial advisor. When the Debtor filed forprotection from its creditors, its estimated assets and debtsbetween $10 million and $50 million.FUNCTIONAL RESTORATION: Taps Xroads Solutions as Financial Advisor------------------------------------------------------------------Functional Restoration Medical Center, Inc., obtained authorityfrom the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District ofCalifornia to employ XRoads Solutions Group, LLC, as its financialadvisor.XRoads Solutions will: a. assist the Debtor in preparing operating budgets and cash forecasts; b. analyze and advise the Debtor on restructuring alternatives; c. assist the Debtor and its legal counsel, SulmeyerKupetz, P.C., in negotiations with the Debtor's creditor constituencies; d. assist the Debtor in the sale of assets; e. assist the Debtor and counsel in the preparation of schedules, statements of financial affairs, monthly operating reports, and other reports for the Court and the U.S Trustee; f. manage claims, including analysis and reconciliation of unsecured claims, identification and analysis of claims for objection, providing documentation to support objections, and providing analysis and support as requested by the counsel; and g. submit a 30-day work plan to the counsel starting on the second month of retention, and perform the projects set forth in the work plan.The Debtor told the Court that for the first month of the Firm'sservices, the Debtor will pay the Firm a flat fee of $40,000 forno less than 400 hours of work. Accordingly, the Firm will chargean effective blended rate of $100 per hour, or less.For the second and subsequent months, the Debtor will pay the Firma monthly fee of $40,000 and the Firm will make its personnelavailable for at least 175 hours per month. The Debtor will paythe Firm at a rate of $275 per hour if the Firm's personnelperforms more than 175 hours in any month.John F. Walters, a principal at XRoads Solutions, assured theCourt that the Firm is disinterested as that term is defined inSection 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code.Headquartered in Encino, California, Functional RestorationMedical Center, Inc. is the second largest owner and operator ofMRI centers in Southern California. The Debtor filed for chapter11 protection on Mar. 9, 2006 (Bankr. C.D. Calif. Case No. 06-10306). Daniel A. Lev, Esq., at SulmeyerKupetz, represents theDebtor in its restructuring efforts. When the Debtor filed forprotection from its creditors, its estimated assets and debtsbetween $10 million and $50 million.GLOBAL HOME: Court Okays Conway as Restructuring Consultants------------------------------------------------------------Global Home Products, LLC and its debtor-affiliates obtainedpermission from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District ofDelaware to employ Conway, Del Genio, Gries & Co., LLC, as theirrestructuring consultant, nunc pro tunc to April 10, 2006.Conway Del Genio will: a. assist in managing the Debtors' resources in support of their restructuring and reorganization activities; b. assist in the preparation of reports, and communications with the Debtors' lenders and other constituencies; c. assist in analyzing the liquidity requirements of the Debtor and its three business units for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007, based on the financial projections prepared by management for that period; d. assist in developing an operating plan and associated liquidity needs for the Debtor and its three business units; e. assist in connection with the filing of a Chapter 11 proceeding, including business plans and cash flow forecasts supporting the negotiation of Debtor-in- possession financing; f. assist in the subsequent development, proposal, negotiation, and confirmation of a Plan of Reorganization; g. assist in establishing necessary operating and reporting disciplines to operate the business in a Chapter 11 proceeding; and h. assist in the development and execution of plans to dispose of non-core assets.Ronald F. Stengel, a senior managing director at Conway Del Genio,tells the Court that when the Debtors filed for bankruptcy, theFirm held a $77,000 retainer, and a $105,000 postpetition pro rataportion of the April monthly fee.Pursuant to an engagement agreement, the Debtors agreed to pay theFirm a monthly fee of $150,000, payable in advance each month.Mr. Stengel assures the Court that the Firm is disinterested asthat term is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code.Headquartered in Westerville, Ohio, Global Home Products, LLC-- http://www.anchorhocking.com/and http://www.burnesgroup.com/-- sells houseware and home products and manufactures highquality glass products for consumers and the food servicesindustry. The company also designs and markets photo frames,photo albums and related home decor products. The company and16 of its affiliates , including Burnes Puerto Rico, Inc., andMirro Puerto Rico, Inc., filed for Chapter 11 protection on Apr.10, 2006 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 06-10340). Laura Davis Jones,Esq., Bruce Grohsgal, Esq., James E. O'Neill, Esq., and SandraG.M. Selzer, Esq., at Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl, Young, Jones &Weintraub LLP, represent the Debtors. Bruce Buechler, Esq., atLowenstein Sandler P.C., represents the Official Committee OfUnsecured Creditors. When the company filed for protection fromtheir creditors, they estimated assets between US$50 million andUS$100 million and debts of more than US$100 million.GSI GROUP: Repurchases Part of 12% Senior Notes for $7.4 Million----------------------------------------------------------------On May 12, 2006, GSI Group Inc. repurchased a portion of itsoutstanding 12% senior notes due in 2013 from Charlesbank, themajority shareholder of GSI Holdings, Inc., which is the parentcorporation of GSI Group, at 101% of the principal amount, in atotal cash amount of $7,474,000. The Notes will be promptlycancelled following the repurchase.The repurchase price for the notes was approved by all of theindependent members of the Company's board of directors, and wasdetermined after consulting with Lehman Brothers for the mostrecent trading price for the notes, and also taking into accountthat the record date for the semi-annual payment of interest onthe notes was May 1, 2006 for payment on May 15, 2006.The effect of the transaction is to reduce the direct financialobligations of the Company with respect to its long-termindebtedness.Based in Assumption, Illinois, GSI Group Inc. is one of thelargest global manufacturers of grain storage bins and relateddrying and handling systems, as well as capital equipment forswine and poultry producers. GSI markets its products inapproximately 75 countries through a network of more than 2,500independent dealers to grain, protein producers and largecommercial businesses. In May 2005, GSI was acquired byCharlesbank Capital Partners, a Boston-based private equity firmknown for partnering with experienced management teams to growfundamentally strong businesses. * * *GSI Group Inc.'s 12% Senior Unsecured Notes due 2013 carry Moody'sInvestors Service's B3 rating and Standard and Poor's B- rating.GULF COAST: Creditors Panel Wants Winstead Sechrest as Counsel--------------------------------------------------------------The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors appointed in GulfCoast Holdings, Inc.'s chapter 11 case asks the U.S. BankruptcyCourt for the Northern District of Texas for permission to hireWinstead Sechrest & Minick P.C. as its bankruptcy counsel.The Committee chose Winstead Sechrest for the firm's expertise,experience and knowledge practicing before bankruptcy courts.Winstead Sechrest will: (a) advise and consult with the Committee concerning legal questions arising in the administration of the Debtor's estate and the unsecured creditors' rights and remedies in connection with the estate; (b) assist the Committee in preserving and protecting the Debtor's estate; (c) investigate and, with Court authority, prosecute preference, fraudulent transfers, and other actions arising under the Debtor's avoiding powers; (d) prepare and prosecute any pleadings, motions, answers, notices, orders and any reports that are required for the protection of the Committee's interest and the orderly administration of the Debtors' estate; (e) advise the Committee regarding the negotiation and documentation of debt restructuring and related transactions or agreements; (f) monitor transactions proposed by the Debtor during the course of its chapter 11 cases and advise the Committee; (g) review the nature and validity of liens asserted against the Debtor's property and advise the Committee concerning the enforceability of those liens; (h) review and monitor the Debtor's ongoing business, if any; (i) advise the Committee in connection with any suggested or proposed plans of reorganization; (j) will counsel the Committee in connection with the formulation, negotiation, and promulgation of alternative plans of reorganization, if necessary or appropriate; and (k) perform any and all of the legal services for the Committee.Phillip L. Lamberson, Esq., a partner at the firm, tells the Courtthat he charges $350 per hour for his services. He furtherdiscloses that his colleagues at the firm working for the Debtor'scase and their hourly rates are: Professionals Hourly Rate ------------- ----------- C. Mark Brannum $380 J. Frasher Murphy $295 Jaime Myers $265Mr. Lamberson assures the Court that his firm and itsprofessionals do not hold material interest adverse to theDebtor's estate and are disinterested as that term is defined inSection 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code.Headquartered in Conroe, Texas, Gulf Coast Holdings, Inc., fieldfor bankruptcy protection on April 28, 2006 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. CaseNo. 06-31695). Daniel I. Morenoff, Esq., and Jeffrey R. Fine,Esq., at Hughes & Luce, LLP, represent the Debtor in itsrestructuring efforts. In its schedules filed with the Court, theDebtor reported assets amounting to $18,258,575 and debts totaling$19,553,664.HAWS & TINGLE: Amends Chapter 11 Plan & Disclosure Statement------------------------------------------------------------Haws & Tingle, Ltd. delivered to the U.S. Bankruptcy for theNorthern District of Texas an amended disclosure statementexplaining its plan of reorganization.Under the Amended Plan, holders of Class 1 Other Priority Claimsand Class 2 Secured Tax Claims will receive either full payment incash or upon other terms agreed to by the holder and the Debtor.Class 3 Other Secured Claims will receive, at the Debtor's option: (i) the return of the collateral securing the Allowed Other Secured Claim in full satisfaction of the Claim; (ii) payment in cash in an amount equivalent to the lesser of (a) the value of the collateral or (b) the full amount of the Allowed Other Secured Claim; or (iii) other treatment as may be agreed to in writing by the holder of the Claim and the Debtor.If the Allowed Other Secured Claim exceeds the value of thecollateral, the excess will constitute a General Unsecured Claim,unless the holder of the Claim has elected treatment pursuant toSection 1111(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.Class 4 General Unsecured Claims are entitled to a pro rata sharefrom funds left over after classes senior in priority have beenpaid in full.All interests in the Debtor will be cancelled, and interestholders will not retain any property on account of theirinterests. Claims of ZurichZurich American Insurance Company, the Debtor's bonding company,holds a stipulated $9,994,040 unsecured claim.Under the Amended Plan, as to any project where Zurich advancedfunds to complete an obligation of the Debtor, Zurich will beindemnified by the Debtor, and to a limited extent, by James D.Hasenzahl, the Debtor's chief executive officer.Zurich is also entitled to receive any payments from the owners ofthe projects entered into by the Debtor, up to the amount of fundsadvanced to pay for obligations of the Debtor on said projects.Zurich will receive funds directly from the Owners on projectswhere the Debtor defaulted, which funds are independent of theestate.In addition, Zurich is anticipated to have administrative claimsarising from settlements made with third parties. DistributionThe Plan Trustee will make all distributions required under thePlan. Zurich has agreed to fund $75,000 directly to the PlanTrustee from the settlement proceeds it receives from Mr.Hasenzahl.Headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, Haws & Tingle, Ltd., is abuilding contractor. The Debtor filed for chapter 11 protectionon October 6, 2005 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Case No. 05-82478). MarkEdward Andrews, Esq., and Omar J. Alaniz, Esq., at Neligan TarpleyAndrews & Foley LLP represent the Debtor in its restructuringefforts. No Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors has beenappointed in this case. When the Debtor filed for protection fromits creditors, it estimated assets and debts between $10 millionto $50 million.INVERNESS MEDICAL: Expects to Spend $16.8 Mil. on Plant Closures----------------------------------------------------------------As part of an ongoing review of its worldwide operations for thepurpose of improving efficiency, lowering operating costs andimproving margins, on May 16, 2006, Inverness Medical Innovations,Inc. committed to a plan to cease operations at its AppliedBiotech, Inc., and Scandinavian Micro Biodevices ApS subsidiaries,and to write-off certain excess manufacturing equipment at otherimpacted facilities.The Company made its final determination to implement therestructuring after completing its acquisition of a newlyconstructed manufacturing facility in Hangzhou, China from ACONLaboratories, Inc. and certain of its affiliates.After a period of transition, customers currently supplied withproduct manufactured at ABI will be supplied with productmanufactured in the Company's new facility in Hangzhou, China;while certain equipment and research activities currentlyconducted at SMB will be transferred to the Company's Bedford,England and Stirling, Scotland facilities. The ABI shutdown isexpected to be completed during the first quarter of 2007, whilethe closure of SMB is expected to be completed in the firstquarter of 2007.Total charges to be incurred in connection with the plant closingare expected to be approximately $16.8 million, includingseverance costs of approximately $4.8 million, other cashexpenditures of approximately $1.4 million, principally associatedwith lease termination costs, and non-cash fixed and current assetcharges totaling approximately $10.9 million.Offsetting these charges, the Company expects to record a non-cashforeign exchange gain of approximately $5.2 million associatedwith the completion of the previously announced closure of itsCDIL facility and a cash gain of approximately $1.0 millionassociated with the completion of the sale of its interest inCDIL's former principal manufacturing facility. The charges, netof the gains, will be recognized over the course of the plantclosing consistent with U.S. GAAP and are expected to beapproximately $6.6 million, $1.7 million and $2.0 million in thesecond quarter, third and fourth quarters of 2006 and $.7 millionin the first quarter of 2007.Savings generated though lower manufacturing costs and reducedgeneral and administrative expenses are expect to be $.7 millionduring 2006 and approximately $6.2 million during 2007 andthereafter. Additional savings are anticipated to be derived fromthe benefits of manufacturing in the anticipated lower costenvironment of the facility in Hangzhou, the timing and amount ofwhich will depend on the timing of product transfers andsubstitutions over the balance of 2006. About Inverness MedicalHeadquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts, Inverness MedicalInnovations, Inc. (Amex: IMA) -- http://www.invernessmedical.com/-- is a leading global developer of advanced diagnostic devicesand is presently exploring new opportunities for its proprietaryelectrochemical and other technologies in a variety ofprofessional diagnostic and consumer-oriented applicationsincluding immuno-diagnostics with a focus on women's health andcardiology. The Company's new product development efforts, aswell as its position as a leading supplier of consumer pregnancyand fertility/ovulation tests and rapid point-of-care diagnostics,are supported by the strength of its intellectual propertyportfolio. * * *As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on July 7, 2005,Moody's Investors Service downgraded Inverness MedicalInnovations, Inc.'s Corporate Family Rating to B3 from B2;$150 million Senior Subordinated Notes to Caa3 from Caa1; SeniorUnsecured Issuer Rating to Caa1 from B3. Moody's said the outlookremains negative.As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on April 6, 2005,Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its ratings onInverness Medical Innovations Inc., including the corporate creditrating to 'B' from 'B+'. S&P said the outlook is stable.IWT TESORO: McGladrey & Pullen Raises Going Concern Doubt---------------------------------------------------------McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, in New Haven, Connecticut, raisedsubstantial doubt about IWT Tesoro Corporation's ability tocontinue as a going concern after auditing the Company'sconsolidated financial statements for the year ended Dec. 31,2005. The auditor pointed to the Company's recurring losses fromoperations, and working capital and stockholders' deficiencies.The Company reported a $4,343,457 net loss on $55,589,223 of netsales for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.At Dec. 31, 2005, the Company's balance sheet showed $46,962,569in total assets and $51,139,371 in total liabilities, resulting ina $4,176,802 stockholders' deficit.The Company's Dec. 31 balance sheet also showed strained liquiditywith $43,828,261 in total current assets available to pay$44,453,340 in total current liabilities coming due within thenext 12 months.A full-text copy of the Company's 2005 Annual Report is availablefor free at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?a1fIWT Tesoro Corporation (OTCBB: IWTT) -- http://www.iwttesoro.com/-- is as a wholesale distributor of building materials,specifically hard floor and wall coverings, which consist ofceramic, porcelain and natural stone floor, wall and decorativetile. The Company imports a majority of these products fromsuppliers and manufacturers in Europe, South America, and the Nearand Far East.J. CREW: Earns $3.8 Million in Fiscal Year Ended Jan. 28, 2006--------------------------------------------------------------J. Crew Group, Inc., earned $3.8 million of net income on $953.2million of net revenues for the year ended Jan. 28, 2006, comparedto a $100.3 million net loss on $901.4 million of net revenues forthe year ended Jan. 29, 2005.Cash provided by operating activities decreased by $2 million to$56.8 million in fiscal year 2005 compared to $58.8 million in2004. Cash provided by operating activities in fiscal 2005consisted of net income of $3.8 million and non-cash adjustmentsof $76.8 million, reduced by an increase in working capital of$23.8 million.The increase in working capital consisted primarily of an increasein inventories of $28.1 million, offset by an increase in accountspayable and other current liabilities of $10.1 million.Inventories were higher than prior years due to expected salesincreases in Spring 2006, and the earlier receipt of a portion ofthese inventories.The increase in accounts payable and other current liabilities wasprimarily due to a $7.3 million increase in accounts payable whichis attributable to the increase in inventories.As of Jan. 28, 2006, the Company's balance sheet showed totalassets of $337.3 million and total debts of $925.2 millionresulting in $587.8 million deficit.A full-text copy of J. Crew Group's Annual Report is available forfree at http://researcharchives.com/t/s?a18Headquartered in New York, J. Crew Group, Inc. -- http://www.jcrew.com/-- is a multi-channel apparel retailer that operates 159 retail stores, 44 factory outlet stores, and acatalogue business. * * *As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on April 26, 2006,Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its 'B' rating and '3'recovery rating to J. Crew Operating Corp.'s $285 million termloan and listed that rating on CreditWatch with positiveimplications.JERNBERG INDUSTRIES: Wants Court to Approve PBGC Settlement Accord------------------------------------------------------------------Richard J. Mason, the chapter 7 trustee appointed in theliquidation cases of JII Liquidating, Inc., fka JernbergIndustries, Inc., and its debtor-affiliates, asks the U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois to approvea settlement agreement with the Pension Benefit GuarantyCorporation pertaining to the termination of Old Jernberg'sdefined benefit pension plan and the appointment of PBGC astrustee.Michael M. Schmahl, Esq., at McGuireWoods LLP, in Chicago,Illinois, reminds the Court that on Sept. 7, 2005, Old Jernbergsold substantially all of its operating assets pursuant to a thirdparty. Effective October 10, 2005, the cases were converted tocases under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, and Mr. Mason wasappointed as trustee.When Old Jernberg and its affiliates filed for bankruptcyprotection they maintained for their employees certain definedcontribution benefit plans, and Old Jernberg maintained forcertain of its employees a defined benefit plan, known as the\"Jernberg Hourly Pension Plan.\"Pursuant to an earlier Court order, the termination and wind-upof the Defined Contribution Plans by the Trustee was approved.The Trustee is thus in the process of terminating the DefinedContribution Plans. The Defined Benefit Plan, certain benefitsof which are guaranteed by the PBGC, maintains approximately$10.3 million in assets and has approximately 659 participants,some of whom are now employed by New Jernberg. Investors Bank &Trust Company is presently acting as the trustee of the trustforming a part of the Defined Benefit Plan. The PBGC has advisedthe Trustee that the Defined Benefit Plan is substantiallyunderfunded.The PBGC has also advised the chapter 7 trustee that it will filesubstantial priority or secured claims against the Debtors. Sincehis appointment, the chapter 7 trustee has attempted to cooperatewith the PBGC in his efforts relative to the termination of theDefined Benefit Plan.Pursuant to Section 4042(c) of the Employee Retirement IncomeSecurity Act of 1974, as amended, PBGC can enter into an agreementwith the plan administrator of a defined benefit pension plansubject to Title IV of ERISA as to the termination of the plan andas to the appointment of a trustee. PBGC now proposes to enterinto an agreement with the Trustee titled \"Agreement forTermination of Plan and Appointment of Trustee.\"The principal features of the Proposed Agreement are that: (a) the Defined Benefit Plan will be terminated as of September 7, 2005; and (b) the PBGC will be appointed trustee of the Defined Benefit Plan.Mr. Schmahl contends that the proposed agreement will also relievethe chapter 7 trustee of any ongoing burdens arising fromadministration of the Defined Benefit Plan.Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, Jernberg Industries, Inc., --http://www.jernberg.com/-- is a press forging company that manufactures formed and machined products. The Company and itsdebtor-affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on June 29, 2005(Bankr. N.D. Ill. Case No. 05-25909). Jerry L. Switzer, Jr.,Esq., at Jenner & Block LLP, represented the Debtors. When theDebtors filed for chapter 11 protection, they estimated assets anddebts of $50 million to $100 million. CM&D Management Services,LLC's A. Jeffery Zappone served as the Debtors' ChiefRestructuring Officer. The Bankruptcy Court converted theDebtors' chapter 11 case to a chapter 7 liquidation proceeding onSept. 26, 2005.KIWA BIO-TECH: Posts $184,443 Net Loss in 2006 1st Fiscal Quarter-----------------------------------------------------------------Kiwa Bio-Tech Products Group Corporation filed its financialstatements for the three months ended March 31, 2006, with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2006.The Company reported a $184,443 net loss on $11,023 of total salesfor the three months ended March 31, 2006.At March 31, 2006, the Company's balance sheet showed $3,102,076in total assets, $1,446,316 in total liabilities, and $611,367 instockholders' equity.The Company's March 31 balance sheet also showed strainedliquidity with $1,244,026 in total current assets available to pay$2,267,127 in total current liabilities coming due within the next12 months.Full-text copies of the Company's financial statements for thethree months ended March 31, 2006, are available for free athttp://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?9fc Going Concern DoubtMao & Company, CPAs, Inc., in New York, New York, raisedsubstantial doubt about Kiwa Bio-Tech Products Group Corporation'sability to continue as a going concern after auditing theCompany's consolidated financial statements for the year endedDec. 31, 2005. The auditing firm pointed to the Company'soperating losses and working capital and net capital deficits.Headquartered in City of Industry, California, Kiwa Bio-TechProducts Group Corporation (OTCBB: KWBT.OB) -- http://www.kiwabiotech.com/ -- develops, manufactures, distributes, and markets innovative, cost-effective andenvironmentally safe bio-technological products for agriculture,natural resources and environmental conservation.KL INDUSTRIES: Hires Laner Muchin as Special Labor Counsel----------------------------------------------------------KL Industries, Inc., obtained authority from the U.S. BankruptcyCourt for the Northern District of Illinois to employ Laner,Muchin, Dombrow, Becker, Levin and Tominberg, Ltd., as its speciallabor counsel.Laner Muchin will: a. give the Debtor legal advice in the areas of labor law, employment law and employee benefits law; b. represent the Debtor with respect to its ongoing negotiations with the United Steelworkers, AFL-CIO, Local No. 2154-36, including but not limited to negotiating the Debtor's collective bargaining agreement with USW; c. assist the Debtor in taking action as may be necessary with respect to claims that may be asserted against the Debtor by the USW; and d. perform any and all other labor or employment related services on behalf of the Debtor which may be required to aid in the proper administration of its estate.Anthony E. Dombrow, Esq., a partner at Laner Muchin, tells theCourt that partners at the firm bill between $225 to $440 per hourwhile associates bill between $175 to $310 per hour.Mr. Dombrow assures the Court that his firm does not hold orrepresent any interest adverse to the Debtor or its estate.Mr. Dombrow can be reached at: Anthony E. Dombrow, Esq. Laner, Muchin, Dombrow, Becker, Levin and Tominberg, Ltd. 515 North State Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60610 Tel: (312) 467-9800 Fax: (312) 467-9479Headquartered in Addison, Illinois, KL Industries, Inc.,manufactures springs, assemblies and other products for theautomotive and electronic markets. The Company does business asKL Spring & Stamping Division, KL Spring Division, KL StampingDivision, KL Assembly Division and American Metal FormingDivision. The Company filed for bankruptcy protection on May 2,2006 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Case No. 06-04882). Peter J. Roberts,Esq., and Steven B. Towbin, Esq., at Shaw Gussis Fishman GlantzWolfson & Towbin LLC represent the Debtor in its restructuringefforts. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors hasretained Winston & Strawn LLP, to represent it in the Debtor'scase. When the Debtor filed for bankruptcy protection, itreported assets totaling between $1 million and $10 million anddebts amounting between $10 million to $50 million.KL INDUSTRIES: Court Approves RSM McGladrey as Financial Advisor----------------------------------------------------------------KL Industries obtained authority from the U.S. Bankruptcy Courtfor the Northern District of Illinois to employ RSM McGladreyInc., as its financial advisor.RSM McGladrey will: a. provide the Debtor with general financial restructuring advice; b. assist the Debtor in the preparation of all required filings in the Court including, but not limited to, bankruptcy schedules, statement of financial affairs, monthly operating reports, cash collateral budgets, etc.; c. assist the Debtor's management in valuing the Debtor's assets; d. market the Debtor's assets to potential purchases and evaluate any and all purchase offers for those assets; e. prepare for, meet with and present information to interested parties and their advisors; f. review financial information generated by the Debtor, including monthly operating reports, budgets and other analyses, for consistency and accuracy, and provide advice relating to financial and business issues; g. assist and advise the Debtor in developing, evaluating, structuring or negotiating the terms and conditions of a chapter 11 plan; h. prepare the Debtor's Federal and State income tax returns and all other tax compliance requirements; i. provide the Debtor with other financial advisory services as the Debtor may require during the course of its chapter 11 case; and j. provide testimony in Court.Scoot Peltz, managing director of RSM McGladrey, tells the Courtthat the Firm's professionals bill: Professionals Hourly Rate ------------- ----------- Managing Directors and Directors $350 - $470 Managers and Senior Managers $230 - $320 Staff Consultants $180 - $215 Administrative Personnel $100 -$125To the best of the Debtor's knowledge, the firm is disinterestedas that term is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code.Headquartered in Addison, Illinois, KL Industries, Inc.,manufactures springs, assemblies and other products for theautomotive and electronic markets. The Company does business asKL Spring & Stamping Division, KL Spring Division, KL StampingDivision, KL Assembly Division and American Metal FormingDivision. The Company filed for bankruptcy protection on May 2,2006 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Case No. 06-04882). Peter J. Roberts,Esq., and Steven B. Towbin, Esq., at Shaw Gussis Fishman GlantzWolfson & Towbin LLC represent the Debtor in its restructuringefforts. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors hasretained Winston & Strawn LLP, to represent it in the Debtor'scase. When the Debtor filed for bankruptcy protection, itreported assets totaling between $1 million and $10 million anddebts amounting between $10 million to $50 million.L-3 COMMS: Jury Awards OSI $125.6MM in Damages in N.Y. Suit-----------------------------------------------------------The jury in U.S. District Court for the District of New Yorkissued a verdict against L-3 Communications in a litigationarising out of a letter of intent between the Company and OSISystems, Inc., relating to the company's acquisition of thedetection systems business of PerkinElmer, Inc. OSI broughtcounterclaims against the company alleging that the companydefrauded OSI and breached fiduciary duties alleged to be owed toOSI.The jury awarded OSI $125.6 million in damages, including awardsof $33 million for compensatory damages and $92.6 million forpunitive damages. The company believes this verdict and thedamages awarded are inconsistent with the law and evidencepresented. The company intends to move to have the verdict setaside and, if necessary, to appeal.Headquartered in New York City, L-3 Communications (NYSE: LLL) isa leading provider of Intelligence, Surveillance andReconnaissance systems, secure communications systems, aircraftmodernization, training and government services. The company is aleading merchant supplier of a broad array of high technologyproducts, including guidance and navigation, sensors, scanners,fuzes, data links, propulsion systems, simulators, avionics,electro optics, satellite communications, electrical powerequipment, encryption, signal intelligence, antennas and microwavecomponents. L-3 also supports a variety of Homeland Securityinitiatives with products and services. Its customers include theDepartment of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, selectedU.S. Government intelligence agencies and aerospace primecontractors. * * *As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Dec. 2, 2005,Moody's Investors Service affirmed the debt ratings of L-3Communications Holdings, Inc., Corporate Family Rating of Ba2,and has changed L-3 Communications Corporation's Speculative GradeLiquidity Rating to SGL-1 from SGL-2.LARRY'S MARKETS: Gets Interim Nod on Winterbauer as Labor Counsel-----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washingtongave its interim approval for Larry's Markets, Inc., to employWinterbauer & Diamond P.L.L.C. as its special labor and employmentcounsel.Winterbauer & Diamond is expected to provide employment and laboradvice, including matters involving collective bargainingagreements and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining NotificationAct under Sections 2101 of Title 29 of the U.S. Code.Steven H. Winterbauer, Esq., a member at Winterbauer & Diamond,tells the Court that he will bill $285 per hour for thisengagement. Mr. Winterbauer discloses that the firm's otherprofessionals and support personnel bill between $105 to $190 perhour.Mr. Winterbauer assures the Court that his firm is disinterestedas that term is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code.Mr. Winterbauer can be reached at: Steven H. Winterbauer, Esq. Winterbauer & Diamond P.L.L.C. 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1910 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel: (206) 676-8440 Fax: (206) 676-8441Headquartered in Kirklan, Washington, Larry's Markets, Inc. --http://www.larrysmarkets.com/-- operates several supermarkets and department stores in the U.S. Northwest. The company filed forchapter 11 protection on May 7, 2006 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. Case No.06-11378). Armand J. Kornfeld, Esq., at Bush Strout & Kornfeld,represents the Debtor. The Official Committee of UnsecuredCreditors has selected Marc L. Barreca, Esq., and Michael J.Gearin, Esq., at Preston Gates & Ellis LLP, to represent it in theDebtor's case. When the Debtor filed for protection from itscreditors, it listed total assets of $12,574,695 and total debtsof $21,489,800.LEVITZ HOME: Landlords Want to Collect Unpaid Rents---------------------------------------------------MS Elmhurst, LLC, CS Elmhurst, LLC, MS Paramus, LLC, CLSDiversified, LLC, Sea Plan, LLC and J.J.J.D. Associates, L.L.C.-- the Landlords -- and Leasehold Agency Associates, Inc., asagent for the Landlords, ask the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for theSouthern District of New York to compel Levitz Home Furnishings,Inc., its debtor affiliates and PLVTZ, LLC, to: (a) pay postpetition rent; and (b) pay or bond obligations, including attorney's fees and costs, relating to mechanic liens, or cause the satisfaction, discharge and release of mechanic liens filed in respect of certain nonresidential real property leases with Seaman Furniture Company, Inc.According to Remy J. Ferrario, Esq., at Golub & Golub, LLP, inNew York, the Debtors or the Purchasers failed to paypostpetition rent and other charges under four unexpirednon-residential real property leases, and to bond, pay orsatisfy, discharge and extinguish mechanic liens filed againstpremises under two of those leases between Seaman and theLandlords.The Seaman Leases relate to premises located at: (1) 86-08 Queens Boulevard, Elmhurst, New York (two mechanic liens have been filed against the Elmhurst Premises; (2) 55 Route No. 4, Paramus, New Jersey; (3) Route 110 and Schmidt Boulevard, Farmingdale, New York (three mechanic liens have been filed against the Farmingdale Premises); and (4) the Nesconset-Port Jefferson Highway, Smithtown, New York.Mr. Ferrario reminds the Court that, on January 20, 2006, theSmithtown Lease has been designated by the Purchasers as a\"Dropout Lease.\" The Purchasers' obligation to pay expenses forthe Dropout Property ceased on January 31, 2006.On January 25, 2006, the Debtors filed a notice rejecting theSmithtown Lease.The Landlords seek immediate payment of: (a) $74,067 for the Elmhurst Lease; (b) $81,742 for the Farmingdale Lease; (c) $41,649 for the Paramus Lease; and (d) $41,170 for the Smithtown Lease.The mechanic's liens asserted under the Farmingdale Lease total$426,369; and $22,675 as to the Elmhurst Lease. PLVTZ ObjectsPLVTZ, LLC, as purchasers of substantially all of the Debtors'assets, tells the Court that the Prepetition Rent Claims are notimmediately due and payable because the Prepetition Rent Claimsand the Leases have not been assumed.Under the Asset Purchase Agreement, PLVTZ does not have anyobligation to pay any amounts accruing before the Petition Dateunless they are part of a cure payment. With respect to theSmithtown Lease, it is a prepetition unsecured claim because theDebtors rejected it, PLVTZ adds.D.J. Baker, Esq., at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, inNew York, relates that the PLVTZ does not dispute that it isobligated to pay postpetition October 2005 rent in respect of anystores that were not Excluded Stores as of the Closing Date,however, it has not been able to obtain the Landlords'calculation of the Stub Period Rent Claim or information uponwhich to verify the calculation.Mr. Baker points out that there is no present obligation for theDebtors and PLVTZ to pay the claims for the Elmhurst, Paramus,and Farmingdale Premises. It would be premature, Mr. Bakerasserts, to allow claims for stub rent as an administrativeexpense and fulfill obligations for postpetition, pre-Closingamounts.If the Elmhurst, the Farmingdale, and the Paramus Leases wereultimately rejected, any claims for postpetition real estatetaxes, CAM, insurance or other obligations would be evaluated andpaid where appropriate upon rejection.Furthermore, there is no present obligation for the Debtors andPLVTZ to pay or otherwise satisfy the mechanic's liens filedagainst the Elmhurst and Farmingdale Premises, Mr. Baker says.Accordingly, PLVTZ asks the Court to reject the Landlords'request. About Levitz HomeHeadquartered in Woodbury, New York, Levitz Home Furnishings, Inc.-- http://www.levitz.com/-- is a leading specialty retailer of furniture in the United States with 121 locations in majormetropolitan areas principally the Northeast and on the West Coastof the United States. The Company and its 12 affiliates filed forchapter 11 protection on Oct. 11, 2005 (Bank. S.D.N.Y. Lead CaseNo. 05-45189). David G. Heiman, Esq., and Richard Engman, Esq.,at Jones Day, represent the Debtors in their restructuringefforts. When the Debtors filed for protection from theircreditors, they reported $245 million in assets and $456 millionin debts. Jay R. Indyke, Esq., at Kronish Lieb Weiner & HellmanLLP represents the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.Levitz sold substantially all of its assets to Prentice Capital onDec. 19, 2005. (Levitz Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 13 BankruptcyCreditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)LEVITZ HOME: Court Grants Lease Assumption and Assignment Plea--------------------------------------------------------------As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on May 4, 2006,Levitz Home Furnishings, Inc., and its debtor-affiliates soughtauthority from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern Districtof New York to assume and assign these leases to PLVTZ, LLC: Store# Address Landlord Cure Amount ------ ------- -------- ----------- 10302 Brooklyn, J.W. Mays, Inc. $0 New York 30301 Rosemead, Glendon Way Associates, $30,118 California c/o Primestor Development 30307 Hawthorne, Primstor Development, $12,567 California Inc., c/o Sherwood Village, LLC 30507 Murrieta, Village Walk Retail, $0 California L.P., c/o Aurthur Pearlman Corporation 30701 Tigard, Oregon Krausz Enterprises & $0 Krausz Puente, LLC 40603 Las Vegas, Nevso, L.L.C. $0 Nevada 40506 Tempe, Arizona Commercial Net Lease $46,301 Realty, Inc. 10102 Holbrook, Sun Lakes Plaza $32,415 New York Associates 10304 Brooklym, Richard Sachs Interiors, $107,979 New York Inc., c/o A.J. Richard & Sons, Inc. 10903 Valley Stream, Green Acers Mall, L.L.C. $75,211 New York 20502 Bronx, Bay Plaza Community $111,807 New York Center, LLC, c/o Prestige Properties & Development Co. 40401 Concord, R&B Heritage Investors, $120,131 California LP, and Marina Square Partners, LP, c/o Reynolds & Brown 30401 Anaheim, Wohl/Anaheim LLC, c/o $15,475 California Wohl Investment Company 30101 Ontario, Ontario Home Partners, $49,320 California Ltd. 30302 Cerritos, Cerritos Best Plaza, $116,493 California c/o Barco Real Estate Management 30204 San Dimas, R&W San Dimas, LLC $24,499 California 30206 Newhall, Glendon Way Associates & $57,177 California PETsMART, Inc. 30402 Huntington Freeway Industrial Park $90,795 Beach, Huntley Associates California 40602 Las Vegas, Constantino Noval Nevada $148,908 Nevada LLC, c/o American Management Company 40502 Mesa, Arizona Krausz Puente, LLC, c/o $40,641 The Krausz Companies, Inc.Judge Lifland grants the Debtors' request as it relates to theleases for: (a) Store Nos. 10302, 30301, 30307, 30701, 40603, 10102, 20502, 30401, 30101, 30302, 30204, 30206 and 30402; (b) Store No. 30507, to the extent that, among other things, the assumption and assignment of the Lease will be of the entire Lease, including the First Amendment and any other amendments; and (c) Store No. 10304, to the extent that, among other things: * The Debtors or PLVTZ will be responsible for the $165,000 cure amount; and * PLVTZ will place $130,000 in a separate segregated account to cover certain cure amounts claimed by Richard Sachs for Store No. 10304 as part of the appropriate cure amount, and which PLVTZ disputes; and * The Objection to Store No. 10304 is resolved in part with respect to the Cure Payment as provided, which payment will be final and non-recoverable, and the Objection is otherwise reserved with regard to the Disputed Cure Claim. Counsel for PLVTZ, with assistance from the Debtors, if required, will identify all disputed issues with regard to the Disputed Cure Claim by May 11, 2006, and provide copies of all of the documentation upon which PLVTZ and the Debtors rely in support of their position concerning the Disputed Cure Claim as soon as practicable thereafter but in no event later than May 18, 2006. In the event that Richard Sachs and PLVTZ cannot reach a consensual resolution with respect to the Disputed Cure Claim, a hearing to determine the proper amount, if any, that will be paid as the additional Cure Amount will be held.The Court will conduct a hearing, if necessary, on the Debtors'request to assume and assign the Leases with respect to StoreNos. 40506, 10903 and 40401, as well as the Disputed Cure Claim,at a later date. More Responses(a) Freeway Industrial Park, et al.Five landlords ask the Court to condition the Debtors' proposedassumption and assignment to PLVTZ, LLC, of their Leases uponpayment of the proper cure amounts that are due and owing.The objecting parties are: Debtors' Landlords' Asserted AssertedStore No. Objecting Party Cure Amount Cure Amount--------- --------------- ----------- ----------- 30402 Freeway Industrial Park $90,795 $98,570 10903 Vornado Realty Trust, as $75,211 $145,872 agent of Green Acres Mall, LLC 30204 R&W San Dimas, LLC $24,499 $37,054 40401 Macy's Department Stores, $120,131 $121,810 Inc., formerly known as Macy's West, Inc. 10304 Richard Sachs Interiors, $107,979 $293,329 Inc.The Landlords assert outstanding defaults with respect to theirLeases, consisting of: * outstanding rent payments; * real estate taxes and adjustments; * common area maintenance charges; * due year-end adjustments; and * other potential unknown indemnification claims.Additionally, the Landlords reserve their right to amend,supplement or modify their asserted Cure Amounts for any reason,including attorneys' fees.Moreover, some of the Landlords ask the Court not to permit theDebtors to assign their Leases to PLVTZ unless PLVTZ agrees andis required to comply with all of the terms of their Leases,including maintenance obligations.Racanelli Construction Company, Inc., was retained by the Debtorsto provide extensive general contracting services to a number ofthe Debtors' store locations in the tri-state area.Racanelli asserts it is owed not less than: (1) $11,883 for Store No. 10302; (2) $1,055 for Store No. 20502; and (3) $76,467 for Store No. 10903.Racanelli thus objects to the proposed assumption and assignmentof the Store Leases to the extent that it does not contemplate acure that satisfies the amounts due and owing to Racanelli inconnection with the Leases. Racanelli asserts that the Debtors'proposed cure is unsatisfactory.Accordingly, Racanelli asks the Court to condition the approvalof the Debtors' request upon payment of the proper amounts due toRacanelli, or otherwise resolving Racanelli's liens and claims.(b) Village WalkVillage Walk Retail, L.P., and Levitz Furniture, LLC, are partiesto a Reverse Build to Suit Lease dated as of December 31, 2004,covering premises located at Murrieta, California and designatedas Store No. 30507.After the Petition Date, the parties entered into a FirstAmendment to the Original Lease with the knowledge and consent ofthe proposed assignee, PLVTZ, LLC.Village Walk does not oppose the assumption and assignment of itsLease. Village Walk simply seeks confirmation from the Debtorand PLVTZ if the Debtor will assume and assign the entire Lease,including the First Amendment, or only the Original Lease.(c) R&B Heritage and Marina SquareR&B Heritage Investors, L.P., and Marina Square Partners, L.P.,the lessors to Macy's West, Inc., ask the Court to deny theproposed assumption and assignment of their lease with respect toStore No. 40401 located at Concord, California, because: (a) The Lease will terminate by its own terms on July 31, 2006, and Levitz Furniture Corporation failed to effectively exercise any option to extend the Lease beyond that date; (b) The Debtors have not and cannot cure the defaults under the Lease; (c) PLVTZ has not and cannot provide adequate assurances of future performance to the Landlord; and (d) The Debtors have failed to identify a proposed use of the Premises that is compatible with the shopping center environment. About Levitz HomeHeadquartered in Woodbury, New York, Levitz Home Furnishings, Inc.-- http://www.levitz.com/-- is a leading specialty retailer of furniture in the United States with 121 locations in majormetropolitan areas principally the Northeast and on the West Coastof the United States. The Company and its 12 affiliates filed forchapter 11 protection on Oct. 11, 2005 (Bank. S.D.N.Y. Lead CaseNo. 05-45189). David G. Heiman, Esq., and Richard Engman, Esq.,at Jones Day, represent the Debtors in their restructuringefforts. When the Debtors filed for protection from theircreditors, they reported $245 million in assets and $456 millionin debts. Jay R. Indyke, Esq., at Kronish Lieb Weiner & HellmanLLP represents the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.Levitz sold substantially all of its assets to Prentice Capital onDec. 19, 2005. (Levitz Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 13 BankruptcyCreditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)LOVESAC CORP: Gets Court Okay to Hire Squire Sanders as Counsel---------------------------------------------------------------The LoveSac Corporation and its debtor-affiliates obtainedpermission from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District ofDelaware to employ Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP as theirbankruptcy counsel.As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Feb. 3, 2006,Squire Sanders will: (a) advise the Debtors with respect to their power and duties as debtors-in-possession in the continued management and operation of their businesses and property; (b) attend meetings and negotiate with representatives of creditors and other parties-in-interest and advise and consult on the conduct of the Debtors' bankruptcy cases, including all of the legal and administrative requirements of operating in chapter 11; (c) assist the Debtors with the preparation of their Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statements of Financial Affairs; (d) advise the Debtors in connection with any sales of assets or business combinations, including the negotiation of asset, stock, purchase, merger or joint venture agreements, formulate and implement appropriate procedures with respect to the closing of any of those transactions, and counseling the Debtors in connection with those transactions; (e) advise the Debtors in connection with any postpetition financing and cash collateral arrangements and negotiate and draft documents relating to them, provide advice and counsel with respect to prepetition financing arrangements, and negotiate and draft documents relating to them; (f) advise the Debtors on matters relating to the evaluation of the assumption, rejection or assignment of unexpired leases and executory contracts; (g) advise the Debtors with respect to legal issues arising in or relating to the Debtors' ordinary course of business, including attendance at senior management meetings, meetings with the Debtors' financial and turnaround advisors and meetings of the board of directors; (h) take all necessary action to protect and preserve the Debtors' estates, including the prosecution of actions on their behalf, the defense of any actions commenced against them, negotiations concerning all litigation in which the Debtors are involved and objecting to claims filed against the Debtors' estates; (i) prepare, on the Debtors' behalf, all motions, applications, answers, orders, reports and papers necessary to the administration of the estates; (j) negotiate and prepare, on the Debtors' behalf, a plan or plans of reorganization, disclosure statement and all related agreements and documents and taking any necessary action on behalf of the Debtors to obtain confirmation of those plan or plans; (k) attend meetings with third parties and participating in negotiations with respect to the above matters; (l) appear before the Court, any appellate courts and the United States Trustee and protecting the interests of the Debtors' estates before those court and the United States Trustee; (m) perform all other necessary legal services and provide all other necessary legal advice to the Debtors in connection with their bankruptcy cases; and (n) perform all other necessary legal services and provide all other necessary legal as requested by the Debtors including but not limited to corporate finance, franchising, litigation, regulatory, labor, tax, corporate and intellectual property matters.Stephen D. Lerner, Esq., a partner at Squire, Sanders & DempseyLLP, disclosed that the Firm received a $100,000 retainer. TheFirm's professionals bill: Designation Hourly Rate ----------- ----------- Partners $295 to $790 Associates and Of Counsel $145 to $630 Paralegals and Legal Assistants $50 to $240Headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, The LoveSac Corporation --http://www.lovesac.com/-- operates and franchises retail stores selling beanbags furniture. The LoveSac Corp. and threeaffiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on Jan. 30, 2006(Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 06-10080). Anthony M. Saccullo, Esq.,and Charlene D. Davis, Esq., at The Bayard Firm and P. CaseyCoston, Esq., at Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP represent theDebtors in their restructuring efforts. Michael W. Yurkewicz,Esq., at Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg & Ellers represents theOfficial Committee of Unsecured Creditors. When the Debtors filedfor protection from their creditors, they estimated assets anddebts between $10 million to $50 million.LOVESAC CORP: Governmental Units Can File Claims Until July 31-------------------------------------------------------------- Governmental units have until July 31, 2006 to file their proofsof claim in The LoveSac Corporation and its debtor-affiliates'chapter 11 cases.Governmental unit proofs of claim must be sent either by mail orcourier on or before 4:00 pm, Pacific time, to: The LoveSac Corporation Claims Processing c/o Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC 12910 Culver Boulevard, Suite I Los Angeles, CA 90066These claims were expected filed as of May 22, 2006: 1. unsecured claims; 2. litigation claims; 3. worker's compensation claims; and 4. administrative agency claims.Headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, The LoveSac Corporation --http://www.lovesac.com/-- operates and franchises retail stores selling beanbags furniture. The LoveSac Corp. and threeaffiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on Jan. 30, 2006(Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 06-10080). Anthony M. Saccullo, Esq.,and Charlene D. Davis, Esq., at The Bayard Firm and P. CaseyCoston, Esq., at Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP represent theDebtors in their restructuring efforts. Michael W. Yurkewicz,Esq., at Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg & Ellers represents theOfficial Committee of Unsecured Creditors. When the Debtors filedfor protection from their creditors, they estimated assets anddebts between $10 million to $50 million.MIAD SYSTEMS: Amends Annual 2005 Report & Two 2006 Fiscal Quarters------------------------------------------------------------------MIAD Systems Ltd. filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on May 26, 2006, its amended financial statements for: -- the year ended Sept. 30, 2005; -- the first quarter ended Dec. 31, 2005; and -- the second quarter ended March 31, 2006.The company's Statement of Operations showed: For the period ended ---------------------------------- Year Quarter Quarter 09/30/05 12/31/05 03/31/06 ---------- ---------- ----------Revenue $8,321,083 $1,631,180 $1,296,470Net Income (Loss) $28,492 ($778,827) ($910,701)The company's Balance Sheet showed: For the period ended ---------------------------------- Year Quarter Quarter 09/30/05 12/31/05 03/31/06 ---------- ---------- ----------Current Assets $1,374,212 $1,266,200 $861,177Total Assets $1,537,169 $1,422,976 $1,016,985CurrentLiabilities $1,695,319 $1,611,504 $1,337,387TotalLiabilities $1,695,319 $1,611,504 $1,337,387Stockholders'Deficit $158,150 ($188,528) ($320,402)Full-text copies of the company's financial statements areavailable for free at: Year Ended Sept. 30, 2005 http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?a03 First quarter ended Dec. 31, 2005 http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?a04 Second quarter ended March 31, 2006 http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?a05Markham, Ontario-based MIAD Systems Ltd. -- http://www.miad.com/-- is an established full-line supplier of business computersystems as well as a provider of computer maintenance,installation and networking services. MIAD does not sell toindividuals but provides these goods and services to its majorclients who are primarily engaged in the corporate, institutional,municipal, utilities and education fields, typically as part oftheir computer networks.MIRANT CORP: Proposes to Acquire NRG Energy for $8 Billion----------------------------------------------------------Mirant Corporation made a proposal to acquire NRG Energy, Inc. ata premium of approximately 33% to NRG's share price as of Tuesday,May 30, 2006. The proposal would be immediately accretive to thepro forma free cash flow per share of Mirant. Mirant received afinancing commitment from JPMorgan of approximately $11.5 billionfor the transaction.NRG flatly rejected the proposal without engaging in anydiscussions with Mirant. Mirant continues to believe that theproposal creates significant value for the owners of bothcompanies and has decided to make its proposal public in a letterto NRG's board of directors.Edward R. Muller, Mirant's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,stated in the letter that:\"We were disappointed that you would reject so quickly on behalfof your shareholders, without any discussion with us, ouracquisition proposal of May 10, 2006, which provides yourshareholders a substantial premium to their share price and theopportunity to participate in the additional value creation weexpect from the combined company. We think that it is importantfor your shareholders to be informed of such a compellingopportunity, and, therefore, we are simultaneously releasing thisletter to the public.\"In the transaction we proposed, your shareholders would receive,at their election, $57.50 per share in cash or Mirant Corporationcommon stock at an exchange ratio of 2.25 Mirant shares for eachshare of NRG common stock, based upon our understanding that youhave 137.5 million fully diluted shares outstanding. Yourshareholders' elections to receive the total of approximately$3.9 billion in cash (representing 50% of the total consideration)or Mirant common stock would be subject to proration to preservethe 50/50 cash/stock mix in the deal.\"This transaction would provide a blended value of approximately$57.16 per share of NRG common stock and would represent asubstantial premium of approximately 33% to NRG's share price,based on the closing prices of Mirant and NRG on Tuesday, May 30,2006. In addition, your shareholders would receive a premium ofapproximately 33% to your one-year average trading price andapproximately 55% to your two-year average trading price.\"We think that a combination of Mirant and NRG would create anenterprise with significant opportunities for expense andoperational synergies and a national footprint that is withoutparallel. The combination would generate a number of specific andcompelling benefits. Our best estimate of the annual cost savingsfrom the reduction of overlapping functions is $150 million (basedon publicly available information), in addition to significantopportunities for cost savings from the procurement and use offuel and in the application of emissions credits. The combinationalso would diversify the risks associated with the assets andoperations of both companies. In addition, the combination wouldcreate the largest independent power company in the United Stateswith a strong presence in four key regions (Texas, Mid- Atlantic,Northeast and California). The combined company would have over43,000 megawatts globally, with over 37,500 megawatts in theUnited States. Approximately 32% of its domestic capacity wouldbe low-cost, baseload generating capacity. Finally, thecombination would enhance liquidity and value for the shareholdersof both companies. We estimate that the combined company wouldhave adjusted EBITDA for 2007 in excess of $3 billion. Thetransaction would be immediately accretive to Mirant's pro formafree cash flow per share. In short, we think that the combinedcompany would deliver superior returns to our combined shareholderbase, with benefits flowing to our respective customers, employeesand other constituencies as well.\"Mirant emerged from Chapter 11 on January 3, 2006, with whatmost observers characterize as the strongest balance sheet inthe industry. Since Jan. 3, 2006, a total of approximately275 million of our shares have traded, representing approximately92% of our total outstanding shares. Our hedging strategy hasbeen effective in reducing risk while improving our earningsprofile. We currently expect that cash flows from operationsthrough 2011 will be sufficient to fund our forecasted capitalexpenditures, including those for required environmental controls.Finally, we have a new management team with extensive experiencein the industry.\"We think that now is the right time to pursue a combination ofour companies, and we are committed to doing so on an expeditedbasis. Our Board of Directors has approved our proposal, and weare prepared to begin negotiations of the terms of our proposalwith you immediately and to enter into a definitive mergeragreement and complete the transaction as soon as possible. Wehave received a financing commitment from JPMorgan ofapproximately $11.5 billion which, when combined with ouravailable cash, will: * fund the cash portion of the purchase consideration for your common and, if necessary, preferred stock; * refinance your senior credit facilities; and * fund the purchase of your 7.250% Senior Notes and 7.375% Senior Notes pursuant to a change of control offer at a price equal to 101% of the aggregate principal amount, plus accrued and unpaid interest.\"The indebtedness of our subsidiaries, including Mirant AmericasGeneration, LLC and Mirant North America, LLC, would remain inplace. We expect that due diligence can be completed quickly. Inaddition, given the complementary geographies of our respectiveoperations, we expect that all regulatory approvals will beobtained expeditiously. With your cooperation, we think that wecan close the transaction in 2006.\"We expect your shareholders to respond enthusiastically to thistransaction: current shareholders who wish to exit will have theopportunity to do so at an attractive premium; those shareholderswho choose to continue as investors in the combined company willreceive both an attractive premium and have the opportunity toparticipate in the additional value creation we expect from thecombination. We believe ardently in the wisdom and strategicvalue of this transaction and the benefits it offers to ourcombined shareholders and stakeholders. This matter has thehighest priority for us.\" About NRG EnergyHeadquartered in Princeton, New Jersey, NRG Energy, Inc. -- http://www.nrgenergy.com/-- currently owns and operates a diverse portfolio of power-generating facilities, primarily in theNortheast, South Central and Western regions of the United States.Its operations include baseload, intermediate, peaking, andcogeneration facilities, thermal energy production and energyresource recovery facilities. NRG also has ownership interests ingenerating facilities in Australia and Germany. About MirantHeadquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Mirant Corporation --http://www.mirant.com/-- is a competitive energy company that produces and sells electricity in North America, the Caribbean,and the Philippines. Mirant owns or leases more than 18,000megawatts of electric generating capacity globally. MirantCorporation filed for chapter 11 protection on July 14, 2003(Bankr. N.D. Tex. 03-46590), and emerged under the terms of aconfirmed Second Amended Plan on Jan. 3, 2006. Thomas E.Lauria, Esq., at White & Case LLP, represented the Debtors intheir successful restructuring. When the Debtors filed forprotection from their creditors, they listed $20,574,000,000 inassets and $11,401,000,000 in debts.At Dec. 2, 2005, Moody's Investors Service assigned a B1 long-termcorporate family rating to Mirant Corp.MIRANT CORP: Acquisition Proposal Undervalues NRG Energy--------------------------------------------------------NRG Energy, Inc. confirmed, on May 30, 2006, that it has receivedan unsolicited proposal from Mirant Corporation regarding apotential combination in letters dated May 10 and 30, 2006.Consistent with its fiduciary duties and in consultation with itsfinancial advisor and legal counsel, NRG's Board of Directorsreviewed the Mirant proposal and deemed it not in the bestinterests of NRG shareholders. NRG shareholders do not need totake any action at this time.Citigroup is serving as financial advisor to NRG, and Skadden,Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP is legal counsel.On May 23, 2006, NRG sent a response letter to Edward R. Muller,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Mirant Corporation and theMirant Board of Directors.The letter from Howard Cosgrove, NRG's Chairman of the Board, andDavid Crane, NRG's President and Chief Executive Officer, statedthat:\"The Board of Directors of NRG Energy, Inc., with the assistanceof its financial and legal advisors, has reviewed and thoroughlyconsidered your May 10, 2006 letter. Based upon this review theBoard has unanimously rejected your proposal because it is not inthe best interests of NRG shareholders. The NRG Board hasspecifically authorized this response.\"As discussed below, the Board has found your proposal deficientin at least three key respects: * it significantly undervalues NRG; * our concerns about Mirant's value and your stock's relative lack of liquidity and trading history makes Mirant's stock an unacceptable currency; and, * finally, having taken into account trends and developments in the wholesale power generation sector, we do not believe this is the appropriate time to engage in a sale process.\"Having spent considerable time analyzing Mirant, its assets andprospects -- both during the three years you spent in bankruptcyand the four months since you emerged -- we have concluded thatMirant is a company and stock with flat earnings, little to nogrowth opportunity beyond 2007, substantial and imminentenvironmental capital expenditures, and significant EBITDAexposure to developing country risk. Additionally, with only afour-month trading history and an average daily trading volume of2.7 million shares during those four months, we believe thatMirant's stock lacks a sufficient track record and liquidity forus to recommend to our shareholders that they accept over 150million Mirant shares as you propose. These factors far outweighany synergistic benefits that might come from a combination of thetwo companies.\"For these reasons, NRG's Board and management strongly believethat our shareholders would be poorly served by being exposed toMirant's challenges through ownership of Mirant equity on theterms set forth in your proposal.On the question of timing, we believe our cyclical industry hasjust begun to emerge out of a multi-year trough and, over the nextcouple of years, we will experience continued robust commodityprices, supply shortfalls in our core regions, spark spreadrecovery and a rationalization of the utility industry in such away that the intrinsic value of NRG (and the value of NRG as apotential acquisition candidate) will rise rapidly. And we areconfident that we will be able to convert the rise in intrinsicvalue of NRG into increased market value. Over the past 24months, NRG's stock has appreciated 120% as the market hasrecognized the value of our asset mix, the soundness of ourstrategy and our track record in its implementation, including: * a diverse multi-regional domestic portfolio of 22,848 MW; * a substantial EBITDA growth rate past 2007 from hedges placed at rising prices; * a thriving brownfield development program across all regions; and * a history of returning capital to shareholders through two substantial share buybacks in the first 18 months of our existence.\"We are confident that our stock is poised for furtherappreciation as we capitalize on the positive industry trends andas the market comes to recognize our embedded growth potentialparticularly post-2007. In this regard, we note that the premiumreflected in your proposal is far less than the annual compoundaverage growth rate of NRG's share price appreciation.\"To clarify one point, your letter references past meetingsbetween you and our Chief Executive Officer, David Crane, on thetopic of combining NRG and Mirant. Our Company's strategicinterest in Mirant predates your tenure there and is well known toanyone who has read transcripts of your bankruptcy hearings. WhenMr. Crane discussed a combination of the two companies with youlast November, it was in the context of NRG acquiring Mirant,since at that time Mirant's stock was neither listed nor activelytraded. Once your company finally emerged from bankruptcy inJanuary 2006, our Board specifically reviewed the possibleacquisition of Mirant by NRG. We decided not to do so on thegrounds that at $25 per share Mirant's stock was overvalued, andwe were not willing to risk NRG's reputation for financialdiscipline on an overpriced bid for Mirant. When you approachedMr. Crane in March to propose a \"no premium\" acquisition of NRG byMirant, Mr. Crane advised you that such a transaction (at theprice for NRG's shares implied by your proposal) was not worthpursuing further given that it would be massively dilutive to NRGshareholders -- a point of view which neither you nor GoldmanSachs has ever attempted to refute.\"As you know, NRG believes that industry consolidation isinevitable, and we expect to participate -- either as a buyer or aseller. You should also know that we would only pursuetransactions that create unquestionable value for ourstockholders. Your proposal is simply the wrong deal at the wrongtime.\" About NRG EnergyHeadquartered in Princeton, New Jersey, NRG Energy, Inc. -- http://www.nrgenergy.com/-- currently owns and operates a diverse portfolio of power-generating facilities, primarily in theNortheast, South Central and Western regions of the United States.Its operations include baseload, intermediate, peaking, andcogeneration facilities, thermal energy production and energyresource recovery facilities. NRG also has ownership interests ingenerating facilities in Australia and Germany. About MirantHeadquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Mirant Corporation --http://www.mirant.com/-- is a competitive energy company that produces and sells electricity in North America, the Caribbean,and the Philippines. Mirant owns or leases more than 18,000megawatts of electric generating capacity globally. MirantCorporation filed for chapter 11 protection on July 14, 2003(Bankr. N.D. Tex. 03-46590), and emerged under the terms of aconfirmed Second Amended Plan on Jan. 3, 2006. Thomas E.Lauria, Esq., at White & Case LLP, represented the Debtors intheir successful restructuring. When the Debtors filed forprotection from their creditors, they listed $20,574,000,000 inassets and $11,401,000,000 in debts.At Dec. 2, 2005, Moody's Investors Service assigned a B1 long-termcorporate family rating to Mirant Corp.NCP MARKETING: Files Plan & Disclosure Statement in Nevada---------------------------------------------------------- N.C.P. Marketing Group, Inc., delivered to the U.S. BankruptcyCourt for the District of Nevada a disclosure statement explainingits plan of reorganization.Under the Plan, Administrative and Priority Tax Claims will bepaid in full in cash.Holders of Century Secured Claim will receive a plan note interestwhich will entitle Century Incorporated to a priority payment fromthe Plan Trust until the Century Secured Claim is paid in full.Holders of General Unsecured Priority Claims will also receiveplan note interests, which will entitle them to payment pursuantto a Plan Trust Agreement.Holders of Non-Tax Priority Claims will receive cash equal to theallowed amount of their claim while holders of Other SecuredClaims will receive payment pursuant to a Plan Trust Agreement.Holders of Qualified Equity Interests will not receive anydistribution under the Plan unless and until all claims in seniorclasses have been paid in full. Intercompany claims whichconsists General Unsecured Claims of the Debtors' affiliates willreceive nothing under the PlanHeadquartered in North West Canton, Ohio, N.C.P. Marketing Group,Inc. is an infomercial producer and global marketer of theplatinum award-winning original Billy Blanks' Tae-Bo VideoLibrary. The Debtor filed for chapter 11 protection onApril 13, 2004 (Bankr. Nev. Case No. 04-51071). Jeffrey Baddeley,Esq., at Spangenberg Shibley & Liber LLP and Jennifer A. Smith,Esq., at Lionel Sawyer & Collins represent the Debtor in itsrestructuring efforts. No Official Committee of UnsecuredCreditors has been appointed in this case. When the Debtor filedfor protection from its creditors, it estimated assets and debtsbetween $10 million to $50 million.NATIONAL MENTOR: To Buy Back $150 Mil. of 9-5/8% Sr. Sub. Notes---------------------------------------------------------------National Mentor, Inc., commenced a cash tender offer and consentsolicitation for any and all outstanding $150,000,000 aggregateprincipal amount of its 9-5/8% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2012(CUSIP No. 63688XAB0). This tender offer and consent solicitationis subject to the terms and conditions set forth in Offer toPurchase and Consent Solicitation Statement dated May 25, 2006.This offer to purchase the Notes is part of the Company'srefinancing in connection with its pending merger with anaffiliate of Vestar Capital Partners V, L.P. The merger iscurrently expected to close on June 29, 2006.The tender offer is scheduled to expire at 8:00 a.m., New YorkCity time, on June 29, 2006, unless extended. The consentsolicitation is scheduled to expire at 5:00 p.m., New York Citytime, on June 12, 2006, unless extended.The total consideration for each $1,000 principal amount of Notesvalidly tendered and accepted for payment and consents validlydelivered on or prior to the Consent Date will be equal to thepresent value of $1,048.13 and all future interest payments on theNotes to Dec. 1, 2008, minus accrued and unpaid interest from thelast date on which interest has been paid, up to, but notincluding, the settlement date. The present value will bedetermined using a yield equal to the bid price on the 3.375% U.S.Treasury Note due Dec. 15, 2008 at 2:00 p.m., New York City time,on June 12, 2006, plus a fixed spread of 50 basis points. Thetotal consideration for each Note tendered includes a consentpayment of $30.00 per $1,000 principal amount of Notes to holderswho validly tender their Notes and deliver their consents prior to5:00 p.m. on the Consent Date.Holders who tender their Notes after the Consent Date will notreceive the consent payment. Payment for all Notes validlytendered in the tender offer, including the consent payment forconsents validly delivered on or prior to the Consent Date, willbe made promptly after expiration of the tender offer for theNotes.In conjunction with the tender offer, the Company is solicitingthe consents of the holders of the Notes to eliminatesubstantially all of the restrictive covenants and certain eventsof default and related provisions in the indenture under which theNotes were issued. Holders who tender their Notes must consent tothe proposed amendments.The tender offer and consent solicitation is subject to thesatisfaction of certain conditions, including (1) the merger of NMH MergerSub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of NMH Investments, LLC, an affiliate of Vestar Capital Partners V, L.P., with and into National Mentor Holdings, Inc., the parent company of the Company; (2) the Company having repaid its obligations under its existing senior secured credit facilities pursuant to a refinancing of those facilities; (3) the Company having received, on or prior to the Consent Date, consents, which have not been revoked in respect of at least a majority in principal amount of the Notes and a supplemental indenture having been signed and delivered in respect of the proposed amendments; and (4) certain other customary conditions.The Company may waive some or all of these conditions in its solediscretion and may amend, extend or terminate the tender offer andconsent solicitation in its sole discretion.The complete terms and conditions of the tender offer and consentsolicitation are described in the Offer to Purchase and ConsentSolicitation Statement dated May 25, 2006, copies of which may beobtained from the information agent for the tender offer andconsent solicitation: MacKenzie Partners, Inc. Telephone (212) 929-5500 (collect) U.S. Toll Free (800) 322-2885The Company has engaged J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. to act asdealer manager and solicitation agent in connection with thetender offer and consent solicitation. Questions regarding thetender offer and consent solicitation may be directed to: J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. Telephone (212) 270-9769The Depositary for the tender offer and consent solicitation andcan be contacted at: U.S. Bank National Association Telephone (800) 934-6802 About the CompanyHeadquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, National MENTOR, Inc. -- http://www.thementornetowrk.com/-- is a leading provider of home and community-based services for individuals with mentalretardation and other developmental disabilities, at-risk youthand persons with acquired brain injury. * * *As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on April 3, 2006,Standard & Poor's Ratings Services placed its ratings onBoston, Massachusetts-based special-needs services providerNational Mentor Inc., including the 'B+' corporate credit rating,on CreditWatch with negative implications (indicating that theratings could be lowered or affirmed upon further review). TheCreditWatch placement follows National Mentor's announcement thatmanagement, in partnership with Vestar Capital Partners, willacquire the company.NES RENTALS: Accepts $850MM Purchase Offer from Diamond Castle--------------------------------------------------------------NES Rentals Holdings, Inc., concluded its strategic review processby signing a definitive agreement to be acquired by affiliates ofDiamond Castle Holdings, LLC, a New York-based private equityfirm, in a transaction valued at approximately $850 million,including the assumption of certain liabilities.Under the terms of the agreement, Diamond Castle will acquireall of the outstanding common stock of NES Rentals for $18.75per share in cash. The purchase price per share represents a42% premium to the Company's closing price per share of $13.25on Jan. 12, 2006, the day on which the Company reported it wouldexplore strategic alternatives.NES Rentals Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Andrew Studdertsaid the implementation of a series of operating and revenueinitiatives during the past two years has improved return oninvestment. \"After undergoing significant change in recent years,NES Rentals has emerged as a well-positioned and profitablebusiness,\" he said. \"The progress we have made allowed us to bein a position to consider options to unlock the value of ourCompany.\"As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Jan. 18, 2006, theCompany's Board of Directors retained Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. toassist in reviewing strategic alternatives. Mr. Studdert saidthis review included consideration of a variety of options,including the sale of the Company.\"As part of this effort, the Board undertook a wide-rangingauction process ultimately resulting in the decision that theoffer from Diamond Castle is in the best interests of the Companyand its shareholders. When completed, this deal will allow NESRentals to continue to meet and exceed the high standards we'veestablished for customer service, quality equipment and financialgrowth.\"Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. and Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin eachprovided fairness opinions on the transaction to the Board ofDirectors.Completion of the sale is expected within 60 days. It iscontingent upon customary closing conditions, including regulatoryapprovals, delivery of the committed financing, and the approvalof NES Rentals' stockholders. NES Rentals scheduled a specialmeeting of stockholders to vote on the proposed transaction thatwill be held on June 23, 2006.Mr. Studdert agreed to continue on in his capacity as ChiefExecutive Officer and Chairman of the Board following thecompletion of the transaction. Diamond Castle expects to retainNES Rentals' company name, management team and product lines.Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. acted as exclusive financial advisor toNES Rentals Holdings, Inc. Kirkland & Ellis LLP acted as legalcounsel to NES Rentals Holdings, Inc. Banc of America SecuritiesLLC acted as exclusive financial advisor to Diamond Castle.Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP acted as legal counsel to DiamondCastle. In addition, Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. is leadingthe syndicate to deliver the committed financing for theacquisition. About Diamond Castle HoldingsHeadquartered in New York City, Diamond Castle Holdings, LLC -- http://www.diamondcastleholdings.com/-- is a private equity investment firm founded in 2004 by Larry Schloss, the formerGlobal Head of CSFB Private Equity and Chairman of DLJ MerchantBanking Partners, and four former managing directors of DLJMerchant Banking. Diamond Castle has 22 employees located in NewYork and focuses on investments in the power, financial services,media and telecom, healthcare, and industrial sectors. About NES Rentals HoldingsHeadquartered in Chicago, Illinois, NES Rentals Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.nesrentals.com/-- is the fifth largest company in the $29 billion equipment rental industry. The company focuses onrenting specialty and general equipment to industrial andconstruction end-users. It rents more than 750 types of machineryand equipment, and distributes new equipment for nationallyrecognized original equipment manufacturers. NES Rentals alsosells used equipment as well as complementary parts, supplies andmerchandise, and provides repair and maintenance services to itscustomers. In addition to the rental business NES Rentals is thesecond largest supplier of traffic and safety services to theconstruction industry. The company is a leading competitor inmany of the geographic markets it reaches, from its approximately117 locations in 34 states. * * *As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Feb 24, 2006,Standard & Poor's Ratings Services placed its ratings on equipmentrental company NES Rental Holdings Inc., including its 'B+'corporate credit rating, on CreditWatch with developingimplications.NEW ORLEANS: Chase Attempting to Arrange a $150 Million Loan------------------------------------------------------------At March 31, 2006, the City of New Orleans had 48.2 million in itsgeneral fund, down from $166 million a year ago. In the eight-month period following Hurricane Katrina's devastation of the BigEasy, annual revenues have fallen sharply. The City collected $22million in taxes in March 2006 -- about 22% of what it collectedin March 2005.A report prepared last month by the Bureau of GovernmentalResearch and the public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana,suggests that New Orleans should file for bankruptcy. That jointreport, entitled \"Municipal Bankruptcy in Perspective\" -- available at no charge at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?8d5-- shares a wealth of financial details, provides a brief overview offederal and state law on municipal bankruptcy, describes theadvantages and disadvantages of the option, and looks at thefinancial condition of selected local entities in three of thehardest hit parishes: Cameron, Orleans, and St. Bernard.Despite steps taken to date, the joint Report says, the City ofNew Orleans and the Orleans Parish School Board are teetering onthe edge of the cliff. The School Board is dealing with chroniccash flow problems, and the City is one month away from runningout of cash. With their tax bases in shambles, it is unclearwhether they will be able to meet the threefold challenge ofservicing existing debt, providing services, and rebuildingdamaged infrastructure.John Kallenborn at Chase Bank in New Orleans thinks the Cityshould and can avoid a bankruptcy filing. In an interview withDeon Roberts, writing for the New Orleans City Business newspaper,Mr. Kallenborn explains that a reorganization under Chapter 9 ofthe Bankruptcy Code might reduce $50 million in debt service to$25 million, but \"the problem with it is that we don't really havea debt problem in the city of New Orleans. We've got a revenueproblem,\" he said.\"You wouldn't create any revenues, which is what you really need,\"Mr. Kallenborn continued.Mr. Kallenborn related to Mr. Roberts that he has been recruiting10 foreign and large banks with New Orleans operations to give thecity a $150-million, three-year loan to fund basic services. Mr.Kallenborn wouldn't say how many lenders have committed. His bankhas agreed to loan $50 million.\"We're cobbling it together slowly but surely,\" Mr. Kallenbornsaid. \"I don't know what probability we have.\" Mr. Kallenbornsaid there's a 33% chance \"that we will call back to the city andsay that we were unsuccessful. That happens. You shouldn't beshocked. It's not an easy credit. [New Orleans'] revenues wentfrom $475 million to $100 million. You're in a trough and it'sjust hard for lenders sometimes to step up during a trough. \"Thequestion is just how fast are revenues going to come back.\" Theloan would buy the city time for revenues to pick up, he said.\"If this (loan) doesn't happen, I don't know what Plan B is,\" Mr.Kallenborn told Mr. Roberts.NORSHIELD ASSET: Chapter 15 Petition Summary--------------------------------------------Petitioner: Eric Rodier RSM Richter, Inc. 2, Place Alexis Nihon, Suite 2200 Montreal, Quebec H3Z3C2Debtor: Norshield Asset Management (Canada) Ltd.Debtor affiliates with related foreign proceedings: Entity ------ Norshield Investment Partners Holdings Ltd. Olympus United Fund Holdings Corporation Olympus United Funds Corporation Olympus United Bank and Trust SCC Olympus United Group Inc. Norshield Capital Management Corporation Honeybee Software Technologies Inc.Case No.: 06-40997Type of Business: The Debtors offer financial services, hedge fund management and alternative investment solutions.Chapter 15 Petition Date: May 30, 2006Court: District of Minnesota (Minneapolis)Judge: Robert J. KresselPetitioner's Counsel: John C. Thomas Dorsey & Whitney LLP 50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-1498 Tel: (612) 340-2600 Fax: (612) 340-2868Estimated Assets: $10 Million to $50 MillionEstimated Debts: More than $100 MillionNORTHWEST AIRLINES: Wants to Advance Employee Defense Costs-----------------------------------------------------------Northwest Airlines Corp. and its debtor-affiliates ask the U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York forpermission to advance the defense costs incurred by certaindirectors, officers or employees who are named as defendants incertain pending ERISA and securities class actions. Class Action SuitsOn October 14, 2005, Jennifer Karpiuk filed a complaint in theUnited States District Court for the District of Minnesota onbehalf of a purported class of participants in various Northwest-sponsored retirement plans, alleging violations of the EmploymentRetirement Income Security Act of 1974. On November 3, 2005, NeilHastings filed a nearly identical complaint with the MinnesotaDistrict Court.On December 20, 2005, Bernard J. Gesenhues filed a complaint inthe United States District Court for the Southern District of NewYork on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased orotherwise acquired Northwest securities during the relevant classperiod alleging violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of1934.On April 7, 2006, various participants in Northwest Airlines-sponsored retirement and pension plans filed a complaint in theUnited States District Court for the Southern District of NewYork on behalf of a purported class of participants in the Plans,alleging ERISA violations. The plaintiffs are: -- Bruce W. Cress, Peter Ochabauer, Walter Boulden, Keith Schilling, Mark A. Knudsen, and Christopher J. Parkyn, allegedly participants in both the Northwest Airlines Retirement Savings Plan for Pilot Employees and the Northwest Airlines Pension Plan for Pilot Employees; and -- Amanda R. Ochabauer and Bernard C. Larkin, allegedly participants in both the Northwest Airlines Retirement Savings Plan for Contract Employees and the Northwest Airlines Pension Plan for Contract Employees. Class Action DefendantsThe ERISA Complaints name 26 individuals and two committees asdefendants. Among the defendants are: a. Douglas Steenland, the Debtors' chief executive officer; b. Terri Keimig, the Debtors' director of Retirement Savings and Stock Plans; c. Timothy Meginnes, vice president of Compensation Benefits; d. Michael Becker, senior vice president of Human Resources and Labor Relations; e. Daniel Matthews, senior vice president and treasurer; f. Robert Brodin, the Debtors' former senior vice president of Labor Relations and is currently a Debtors' consultant to supervising labor negotiations with the their pilots union; g. four current members of the Debtors' Board of Directors: -- Mr. Gary Wilson, -- Mr. Frederic Malek, -- Mr. Dennis Hightower, and -- Mr. George Kourpias; h. Richard Blum and V.A. Ravindran, the Debtors' former directors; i. Richard Anderson and John Dasburg, the Debtors' former chief executive officers; and j. James Mathews, the Debtors' former vice president of Finance and chief accounting officer.The Securities Complaint is also brought against the Debtors'current or former officers and board members: -- Mr. Steenland, -- Mr. Wilson, -- Bernard Han, a former officer, and -- Alfred Checchi, a former member of the Debtors' Board of Directors.Northwest previously filed a request to stay the Class Actions.The Court denied the Debtors' request, noting that there appearsto be a large deductible in the case that would leave thedefendants uninsured for up to $5,000,000 and that the insurer'sobligation to defend does not provide for defense costs in theinterim.Judge Gropper added that the Debtors have their remedies beforethe Court. He held that the incurrence of costs that the Debtorshave obligations to advance under their charter might constitutean immediate distraction.Gregory M. Petrick, Esq., at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP,in New York, notes that the Class Action Defendants are entitledunder applicable state law and Northwest's bylaws toindemnification, including the advancement of legal expenses,including attorneys' fees, incurred to defend the Class Actions.Northwest is the owner of two liability insurance policies: a. an Employee Benefit Plan Fiduciary Liability Insurance Policy with National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, as issuer, which provides coverage for loss, including defense costs, resulting from claims against Northwest, certain of its benefit plans, plan fiduciaries or administrators, arising from an actual or alleged violation of fiduciary duties with respect to an ERISA plan; and b. an Executive and Organization Liability Insurance Policy -- the D&O Policy -- with the National Union, which provides coverage for loss, including defense costs, arising from claims against an executive or employee of Northwest, arising from any actual or alleged act or omission by such executive or employee in his or her official capacity.Mr. Petrick discloses that, in the case of an indemnifiable loss,National Union is liable to Northwest for the amount of loss inexcess of the retention amount of $5,000,000 under each of theFiduciary Policy and the D&O Policy.In the event of a loss that Northwest has neither indemnified noris permitted or required to indemnify pursuant to law or contractor charter, bylaws, operating agreement or similar documents ofNorthwest, the Policies provide for coverage by National Unionwithout regard to any retention.Accordingly, the Debtors propose to advance the defense costs ofthe Class Action Defendants up to the retention amounts under thePolicies.Mr. Petrick asserts that it is in the Debtors' best intereststhat the Class Action Defendants not incur personal pecuniaryinjury because of their employment with the Debtors and as aresult of the Class Actions, which create the potential fordistraction of the Debtors' key employees from the task ofreorganizing. About Northwest AirlinesNorthwest Airlines Corporation (OTC: NWACQ) -- http://www.nwa.com/-- is the world's fourth largest airline with hubs at Detroit,Minneapolis/St. Paul, Memphis, Tokyo and Amsterdam, andapproximately 1,400 daily departures. Northwest is a member ofSkyTeam, an airline alliance that offers customers one of theworld's most extensive global networks. Northwest and its travelpartners serve more than 900 cities in excess of 160 countries onsix continents. The Company and 12 affiliates filed for chapter11 protection on Sept. 14, 2005 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No.05-17930). Bruce R. Zirinsky, Esq., and Gregory M. Petrick, Esq.,at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP in New York, and Mark C.Ellenberg, Esq., at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP inWashington represent the Debtors in their restructuring efforts.The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors has retained AkinGump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP as its bankruptcy counsel in theDebtors' chapter 11 cases. When the Debtors filed for protectionfrom their creditors, they listed $14.4 billion in total assetsand $17.9 billion in total debts. (Northwest Airlines BankruptcyNews, Issue No. 27; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc.,215/945-7000).NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Honeywell Wants $889,644 Claim Paid-------------------------------------------------------Honeywell International Inc., asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court forthe Southern District of New York to: -- allow its $889,644 administrative expense claim against Northwest Airlines Corp. and its debtor-affiliates; and -- direct the Debtors to promptly pay Honeywell's allowed claim.Pursuant to various prepetition executory contracts, Honeywellprovides service, repair and maintenance on aircraft componentsinstalled on the Debtors' aircraft. Honeywell also supplies theDebtors with parts related to its service, repair and maintenanceof the aircraft components.Brian H. Meldrum, Esq., at Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, Illinois,relates that the Debtors have refused to pay $889,644 in invoicesthat Honeywell issued for the postpetition delivery of newaircraft components, and maintenance and service on thoseequipment.In October 2005, Northwest Airlines, Inc., commenced an adversaryproceeding against Honeywell. According to Mr. Meldrum, theDebtors asked the Court to compel Honeywell to continue to repairtheir equipment, even though they were refusing to pay all ofHoneywell's postpetition invoices. The Debtors asserted thatHoneywell's repair services were \"essential to operate aircraft\".The Debtors, which have made partial payments of some of theinvoices, have not formally stated why they are refusing to payother, or parts of, invoices. Honeywell has gleaned, however,that the Debtors may be contending that some of the workperformed by Honeywell was performed prepetition, even though thefull repair was not complete until postpetition and under theapplicable contractual terms and conditions payments would nothave been due until all of the work was done, Mr. Meldrum tellsthe Court.\"If this is indeed [the Debtors'] purported justification forfailing to pay Honeywell, [their] position is without merit,\"asserts Mr. Meldrum. The Debtors' argument evidences afundamental misunderstanding about the calculation of the amountof administrative claims, he added.Mr. Meldrum informs the Court that the executory contractscontain confidentiality provisions prohibiting the parties fromdisclosing proprietary information. Therefore, any invoices orcontracts submitted to the Court must be submitted under seal.Honeywell is prepared to submit the applicable contracts andinvoices under seal should the Court request them.Northwest Airlines Corporation (OTC: NWACQ) -- http://www.nwa.com/-- is the world's fourth largest airline with hubs at Detroit,Minneapolis/St. Paul, Memphis, Tokyo and Amsterdam, andapproximately 1,400 daily departures. Northwest is a member ofSkyTeam, an airline alliance that offers customers one of theworld's most extensive global networks. Northwest and its travelpartners serve more than 900 cities in excess of 160 countries onsix continents. The Company and 12 affiliates filed for chapter11 protection on Sept. 14, 2005 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No.05-17930). Bruce R. Zirinsky, Esq., and Gregory M. Petrick, Esq.,at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP in New York, and Mark C.Ellenberg, Esq., at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP inWashington represent the Debtors in their restructuring efforts.The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors has retained AkinGump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP as its bankruptcy counsel in theDebtors' chapter 11 cases. When the Debtors filed for protectionfrom their creditors, they listed $14.4 billion in total assetsand $17.9 billion in total debts. (Northwest Airlines BankruptcyNews, Issue No. 27; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc.,215/945-7000).NRG ENERGY: Rejects Mirant Corp.'s $8 Billion Acquisition Proposal------------------------------------------------------------------Mirant Corporation made a proposal to acquire NRG Energy, Inc. ata premium of approximately 33% to NRG's share price as of Tuesday,May 30, 2006. The proposal would be immediately accretive to thepro forma free cash flow per share of Mirant. Mirant received afinancing commitment from JPMorgan of approximately $11.5 billionfor the transaction.NRG flatly rejected the proposal without engaging in anydiscussions with Mirant. Mirant continues to believe that theproposal creates significant value for the owners of bothcompanies and has decided to make its proposal public in a letterto NRG's board of directors.Edward R. Muller, Mirant's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,stated in the letter that:\"We were disappointed that you would reject so quickly on behalfof your shareholders, without any discussion with us, ouracquisition proposal of May 10, 2006, which provides yourshareholders a substantial premium to their share price and theopportunity to participate in the additional value creation weexpect from the combined company. We think that it is importantfor your shareholders to be informed of such a compellingopportunity, and, therefore, we are simultaneously releasing thisletter to the public.\"In the transaction we proposed, your shareholders would receive,at their election, $57.50 per share in cash or Mirant Corporationcommon stock at an exchange ratio of 2.25 Mirant shares for eachshare of NRG common stock, based upon our understanding that youhave 137.5 million fully diluted shares outstanding. Yourshareholders' elections to receive the total of approximately$3.9 billion in cash (representing 50% of the total consideration)or Mirant common stock would be subject to proration to preservethe 50/50 cash/stock mix in the deal.\"This transaction would provide a blended value of approximately$57.16 per share of NRG common stock and would represent asubstantial premium of approximately 33% to NRG's share price,based on the closing prices of Mirant and NRG on Tuesday, May 30,2006. In addition, your shareholders would receive a premium ofapproximately 33% to your one-year average trading price andapproximately 55% to your two-year average trading price.\"We think that a combination of Mirant and NRG would create anenterprise with significant opportunities for expense andoperational synergies and a national footprint that is withoutparallel. The combination would generate a number of specific andcompelling benefits. Our best estimate of the annual cost savingsfrom the reduction of overlapping functions is $150 million (basedon publicly available information), in addition to significantopportunities for cost savings from the procurement and use offuel and in the application of emissions credits. The combinationalso would diversify the risks associated with the assets andoperations of both companies. In addition, the combination wouldcreate the largest independent power company in the United Stateswith a strong presence in four key regions (Texas, Mid- Atlantic,Northeast and California). The combined company would have over43,000 megawatts globally, with over 37,500 megawatts in theUnited States. Approximately 32% of its domestic capacity wouldbe low-cost, baseload generating capacity. Finally, thecombination would enhance liquidity and value for the shareholdersof both companies. We estimate that the combined company wouldhave adjusted EBITDA for 2007 in excess of $3 billion. Thetransaction would be immediately accretive to Mirant's pro formafree cash flow per share. In short, we think that the combinedcompany would deliver superior returns to our combined shareholderbase, with benefits flowing to our respective customers, employeesand other constituencies as well.\"Mirant emerged from Chapter 11 on January 3, 2006, with whatmost observers characterize as the strongest balance sheet inthe industry. Since Jan. 3, 2006, a total of approximately275 million of our shares have traded, representing approximately92% of our total outstanding shares. Our hedging strategy hasbeen effective in reducing risk while improving our earningsprofile. We currently expect that cash flows from operationsthrough 2011 will be sufficient to fund our forecasted capitalexpenditures, including those for required environmental controls.Finally, we have a new management team with extensive experiencein the industry.\"We think that now is the right time to pursue a combination ofour companies, and we are committed to doing so on an expeditedbasis. Our Board of Directors has approved our proposal, and weare prepared to begin negotiations of the terms of our proposalwith you immediately and to enter into a definitive mergeragreement and complete the transaction as soon as possible. Wehave received a financing commitment from JPMorgan ofapproximately $11.5 billion which, when combined with ouravailable cash, will: * fund the cash portion of the purchase consideration for your common and, if necessary, preferred stock; * refinance your senior credit facilities; and * fund the purchase of your 7.250% Senior Notes and 7.375% Senior Notes pursuant to a change of control offer at a price equal to 101% of the aggregate principal amount, plus accrued and unpaid interest.\"The indebtedness of our subsidiaries, including Mirant AmericasGeneration, LLC and Mirant North America, LLC, would remain inplace. We expect that due diligence can be completed quickly. Inaddition, given the complementary geographies of our respectiveoperations, we expect that all regulatory approvals will beobtained expeditiously. With your cooperation, we think that wecan close the transaction in 2006.\"We expect your shareholders to respond enthusiastically to thistransaction: current shareholders who wish to exit will have theopportunity to do so at an attractive premium; those shareholderswho choose to continue as investors in the combined company willreceive both an attractive premium and have the opportunity toparticipate in the additional value creation we expect from thecombination. We believe ardently in the wisdom and strategicvalue of this transaction and the benefits it offers to ourcombined shareholders and stakeholders. This matter has thehighest priority for us.\" About MirantHeadquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Mirant Corporation --http://www.mirant.com/-- is a competitive energy company that produces and sells electricity in North America, the Caribbean,and the Philippines. Mirant owns or leases more than 18,000megawatts of electric generating capacity globally. MirantCorporation filed for chapter 11 protection on July 14, 2003(Bankr. N.D. Tex. 03-46590), and emerged under the terms of aconfirmed Second Amended Plan on Jan. 3, 2006. Thomas E.Lauria, Esq., at White & Case LLP, represented the Debtors intheir successful restructuring. When the Debtors filed forprotection from their creditors, they listed $20,574,000,000 inassets and $11,401,000,000 in debts. About NRG EnergyHeadquartered in Princeton, New Jersey, NRG Energy, Inc. -- http://www.nrgenergy.com/-- currently owns and operates a diverse portfolio of power-generating facilities, primarily in theNortheast, South Central and Western regions of the United States.Its operations include baseload, intermediate, peaking, andcogeneration facilities, thermal energy production and energyresource recovery facilities. NRG also has ownership interests ingenerating facilities in Australia and Germany. * * *As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Jan. 16, 2006,Fitch Ratings placed a 'BB' rating to NRG's $5.2 billion securedcredit facility, consisting of a $3.2 billion secured term loan Band $2 billion of revolving credit/synthetic letter of creditfacilities, a 'B' rating to NRG's proposed $3.6 billion issuanceof senior unsecured notes, and a 'CCC+' rating to NRG's proposedissuance of $500 million mandatory convertible preferred stock.In addition, Fitch has assigned NRG a 'B' issuer default rating,as well as recovery ratings for the debt instruments. Fitch saidthe Rating Outlook is Stable.As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Jan. 9, 2006,Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its 'B+' corporatecredit rating on power generation company NRG Energy Inc.Standard & Poor's assigned its 'BB-' rating and '1' recoveryrating to NRG's $3.2 billion first lien term loan B and$2 billion revolving credit and LOC facilities, 'B-' ratingto NRG's $3.6 billion unsecured notes, and 'CCC+' rating toNRG's $500 million mandatory convertible securities.The 'BB-' rating and '1' recovery rating on the $3.2 billionterm loan B and $2 billion revolving credit and LOC facilitiesindicate the expectation of full recovery of principal in theevent of a payment default. Standard & Poor's affirmed its 'CCC+'ratings on NRG's preferred stock issues. The stable outlookreflects Standard & Poor's view that NRG's credit quality shouldnot significantly deteriorate in the short term.NRG ENERGY: Board Believes Mirant Corp.'s Proposal Undervalues NRG------------------------------------------------------------------NRG Energy, Inc. confirmed, on May 30, 2006, that it has receivedan unsolicited proposal from Mirant Corporation regarding apotential combination in letters dated May 10 and 30, 2006.Consistent with its fiduciary duties and in consultation with itsfinancial advisor and legal counsel, NRG's Board of Directorsreviewed the Mirant proposal and deemed it not in the bestinterests of NRG shareholders. NRG shareholders do not need totake any action at this time.Citigroup is serving as financial advisor to NRG, and Skadden,Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP is legal counsel.On May 23, 2006, NRG sent a response letter to Edward R. Muller,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Mirant Corporation and theMirant Board of Directors.The letter from Howard Cosgrove, NRG's Chairman of the Board, andDavid Crane, NRG's President and Chief Executive Officer, statedthat:\"The Board of Directors of NRG Energy, Inc., with the assistanceof its financial and legal advisors, has reviewed and thoroughlyconsidered your May 10, 2006 letter. Based upon this review theBoard has unanimously rejected your proposal because it is not inthe best interests of NRG shareholders. The NRG Board hasspecifically authorized this response.\"As discussed below, the Board has found your proposal deficientin at least three key respects: * it significantly undervalues NRG; * our concerns about Mirant's value and your stock's relative lack of liquidity and trading history makes Mirant's stock an unacceptable currency; and, * finally, having taken into account trends and developments in the wholesale power generation sector, we do not believe this is the appropriate time to engage in a sale process.\"Having spent considerable time analyzing Mirant, its assets andprospects -- both during the three years you spent in bankruptcyand the four months since you emerged -- we have concluded thatMirant is a company and stock with flat earnings, little to nogrowth opportunity beyond 2007, substantial and imminentenvironmental capital expenditures, and significant EBITDAexposure to developing country risk. Additionally, with only afour-month trading history and an average daily trading volume of2.7 million shares during those four months, we believe thatMirant's stock lacks a sufficient track record and liquidity forus to recommend to our shareholders that they accept over 150million Mirant shares as you propose. These factors far outweighany synergistic benefits that might come from a combination of thetwo companies.\"For these reasons, NRG's Board and management strongly believethat our shareholders would be poorly served by being exposed toMirant's challenges through ownership of Mirant equity on theterms set forth in your proposal.On the question of timing, we believe our cyclical industry hasjust begun to emerge out of a multi-year trough and, over the nextcouple of years, we will experience continued robust commodityprices, supply shortfalls in our core regions, spark spreadrecovery and a rationalization of the utility industry in such away that the intrinsic value of NRG (and the value of NRG as apotential acquisition candidate) will rise rapidly. And we areconfident that we will be able to convert the rise in intrinsicvalue of NRG into increased market value. Over the past 24months, NRG's stock has appreciated 120% as the market hasrecognized the value of our asset mix, the soundness of ourstrategy and our track record in its implementation, including: * a diverse multi-regional domestic portfolio of 22,848 MW; * a substantial EBITDA growth rate past 2007 from hedges placed at rising prices; * a thriving brownfield development program across all regions; and * a history of returning capital to shareholders through two substantial share buybacks in the first 18 months of our existence.\"We are confident that our stock is poised for furtherappreciation as we capitalize on the positive industry trends andas the market comes to recognize our embedded growth potentialparticularly post-2007. In this regard, we note that the premiumreflected in your proposal is far less than the annual compoundaverage growth rate of NRG's share price appreciation.\"To clarify one point, your letter references past meetingsbetween you and our Chief Executive Officer, David Crane, on thetopic of combining NRG and Mirant. Our Company's strategicinterest in Mirant predates your tenure there and is well known toanyone who has read transcripts of your bankruptcy hearings. WhenMr. Crane discussed a combination of the two companies with youlast November, it was in the context of NRG acquiring Mirant,since at that time Mirant's stock was neither listed nor activelytraded. Once your company finally emerged from bankruptcy inJanuary 2006, our Board specifically reviewed the possibleacquisition of Mirant by NRG. We decided not to do so on thegrounds that at $25 per share Mirant's stock was overvalued, andwe were not willing to risk NRG's reputation for financialdiscipline on an overpriced bid for Mirant. When you approachedMr. Crane in March to propose a \"no premium\" acquisition of NRG byMirant, Mr. Crane advised you that such a transaction (at theprice for NRG's shares implied by your proposal) was not worthpursuing further given that it would be massively dilutive to NRGshareholders -- a point of view which neither you nor GoldmanSachs has ever attempted to refute.\"As you know, NRG believes that industry consolidation isinevitable, and we expect to participate -- either as a buyer or aseller. You should also know that we would only pursuetransactions that create unquestionable value for ourstockholders. Your proposal is simply the wrong deal at the wrongtime.\" About MirantHeadquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Mirant Corporation --http://www.mirant.com/-- is a competitive energy company that produces and sells electricity in North America, the Caribbean,and the Philippines. Mirant owns or leases more than 18,000megawatts of electric generating capacity globally. MirantCorporation filed for chapter 11 protection on July 14, 2003(Bankr. N.D. Tex. 03-46590), and emerged under the terms of aconfirmed Second Amended Plan on Jan. 3, 2006. Thomas E.Lauria, Esq., at White & Case LLP, represented the Debtors intheir successful restructuring. When the Debtors filed forprotection from their creditors, they listed $20,574,000,000 inassets and $11,401,000,000 in debts. About NRG EnergyHeadquartered in Princeton, New Jersey, NRG Energy, Inc. -- http://www.nrgenergy.com/-- currently owns and operates a diverse portfolio of power-generating facilities, primarily in theNortheast, South Central and Western regions of the United States.Its operations include baseload, intermediate, peaking, andcogeneration facilities, thermal energy production and energyresource recovery facilities. NRG also has ownership interests ingenerating facilities in Australia and Germany. * * *As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Jan. 16, 2006,Fitch Ratings placed a 'BB' rating to NRG's $5.2 billion securedcredit facility, consisting of a $3.2 billion secured term loan Band $2 billion of revolving credit/synthetic letter of creditfacilities, a 'B' rating to NRG's proposed $3.6 billion issuanceof senior unsecured notes, and a 'CCC+' rating to NRG's proposedissuance of $500 million mandatory convertible preferred stock.In addition, Fitch has assigned NRG a 'B' issuer default rating,as well as recovery ratings for the debt instruments. Fitch saidthe Rating Outlook is Stable.As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Jan. 9, 2006,Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its 'B+' corporatecredit rating on power generation company NRG Energy Inc.Standard & Poor's assigned its 'BB-' rating and '1' recoveryrating to NRG's $3.2 billion first lien term loan B and$2 billion revolving credit and LOC facilities, 'B-' ratingto NRG's $3.6 billion unsecured notes, and 'CCC+' rating toNRG's $500 million mandatory convertible securities.The 'BB-' rating and '1' recovery rating on the $3.2 billionterm loan B and $2 billion revolving credit and LOC facilitiesindicate the expectation of full recovery of principal in theevent of a payment default. Standard & Poor's affirmed its 'CCC+'ratings on NRG's preferred stock issues. The stable outlookreflects Standard & Poor's view that NRG's credit quality shouldnot significantly deteriorate in the short term.ONEIDA LTD: U.S. Trustee Appoints Three-Member Equity Committee---------------------------------------------------------------Diana G. Adams, the Acting United States Trustee for Region 2,appointed three equity holders to serve on an Official Committeeof Equity Security Holders in Oneida Ltd. and its debtor-affiliates' chapter 11 cases: 1. Xerion Partners LLC & Xerion Partners II Master Fund Limited c/o Xerion Capital Partners LLC Attn: Mr. Daniel J. Arbess 450 Park Avenue, 27th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 940-9822 Fax: (212) 287-0740 2. LKCM Partnership Attn: Mr. Todd Truitt 301 Commerce Street, Suite 1600 Forth Worth, TX 76102 Tel: (817) 332-3235 3. The Arbitrage Fund Attn: Mr. John S. Orrico 650 Fifth Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10019 Tel: (212) 259-2655Based in Oneida, New York, Oneida Ltd. -- http://www.oneida.com/-- is the world's largest manufacturer of stainless steel andsilverplated flatware for both the Consumer and Foodserviceindustries, and the largest supplier of dinnerware to thefoodservice industry. Oneida is also a leading supplier of avariety of crystal, glassware and metal serveware for the tabletopindustries. The Company and its 8 debtor-affiliates filed forChapter 11 protection on March 19, 2006 (Bankr. S.D. N.Y. CaseNos. 06-10489 through 06-10496). Douglas P. Bartner, Esq., atShearman & Sterling LLP represents the Debtors. Credit SuisseSecurities (USA) LLC is the Debtors' financial advisor. Scott L.Hazan, Esq., and Lorenzo Marinuzzi, Esq., at Otterbourg,Steindler, Houston & Rosen, P.C., represent the Official Committeeof Unsecured Creditors. When the Debtors filed for protectionfrom their creditors, they listed $305,329,000 in total assets and$332,227,000 in total debts. On May 12, 2006, Judge Gropperapproved the Debtors' disclosure statement.ONEIDA LTD: Court Okays Otterbourg Steindler as Panel's Counsel---------------------------------------------------------------The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors appointed in OneidaLtd. and its debtor-affiliates' bankruptcy cases obtainedpermission from the Honorable Allan L. Gropper of the U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York inManhattan to retain Otterbourg, Steindler, Houston & Rosen, P.C.,as its bankruptcy counsel, nunc pro tunc to April 13, 2006.Otterbourg Steindler will: (a) assist and advise the Committee in its consultation with the Debtors relative to the administration of the Debtors' bankruptcy cases; (b) attend meetings and negotiate with the representatives of the Debtors; (c) assist and advise the Committee in its examination and analysis of the conduct of the Debtors' affairs; (d) assist the Committe in the review, analysis and negotiation of the filed plan and disclusure statement, as well as any plan of reorganization or related disclosure statement that may be filed; (e) assist the Committee in the review, analysis, and negotiation of any financing agreements, including the proposed exit facility with Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and Credit Suisse; (f) take all necessary action to protect and preserve the interests of the Committee, including: (1) possible prosecution of actions on its behalf; (2) if appropriate, negotiations concerning all litigation in which the Debtors are involved; and (3) if appropriate, review and analysis of claims filed against the Debtors' estates; (g) generally prepare on behalf of the Committee all necessary motions, applications, answers, orders, reports and papers in support of positions taken by the Committee; (h) appear, as appropriate, before the Bankruptcy Court, the Appellate Courts, and the United States Trustee, and to protect the interests of the Committee before those courts and before the U.S. Trustee; and (i) perform all other necessary legal services in the Debtors' cases.Scott L. Hazan, Esq., a member at Otterbourg, Steindler, Houston &Rosen, P.C., discloses that the Firm's professionals bill: Designation Hourly Rate ----------- ----------- Partner or Counsel $490 - $725 Associate $240 - $525 Paralegal and Legal Assistant $125 - $195Mr. Hazan assures the Court that Otterbourg, Steindler, Houston &Rosen, P.C., is disinterested as that term is defined in Section101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code.Based in Oneida, New York, Oneida Ltd. -- http://www.oneida.com/-- is the world's largest manufacturer of stainless steel andsilverplated flatware for both the Consumer and Foodserviceindustries, and the largest supplier of dinnerware to thefoodservice industry. Oneida is also a leading supplier of avariety of crystal, glassware and metal serveware for the tabletopindustries. The Company and its 8 debtor-affiliates filed forChapter 11 protection on March 19, 2006 (Bankr. S.D. N.Y. CaseNos. 06-10489 through 06-10496). Douglas P. Bartner, Esq., atShearman & Sterling LLP represents the Debtors. Credit SuisseSecurities (USA) LLC is the Debtors' financial advisor. Scott L.Hazan, Esq., and Lorenzo Marinuzzi, Esq., at Otterbourg,Steindler, Houston & Rosen, P.C., represent the Official Committeeof Unsecured Creditors. When the Debtors filed for protectionfrom their creditors, they listed $305,329,000 in total assets and$332,227,000 in total debts. On May 12, 2006, Judge Gropperapproved the Debtors' disclosure statement.OPTINREALBIG.COM: Judge Tallman Dismisses Chapter 11 Cases----------------------------------------------------------The Honorable Howard R. Tallman of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court forthe District of Colorado dismissed the chapter 11 cases ofOptInRealBig.com, LLC, and its owner, Scott Allen Richter.The Debtors sought dismissal of their cases after reachingsettlements with Microsoft Corporation and American Family MutualInsurance Co. Microsoft and American Family each filed suitsagainst OptInRealBig prior to the company's bankruptcy filing.Microsoft's suit, along with separate related suits, allegedunsolicited e-mail violations. Consequently, American Family, asthe company's insurer, sought declaratory relief denying insurancecoverage for costs of defense and liability associated with thevarious lawsuits filed against the Debtors.In its decision, the Court concluded that the mediation of theDebtors' litigation matters will benefit most of its creditors.In addition, the Court ruled that Infinite Monkeys & Co., LLC maylitigate its claim against the Debtors in the state or federalcourts of California.Infinite Monkeys filed a $49,168,000 claim against the Debtors forrecoverable preferences and subsequently opposed dismissal of theDebtors' cases. The SettlementsAs reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Aug. 18, 2005,the Debtors filed for bankruptcy to stay 13 legal actions filedagainst them.To avoid the costly and time consuming litigations, the Debtorsengaged in settlement discussions with Microsoft and AmericanFamily, their primary adversaries.The Debtors agreed to pay Microsoft $7 million within 24 hoursafter their chapter 11 cases are dismissed. The Debtors alsoagreed with American Family for the release of a $2.6 millionclaim.Headquartered in Westminster, Colorado, OptinRealBig.com, LLC, isan e-mail marketing company. The Company filed for chapter 11protection on March 25, 2005 (Bankr. D. Colo. Case No. 05-16304).John C. Smiley, Esq., at Lindquist & Vennum P., LLP, representsthe Debtor. No Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors had beenappointed in this case. When the Debtor filed for protection fromits creditors, it listed estimated assets of $1 million to $10million and estimated debts of $50 million to $100 million.ORIS AUTOMOTIVE: BBK Okayed to Provide Management Support Services------------------------------------------------------------------The Honorable Tamara O Mitchell of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court forthe Northern District of Alabama in Birmingham gave OrisAutomotive Parts Alabama, Ltd., authority to employ BBK, Ltd.,nunc pro tunc to March 16, 2006, pursuant to Section 327 of theU.S. Bankruptcy Code.BBK will provide management and operations support services. BBKemployees who will work for the Debtor are: 1. Keith Updike will bill $220 per hour. He will act as the interim plant manager. He will manage the Debtor's hourly and salaried employees. 2. Walt Ledger will bill $220 per hour. He will expedite purchases of materials. He will also provide support to the assembly operation. 3. John Froelich will bill $185 per hour. He will support the engineering, welding, and fabrication departments. 4. John Parhar will bill $185 per hour. He will provide technical support. He will also oversee the Debtor's performance relative to addressing customer issues.The Debtor assures the Court that BBK has no interest adverse tothe Debtor or its estates.Headquartered in McCalla, Alabama, Oris Automotive Parts Alabama,Ltd. -- http://www.oris-gmbh.de/-- manufactures automotive parts. The company filed for chapter 11 protection on March 16, 2006(Bankr. N.D. Ala. Case No. 06-00813). Clark R. Hammond, Esq., atJohnston, Barton, Proctor & Powell LLP, represents the Debtor inits restructuring efforts. When the Debtor filed for protectionfrom its creditors, it estimated assets between $1 million to$10 million and debts between $10 million to $50 million.OWENS CORNING: Wants to Expand Ernst & Young's Scope of Employment------------------------------------------------------------------Owens Corning and its debtor-affiliates want to further expand thescope of Ernst & Young LLP's employment to include: a. additional tax advisory services with respect to the Debtors' management of intellectual property, global equity compensation plans and international restructuring; and b. accounting services in support of the Debtors' preparation for the hearing to consider confirmation of their Fifth Amended Plan of Reorganization.Specifically, the Debtors propose that Ernst & Young performthese additional services:A. Intellectual Property Planning * Providing analysis of the tax implications associated with various intellectual property management and ownership alternatives, including re-evaluating the Debtors' current structure from a state and local tax planning perspective. * Providing analysis of the ability and potential tax cost/benefit opportunities for the Debtors to migrate ownership of economic rights to selected technologies currently in development. * Providing assistance with the formulation of a strategy for a proposed restructuring that will involve the execution of a cost sharing arrangement under current cost sharing regulations. * Providing assistance with respect to the preparation of necessary agreements regarding implementation of the proposed restructuring. * Providing a post-implementation review plan for monitoring of the ongoing management of the Debtors' intellectual property.B. Equity Compensation Plans * Assisting the Debtors in their review of the tax requirements associated with the implementation of equity compensation plans to employees worldwide. * Conducting a tax feasibility review with respect to identifying key compliance issues and obstacles regarding equity plan implementation and tax due diligence and expatriate tax due diligence. * Providing assistance to the Debtors with respect to chargeback and corporate tax deduction issues. * Conducting meetings and conference calls with the Debtors to discuss legislative changes and developments that may impact the proposed equity compensation plans. * Providing assistance regarding, among other things, necessary tax filings, the calculation of taxable gain and various valuation and other services with respect to the tax issues and implications of the equity compensation plans.C. International Restructuring * Providing assistance, tax advisory and related valuation services with respect to analyzing, developing and implementing an international holding company structure designed to assist the Debtors with, among others, an efficient post-emergence foreign cash management vehicle, cash repatriation and international expansion. * Designing and implementing a variety of strategies to reduce foreign country income tax liabilities, specifically in Canada, Brazil and Mexico.The Debtors propose that Ernst & Young will provide theadditional confirmation accounting services, for and at thedirection of Saul Ewing LLP and Sidley Austin LLP, the Debtors'bankruptcy counsel. Owens Corning VP and General Counsel John W.Christy advises the Court that specific terms and conditions thatwill govern the provision of the accounting services are stillsubject to final documentation. Thus, the Debtors plan to submitadditional documents to supplement the Application.As set forth in their Fifth Amended Plan, the Debtors are seekingto re-establish the use of equity compensation plans to attractand retain employees, provide incentives to them and to alignemployee interests with those of the Debtors after emergence. Tothat end, the Debtors proposed the distribution of equity awardsto their employees around the world under two equity compensationplans.In connection with the equity compensation plan services, Ernst &Young will be coordinating with its allied law firm, Donahue &Partners LLP.Mr. Christy notes that the firm has already commenced performingsome of the additional services on April 1, 2006.Pursuant to Section 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtorsseek the Court's permission to expand Ernst & Young's employmentto include the additional services, nunc pro tunc to April 1,2006.The firm's professionals presently expected to have primaryresponsibility for providing services to the Debtors and theircurrent hourly rates are: IP Planning & Equity Comp. Billing Category Restructuring Plans ---------------- ------------- ------------ National Principal/Partner $840 - $640 $840 - $640 Principal/Partner $600 - $480 $677 - $611 Manager/Senior Manager $480 - $345 $583 - $403 Senior/Staff $320 - $160 $321 - $200Ernst & Young updates its billing rates annually on July 1.Owens Corning (OTC: OWENQ.OB) (BULLETIN BOARD: OWENQ.OB) --http://www.owenscorning.com/-- manufactures fiberglass insulation, roofing materials, vinyl windows and siding, patiodoors, rain gutters and downspouts. Headquartered in Toledo,Ohio, the Company filed for chapter 11 protection on Oct. 5, 2000(Bankr. Del. Case. No. 00-03837). Norman L. Pernick, Esq., atSaul Ewing LLP, represents the Debtors. Elihu Inselbuch, Esq., atCaplin & Drysdale, Chartered, represents the Official Committee ofAsbestos Creditors. James J. McMonagle serves as the LegalRepresentative for Future Claimants and is represented by EdmundM. Emrich, Esq., at Kaye Scholer LLP. (Owens Corning BankruptcyNews, Issue No. 131; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc.,215/945-7000)PARTS PLUS: Del. Bank. Court Closes Remaining Chapter 11 Case------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Brendan Linehan Shannon of the U.S. Bankruptcy Courtfor the District of Delaware entered a final decree closing TheParts Plus Group, Inc.'s chapter 11 case, at Parts Plus' request.Peter C. Hughes, Esq., at Dilworth Paxson LLP, in Philadelphia,Pennsylvania, reminded the Court that the Debtors' First AmendedJoint Liquidating Plan of Reorganization took effect onNov. 10, 2003. On May 28, 2004, the Court closed the bankruptcycases of each of the subsidiary Debtors.Parts Plus has no ongoing operations, Mr. Hughes pointed out. Thefew remaining accounts receivable have been assigned to PartsPlus' secured lender. All of Parts Plus' other assets has beenliquidated. Under the Plan, the collected cash account, which isthe source of funds to pay unsecured creditors, is to be createdand administered by the liquidation administrator. Accordingly,there are no further assets for the Debtor to administer.The Parts Plus Group, Inc., was a distributor of auto partsserving independent and chain car repair shops, new car dealers,municipalities and other fleet owners in the Eastern UnitedStates. The Company and its debtor-affiliates filed for chapter11 protection on March 24, 2003 (Bankr. Del. Case No. 03-10875).Peter C Hughes, Esq., and Derrick A. Dyer, Esq., at DilworthPaxson LLP represent the Debtors in their restructuring efforts.Charles J. Brown, Esq., at Elzufon Austin Reardon Tarlov & Mondelland William David Sullivan, Esq., at Buchanan Ingersoll PCrepresent the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.PATH 1: Posts $1.7 Million Net Loss in Quarter Ended March 31-------------------------------------------------------------Path 1 Network Technologies Inc. filed its first quarter financialstatements for the three months ended March 31, 2006, with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on May 23, 2006.The Company reported a $1,770,000 net loss on $614,000 of revenuesfor the three months ended March 31, 2006.At March 31, 2006, the Company's balance sheet showed $2,333,000in total assets and $4,456,000 in total liabilities, resulting ina $2,136,000 stockholders' deficit.The Company's March 31 balance sheet also showed strainedliquidity with $1,201,000 in total current assets available topay $2,032,000 in total current liabilities coming due within thenext 12 months.Full-text copies of the Company's financial statements for thethree months ended March 31, 2006, are available for free athttp://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?a0f Going Concern DoubtSwenson Advisors, LLP, in New York, raised substantial doubt aboutPath 1 Network Technologies Inc.'s ability to continue as agoing concern after auditing the Company's consolidated financialstatements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005. The auditor pointedto the Company's operating losses and inability to raiseadditional capital.Path 1 Network Technologies Inc. provides a variety of softwareand services used for real-time, high-quality audio and video-on-demand distribution over Internet Protocol. Its Cx1000 broadcastvideo gateway is used to transmit and receive ASI and SDI videoimages over FastE and Gigabit Ethernet network interfaces. PaulsonCapital owns almost 14% of it.PBS HOLDING: March 31 Balance Sheet Upside Down by $486,382-----------------------------------------------------------PBS Holding, Inc., filed its first quarter financial statementsfor the three months ended March 31, 2006, with the Securities andExchange Commission on May 19, 2006.The Company reported a $398,171 net loss on $1,229,840 of revenuesfor the three months ended March 31, 2006.At March 31, 2006, the Company's balance sheet showed $702,191 intotal assets and $1,188,573 in total liabilities, resulting in a$486,382 stockholders' deficit.The Company's March 31 balance sheet also showed strainedliquidity with $644,048 in total current assets available to pay$1,171,906 in total current liabilities coming due within the next12 months.Full-text copies of the Company's financial statements for thethree months ended March 31, 2006, are available for free athttp://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?9f6 Going Concern DoubtMadsen & Associates CPAs'. INC. in Murray, Utah, raisedsubstantial doubt about PBS Holding, Inc.'s ability to continue asa going concern after auditing the Company's consolidatedfinancial statements for the years ended Dec. 31, 2005, and 2004.The auditor pointed to the Company's need for additional workingcapital for its planned activity and to service its debt.PBS Holding, Inc., provides human resource outsourcing servicesthrough its subsidiaries, PBS LLC, Primary HR and AHJR.PLIANT: Wells Fargo Says Plan Violates Indentures & Bankr. Code---------------------------------------------------------------In February 2006, Well Fargo Bank, N.A., succeeded WilmingtonTrust Company in its capacity as indenture trustee and became theSecond Lien Indenture Trustee under the Second Lien NotesIndenture.\"Despite the contentions of the Debtors, these bankruptcy caseswould not be doomed by denial or delay of confirmation of thePlan [of Reorganization],\" Howard A. Cohen, Esq., at DrinkerBiddle & Reath LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware, asserts.\"Rather denial or delay of confirmation would permit the partiesan opportunity to preserve the full value of the Debtors andavoid a further financial restructuring or subsequent bankruptcyproceeding through either the confirmation of a permissible planor a plan that restructures the Debtors' capital structure, trulyright sizes the Debtors' balance sheet, ensures solvency andimproves liquidity.\"Mr. Cohen tells Judge Walrath that one of the most obviousdefects of the Plan is that it improperly classifies the Class 5Second Lien Note Claims as unimpaired and thus does not complywith Sections 1129(a)(1) and (8) of the Bankruptcy Code.Although the Plan asserts that the Claims of the Second LienNoteholders are unimpaired, and classifies them as such, thoseclaims are clearly impaired as the treatment provided under thePlan does not \"leave[] unaltered the legal, equitable, andcontractual rights\" to which the Second Lien Notes Indenture areentitled, Mr. Cohen maintains.Moreover, the Plan proposes to issue Tack-On Notes -- additionalFirst Lien Notes -- to Holders of Class 7 Old Note Claimspursuant to the First Lien Notes Indenture, which makes the Tack-On Notes secured instruments. Consequently, the Plan, ifconfirmed, would effectuate a mechanism whereby a portion of theOld Note Claim would be transformed from unsecured debt intosecured debt. Mr. Cohen points out that not only would it besecured debt, but it would be senior to that of the Second LienNoteholders -- to whom the Old Noteholders are contractuallysubordinated.The Debtors also seek to provide Old Noteholders with a\"Bondholder Additional Consideration,\" which is an amount in cashequal to 1% of the principal amount of Old Notes held by a holderof an Old Note Claim. The Debtors define the BondholderAdditional Consideration as \"not a payment in respect of suchprincipal amount of Old Notes but instead shall be a payment onaccount of the acceptance of the Plan by Class 7,\" Mr. Cohennotes.There is no basis under the Bankruptcy Code to provide aconstituency with any sort of payment or distribution other thanon account of a claim, Mr. Cohen contends.Thus, Wells Fargo asserts that the Plan should not be confirmedbecause: (a) it seeks to impermissibly alter the contractual rights between non-debtor third parties, in violation of Section 510 of the Bankruptcy Code; (b) it violates the Second Lien Note Indenture and Old Notes Indenture by the issuance of the Tack-on Notes; or the alternative, New Subordinated Notes, Bondholder Additional Consideration and payment of the Consenting Noteholders' Professional Fees, in violation of Sections 510 and 1129(a)(1) and contrary to the X-Clause Provision contained in the Second Lien Notes Indenture; and (c) the payment of the Bondholder Additional Consideration violates Sections 1123(a)(3) and (6), 1129(a)(1) and 1129(b)(2)(B).Wells Fargo asks the Court to: (a) deny confirmation of the Plan; or (b) in the alternative, withhold the confirmation of the Plan until the issues it raised have been addressed satisfactorily or the Plan is amended consistent with its Objection and the Bankruptcy Code.Headquartered in Schaumburg, Illinois, Pliant Corporation --http://www.pliantcorp.com/- produces value-added film and flexible packaging products for personal care, medical, food,industrial and agricultural markets. The Debtor and 10 of itsaffiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on Jan. 3, 2006(Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 06-10001). James F. Conlan, Esq.,at Sidley Austin LLP, and Edmon L. Morton, Esq., and Robert S.Brady, Esq., at Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, represent theDebtors in their restructuring efforts. The Debtors tappedMcMillan Binch Mendelsohn LLP, as their Canadian bankruptcycounsel. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice named RSMRichter, Inc., as the Debtors' information officer in theirrestructuring proceeding under Companies Creditors Arrangement Actin Canada. Kenneth A. Rosen, Esq., at Lowenstein Sandler, P.C.,serves as counsel to the Official Committee of UnsecuredCreditors. Don A. Beskrone, Esq., at Ashby & Geddes, P.A., islocal counsel to the Creditors' Committee. As of Sept. 30, 2005,the company had $604,275,000 in total assets and $1,197,438,000 intotal debts. (Pliant Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 14; BankruptcyCreditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)REFCO INC: Must Produce Documents for Noteholders' Committee------------------------------------------------------------The Hon. Robert Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court forthe Southern District of New York directed Refco Inc., and itsdebtor-affiliates to produce documents responsive to discoveryrequests to be served by the Ad Hoc Committee of holders of the9.0% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2012 issued by Refco FinanceInc. and Refco Group Ltd., LLC.Absent further Court order, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, andMesirow Financial Consulting, the Noteholders Committee'sprofessionals, may review those documents produced in response todocument requests. Stroock and Mesirow will not disclosedocuments to the extent not otherwise available to theNoteholders Committee, the general public or any other entity.However, documents may be provided to any party already subjectto an applicable confidentiality agreement.To the extent that a follow-up information from the Debtors isrequired, the Noteholders Committee and the Debtors will firstdiscuss a consensual resolution of that request in a timelymanner.Disputes relating to Discovery Requests and Follow-up Informationmay be considered by the Court on an expedited basis. Rule 2004 RequestThe Noteholders want to obtain discovery of the Debtors, pursuantto Section 1109(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and Rule 2004 of theFederal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure in order to start analyzingintercompany claims, so as to determine the rights of the variouscreditors and parties-in-interest in the Debtors' cases.The Noteholders believe it is imperative that all creditors beable to get an understanding of the intercompany claims as soonas possible. They are concerned that this effort has been put onthe back burner while the litigation between the Refco CapitalMarkets, Ltd. account holders and the Debtors -- to enable theAccount Parties to determine their individual rights against theDebtors and other creditors and parties-in-interest -- hasmonopolized the Debtors' time and resources.The Noteholders want to receive basic information likely withinthe Debtors' immediate control that will permit them to begin anintercompany claims analysis, including the Debtors' balancesheets, general ledgers and trial balances, as well as responsivedocuments that the Debtors have already produced to otherparties-in-interest, like the Creditors' Committee, AlixPartnersand FTI Consulting.After the Intercompany Information is digested and analyzed, theNoteholders would like to obtain more detailed information andwould expect to obtain access to various of the Debtors'employees and professionals who could provide an explanation ofrelevant transactions. The Noteholders would anticipateconducting this second stage analysis in coordination with theDebtors, the Creditors' Committee, and their professionals on anagreed upon timetable.The Noteholders' request seeks limited discovery and is anattempt to begin to level the informational playing field thathas been tilted in favor of parties other than the Noteholderssince the inception of these cases, Michael J. Sage, Esq., atStroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, in New York, tell the Court.The Noteholders collectively hold approximately: (i) $210 million of the $390 million outstanding issuance of the 9% Senior Subordinated Notes; and (ii) $278 million of the $648 million due and owing pursuant to a Credit Agreement dated August 5, 2004.In the aggregate, the Noteholders hold over 53% of the Notes andover 42% of the Bank Debt. About Refco Inc.Based in New York, New York, Refco Inc. -- http://www.refco.com/-- is a diversified financial services organization withoperations in 14 countries and an extensive global institutionaland retail client base. Refco's worldwide subsidiaries aremembers of principal U.S. and international exchanges, and areamong the most active members of futures exchanges in Chicago, NewYork, London and Singapore. In addition to its futures brokerageactivities, Refco is a major broker of cash market products,including foreign exchange, foreign exchange options, governmentsecurities, domestic and international equities, emerging marketdebt, and OTC financial and commodity products. Refco is one ofthe largest global clearing firms for derivatives.The Company and 23 of its affiliates filed for chapter 11protection on Oct. 17, 2005 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 05-60006).J. Gregory Milmoe, Esq., at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & FlomLLP, represent the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. Luc A.Despins, Esq., at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, representsthe Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. Refco reported$16.5 billion in assets and $16.8 billion in debts to theBankruptcy Court on the first day of its chapter 11 cases.Refco LLC, an affiliate, filed for chapter 7 protection onNov. 25, 2005 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 05-60134). Refco, LLC, isa regulated commodity futures company that has businesses in theUnited States, London, Asia and Canada. Refco, LLC, filed forbankruptcy protection in order to consummate the sale ofsubstantially all of its assets to Man Financial Inc., a whollyowned subsidiary of Man Group plc. (Refco Bankruptcy News, IssueNo. 30; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)REFCO INC: Chapter 7 Trustee Can Liquidate Customer Claims----------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New Yorkmodified the automatic stay in Refco, LLC's chapter 7 proceedingsin order for Albert Togut, Esq., the interim Chapter 7 trusteeappointed to oversee the liquidation of Refco LLC's estate, toliquidate customer claims that are asserted in a \"specializedtribunal\" in which the Customer Litigation is currently pending.As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Apr. 21, 2006, asof Nov. 25, 2005, Refco, LLC, was a defendant in certain lawsuitspending in federal or state courts, in preparation proceedingspending before the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and inarbitration proceedings pending before the National FuturesAssociation.Vincent E. Lazar, Esq., at Jenner & Block LLP, in Chicago,Illinois, relates that substantially all of the CustomerLitigation involves claims asserted by customers of Refco LLCarising out of trading in accounts maintained at Refco LLC.Certain of the Customer Litigation Claims are subject tomandatory arbitration under the applicable agreements and law.In accordance with Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code,prosecution of the Customer Litigation is currently stayed as toRefco LLC. However, certain of the Customer Litigation, inparticular preparations proceedings pending before the CFTC wherean employee or introducing broker has been named as a co-defendant with Refco LLC, is continuing against the non-debtordefendants.Prior to filing for chapter 7 liquidation, Refco LLC wasrepresented in a significant percentage of the Customer Litigationby in-house counsel, who on occasion, also jointly representedemployees or introducing brokers who had been named as co-defendants in the litigation.Mr. Lazar asserts that the employees and introducing brokersnamed in continuing Customer Litigation generally have continuedto be represented by counsel, but Refco LLC has not beenrepresented or participated in any ongoing litigation.Refco LLC was also represented in litigation against customers byseveral sets of outside counsel. Mr. Lazar says that two ofthose two law firms have been engaged by Mr. Togut, to representhim in Customer Litigation and other specialized commoditiesdisputes with customers or brokers.A list of Refco LLC's Customer Litigation Claims is available forfree at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?81cMr. Togut will be represented in the Customer Litigation by aspecial counsel with experience in litigation and who previouslyrepresented Refco LLC in similar matters. Therefore, Mr. Togutbelieves that he is in the best position to effectively contestthe Customer Litigation Claims.With respect to Customer Litigation where an employee orintroducing broker has been named as a co-defendant with RefcoLLC, Mr. Lazar contends that the estate's interests could beprejudiced if Mr. Togut is not represented in the ongoinglitigation.Mr. Togut notes that certain of the Customer Litigation Claimsare subject to mandatory arbitration, and likely could not belitigated before the Court in any event.Considering the bar date that has been established for filingproofs of claim against the Debtor's estate, Mr. Togut intends toexpeditiously review all claims and promptly file objections toany invalid or contested claims.Mr. Togut asserts that commencing immediately the process ofliquidating Customer Litigation Claims will facilitate the promptadministration and distribution of the Debtor's estate.Mr. Togut notes that there may be additional Customer LitigationClaims of which he is unaware. In the event he determines thatit is in the estate's interests for the automatic stay to belifted, Mr. Togut seeks the Court's authority to file asupplemental document to identify any Additional CustomerLitigation Claims. About Refco Inc.Based in New York, New York, Refco Inc. -- http://www.refco.com/-- is a diversified financial services organization withoperations in 14 countries and an extensive global institutionaland retail client base. Refco's worldwide subsidiaries aremembers of principal U.S. and international exchanges, and areamong the most active members of futures exchanges in Chicago, NewYork, London and Singapore. In addition to its futures brokerageactivities, Refco is a major broker of cash market products,including foreign exchange, foreign exchange options, governmentsecurities, domestic and international equities, emerging marketdebt, and OTC financial and commodity products. Refco is one ofthe largest global clearing firms for derivatives.The Company and 23 of its affiliates filed for chapter 11protection on Oct. 17, 2005 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 05-60006).J. Gregory Milmoe, Esq., at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & FlomLLP, represent the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. Luc A.Despins, Esq., at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, representsthe Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. Refco reported$16.5 billion in assets and $16.8 billion in debts to theBankruptcy Court on the first day of its chapter 11 cases.Refco LLC, an affiliate, filed for chapter 7 protection onNov. 25, 2005 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 05-60134). Refco, LLC, isa regulated commodity futures company that has businesses in theUnited States, London, Asia and Canada. Refco, LLC, filed forbankruptcy protection in order to consummate the sale ofsubstantially all of its assets to Man Financial Inc., a whollyowned subsidiary of Man Group plc. (Refco Bankruptcy News, IssueNo. 30; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)ROO GROUP: Posts $2.6 Mil. Net Loss in 2006 First Fiscal Quarter----------------------------------------------------------------ROO Group, Inc., filed its first quarter financial statements forthe three months ended March 31, 2006, with the Securities andExchange Commission on May 19, 2006.The Company reported a $2,647,000 net loss on $1,780,000 ofrevenues for the three months ended March 31, 2006.At March 31, 2006, the Company's balance sheet showed $8,875,000in total assets, $2,940,000 in total liabilities, $123,000 inminority interest, and $5,812,000 in stockholders' equity.Full-text copies of the Company's financial statements for thethree months ended March 31, 2006, are available for free athttp://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?9e6 Going Concern DoubtAs reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on May 29, 2006,Moore Stephens, P.C., in New York, raised substantial doubt aboutROO Group, Inc.'s ability to continue as a going concern afterauditing the Company's consolidated financial statements for theyear ended Dec. 31, 2005. The auditor pointed to the Company'srecurring losses and negative cash flows from operations.ROO Group, Inc. -- http://www.roo.com/-- is a global provider of digital media solutions and technology that enables theactivation, marketing and distribution of digital media videocontent over the Internet and emerging broadcasting platforms suchas set top boxes and wireless. ROO offers turnkey video solutionsfor businesses seeking to improve their web presence with videobroadcasts or broadcast their own latest video clips. ROO helpsbusiness advertise their latest offering with interactiveadvertising solutions, 15-30 second video commercials with alinked call to action and played simultaneously with topical videocontent in a television style format over the Internet.SAINT VINCENTS: Queens Hospital Sale Hearing Set for June 26------------------------------------------------------------As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on May 16, 2006,Saint Vincents Catholic Medical Centers of New York and itsdebtor-affiliates are seeking to sell Mary Immaculate Hospital andSt. John's Queen's Hospital located in Queens, New York, andcertain related assets.The Debtors have entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement withCaritas Health Care Planning, Inc., an affiliate of WyckoffHeights Medical Center for the sale of the Queens Hospitals andrelated assets, subject to higher or better offers receivedthrough a bidding process and auction.The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New Yorkwill convene a hearing on June 26, 2006, at 2:00 p.m., toconsider: (a) approval of the Sale of the Queens Assets to Caritas Health Care Planning, Inc., or other Successful Bidders; (b) the proposed assumption and assignment of the Assumed Contracts and Leases and related cure claims in connection with the Sale; and (c) any issues or objections that are timely interposed by any parties. ResponsesA) Patsy Merola & GAICPatsy Merola and Great American Insurance Company, as contingentsubrogee of Mr. Merola, complain that the Sale Motion failed to: (a) recognize the lien of the $2,652,538 judgment awarded in Mr. Merola's favor on October 9, 2003; (b) furnish Mr. Merola or GAIC \"adequate protection\" for the Sale free and clear of Mr. Merola's judgment lien; and (c) preserve their rights and positions.Accordingly, Mr. Merola and GAIC ask the Court to deny theDebtors' Proposed Sale unless they are furnished with adequateprotection.B) DASNYThe Dormitory Authority of the State of New York tells the Courtthat it has not provided its consent to the transfer of (i) theDebtors' interests in a parcel of land where which St. Dominic'sFamily Health Center Clinic was to be constructed and (ii) thelease agreements related to that property land.DASNY says it may approve and consent to the transfer of theLeased Property and the assumption and assignment of the St.Dominic's Lease Agreements if, among other things: (1) the Debtors and the Successful Bidder or Caritas Health Care secure the necessary regulatory approvals and assure DASNY that the St. Dominic's Family Health Center Clinic will remain a \"health facility\"; and (2) DASNY will have received and accepted an opinion of counsel that the Sale and the assumption of the Assumed Liabilities will not adversely affect the exclusion from gross income of the interest on the Series 1996A Bonds for federal income tax purposes.DASNY reserves its right to object to the Proposed Sale on anygrounds and any proposed assumption or rejection of the St.Dominic's Lease Agreements.Accordingly, DASNY asks the Court to deny the Debtors' request asit relates to the Leased Property and the St. Dominic's LeaseAgreements absent its consent and approval.C) Primary CarePrimary Care Development Corporation seeks to: * confirm that its Operating Lease will be assumed by the Debtors and assigned to Caritas Health Care Planning, Inc.; * clarify that the Debtors' interest in the St. Dominic Facility will be transferred and assigned to Caritas Health Care; * confirm that any transfer and assignment will be subject to all of the Primary Care Liens; * confirm that the Primary Care Liens will not be primed in any manner; and * confirm that the Debtors and Caritas Health Care have taken all necessary steps to ensure that the tax exempt status of the St. Dominic Bonds is preserved and that all required approvals have been or will be obtained prior to closing.Accordingly, Primary Care asks the Court to condition the sale ofthe St. Dominic Facility and the assumption and assignment of theOperating Lease on the Debtors' agreement to incorporate each ofthe Clarifications into the final sale order.D) NYSNAThe New York State Nurses Association supports the Debtors'Propose Sale.However, Avrum J. Rosen, Esq., counsel for the NYSNA, notes thatthe Proposed Sale has provisions for the deletion of certainexecutory contracts at the election of the purchaser after theapproval of the transaction.Mr. Rosen states that under applicable law, the assets of theQueens Hospitals and related facilities cannot be sold free andclear of any collective bargaining agreement without compliancewith the dictates of Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code.Mr. Rosen notes that the present Purchase Agreement complies withthe applicable law. Any attempt to modify or terminate a CBAunder the proposed sale must comply with Section 1113, Mr. Rosenasserts.Accordingly, the NYSNA asks the Court to approve the Sale incompliance with applicable law.E) Creditors CommitteeThe Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors also supports theDebtors' Proposed Sale.The Committee reserves its rights to object to particularprovisions of the Purchase Agreement or terms of the ProposedSale at the sale hearing.The Committee also reserves its rights to assert its position asto the highest and best bid submitted and to assert theappropriate factors for the Court to use in ultimatelydetermining the highest and best bid. About Saint VincentsHeadquartered in New York, New York, Saint Vincents CatholicMedical Centers of New York -- http://www.svcmc.org/-- the largest Catholic healthcare providers in New York State, operatehospitals, health centers, nursing homes and a home health agency.The hospital group consists of seven hospitals located throughoutBrooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, and Staten Island, along with fournursing homes and a home health care agency. The Company and sixof its affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on July 5, 2005(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 05-14945 through 05-14951). GaryRavert, Esq., and Stephen B. Selbst, Esq., at McDermott Will &Emery, LLP, filed the Debtors' chapter 11 cases. On Sept. 12,2005, John J. Rapisardi, Esq., at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP tookover representing the Debtors in their restructuring efforts.Martin G. Bunin, Esq., at Thelen Reid & Priest LLP, represents theOfficial Committee of Unsecured Creditors. As of Apr. 30, 2005,the Debtors listed $972 million in total assets and $1 billion intotal debts. (Saint Vincent Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 26;Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)SAINT VINCENTS: Sets Up Staten Island Sale Bidding Guidelines-------------------------------------------------------------Saint Vincents Catholic Medical Centers of New York and itsdebtor-affiliates ask the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York to establish uniform bidding procedures forthe sale of St. Vincent's Hospital, Staten Island.The Debtors intend to value highly, bids that propose to continuethe acute care and other programs at St. Vincent's Hospital,Staten Island. Accordingly, the Debtors and Bayonne MedicalCenter Bayonne have agreed to Bidding Procedures, which willgovern the submission of bids for all or a portion of theHospital.George A. Davis, Esq., at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, in NewYork, explains that to participate in the bidding process, abidder must first deliver to the Debtors an executedconfidentiality agreement, a written non-binding expression ofinterest, and thereafter a Qualified Bid.To be a Qualified Bid, a bid must: (a) be on the same terms and conditions as those in the Debtors' Purchase Agreement with Castleton Acquisition Corporation, an affiliate of Bayonne Medical Center Bayonne, and must include an agreement substantially similar to the Purchase Agreement; (b) include a purchase price that is greater than $28,500,000 if for all or substantially all of the Hospital's Assets; and (c) be accompanied by a deposit equal to at least $1,000,000.All bids must be received by 5:00 p.m. New York Time on June 30,2006.Where the assets covered by a competing bid include the Hospital,the Debtors will also consider the competing bid's impact on: * the continuation of the Hospital as an acute care facility, if possible; * the continuation of graduate medical education at the Hospital; * the Debtors' commitment to the operation of the Hospital in accordance with Catholic ethical and religious directives for the operation of a healthcare facility; and * the Debtors' ability to minimize their losses related to the Hospital prior to the Closing Date.The Debtors propose to hold an auction at 11:00 a.m. New YorkTime on July 10, 2006.The Auction will be held if one or more Qualified Bids ofsufficient value is received before the Bid Deadline.The Debtors also propose to publish a Notice of Auction and SaleHearing once in The Wall Street Journal (National Edition).Headquartered in New York, New York, Saint Vincents CatholicMedical Centers of New York -- http://www.svcmc.org/-- the largest Catholic healthcare providers in New York State, operatehospitals, health centers, nursing homes and a home health agency.The hospital group consists of seven hospitals located throughoutBrooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, and Staten Island, along with fournursing homes and a home health care agency. The Company and sixof its affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on July 5, 2005(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 05-14945 through 05-14951). GaryRavert, Esq., and Stephen B. Selbst, Esq., at McDermott Will &Emery, LLP, filed the Debtors' chapter 11 cases. On Sept. 12,2005, John J. Rapisardi, Esq., at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP tookover representing the Debtors in their restructuring efforts.Martin G. Bunin, Esq., at Thelen Reid & Priest LLP, represents theOfficial Committee of Unsecured Creditors. As of Apr. 30, 2005,the Debtors listed $972 million in total assets and $1 billion intotal debts. (Saint Vincent Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 26;Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)SAINT VINCENTS: Wants to Pay $375,000 Break-up Fee to Castleton---------------------------------------------------------------Saint Vincents Catholic Medical Centers of New York and itsdebtor-affiliates ask the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York to allow the payment of a $375,000 break-upfee and up to $375,000 expense reimbursement to CastletonAcquisition Corporation, an affiliate of Bayonne Medical CenterBayonne, in the event the Debtors sell St. Vincent's Hospital,Staten Island to another bidder.The Debtors contend that the Break-Up Fee and ExpenseReimbursement are reasonable in relation to the size of theproposed sale. Under the Debtors' Purchase Agreement withCastleton, the Break-Up Fee constitutes 1.4% of the totalconsideration to be provided to the Debtors and the ExpenseReimbursement constitutes, at most, 1.4% of total consideration.The Debtors do not believe that the Break-Up Fee and ExpenseReimbursement will have a \"chilling effect\" on other prospectivebidders' interest in the Staten Island Assets.The Break-Up Fee and Expense Reimbursement constitute actual andnecessary costs and expenses of preserving the Debtors' estateswithin the meaning of Section 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.Thus, the Debtors assert, the Break-Up Fee and ExpenseReimbursement should be treated as allowed administrative expenseclaims under Sections 503(b) and 507(a)(1) of the BankruptcyCode.Moreover, if the Debtors exercise their right to terminate thePurchase Agreement based on Castleton's inability to procureapproval of its Certificate of Need, and subsequently agree tosell the Hospital on terms substantially more favorable thanthose contained in their Purchase Agreement with Castleton withinsix months after termination, the Debtors will pay to Castleton a$125,000 fee upon the consummation of the alternative sale.Headquartered in New York, New York, Saint Vincents CatholicMedical Centers of New York -- http://www.svcmc.org/-- the largest Catholic healthcare providers in New York State, operatehospitals, health centers, nursing homes and a home health agency.The hospital group consists of seven hospitals located throughoutBrooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, and Staten Island, along with fournursing homes and a home health care agency. The Company and sixof its affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on July 5, 2005(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 05-14945 through 05-14951). GaryRavert, Esq., and Stephen B. Selbst, Esq., at McDermott Will &Emery, LLP, filed the Debtors' chapter 11 cases. On Sept. 12,2005, John J. Rapisardi, Esq., at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP tookover representing the Debtors in their restructuring efforts.Martin G. Bunin, Esq., at Thelen Reid & Priest LLP, represents theOfficial Committee of Unsecured Creditors. As of Apr. 30, 2005,the Debtors listed $972 million in total assets and $1 billion intotal debts. (Saint Vincent Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 26;Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)SENSOR SYSTEM: Weinberg & Company Raises Going Concern Doubt------------------------------------------------------------Weinberg & Company, P.A., in Boca Raton, Florida, raisedsubstantial doubt about Sensor System Solutions, Inc.'s ability tocontinue as a going concern after auditing the Company'sconsolidated financial statements for the year ended Dec. 31,2005. The auditor pointed to the Company's losses, negative cashflow from operations, and working capital and stockholders'deficiencies.The Company reported a $2,729,273 net loss on $1,324,872 of netsales for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.At Dec. 31, 2005, the Company's balance sheet showed $1,089,951 intotal assets and $2,785,841 in total liabilities, resulting in a$1,695,890 stockholders' deficit.The Company's Dec. 31 balance sheet also showed strained liquiditywith $751,977 in total current assets available to pay $2,756,747in total current liabilities coming due within the next 12 months.A full-text copy of the Company's 2005 Annual Report is availablefor free at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?a15Sensor System Solutions, Inc., through Advanced Custom Sensors,Inc., designs and manufactures sensors and signal conditioningmodules. The Company offers a variety of digital pressure gauges,pressure transducers, pressure sensors, force beams, load cells,intelligent sensor interface electronics, intelligent embeddedcontrol systems, and wireless communication network interfaces.The Company also supplies thin-film and micro-machined force andpressure sensors to the medical, chemical, oil, and gasindustries.SERACARE LIFE: Can Use Cash Collateral on Interim Basis-------------------------------------------------------The Honorable Louise DeCarl Adler of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court forthe Southern District of California allowed SeraCare LifeSciences, Inc., on an interim basis, to use cash collateralsecuring repayment of its secured prepetition loan to Union Bankof California and Brown Brothers Harriman & Co.The Debtor can use the cash collateral from May 27, 2006, throughJune 16, 2006, to pay the Debtor's operating expenses. TheDebtors will also pay senior secured lenders $5 million asprincipal payment from the cash collateral. Principal payments tothe senior secured lenders will be paid, in cash, on these dates: 6/1/06 -- $5 million (to be paid during the interim period) 7/1/06 -- $2 million 8/1/06 -- $1 million 9/1/06 -- the remaining principal and interest on the Term Loan (approximately $1 million)The Debtor sought authority to use the cash collateral untilSept. 15, 2006. The Court will consider approval of that requeston a final basis on June 15, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. Any objectionsmust be filed and served by the close of business on June 5, 2006.The secured lenders will retain their existing liens against thecash collateral, and its proceeds. In addition, the securedlenders are granted a fully perfected replacement lien on assetsof the estate that is coextensive with, and limited by, the scopeand priority of their existing lien rights.Based in Oceanside, California, SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc. --http://www.seracare.com/-- develops and manufactures biological based materials and services for diagnostic tests, commercialbioproduction of therapeutic drugs, and medical research. TheCompany filed for chapter 11 protection on March 22, 2006(Bankr. S.D. Calif. Case No. 06-00510). The Official Committee ofUnsecured Creditors selected Henry C. Kevane, Esq., and Maxim B.Litvak, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl Young Jones & WeintraubLLP, as its counsel. When the Debtor filed for protection fromits creditors, it listed $119.2 million in assets and$33.5 million in debts.SIERRA HEALTH: Earns $32.7 Million in 2006 First Fiscal Quarter---------------------------------------------------------------Sierra Health Services Inc. earned $32.7 million of net income on$438.2 million of net revenues for the first quarter ended March31, 2006, compared to $29.4 million of net income on $335.9million of net revenues for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.As of March 31, 2006, the Company's balance sheet showed totalassets of $767.4 million and total debts of $527.5 million.A full-text copy of Sierra Health's Quarterly Report is availablefor free at http://researcharchives.com/t/s?a21Headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada, Sierra Health Services Inc. -- http://www.sierrahealth.com/-- is a diversified health care services company that operates health maintenance organizations,indemnity insurers, military health programs, preferred providerorganizations and multispecialty medical groups. Sierra'ssubsidiaries serve more than 1.2 million people through healthbenefit plans for employers, government programs and individuals. * * *Moody's Investors Service rates Sierra Health Services Inc.'spreferred stock at Ba1.SILICON GRAPHICS: Can Continue Workers' Compensation Program------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New Yorkgrants Silicon Graphics, Inc., and its debtor-affiliates' requestto continue their Insurance Programs uninterrupted and to honortheir undisputed prepetition obligations relating to the InsurancePrograms, on an interim basis, except as otherwise provided.The Court also permits their Banks to receive, honor, process, andpay all checks drawn, or electronic fund transfers requested or tobe requested fund transfers on the Debtors' general disbursementaccounts to the extent that the checks or electronic fundtransfers relate to any of their obligations arising from theInsurance Programs.Judge Gropper permits, but does not require, the Debtors to pay,in their sole discretion, all obligations arising under theInsurance Programs, including those Insurance Obligations that: (i) were due and payable or related to the period before the Petition Date for up to $509,000; and (ii) are or become due and payable or related to the period after the Petition Date.On a final basis, the Court authorizes: (a) the Debtors' employees who hold claims under the Workers' Compensation Programs, at the Debtors' direction, to proceed with their workers' compensation claims in the appropriate judicial or administrative forum; and (b) the Debtors to pay the outstanding premium under the Debtors' cargo and transit insurance policy maintained with Lloyds of London for $4,300.As of April 28, 2006, Silicon Graphics, Inc., had 1,858 employees,consisting of 1,237 employees in the United States and 621employees abroad.According to Gary T. Holtzer, Esq., at Weil, Gotshal & MangesLLP, in New York, the Debtors maintain a workers' compensationprogram and various liability, product, property, directors' andofficers' liability, and other insurance programs through severaldifferent insurance carriers.A list of the Debtors' Insurance Programs is available for free athttp://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?a28Mr. Holtzer relates that, as part of their cash management system,the Debtors draw on funds in their accounts at certain banks andfinancial institutions to satisfy their obligations arising fromthe Insurance Programs.The Debtors estimate that their outstanding prepetition InsuranceObligations aggregate to no more than approximately $509,000.A. Workers' Compensation Program The Debtors currently maintain their Workers' Compensation Program with the National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania -- covering claims asserted solely by their U.S.-based employees. The Debtors pay to National Union an annual premium that is calculated based on the Debtors' projected payroll and historic loss rates. The Workers' Compensation Premium is approximately $434,104 for the period July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006. The Debtors paid approximately $301,627 in respect of Workers' Compensation Deductibles for the period July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2005. As of the Petition Date, the Debtors do not believe they have any outstanding liability on account of 11 open workers' compensation claims. Notwithstanding, the Debtors provided to National Union a $829,000 cash deposit, against which National Union has debited any Workers' Compensation Deductibles, as well as any claim amounts in excess of the Workers' Compensation Cap. As of the Petition Date, approximately $540,000 remains as cash deposit in favor of National Union to cover the Debtors' obligations for workers' compensation claims.B. Liability, Product and Property Insurance Programs The Debtors also maintain various liability-, product- and property-related insurance programs, which provide the Debtors with insurance coverage for liabilities relating to, among other things: * personal injuries; * crime, including employee theft; * officers' and directors' liability; * transportation and storage of cargo; and * umbrella and various other product- and property-related general liabilities. Annual Insurance Premiums for the Liability, Product and Property Insurance Programs aggregate approximately $4,230,920, which the Debtors finance through AFCO, a Mellon Financial Company. As of the Petition Date, the Debtors believe that all Insurance Premiums have been fully paid. The Debtors estimate that no more than $330,000 is currently owed for Insurance Deductibles relating to prepetition claims.C. Insurance Brokers The Debtors employ Marsh, Inc., and Willis Insurance Service as insurance brokers to assist them with the procurement and negotiation of their Insurance Programs. As of the Petition Date, the Debtors believe that they owe approximately $179,000 to Marsh in Broker Fees, and that no amounts remain unpaid to Willis for prepetition services.According to Mr. Holtzer, the nonpayment of any premiums,deductibles, or related fees under one of the Insurance Programscould result in one or more of the Insurance Carriers declining torenew their insurance policies or refusing to enter into newinsurance agreements with the Debtors in the future. \"If theInsurance Programs are allowed to lapse without renewal, theDebtors could be exposed to substantial liability for damagesresulting to persons and property of the Debtors and others, whichexposure could have an extremely negative impact on the Debtors'ability to successfully reorganize.\" Furthermore, Mr. Holtzercontinues, the Debtors would then be required to obtainreplacement policies on an expedited basis at a significant costto the estates.Headquartered in Mountain View, California, Silicon Graphics, Inc.(OTC: SGID) -- http://www.sgi.com/-- offers high-performance computing. SGI helps customers solve their computing challenges,whether it's sharing images to aid in brain surgery, finding oilmore efficiently, studying global climate, providing technologiesfor homeland security and defense, enabling the transition fromanalog to digital broadcasting, or helping enterprises managelarge data. The Debtor and 13 of its affiliates filed for chapter11 protection on May 8, 2006 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case Nos. 06-10977through 06-10990). Gary Holtzer, Esq., and Shai Y. Waisman, Esq.,at Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, represent the Debtors in theirrestructuring efforts. When the Debtors filed for protection fromtheir creditors, they listed total assets of $369,416,815 andtotal debts of $664,268,602. (Silicon Graphics Bankruptcy News,Issue No. 4; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)SILICON GRAPHICS: Wants to Hire Ordinary Course Professionals-------------------------------------------------------------Silicon Graphics, Inc., and its debtor-affiliates ask the U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York forauthority to continue employing and paying ordinary courseprofessionals, without having to file separate employmentapplications and affidavits.The Debtors retain the services of various attorneys, accountants,and other professionals in the ordinary course of their businessoperations, unrelated to their Chapter 11 cases, including generalcorporate, accounting, auditing, tax, and litigation matters.A list of the Debtors' ordinary course professionals is availablefor free at http://researcharchives.com/t/s?a0aAccording to Gary Holtzer, Esq., at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, inNew York, the Debtors will continue to require the services of theOCPs to enable them to continue normal business activities thatare essential to their stabilization and reorganization efforts.The Debtors' request will save the estates the substantialexpenses associated with applying separately for the employment ofeach OCP. Furthermore, it will avoid the incurrence of additionalfees relating to the preparation and prosecution of interim feeapplications.The Debtors propose to pay each OCP 100% of the fees anddisbursements incurred, on their approval of an appropriateinvoice. The payment is capped at the lesser of $35,000 per monthper OCP or $350,000 per month for all OCPs.If any amount owed for an OCP's fees and disbursements exceeds$45,000 per month on a rolling basis, then the payments for thoseexcess amounts will be subject to the Court's approval.Each OCP is required to serve on the Debtors' bankruptcy counsel: a) an affidavit certifying that the OCP does not represent or hold any interest adverse to the Debtors or their estates with respect to the matter on which the OCP is to be employed; and b) a completed retention questionnaire.The Debtors' attorneys will then file the OCP Affidavit and theRetention Questionnaire with the Court and serve copies on theU.S. Trustee.No OCP will be paid for invoiced fees and expense reimbursementuntil its OCP Affidavit and its Retention Questionnaire have beenfiled with the Court.Mr. Holtzer relates that although the Debtors have diligentlyattempted to identify all of their current OCPs, some OCPs mayhave been omitted inadvertently and some may cease providingservices to the Debtors during the course of their chapter 11cases. Moreover, the nature of the Debtors' businesses mayrequire the retention of additional OCPs from time to time.Although certain of the OCPs may hold unsecured claims against theDebtors for prepetition services rendered, the Debtors do notbelieve that any of the OCPs have an interest adverse to theDebtors, their creditors, or other parties-in-interest on thematters for which they would be employed, Mr. Holtzer maintains.Headquartered in Mountain View, California, Silicon Graphics, Inc.(OTC: SGID) -- http://www.sgi.com/-- offers high-performance computing. SGI helps customers solve their computing challenges,whether it's sharing images to aid in brain surgery, finding oilmore efficiently, studying global climate, providing technologiesfor homeland security and defense, enabling the transition fromanalog to digital broadcasting, or helping enterprises managelarge data. The Debtor and 13 of its affiliates filed for chapter11 protection on May 8, 2006 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case Nos. 06-10977through 06-10990). Gary Holtzer, Esq., and Shai Y. Waisman, Esq.,at Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, represent the Debtors in theirrestructuring efforts. When the Debtors filed for protection fromtheir creditors, they listed total assets of $369,416,815 andtotal debts of $664,268,602. (Silicon Graphics Bankruptcy News,Issue No. 4; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)SILICON GRAPHICS: Seeks Court Nod for Compensation Procedures-------------------------------------------------------------Pursuant to Sections 105(a) and 331 of the Bankruptcy Code,Silicon Graphics, Inc., and its debtor-affiliates ask Judge AllanL. Gropper of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern Districtof New York to establish uniform procedures for the payment andreimbursement of various court-approved professionals on a monthlybasis, on terms comparable to procedures established in otherlarge Chapter 11 cases.The Debtors propose that: (a) Each Professional seeking payment will serve a monthly statement, on or before the 30th day of each month after the month payment is sought, on: * Silicon Graphics, Inc., * Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, * the attorneys for the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors; and * the Office of the United States Trustee. (b) The monthly statement does not need to be filed with the Court and a copy does not have to be delivered to the presiding bankruptcy judge's chambers. (c) For Professionals who bill based on time, each monthly fee statement must contain a list of the individuals who provided services during the statement period, their billing rates, the aggregate hours spent, a reasonably detailed breakdown of the disbursements incurred and contemporaneously maintained time entries. (d) The Notice Parties will have 15 days to review a statement. If a Party objects to the payment or reimbursement, it must, by no later than 35 days after the end of the month for which compensation is sought, serve a written notice of objection containing the nature of the objection, upon: * the Professional whose statement is objected to; and * the Notice Parties. (e) At the expiration of the 35-day period, and in the absence of objection, the Debtors will promptly pay 80% of the undisputed fees and 100% of the undisputed expenses in each monthly statement. (f) If the Debtors receive an objection to a fee statement, they will withhold payment on that objected portion of the fee statement and promptly pay the remainder of the fees and disbursements. (g) If the parties to an objection are able to resolve their dispute, then the Debtors will promptly pay that portion of the fee statement, which is no longer subject to an objection. (h) All unresolved objections will be preserved and presented to the Court at the next interim or final fee application hearing. (i) An objection will not prejudice the objecting party's right to object to any fee application made to the Court in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code on any ground. (j) Every 120 days, but no more than every 150 days, each of the Professionals will serve and file an application for interim or final Court approval and allowance of the compensation and reimbursement of expenses requested. (k) At least 30 days prior to the fee application hearing, the Debtors' attorneys will notify the Court, the U.S. Trustee and all retained professionals, of the time, date and location of the fee hearing, the period covered by the fee applications, and the objection deadline. (l) Any Professional who fails to file an application seeking approval of compensation and expenses previously paid when due: * will be ineligible to receive further monthly payments of fees until further Court order; and * may be required to disgorge any fees paid since the retention or the last fee application, whichever is later. (m) The pendency of an application or a Court order that payment of compensation or reimbursement of expenses was improper as to a particular statement will not disqualify a Professional from the future payment of compensation or reimbursement of expenses. (n) Neither the payment of, nor the failure to pay, monthly compensation and reimbursement will have any effect on the Court's interim or final allowance of compensation and reimbursement of any Professional. (o) The attorneys for the Creditors Committee may collect and submit statements of expenses, with supporting evidence of payment, from members of the Committee the person represents. However, the Committee attorneys must ensure that the reimbursement requests comply with the Court's Administrative Orders dated June 24, 1991, and April 21, 1995.According to the Debtors, the proposed procedures will enable themto closely monitor the costs of administration, maintain a levelcash flow availability, and implement efficient cash managementprocedures. Moreover, the procedures will allow the Court and keyparties-in-interest to ensure the reasonableness and necessity ofthe compensation and reimbursement sought.Headquartered in Mountain View, California, Silicon Graphics, Inc.(OTC: SGID) -- http://www.sgi.com/-- offers high-performance computing. SGI helps customers solve their computing challenges,whether it's sharing images to aid in brain surgery, finding oilmore efficiently, studying global climate, providing technologiesfor homeland security and defense, enabling the transition fromanalog to digital broadcasting, or helping enterprises managelarge data. The Debtor and 13 of its affiliates filed for chapter11 protection on May 8, 2006 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case Nos. 06-10977through 06-10990). Gary Holtzer, Esq., and Shai Y. Waisman, Esq.,at Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, represent the Debtors in theirrestructuring efforts. When the Debtors filed for protection fromtheir creditors, they listed total assets of $369,416,815 andtotal debts of $664,268,602. (Silicon Graphics Bankruptcy News,Issue No. 4; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)TRANSAX INTERNATIONAL: Auditor Raises Going Concern Doubt---------------------------------------------------------Moore Stephens, P.C., in New York, raised substantial doubt aboutTransax International Limited's ability to continue as a goingconcern after auditing the Company's consolidated financialstatements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005. The auditor pointedto the Company's losses, and working capital and stockholders'deficiencies.The Company reported a $637,919 net loss on $3,380,150 of revenuesfor the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.At Dec. 31, 2005, the Company's balance sheet showed $1,669,742 intotal assets and $3,185,120 in total liabilities, resulting in a$1,515,378 stockholders' deficit.The Company's Dec. 31 balance sheet also showed strained liquiditywith $494,244 in total current assets available to pay $2,563,200in total current liabilities coming due within the next 12 months.A full-text copy of the Company's 2005 Annual Report is availablefor free http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?a11Based in Miami, Florida, Transax International Limited (OTCBB:TNSX) -- http://www.transax.com/-- provides hospitals, physicians and health insurance companies with innovative health informationmanagement systems to manage coding, compliance, abstracting andrecord management's processes. The Company's subsidiaries are:TDS Telecommunication Data Systems LTDA provides those services inBrazil; Transax Australia Pty Ltd. provides those services inAustralia; and Medlink Technologies, Inc., initiates research anddevelopment.USA COMMERCIAL: U.S. Trustee Names 7-Member Contract Rights Panel-----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Trustee for Region 17 appointed seven members to serve onan the Official Committee of Holders of Executory Contract Rightsin USA Commercial Mortgage Company and its debtor-affiliates'chapter 11 cases: 1. William J. Bullard Fertitta Enterprises, Inc. P.O. Box 27555 Las Vegas, Nevada 89126-1555 Tel: (702) 221-4715 Fax: (702) 362-5889 2. Helms Homes, LLC Terry Helms 809 Upland Boulevard Las Vegas, Nevada 89107 Tel: (702) 258-1044 Fax: (702) 258-0403 3. Terry R. Helms Living Trust 11/94 Terry Helms 809 Upland Boulevard Las Vegas, Nevada 89107 Tel: (702) 258-1044 Fax: (702) 258-0403 4. Homfeld II, LLC Edward W. Homfeld 858 Bishop Road Grosse Pointe Park, Michigan 48230 Tel: (954) 560-7709 Fax: (734) 827-7743 5. Arthur Polacheck 2056 Woodlake Circle Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442 Tel: (954) 650-8768 Fax: (561) 417-6620 6. Dennis Flier, Inc. Defined Benefit Trust Dated 6/29/87 Dennis Flier 20155 Porto Vita Way, # 1803 Aventura, Florida 33180 Tel: (305) 792-9601 Fax: (305) 792-9602 7. Jim McCollum 1011 F Avenue Coronado, California 92118 Tel: (619) 890-5125The Official Committee of Holders Of Executory Contract Rightsthrough USA Commercial Mortgage Company, along with the OfficialCommittee of Equity Security Holders in USA Capital DiversifiedTrust Deed Fund, LLC, and the Official Committee of EquitySecurity Holders of USA Capital First Trust Deed Fund, LLC, hasretained Stutman, Treister & Glatt, P.C., as their specialbankruptcy counsel for all matters of common interest.Based in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA Commercial Mortgage Company, dbaUSA Capital -- http://www.usacapitalcorp.com/-- provides more than $1 billion in short-term and permanent financing tohomebuilders, commercial developers, apartment owners andinstitutions nationwide. The Company and its debtor-affiliatesfiled for chapter 11 protection on April 13, 2006 (Bankr. D. Nev.Case Nos. 06-10725 to 06-10729). Lenard E. Schwartzer, Esq., atSchwartzer & Mcpherson Law Firm, represents the Debtors. When theDebtors filed for protection from their creditors, they estimatedassets of more than $100 million and debts between $10 million and$50 million.USG CORP: Settles CCR, et al., Performance Bond Dispute for $13MM-----------------------------------------------------------------USG Corporation, its debtor-affiliates, Center for ClaimsResolution, Inc., and Safeco Insurance Company of America agreedto resolve their disputes, following extensive arm's-lengthnegotiations.As previously reported, USG Corporation and United States GypsumCompany filed an adversary complaint in the Bankruptcy Court onNovember 30, 2001, captioned \"USG Corporation and United StatesGypsum Company v. Center for Claims Resolution, Inc., and SafecoInsurance Company of America,\" Case No. 01-08932.The Debtors sought to enjoin the CCR from drawing on a$60,277,000 performance bond and enjoin Safeco from paying on theBond during the pendency of the Debtors' Chapter 11 cases.To date, no final judgment has been entered in the CCRLitigation. CCR Member Claims LitigationPaul Heath, Esq., at Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., inWilmington, Delaware, recounts that the CCR has filed Claim No.6505 against U.S. Gypsum in an amount in excess of $104,000,000.Certain CCR members have also filed these proofs of claim againstU.S. Gypsum, each asserting $100,000,000: Claimant Claim No. -------- --------- Certain Teed Corporation 6399 Dana Corporation 6647 I.U. North America 6412 Maremont Corporation 6529 Nosroe Corp. 6415 Union Carbide Corporation and Amchem Products, Inc. 6634 National Service Industries, Inc. -The CCR and the CCR Members generally sought damages from U.S.Gypsum for, among other things, settlement payments that weremade, or that may have to be made to asbestos personal injuryplaintiffs on U.S Gypsum's behalf.The Debtors subsequently sought to disallow the CCR Claim andmost of the CCR Member Claims on the basis that most of theclaims related to settlements not consummated as of the PetitionDate, or were contingent claims for contribution or reimbursementshould be disallowed pursuant to Section 502(e)(1)(B) of theBankruptcy Code.The CCR and the CCR Members responded to the Debtors' omnibusclaims objection in July 2005, and asserted that the claims werefor contract damages and should be classified as Class 6 GeneralUnsecured Claims under the Debtors' joint plan of reorganization,which provides that any claims of the CCR and the CCR Members arechanneled to the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust.The Debtors' Claims Objection is currently pending in theBankruptcy Court. $13,000,000 CCR Settlement AgreementThe salient terms of the parties' Settlement Agreement are: (1) In full and complete satisfaction of the CCR Claim, the CCR Member Claims and certain other claims as provided in the Settlement Agreement, within 10 business days after the Plan's effective date, the Debtors will: (a) pay $13,000,000 to the CCR; and (b) deposit $3,500,000 into an interest bearing escrow account -- Holdback Amount. However, the CCR Parties remain free to assert against the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust any asbestos personal injury claims that they have acquired or may acquire in the future by assignment. The date on which the Debtors complete the $13,000,000 payment and deposit the Holdback Amount will be deemed the \"Settlement Payment Date.\" (2) The Debtors will file with the Bankruptcy Court not later than June 23, 2006, either: * a motion or objection seeking a court order that all claims filed by any current or former CCR member companies against the Debtors will be treated exclusively as Asbestos PI Claims under the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust or will be disallowed; or * a stipulation providing for a claim treatment or disallowance. No later than 10 business days after the entry of a final order with respect to the Channeling Objections, the Debtors will pay to the CCR the Holdback Amount less the amount of any distributions on account of any allowed Other CCR Members Claims that are not channeled to the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust. (3) On the Settlement Payment Date, the Bond will be deemed cancelled, and Safeco will have no further obligations under the Bond. At that time, the CCR will take all actions as may be reasonably requested by Safeco to evidence the Bond cancellation, including, without limitation, a return of the original Bond to Safeco within 15 days of the Settlement Payment Date. (4) On the Settlement Payment Date or as soon as practicable: (i) the parties to the CCR Litigation will dismiss with prejudice any and all claims asserted; and (ii) the CCR Claims Litigation will be dismissed with prejudice as to the CCR Parties, provided that the CCR Parties remain free to assert against the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust any Asbestos PI Claims and that the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust remains free to object to any claim and assert any defense of the Debtors. (5) The CCR Parties will fully support the Plan and will not file or cause any other party to file objections to or otherwise oppose the Plan, including the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust Distribution Procedures, in any manner. (6) On the Settlement Payment Date, the parties will exchange mutual releases of the Settled Claims and any and all claims related, directly or indirectly, to the CCR, their membership in the CCR, the Producer Agreement, and the Member Agreement of any Asbestos PI Claim against the Debtors and their estates. Deal Paves Way to Consensual Plan ConfirmationMr. Heath asserts that absent the Settlement Agreement, theoutcome of the CCR Litigation and the CCR Claims Litigation isuncertain.\"Although the Debtors believe that they have a strong case withrespect to the claims and defenses they have asserted against theCCR Parties, there is no guarantee that the results of theLitigation will prove favorable to the Debtors upon thecompletion of a trial and any appeals,\" Mr. Heath tells JudgeFitzgerald. \"The issues raised in the Litigation are complex andfact-intensive, and it is impossible to predict with certaintyhow a court ultimately would rule.\"As a result, Mr. Heath avers, there is no assurance that theultimate outcome of continuing the Litigation will be any morefavorable that the proposed treatment under the SettlementAgreement.Accordingly, the Debtors ask Judge Fitzgerald to approve the CCRSettlement Agreement.Mr. Heath contends that satisfaction of the CCR Claim and the CCRMember Claims pursuant to the Settlement Agreement saves theDebtors from the time, expense and distraction of certainappeals. If the Settlement Agreement is not approved, theDebtors will be required to continue the Litigation and disputethe merits of any confirmation objections raised by the CCRParties.Mr. Heath maintains that approval of the Settlement Agreementwill resolve all claims against the Debtors and will eliminateany potential objections to the Plan from the CCR Parties, thus,removing a significant obstacle to a consensual Planconfirmation. About USG Corp.Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, USG Corporation --http://www.usg.com/-- through its subsidiaries, is a leading manufacturer and distributor of building materials producing awide range of products for use in new residential, newnonresidential and repair and remodel construction, as well asproducts used in certain industrial processes.The Company filed for chapter 11 protection on June 25, 2001(Bankr. Del. Case No. 01-02094). David G. Heiman, Esq., GusKallergis, Esq., Brad B. Erens, Esq., Michelle M. Harner, Esq.,Mark A. Cody, Esq., and Daniel B. Prieto, Esq., at Jones Dayrepresent the Debtors in their restructuring efforts.Lewis Kruger, Esq., Kenneth Pasquale, Esq., and Denise Wildes,Esq., represent the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.Elihu Inselbuch, Esq., and peter Van N. Lockwood, Esq., at Caplin& Drysdale, Chartered, represent the Official Committee ofAsbestos Personal Injury Claimants. Martin J. Bienenstock, Esq.,Judy G. Z. Liu, Esq., Ralph I. Miller, Esq., and David A.Hickerson, Esq., at Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP represent theStatutory Committee of Equity Security Holders. Dean M. Trafeletis the Future Claimants Representative. Michael J. Crames, Esq.,and Andrew A. Kress, Esq., at Kaye Scholer, LLP, represent theFuture Claimants Representative. Scott Baena, Esq., and JaySakalo, Esq., at Bilzen Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP,represent the Asbestos Property Damage Claimants Committee.When the Debtors filed for protection from their creditors, theylisted $3,252,000,000 in assets and $2,739,000,000 in debts.(USG Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 111; Bankruptcy Creditors'Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)USG CORP: Illinois Revenue Dept. Demands $2.49MM in Tax Payments----------------------------------------------------------------Kevin Harlowe, on behalf of the Department of Revenue of theState of Illinois, asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Districtof Delaware to compel Debtor U.S.G. Interiors to pay taxes and anyinterest or penalty due under the Illinois Revised Statutes.U.S.G. Interiors owes Illinois Revenue $2,491,873 in taxes as ofApril 20, 2006, consisting of various tax obligations withrespect to these tax periods: Accrued Accrued Balance Tax Period Tax Due Interest Penalty Due ---------- ------- -------- ------- ------- Jun 2002 $568,497 $252,016 - $820,513 Nov 2003 800,581 112,798 - 913,379 Sept 2004 480,327 32,935 $96,066 609,328 Oct 2004 50,246 2,536 10,049 62,831 Nov 2004 63,174 2,985 12,635 78,794 Feb 2006 6,876 16 136 7,028Mr. Harlowe asserts that the tax obligations are administrativeclaims against U.S.G. Interiors' estate. About USG Corp.Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, USG Corporation --http://www.usg.com/-- through its subsidiaries, is a leading manufacturer and distributor of building materials producing awide range of products for use in new residential, newnonresidential and repair and remodel construction, as well asproducts used in certain industrial processes.The Company filed for chapter 11 protection on June 25, 2001(Bankr. Del. Case No. 01-02094). David G. Heiman, Esq., GusKallergis, Esq., Brad B. Erens, Esq., Michelle M. Harner, Esq.,Mark A. Cody, Esq., and Daniel B. Prieto, Esq., at Jones Dayrepresent the Debtors in their restructuring efforts.Lewis Kruger, Esq., Kenneth Pasquale, Esq., and Denise Wildes,Esq., represent the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.Elihu Inselbuch, Esq., and peter Van N. Lockwood, Esq., at Caplin& Drysdale, Chartered, represent the Official Committee ofAsbestos Personal Injury Claimants. Martin J. Bienenstock, Esq.,Judy G. Z. Liu, Esq., Ralph I. Miller, Esq., and David A.Hickerson, Esq., at Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP represent theStatutory Committee of Equity Security Holders. Dean M. Trafeletis the Future Claimants Representative. Michael J. Crames, Esq.,and Andrew A. Kress, Esq., at Kaye Scholer, LLP, represent theFuture Claimants Representative. Scott Baena, Esq., and JaySakalo, Esq., at Bilzen Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP,represent the Asbestos Property Damage Claimants Committee.When the Debtors filed for protection from their creditors, theylisted $3,252,000,000 in assets and $2,739,000,000 in debts.(USG Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 110; Bankruptcy Creditors'Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)VARIG S.A.: Mitsui Says U.S. Court Protection is Inappropriate--------------------------------------------------------------Mitsui & Co. Ltd., as representative lessor with respect to twoBoeing 737-300, asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York to: a. allow the preliminary injunction to expire; b. deny the request for a permanent injunction; and c. direct VARIG, S.A., and its debtor-affiliates to return the Aircraft to Mitsui, together with the engines and records. Mitsui's ComplaintVARIG has again defaulted on its obligations to Mitsui, WilliamJ. Rochelle, Esq., at Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., in New York,relates. Mitsui served the airline with notices of default,which VARIG has chosen to ignore. VARIG has not returned theAircraft and Mitsui believes both are in service generatingrevenue for the airline.At an April 27, 2006 hearing to consider an extension of thepreliminary injunction, UBS Investment Bank, VARIG's financialadvisor, told the U.S. Bankruptcy Court that VARIG had a proposalin hand from MatlinPatterson -- Plan A -- and another alternativeplan -- Plan B. The financial advisor explained that Plan A wasvastly preferable and could be implemented more quickly than PlanB.However, Mr. Rochelle says, no later than April 28, 2006, VARIGabandoned Plan A and instead adopted Plan B, which has itselfbeen modified since.Plan A's immediate repudiation, Mitsui asserts, implies that thefinancial advisor was either grossly unaware of unfolding eventsor had intentionally misled the Court in the testimony.Plan B entails spinning off VARIG's operations into a newcompany, not liable for its \"old\" debts, and assumes that a buyerwill pay not less than $870,000,000, for the airline's assets.Mr. Rochelle also notes that Plan B contemplates that theBrazilian government's Banco Nacional de DesenvolvimentoEconomico e Social will finance two-thirds of a bridge loan for$250,000,000 to provide liquidity until Plan B can beconsummated. BNDES will finance the bridge loan to a credit-worthy borrower who intends to buy VARIG's assets.Mitsui is skeptical that events will unfold as VARIG planned.Lessors deserve more than promises, Mitsui asserts.\"The time has come for the Bankruptcy Court to restore a modicumof sanity to the VARIG reorganization by compelling [it] eitherto pay the arrears immediately or surrender the aircraftimmediately,\" Mr. Rochelle says.VARIG, Mr. Rochelle points out, is once again four months inarrears to Mitsui and offers no guarantee that the defaulted rentwill be paid on a specific date.Mitsui is no longer willing for VARIG to continue using andwithholding the Aircraft while paying Mitsui nothing in return,Mr. Rochelle continues. Although VARIG promised that thefinancial problems had been cured and that no new defaults wouldoccur, the airline is again unilaterally turning lessors intoinvoluntary lenders funding round two in the airline'sreorganization.\"This Court should allow the existing preliminary injunction toexpire because giving the appearance of U.S. Court protection isinappropriate when the Brazilian reorganization has failed andneither the Brazilian government nor a private party is willingto step forward with the cash to compensate the lessors for theuse of their aircraft,\" Mr. Rochelle maintains. Conversion Hearing Set on May 31As previously reported, the Court extended the PreliminaryInjunction through and including June 1, 2006.The Court will convene a hearing on May 31, 2006, at 10:00 a.m.,to consider the Permanent Injunction request.On or before the May 31 hearing, the Court may, upon request of alessor, determine whether to order the implementation of theContingency Plan for the Orderly Return of Aircraft with respectto and to the extent of: a. any aircraft, engines or other equipment -- including parts -- that is property of a lessor that is or is proposed to be sold, assigned or otherwise transferred by a Foreign Debtor to a third party without the lessor's consent; or b. any aircraft or engine that is retained by a Foreign Debtor that is the property of a lessor where the Foreign Debtor is in default, under the lease for that aircraft or engine, for nonpayment of rent or maintenance reserves first coming due after June 17, 2005, and not cured on or before January 13, 2006, regardless of whether the cure was timely under the terms of the lessor's lease or other agreement.In view of developments in the Foreign Proceedings, EduardoZerwes, the Foreign Representative of VARIG, has advised theCourt that he will file a supplement to the Permanent Injunctionrequest on or before May 25, 2006. About VARIGHeadquartered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, VARIG S.A. is Brazil'slargest air carrier and the largest air carrier in Latin America.VARIG's principal business is the transportation of passengers andcargo by air on domestic routes within Brazil and on internationalroutes between Brazil and North and South America, Europe andAsia. VARIG carries approximately 13 million passengers annuallyand employs approximately 11,456 full-time employees, of whichapproximately 133 are employed in the United States.The Company, along with two affiliates, filed for a judicialreorganization proceeding under the New Bankruptcy andRestructuring Law of Brazil on June 17, 2005, due to a competitivelandscape, high fuel costs, cash flow deficit, and high operatingleverage. The Debtors may be the first case under the new law,which took effect on June 9, 2005. Similar to a chapter 11debtor-in-possession under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the Debtorsremain in possession and control of their estate pending theJudicial Reorganization. Sergio Bermudes, Esq., at Escritorio deAdvocacia Sergio Bermudes, represents the carrier in Brazil.Each of the Debtors' Boards of Directors authorized Vicente Cervoas foreign representative. In this capacity, Mr. Cervo filed aSec. 304 petition on June 17, 2005 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case Nos.05-14400 and 05-14402). Rick B. Antonoff, Esq., at PillsburyWinthrop Shaw Pittman LLP represents Mr. Cervo in the UnitedStates. As of March 31, 2005, the Debtors reportedBRL2,979,309,000 in total assets and BRL9,474,930,000 in totaldebts. (VARIG Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 19; Bankruptcy Creditors'Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)VERILINK CORP: Court Okays William Gibbons as Local Bankr. Counsel------------------------------------------------------------------The Honorable Jack Caddell of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for theNorthern District of Alabama in Decatur gave Verilink Corporationand its debtor-affiliate Larscom, Inc., authority to employWilliam J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq., of Gibbons & Furman, P.C., as theirlocal bankruptcy counsel.Mr. Gibbons will: -- appear before the Bankruptcy Court; -- negotiate and formulate a chapter 11 plan; and -- perform other necessary legal services.The Debtors assured the Court that Mr. Gibbons will not duplicatethe services of Powell Goldstein LLP.Mr. Gibbons will charge $250 per hour for this engagement.Mr. Gibbons assures the Court that he does not hold or representan interest adverse to the Debtor or its estate and isdisinterested as that term is defined in Section 101(14) of theBankruptcy Code.Mr. Gibbons can be contacted at: William J. Gibbons, Esq. Gibbons & Furman, P.C. 117 Jefferson Street, North Huntsville, AL 35801Headquartered in Hunstville, Alabama, Verilink Corporation --http://www.verilink.com/-- is a leading provider of next- generation broadband access solutions for today's and tomorrow'snetworks. The Company develops, manufactures and markets a broadsuite of products that enable carriers and enterprises to buildconverged access networks to cost-effectively deliver next-generation communications services to their end customers. TheCompany and its debtor-affiliate, Larscom Inc., filed for chapter11 protection on April 9, 2006 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Case No. 06-80566& 06-80567). Robert McCay Dearing Mercer, Esq., at PowellGoldstein LLP, represents the Debtors. Darryl S. Laddin, Esq., atArnall Golden Gregory LLP and Jayna Partain Lamar, Esq., atMaynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., give legal advice to the OfficialCommittee of Unsecured Creditors. When the Debtors filed forprotection from their creditors, they listed total assets of$37,221,000 and total debts of $23,913,000.VERILINK CORP: Bankruptcy Administrator Appoints 7-Member Panel---------------------------------------------------------------The Honorable Jack Caddell approved the recommendation ofRichard M. Blythe, the U.S. Bankruptcy Administrator for theNorthern District of Alabama in Decatur, appointing sevencreditors to serve on an Official Committee of UnsecuredCreditors in Verilink Corporation and its debtor-affiliateLarscom, Inc.'s chapter 11 cases: (1) The Kennedy Company, LLC Representative: Brent R. Cohen, Esq. Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP 1200 17th Street, Suite 3000 Denver, CO 80202-5855 Tel: (303) 628-9521 Fax: (303) 623-9222 (2) Flash Electronics, Inc. Representative: Jas Mundra 4050 Starboard Drive Fremont, CA 94538 Tel: (510) 360-9068 Fax: (510) 440-2844 (3) Jack P. Reily Reily Communications Consulting 800 West 5th St. #608 Austin, TX 78703 Tel: (512) 322-9742 Fax: (512) 320-9927 (4) CM Solutions, Inc. Representative: Jack O'Rear P.O. Box 10 1005 Jefferson Drive Scottsboro, AL 35768 Tel: (256) 259-6500 Fax: (256) 259-1091 (5) HRH Representative: David W. Hobbs P.O. Box 10607 2101 6th Avenue North, Suite 1200 Birmingham, AL 35202-0607 Tel: (205) 871-3300 Fax: (205) 879-5508 (6) Micro Ram Electronics, Inc. Representative: Patrick Kraujalis 222 Dunbar Court Oldsmar, FL 34677 Tel: (813) 854-5500 Fax: (813) 818-9673 (7) Professional Teleconcepts, Inc. dba JT Communications, Inc. Representative: Theodore Wells 20 Aviador Street Camarillo, CA 93010 Tel: (805) 528-8577 Fax: (805) 987-8840Pursuant to Section 1102 of the Bankruptcy Code, the USBA isauthorized to recommend to the Court a committee of creditorsholding unsecured claims.Darryl S. Laddin, Esq., at Arnall Golden Gregory LLP and JaynaPartain Lamar, Esq., at Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., gives legaladvice to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.Official creditors' committees have the right to employ legal andaccounting professionals and financial advisors, at the Debtors'expense. They may investigate the Debtors' business and financialaffairs. Importantly, official committees serve as fiduciaries tothe general population of creditors they represent. Thosecommittees will also attempt to negotiate the terms of aconsensual chapter 11 plan -- almost always subject to the termsof strict confidentiality agreements with the Debtors and othercore parties-in-interest. If negotiations break down, theCommittee may ask the Bankruptcy Court to replace management withan independent trustee. If the Committee concludes reorganizationof the Debtors is impossible, the Committee will urge theBankruptcy Court to convert the chapter 11 cases to a liquidationproceeding.Headquartered in Hunstville, Alabama, Verilink Corporation --http://www.verilink.com/-- is a leading provider of next- generation broadband access solutions for today's and tomorrow'snetworks. The Company develops, manufactures and markets a broadsuite of products that enable carriers and enterprises to buildconverged access networks to cost-effectively deliver next-generation communications services to their end customers. TheCompany and its debtor-affiliate, Larscom Inc., filed for chapter11 protection on April 9, 2006 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Case No. 06-80566& 06-80567). Robert McCay Dearing Mercer, Esq., at PowellGoldstein LLP, represents the Debtors. Darryl S. Laddin, Esq., atArnall Golden Gregory LLP and Jayna Partain Lamar, Esq., atMaynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., give legal advice to the OfficialCommittee of Unsecured Creditors. When the Debtors filed forprotection from their creditors, they listed total assets of$37,221,000 and total debts of $23,913,000.WORLDCOM INC: Inks Stipulation Expunging Bernard Ebbers' Claims---------------------------------------------------------------Consistent with the Ebbers Settlement Agreement, WorldCom, Inc.,and Bernard J. Ebbers stipulate that Claim Nos. 20659 and 36383will be disallowed and expunged in their entirety.On January 22, 2003, former WorldCom Chief Executive OfficerBernard J. Ebbers filed Claim No. 20659, asserting administrativeexpense claims and general unsecured claims for: -- amounts allegedly due or that become due under a certain Separation Agreement between Mr. Ebbers and the Debtors; -- the Debtors indemnification and related expense reimbursement obligations under the Restated Bylaws of MCI, Inc.; and -- the Debtors' obligations under a guaranty and letter agreements executed in connection with it.In October 2003, Mr. Ebbers filed Claim No. 36383, asserting a$12,166,752 unsecured non-priority claim on account of stockoptions that the Debtors rejected.Since April 2002, various actions were filed in, or transferredto, the United States District Court for the Southern District ofNew York, by and on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwisepublicly traded securities of WorldCom. Mr. Ebbers is nameddefendant in the Securities Litigation.The United States Attorney for the Southern District of New Yorkfacilitated a three-way settlement discussion among the Debtors,the Class and Mr. Ebbers.Headquartered in Clinton, Mississippi, WorldCom, Inc., now knownas MCI -- http://www.worldcom.com/-- is a pre-eminent global communications provider, operating in more than 65 countries andmaintaining one of the most expansive IP networks in the world.The Company filed for chapter 11 protection on July 21, 2002(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 02-13532). On March 31, 2002, theDebtors listed $103,803,000,000 in assets and $45,897,000,000 indebts. The Bankruptcy Court confirmed WorldCom's Plan on October31, 2003, and on April 20, 2004, the company formally emerged fromU.S. Chapter 11 protection as MCI, Inc. (WorldCom Bankruptcy News,Issue No. 117; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)WORLDCOM INC: Settles Philadelphia's Admin. Tax Claims for $432K----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New Yorkapproved WorldCom, Inc., and its debtor-affiliates' stipulationwith the City of Philadelphia's administrative tax claims.As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on April 24, 2006,the Debtors and the City agree that: (a) the Debtors will pay $432,634, to the City in full and complete satisfaction of all of the City's unsecured, priority and administrative tax claims against the Debtors. The Amount is to be paid as an administrative expense priority tax claim under Section 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code for taxes and interest only; (b) the Debtors will pay the Settlement Amount, without delay, by check made payable to The City of Philadelphia and sent to: Carolyn Hochstadter Dicker, Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers LLP, 260 S. Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102-5003 (c) the non-filer liability listed in Claim No. 38595 for tax periods ending on or before December 31,1998, has been resolved through settlement of the Original Claims; (d) the Stipulation resolves all outstanding claims and tax liabilities between the Parties; (e) the Released Parties agree that any and all tax claims they may have against the City are also resolved by the Stipulation for any tax period ending on or before December 31, 2004; and (f) the City agrees that the overpayment shown on the 2004 Business Privilege Tax Return filed by MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc., for $334,673, is available to be used as a credit against the Debtors' 2005 Business Privilege Tax liability, assuming that the return is duly filed, as required.Headquartered in Clinton, Mississippi, WorldCom, Inc., now knownas MCI -- http://www.worldcom.com/-- is a pre-eminent global communications provider, operating in more than 65 countries andmaintaining one of the most expansive IP networks in the world.The Company filed for chapter 11 protection on July 21, 2002(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 02-13532). On March 31, 2002, theDebtors listed $103,803,000,000 in assets and $45,897,000,000 indebts. The Bankruptcy Court confirmed WorldCom's Plan on October31, 2003, and on April 20, 2004, the company formally emerged fromU.S. Chapter 11 protection as MCI, Inc. (WorldCom Bankruptcy News,Issue No. 117; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)ZOOMERS HOLDING: Inks $3.5 Mil. Financing Deal with D'Alessandro---------------------------------------------------------------- Zoomers Holding Company, LLC, asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court forthe Middle District of Florida for authority to obtain debtor-in-possession financing from D'Alessandro Equity Funding, Inc.D'Alessandro agreed to lend the Debtor up to $3,500,000. TheDebtor will pay the loan by executing a promissory note on a24-month term and accruing interest on unpaid note balance at theannual rate of 12.49%. The Note would be secured by a first lienagainst all of the Debtor's real property.The loan will be guaranteed by the Debtor's manager, RonaldHeromin, and will prime existing first lien holder, FloridaCommunity Bank.The Debtor tells the Court that it failed to obtain betterfinancing terms from other sources.The Debtor will use the loan, among others, to: -- payoff all construction liens on its property and its outstanding construction indebtedness; -- provide additional funds to complete the construction of its family amusement park in Southwest Florida; -- provide working capital for approximately six months to be able to commence operations at the Park and develop an operational record; -- pay officers' compensation; and -- pay for the administrative costs of its chapter 11 case.Headquartered in Osprey, Florida, Zoomers Holding Company, LLC,filed for chapter 11 protection on Apr. 28, 2006 (Bankr. M.D. Fla.Case No. 06-02008). Richard Johnston, Jr., Esq., at Kiesel Hughes& Johnston, represents the Debtor. No Official Committee ofUnsecured Creditors has been appointed in this. When the Debtorfiled for protection from its creditors, it estimated assets anddebts between $10 million and $50 million.* Upcoming Meetings, Conferences and Seminars---------------------------------------------June 1, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Commercial Lenders Breakfast Sydney, Australia Contact: 0438 653 179 or http://www.turnaround.org/June 1-2, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Southeast Regional Conference Amelia Island, Florida Contact: 410-347-7391 or http://www.turnaround.org/June 5, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION TMA NY Golf & Tennis Outing - MEMBERS & SPONSORSHIP REGISTRATION Fresh Meadow Country Club, Lake Success, New York Contact: 646-932-5532 or http://www.turnaround.org/June 7-10, 2006 ASSOCIATION OF INSOLVENCY & RESTRUCTURING ADVISORS 22nd Annual Bankruptcy & Restructuring Conference Grand Hyatt, Seattle, Washington Contact: http://www.airacira.org/June 8, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Breakfast Speaker Series #2 Ernst & Young Tower, Calgary, Alberta Contact: 403-294-4954 or http://www.turnaround.org/June 8, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Hedge Fund / Private Equity Round Table CityPlace Center, Dallas, Texas Contact: http://www.turnaround.org/June 8-9, 2006 MEALEYS PUBLICATION Asbestos Bankruptcy Conference Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Chicago, Illinois Contact: http://www.mealeys.com/June 13, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION How Are the Old Clients Doing? Duquesne Club, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Contact: http://www.turnaround.org/June 14, 2006 BEARD AUDIO CONFERENCES Homestead Exemptions under BAPCPA Audio Conference Contact: 240-629-3300; http://www.beardaudioconferences.comJune 14, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Annual Charity Golf Outing Harborside Golf Course, Chicago, Illinois Contact: 815-469-2935 or http://www.turnaround.org/June 14, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Golf Outing / Spouse Social Portland, Oregon Contact: 503-223-6222 or http://www.turnaround.org/June 14, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Signature Luncheon, Charity Event Sydney, Australia Contact: 0438 653 179 or http://www.turnaround.org/June 14, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Breakfast Meeting Marriot Tyson's Corner, Vienna, Virginia Contact: 703-912-3309 or http://www.turnaround.org/June 14, 2006 (tentative) TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION LI TMA Texas Hold'em for Charity Long Island, New York Contact: 631-251-6296 or http://www.turnaround.org/June 15, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Afghanistan - The Ultimate Turnaround Challenge Oak Hill Country Club, Rochester, New York Contact: http://www.turnaround.org/June 15-18, 2006 AMERICAN BANKRUPTCY INSTITUTE Central States Bankruptcy Workshop Grand Traverse Resort, Traverse City, Michigan Contact: 1-703-739-0800; http://www.abiworld.org/June 20, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Networking Breakfast TBA, Morristown, New Jersey Contact: 908-575-7333 or http://www.turnaround.org/June 21-23, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Global Educational Symposium Hyatt Regency, Chicago, Illinois Contact: http://www.turnaround.org/June 22-23, 2006 BEARD GROUP & RENAISSANCE AMERICAN CONFERENCES Ninth Annual Conference on Corporate Reorganizations Successful Strategies for Restructuring Troubled Companies The Millennium Knickerbocker Hotel, Chicago, Illinois Contact: 903-595-3800; 1-800-726-2524; http://www.renaissanceamerican.com/June 27, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Luncheon Citrus Club, Orlando, Florida Contact: 561-882-1331 or http://www.turnaround.org/June 27, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION What to Do When Internal Crime Strikes Your Company New Jersey Contact: http://www.turnaround.org/June 29, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 5th Annual Lenders Panel - Arizona Chapter National Bank of Arizona Conference Center, Phoenix, AZ Contact: http://www.turnaround.org/June 29 - July 2, 2006 NORTON INSTITUTES ON BANKRUPTCY LAW Bankruptcy Law Institute Jackson Lake Lodge, Jackson Hole, Wyoming Contact: 770-535-7722 or http://www2.nortoninstitutes.org/July 11, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION The New Bankruptcy Code Nine Months Later Rivers Club, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Contact: http://www.turnaround.org/July 12, 2006 BEARD AUDIO CONFERENCES Clash of the Titans -- Bankruptcy vs. IP Rights Audio Conference Contact: 240-629-3300; http://www.beardaudioconferences.comJuly 12, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Networking Function Sydney, Australia Contact: 0438 653 179 or http://www.turnaround.org/July 12, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Breakfast Meeting Center Club, Baltimore, Maryland Contact: 703-912-3309 or http://www.turnaround.org/July 13, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Women's Event TBA, New Jersey Contact: 908-575-7333 or http://www.turnaround.org/July 13-16, 2006 AMERICAN BANKRUPTCY INSTITUTE Northeast Bankruptcy Conference Newport Marriott, Newport, Rhode Island Contact: 1-703-739-0800; http://www.abiworld.org/July 18, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Networking Breakfast Marriott, Red Bank, New Jersey Contact: 908-575-7333 or http://www.turnaround.org/July 18-19, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Distressed & Turnaround Investing Congress Swiss\"tel The Drake, New York, New York Contact: http://www.turnaround.org/July 19, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION South Florida Dinner South Florida Contact: 561-882-1331 or http://www.turnaround.org/July 25, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Luncheon Centre Club, Tampa, Florida Contact: 561-882-1331 or http://www.turnaround.org/July 26-29, 2006 AMERICAN BANKRUPTCY INSTITUTE Southeast Bankruptcy Workshop The Ritz Carlton Amelia Island, Amelia Island, Florida Contact: 1-703-739-0800; http://www.abiworld.org/July 31, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Annual Golf & Tennis Outing Raritan Valley Country Club, Bridgewater, New Jersey Contact: 908-575-7333 or http://www.turnaround.org/July 31, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Summer Social BBQ Colonial Springs Country Club, Long Island, New York Contact: 631-251-6296 or http://www.turnaround.org/August 3, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Commercial Lenders Breakfast Sydney, Australia Contact: 0438 653 179 or http://www.turnaround.org/August 3-5, 2006 AMERICAN BANKRUPTCY INSTITUTE Mid-Atlantic Bankruptcy Workshop Hyatt Regency Chesapeake Bay, Cambridge, Maryland Contact: 1-703-739-0800; http://www.abiworld.org/August 9, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Professional Development Meeting Sydney, Australia Contact: 0438 653 179 or http://www.turnaround.org/August 15, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION DIP Panel Discussion Kansas City, Missouri Contact: http://www.turnaround.org/August 16, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Family Night Baseball with the NJ Jackals (Yogi Berra Autograph Night) Jackals Stadium, Montclair, New Jersey Contact: 908-575-7333 or http://www.turnaround.org/August 25, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Annual Fishing Trip Point Pleasant, New Jersey Contact: 908-575-7333 or http://www.turnaround.org/August 29, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Luncheon Citrus Club, Orlando, Florida Contact: 561-882-1331 or http://www.turnaround.org/September 6, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 4th Annual Alberta Golf Tournament Kananaskis Country Golf Course, Kananaskis, Alberta Contact: 403-294-4954 or http://www.turnaround.org/September 7, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Business Mixer TBA, Seattle, Washington Contact: 503-223-6222 or http://www.turnaround.org/September 7-8, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Saratoga Regional Conference Gideon Putnam Hotel, Saratoga Springs, New York Contact: http://www.turnaround.org/September 7-9, 2006 AMERICAN BANKRUPTCY INSTITUTE Southwest Bankruptcy Conference Wynn Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada Contact: 1-703-739-0800; http://www.abiworld.org/September 13, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Breakfast Meeting Marriott Tyson's Corner, Vienna, Virginia Contact: 703-912-3309 or http://www.turnaround.org/September 13, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Networking Breakfast TBA, Secaucus, New Jersey Contact: 908-575-7333 or http://www.turnaround.org/September 13, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION LI Turnaround Formal Event Long Island, New York Contact: http://www.turnaround.org/September 13, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Networking Function Sydney, Australia Contact: 0438 653 179 or www.turnaround.orgSeptember 13, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Formal Event - Major Speaker to be Announced Long Island, New York Contact: 631-251-6296 or http://www.turnaround.org/September 17-24, 2006 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEES Optional Alaska Cruise Seattle, Washington Contact: 800-929-3598 or http://www.nabt.com/September 20, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION South Florida Dinner Bankers Club, Miami, Florida Contact: 561-882-1331 or http://www.turnaround.org/September 24, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Restructuring the Troubled High Tech Company Arizona Contact: http://www.turnaround.org/September 26, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Luncheon Centre Club, Tampa, Florida Contact: 561-882-1331 or http://www.turnaround.org/September 27, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Joint Education Program with NYIC Joint Reception CFA/RMA/IWIRC Woodbridge Hilton, Iselin, NJ Contact: http://www.turnaround.org/September 27, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 7th Annual Cross Border Business Restructuring and Turnaround Conference Banff, Alberta Contact: http://www.turnaround.org/October 5, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Commercial Lenders Breakfast Sydney, Australia Contact: 0438 653 179 or http://www.turnaround.org/October 10, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Breakfast Meeting Center Club, Baltimore, Maryland Contact: 703-912-3309 or http://www.turnaround.org/October 11, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Professional Development Meeting Sydney, Australia Contact: 0438 653 179 or http://www.turnaround.org/October 11-14, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 2006 Annual Conference Milleridge Cottage, Long Island, New York Contact: 312-578-6900; http://www.turnaround.org/October 17, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Updates on the New Bankruptcy Law Kansas City, Missouri Contact: http://www.turnaround.org/October 19, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Billards Networking Night - Young Professionals TBA, New Jersey Contact: 908-575-7333 or http://www.turnaround.org/October 26, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Breakfast Speaker Series #3 TBA, Calgary, Alberta Contact: 403-294-4954 or http://www.turnaround.org/October 26, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Breakfast Speaker Series #3 TBA, Calgary, Alberta Contact: 403-294-4954 or http://www.turnaround.org/October 31, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Luncheon Citrus Club, Orlando, Florida Contact: 561-882-1331 or http://www.turnaround.org/October 31 - November 1, 2006 INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S INSOLVENCY & RESTRUCTURING CONFEDERATION IWIRC Annual Conference San Francisco, California Contact: http://www.iwirc.com/November 1, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Halloween Isn't Over! - Ghosts of turnarounds past who remind you about what you should have done differently Portland, Oregon Contact: http://www.turnaround.org/November 1-4, 2006 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BANKRUPTCY JUDGES National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges San Francisco, California Contact: http://www.ncbj.org/November 7, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Networking Breakfast Marriott, Bridgewater, New Jersey Contact: 908-575-7333 or http://www.turnaround.org/November 8, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Breakfast Meeting Marriott Tyson's Corner, Vienna, Virginia Contact: 703-912-3309 or http://www.turnaround.org/November 8, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION TMA Australia National Conference Sydney, Australia Contact: http://www.turnaround.org/November 14, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Luncheon Program St. Louis, Missouri Contact: 815-469-2935 or http://www.turnaround.org/November 15, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Joint Reception with NYIC/NYTMA TBA, New York Contact: 908-575-7333 or http://www.turnaround.org/November 15, 2006 LI TMA Formal Event TMA Australia National Conference Long Island, New York Contact: http://www.turnaround.org/November 15, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION South Florida Dinner Citrus Club, Orlando, Florida Contact: 561-882-1331 or http://www.turnaround.org/November 16, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Bankruptcy Judges Panel Duquesne Club, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Contact: http://www.turnaround.org/November 16, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Dinner Program TBA, Seattle, Washington Contact: 503-223-6222 or http://www.turnaround.org/November 23, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Martini Party Vancouver, British Columbia Contact: 403-294-4954 or http://www.turnaround.org/November 28, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Luncheon Centre Club, Tampa, FL Contact: 561-882-1331 or http://www.turnaround.org/November 29, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Special Program TBA, New Jersey Contact: 908-575-7333 or http://www.turnaround.org/November 30-December 2, 2006 AMERICAN BANKRUPTCY INSTITUTE Winter Leadership Conference Hyatt Regency at Gainey Ranch, Scottsdale, Arizona Contact: 1-703-739-0800; http://www.abiworld.org/December 6, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Holiday Dinner Portland, Oregon Contact: 503-223-6222 or http://www.turnaround.org/December 7, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Networking Breakfast The Newark Club, Newark, New Jersey Contact: 908-575-7333 or http://www.turnaround.org/December 13, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION LI TMA Holiday Party TBA, Long Island, New York Contact: 631-251-6296 or http://www.turnaround.org/December 13, 2006 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Christmas Function GE Commercial Finance, Sydney, Australia Contact: 0438 653 179 or http://www.turnaround.org/February 2007 AMERICAN BANKRUPTCY INSTITUTE International Insolvency Symposium San Juan, Puerto Rico Contact: 1-703-739-0800; http://www.abiworld.org/April 11-15, 2007 AMERICAN BANKRUPTCY INSTITUTE ABI Annual Spring Meeting J.W. Marriott, Washington, DC Contact: 1-703-739-0800; http://www.abiworld.org/March 27-31, 2007 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Spring Conference Four Seasons Las Colinas, Dallas, Texas Contact: http://www.turnaround.org/March 29-31, 2007 ALI-ABA Chapter 11 Business Reorganizations Scottsdale, Arizona Contact: 1-800-CLE-NEWS; http://www.ali-aba.org/June 6-9, 2007 ASSOCIATION OF INSOLVENCY & RESTRUCTURING ADVISORS 23rd Annual Bankruptcy & Restructuring Conference Westin River North, Chicago, Illinois Contact: http://www.airacira.org/June 14-17, 2007 AMERICAN BANKRUPTCY INSTITUTE Central States Bankruptcy Workshop Grand Traverse Resort, Traverse City, Michigan Contact: 1-703-739-0800; http://www.abiworld.org/July 12-15, 2007 AMERICAN BANKRUPTCY INSTITUTE Northeast Bankruptcy Conference Marriott, Newport, RI Contact: 1-703-739-0800; http://www.abiworld.org/October 10-13, 2007 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BANKRUPTCY JUDGES National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges Orlando, Florida Contact: http://www.ncbj.org/October 16-19, 2007 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION TMA Annual Convention Marriott Copley Place, Boston, Massachusetts Contact: 312-578-6900; http://www.turnaround.org/December 6-8, 2007 AMERICAN BANKRUPTCY INSTITUTE Winter Leadership Conference Westin Mission Hills Resort, Rancho Mirage, California Contact: 1-703-739-0800; http://www.abiworld.org/March 25-29, 2008 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION TMA Spring Conference Ritz Carlton Grande Lakes, Orlando, Florida Contact: http://www.turnaround.org/September 24-27, 2008 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BANKRUPTCY JUDGES National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges Scottsdale, Arizona Contact: http://www.ncbj.org/October 28-31, 2008 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION TMA Annual Convention Marriott Copley Place, Boston, Massachusetts Contact: 312-578-6900; http://www.turnaround.org/October 5-9, 2009 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION TMA Annual Convention Marriott Desert Ridge, Phoenix, Arizona Contact: 312-578-6900; http://www.turnaround.org/2009 (TBA) NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BANKRUPTCY JUDGES National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges Las Vegas, Nevada Contact: http://www.ncbj.org/October 4-8, 2010 TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION TMA Annual Convention JW Marriott Grande Lakes, Orlando, Florida Contact: http://www.turnaround.org/2010 (TBA) NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BANKRUPTCY JUDGES National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges New Orleans, Louisiana Contact: http://www.ncbj.org/ BEARD AUDIO CONFERENCES Coming Changes in Small Business Bankruptcy Audio Conference Recording Contact: 240-629-3300; http://www.beardaudioconferences.com/ BEARD AUDIO CONFERENCES Distressed Real Estate under BAPCPA Audio Conference Recording Contact: 240-629-3300; http://www.beardaudioconferences.com/ BEARD AUDIO CONFERENCES High-Yield Opportunities in Distressed Investing Audio Conference Recording Contact: 240-629-3300; http://www.beardaudioconferences.com/ BEARD AUDIO CONFERENCES Fundamentals of Corporate Bankruptcy and Restructuring Audio Conference Recording Contact: 240-629-3300; http://www.beardaudioconferences.com/ BEARD AUDIO CONFERENCES Reverse Mergers - the New IPO? Audio Conference Recording Contact: 240-629-3300; http://www.beardaudioconferences.com/ BEARD AUDIO CONFERENCES Dana's Chapter 11 Filing Audio Conference Recording Contact: 240-629-3300; http://www.beardaudioconferences.com/ BEARD AUDIO CONFERENCES Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation under the New Code Audio Conference Recording Contact: 240-629-3300; http://www.beardaudioconferences.com/ BEARD AUDIO CONFERENCES Validating Distressed Security Portfolios: Year-End Price Validation and Risk Assessment Audio Conference Recording Contact: 240-629-3300; http://www.beardaudioconferences.com/ BEARD AUDIO CONFERENCES Changing Roles & Responsibilities of Creditors' Committees Audio Conference Recording Contact: 240-629-3300; http://www.beardaudioconferences.com/ BEARD AUDIO CONFERENCES Calpine's Chapter 11 Filing Audio Conference Recording Contact: 240-629-3300; http://www.beardaudioconferences.com/ BEARD AUDIO CONFERENCES Healthcare Bankruptcy Reforms Audio Conference Recording Contact: 240-629-3300; http://www.beardaudioconferences.com/ BEARD AUDIO CONFERENCES Changes to Cross-Border Insolvencies Audio Conference Recording Contact: 240-629-3300; http://www.beardaudioconferences.com/ BEARD AUDIO CONFERENCES The Emerging Role of Corporate Compliance Panels Audio Conference Recording Contact: 240-629-3300; http://www.beardaudioconferences.comThe Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in theTroubled Company Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mailto [email protected] are encouraged. *********Monday's edition of the TCR delivers a list of indicative pricesfor bond issues that reportedly trade well below par. Prices areobtained by TCR editors from a variety of outside sources duringthe prior week we think are reliable. Those sources may not,however, be complete or accurate. The Monday Bond Pricing tableis compiled on the Friday prior to publication. Prices reportedare not intended to reflect actual trades. Prices for actualtrades are probably different. Our objective is to shareinformation, not make markets in publicly traded securities.Nothing in the TCR constitutes an offer or solicitation to buy orsell any security of any kind. It is likely that some entityaffiliated with a TCR editor holds some position in the issuers'public debt and equity securities about which we report.Each Tuesday edition of the TCR contains a list of companies withinsolvent balance sheets whose shares trade higher than $3 pershare in public markets. At first glance, this list may look likethe definitive compilation of stocks that are ideal to sell short.Don't be fooled. Assets, for example, reported at historical costnet of depreciation may understate the true value of a firm'sassets. A company may establish reserves on its balance sheet forliabilities that may never materialize. The prices at whichequity securities trade in public market are determined by morethan a balance sheet solvency test.A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the TCR. Submissions about insolvency-related conferences are encouraged. Send announcements [email protected] /On Thursdays, the TCR delivers a list of recently filed chapter 11cases involving less than $1,000,000 in assets and liabilitiesdelivered to nation's bankruptcy courts. The list includes linksto freely downloadable images of these small-dollar petitions inAcrobat PDF format.Each Friday's edition of the TCR includes a review about a book ofinterest to troubled company professionals. All titles areavailable at your local bookstore or through Amazon.com. Go tohttp://www.bankrupt.com/books/to order any title today. Monthly Operating Reports are summarized in every Saturday editionof the TCR.For copies of court documents filed in the District of Delaware,please contact Vito at Parcels, Inc., at 302-658-9911. Forbankruptcy documents filed in cases pending outside the Districtof Delaware, contact Ken Troubh at Nationwide Research &Consulting at 207/791-2852. *********S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O NTroubled Company Reporter is a daily newsletter co-publishedby Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland,USA. Marie Therese V. Profetana, Shimero Jainga, Joel Anthony G.Lopez, Emi Rose S.R. Parcon, Rizande B. Delos Santos, Cherry A.Soriano-Baaclo, Christian Q. Salta, Jason A. Nieva, Lucilo M.Pinili, Jr., Tara Marie A. Martin and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. ISSN: 1520-9474.This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers. Information containedherein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but isnot guaranteed.The TCR subscription rate is $725 for 6 months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firmfor the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are$25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beardat 240/629-3300. *** End of Transmission *** ",
"URL": "http://bankrupt.com/TCR_Public/060531.mbx"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Building 92 at Microsoft Corporation headquarters in Redmond, Washington. Credit: Coolcaesar/Wikimedia commons Microsoft is expected to announce on Monday a massive €1bn ($1.17bn) investment in Greece for the establishment of its new activities in Europe, including cloud services, Greek media report. The announcement will be made during an event at the Acropolis Museum attended by Greek PM Kyriakos Mitsotakis and the head of the American technology giant Brad Smith. According to a report in Kathimerini, the investment concerns the installation of an important part of the new technological infrastructure of the company that is related, among other things, to the activities of cloud services. The decision by Microsoft was taken in late September following talks with the Greek government and in particular the office of the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Digital Government, and the Ministry of Development, the paper says. Microsoft together with the Greek government already worked this year on the “project Olympia” which concerns augmented reality applications at the archeological site of Olympia in a side pilot project that consolidated further conditions of trust and cooperation between the two sides, says Kathimerini.",
"URL": "https://greece.greekreporter.com/2020/10/04/microsoft-reportedly-plans-massive-e1-billion-investment-in-greece/"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, October 7, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 200 Headlines 3001 CASTOR: $4.5MM Award to Club Dancers in Verman Suit Upheld AGRO LABOR SERVICES: Fombona Files Class Suit in California ALLERGAN, INC: Tauben Sues over BIOCELL Textured Breast Implants ALLIED INTERSTATE: Garcia-LVNV Deal Gets Initial Court Approval AMEDISYS HOLDING: Court Certifies Class in Advanced Rehab TCPA Suit ANDREW'S TRANS: Bobbitt Seeks Overtime Compensation for Drivers APPLE INC: First Amended Brodsky Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice ARS NATIONAL: Ortiz Files FDCPA Class Suit in New York ASSET RECOVERY: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed BACK OF THE HOUSE: Fails to Pay All Wages, Lopez Suit Alleges BERRY BROS: Court OKs Conditional Certification in Murillo BERRY BROS: Non-Exempt Laborers Class Certified in Murillo Suit BREO BOX: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act BROOKLYN EVENTS: Settlement in Kelly FCRA Suit Gets Final Approval CACHET: To be Blamed for Payroll Firm's Collapse, Stevens Says CEMENTOS ARGOS: Court Strikes Bid to Certify Class in McGaffin Suit CENTENE CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Sanchez Securities Lawsuit CH ROBINSON: Dietrich Renews Bid to Certify Class Under IMWL CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: Court Dismisses Shore ERISA Suit CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Court Denies Motion to Certify Class CHICAGO, IL: Tax Collection Suit Dismissal Affirmed CONTINENTAL INTERMODAL: Garza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COOK COUNTY, IL: Bennett's Bid for Class Certification Denied DOERING LANDSCAPE: Hernandez Seeks Class Certification Under IWPCA DOW CHEMICAL: Boothe Farms Files Class Action Over Pesticide EAST WISCONSIN: Settlement in Doberstein Has Preliminary Approval ENHANCED RECOVERY: Class Certification Sought in Zurakov Suit ENSIGN UNITED STATES: Newell Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Evans Class Suit Removed to S.D. Texas FEDLOAN SERVICING: Silver Moves for Certification of TCPA Class FORSTER GARBUS: Nitta Files FDCPA Class Suit in New Jersey FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Summary Judgment Bid in Berman TCPA Suit Denied GEICO GENERAL: Del. Super. OKs Interlocutory Appeal in Green GENDER BIAS: Fails to Pay Minimum/Overtime Wages, Lazo Lazo Says GENUINE PARTS: Removes Yoakum Suit to W.D. of Missouri GLOBAL TRANZ: Protective Order Bid in True Freight Partly Granted GREENLAND ACQUISITION: Wheby Sues over Share Exchange Deal GURU KRUPA: Romualdo, et al Seek Minimum & Overtime Wages HARTE-HANKS DIRECT: Valdez Settlement Has Final Court Approval HIDDEN VILLA RANCH: Marshall Suit Removed to C.D. California HYUNDAI MOTOR: NJ Court Dismisses in Part First Amended Brown Suit ILLINOIS: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Bennett INKSTER CITY, MI: Seeks Initial Approval of $130K Garner Suit Deal ISRAMCO, INC: Rosenblatt Balks at Naphtha Israel Transaction JB HUNT: Freeney Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. JUUL LABS: D'Amico Says E-cigarettes Addictive & Unsafe JUUL LABS: Faces Hochhauser Product Liability Suit in NY KAISER FOUNDATION: Settlement in Banks FLSA Suit Gets Final OK LEGEND MINING: Approval of Kaesemeyer Suit Settlement Recommended LICMM CORP: Murphy Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act LJ ROSS ASSOCIATES: Rosen Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York MARJAN INT'L: Polanco, et al Seek OT Wages for Restaurant Staff MAXWELL TRAILERS: Cond'l Certification of Two FLSA Classes Sought MCDERMOTT CENTER: Gladney Sues over Collection of Biometric Data MDL 2286: Discovery Deadlines & Limitations in TCPA Suit Issued MDL 2672: Court Tosses Volkswagen's Summary Judgment Bid MDL 2804: Bryant Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs MICROSOFT CORP: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Khalid Anti-Trust Suit MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS: Rowland Seeks Certification of Two Classes MORENO: Wonderful Pistachios Files Petition for Coordination NASSAU, NY: Bid to Certify NY Labor Law Claims Denied NATIONAL CREDIT: Swanson Sues over Debt Collection Practices NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Third Circuit Appeal Initiated in Leo Suit NATIONWIDE LIFE: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Brown Suit NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Williams Suit Moved to C.D. California NBTY INC: Court Refuses to Disgorge Settlement Payments in Pearson NEW YORK, NY: Class in Suit over Police Record Access Certified NISSAN MOTOR: Face Ellis Suit in Missouri Western District NMS MANAGEMENT: Yip Seeks to Certify Class of Mobile Examiners NOBULL LLC: Conner Files Class Suit under ADA in New York NOPALERA GRILL: Sorto Seeks Regular & OT Wages for Servers NORTH CAROLINA: Sex Offenders Class Certified in Grabarczyk Suit NOTRE DAME DE NAMUR: Moore Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California NOVATIME TECHNOLOGY: Thome Sues over Collection of Biometric Data NPAS SOLUTIONS: Court Enters Protective Order in Whittum TCPA Suit NRT WEST: Bid to Certify Three Classes in Chinitz TCPA Suit Denied OAKLEY TRANSPORTATION: Smith Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Drivers PATTERSON COS: Bid to Dismiss Plymouth County Suit Partly Granted PENN CREDIT: Williams Sues over Debt Collection Practices PETROBRAS: 2nd Cir. Upholds Securities Case Settlement Approval PILOT MOUNTAIN: Spain Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages PRINCE GEORGE'S, MD: Strange Seeks Overtime Wages PROPETRO HOLDING: Faces Logan Suit Over Share Price Drop PURDUE PHARMA: Stock Files RICO Class Action in Oklahoma QUAD/GRAPHICS: Court OKs Bid to Amend Complaint in Clark RAIL DELIVERY: Canava Files Class Cert. Bid; Hearing on Nov. 25 RED ROBIN: Seeks to Decertify Vigueras Class & Subclasses REYES SINGLE: Faces Port Properties Suit in California State Court RMS PROPERTIES: Vladovich Seeks OT Premium for Landscapers SAFE HAVEN SECURITY: FLSA Class Certified in Martin Suit SLIDE FIRE: Court Narrows Claims in Prescott NDTPA Suit SMITH-PALLUCK ASSOCIATES: Court Grants Protective Order in Renteri SONY CORP: 9th Circuit Upholds Settlement Approval in Young Lawsuit SPIRIT AIRLINES: 2nd Circuit Vacates in Part Dismissal of Cox Suit STANLEY STEEMER: Runnels Seeks Overtime Compensation STEIN MART INC: Castaneda Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. SWAROVSKI NORTH: Calif. Court Denies Dismissal of Lerman Suit TAPESTRY, INC: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification TARGET CORPORATION: Ornelas et al. Suit Moved to C.D. California TILE SHOP: 7th Cir. Affirms IWPCA Suit Dismissal TOKYO HIBACHI: Jones Seeks to Certify Class of Restaurant Servers TRAVEL NURSE: Court Dismisses Individual Claims in K. Call's Suit TRIAD SENIOR: Webster Sues over Collection of Biometric Data TRIANTOS ENTERPRISES: Fontanez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages TRUEACCORD CORP: Certification of Class Sought in Lindala Suit TRUEACCORD CORP: Court Stays Lindala Bid for Class Certification UNITED AIRLINES: Vallarta Sues over Misleading Travel Insurance UNITED COLLECTION: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed VERO BEACH, FL: Doe Can't Proceed Anonymously in Parlor Video Suit VISA INC: Certification of ATM Operators Class Sought WALGREEN CO: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit WALGREEN CO: Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Atwood Suit WALT DISNEY: Website not Accessible to Deaf People, Wineguard Says WE CARE HOMES: Migues Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective WELTMAN WEINBERG: Ct. Narrows Claims in Bitzko Case WEST VIRGINIA: Minors File Civil Rights Class Action WHIRLPOOL CORP: NJ Court Narrows Claims in DeFillippo Suit WILLIS TOWERS: Fourth Circuit Vacates Dismissal of Proxy Suit WINDHAM PROFESSIONALS: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed YOUNIQUE, LLC: Court Grants Bid to Certify Settlement Class ********* 3001 CASTOR: $4.5MM Award to Club Dancers in Verman Suit Upheld --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PRIYA VERMA, On behalf of herself and All others similarly situated, v. 3001 CASTOR, INC., d/b/a The Penthouse Club and/or The Penthouse Club@Philly; ABCDE PENNSYLVANIA MANAGEMENT, LLC; DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10 3001 Castor, Inc., Appellant, Case No. 18-2462 (3d. Cir.), Judge Thomas L. Ambro of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's final judgment entering the $4.5 million jury verdict. Priya Verma was a dancer at the Penthouse Club, a nightclub in Philadelphia operated by Castor. The Club provides topless female dancers who entertain Castor's customers by performing seductive dances. As the Club's owner and operator, Castor controlled its atmosphere, policies, operations, and marketing. Dancers at the Club were classified into two categories: \"Entertainers\" and \"Freelancers.\" The Dancers at the Club worked in shifts. The Club did not pay dancers a wage; their compensation consisted entirely of (1) \"tips\" they received when dancing on stage or (2) fixed \"dance fees\" at rates established by the Club, which they received from giving \"private dances\" in the private dance rooms. The Club also took a fee, called a \"room-rental fee,\" for each private dance. Castor also required the dancers to \"tip out\" certain individuals who worked at the Club. In 2013, Verma filed the action against Castor on behalf of herself and similarly situated current and former dancers at the Club. She alleged claims for minimum wages and overtime under the FLSA, analogous claims for minimum wages and overtime under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (\"PMWA\"), a claim for non-payment of wages under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, and a claim for unjust enrichment under Pennsylvania common law. After some discovery, the District Court entered an order conditionally certifying a collective action under the FLSA comprising current and former dancers of the Club during the covered time period. After further discovery, the Court entered an order granting final certification of the FLSA collective action (covering both the minimum-wage and overtime claims) and granting in part Verma's motion for class certification under Rule 23. The Court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class with respect to the following claims under Pennsylvania law: (i) a claim for minimum wages under the PMWA, (ii) a claim for overtime under the PMWA, and (iii) a claim for unjust enrichment based on deductions for mandatory tip-outs. It denied class certification to the extent the Plaintiffs sought to recover deductions for stage-rental fees, fines, and room-rental fees. A couple weeks before trial, the Plaintiffs and Castor purportedly reached an agreement in principle to settle an aspect of the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims. The terms of that alleged settlement are not in the record, and there appears to be disagreement between counsel concerning what those terms are and whether an agreement was actually reached. What the Court knows is that the Plaintiffs were to receive $109,000 in exchange for not presenting at trial some portion of their FLSA claims. Shortly after the alleged settlement, Castor filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It argued that a settlement concerning the FLSA claims -- the only federal claims involved -- deprived the District Court of jurisdiction over the case. The Court denied that motion because, in its view, it retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a). The remaining claims -- class claims for minimum wages under the PMWA, overtime under the PMWA, and unjust enrichment -- went to trial. The jury returned a verdict awarding the class more than $4.5 million: $2,610,322.61 for the minimum wage claims and $1,948,400.12 for the unjust enrichment claims. Castor filed post-trial motions asking the Court to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction, to reconsider its summary-judgment rulings, and to enter judgment for Castor as a matter of law. The Court denied those motions and entered final judgment on the verdict. Castor appeals. It contends the District Court did not have jurisdiction to try the case. It claims the Court should have granted its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction after the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle an aspect of the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims. Judge Ambro concludes that the District Court had CAFA jurisdiction to try the class' claims under the PMWA and Pennsylvania common law. It also correctly ruled before trial that, as a matter of law, the Plaintiffs were Castor's employees. The Judge is not persuaded the class' claims for unjust enrichment are preempted by the FLSA, nor is Castor entitled to a credit or an offset of damages for the dance fees the class members earned and received. Hence, Judge Ambro affirmed in full the challenged rulings of the District Court and sustained the jury's verdict. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/t4LyNO from Leagle.com. John F. Innelli (Argued) -- [email protected] -- Two Penn Center, Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA 19102, Counsel for Appellant. Jamisen A. Etzel (Argued) -- [email protected] -- Gary F. Lynch -- [email protected] -- Carlson Lynch Kilpela & Carpenter, 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222. Gerald D. Wells, III -- [email protected] -- Connolly Wells & Gray, 2200 Renaissance Boulevard, Suite 275, King of Prussia, PA 19406, Counsel for Appellee. AGRO LABOR SERVICES: Fombona Files Class Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Agro Labor Services, Inc. The case is styled as Esteban Fombona, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Agro Labor Services, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-102788 (Cal. Super., Kern County, Oct. 1, 2019). The case type is stated as Other Employment - Civil Unlimited. AGRO LABOR SERVICES, INC. operates in the state of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Tel: 949-379-6250 ALLERGAN, INC: Tauben Sues over BIOCELL Textured Breast Implants ---------------------------------------------------------------- LANA TAUBEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALLERGAN, INC. f/k/a INAMED CORPORATION, ALLERGAN USA, INC., and ALLERGAN plc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02257-CSB-EIL (Ill. Cir., Sept. 20, 2019), alleges Allergan's BICOELL textured breast implants have increased Plainitff's risk of developing breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (\"BIA-ALCL\"). On July 24, 2019, Allergan announced a worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration called for the action following new information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants were tied to cases of BIA-ALCL. The Plaintiff has received two sets of implants from Allergan. She received her first set of implants in November 2016. However, these implants were removed in July 2017, because she had significant problems with pain and swelling around the implants. During the second surgery to remove her implants, the Plaintiff received a second set of implants. These implants were manufactured by Defendants and were the Naturelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone-Filled Breast Implants FX. These implants were later recalled by the FDA on July 24, 2019. At the time of the procedure in July 2017, the Plaintiff lived in Illinois. the Plaintiff would not have had the recalled BIOCELL product implanted had she known prior to her surgery that the BIOCELL textured implants increased her risk of contracting BIA-ALCL, in addition to the costs associated with surgical removal of the implants. Plaintiff seeks removal of the BIOCELL textured implants at Defendants' full expense, the lawsuit says. Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders (\"BIOCELL\" or \"BIOCELL textured implants\").[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are: Luke A. Baumstark, Esq. THE BAUMSTARK FIRM LLC 815 Geyer Avenue St. Louis, MO 63104 Telephone: (314) 492-6290 Facsimile: (314) 492-6348 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Matthew L. Dameron, Esq. Courtney M. Stout, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 945-7110 Facsimile: (816) 945-7118 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] - and - Mandy M. Shell, Esq. SHELL LAW & TAX 1656 Washington, Suite 140 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 399-5030 Facsimile: (816) 205-8420 E-mail: [email protected] ALLIED INTERSTATE: Garcia-LVNV Deal Gets Initial Court Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ESMERALDA GARCIA, an individual; on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ALLIED INTERSTATE, LLC, a Minnesota Corporation; IQOR US, INC., a Delaware Corporation; LVNV FUNDING, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership; and ALEGIS GROUP, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1 NUMBERS THROUGH 25, Case No. 5:15-cv-00294-RCL (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Royce C. Lamberth preliminarily approves the Class Action Settlement Agreement and the Notice of Class Action Settlement reflecting a proposed settlement between: (a) Plaintiff Esmeralda Garcia, individually, and on behalf of a Settlement Class of similarly situated persons; and (b) LVNV Funding, LLC, Resurgent Capital Services, L.P., and Alegis Group, L.L.C (\"the Settling Defendants\"). A Fairness Hearing will be held before the Court on January 10, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., to determine all necessary matters concerning the Settlement. The Court approves, as to form and content, the proposed \"Notice of Class Action\" attached as Exhibit I to the Agreement. For purposes of effectuating this settlement, the Court preliminarily certifies a Settlement Class consisting of: (a) all individuals with addresses in the State of Texas; (b) to whom a collection letter was sent on behalf of LVNV Funding, LLC; (c) offering a settlement of a debt; (d) which debt was a credit card debt on which the last payment or activity had occurred more than four years prior to the date of the letter; (e) which letter was sent during the period from April 16, 2014, through the date of preliminary approval; and (f) who either made a payment, a payment promise, or a dispute subsequent to the sending of the letter. Excluded from the Class are: a. any person who is already subject to an existing settlement agreement with LVNV Funding, LLC, Resurgent Capital Services, L.P., or Alegis Group, L.L.C.; b. any person who 1s deceased as of the date of this Order and for whom an administrator or executor has not been appointed; c. any person who has filed for bankruptcy protection under Title 11 of the United States Code as of the date of this Order; and d. any Class Member who timely mails a valid request for exclusion. For purposes of effectuating this settlement, the Court appoints Plaintiff Esmeralda Garcia as the Class Representative and her attorneys, Stern Thomasson LLP, as Class Counsel. The Parties are authorized to retain the services of a reputable third-party class settlement administrator. On or before October 19, 2019, the Administrator will print and mail the Class Notice to the Class Members. Any Class Member who desires to enter an appearance through counsel pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2)(B)(iv) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must do so by December 19, 2019.[CC] The Settling Defendants are represented by: Manuel H. Newburger, Esq. BARRON & NEWBURGER, P.C. 7320 N. Mopac Expy., Suite 400 Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: (512) 476-9103 Facsimile: (512) 279-0310 E-mail: [email protected] AMEDISYS HOLDING: Court Certifies Class in Advanced Rehab TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ADVANCED REHAB AND MEDICAL, P.C., Plaintiff, v. AMEDISYS HOLDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01149-JDB-jay (W.D. Tenn.), Judge J Daniel Breen of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Eastern Division, granted Advanced Rehab's motion for class certification. Advanced Rehab initiated the action on Aug. 4, 2017, against Defendant Amedisys, and other parties, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (\"TCPA\"), as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (\"JFPA\"), stemming from faxes Amedisys transmitted to the Plaintiff. In the putative class action, Advanced Rehab seeks to join all similarly situated Plaintiffs via the motion for class certification. Advanced Rehab alleges that between Nov. 23, 2015, and July 13, 2017, Amedisys, a Louisiana limited liability company that provides in-home health care services, sent it unsolicited faxes in an effort to facilitate referrals. The Plaintiff avers that a total of 216,897 similar faxes were sent to the proposed class of Plaintiffs. On April 27, 2018, the Defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment. In its supporting memorandum, Amedisys explained that only persons who had provided at least two referrals within a 12-month period received faxes, and, furthermore, each of those documents contained an opt-out notice that complied with the TCPA's requirements. The Defendant sought summary judgment on the issues of (1) whether the opt-out notice was clear and conspicuous; (2) whether the notice set forth the requirements for a proper opt-out request as set forth in 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(2)(D)(iii) & (E); and (3) whether the notice complied with the requirements of section 227(d). On Aug. 15, 2018, the Court granted the Defendant's motion, in part, holding that the opt-out notice (1) was clear and conspicuous as a matter of law; and (2) complied with the statutory requirements of Section 227(b)(2)(D)(iii), (E)(i) & (ii)2. Because of a lack of argument from the Defendant, the Court denied summary judgment as to (1) the compliance of the opt-out notice with respect to Secttion 227(b)(2)(E)(iii); and (2) whether the timestamp at the top of the faxed document satisfied the statute's directive under Section 227(d)(1)(B). Amedisys's Oct. 22, 2018 response to Advanced's motion for class certification revisits these issues at length. In response to the Plaintiff's subsequent motion for class certification, the Defendant filed a 33-page brief. Much of the document, however, does not directly address the issue of class certification, but is, rather, devoted to arguments that are collateral to that question. First, Amedisys contends that Advanced lacks standing because of an absence of damages that are traceable to the receipt of the facsimiles in controversy. Next, the brief implores the Court to consider matters that should be addressed prior to class certification, which the Defendant insists were raised in its motion for summary judgment. Finally, Amedisys proceeds to challenge the merits of the Plaintiff's motion. Because the Plaintiff satisfied the threshold questions, the Rule 23(a) prerequisites, and the requirements for one of the certification avenues under Rule 23(b), Judge Breen granted Advanced's motion for class certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/u16JDu from Leagle.com. Advanced Rehab and Medical, PC, A Tennessee corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by represented by Brian John Wanca -- [email protected] -- ANDERSON & WANCA, pro hac vice, Ryan Michael Kelly -- [email protected] -- ANDERSON & WANCA, pro hac vice & Benjamin Cole Aaron, NEAL & HARWELL PLC. Amedisys Holding, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kevin C. Baltz -- [email protected] -- BUTLER SNOW LLP. ANDREW'S TRANS: Bobbitt Seeks Overtime Compensation for Drivers --------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Bobbitt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Andrew's Transportation, LLC and Jose M. Avelar, the Defendants, Case No. 19-1187 (Mass Super., Sept. 16, 2019), seeks to recover damages arising from the Defendants' failure to pay overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek in violation of the Massachusetts Overtime Act. Mr. Bobbin is a resident of Brockton, Massachusetts, and was employed by the Defendants out of Stoughton, Massachusetts. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a driver to perform non-emergency medical transportation services from at least three years preceding the filing of the Complaint in this matter through approximately November 2018, the lawsuit says. Andrew's Transportation provides non-emergency medical transportation services to individuals.[BN] Attorney for Plaintiff is: Adam J. Shafran, Esq. RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP 92 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: 617 723-7700 Facsimile: 617-227-0313 APPLE INC: First Amended Brodsky Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JAY BRODSKY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-00712-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern Distric of California, San Jose Division, granted Apple's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint (\"FAC\") without prejudice. Plaintiffs Brodsky, Brian Tracey, Alex Bishop, and Brendan Schwartz brought a putative class action against Apple for alleged privacy and property violations based on Apple's two-factor authentication login tool. Once a consumer buys an Apple product, the Apple product is associated with the consumer's Apple ID, which is the individual's email address. An Apple ID is required to use Apple services, such as FaceTime and iMessage. The Plaintiffs allege that Apple's provision of two-factor authentication (\"2FA\") as an Apple ID login process violates the Plaintiffs' right to privacy. 2FA is enabled in three instances: (i) a software update occurs on one of the Apple devices; (ii) on creation of a new Apple ID; or (iii) owner of the Apple device turns on two-factor authentication in the Settings. When enabled, 2FA requires a multi-step login process before a user can access Apple services. After 2FA is enabled, Apple will sometimes send an email to the user that explains that the user can disable 2FA. Plaintiff Brodsky alleges that in September 2015, a software update enabled 2FA for his Apple ID. Plaintiff Tracey alleges that he was forced to enable 2FA for a software update on his Apple devices. Plaintiff Bishop alleges that based on an unforeseen consequence outside of his control, he lost access to his second trusted Apple device, which he used for 2FA. Plaintiff Bishop could not access Apple services using Apple ID \"for days.\" Plaintiff Schwartz alleges that he lost his second trusted Apple device based on events outside of his control. Then, Apple placed Plaintiff Schwartz in its account recovery process and Plaintiff Schwartz could not use his Apple ID for months. Plaintiff Brodsky filed the lawsuit against Apple on Feb. 8, 2019. On March 29, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint, with Tracey, Bishop, and Schwartz added as named Plaintiffs. The FAC alleges five causes of action: (1) trespass to chattels; (2) violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (\"CIPA\"); (3) violation of the California Computer Crime Law (\"CCCL\"); (4) violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (\"CFAA\"); and (5) unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs brought the suit on behalf of the following putative class: All persons or entities in the United States who own or owned an Apple Watch, iPhone, iPad, MacBook, or iMac or use Apple Services that have enabled two-factor authentication (2FA), subsequently want to disable 2FA, and are not allowed to disable 2FA. The class period began when Apple introduced 2FA in 2015. On May 1, 2019, Apple filed the instant motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' FAC. Apple moves to dismiss each of the Plaintiffs' claims for failure to state a claim. It also contends that certain claims are barred by the statute of limitations or must be dismissed because the Plaintiffs fail to allege their states of residence. Judge Koh finds that the Plaintiffs do not allege facts to indicate that they failed to authorize the enablement of 2FA. Rather, their FAC alleges that 2FA is enabled when an Apple ID user voluntarily turns on 2FA, installs a software update, or creates a new Apple ID. None of those means to enable 2FA permits Apple to enable 2FA unilaterally and without the Plaintiffs' authorization. In fact, neither Plaintiff Bishop nor Plaintiff Schwartz even specifies how they enabled 2FA on their Apple devices, or alleges that enablement was involuntary. The Judge further finds that the Plaintiffs have also failed to allege that Apple harmed them through 2FA. The Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that Apple interfered with their possession of their devices, the Judge states. Accordingly, the Judge grants Apple's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' trespass to chattels claim. Because granting the Plaintiffs an additional opportunity to amend the complaint would not be futile, cause undue delay, or unduly prejudice Apple, and the Plaintiffs have not acted in bad faith, the Judge grants leave to amend. Next, the Judge discusses the Plaintiffs' CIPA claim. Plaintiffs allege that Apple violated the CIPA because via 2FA, Apple, by injecting itself in the process by requiring extra logging steps, has acquired without authorization confidential electronic communication owned by the Plaintiffs and the Class Members. The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege that via 2FA, Apple was a third party that intercepted their communications with another entity, and have also failed to identify the contents of any communication that Apple allegedly intercepted, as required to state a claim under the CIPA. Accordingly, the Judge grants Apple's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' CIPA claim. Because granting the Plaintiffs an additional opportunity to amend the complaint would not be futile, cause undue delay, or unduly prejudice Apple, and the Plaintiffs have not acted in bad faith, the Judge also grants leave to amend. As to the Plaintiffs' claims under the federal CFAA, the Plaintiffs allege that Apple intentionally accessed through the 2FA feature their and the Class Members' computers and that Apple knowingly caused the transmission of information, i.e. sending and receiving of six-digit verification code [sic] on another device. The Plaintiffs brought claims under two provisions of the CFAA, 18 U.S.C. Section 1030(a)(2) and Section 18 U.S.C. Section 1030(a)(5). First, the Judge notes that the Plaintiffs' FAC alleges a claim that 2FA slows down the login process, not a hacking claim. To the extent they attempt to allege that Apple exceeded their authorization, the Plaintiffs do not allege that they revoked any consent for Apple's servers to receive their login activities. Second, the Plaintiffs have failed to plead damages under the CFAA. Although they make the conclusory allegation that they suffered economic loss with an aggregated value of at least $5,000 during a one-year period, the Plaintiffs allege no facts to support that conclusion. Accordingly, the Judge grants Apple's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' CFAA claim. Because granting the Plaintiffs an additional opportunity to amend the complaint would not be futile, cause undue delay, or unduly prejudice Apple, and they have not acted in bad faith, the Judge grants leave to amend. Next, the Judge discusses the Plaintiffs' claims under the CCCL, also sometimes referred to as the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs offer no allegations about how they attempted to prevent 2FA's access to their information, or how 2FA offers Apple access to their information that is somehow different from Apple's access through other Apple ID login methods. Accordingly, the Judge grants Apple's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' CCCL claim. Because granting the Plaintiffs an additional opportunity to amend the complaint would not be futile, cause undue delay, or unduly prejudice Apple, and they have not acted in bad faith, she grants leave to amend. The Plaintiffs' fifth claim is for unjust enrichment. The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' FAC includes no allegation that Apple is liable in quasi-contract or that 2FA was somehow mislabeled. The Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim thus appears pled as a stand-alone cause of action, and dismissal is warranted. Accordingly, the Judge grants Apple's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim. Because granting the Plaintiffs an additional opportunity to amend the complaint would not be futile, cause undue delay, or unduly prejudice Apple, and they have not acted in bad faith, she grants leave to amend. Finally, the Judge addresses Apple's two other arguments about deficiencies in the Plaintiffs' FAC. First, Apple contended that Plaintiff Brodsky's and the putative class's claims under the CIPA, CCCL, and CFAA are all time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have not alleged any right to periodic payments, or challenged Apple's assessment of a periodic obligations. Accordingly, the continuous accrual doctrine does not apply. Second, the Plaintiffs contended that the FAC alleges a pattern of frequent and similar acts because after 2FA is enabled, they must use 2FA for each login and are thus injured on an ongoing basis. For similar reasons, the Plaintiffs also cannot rely on the delayed discovery rule. Any user allegedly injured by 2FA would be aware of that injury on the user's first attempt to log in via 2FA. Therefore, the statute of limitations bars Plaintiff Brodsky's and the putative class' claims under the CIPA, CCCL, and CFAA, and the Judge grants Apple's motion to dismiss Plaintiff Brodsky and the putative class's CIPA, CCCL, and CFAA claims on that ground. Because granting Plaintiff Brodsky and the putative class an additional opportunity to amend the complaint would not be futile, cause undue delay, or unduly prejudice Apple, and Plaintiff Brodsky and the putative class have not acted in bad faith, the Judge grants leave to amend. Finally, Apple also contended that the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their common law claims for trespass to chattels and unjust enrichment because the Plaintiffs fail to allege their states of residence. The Judge holds that without any notice as to the Plaintiffs' states of residence or which state's law applies to each of their common law claims, Apple cannot adequately defend itself, nor can the Court assess the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs' claims. In the Order, the Judge has dismissed the Plaintiffs' common law claims with leave to amend. If they file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies in the Order as well as in Apple's motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs should also amend their pleading to specify their states of residence and clarify under which state's common law they bring their trespass to chattels and unjust enrichment claims. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Koh granted Apple's motion to dismiss without prejudice. Should the Plaintiffs elect to file an amended complaint, they are required to do so without delay. The Plaintiffs may not add new causes of action or parties without leave of the Court or stipulation of the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/APhIbn from Leagle.com. Jay Brodsky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Brian Tracey, Alex Bishop & Brendan Schwartz, Plaintiffs, represented by Deepali Apurva Brahmbhatt -- [email protected] -- One LLP, John E. Lord , One LLP & Peter Reza Afrasiabi -- [email protected] -- One LLP. Apple Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, represented by David Michael Walsh, Esq. -- [email protected] -- Morrison & Foerster, Erin Patricia Lupfer -- [email protected] -- Morrison and Foerster LLP, Lauren Lynn Erker -- [email protected] -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & Tiffany Cheung -- [email protected] -- Morrison & Foerster LLP. ARS NATIONAL: Ortiz Files FDCPA Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National Services, Inc. The case is styled as Jason Ortiz and Joao Dealmeida, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARS National Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05560 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 1, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. ARS National Services, Inc. is a Financial institution in Escondido, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: [email protected] - and - Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: [email protected] ASSET RECOVERY: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANN ZARCZYNSKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC and VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01377-PP (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff ask the Court for an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff furthers ask that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) (\"The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.\"). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] BACK OF THE HOUSE: Fails to Pay All Wages, Lopez Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- MAGALY OLAYO LOPEZ v. BACK OF THE HOUSE INC.; MISSION 98 SUPER, LLC; MBURGER, LLC; JBURGER LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC-19-579264 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Sept. 16, 2019), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated current and former aggrieved employees of the Defendants for failure to pay all wages and failure to permit meal and rest periods. BACK OF THE HOUSE INC. is a California corporation doing business as Super Duper Burgers with its principal place of business located at 1829 Union Street, in San Francisco, California. MISSION 98, MBURGER and JBURGER are California limited liability companies doing business as Super Duper Burgers with their principal place of located at 1829 Union Street. The Plaintiff is ignorant as to the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Defendants own and operate several Super Duper Burger restaurants in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arlo Garcia Uriarte, Esq. Ernesto Sanchez, Esq. LIBERATION LAW GROUP, P.C. 2760 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 695-1000 Facsimile: (415) 695-1006 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] BERRY BROS: Court OKs Conditional Certification in Murillo ---------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion For Conditional Certification and Notice in the case captioned Murillo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situation, v. Berry Bros General Contractors Inc. Civil Action No. 6:18-cv-1434. (W.D. La.). Murillo filed this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging that Berry Bros. failed to pay him and other similarly situated workers overtime compensation. Murillo alleges he was employed by Berry Bros. as a mechanic at its Pecos, Texas fabrication facility. Plaintiff brings this suit on his own behalf and also on behalf of a proposed class which he moves to conditionally certify as: All non-exempt hourly workers, such as mechanics, equipment operators, drivers, pipefitters, welders, electricians, cement and concrete workers, and other laborers, employed by Berry Bros. in the United States over the last three years whose regular rate of pay failed to include Additional Pay beyond their base hourly rate (hereinafter Non-Exempt Laborers or Class Members). Murillo moves to conditionally certify a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) of the FLSA and judicially-approve notice to be sent by first class mail, e-mail and text message1 to all Berry Bros. employees classified as Non-Exempt Laborers or Class Members at any time during the past three years. Legal Standard The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) sets a general minimum wage for employees engaged in commerce. Section 207(a) requires covered employers to compensate nonexempt employees at overtime rates for time worked in excess of statutorily defined maximum hours. The FLSA affords workers the right to sue collectively on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated for violations of the Act's minimum wage provisions and overtime protections. An employee can bring an action for violating the overtime provisions of the FLSA either individually or as a collective action on behalf of herself and \"other employees similarly situated. Conditional Certification As this case is presently at the notice stage, the Court must make a decision whether conditional certification should be granted and whether notice of the action and right to opt-in should be given to potential class members. Murillo alleges he was paid a base hourly rate of $21.00 per hour and generally worked over 40 hours per week for which he was paid overtime. In addition to the base hourly rate and related overtime, he also received Additional Pay on his paycheck stubs. As an example of this Additional Pay, Murillo attaches pay stubs for the pay period 9/4/2017 to 9/10/2017 providing Pay Code 5000 for $240.00 and Pay Code 4600 for $600.00 which were included in his total gross amount. Murillo contends that he understood that these Additional Payments were based on his hours worked, namely, that in the event he worked at least 4 hours per day, he would receive this Additional Pay which was subject to taxes. Berry Bros. argues that Murillo refused to specify the nature of the Additional Pay he received from Berry Bros. It argues that Murillo has failed to cite any case in which the Court conditionally certified a class based on the employer's exclusion of unspecified Additional Pay from the regular rate. Berry Bros. states that Murillo's discovery responses demonstrate that his unspecified Additional Pay claims are actually based on (1) per diem payments and (2) vehicle reimbursement. Berry Bros. contends that per diem payments may be excludable from the regular rate of pay under the FLSA. Murillo agrees that Berry Bros. characterization of Additional Pay as taxable per diem and truck pay is exactly what type of Additional Pay is at issue. He claims that Berry Bros. categorically excludes all Additional Pay (per diem and truck pay) other than hourly and quantity of work pay, from the regular rate of pay to calculate employees' overtime compensation. As to Berry Bros. merit-based argument that per diem payments may be excluded from the regular rate of pay under Section 207(e)(2), Murillo correctly states that the conditional certification stage is not the proper time for such arguments as affirmative defenses are more properly adjudicated after discovery. It is Berry Bros. burden to show that the payments at issue made to employees should be excluded from the employees' regular rate under 29 U.S.C. Section 207. In Minyard v. Double D Tong, Inc., 2017 WL 5640818, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 22, 2017) the plaintiffs filed an FLSA case with opt-in plaintiffs which included all non-exempt casing employees\" employed by defendants nationwide. Defendants argued that because their casing employees had dissimilar job positions with additional pay, including non-discretionary bonuses, truck allowances, and safety bonus pay, they were not similarly situated under the FLSA. As Murillo asserts in this case, the plaintiffs in Minyard argued that the similarly situated analysis did not depend on the various job duties performed by the members of the proposed class because the case was not a misclassification case, but rather, a uniform pay plan for non-exempt employees. The court agreed and held that a class that encompasses a wide range of job positions may be conditionally certified as long as the differences between class members are not material to the allegations of the case. Here, the claims of the putative class members are similar in that they are compensated under the same regimen. As the dissimilar job responsibilities among the class have not been shown to be relevant to Plaintiff's FLSA allegations, they are not a barrier to conditional certification. However, because Plaintiff concedes that the Additional Pay provision are actually per diem and truck payments, the Court will clarify the definition of Additional Pay and amend the definition of the conditionally-certified class as follows: All current and former non-exempt laborers employed by Berry Bros. over the last three years who received Additional Pay in the form of per diem payments and truck allowance pay, not included in the regular rate of pay. Form of Notice Having concluded that a notice of collective action is appropriate in this case, the next consideration is whether Plaintiff's proposed notice is proper. Murillo seeks judicial approval of his Proposed Notice as well as the disclosure of the names, contact information, including the addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers) and dates of employment of the Class Members. He also requests permission to send Spanish translations of the Notice documents because many Berry Bros. employees, like Plaintiff, consider Spanish as their primary language. Berry Bros. raises a number of objections to Plaintiff's proposed notice including: (1) potential opt-in plaintiffs should not send their notice forms directly to Plaintiff's counsel (2) the class period should be limited to three years prior to the date notice is issued (3) failure to inform of the potential obligation to pay proportional taxable court costs if the judgment is unfavorable to them (4) stating the Court has allowed or certified the collective action. Defendant requests that the Court require the parties to meet and convene to submit a joint proposed notice. Plaintiff does not oppose this request, but asks that the Court resolve Berry Bros. objections to the proposed notice. Plaintiff opposes only objections one through three. The Court will consider the opposed objections below. As to the unopposed objection, the parties are to omit the objected to language from the joint notice. Regarding Defendant's objection that the opt-in form be sent to Plaintiff's counsel, Plaintiff argues that submitting the form to Plaintiff's counsel and Plaintiff's counsel filing the form with the Court is the most practicable under the circumstances and will conserve judicial resources. Plaintiff states that this Court has allowed such action in the past. The Court agrees with Plaintiff's reasoning. Depending on the number of opt-in forms submitted by potential plaintiffs, the Court's limited resources will be conserved by Plaintiff's counsel receiving the consent forms and then, if appropriate, filing them with the Court. Not only has this Court issued such an order in a number of collective cases, other courts also rely on this method. Production of Contact Information Plaintiff seeks Court approval to: (1) provide notice by U.S. Mail, text message and e-mail (2) provide a reminder notice by U.S. Mail, text message and e-mail and (3) post the notice at Berry Bros.' jobsite in an open and obvious location. Berry Bros. argues that telephone numbers should only be allowed in the event first class mail is returned as undeliverable with no forwarding address. Multiple courts in this District have ordered the production of telephone numbers in similar cases. The Court will allow Plaintiff to provide notice by all requested methods, U.S. Mail, email and text message. While the Court finds the Plaintiff has failed to establish that reminder notices are necessary, the Court concludes that the posting of Notices at Berry Bros. jobsite trailers is an efficient, cost effective method to notify potential opt-in distributors of this class action and would not be burdensome on Defendant. The Motion For Conditional Certification And Notice filed by Plaintiffs, Sergio Murillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situation is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 23, 2019 Order is available https://tinyurl.com/yytj7z3o from Leagle.com. Sergio Murillo, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth W. DeJean , Law Offices of Kenneth W DeJean, Adam Russell Credeur , Law Offices of Kenneth W DeJean, 417 West University Avenue, Lafayette, LA 70506-3649, Armando A. Ortiz , Fitapelli & Schaffer, pro hac vice & Joseph A. Fitapelli , Fitapelli & Schaffer, 28 Liberty Street, New York, NY 10005, pro hac vice. Berry Bros General Contractors Inc, Defendant, represented by Thomas J. McGoey, II - [email protected] - Liskow & Lewis, A'Dair Ragan Flynt - [email protected] - Liskow & Lewis & Kindall Chauffe James - [email protected] - Liskow & Lewis. BERRY BROS: Non-Exempt Laborers Class Certified in Murillo Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Carol B. Whitehurst granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification and Notice filed by Sergio Murillo in the lawsuit entitled Murillo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situation v. Berry Bros General Contractors Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-01434-MJJ-CBW (W.D. La.). The Court conditionally certifies this matter as a collective action, including all current and former non-exempt laborers employed by Berry Bros. during the time period of November 2, 2015, to the present who received Additional Pay in the form of per diem payments and truck allowance pay not included in the regular rate of pay. Judge Whitehurst directs the parties to file with the Court a Joint Proposed Notice that complies with this Order within 10 days. In the event the parties cannot agree as to any specific issue, they must identify and brief the issue(s) separately at which time the Court will make a determination. The Defendant is also directed to provide the Plaintiffs' counsel with the names, last known addresses, e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers of the potential opt-in plaintiffs (\"Court-Ordered Information\"), in a usable electronic format within 21 days of this Order. Judge Whitehurst also rules that the Plaintiff's counsel shall, upon obtaining the Court-Ordered Information, be permitted to send notices of this action in the form set forth in the approved Joint Proposed Notice, by mail, e-mail and text message for a period of 90 days from the date the Defendant provides the Plaintiff with the Court-Ordered Information. The notice shall inform all potential opt-in plaintiffs that they shall have until ninety (90) days from the date the Defendant provides the Plaintiffs with the Court-Ordered Information to deposit in the mail, e-mail or text their Notices of Consent to Join to counsel for Plaintiffs.[CC] BREO BOX: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act ----------------------------------------------------- Breo Box Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Breo Box Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05535 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 1, 2019). Breo Box is a seasonal subscription service for both men & women, delivering cool and unique high-end products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: [email protected] BROOKLYN EVENTS: Settlement in Kelly FCRA Suit Gets Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, FELIPE KELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BROOKLYN EVENTS CENTER, LLC d/b/a BARCLAYS CENTER, LEVY PREMIUM FOODSERVICE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and PROFESSIONAL SPORTS CATERING LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-4600 (RLM) (E.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motions for Certification of the Settlement Class and Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and Approval of Service Award. Based upon her review of the motions, memorandum, and other papers submitted in connection with the Motions for Final Approval, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the Settlement is the result of extensive, arm's-length negotiations and is in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate, and binding on all members of the Class who have not opted out. She granted final approval of the settlement memorialized in the Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to Rule 23, the Magistrate Court certified the Settlement Class defined as applicants who applied for a position with Levy at the Barclays Center during the Class Period [Aug. 4, 2014 through Aug. 15, 2018], and: (i) were otherwise eligible for employment; (ii) were identified by Levy as having a background report showing a criminal history through background reports procured from a consumer reporting agency retained by Levy; and (iii) who were not hired by Levy either because of unintentional administrative error or on the basis of their criminal history. She granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs and awarded the Class Counsel $165,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses reasonably expended litigating and resolving the lawsuit. The award will be paid by the Defendant. She also found reasonable the service award for Plaintiff Felipe Kelly in the amount of $5,000 in recognition of the services he rendered on behalf of the class. The service award will be paid by the Defendant. The Effective Date is the date the Judgment has become Final. In turn, \"Final\" means the date the Judgment becomes final for all purposes, because either (i) no appeal has been filed and 30 days have lapsed since entry of the Judgment, or (ii) if there is an appeal of the Court's decision granting final approval, the day after all appeals are finally resolved in favor of final approval. Within 14 days of the Effective Date of the Settlement, the Defendant will transfer to the Settlement Administrator the following amounts: $250 for each Tier One Class Member, and for individuals who submit Claim Forms, $1,950 for each Tier Two Class Member, and $2,350 for each Tier Three Class Member, $165,000 in attorneys' fees and costs, and $5,000 for the Plaintiff's service award A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/lcIJDq from Leagle.com. Felipe Kelly, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher McNerney -- [email protected] -- Outten & Golden LLP, Lewis M. Steel -- [email protected] -- Outten & Golden LLP, Nina T. Martinez -- [email protected] -- New York Legal Assistance Group & Ossai Miazad -- [email protected] -- Outten & Golden LLP. Levy Premium Foodservice Limited Partnership, Defendant, represented by Gina Renee Merrill -- [email protected] -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Stacey Blecher -- [email protected] -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Frederick Thomas Smith -- [email protected] -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice. CACHET: To be Blamed for Payroll Firm's Collapse, Stevens Says -------------------------------------------------------------- VELETA STEVENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CACHET FINANCIAL SERVICES, a California Corporation; and FINANCIAL BUSINESS GROUP HOLDINGS, a Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-08120 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 19, 2019), arises from the collapse of a New York-based \"payroll processing\" provider, MyPayrollHR (MPHR). MPHR was a service provided by Cloud Payroll, LLC and Valuewise Corporation (who share common ownership), but, upon information and belief, was never organized as a separate legal entity. When MPHR collapsed, it had the potential to send economic ripple effects across the ecosystem of employers and employees for whom it provided payroll services. Cachet amplified and exponentially worsened those ripple effects in its reckless, ham-fisted attempts to insulate itself from the fallout. Cachet enabled but failed to recognize acts of fraud and/or embezzlement on the part of MPHR. Once Cachet finally recognized that something was amiss, it sought to protect itself at the expense of employees nationwide. Cachet wrongfully caused many millions of dollars to be with drawn from the bank accounts of approximately 250,000 employees nationwide. In many cases, the amounts withdrawn by Cachet vastly exceeded the wages which were owed, often resulting in the complete draining of employee's bank accounts and the imposition of penalties and fees. Thus, while MPHR initiated the financial crises for employees across the country, Cachet elevated that crises into the stratosphere, financially crippling employees, the lawsuit says. Cachet is not a bank or banking institution. Instead, Cachet is a third-party processor for electronic fund transfers in the form of Automated Clearing House payments servicing financial institutions, merchants, mid-market to large corporations and other users of ACH transactions.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Mike Arias, Esq. Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. [email protected] [email protected] ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP 6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor Los Angeles, California 90045 Telephone: (310) 844-9696 Facsimile: (310) 861-0168 - and - Steven D. Liddle, Esq. Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq. LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MH 48207 Telephone: (313) 392-0015 Facsimile: (313) 392-0025 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] CEMENTOS ARGOS: Court Strikes Bid to Certify Class in McGaffin Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BECKY McGAFFIN; JIM McGAFFIN; NATHAN LAVOIE; DANIEL NUNN; STEFANIE NUNN; and RACHALE LAVOIE, Plaintiffs, v. CEMENTOS ARGOS, S.A.; ARGOS USA CORP.; ARGOS CEMENT, LLC; and ARGOS READY MIX LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:16-cv-104 (S.D. Ga.), Judge R. Stan Baker of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division, granted the Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs claim that the concrete that the Defendants supplied to their residential properties contains a common defect inherent to the mixture of the concrete. They contend that this common defect has caused a tremendous amount of concrete dust to infiltrate their homes. The Plaintiffs, all individuals who own homes within Georgia, filed the lawsuit on May 6, 2016. They directly asserted numerous claims and proposed to assert the same claims on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals defined as follows: All persons who own a home in the State of Georgia, purchased during the period May 6, 2013 to and including May 6, 2016, where and when Argos designed and manufactured concrete not properly proportioned in that it contained insufficient cement and/or excessive fly ash and/or the wrong type of fly ash and when said concrete was used in foundations, footings, driveways, walkways, garages, patios, slabs and other areas of the person's house and property. The Plaintiffs amended their Complaint on July 21, 2016. That amendment contained a slightly revised definition of the proposed class: All persons who own a lot and a dwelling in the State of Georgia, purchased during the period May 6, 2013 to and including May 6, 2016, for which Argos supplied defective concrete not properly proportioned in that it contained insufficient cement and/or excessive fly ash and/or the wrong type of fly ash and when said concrete was used in slab applications for the person's dwelling and property. The Defendants then moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. On Jan. 13, 2017, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss in part and denied the motion in part. The parties' briefs on the Motion to Dismiss only relied on Georgia law, and the Court analyzed the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs' claims only under Georgia law. On Jan. 29, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Certify Class. That motion contained the following definition of the proposed class: All current owners of residential properties where Argos 30RAF868 concrete was used in flatwork applications, i.e., poured as slabs on grade, including the slab on which the home is built, driveways, walkways, patios, and/or garage floors, between April 10, 2013 and Oct. 21, 2013. On Feb. 28, 2018, the Defendants filed the instant Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify. They argued that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and supporting materials made clear for the first time that the Plaintiffs intend to broaden their class to include homeowners in South Carolina. They maintained that the Plaintiffs should not be allowed to amend their Complaint through their Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the Defendants' Motion to Strike. They argued that the pleadings and correspondence between the parties gave the Defendants fair notice that the case would include claims regarding South Carolina properties. The Court held a hearing on the Defendants' Motion for Class Certification and related motions on Nov. 8, 2018. Following that hearing, the matter was stayed for the parties to pursue settlement discussions. After the parties did not reach resolution, the Court then held another hearing on May 22, 2019. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court indicated that it was inclined to grant the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as to liability because common issues of fact and law predominate. However, it explicitly reserved ruling as to whether the class would include any South Carolina properties and allowed for additional briefing from the parties. The parties have now filed their post-hearing briefs through which they maintain their respective support of and opposition to the Motion to Strike. Judge Baker finds that much of the parties' briefing and oral argument on the motion has focused on when the Plaintiffs knew of the prospective South Carolinian Plaintiffs and whether the Plaintiffs provided timely notice to Defendants of their intent to include claims arising under South Carolina law. He need not resolve the parties' arguments on those issues to resolve the Defendants' motion. Even if the Plaintiffs did not learn of the putative South Carolinian Plaintiffs until well into discovery and shortly before they filed their Motion for Class Certification, the Court would not allow the Plaintiffs to insert claims arising under South Carolina law into this action. Expanding the class to include such claims would frustrate the very purposes of judicial efficiency and economy that class litigation under Rule 23 is designed to promote. The Plaintiffs have also not demonstrated that the variation between the laws of Georgia and South Carolina \"is manageable,\" the Georgia District Court held. The differences between the law applicable to South Carolina homes and Georgia homes would be particularly difficult to manage given the unique procedural posture of the case. If the Court were to allow the Plaintiffs to now expand the class to include South Carolina claims, the Defendants would at least be given the opportunity to similarly test the sufficiency of those claims under Rule 12(b)(6). That motion would require the parties and the Court to delve deeply into the law of an entirely different jurisdiction. That motion practice, not to mention additional class-based discovery, would unduly delay and complicate the litigation of the claims of the Georgia class members. Finally, at the May 22, 2019 Motions hearing, the Plaintiffs' counsel conceded that the addition of South Carolina class members may result in a \"slight delay\" but argued that the delay could be mitigated by creating a subclass for the South Carolina claims. However, even the Plaintiffs' counsel conceded that if the Georgia claims proceeded on their current track, the South Carolina subclass may not \"catch up.\" Thus, the inclusion of South Carolina claims would cause difficulties in managing the class action that outweigh the benefits of including these claims in the class. For these reasons as well as those stated by the Defendants in their pleadings and oral argument, Judge Baker granted the Defendants' Motion to Strike. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification remains before the Court, but the Plaintiffs will not be allowed to assert claims regarding homes located outside the state of Georgia. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/cwZ5Wx from Leagle.com. Becky Mcgaffin, Jim Mcgaffin, Nathan Lavoie, Daniel Nunn & Rachale Lavoie, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael J. Moore -- [email protected] -- Pope McGlamry Kilpatrick Morrison & Norwood PC, Raymond L. Moss -- [email protected] -- Moss & Gilmore, LLP, Courtney Lynn Engelke, Pope McGlamry, Jay Forbes Hirsch, Pope McGlamry, Kimberly J. Johnson, Pope McGlamry, P.C. & Wade Tomlinson -- [email protected] -- Pope, McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood, P.C. Stefanie Nunn, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J. Moore, Pope McGlamry Kilpatrick Morrison & Norwood PC, Raymond L. Moss, Moss & Gilmore, LLP, Courtney Lynn Engelke, Pope McGlamry, Jay Forbes Hirsch, Pope McGlamry & Wade Tomlinson, Pope, McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood, P.C. Christopher Young, Movant, represented by William J. Hunter, Oliver Maner, LLP. Cementos Argos S.A., Argos USA Corp., Argos Cement, LLC & Argos Ready Mix LLC, Defendants, represented by Angela M. Spivey -- [email protected] -- McGuireWoods, LLP, pro hac vice, Christian Edmund Henneke -- [email protected] -- McGuire Woods, LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer R. Burbine, McGuireWoods, LLP, R. Trent Taylor -- [email protected] -- McGuire Woods LLP, pro hac vice & Travis C. Gunn -- [email protected] -- McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice. CENTENE CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Sanchez Securities Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ISRAEL SANCHEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. CENTENE CORP., MICHAEL NEIDORFF, and JEFFREY SCHWANEKE, Defendants. SUNIL CHAND, et al., Movants, Case No. 4:17CV00806 AGF (E.D. Mo.), Judge Audrey G. Fleissig of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended consolidated class action complaint for failure to state a claim. The putative class action was filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (\"PSLRA),\" in federal district court in California and transferred to the Missouri District Court. The Plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or acquired Centene stock between April 26, 2016, and July 25, 2016. The Defendants are Centene and two of its top officers: Michael Neidorff and Jeffrey Schwaneke. Centene sells health insurance. On July 2, 2015, Centene announced its intention to acquire Health Net, Inc., a company that sold health insurance primarily in California and Arizona, for about $6.8 billion. Under the terms of the agreement, upon completion of the merger, Centene shareholders would own approximately 71% of the combined entity, with Health Net shareholders owning approximately 29%. The merger closed on March 24, 2016. During the nine months leading up to the merger, Centene conducted due diligence of Health Net's business. In 2014 and throughout 2015, Health Net incurred rising liabilities related to claims for substance-abuse treatment. Health Net began denying such claims and asked California regulators for permission to redesign its policies. In filings with the Securities Exchange Commission (\"SEC\") dated Sept. 17, 2015, Sept. 21, 2015, and Jan. 26, 2016, made in anticipation of the merger, Centene added it does not have sufficient information as to the amount, timing and risk of cash flows of all of Health Net's identifiable intangible assets to determine their fair value. On April 26, 2016, (one month after the merger and the start of the Class Period) Centene published a required purchase price accounting (SEC Form 10-Q) listing Health Net's assets and liabilities that Centene acquired. The April 2016 accounting did not include the language that Centene did not have sufficient information regarding Health Net's fair value; but was labeled, \"preliminary\" and \"subject to change.\" According to the Plaintiffs, the April 2016 statement, using \"purchase accounting,\" violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (\"GAAP\") and SEC regulations, and this resulted in about $300 million of Health Net's liabilities not being reported as of that date. The Plaintiffs contend that on July 26, 2016, \"the truth was revealed\" when the Defendants disclosed that Health Net's liabilities were $390 million higher than Defendants had represented in April 2016. On that day, in response to this disclosure, Centene's stock price declined by about 8.5%, erasing over $1 billion in shareholder value. The gravamen of the amended complaint is that the Defendants knew during the Class Period about this level of Health Net's liabilities, but concealed it, and \"Defendants' materially false and misleading statements and omissions artificially inflated the price of Centene common stock and maintained inflation in the stock price. The disclosures on July 26, 2016 revealed the relevant truth and removed the artificial inflation from the stock price. The Plaintiffs emphasized that Health Net's liabilities reported by Centene on July 26, 2016, were not due to new information obtained since the April 26, 2016 financial statements. Rather, according to the Plaintiffs, Centene knew as of April 26, 2016, about the level of Health Net's liabilities that were due to claims from California substance-abuse treatment centers. The amended complaint also includes a section entitled, \"Additional Allegations of Defendants' Scienter,\" that points to evidence of Defendants' admissions that they had knowledge during the due diligence period of Health Net's rising substance-abuse treatment liabilities and its efforts to control these costs. It has two counts: Count I against all the Defendants claims violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false statements Defendants knew were misleading; and Count II against Centene officers Neidorff and Schwaneke for violations of Section 20(a) of the Act (control-person liability). The Plaintiffs seek all damages and other remedies available under the Exchange Act. The Defendants urged the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended consolidated class action complaint, and oral argument was held on Feb. 22, 2018. In support of their motion to dismiss, the Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts showing that the \"Preliminary Estimates\" of April 26, 2016, were false at the time they were made, by not alleging any facts that would show Defendants knew -- or even could have known -- the precise value of the liabilities created by Health Net's insurance products until Centene had completed a full valuation of those liabilities postclosing [of the merger. In response, the Plaintiffs argued that the complaint adequately alleges false and misleading statements and omissions. Specifically, they cite the Defendants' oral statements on April 26, May 24, and June 17, 2016; as well as the accounting statements. The Plaintiffs also argue that the complaint adequately alleges scienter. As for Count I, the Plaintiffs allege that three sets of statements made by the Defendants in April, May, and June 2016 were false and misleading. They also allege that the Defendants' April 26, 2016, SEC Form 10-Q filing violated GAAP and SEC regulations, and was false and misleading. Judge Fleissig agrees with the Defendants that the allegations as to their April statements and SEC 10-Q filing are not adequate to meet the PSLRA heightened pleading standard. However, the Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts to meet the PSLRA standard with respect to the Defendants' May and June statements. The Plaintiffs sufficiently support their claim that, by the time the May 2016 statements were made, the Defendants had in their possession facts concerning Health Net reserves that they omitted from their May 2016 statements, which rendered those statements materially false or misleading. And although statements made by the Defendants in April 2016 are not sufficient to meet the heightened pleading requirements of the PSLRA, statements made in May and June of 2016 are pled with sufficient particularity. The Plaintiffs' May and June 2016 allegations are not catch-all or blanket assertions but instead point to specific statements made by the Defendants that could be found to be misleading. The Defendants argue in their motion to dismiss that Count II fails due to the failure of the primary violation count. However, because the Judge finds that the Count I primary violation survives dismissal under Rule 12 as to the Defendants' May and June 2016 statements, Count II also withstands dismissal as to those statements. Based on her findings as outlined, Judge Fleissig denied in part and granted in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Because the Plaintiffs' allegations are insufficient to state a PSLRA claim with particularity as to the Defendants' statements and financials released in April 2016, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted as to these allegations. Therefore, the Plaintiffs' definition of the term \"Class Period\" must be appropriately adjusted. The \"Class Period\" will now be limited to the time period of May 24, 2016 to July 25, 2016. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 4, 2019 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/xpWBIX from Leagle.com. Israel Sanchez, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert V. Prongay -- [email protected] -- GLANCY AND BINKOW, LLP, Charles Henry Linehan -- [email protected] -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Lesley F. Portnoy -- [email protected] -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP & Lionel Zevi Glancy -- [email protected] -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP. Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Stickney -- [email protected] -- BERNSTEIN AND LITOWITZ, pro hac vice & Jonathan Daniel Uslaner -- [email protected] -- BERNSTEIN AND LITOWITZ, pro hac vice. Centene Corp., Michael F. Neidorff & Jeffrey A. Schwaneke, Defendants, represented by Christopher A. Smith , HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP, Joseph P. Conran , HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP, Peter Bradley Morrison -- [email protected] -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP, Jay B. Kasner -- [email protected] -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP, pro hac vice & Scott D. Musoff -- [email protected] -- SKADDEN ARPS, LLP, pro hac vice. Sunil Chand & Amir Softic, Movants, represented by Jennifer Pafiti -- [email protected] -- Pomerantz LLP. Richard P. Wolsfeld, Jr., Movant, represented by Lesley F. Portnoy, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Lionel Zevi Glancy, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP & Robert V. Prongay, GLANCY AND BINKOW, LLP. UA Local 13 Pension Fund, Movant, represented by Danielle S. Myers, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP. Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund, Movant, represented by Brandon C. Marsh, SAXENA WHITE, P.A., David R. Stickney, BERNSTEIN AND LITOWITZ, pro hac vice, Blair A. Nicholas, Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann LLP & Michael J. Flannery, CUNEO AND GILBERT, LLP. CH ROBINSON: Dietrich Renews Bid to Certify Class Under IMWL ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned TARYN DIETRICH, on behalf of herself and a class of all those similarly situated v. C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-04871 (N.D. Ill.), filed with the Court a renewed motion for class certification. Ms. Dietrich, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, asks the Court to certify a class defined as: \"All persons who have been employed in the state of Illinois at C.H. Robinson as Assistant Carrier Account Managers, Buyers, Carrier Representatives, Carrier Account Managers, Senior Carrier Account Managers, Capacity Account Managers, and/or other similar positions, and who did not sign a C.H. Robinson arbitration agreement, at any time from three years before the filing of this action through and including the present and until final resolution of the case.\"[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robin Potter, Esq. M. Nieves Bolanos, Esq. Patrick Cowlin, Esq. POTTER BOLANOS LLC 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 861-1800 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] - and - Jamie S. Franklin, Esq. THE FRANKLIN LAW FIRM, LLC 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 803 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 662-1008 E-mail: [email protected] CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: Court Dismisses Shore ERISA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DELLA SHORE, LISA ENGEL, MARK RACZ, MICHAEL SCHWOB, AND LYDIA WALKER, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Atrium Plans, Plaintiffs, v. THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, ATRIUM HEALTH RETIREMENT COMMITTEE, JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-20, MEMBERS OF THE ATRIUM HEALTH RETIREMENT COMMITTEE, EACH AN INDIVIDUAL, MEDCOST, LLC AND MEDCOST BENEFIT SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-CV-00961 (M.D. N.C.), Judge Thomas D. Schroeder of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted the motions of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority and MedCost to dismiss the Shore, et al., complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority is a non-profit healthcare conglomerate headquartered in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. It established and maintains three employee benefit plans: the Pension Plan of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, the Carolinas HealthCare System 401(k) Matched Savings Plan, and the Carolinas HealthCare System LiveWELL Health Plan. The City of Charlotte created the Authority in 1943 pursuant to the Hospital Authority Act (\"HAA\"), which authorizes cities and counties to create hospital authorities whenever a city council or a county board of commissioners finds and adopts a resolution finding that it is in the interest of the public health and welfare to create a hospital authority. The Authority is registered as a \"municipal\" body. The Authority is governed by the Board of Atrium Commissioners. The putative class action alleges that the Defendants did not comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). The action is brought by former Authority employees who allege that they participated in the Authority's employee benefit plans which should have complied with ERISA requirements. The Plaintiffs allege several claims flowing from a contention that the plans are subject to ERISA and seek a declaration they are covered plans and an order that they be brought into compliance with the law. Before the Court are the motions of the Authority and MedCost to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. They move in the alternative to dismiss the claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. MedCost's brief adopts and incorporates by reference the facts, authorities, and arguments set forth in the Authority's brief in support of its motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs filed a consolidated response. Because the claims against both the Authority and MedCost fail as a matter of law if the Authority's plans are governmental plans, resolution of the Authority's motion will resolve all the Defendants' motions. The parties agree that if the Authority's plans are governmental plans, then the plans are not subject to ERISA coverage and the Plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter of law. While the Fourth Circuit has not established a test for determining whether an entity is a governmental plan, other circuits have developed tests for determining whether an entity is a \"political subdivision\" or an \"agency or instrumentality\" under ERISA. Both parties agree that the Hawkins test should be used to determine whether the Authority constitutes a \"political subdivision.\" This test provides that \"political subdivisions\" are \"entities that are either (1) created directly by the state, so as to constitute departments or administrative arms of the government, or (2) administered by individuals who are responsible to public officials or to the general electorate.\" The test is disjunctive, so if either prong is satisfied, then the entity in question is a political subdivision. Judge Schroeder finds that the Authority satisfies the first prong of the Hawkins test because it was created by the state of North Carolina through a delegation of its authority pursuant to the HAA. Because the Defendants have provided ample persuasive case law holding that creation by a local entity pursuant to a state enabling statute is sufficient to satisfy the first prong of the Hawkins test, and the Plaintiffs have neither distinguished these cases from the present case nor provided persuasive contrary authority, the Judge finds that the first prong of the test is satisfied. And because the Hawkins test is disjunctive, satisfying either prong is sufficient for an entity to attain \"political subdivision\" status and thereby categorize its retirement benefits plans as \"governmental plans\" exempt from ERISA coverage. Nevertheless, the Judge is also persuaded that the Authority meets the second prong of the test. Courts have held that the second Hawkins prong -- that the entity is administered by individuals who are responsible to public officials or to the general electorate -- is met when public officials appoint and may remove the entity's governing members. The Authority's board of commissioners is appointed by the county chairman (a county-level public official) from a list of nominees provided by the board. The Authority's commissioners may be removed by the county chairman for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct following notice and a hearing. By statute, the Authority is administered by a board of commissioners appointed by the Chairman of County Commissioners, who is a public official. The chairman has the statutory power to remove a commissioner for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct. The Authority therefore satisfies the second prong of the Hawkins \"political subdivision\" test because it is administered by officials who are responsible to public officials. Because he finds that the Authority satisfies both prongs of the Hawkins test and constitutes a \"political subdivision,\" the Judge need not reach the Defendants' separate contention that the Authority is exempt from ERISA coverage because it constitutes an \"agency or instrumentality.\" For the reasons stated, Judge Schroeder concludes that the Authority is a \"political subdivision\" and that its plans are therefore \"governmental plans\" exempt from ERISA coverage. Accordingly, he granted the Authority's motion to dismiss and MedCost's motion to dismiss, and dismissed the complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2019 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/xpWBIX from Leagle.com. DELLA SHORE, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND ON BEHALF OF THE ATRIUM PLANS, LISA ENGEL, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND ON BEHALF OF THE ATRIUM PLANS, MARK RACZ, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND ON BEHALF OF THE ATRIUM PLANS, MICHAEL SCHWOB, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND ON BEHALF OF THE ATRIUM PLANS & LYDIA WALKER, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND ON BEHALF OF THE ATRIUM PLANS, Plaintiffs, represented by JAMIE L. BOWERS -- [email protected] -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC, JULIE SELESNICK -- [email protected] -- COHEN MILSTEIN HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C., KAREN L. HANDORF -- [email protected] -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC & MARTHA A. GEER -- [email protected] -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC. THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, A NORTH CAROLINA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION & ATRIUM HEALTH RETIREMENT COMMITTEE, Defendants, represented by CHARLES E. JOHNSON -- [email protected] -- ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A., DAVID C. WRIGHT, III -- [email protected] -- ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A., JONATHAN CHRISTOPHER KRISKO, ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A., MARK A. HILLER, ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A., TRAVIS S. HINMAN, ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A., CAROLINE A. WONG -- [email protected] -- SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP, CHRIS K. MEYER -- [email protected] -- SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP & MARK B. BLOCKER -- [email protected] -- SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP. MEDCOST LLC & MEDCOST BENEFIT SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, represented by RICHARD A. COUGHLIN -- [email protected] -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP, MAUREEN DEMAREST MURRAY -- [email protected] -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP & WHITNEY D. PIERCE -- [email protected] -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Court Denies Motion to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as JENNIFER M. SANSONE, and BALDEMAR ORDUNO, Jr., Individually and on Behalf of Other Members of the Public Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; TWC ADMINISTRATION LLC; CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01880-WQH-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Q. Hayes entered an order: 1. granting a motion for summary judgment filed by the Defendants; 2. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class; and 3. denying the Defendants' motion to file documents under seal. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs fail to identify specific facts and explain the legal significance of the facts sought. The information sought would not illuminate the determinative inquiries in this case. The Court denies any requests related to discovery that the Plaintiffs have not \"set forth in affidavit form.\" The Plaintiffs brought claims for violation of California Labor Code section 227.3 (failure to pay at termination and valuation); failure to timely pay wages; breach of contract; and unfair competition.[CC] CHICAGO, IL: Tax Collection Suit Dismissal Affirmed --------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division, issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned Nina Trilisky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee. No. 1-18-2189. (Ill. App.). Plaintiff Nina Trilisky appeals from an order of the circuit court of Cook County granting defendant, city of Chicago's (City), motion to dismiss her amended class action complaint pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff's amended class action complaint alleged that sales to and from the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation are exempt from the Chicago Real Property Transfer Tax because the transfers involve real property acquired by or from any governmental body. Plaintiff further claimed the City has been improperly collecting the transfer tax on such sales. The City moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that (1) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not governmental bodies, and (2) plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. The circuit court agreed with the City that the enterprises were not governmental bodies and dismissed the amended complaint pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code. On appeal, plaintiff contends the circuit court erred in dismissing her amended complaint because the court improperly concluded that the enterprises are not governmental bodies exempt from the transfer tax. Plaintiff further asserts that the enterprises are federal instrumentalities, and as such, they can be considered governmental bodies. In addition, plaintiff argues entities created by the government to carry out a public function are governmental bodies under the transfer tax ordinance and relies on Hubble v. Bi-State Development Agency of the Illinois-Missouri Metropolitan District, 238 Ill.2d 262 (2010), as well as the definition of governmental body found in the Illinois Administrative Code (86 Ill. Adm. Code 120.20(e)(4) (2004)), as authorities for this assertion. The trial court granted the City's motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code. 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2018). A section 2-615 motion to dismiss attacks the legal sufficiency of a complaint by alleging defects on the face of the complaint. When ruling on a section 2-615 motion, the relevant question is whether the allegations in the complaint, construed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, are sufficient to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. A motion to dismiss should not be granted with prejudice unless it is clear that no set of facts can be proved under the pleading which would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Plaintiff's arguments revolve around the interpretation of the phrase governmental body as it is used in Chicago's transfer tax ordinance (Chicago Municipal Code Section 3-33-060(B) (amended May 8, 2013)). Specifically, the Court must determine whether the enterprises are governmental bodies, as transfers of real property from governmental bodies are exempt from the tax. Municipal ordinances are interpreted using the same rules of statutory interpretation.The most fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature's intent. The statute's language is the best indicator of such intent. The statutory language must be given its plain, ordinary, and popularly understood meaning. The transfer tax ordinance does not define the term governmental body, nor is the term defined elsewhere in the Municipal Code. Despite plaintiff's contention, however, even if the enterprises can be considered federal instrumentalities, a federal instrumentality is not the same as a governmental body. As discussed further below, the term governmental body is unambiguous and necessarily excludes entities such as governmental agencies and instrumentalities. A main tenet of statutory construction is that the use of certain language by the city council in one instance and different language in another instance indicates the city council intended different results. Thus, the express mention of one thing in a statute or ordinance excludes all other things not mentioned. A review of title 3 of the Municipal Code, which contains all of Chicago's tax ordinances, reveals the use of terms such as governmental bodies, governmental agencies, departments of the State of Illinois, political subdivisions, public or municipal corporations, the federal government and the United States Government or any agency thereof. The transfer tax at issue here solely exempts governmental bodies, i.e., exempt from the tax are transfers involving real property acquired by or from any governmental body. In utilizing this specific language, the city council excluded from the transfer tax exemption other entities such as governmental agencies and political subdivisions, which are afforded exemptions elsewhere in the Municipal Code. The plain language of the transfer tax therefore indicates the city council's intent was to exempt from the transfer tax property acquired by or from governmental bodies, and not property acquired by or from governmental agencies or instrumentalities. Accordingly, even if the enterprises could be considered governmental instrumentalities as a result of the Agency's conservatorship, as plaintiff contends, it does not follow that the city council intended them to be under the umbrella of a governmental body where the city council was clearly able to define the term to be so inclusive. The Court interpretation of the term governmental body is additionally supported, in part, by the framework set forth in Lombard. Lombard, 378 Ill. App. 3d at 935. In that case, this court was tasked with determining whether the Lombard Public Facilities Corporation (LPFC) was a governmental body pursuant to the Retailer's Tax Act. The Village of Lombard incorporated LPFC, a not-for-profit corporation, to assist in the financing and construction of a convention hall and hotel facility in the Village. LPFC was granted authority to issue, sell, and deliver bonds, encumber any real property or equipment acquired by it for the purpose of the project; and enter into contracts for the construction and acquisition of the convention hall and hotel facility. The articles of incorporation for LPFC stated that its purpose was to assist the Village of Lombard in its essential governmental purposes. The Village and LPFC entered into an agreement whereby LPFC was to obtain a surety bond and submit construction plans to the Village for approval. The Village agreed to provide funds to make debt service payments on LPFC's surety bonds only if income from the project was insufficient. The Village's taxing power and full faith and credit were not pledged as security for any of the bonds and Village did not otherwise funnel any of its own funds to LPFC. LPFC had no authority to sell the property used for the project without the consent of the Village. Further, LPFC was staffed by Village employees and meetings were held at the Village in accordance with the Open Meetings Act. LPFC did not have the ability to impose taxes, maintain a police force, or provide water or sewer treatment, and it did not receive any charter from Illinois recognizing it as a governmental body. LPFC filed an application for exemption from the Retailer's Tax Act on the basis that its purchases made for the construction of the hotel and convention center were those of a governmental body. The Illinois department of revenue denied the application, and that decision was affirmed by an administrative law judge. On appeal, the reviewing court agreed that LPFC was not a governmental body. In so holding, it found that LPFC's status had to be considered separate and apart from the Village, and determined that that LPFC: (1) had little or no control over the Village and its decisions (2) was not organized as an agency or branch of the Village itself and (3) did not perform a function necessary to maintain the Village's existence. Overall, the Village was not dependent upon LPFC for its governmental activities, and LPFC was also not dependent on the Village for its day-to-day project management activities. Applying the framework set forth in Lombard to the case at bar, like LPFC in Lombard, the enterprises do not have the ability to impose taxes, maintain a police force, or provide water or sewer treatment, and their charters do not recognize them as governmental bodies. Furthermore, the federal government does not fund the enterprises. The enterprises, like LPFC in Lombard, (1) have little or no control over the federal government or its decisions, (2) are not organized as branches of the government itself, and (3) do not perform a function necessary to maintain the government's existence. The federal government is not dependent on the enterprises for its governmental activities, and the enterprises are also not dependent on the government for its day-to-day activities. Although plaintiff alleged in the amended complaint that the enterprises are government-sponsored enterprises under federal law, the federal statute reveals that they are privately owned, the money they borrow is not backed by the full faith and credit of the federal government, they do not exercise powers reserved to the government, they do not have the power to commit the government financially, and their employees are not federal employees. Moreover, each enterprise was created as a body corporate and the Agency, which succeeded to the enterprises' rights and powers, is independent of the federal government. Accordingly, the Court finds the enterprises are not governmental bodies so as to be exempt the transfer tax. Plaintiff further argues the enterprises are governmental bodies because they provide a public function. In support of this contention, plaintiff points to section 31-45(b) of the Illinois Real Estate Transfer Tax Law (Illinois Transfer Tax), a similar transfer tax which exempts property acquired by or from governmental bodies. Plaintiff observes that the Illinois Administrative Code (Administrative Code) defines the term governmental body as it appears in section 31-45(b) of the Illinois Transfer Tax as an entity created to carry out a public function by a federal, state, or local unit of government. The record, however, reveals plaintiff never advanced this public function theory before the circuit court. It is axiomatic that an unsuccessful party may not advance a new theory of recovery on appeal and doing so results in forfeiture of that issue on appeal. Moreover, plaintiff's new theory is inconsistent with her argument advanced before the circuit court and in her opening brief that the enterprises transformed into governmental bodies solely as a result of the Agency's 2008 conservatorship. The Court finds plaintiff's reliance on the Administrative Code to be misguided. Plaintiff provides no authority, and we have found none, indicating the city council intended to rely on the Administrative Code. In fact, it would have been impossible for the city council to rely on the definition found in the Administrative Code when the transfer tax was initially enacted. While the transfer tax, including the exemption at issue here, was enacted in 1992, the definition plaintiff relies on was not added to the Administrative Code until 2004. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted where the enterprises do not fall within the scope of the governmental body exemption of the transfer tax. For these reasons, the Court affirms the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County dismissing Trilisky's amended complaint. Affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's September 26, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6b726jz from Leagle.com. Elizabeth A. Fegan - [email protected] - and Daniel J. Kurowski - [email protected] - of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, of Chicago, for appellant. David Freydin , of Freydin Law Firm LLP, 8707 Skokie Blvd., Ste 305, Skokie, Illinois 60077, for appellant. Mark A. Flessner , Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, 233 East Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL, 60601, Benna Ruth Solomon , 1250 Larkin Avenue, Suite 100, Elgin, IL 60123, Myriam Zreczny Kasper and Suzanne M. Loose , 30 N La Salle St Ste 800, Chicago, IL, 60602-3542, for appellee. CONTINENTAL INTERMODAL: Garza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CONTINENTAL INTERMODAL GROUP LP. The case is styled as JOSEPH GARZA, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OFOTHER MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL INTERMODAL GROUP LP, Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-102776 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Sept. 30, 2019). The case type is stated as \"Other Employment - Civil Unlimited\". Continental Intermodal Group - Navasota LLC provides logistics services. The Company offers transloading and storage services for oil and gas market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by DOUGLAS HAN, ESQ. COOK COUNTY, IL: Bennett's Bid for Class Certification Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable John Robert Blakey denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled Preston Bennett v. Thomas Dart, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04268 (N.D. Ill.). Thomas Dart is the Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois. For the reasons explained in the accompanying memorandum opinion and order, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied without prejudice, according to the Court's docket entry. All dates and deadlines stand.[CC] DOERING LANDSCAPE: Hernandez Seeks Class Certification Under IWPCA ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ALEJANDRO OROZCO HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself, and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. DOERING LANDSCAPE COMPANY, and RICK H. DOERING individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-03313 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for order certifying a proposed class for claims arising under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have had a policy or practice of deducting the cost of uniforms from his and similarly situated employees' wages without their written consent given freely at the time of the deduction. He seeks to certify this class: Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees of Doering Landscape Co. and Rick H. Doering who had deductions made from their wages for the cost of uniforms from May 9, 2008 up to and including the date of judgment. Mr. Hernandez also asks the Court to appoint him as class representative, to appoint his counsel to serve as counsel for the class, and to authorize notice to the class of the action and their right to opt out.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Williams, Esq. NATIONAL LEGAL ADVOCACY NETWORK 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1224 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 795-9121 DOW CHEMICAL: Boothe Farms Files Class Action Over Pesticide ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Boothe Farms claims in a federal class action that Dow Chemical, Corteva and DuPont's Loyant pesticide does not control grasses and weeds as advertised, and damaged their rice crops. A copy of the lawsuit is available at: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Pesticides.pdf EAST WISCONSIN: Settlement in Doberstein Has Preliminary Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Green Bay Division, issued an Order granting Parties' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned TIFFANY DOBERSTEIN on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EAST WISCONSIN SAVINGS BANK, Defendant. Case No. 18-C-1931. (E.D. Wis.). The Court preliminarily approves the Agreement and the terms set forth therein as being fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Agreement is the result of arms' length negotiations between experienced attorneys who are familiar with class action litigation in general and with the legal and factual issues of this case in particular. The Court finds that the settlement terms negotiated by the Parties and described in the Agreement are a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute between the Defendant, the Named Plaintiff, and the Class Members. The Court has considered the pleadings and arguments made by the parties in this litigation and in support of the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement and Collective Action Settlement and for Class Certification for the Purposes of Settlement and finds the proposed Settlement Class is proper and that the Court had jurisdiction over the claims and parties alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint. Solely for the purposes of the proposed settlement, the following settlement class is hereby certified pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: All hourly-paid, non-exempt employees who are or have been employed by Defendant within three (3) years immediately prior to the filing of the Complaint and who received non-discretionary forms of compensation in addition to regular wages that were not included in their regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes and whose names appear on Exhibit A (the Rule 23 Class) to the confidential Settlement Agreement and Release. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 23, 2019 Order is available https://tinyurl.com/y2pkxces from Leagle.com. Tiffany Doberstein, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Potteiger - [email protected] - Walcheske & Luzi LLC, James A. Walcheske - [email protected] - Walcheske & Luzi LLC & Scott S. Luzi - [email protected] - Walcheske & Luzi LLC. East Wisconsin Savings Bank, Defendant, represented by Gregory B. Gill, Sr. , Gill & Gill Law Firm, 501 S. Nicolet Road, Appleton, WI 54914 ENHANCED RECOVERY: Class Certification Sought in Zurakov Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs move the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of their lawsuit captioned CINDY ZURAKOV and CARLOS GOMEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-01389 (E.D. Wisc.), and further ask that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant them (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiffs assert, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) (\"The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.\"). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class, the Plaintiffs tell the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiffs assert that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). The Plaintiffs are obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiffs contend. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs argue. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class representatives, and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ENSIGN UNITED STATES: Newell Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled LOUIS NEWELL, an individual, for himself and those similarly situated v. ENSIGN UNITED STATES DRILLING (CALIFORNIA) INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BCV-15-100367, was removed on Sept. 19, 2019, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-at-00676 to the proceeding. On June 22, 2015, Plaintiff Louis Newell filed this Class Action Complaint against Ensign in the Superior Court, alleging six causes of action under California law: (1) minimum wage violations; (2) unfair competition; (3) failure to timely pay final wages; (4) failure to provide lawful meal periods; (5) failure to pay overtime and double-time premium wages for all hours worked; and (6) wage statement violations. The Plaintiff subsequently filed amended complaints. On August 22, 2019, the Plaintiff filed and served his Second Amended Complaint, alleging the same seven causes of action as the First Amended Complaint and introducing, for the first time, a cause of action under federal law for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, along with another state cause of action for failure to provide lawful rest periods.[BN] Defendant ENSIGN UNITED STATES DRILLING (CALIFORNIA) INC. is represented by: David J. Cooper, Esq. Vanessa Franco Chavez, Esq. Mayra Estrada, Esq. KLEIN, DENATALE, GOLDNER, COOPER, ROSENLIEB & KIMBALL, LLP 4550 California Ave., Second Floor Bakersfield, CA 93309 Telephone: (661) 395-1000 Facsimile: (661) 326-0418 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Evans Class Suit Removed to S.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit styled MARY EVANS and DON WESTON DORRELL, individually and as representatives of a class v. ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS PARTNERS, LP, OILTANKING PARTNERS, LP, and CENTERPOINT ENERGY, Case No. 2019-57694 was removed on Sept. 20, 2019, from the 165th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-03555 to the proceeding. On August 19, 2019, Mary Evans and Don Weston Dorrell commenced a civil action against the Defendants in the Harris County District Court. The Plaintiffs claim that the installation of a pipeline in 2015 along a CenterPoint easement in Channelview, Texas, has caused property damages and the diminution in property value of the Plaintiffs' and Proposed Class Members' properties. The Plaintiffs assert negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, negligent hiring/supervision/training/retraining, private nuisance, and fraud by nondisclosure claims against Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tej R. Paranjpe, Esq. Benjamin H. Ruemke, Esq. Andrew Bivona, Esq. PARANJPE, MAHADASS, RUEMKE LLP 3701 Kirby Dr, Suite 530 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (832) 667-7700 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Defendant Enterprise Products Partners, LP is represented by: D. Ferguson McNiel, Esq. Patrick W. Mizell, Esq. Matthew Hoffman, Esq. Stephanie L. Noble, Esq. Brooke Noble, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P. 1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2500 Houston, TX 77002-6760 Telephone: (713) 758-3882 Facsimile: (713) 615-5493 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] - and - John Kim, Esq. THE KIM LAW FIRM 4309 Yoakum Blvd., Suite 2000 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 522-1177 Facsimile: (888) 809-6793 E-mail: [email protected] FEDLOAN SERVICING: Silver Moves for Certification of TCPA Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned NEIL SILVER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY, DBA FEDLOAN SERVICING, Case No. 14-cv-00652 PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order granting his Motion for Class Certification against PHEAA pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and, Rule 23(b)(3) concerning PHEAA's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The class consists of: All persons within the United States who received a telephone call from PHEAA between February 2010 and February 2014 on their cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice after having requested PHEAA to refrain from further telephonic communications. Mr. Silver also asks the Court for his appointment as Class Representative, and for appointment of his attorneys as Class Counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Matthew M. Loker, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] FORSTER GARBUS: Nitta Files FDCPA Class Suit in New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster, Ggarbus & Garbus. The case is styled as Takahito Nitta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster, Garbus & Garbus, Ronald Foster, Mark Garbus and Glenn Garbus, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-18588 (D. N.J., Oct. 1, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Forster, Garbus & Garbus offers legal services in Hackensack, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: CRAIG B. SANDERS, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS PLLC 100 GARDEN CITY PLAZA, SUITE 500 GARDEN CITY, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Email: [email protected] FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Summary Judgment Bid in Berman TCPA Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DANIEL BERMAN, Plaintiff, v. FREEDOM FINANCIAL NETWORK, LLC, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01060-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (i) denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment; (ii) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to limit the admissibility of portions of a supplemental expert report by Benjamin H. Beecher; and (iii) denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. In the instant action, Plaintiff Berman, on behalf of himself and a putative class, alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (\"TCPA\") by means of autodialed text messages and prerecorded voice calls as part of a telemarketing campaign by Lead Science, LLC, also known as \"Drips,\" and Fluent, Inc. promoting the services of Freedom Financial Network and Freedom Debt Relief, LLC. Berman alleges a total of four claims: one for violation of section 227(b)(1) for \"robocalling,\" i.e. placing non-emergency calls or text messages to a cell phone number using and automatic dialing system and/or an artificial or pre-recorded voice without his prior express written consent; a second for violation of section 227(c) for unsolicited telemarketing calls and texts to a residential telephone number listed on the National Do Not Call Registry; and two additional claims for willful violations of sections 227(b)(1) and 227(c). Pending before the Court were: (i) the Defendants' (1) motion for summary judgment and (2) motion to limit the admissibility of portions of a supplemental expert report by Benjamin H. Beecher; and (ii) the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. As a preliminary matter, Judge Rogers considers the admissibility of certain opinion evidence offered by the Plaintiff in the form of an expert report by Beecher. The Defendants move to strike portions of portions of paragraphs 10(a), 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, and 31 of the expert report of Beecher pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 104, 401, 402, 403, 702 and 704. The Defendants contend the opinions offered by Beecher are not reliable or relevant and should not be considered in connection with the pending motions. More specifically, they contend: (1) Beecher offers opinions on matters as to which he has not demonstrated that he has expertise; (2) his opinions are speculative to the extent they are based upon defendants' undisclosed intent; (3) he offers improper legal conclusions and legal analysis. To the extent that those statements suggest that Beecher is offering an opinion as to a particular user or users, such opinions will not be permitted at trial or in further proceedings. The Judge granted the motion to strike as to the portion of Beecher's report opining on the intentions of the Defendants or legal conclusions, both of which are outside his expertise and not properly within the province of expert testimony. Thus, the Judge sustained the objections to the following and struck these portions of the supplemental report; (i) portion of paragraph 10 stating unfair and not clear and conspicuous; (ii) portion of paragraph 20 stating with every intention of coercing and manipulating its visitors; (iii) portion of paragraph 24 stating this confusion is intentional; (iv) portion of paragraph 27 stating unfair; and (v) portions of paragraph 31 stating \"This scheme used by Fluent to obtain purported consent from consumers was unfair and not clear and conspicuous.\" The Defendants seek summary judgment on five grounds. They contend that the TCPA is not a strict liability statute and that their reasonable, good faith belief that they had valid consent when they contacted Berman should preclude liability. In the alternative, they seek summary judgment on four additional grounds: (1) Berman lacks standing because his TCPA injury was caused by a third party not before the Court; (2) he lacks standing to challenge defendants' alleged failure to comply with the E-SIGN Act because he never visited Fluent's website; (3) his claim for injunctive relief is moot; and (4) he cannot establish his entitlement to treble damages for willful violations of the TCPA. Judge Rogers denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all issues raised therein. She finds that (i) the Defendants' contention that it maintained a good faith belief that it had consent to call Berman is not dispositive on the TCPA claims; (ii) the Defendants caused the TCPA injury by contacting Berman by means of an ATDS; (iii) since the Plaintiff alleges no claim (and therefore no direct injury) under the E-SIGN Act, lack of standing to bring such a claim is irrelevant in the case; (iv) the record does not show that it is \"absolutely clear\" Berman would never be contacted by defendants without his express consent in the future, at this or some other phone number; and (v) Berman has offered sufficient evidence to create a triable issue on whether the Defendants were willfully blind to the evidence of erroneous leads and the complaints they received, as well as intentionally misleading and confusing users with their web registration design such that informed, express consent could not be obtained. The Plaintiff moves for certification of the following class under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3): All persons in the United States to whom: (a) Drips made one or more calls and/or sent one or more text messages reflected in the documents produced in the litigation under Bates stamp LEADSCIENCE_677.csv and/or LEADSCIENCE_677.txt between Feb. 14, 2018, and April 17, 2018, inclusive. The Judge denied without prejudice the motion for class certification. She concludes that Berman has not sufficiently demonstrated his typicality and adequacy with respect to the class as currently defined. Berman offers a plan for litigating the express consent issue on a class-wide basis, arguing lack of contract formation based upon the uniform failure of Fluent's websites to comply with the \"signature\" and \"clear and conspicuous disclosure\" requirements under the TCPA. However, he has not offered authority showing that he can properly litigate those issues if he himself never visited the Fluent websites. Similarly, it is not clear that Berman would be able to litigate adequately the enforceability of the arbitration agreement on the Fluent website if he is not subject to it. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 4, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/UWIZei from Leagle.com. Daniel Berman, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony I. Paronich -- [email protected] -- Broderick & Paronich, P.C., pro hac vice, Matthew Passi McCue -- [email protected] -- The Law Office of Matthew P. McCue, pro hac vice, Edward A. Broderick -- [email protected] -- Broderick and Paronich, P.C. & Jon Bernhard Fougner -- [email protected] . Freedom Financial Network, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian P. Astrup -- [email protected] -- Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, pro hac vice, Jay Thomas Ramsey -- [email protected] -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP, Jonah Sampson Van Zandt -- [email protected] -- Severson and Werson & Robert James Guite -- [email protected] -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Freedom Debt Relief, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian P. Astrup, Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, pro hac vice, Jay Thomas Ramsey, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP & Jonah Sampson Van Zandt, Severson and Werson. Fluent, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jay Thomas Ramsey, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP, Brian P. Astrup, Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, pro hac vice & Joseph Thomas Johnson, III, Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, pro hac vice. Lead Science, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jay Thomas Ramsey, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP & Brian P. Astrup, Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, pro hac vice. Freedom Debt Relief, LLC, 3rd party plaintiff, represented by Jay Thomas Ramsey, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP, Jonah Sampson Van Zandt, Severson and Werson & Joseph Thomas Johnson, III, Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, pro hac vice. Freedom Financial Network, LLC, 3rd party plaintiff, represented by Jay Thomas Ramsey, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP, Jonah Sampson Van Zandt, Severson and Werson, Joseph Thomas Johnson, III Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, pro hac vice & Robert James Guite, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. GEICO GENERAL: Del. Super. OKs Interlocutory Appeal in Green ------------------------------------------------------------ The Superior Court of Delaware issued an Opinion granting Defendant GEICO General Insurance Company's Application for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal of the Court's Opinion Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned YVONNE GREEN, WILMINGTON PAIN & REHABILITATION CENTER, and REHABILITATION ASSOCIATES, P.A., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. C.A. No. N17C-03-242 EMD CCLD. (Del. Super.). Upon consideration of Defendant GEICO General Insurance Company's Application for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal of This Court's Opinion Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs filed suit against GEICO. As alleged, GEICO uses two computerized models to evaluate personal injury protection (PIP) claims of its insureds. The Plaintiffs argue that GEICO uses the Rules to deny valid claims without evaluating the facts underlying the claims. The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class action under Superior Court Civil Rule 23. As part of the Civil Rule 23 process, the Plaintiffs filed their Plaintiffs' Motion for Class. After extensive briefing and a one-day hearing where the parties presented evidence and arguments, the Court issued the Opinion. The Opinion grants the relief sought in the Class Motion. GEICO noted an interlocutory appeal of the Opinion. APPLICABLE STANDARD Rule 42(b) dictates the standard for certifying an interlocutory appeal. No interlocutory appeal will be certified by the trial court or accepted by this Court unless the order of the trial court decides a substantial issue of material importance that merits appellate review before a final judgment. In deciding whether to certify an interlocutory appeal, the trial court must consider: (1) the eight factors listed in Rule 42(b)(iii) (2) the most efficient and just schedule to resolve the case and (3) whether and why the likely benefits of interlocutory review outweigh the probable costs, such that interlocutory review is in the interests of justice. If the balance of these considerations is uncertain, the trial court should refuse to certify the interlocutory appeal. SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE The substantial issue of material importance prong of Rule 42 requires that the matter decided goes to the merits of the case. The focus, here, is not on the merits of legal arguments, but rather on whether the trial court's decision determined a substantial issue. This case involves the application of 21 Del. C. Section 2118 to GEICO's Rules through a Civil Rule 23 class action. The Opinion is not addressing a minor issue like a discovery dispute, but rather the viability of class certification. The Court concludes, therefore, that the substantial issue criterion is met in GEICO's request for certification. LEGAL RIGHT A legal right is established when a court determines an issue essential to the positions of the parties regarding the merits of the case, i.e., where one of the parties' rights has been enhanced or diminished as a result of the order. Arguably, the Opinion does not determine an essential issue regarding the merits of the case. The Court notes that the Opinion addresses the Plaintiffs' request to certify classes and not the validity of the claims asserted in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. RULE 42(b)(iii) Even if the Court finds that GEICO satisfied the substantial issue of material importance requirement, GEICO must also meet at least one of the requirements of Rule 42(b)(iii). Here, the Court finds that the Motion meets at least one of the Rule 42(b)(iii)(A)-(H) criterion. The Court cannot find that the Opinion involves a question of law resolved for the first time in Delaware under Rule 42(b)(iii)(A) and (B). Despite GEICO's contentions, the Opinion merely allows the Plaintiffs to proceed under Civil Rule 23. This is hardly novel in Delaware. The Court has already addressed the validity of the claims pled by the Plaintiffs and GEICO's purported split in trial court opinions on those claims. The Court does find that the Motion meets the criterion of Rule 42(b)(iii)(G) and (H). The Opinion follows similar decisions of the Federal District Courts. However, such a class has never been certified in Delaware. Wilmington Pain & Rehab. Ctr., P.A. discussed its availability but did not rule upon it. A decision by the Supreme Court on the viability of the type of classes certified in the Opinion could serve to terminate the class portion of this litigation. The Court believes this because if GEICO is right on appeal and the Plaintiffs cannot proceed as a class, then both forms of class certification the one advanced in Wilmington Pain & Rehab. Ctr., P.A. and the one advanced in the Amended Complaint with respect to the Rules will not be available in Delaware. This does not mean that the entire litigation will terminate as the Plaintiffs would still be able to proceed on the Amended Complaint, just not under Civil Rule 23. The Court finds that Rule 42(b)(iii)(H) is necessarily implicated because of the analysis relating to Rule 42(b)(iii)(G). In other words, determining whether the type of class certified in the Opinion is available in Delaware, will serve the considerations of justice. The Court is concerned that without the Proposed Order (or a modified Proposed Order) the Supreme Court may be addressing an interlocutory appeal not fully formed or defined. However, the Court feels that addressing the Proposed Order is jurisdictionally problematic since GEICO noted the interlocutory appeal prior to any action on the Proposed Order. The Court ordered that certification to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware for disposition in accordance with Rule 42 sought under the Motion is granted. A full-text copy of the Superior Court's September 23, 2019 Order is available https://tinyurl.com/yyxwhpk6 from Leagle.com. GENDER BIAS: Fails to Pay Minimum/Overtime Wages, Lazo Lazo Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Juana Lazo Lazo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gender Bias, Inc. d/b/a Lola & Sophie and Does 1–50, inclusive, Case No. 1:19-cv-08572 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 16, 2019), alleges that the Defendants violated the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards and the New York Labor Law. Gender Bias, Inc., doing business as Lola & Sophie, is a business operating in the State of New York, with its principal place of business located at 307 W 38th Street, in New York City. The true identities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown. The Defendants sell women's clothes. The Plaintiff and class members are current or former non-exempt employees, including sewists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin D. Weisenberg, Esq. WEISENBERG FIRM, PLLC, 450 Lexington Ave.-4th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (917) 747-5303 Facsimile: (212) 365-5619 E-mail: [email protected] GENUINE PARTS: Removes Yoakum Suit to W.D. of Missouri ------------------------------------------------------ The Defendant in the case of JESSE YOAKUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GENUINE PARTS COMPANY; AUTHORIZED MOTOR PARTS CORPORATION d/b/a NAPA AUTO PARTS; and WARREN OIL COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of Missouri, County of Cass (Case No. 19CA-CC00183) to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on September 9, 2019. The clerk of court for the Western District of Missouri assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-00718-BP. Genuine Parts Company distributes automotive replacement parts, industrial replacement parts, office products, and electrical and electronic materials. The Company conducts business throughout most of the United States, in Canada, and in Mexico. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Morris, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 100 S. 4th Street, Suite 550 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 961-6686 Facsimile: (314) 338-3076 E-mail: [email protected] GLOBAL TRANZ: Protective Order Bid in True Freight Partly Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, True Freight Logistics LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Global Tranz Enterprises Incorporated, et al., Defendants. Global Tranz Enterprises Incorporated, Counterclaimant, v. True Freight Logistics LLC, Counter-Defendant, Case No. CV-18-01472-PHX-JGZ (D. Ariz.), Judge Jennifer G. Zipps of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted in part and denied in part GTZ's motion for a protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) regarding True Freight's requests for production of electronically stored information (\"ESI\"). Through requests for production, True Freight sought \"all communications,\" with no subject matter limitation, between 49 different GTZ email accounts for the time period of May 2017 to Feb. 28, 2018. After GTZ objected, True Freight narrowed its request to 33 email accounts, provided search terms, and expanded the date range to include June 12, 2012 to Feb. 8, 2018. GTZ agreed to collect ESI from 14 of the 33 custodians and indicated its \"preference\" to limit True Freight's requested search terms. With respect to the remaining custodians, GTZ requested additional information about why each custodian was likely to be in custody of relevant information. In response, True Freight provided the title and/or a \"generalized\" description of the type of work performed by each custodian; True Freight did not explain why each individual would likely be in custody of the requested information. Freight stating that the description is not inclusive and not detailed. GTZ is aware of the responsibilities and interactions of the above individuals because they are/were GTZ's employees. GTZ ultimately agreed to collect data from one additional custodian, bringing the total to 15. GTZ's search retrieved 4.5 GB, comprised of approximately 13,000 documents and more than a million pages for GTZ's counsel to review for relevance and privilege. GTZ's counsel has spent approximately 80 hours reviewing those documents, is only a little more than half way through, and GTZ has produced 27,000 pages to True Freight. GTZ now seeks a protective order limiting production to the 15 custodians whose accounts GTZ has already searched. GTZ asserts that requiring it to collect and review documents from additional custodians is not proportionate to the needs of the case. GTZ estimates that searching for documents from the additional custodians will result in at least the same amount of data gathered from the first 15 custodians and will cost GTZ at least another $100,000 in attorneys' fees. With the exception of one custodian, Judge Zipps agrees with GTZ. She concludes that TFL's demand for GTZ to produce documents from all of the additional custodians is not proportional to the needs of the case. Requiring GTZ to provide the additional communications would result in a substantial burden and expense, including $100,000 in attorneys' fees in addition to the 80-plus hours of attorney time expended on the record review of the 15 custodians. With the exception of John Hohman, GTZ's Manager of Agent Earnings Reporting, True Freight fails to sufficiently establish that the remaining custodian accounts likely possesses important information bearing on the issues so as to justify that burden and expense. In light of the marginal relevance of the other custodian accounts, the anticipated cost is disproportionate, particularly in relation to the $900,000 in controversy. GTZ alone may have access to internal communications of its employees, but GTZ has provided or will provide the internal communications of 16 custodians. TFL does not dispute that records from the first 15 custodians include internal communications that would be retrieved from the additional custodians. Moreover, again, it is notable that TFL characterizes the disclosed communications as having little value. Considering the factors set forth in Rule 26(b)(1), Judge Zipps concludes that, with the exception of custodian Hohman, the burden and expense of producing the additional custodian accounts is not proportional to the needs of the case. Therefore, she denied GTZ's Motion for Protective Order with respect to the custodian account of Hohman, and granted with respect to the remaining custodians. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/LrVk3O from Leagle.com. True Freight Logistics LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff, represented by Lorraine Morey -- [email protected] -- Morey Law PLLC. Global Tranz Enterprises Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by Benjamin Christian Nielsen -- [email protected] -- Quarles & Brady LLP, Christopher Bradley Vynalek -- [email protected] -- Quarles & Brady LLP, Eric Bowen Johnson -- [email protected] -- Quarles & Brady LLP & Michael Shawn Catlett -- [email protected] -- Quarles & Brady LLP. Global Tranz Enterprises Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Counter Claimant, represented by Benjamin Christian Nielsen, Quarles & Brady LLP, Christopher Bradley Vynalek, Quarles & Brady LLP, Eric Bowen Johnson, Quarles & Brady LLP & Michael Shawn Catlett, Quarles & Brady LLP. True Freight Logistics LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company & Joshua Goldstein, Counter Defendants, represented by Lorraine Morey, Morey Law PLLC. GREENLAND ACQUISITION: Wheby Sues over Share Exchange Deal ---------------------------------------------------------- EARL M. WHEBY, JR., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs, GREENLAND ACQUISITION CORPORATION, YANMING LIU, SHAN CUI, JIANG PU, and YU CHEN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01758-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 19, 2019), alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with a share exchange agreement. On July 12, 2019, Greenland Acquisition Corporation's Board of Directors caused Greenland to enter into a share exchange agreement with Zhongchai Holding (Hong Kong) Limited, Cenntro Holding Limited, and Greenland Asset Management Corporation. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Greenland will acquire 100% of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Zhongchai Holding in exchange for the issuance of 7,500,000 Greenland shares to the Zhongchai Equity Holder. As a result of the Proposed Transaction, Greenland's current public stockholders will own only approximately 33.6% of Greenland's outstanding shares. On September 11, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, which recommends that Greenland's stockholders vote to approve the Proposed Transaction at a special meeting of stockholders scheduled for October 17, 2019. The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Gina M. Serra, Esq. Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] GURU KRUPA: Romualdo, et al Seek Minimum & Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- ALVAREZ QUIZAR ROMUALDO and BORIS ASARAEL HERNANDEZ LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. GURU KRUPA 104 CORPORATION (D/B/A 104 DELI), M&Z CORPORATION (D/B/A FAMILY GROCERY & DELI), JATIN PATEL, NAJMA MOHAMED RAZA (A.K.A MOHAMED), ABBASALI RAZA, and HABIB H. ALI, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05188 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 11, 2019), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants. The Defendants own, operate, or control two American deli's, located at 104-10 Atlantic Ave, Ozone Park, New York 11416 under the name \"104 Deli\" and at 10727 Atlantic Ave, Jamaica, New York 11418 under the name \"Family Grocery & Deli\".[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: [email protected] HARTE-HANKS DIRECT: Valdez Settlement Has Final Court Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, issued an Order and Judgment granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned SILVIA VALDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HARTE-HANKS DIRECT MARKETING/FULLERTON, INC., a California Corporation; HARTE-HANKS DIRECT, INC., a New York Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 8:17-cv-00525-DOC-KES(x). (C.D. Cal.). For the reasons set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order, which are adopted and incorporated herein by reference, this Court finds that the applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 have been satisfied with respect to the Class and the proposed Settlement. The Court hereby makes final its earlier provisional certification of the Class, as set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order. This Order and Judgment Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the terms and conditions of the parties' Stipulation, together with the definitions of terms used and contained therein. The (Class Notice) given to the Class Members fully and accurately informed the Class Members of all material elements of the proposed Settlement and of their opportunity to object to or comment thereon; was the best notice practicable under the circumstances; was valid, due, and sufficient notice to all Class Members; and complied fully with the laws of the State of California, the United States Constitution, due process, and other applicable law. The Class Notice fairly and adequately described the Settlement and provided Class Members adequate instructions and a variety of means to obtain additional information. A full opportunity has been afforded to the Class Members to participate in the Final Approval hearing, and all Class Members and other persons wishing to be heard have been heard. Accordingly, the Court determines that all Class Members who did not timely and properly execute a Request for Exclusion are bound by this Order and Judgment. The Court has considered all relevant factors for determining the fairness of the Settlement and has concluded that all such factors weigh in favor of granting Final Approval. In particular, the Court finds that the Settlement was reached following meaningful discovery and investigation conducted by Class Counsel; that the Settlement is the result of serious, informed, adversarial, and arm's-length negotiations between the Parties; and that the terms of the Settlement are in all respects fair, adequate, and reasonable. The Court hereby approves attorney's fees to Class Counsel in the amount of $180,000.00 and costs in the amount of $7,318.24 as compensation for all attorney time spent on this matter from inception through and including the Final Approval Hearing and all other work related to this case and all costs, as these requests are fair and reasonable. Costs to the Settlement Administrator in the amount of $15,000 are hereby approved as fair and reasonable. No other costs or fees relief shall be awarded, either against Defendant or any other of the Released Parties, as defined in the Stipulation. The Court hereby approves a Service Award to Plaintiff Silvia Valdez (Plaintiff) in the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000). Plaintiff's Service Award is approved as a service award to the class representative and in consideration and exchange for Plaintiff's Complete and General Release of all claims as explained in the Stipulation. Based on his contribution to the Class, risks incurred, stigma, change of policies, execution of a general release and all other factors presented to the Court, the Court finds this request fair and reasonable. The Court approves a PAGA Award of $5,000, with $3,750 payable to the Labor Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), as this request is fair and reasonable. If the Settlement does not become final and effective in accord with the terms of the Stipulation, then this Final Order and Judgment shall be rendered null and void and shall be vacated and, in such event, all orders entered, including but not limited to all releases delivered in connection herewith, shall be null and void. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 23, 2019 Order and Judgment is available https://tinyurl.com/y3dkyjjq from Leagle.com. Silvia Valdez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by James R. Hawkins - [email protected] - James Hawkins APLC, Michael J.S. Calvo - [email protected] - James Hawkins APLC & Gregory E. Mauro - [email protected] - James Hawkins APLC. Harte-Hanks Direct Marketing Fullerton Inc, a California Corporation & Harte Hanks Direct Inc, a New York Corporation, Defendants, represented by Holger G. Besch - [email protected] - Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Brian P. Long - [email protected] - Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Duwayne Andre Carr , Seyfarth Shaw LLP. HIDDEN VILLA RANCH: Marshall Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned REJENNA MARSHALL, individually, on a representative basis, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. HIDDEN VILLA RANCH PRODUCE, INC.; LUBERSKI, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RIC1903757 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 30, 2019, and assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-01876. The operative First Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff on August 26, 2019, asserts the following cause of action: (1) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (2) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (3) Failure to Provide Mea Periods; (4) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; (5) Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; (6) Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages; (7) Failure to Provide Accurate itemized Wage Statement; and (8) Unfair and Unlawful Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: KATHERINE C. DEN BLEYKER, ESQ. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.250.1800 Facsimile: 213.250.790 Email: [email protected] HYUNDAI MOTOR: NJ Court Dismisses in Part First Amended Brown Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ELIZABETH BROWN, THOMAS PEARSON, JANESHIA MARTIN, and NICHOLAS MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, and HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, LTD., Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-11249 (SDW) (JAD) (D. N.J.), Judge Susan D. Wigenton of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part Hyundai's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (\"FAC\") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The putative class action arises out of an alleged defect found in certain model year 2011 through 2016 Hyundai Elantras with \"Nu\" 1.8 liter engines. The defect resides in the the Class Vehicle's engine, specifically in the pistons, which are a component of the engine that creates the necessary force to power the car. The defect manifests with a knocking noise in the engine, either while the car is warming up or while driving. The defect allegedly causes \"total and irreparable engine failure,\" resulting in a loss of engine power, power steering, and brake assistance. The Named Plaintiffs are residents of various states who purchased and currently own allegedly defective Class Vehicles. Plaintiff Brown is a citizen of New Jersey who purchased a new 2013 Hyundai Elantra with a 1.8 liter \"Nu\" engine from an authorized Hyundai dealer located in Avenel, New Jersey. Plaintiff Pearson is a citizen of Washington state who purchased a 2015 Hyundai Elantra from Korum Hyundai in Puyallup, Washington. Plaintiff Martin is a citizen of Georgia who purchased a used 2015 Hyundai Elantra with a 1.8 liter \"Nu\" engine from Superior Chevrolet in Decatur, Georgia. Finally, Plaintiff Moore is a citizen of Illinois who purchased a used 2013 Hyundai Elantra from Green Chevrolet in Peoria, Illinois. The Plaintiffs now bring the action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated as a nationwide class, or, in the alternative as New Jersey, Washington, Georgia, and Illinois subclasses, alleging that HMA knew about the piston defect, failed to inform consumers of the defect, and that the Plaintiffs relied on those omissions in purchasing their Class Vehicles. The Plaintiffs set forth eleven counts against HMA: (1) breach of express warranty; (2) breach of implied warranty; (3) breach of the written warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; (4) violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; (5) violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act; (6) Violations of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act; (7) violations of the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act; (8) violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act; (9) violations of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act; (10) common law fraud; and (11) unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs have since expressly waived Plaintiffs Martin and Moore's implied warranty claims, Plaintiff Brown's common law fraud claim, and Counts VII and VIII, and as such, those claims are dismissed with prejudice. Before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs have opposed the motion, (ECF No. 24), and the Defendant has replied to same. HMA argues that Plaintiff Pearson lacks Article III standing because his claims for economic harm are either too speculative or inadequately pleaded. Judge Wigenton agrees. The engine in Pearson's Elantra failed in July 2018, with approximately 76,000 miles on the car. The Amended Complaint has not shown that Pearson's out-of-pocket rental car costs are \"certainly impending,\" and thus Pearson has failed to establish Article III standing. Pearson's claims of future repairs and diminished value of his vehicle are similarly flawed. Pearson's claim of future repairs is based on the conclusory allegation that the replacement engines provided under the warranty are just as likely to fail as the original engine due to it containing the same latent defect. As for breach of express warranty under New Jersey law, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for breach of express warranty under New Jersey law. First, Brown improperly asserts that future discovery will show that she did comply with the terms of the warranty. Second, the Plaintiffs have provided no factual predicate to support the conclusory statements regarding a lack of meaningful choice and lack of bargaining power mentioned. Finally, Moore has not pled any additional coercion or overreaching beyond conclusory claims of unequal bargaining power and a lack of choice. The only remaining implied warranty claim belongs to Brown, as the Plaintiffs conceded Martin and Moore's implied warranty claims, and Plaintiff Pearson's claims were dismissed for lack of standing. The Judge holds that Brown was also able to drive her car after the repair. Furthermore, the New Vehicle Limited Warranty period had expired. Additionally, Brown purportedly failed to properly maintain her car, which Hyundai determined resulted in the engine failure. These facts taken together lead the Judge to believe that dismissal of Brown's implied warranty claim is appropriate at this stage. Because the Plaintiffs have failed to state any of their state law warranty claims, their Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims must also be dismissed. As for fraud, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs make no allegations that HMA monitored the NHTSA website. And, even if the Court assumes that HMA did monitor NHTSA complaints, every NHTSA complaint listed in the Amended Complaint, save two, post-dates August 2013, when Brown purchased her vehicle. Martin has also failed to state a Georgia common law fraud claim and her claim is dismissed. Moore, on the other hand, has not alleged a sufficient likelihood of future harm. Moore has already had his engine replaced, and has alleged no additional facts supporting his conclusion that the replacement engine will inevitably fail for the same reasons his original engine failed. Finally, the Defendants requested that the Court deny the Plaintiffs leave to amend the Amended Complaint because they believe amendment would be futile and prejudicial. While the Plaintiffs have already amended their complaint once, it is the first time the Court has addressed it dispositively. Given that there is a general presumption in favor of allowing a plaintiff to amend its pleadings under Rule 15(a)(2), the Judge will allow the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint except where explicitly stated. She will not allow Plaintiffs leave to amend Brown's implied warranty claim, Martin's common law fraud claim, and Moore's IUDTPA and common law claims, as amendment would be futile in those cases and they are thus dismissed with prejudice. For the reasons stated, Judge Wigenton granted HMA's motion to dismiss, except as it pertains to the Plaintiffs' leave to amend certain aspects of the Amended Complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/q4hvP4 from Leagle.com. ELIZABETH BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL M. WEINKOWITZ -- [email protected] -- LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN, ESQS., JASON S. RATHOD -- [email protected] -- MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP, NICHOLAS A. MIGLIACCIO -- [email protected] -- MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP & MATTHEW D. SCHELKOPF, McCune Wright Arevalo LLP. THOMAS PEARSON, JANESHIA MARTIN & NICHOLAS MOORE, Plaintiffs, represented by JASON S. RATHOD, MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP, NICHOLAS A. MIGLIACCIO, MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP & MATTHEW D. SCHELKOPF, McCune Wright Arevalo LLP. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, Defendant, represented by MICHELLE M. BUFANO -- [email protected] -- Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP & PETER C. HARVEY -- [email protected] -- PATTERSON, BELKNAP, WEBB & TYLER, LLP. ILLINOIS: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Bennett --------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned PRESTON BENNETT, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS DART, et al., Defendants. Case No. 18-cv-04268. (N.D. Ill.). Plaintiff an amputee who relies upon crutches to ambulate is a former detainee at CCDOC who seeks, individually and on behalf of the proposed class, injunctive relief as well as monetary damages. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' failure to provide grab bars in Division 10's shower and toilet facilities, as well as a fixed bench in Division 10's shower facilities, deprived him, and other detainees prescribed a crutch, cane, or walker, of rights guaranteed under Section 202 of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehab Act. He alleges that Defendants violated Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Rehab Act), in connection with their shower and toilet facilities in Division 10 of the Cook County Department of Corrections (CCDOC). Plaintiff moves to certify the following class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): All inmates housed in Division 10 at the Cook County Department of Corrections from June 27, 2016 to the date of entry of judgment, who were prescribed either a walker, crutch, or cane by the medical staff and were denied an accommodation for toileting and showering. Legal Standard Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs class action suits. Courts must complete a two-step analysis when determining whether to grant a motion for class certification. First, plaintiffs must satisfy Rule 23(a)'s four requirements: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (numerosity) (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class (commonality) (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class (typicality) and(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class (adequacy of representation). Second, plaintiffs must also satisfy one of Rule 23(b)'s conditions. Here, Plaintiff seeks certification under Rule 23(b)(3), which requires both that common questions predominate and that proceeding as a class remains superior to other ways of adjudicating the case. Plaintiff advances two alternative legal theories. One theory assumes that the ADA and Rehab Act's Structural Standards do not apply, in which case the lawfulness of Defendants' actions turns upon whether Defendants afforded the class reasonable accommodations. Alternatively, Plaintiff argues that Division 10 must comply with the ADA and Rehab Act's Structural Standards, which require that Division 10 provide a grab bar for each accessible shower and toilet. This Court cannot, at least on the current record before it, find commonality. Plaintiff's reasonable accommodation theory frustrates the commonality requirement. He currently defines the class to include individuals prescribed any of three different types of aid: a cane, crutch, or walker. Because he broadly defines the class, the nature and severity of the class members' disability and ability to ambulate varies. Class dissimilarities frequently impede the Court's ability to generate common answers. Indeed, in this case, given the dissimilarities among the class members, Defendants' accommodation may or may not have been reasonable for any individual class member depending upon the nature and severity of that class member's disability. Thus, in order to determine the legality of Defendants' conduct, this Court would need to engage in a fact-specific inquiry for each individual. In doing so, this case would devolve into an amalgamation of various individual ADA claims, any of which may or may have merit. For this reason, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the class' reasonable accommodation theory satisfies the commonality requirement. Plaintiff's alternative theory similarly cannot serve as the basis for finding commonality. This theory posits that Division 10 must comply with the ADA and Rehab Act's Structural Standards, which require a shower and accessible toilet to have at least one grab bar nearby. If viable, this theory might ostensibly satisfy Rule 23(a)(2)'s commonality requirement because the class claims do not require this Court to engage in any individualized determinations as to what constitutes a reasonable accommodation. But for this Court to determine whether the ADA and Rehab Act's Structural Standards control thereby mooting the reasonable accommodation inquiry it would need to rule on the merits of Plaintiff's case. Yet doing so prior to ruling on class certification runs afoul of the rule against one-way intervention. Thus, this Court cannot find commonality on the record before it. Accordingly, this Court must deny Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied without prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 23, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available https://tinyurl.com/yxqsybkf from Leagle.com. Preston Bennett, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick William Morrissey , Thomas G. Morrissey, Ltd. & Thomas Gerard Morrissey , Thomas G. Morrissey, 10150 S Western Ave Ste Rear Chicago, IL, 60643-1928 Thomas Dart, Sheriff of Cook County & Cook County, Illinois, Defendants, represented by Brian Patrick Gainer - [email protected] - Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Jack E. Bentley- [email protected] - Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Ahmed A. Kosoko - [email protected] - Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Lisa Marie Mcelroy - [email protected] - Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Michael Richard Sherer - [email protected] - Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Monica Burkoth - [email protected] - Johnson & Bell, Ltd. & Zachary Adam Pestine - [email protected] - JOHNSON & BELL INKSTER CITY, MI: Seeks Initial Approval of $130K Garner Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------ The parties in the lawsuit styled GARNER PROPERTIES & MANAGEMENT, LLC, CHRISTOPHER L. GARNER, and OLIVIA HEMARATANATORN v. CITY OF INKSTER, GINA TRIPLETT, MCKENNA ASSOCIATES, INC. & JIM WRIGHT, Case No. 2:17-cv-13960-PDB-RSW (E.D. Mich.), filed their joint motion for certification of settlement class and preliminary approval of settlement and class notice. Representative Plaintiff Garner Properties & Management, LLC, seeks to certify a Settlement Class comprised of: All persons who paid any registration or inspection fee to the City of Inkster under the City's Rental Dwellings or Rental Units section of its Building Regulations Code from December 7, 2014 through the date of the Order Preliminarily Approving the Settlement and Settlement Class. In the event the settlement contemplated under this Agreement does not receive final approval from the Court, the fact that the Parties stipulated to a settlement class shall not be used by any Party either in support or opposition of class certification in the lawsuit, according to the Motion. Under the Agreement, the City of Inkster, McKenna Associates, Inc. and Jim Wright have agreed to establish a settlement fund in an amount up to $130,000 ($100,000 contributed by Inkster and $30,000 contributed by McKenna and Wright), which will be used in significant part to pay the claims of the Settlement Class Members who are entitled to participate in the distribution of the settlement proceeds pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Class counsel shall apply to the Court for an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $43,333, which represents one-third (1/3) of the settlement fund, plus reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. The Defendants will pay the Named Plaintiff $10,000 from the settlement fund for representing the Settlement Class as the Class Representative. The cost of administering the claims through a third-party administrator will also be paid from the settlement fund. Class Members may make a claim for up to $100 for each registered residential rental property of that Class Member.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aaron D. Cox, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF AARON D. COX, PLLC 23380 Goddard Rd. Taylor, MI 48180 Telephone: (734) 287-3664 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Mark K. Wasvary, Esq. MARK K. WASVARY, P.C. 2401 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 100 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 649-5667 E-mail: [email protected] Defendant City of Inkster is represented by: David W. Jones, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. ALLEN BROTHERS, PLLC 400 Monroe, Suite 620 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 962-7777 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Defendants McKenna Associates and Jim Wright are represented by: Gregory I. Thomas, Esq. Kevin G. Thomas, Esq. THOMAS, DEGROOD & WITENOFF, P.C. 26211 Central Park Blvd., Suite 11 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 353-4450 E-mail: [email protected] ISRAMCO, INC: Rosenblatt Balks at Naphtha Israel Transaction ------------------------------------------------------------ JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ISRAMCO, INC., HAIM TSUFF, JOSEPH FROM, MAX PRIDGEON, ASAF YARKONI, FRANS SLUITER, and NIR HASSON, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01774-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 20, 2019), stems from a proposed transaction announced on May 20, 2019, pursuant to which Isramco, Inc. will be acquired by Naphtha Israel Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Naphtha Holding Ltd., I.O.C. - Israel Oil Company Ltd., and Naphtha US Oil, Inc. Haim Tsuff, Co-Chief Executive Officer, President, and Chairman of the Board of the Company, controls Naphtha through various entities and beneficially owns approximately 73% of the outstanding common stock of Isramco. On May 20, 2019, Isramco's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Naphtha. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Isramco's stockholders will receive $121.40 in cash for each share of Isramco common stock they own. On September 6, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction for October 22, 2019. The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Isramco, Inc. together with its subsidiaries, engages in the acquisition, development, production, and exploration of oil and natural gas properties in the United States.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: [email protected] JB HUNT: Freeney Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------ The lawsuit titled KENNETH FREENEY, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., an Arkansas corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. CV18002954 was removed on Sept. 20, 2019 from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Stanislaus to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01324-AWI-EPG to the proceeding. Plaintiff Kenneth Freeney filed his Class Action Complaint in the Superior Court on September 20, 2018. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Defendant violated California law by: (1) failing to properly pay overtime wages at the correct rate; (2) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (3) failing to pay all wages upon termination; and (4) engaging in unfair or unlawful business practices.[BN] Defendant J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC. is represented by: Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq. Megan E. Ross, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 795-4700 Facsimile: (626) 795-4790 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] - and - Alaina C. Hawley, Esq. James A. Eckhart, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 10 West Market Street, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 637-1777 Facsimile: (317) 687-2414 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] JUUL LABS: D'Amico Says E-cigarettes Addictive & Unsafe ------------------------------------------------------- FRANK DOUGLAS D'AMICO, the Plaintiff, vs. JUUL LABS, INC., PAX LABS, INC., and ALTRIA GROUP, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-12628-SSV-JVM (E.D. La., Sept. 16, 2019), seeks to remedy violations of law in connection with Defendants' unfair and unlawful marketing, advertising, and sale of JUUL e-cigarettes and/or JUUL pods products, which are highly addictive, unsafe, and nevertheless immensely popular among adult and underage nonsmokers. According to the complaint, the Defendants used a systematic marketing campaign to dupe consumers into believing that JUUL e-cigarettes were safe and fun to use, all the while failing to disclose the addictive nature of the Products, as well the serious health risks they pose. The Defendants have maintained a stronghold in the e-cigarette industry since the release of JUUL e-cigarettes in June 2015. Even then the health problems caused by e-cigarettes were no secret. The Food and Drug Administration had already expressed concerns about the proliferation of e-cigarettes among youth and nonsmokers, publicly discussing plans to regulate the industry as far back as 2013. Nevertheless, PAX Labs launched an aggressive marketing campaign for the JUUL e-cigarette, targeting youth and nonsmokers with colorful advertisements featuring men and women in their 20s and 30s, often at parties or in provocative clothing. As its own entity, JUUL further intensified its marketing efforts, targeting underage users and nonsmokers with glamorized social media campaigns, which promoted a lifestyle of relaxation, freedom, and sex appeal, the lawsuit says. Juul Labs, Inc. is an electronic cigarette company which spun off from Pax Labs in 2017.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes are: James R. Dugan, II, Esq. David Scalia, Esq. DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC 365 Canal Street, Suite 1000 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 648-0180 Facsimile: (504) 648-0181 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] JUUL LABS: Faces Hochhauser Product Liability Suit in NY -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JUUL Labs Inc. The case is styled as Shawn Hochhauser, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs Inc., Altria Group, Inc. and Philip Morris USA, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05551 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 1, 2019). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Tort Product Liability. Juul Labs, Inc. is an electronic cigarette company which spun off from Pax Labs in 2017. It makes the Juul e-cigarette, which packages nicotine salts from leaf tobacco into one-time use cartridges. Juul Labs was co-founded by Adam Bowen and James Monsees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Tel: (914) 934-9200 Fax: (914) 934-9220 Email: [email protected] KAISER FOUNDATION: Settlement in Banks FLSA Suit Gets Final OK -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jesus G. Bernal of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division, has entered Final Approval Order and Judgment of Dismissal, dismissing the case, DIONKA BANKS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-01653-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal.), with prejudice. Judge Bernal has reviewed and considered the motion for final approval of the Stipulation of Settlement submitted by the Parties. The motion seeks final approval of the Settlement and entry of judgment that will bind each Class Member, and will operate as a full release and discharge of the Released Claims. He finds that the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate. The fact that a settlement represents a compromise of the Parties' respective positions rather than the result of a finding of liability at trial also supports his decision granting final approval. He appointed the Plaintiff as the representatives of, and the Class Counsel as the counsel for, the Class Members for the purpose of entering into and implementing the Settlement. The Settlement Administrator is to execute the distribution of proceeds pursuant to the terms of the Settlement. The payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency of $33,750 as its share of the settlement of claims arising under the California Private Attorneys General Act in the case is fair, reasonable and adequate, the Court holds. The payment of that amount will be paid from the Total Settlement Amount in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, and there will be no further recourse for the civil penalties released under the terms of the Settlement. The fees, expenses, and any other costs of Simpluris, Inc. in administering the Settlement, in the amount of $18,300, are fair and reasonable, the Court also holds. The Payment of that amount will be paid out of the Gross Settlement Amount in accordance with the Settlement, which will fully, finally and completely compensate Simpluris for all fees, expenses and any other costs in administering the Settlement. Based upon application by the Class Counsel and the Plaintiff, Judge Bernal approved the payment of the Class Representative Service Award in the amount of $5,000 to Named Plaintiff Dionka Banks (in addition to any recovery she may receive as a Class Member under the Settlement). The Judge also approved the payment of attorneys' fees to the Class Counsel in the amount of 25% of the Gross Settlement Amount, i.e. $412,500, and litigation costs to the Class Counsel in an amount not to exceed $33,500, to be paid in the manner set forth in the Settlement. No other attorneys or law firms will be entitled to any award of attorneys' fees or costs from the Defendant in any way connected with the Action. The Final Approval Order and Judgment of dismissal has been entered, dismissing the Action with prejudice. After settlement administration and distribution of funds have been completed, the parties will file a report with the Court certifying compliance with the terms of the Settlement and the Order and Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/QO2DWM from Leagle.com. Dionka Banks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by David Yeremian -- [email protected] -- David Yeremian and Associates Inc., Jason J. Thompson -- [email protected] -- Sommers Schwatz PC, pro hac vice, Kevin J. Stoops -- [email protected] -- Sommers Schwartz PC, pro hac vice & Trenton R. Kashima -- [email protected] -- Finkelstein and Krinsk LLP. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, represented by Candace Sheri Bertoldi -- [email protected] -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Christian J. Rowley -- [email protected] -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Kerry McCoy Friedrichs -- [email protected] -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Pamela L. Vartabedian -- [email protected] -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Parnian Vafaeenia -- [email protected] -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Duwayne Andre Carr, Seyfarth Shaw LLP. LEGEND MINING: Approval of Kaesemeyer Suit Settlement Recommended ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Kaesemeyer, v. Legend Mining USA Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 6:17-cv-01520 (W.D. La.), Magistrate Judge Carol B. Whitehurst of the U.S. District Court for the Western Dsistrict of Louisiana, Lafayette Division, recommended that the joint motion for approval of the parties' settlement agreement be granted. Before the Court, on referral from the district judge, is a Joint Motion To Accept Settlement filed by the parties. The parties in the Kaesemeyer/Legend Mining case reached a settlement, which was conditionally certified as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (\"FLSA\"). The parties filed the instant joint motion for court approval of their settlement agreement. They also provided the Court with a copy of an Affidavit of Charles J. Stiegler, the counsel for the Plaintiff. Based on a review of the motion, Stiegler's Affidavit, and the applicable law and jurisprudence, Magistrate Judge Whitehurst finds that the issues raised by the parties are sufficient for her to find that genuine uncertainty as to the outcome of the litigation existed for each side, and a bona fide dispute existed in the case. The affidavit also confirms that the parties have agreed to a settlement which provided each Plaintiff with 100% of the unpaid overtime which he was allegedly owed, plus 25% of the calculated potential liquidated damages penalties. There is a presumption that no fraud or collusion occurred between the counsel, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. With regard to the inquiries set forth in the second factor, the complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation, the Magistrate finds that the FLSA action presented multiple complex legal issues which have been zealously litigated by experienced counsel, at significant expense. Had a settlement not been consummated, the Court is of the opinion that the case would likely have remained in litigation for a significant amount of time, in excess of at least one or two more years, causing the parties to incur significant additional expense. The case has been litigated by competent and experienced lawyers who enjoy great respect in their field from both sides of the aisle. Given the nature of the disputed issues underlying the lawsuit, there is uncertainty surrounding the eventual outcome of the litigation, as well as the potential for appeal to the Fifth Circuit. The Magistrate further finds that the settlement agreement represents a settlement that curtails risk while resolving the dispute for an amount that, both in total and on individual assessment, is adequate, fair, reasonable, and within the range anticipated by the Court. There have been no objections to the settlement, and all of the parties agree that the proposed settlement is in the best interests of the parties involved. Finally, the parties' agreement provided for $9,408.75 in attorney's fees and costs. This reflects a significant voluntary reduction from the actual accrued attorney's fees in the case. The Counsel also incurred $535.50 in recoverable costs, which are to be paid out of the same sum. The Plaintiffs' counsel has willingly accepted a reduction of their earned fees in the interests of good faith compromise. And, this was negotiated and paid separately, meaning that there was no percentage reduction for the Plaintiffs to pay the attorney's fees and costs. For the reasons stated, Magistrate Judge Whitehurst recommended that the proposed settlement be approved, and accordingly, that the Court grants the Joint Motion To Accept Settlement on the terms and conditions set forth in the parties' settlement agreement. She recommended that the claims asserted by the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice. She further recommended that the case be closed, subject to the Court retaining jurisdiction for 90 days to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement agreement, if necessary. Because the parties have agreed on the payment of the settlement funds and attorneys' fees and there have been no objections to the settlement filed in the record, the Court shortens the time period for objections set forth in 28 U.S.C.A. Section 636(b)(1)(c). The parties have five days to serve and file written objections to the proposed factual findings and/or the proposed legal conclusions reflected in the Report and Recommendation. Failure to file written objections to the proposed factual findings and/or the proposed legal conclusions reflected in the Report and Recommendation within five days following the date of its service, will bar an aggrieved party from attacking either the factual findings or the legal conclusions accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2019 Report & Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/X2ACdp from Leagle.com. Daniel Kaesemeyer, Robert Laudenslager, Seth Bigelow, Samson Robertson, Thomas Kitts, William Walls, David Evans, James Evans, John Heimer, Jacob Martinez, Jarrod Towne, Jared Anderson & Stephen Stuelke, Plaintiffs, represented by Charles Joseph Stiegler, Stiegler Law Firm. Legend Mining U S A Inc & Legend Mining Inc, Defendants, represented by Lisa Brener -- [email protected] -- Brener Law Firm & Douglas R. Kraus -- [email protected] -- Brener Law Firm. LICMM CORP: Murphy Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act ----------------------------------------------------------- LICMM, Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LICMM, Corp., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05556-SJF-SIL (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 1, 2019). LICMM, Corp. is a domestic not-for-profit corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darryn G Solotoff, Esq. Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 317-2453 Fax: (516) 706-4692 Email: [email protected] LJ ROSS ASSOCIATES: Rosen Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LJ Ross Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Lea Rosen individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LJ Ross Associates, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05516 (E.D. N.Y., Sept. 30, 2019). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. LJ Ross provides revenue cycle management, debt collections, and call center services for utilities, healthcare, education and government entities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: [email protected] [email protected] MARJAN INT'L: Polanco, et al Seek OT Wages for Restaurant Staff --------------------------------------------------------------- JULIO CESAR POLANCO and MANUEL ELIAS CRUZ, on behalf of themselves, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MARJAN INTERNATIONAL CORP, and MORAD GHADAMIAN, individually, Case No. 1:19-cv-08742 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages and minimum wages; unpaid overtime compensation; liquidated damages; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. In March 2017, the Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a general helper, at Defendants' wholesale rug importer doing business as \"Marjan International\" located at 41 East 31st Street, New York, New York 10016. The Plaintiff is not paid time and a half the minimum wage, for hours in excess of 40 per week, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 10 Grand Central 155 East 44th Street- 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile. (212) 209-7102 E-mail: [email protected] MAXWELL TRAILERS: Cond'l Certification of Two FLSA Classes Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROYAL HAMPTON and JAMES PIERCE, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. MAXWELL TRAILERS & PICK-UP ACCESSORIES, INC. and IRONSTAR BEDS LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00110-HEA (E.D. Mo., Sept. 20, 2019), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act Overtime Collective, comprised of: \"all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt workers (including but not limited to welders, finishers, painters, fabricators, laborers, and office workers) employed by Maxwell Trailers & Pick-Up Accessories, Inc. and/or Ironstar Beds LLC at any time from three years before the date of the Court's conditional certification order, through the date of judgment\"; 2. conditionally certifying a FLSA Retaliation Collective comprised of: \"all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt workers (including but not limited to welders, finishers, painters, fabricators, laborers, and office workers) employed by Maxwell Trailers & Pick-Up Accessories, Inc. and/or Ironstar Beds LLC at any time from three years before the date of the Court's conditional certification order through the date of judgment who had their hours reduced to 40 or fewer in or around August or September 2018 after Plaintiff Hampton began efforts to organize his coworkers to file a lawsuit\"; 3. requiring the Defendants to identify all FLSA Collective and FLSA Retaliation Collective members by providing a list of their names, last known addresses, cell phone numbers, and e-mail addresses, within 14 days following entry of an order; 4. permitting the Plaintiffs to issue a notice of the action to all FLSA Collective members via U.S. Mail, e-mail, and text essage informing them that to opt in they must return a consent form; 5. approving a 90-day opt-in period for FLSA Collective members to join by returning their completed Consent forms; and 6. permitting Plaintiffs to issue a reminder notice via U.S. Mail, e-mail, and text message to FLSA Collective members 14 days before the end of the opt-in period.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Laura E. Reasons, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, 11th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 Facsimile: (312) 253-1443 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Anthony M. Pezzani, Esq. ENGELMEYER & PEZZANI, LLC 13321 N. Outer Forty Road, Ste. 300 Chesterfield, MO 63017 Telephone: 636-532-9933 Facsimile: 314-863-7793 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq. Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC 7556 Mentor Ave. Mentor, OH 44060 Telephone: (440) 953-8888 Facsimile: (440) 953-9138 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] MCDERMOTT CENTER: Gladney Sues over Collection of Biometric Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- TERRANCE GLADNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MCDERMOTT CENTER d/b/a HAYMARKET CENTER, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH10945 (Ill. Cir., Sept. 20, 2019), seeks to stop the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, and storage of the Plaintiffs and the putative Class members' sensitive biometric data under the Biometric Information Privacy Act. When employees first begin their jobs at McDermott, they are required to scan their fingerprint in its biometric time tracking system as a means of authentication, instead of using only key fobs or other identification cards. That is because McDermott uses a biometric time tracking system that required employees to use their fingerprints as a means of authentication, instead of key fobs or identification cards. While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks in the workplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or identification cards -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprint are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with the employee. This exposes employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed, employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking, the lawsuit says. McDermott Center owns and operates behavioral health rehabilitation facilities in and around Chicago, Illinois.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: David Fish, Esq. Kimberly Hilton, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: 630 355 7590 Facsimile: 630 778 0400 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] MDL 2286: Discovery Deadlines & Limitations in TCPA Suit Issued --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California has entered an order setting discovery deadlines and limitations on discovery in the case, IN RE: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., TELEPHONIC CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT LITIGATION, Case No. 11-md-2286-MMA-MDD (S.D. Cal.). On June 4, 2019, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer and submit to the Court a joint status report providing the following information: (i) whether the discovery contemplated by the questionnaire process is complete; (ii) a joint discovery plan regarding depositions of the Defendants under Rule 30(b)(6) and of the individual Plaintiffs, including the class representative(s); and, (iii) a proposed scheduling order containing a deadline for completing this round of discovery, a deadline for filing summary judgment motions and a deadline for filing any motion for class certification. Three status reports were filed on Aug. 5, 2019. The Defendants and the Lead Plaintiff filed a joint status report. Individual Plaintiff Nicholas Martin filed a status report through his counsel. The Counsel who represent, collectively, 14 individual Plaintiffs, filed a joint status report on behalf of these Plaintiffs. The Defendants did not participate in the status reports filed on behalf of any individual Plaintiffs. Mr. Martin asserts that the information provided by the Defendants is insufficient for the Plaintiffs that opted out of the initial class action and complain of calls prior to Sept. 1, 2014. The Counsel for Mr. Martin suggests that the Court appoints liaison counsel for the opt-out cases and provides suggested written discovery requests. The Counsel for the fourteen individual Plaintiffs assert that they may not have received complete records. Specifically, they report that the Defendants responded that there are no call records for two Plaintiffs, Denise Boyd and Jane Morley, a point disputed by those Plaintiffs. The 14 Plaintiffs request that the Court authorizes third-party discovery of the Plaintiffs' cell carriers and of certain former employees of the Defendants. The Lead Plaintiff proposes that the Court authorizes additional and \"follow-up\" non-duplicative written discovery to the Defendants regarding the calling technology at issue in the action. The Defendants take the unhelpful posture that they cannot take a position without seeing the actual requests. They also state that if written discovery is authorized for the Lead Plaintiff, the Defendants also should be able to conduct written discovery. Regarding depositions, the Lead Plaintiff and the Defendants agree that the Defendants may take the deposition of the Lead Plaintiff and other Plaintiffs alleging calls after Sept. 1, 2014. The parties agree that after these depositions are completed, the Defendants' corporate representative should be deposed under Rule 30(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., regarding the Defendants' calling practices and technologies during the proposed class period. The parties propose deadlines for written discovery, if authorized by the Court, deadlines for the Plaintiff depositions and for the deposition of the Defendants' representative. The deadlines also are offered for the Lead Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification and for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge Dembin authorized the following discovery, and the following deadlines apply in the next phase of the case: 1. The Defendants may depose the Lead Plaintiff in Wisconsin no later than Oct. 25, 2019. 2. The Lead Plaintiff may depose the Defendants by means of Rule 30(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., regarding calling technologies and calling practices beginning on Sept. 1, 2014, through the purported class period, no later than Nov. 22, 2019. 3. The Individual Plaintiffs are authorized to serve third-party subpoenas, under Rule 45, Fed. R. Civ. P., to cellular carriers who may possess relevant calling records relating to each Plaintiff. 4. No later than Oct. 25, 2019, the counsel for the Individual Plaintiffs alleging calls on or after Sept. 1, 2014 must contact the counsel for Lead Plaintiff regarding additional depositions suitable for handling under the MDL. The counsel for the Lead Plaintiff must confer with counsel representing the 14 Plaintiffs and, if the proposed witnesses are prepared to give relevant testimony regarding calling practices during the purported new class period, meet and confer with the Defendants and file a joint motion for permission to take these depositions reflecting the view of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. The motion must be filed no later than Dec. 2, 2019. 5. No later than Sept. 30, 2019, the Defendants must file a report: a. Including a list of the member cases and counsel alleging calls prior to Sept. 1, 2014; b. Designating attorneys responsible for responding to the Individual Plaintiffs, if unrepresented, or their counsel, to discuss discovery issues unique to the pre-Sept. 1, 2014 cases, and to discuss settlement. To the extent a Plaintiff wishes to depose the Defendants, under Rule 30(b)(6), regarding calling technologies and practices during relevant time periods preceding Sept. 1, 2014, the Court expects the involved parties to confer and propose a suitable procedure protecting the interests of the pre-Sept. 1, 2014 Plaintiffs. A joint motion regarding a deposition of Defendants for this purpose must be filed no later than Dec. 2, 2019. c. The designating attorneys responsible for responding to the Individual Plaintiffs, if unrepresented, or their counsel, regarding issues with the Plaintiff-specific discovery provided by Defendants during the questionnaire process. The Plaintiffs who remain dissatisfied with the Defendants production, after conferring with Defendants, may initiate a joint motion for determination of discovery dispute as provided in the Court's Civil Chambers Rules. The 30-day clock for bringing such a motion to the Court will commence on Dec. 2, 2019. 6. Any motion for class certification and any motion for summary judgment must be filed no later than Jan. 24, 2020. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 4, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/hYCcFx from Leagle.com. Christopher Robinson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas J. Campion -- [email protected] -- Law Offices of Douglas J Campion, Abbas Kazerounian, Kazerounian Law Group, APC & Joshua B. Swigart -- [email protected] -- Hyde & Swigart. Eduardo Tovar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Trenz, Law Offices of David Schafer PLLC, pro hac vice & David P. Schafer, Law Offices of David Schafer PLLC, pro hac vice. Nicholas Martin, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander H. Burk , Burke Law Offices, LLC, pro hac vice. Dave Scardina, individually and on behalf of a class, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A. Edelman, Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC, pro hac vice, James O. Latturner, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, pro hac vice, Cassandra P. Miller, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Cathleen M. Combs, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, Curtis Charles Warner, Warner Law Firm, LLC & Francis Richard Greene, Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC. Chad R. Goetz, Plaintiff, pro se. Midland Funding LLC, Defendant, represented by Aaron L. Vorce, Dykema Gossett, Amy M. Gallegos , Jenner & Block LLP, Andrew Michael Schwartz , Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, P.C., Benjamin Michael Katz , Burr and Forman, Brett J Natarelli , Dykema Gossett PLLC, Bryan James Anderson, Dykema Gossett, PLLC, Daniel Andrew Brown, WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS, Danielle M. Vugrinovich , Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, David J. Elkanich , Holland & Knight, LLP, David M. Schultz , Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, pro hac vice, Ethan A. Glickstein , Jenner & Block LLP, Heather L. Kramer -- [email protected] -- Dykema Gossett PLLc, James Michael Golden, Dykema Gossett PLLC, John Anthony Love, King and Spalding, pro hac vice, Joshua C. Dickinson, SPENCER FANE, LLP, LATI WELLS SPENCE, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN PC, Lauren M. Burnette, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Matthew B. Ames, Balch & Bingham LLP, Matthew Brady Johnson, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Matthew W. McDade, BALCH & BINGHAM, LLP, Michael Ronald Ayers, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Palak Naimesh Shah, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Patrick Michael DeLong, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Patrick T. McLaughlin, SPENCER FANE LLP, Paul F. Labaki, Peltan Law, PLLC, Paul A. Wilhelm, Dykema Gossett, Renee Lynn Zipprich, Dykema Gossett PLLC, Stephen Michael Mahieu, Dykema Gossett, PLLC, Theodore W. Seitz -- [email protected] -- Dykema Gossett PLLC, pro hac vice, Todd A Gale -- [email protected] -- Dykema Gossett PLLC, Todd Philip Stelter, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Amanda Catherine Fitzsimmons, DLA Piper LLP & Edward D Totino , DLA Piper LLP. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron L. Vorce, Dykema Gossett, Aimee Guidry Szygenda, McGlinchey Stafford, Amanda E Wilson, Amy M. Gallegos, Jenner & Block LLP, Amy R. Jonker, DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC, Andrew Michael Schwartz, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, P.C., Anthony J. Palermo, Holland & Knight, LLP, Benjamin Michael Katz, Burr and Forman, Brandon Stein, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Brandon M. Wrazen, Peltan Law, PLLC, Brett J Natarelli, Dykema Gossett PLLC, Bryan James Anderson, Dykema Gossett, PLLC, Christopher David Johnsen, Holland & Knight, Christopher Spain, Simmonds & Narita LLP, Cory W. Eichhorn, Holland & Knight, LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Andrew Brown, WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS, Danielle M. Vugrinovich, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, David J. Elkanich, Holland & Knight, LLP, David George Peltan, Peltan Law, PLLC, David M. Schultz, Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, pro hac vice, Erica Gooden Bartimmo, Holland & Knight, LLP, Ethan A. Glickstein, Jenner & Block LLP, Gennifer Lynn Bridges, Burr & Forman, LLP, Gregg D Stevens, McGlinchey Stafford, Heather L. Kramer, Dykema Gossett PLLc, James A. Byram, Jr., BALCH & BINGHAM, LLP, James Michael Golden, Dykema Gossett PLLC, James S. Kreamer, Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC, James Lanter, James Lanter, P.C., Jared D. Kemper, Dykema Gossett, PLLC, Jason Brent Tompkins, Balch & Bingham LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey M. Sankey, Sankey Law Offices, Jennifer L. Braster, Naylor & Braster Attorneys at Law, PLLC, John Anthony Love , King and Spalding, pro hac vice, John M. Naylor , Naylor & Braster Attorneys at Law, John Christopher Suedekum , Burr and Forman, LLP, Jonathan Clayton Brown, Burr Forman LLP, Joseph L. Francoeur, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, Joseph W Letzer , Burr and Forman, Joshua C. Dickinson, SPENCER FANE, LLP, Keasha Ann Broussard , King & Spalding, LLP, pro hac vice, LATI WELLS SPENCER, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN PC, Laura Irene Hillerich, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Laura Westerman Tanner , Burr & Forman, LLP, Lauren M. Burnette , Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Lauren Lynn Millcarek , Holland & Knight, LLP, Lawrence J. Bartel, III, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN, Leah Suzanne Strickland , Solomon Ward Seidenwurm & Smith LLP, M. Cory Nelson Lewis, Rice & Fingersh, pro hac vice, Matthew B. Ames, Balch & Bingham LLP, Matthew J. Devine , Burr & Forman, LLP, Matthew Brady Johnson, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Mei-Ying M. Imanaka, Solomon Ward Seidenwurm & Smith, LLP, Melissa S. Gutierrez, McGlinchey Stafford, Michael Ronald Ayers, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Nicole Strickler, Messer, Stilp & Strickler, Ltd., pro hac vice, Palak Naimesh Shah, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Patrick Michael DeLong, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Patrick T. McLaughlin , SPENCER FANE LLP, Paul F. Labaki, Peltan Law, PLLC, Paul A. Wilhelm, Dykema Gossett, Peter J. Caltagirone, Solomon, Ward, Seidenwurm and Smith, Rachel R. Friedman, Burr & Forman LLP, Randy Jiro Aoyama, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Reid Stephens Manley, Burr Forman LLP, Renee Lynn Zipprich, Dykema Gossett PLLC, Richard David Lane ,, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Robert Franklin Springfield, Burr & Forman, LLP, Ronald Michael Metcho, II , Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, P.C., pro hac vice, Russell S. Ponessa, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Stephen Michael Mahieu Dykema Gossett, PLLC, Theodore J. Greeley, Dykema Gossett, PLLC, Theodore W. Seitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC, pro hac vice, Thomas Butler Alleman , Dykema Cox Smith, Thomas F. Landers, Solomon Ward Seidenwurm & Smith, LLP, Thomas A. Leghorn, Wilson, Elser Law Firm, Thomas M. Martin , Lewis Rice LLC, Todd A Gale, Dykema Gossett PLLC, Todd Philip Stelter, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Tomio B. Narita, Simmonds & Narita LLP, Amanda Catherine Fitzsimmons, DLA Piper LLP, Edward D Totino, DLA Piper LLP, Jacqueline A. Simms-Petredis ,, Burr & Forman, LLP, Tatiana Alexander Waits , McGlinchey Stafford LLP & Thomas Richard DeBray, Jr. ,, Balch & Bingham, LLP. Encore Capital Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy M. Gallegos, Jenner & Block LLP, Brett J Natarelli, Dykema Gossett PLLC, Bryan James Anderson, Dykema Gossett, PLLC, Cory W. Eichhorn, Holland & Knight, LLP, pro hac vice, Danielle M. Vugrinovich, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Ethan A. Glickstein, Jenner & Block LLP, James Michael Golden, Dykema Gossett PLLC, Lauren Lynn Millcarek, Holland & Knight, LLP, Matthew B. Ames, Balch & Bingham LLP, Rachel R. Friedman, Burr & Forman LLP, Renee Lynn Zipprich, Dykema Gossett PLLC, Robert Franklin Springfield, Burr & Forman, LLP, Theodore W. Seitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC, pro hac vice, Amanda Catherine Fitzsimmons, DLA Piper LLP & Edward D Totino, DLA Piper LLP. Laura E. Hartman, an individual, Defendant, represented by Robert W. Murphy, Law Office of Robert W. Murphy. X, Y, Z Corporations, Defendant, represented by Lauren M. Burnette, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, P. C., Defendant, represented by Scot W. Groghan, Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, P.C. MDL 2672: Court Tosses Volkswagen's Summary Judgment Bid -------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order denying Volkswagen's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN \"CLEAN DIESEL\" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates To: Dkt. No. 6423, BONDHOLDER ACTION. No. 2672 CRB (JSC). (N.D. Cal.) Plaintiff, a public pension fund, purchased Volkswagen bonds. One month after Volkswagen's diesel scandal became front-page news, Plaintiff sold those bonds for a loss. Plaintiff then filed a proposed class action against Volkswagen for violations of the federal securities laws. In that action, Plaintiff maintains that Volkswagen was required but failed to disclose in its 2014 bond offering memorandum that the company was using defeat devices in millions of diesel cars worldwide to cheat on emissions tests and was at risk of losing billions of dollars as a result. Without that information, Plaintiff asserts that the offering memorandum was misleading and led investors to purchase the company's bonds at artificially inflated prices. The company argues that summary judgment is warranted because Plaintiff lacks the evidence needed to prove reliance, which is one of the elements of its claims. Specifically, Volkswagen urges that the evidence is insufficient to support that Plaintiff's investment manager, who bought the bonds on Plaintiff's behalf and had complete discretion to do so, read the offering memorandum before executing the trade. And without such proof, Volkswagen insists that Plaintiff cannot prove that its investment manager would have acted differently and foregone purchasing the bonds if additional disclosures had been made in the offering memorandum. Having reviewed the record and once more the relevant caselaw, District Judge Charles R. Breyer concludes that this case is best characterized as primarily a nondisclosure case, as opposed to a positive misrepresentation case. As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to a presumption of reliance under Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States, 406 U.S. 128, 153-54 (1972) and need not prove that it or its investment manager actually relied on the statements made in the bond offering memorandum, says the Court. According to the Court, Volkswagen failed to disclose that, for years, it had been secretly installing defeat devices in its clean diesel line of cars to mask unlawfully high emissions, and that it was at risk of losing billions of dollars in fines and penalties if it was caught. Volkswagen's failure to disclose this information is ultimately what drives Plaintiff's claims. To be sure, Plaintiff does also base its claims on certain affirmative statements in the bond offering memorandum. Even these affirmative statements, in other words, are tethered to the omission that is at the heart of the case. Having determined that a presumption of reliance applies, the Court turns to whether Volkswagen has sufficiently rebutted that presumption. To do so on summary judgment, Volkswagen must offer evidence that establishes beyond controversy that Plaintiff's investment manager would not have attached significance to the omitted facts, and therefore would have acted as he did if he had known the truth. Pointing to the deposition of Plaintiff's investment manager, Volkswagen contends that the evidence in the record would not permit a jury to reasonably conclude that the investment manager read the bond offering memorandum before purchasing the bonds. Based on that interpretation of the record, Volkswagen insists that it has rebutted the presumption of reliance; for if Plaintiff's investment manager did not read the offering memorandum, then, the theory goes, Plaintiff cannot prove that its investment manager would have attached significance to the emissions fraud and foregone the investment in Volkswagen bonds if Volkswagen had disclosed the fraud in the offering memorandum. In the run-of-the-mill omissions case, an investor's failure to read the relevant disclosure documents could indeed be fatal. Having not read those documents, any additional disclosures in them would have been unlikely to come to the investor's attention. As a result, it would be difficult for the investor to prove that he would have acted differently and avoided the investment if additional disclosures were made in those documents. This is not a run-of-the-mill omissions case, however, rules Judge Breyer. The omitted facts detailed Volkswagen's large-scale and long-running defeat-device scheme. When that scheme was disclosed to the public, in September 2015, it was front-page news and prompted congressional hearings, video apologies by Volkswagen executives, and hundreds of lawsuits. The disclosure also prompted Plaintiff's investment manager to reevaluate Plaintiff's investment in Volkswagen bonds and to sell those bonds for a loss within a month's time. If Volkswagen had disclosed its defeat-device scheme in its 2014 bond offering memorandum, instead of waiting until September 2015, the same publicity, and the same response by Plaintiff's investment manager, would likely have followed. The scheme was so substantial and blatant that it is hard to fathom that its disclosure would have gone unnoticed by the investing public, and that Plaintiff's investment manager would not have been made aware of it. Assuming, then, that Volkswagen's evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff's investment manager did not read the offering memorandum prior to purchasing the bonds, that evidence alone is insufficient to establish beyond controversy that Plaintiff's investment manager would not have attached significance to the omitted facts about Volkswagen's emissions fraud if those facts had been disclosed in the offering memorandum. As a result, Volkswagen has not rebutted Affiliated Ute's presumption of reliance. Volkswagen moved for summary judgment exclusively on the element of reliance. Because it has failed to rebut Affiliated Ute's presumption of reliance, summary judgment is not warranted and the Court DENIES Volkswagen's motion. A full-text copy of the District Court’s September 26, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxfqrn9y from Leagle.com Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey -- [email protected] -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman -- [email protected] -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- [email protected] -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice. Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart -- [email protected] -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro -- [email protected] -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro , Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Nicholas Allen, Daniel Carroll, Giancarlo Ceci, Dominic Troffer, Paul Linnee, Sarah Hayden, Dario Medina, Shanice Boyette, Isaac Hoover, John Mazur & Forrest Tinsler, Plaintiffs, represented by Caleb Marker -- [email protected] -- Zimmerman Reed LLP, pro hac vice & Charles S. Zimmerman -- [email protected] -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, pro hac vice. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague, Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin Lucier -- [email protected] -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- [email protected] -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- [email protected] -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang, Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M. Eisenberg -- [email protected] -- Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- [email protected] -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller -- [email protected] -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer , Conrad and Scherer, LLP633 South Federal Highway, Eighth Floor, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301. MDL 2804: Bryant Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma, et al., seeking recompense for compensatory damages, emotional distress; loss of enjoyment of life; lost earning capacity and loss of income; loss of filial consortium; loss of spousal consortium; anguish; sorrow; solace, including companionship, comfort, guidance, kindly offices, advise, services, protection, care, and assistance; services for medical care, including any necessary rehabilitation; and/or funeral and burial expenses. The case is consolidated in MDL 2804 RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. Prescription opioids have devastated communities across the country and in the State of West Virginia. In addition to the tragic loss of life and the heartbreaking impact on children and loved ones, some estimates state that the opioid crisis is costing governmental entities and private companies as much as $500 billion per year. The Defendants manufacture, market, sell, and distribute prescription opioids, which are highly addictive narcotic painkillers. The Defendants have engaged in a cunning and deceptive marketing scheme to encourage doctors and patients to use opioids to treat chronic pain. In doing so, the Defendants falsely minimized the risks of opioids, overstated their benefits, and generated far more opioid prescriptions than there should have been. The opioid epidemic is the direct result of the Defendants' deliberately crafted, well-funded campaign of deception. For years, they misrepresented the risks posed by the opioids they manufacture and sell, misleading susceptible prescribers and vulnerable patient populations. As families and communities suffered from the scourge of opioid abuse, the Defendants earned billions in profits as a direct result of the harms they inflicted. The Defendants' false and misleading statements deceived doctors and patients about the risks and benefits of opioids and convinced them that opioids were not only appropriate, but necessary to treat chronic pain. The Defendants targeted susceptible prescribers, like family doctors, and vulnerable patient populations, like the elderly and veterans. And they tainted the sources that doctors and patients relied upon for guidance, including treatment guidelines, medical education programs, medical conferences and seminars, and scientific articles. As a result, they successfully transformed the way doctors treat chronic pain, opening the floodgates of opioid prescriptions and dependence. Opioids are now the most prescribed class of drugs, generating billions of dollars in revenue for the Defendants every year. The direct and proximate consequence of the Defendants' misconduct is that every West Virginia purchaser of private health insurance paid higher premiums, co-payments, and deductibles. Insurance companies have considerable market power and pass onto their insureds the expected cost of future care -- including opioid-related coverage. Accordingly, insurance companies factored in the unwarranted and exorbitant healthcare costs of opioid-related coverage caused by Defendants and charged that back to insureds in the form of higher premiums, deductibles, and co-payments, the lawsuit says. The case is captioned as BOBBI DAWN TRENT BRYANT, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, and JENNIFER LOWE, on behalf of herself as widow and Administratrix of the Estate of Robert Lowe, deceased, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA, INC., DEPOMED, INC.; MALLINCKRODT LLC; MALLINCKRODT PLC; SPECGX LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.; NORAMCO, INC.; INDIVIOR, INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID OF MARYLAND, INC.; RITE AID CORP.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.; WALGREEN EASTERN CO.; WALGREEN CO.; WAL-MART INC. f/k/a WALMART STORES, INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; THE KROGER CO.; H.D. SMITH, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDINGS, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDING COMPANY; ANDA, INC.; RICHARD S. SACKLER; JONATHON D. SACKLER; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; KATHE A. SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER LEFCOURT; BEVERLY SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER; DAVID A. SACKLER; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES INC.; RHODES PHARACEUTICALS L.P.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF THE RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; THE P.F. LABORATORIES, INC., the Defendants, Case: 1:19-op-45805-DAP (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 20, 2019).[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Stephen P. New, Esq. Amanda J. Taylor, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN P. NEW P.O. Box 5516 114 Main Street Beckley, WV 25801 Telephone: 304-250-6017 Facsimile: 304-250-6012 E-mail: [email protected] MICROSOFT CORP: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Khalid Anti-Trust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ATM SHAFIQUL KHALID, an individual and on behalf of similarly situated, XENCARE SOFTWARE, INC., Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORP., a Washington Corporation, and JOHN DOE n, Defendants, Case No. C19-130-RSM (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted Defendant Microsoft's Motion to Dismiss Khalid's amended complaint with leave to amend certain claims. On Dec. 16, 2011, the Plaintiff received a job offer from Microsoft as a Senior Program Manager in its Bing division. Upon accepting the position, the Plaintiff was required by Microsoft recruiter Shannon Carlsen to sign a Microsoft Employee Agreement which included a provision under Section 5 regarding assignment of certain intellectual property rights. On Dec. 19, 2011, the Plaintiff accepted Microsoft's employment offer and signed the Employment Agreement. He claims that because there was no way to attach a list of inventions to the online agreement pursuant to Section 6, he sent a separate email to Ms. Carlsen attaching an invention exclusion list denoting nine patentable items. This Exclusion List included inventions for a mini-cloud subscription service and a framework to protect computer systems from viruses and spyware that he had filed prior to starting work at Microsoft. At his Microsoft employee orientation program in January 2012, the Plaintiff claims he signed a hard copy of the Employee Agreement, submitted his Exclusion List for the second time and noted by hand in the hard copy Employee Agreement that he submitted additional pages. The Plaintiff worked at Microsoft from Jan. 9, 2012 until February 2015. He claims that during his employment, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued patents for the Mini Cloud (patent number 8,782,637) and the Safe and Secure (patent number 8,286,219) on July 15, 2014 and Oct. 9, 2012, respectively. He further claims that during his employment, he met with various Microsoft executives who declined his proposals for business models based on his invention ideas. In early February 2015, Microsoft terminated the Plaintiff's employment. On Feb. 19, 2015, Microsoft's in-house counsel notified the Plaintiff that he had not listed any inventions under Section 6 of the Employment Agreement. For that reason, the in-house counsel stated, Microsoft retained an assignment right in the patents for the Mini Cloud and the Safe and Secure. The Plaintiff claims that Microsoft continued to deny receipt of his Exclusion List, despite his requests to various employees for hard copies of his signed Employee Agreement. On July 9, 2015, in response to the Plaintiff's correspondence regarding his Mini Cloud and Safe and Secure patents, the in-house counsel for Microsoft allegedly offered to put together an agreement if the Plaintiff agreed to give Microsoft royalty free access to all present and future patents related to the Mini-cloud systems in exchange for resolving all disputes. The Plaintiff claims he declined the offer. On May 27, 2016, the Plaintiff received a letter from Microsoft's outside counsel re-stating its position that he had granted Microsoft a \"royalty-free license, irrevocable, worldwide license\" to those inventions. Outside counsel offered to transfer to the Plaintiff all of Microsoft's ownership interest in the Safe and Secure and Mini Cloud patent families in exchange for his granting Microsoft a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to the disputed patent families and fully releasing Microsoft from all claims and liability. On Jan. 28, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the action against Microsoft. In addition to alleging fraud in his particular case, the Plaintiff seeks to challenge the general legality of Microsoft's Employee Agreement on behalf of all Microsoft employees who signed similar agreements with Microsoft. Under the Plaintiff's theory, Microsoft obtains an employee's patent rights through an overly-broad patent rights assignment provision under Section 5. When the employee leaves Microsoft, the Plaintiff claims that Microsoft then disregards or destroys their exclusion list submitted under Section 6, thereby \"contaminating\" the employee's patent and requiring the employee to invest tremendous financial resources to clear their patent right through court. As a result, Microsoft employees--who cannot afford to litigate Microsoft, nor want to abandon their patent work--hand over their patent rights from the time they sign their employment agreements yet continue working to develop their patents. The Plaintiff claims that Microsoft's scheme specifically violates laws under antitrust, forced labor, racketeering, civil rights, and fraud. The matter comes before the Court on Defendant Microsoft's Motion to Dismiss Khalid's amended complaint for failure to state a claim. As an initial matter, the Plaintiff seeks to certify as a class of all Microsoft employees who signed an employment contract with Microsoft similar to the Employee Agreement signed by the Plaintiff (presented as \"Count 7\"). A pro se litigant may not serve as the representative of a class in a class action lawsuit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Accordingly, Judge Martinez does not consider the question of class certification at this time. Having reviewed the Defendant's Motion, the Plaintiff's Response, the Defendant's Reply, and the remainder of the record, Judge Martinez granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. He (i) dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend Counts 1 and 2 (Sherman Act claims) and Count 3 (RICO claim for extortion); (ii) dismissed with prejudice Count 4 (forced labor), Count 5 (RICO claim for forced labor), Counts 6 and 12 (civil rights claims), Count 8 (fraud), and the Plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief on Fourteenth Amendment violation (Count 10); and dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend the Plaintiff's remaining claims for declaratory relief (Counts 9 and 11). Among other things, with respect to the Plaintiffs' Anti-Trust Claims (Counts 1-2), the Judge found that (ii) the Plaintiff has not alleged a contract or conspiracy among multiple entities -- instead, his complaint only names Microsoft and employees of Microsoft as the bad actors. The Plaintiff has likewise failed to state a claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 2 as he has provided no market analysis such as barriers to entry or hyper-competitive pricing that inhibits competitors from expanding their output in the cloud application market or the other identified markets. Finally, the injuries alleged by the Plaintiff are not within the scope of \"antitrust injury\" contemplated by Section 2, said the Court. As for Count 3, the Plaintiff's RICO claims predicated on extortion, the Judge found that the Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to plausibly lead to his asserted RICO claim. The Plaintiff's complaint does not allege conduct by Microsoft that constitutes extortion under the Hobbs Act or Washington state law. Furthermore, he has failed to adequately allege an \"enterprise\" under RICO. Instead, the Plaintiff alleges that these various entities enjoy mutual benefits through their partnerships and explains how money flows between the various entities. These allegations do not set forth a viable RICO claim. The Judge also found that the broad and vague declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff does not admit of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical set of facts. Even if the Court narrows the broad language of the Plaintiff's request to apply to Microsoft's use and enforcement of its Employment Agreement, the Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege an actual dispute suitable for declaratory relief. On amendment, Plaintiff's complaint must request specific relief from the Court based on his own dispute with Microsoft -- not broad relief based on hypothetical injuries to other Microsoft employees. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint so that he may be afforded an additional opportunity to plead a viable claim under the Sherman Act (Counts 1, 2), RICO (Count 3) and/or declaratory relief under Counts 9 and 11. The claims will be made on his own behalf and not on behalf of a putative class of Plaintiffs. The amended complaint will contain a concise statement of his claims setting forth the specific facts giving rise to a plausible inference that Microsoft is liable for the alleged violations. The Plaintiff was ordered to file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days of the Order for Counts 1-3, 9 and 11. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 4, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/dG0L9c from Leagle.com. Atm Shafiqul Khalid, an individual and on behalf of similarly situated, Plaintiff, pro se. Microsoft Corporation, a Washington corporation, Defendant, represented by Tiffany Scott Connors -- [email protected] -- LANE POWELL PC & Heidi Brooks Bradley -- [email protected] -- LANE POWELL PC. MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS: Rowland Seeks Certification of Two Classes ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned RICARDO ROWLAND and KENNETH SPURLOCK v. MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS, LP d/b/a COLONIAL GRAND AT RESEARCH PARK and THE PRESERVE AT BRIER CREEK, Case No. 1:18-cv-00043-NCT-LPA (M.D.N.C.), move the Court for an order certifying these Classes: * The Collection Letter Class: For the Relevant Time Period, all natural persons who, (a) resided in any of the properties in North Carolina owned and operated by MAALP, and (b) were sent a Collection Letter either threatening to Eviction Fees or noting that such Fees were now owed; and * The Fee Class: For the Relevant Time Period, all natural persons who, (a) resided in any of the properties in North Carolina owned and operated by MAALP, (b) were charged, and (c) paid Eviction Fees. Excluded from the Classes are: (a) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (b) MAALP and any entity which MAALP has a controlling interest or which has a controlling interest in MAALP and all legal representatives; and (c) all persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the classes. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint their counsel as Class Counsel, and to appoint them as Class Representatives. The Plaintiffs also request oral argument to fully address the complex legal and factual issues discussed within their Class Certification Memorandum.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. Patrick M. Wallace, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] - and - Edward H. Maginnis, Esq. Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq. MAGINNIS LAW, PLLC 4801 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 310 Raleigh, NC 27612 Telephone: (919) 526-0450 Facsimile: (919) 882-8763 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] The Defendants are represented by: Mark P. Henriques, Esq. Michael A. Ingersoll, Esq. Matthew F. Tilley, Esq. Debbie W. Harden, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US), LLP One Wells Fargo Ctr., Suite 3500 301 S. College St. Charlotte, NC 28202-6037 Telephone: (704) 331-4912 Facsimile: (704) 338-7830 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] MORENO: Wonderful Pistachios Files Petition for Coordination ------------------------------------------------------------ A Petition for coordination and motion for a stay was filed by the Plaintiff in the class action styled as WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS AND ALMONDS, LLC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, Petitioner v. ANTONIO MORENO, LIDIA VILLANUEVA, TORRES DAWSON, ALEJANDRA VILLEGAS, ULISES TORRES, VICTOR ZEPEDA INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Respondents, Case No. JCCP5057 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Sept. 6, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Other Employment - Civil Unlimited. Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds is the world's largest vertically integrated pistachio and almond grower and processor, cultivating and harvesting more than 65,000 acres of pistachio and almond orchards and delivering more than 450 million pounds of nuts globally each year.[BN] Petitioner WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS AND ALMONDS, LLC is represented by BROOKE S. HAMMOND, ESQ. Respondents ANTONIO MORENO, LIDIA VILLANUEVA, TORRES DAWSON, ALEJANDRA VILLEGAS, ULISES TORRES, VICTOR ZEPEDA are represented by PETER R. DION-KINDEM, ESQ. NASSAU, NY: Bid to Certify NY Labor Law Claims Denied ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ROBERT J. ARCIELLO, FRANCIS J. GOREY, JR., DIANE MASTROPAOLO, GLEN F. TUIFEL, DANIEL E. SPEICHER, LAWRENCE J. LOISELLE, JOSEPH T. WHITTAKER, JAMES SHARKEY, KIRK FOWLKES, JOHN CLOUDMAN, NICHOLAS PALMESE, JOHN OCHWAT, and all others similarly situated; and SHAWN BURNS, KEVIN BIEN, BRIAN M. WISE, and all other similarly situated Correction Officers, the Plaintiffs, vs. COUNTY OF NASSAU, and EDWARD MANGANO, in his individual and official capacity, the Defendants, Case no. 2:16-cv-3974 (ADS) (SIL) (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arthur D. Spatt entered an order: 1. denying Plaintiffs' motion to strike the Defendants' consolidated answer; 2. sustaining all of the Defendants' objections to a report and recommendation; 3. granting the Defendants' Rule 12(c) cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the NYLL claims and denying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify their New York Labor Law claims; 4. denying Defendants' motion to set aside Judge Steven I. Locke's ruling on the Defendants' motion to strike the consent-to-sue forms.[CC] Attorneys for Robert J. Arciello, Francis J. Gorey, Jr., Diane Mastropaolo, Glen F. Tuifel, Daniel E. Speicher, Lawrence J. Loiselle, Joseph T. Whittaker, James Sharkey, Kirk Fowles, John Cloudman, Nicholas Palmese, John Ochwat, and all others similarly situated, are: Louis D. Stober, Jr., Esq. Albina Kataeva, Esq., Jason Paul Mansmann, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS D. STOBER, JR., LLC 350 Old Country Road, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Attorneys for Shawn Burns, Kevin Bien, Brian M. Wise, and all other similarly situated Correction Officers, are Alanna Rose Sakovits, Esq., James Emmet Murphy, Esq., LaDonna Marie Lusher, Esq., Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq., Of Counsel. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 - and - Steven Isaacs, Esq. KOEHLER & ISAACS LLP 61 Broadway, 25th Floor New York, NY 10006 Attorneys for the Defendants Deanna Darlene Panico, Esq., Michael Paul Siravo, Esq., Philip A. Butler, Esq., Rhoda Yohai Andors, Esq., Stephen Louis Martir, Esq. BEE READY FISHBEIN HATTER & DONOVAN, LLP 170 Old Country Road, Suite 200 Mineola, NY 11501 NATIONAL CREDIT: Swanson Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ ROSALYNE SWANSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL CREDIT SERVICES, INC., a Washington corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01504 (W.D. Wash., Sept. 19, 2019), alleges that NCS's debt collection practices violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff brings this suit on behalf of herself and the Class of similarly situated individuals to challenge NCS harassing debt collection calling practices and to obtain damages and other redress for all persons injured by such unlawful conduct. NCS is a debt collection company that claims to be a nationally-licensed debt collection agency. NCS claims to specialize in debt recovery for the U.S. Department of Education and higher education. NCS also conducts debt collection for other industries as well.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class are: Michael P. Matesky, II MATESKY LAW PLLC 1001 4 th Ave., Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98154 Telephone: 206.701.0331 Facsimile: 206.701.0332 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] - and - Seven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Third Circuit Appeal Initiated in Leo Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Edward Leo, Clifford J. Marchion and Donna Marchion filed an appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Edward Leo, et al. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC of Delaware, et al., Case No. 3-17-cv-05839, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was reassigned from Judge Renee Marie Bumb, Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams, to Judge Brian R. Martinotti and Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Arpert. Nationstar provides mortgage services. The appellate case is captioned as Edward Leo, et al. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC of Delaware, et al., Case No. 19-3111, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants EDWARD LEO, as executor of the Estate of Dawn L. Leo, CLIFFORD J. MARCHION and DONNA MARCHION, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Lawrence E. Bathgate, II, Esq. Kyle R. Tognan, Esq. BATHGATE WEGENER & WOLF PC Bathgate Wegener & Wolf One Airport Road P.O. Box 2043 Lakewood, NJ 08701 Telephone: (908) 363-0666 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] - and - Howard M. Bushman, Esq. Joseph M. Kaye, Esq. Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq. MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM 2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 740-1423 - and - Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (302) 377-0652 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP 555 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 200-0580 E-mail: [email protected] Defendant-Appellee NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC OF DELAWARE, DBA Champion Mortgage Co Inc., is represented by: Matthew T. Eyet, Esq. SANDELANDS EYET LLP 1545 U.S. Highway 206, Suite 304 Bedminster, NJ 07921 Telephone: (908) 470-1200 E-mail: [email protected] Defendant-Appellee GREAT AMERICAN ASSURANCE CO is represented by: Kevin M. Haas, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR One Newark Center, Suite 1900 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 286-1200 E-mail: [email protected] Defendant-Appellee WILLIS OF OHIO INC, DBA Loan Protector Insurance Services, is represented by: Edward J. Fanning, Jr., Esq. Gregory J. Hindy, Esq. Robert A. Mintz, Esq. Scott M. Weingart, Esq. MCCARTER & ENGLISH LLP 100 Mulberry Street Four Gateway Center, 14th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 622-4444 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] NATIONWIDE LIFE: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Brown Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., issued an Opinion & Order denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit entitled THERESA BROWN, Individually, and as a representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Andrus Wagstaff, PC 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan and ail other similarly Situated individual Retirement plans v. NATIONWIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., AND ANDRUS WAGSTAFF, PC, Individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Case No. 2:17-cv-00558-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio). Judge Sargus also denied as moot each of the Defendants' Motion to Strike the Class Allegations from the Second Amended Complaint. On June 27, 2017, former Named Plaintiff Alana Schmitt commenced this action on behalf of herself, other participants and beneficiaries of AW's 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (\"the Plan\"), and the participants and beneficiaries of similarly-situated individual account plans. AW is the administrator and fiduciary of Plan, which is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (\"ERISA\"). On September 28, 2018, Theresa Brown moved to intervene and assume the role of Named Plaintiff. That same day Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff seeks: (1) certification of a Plaintiff Class; (2) certification of a Defendant Class; (3) declaratory judgment; (4) disgorgement by Nationwide of the excessive fees charged; (5) attorney's fees and costs; and (6) pre and post-judgment interest. The Plaintiff seeks certification of: * a Plaintiff Class represent by Theresa Brown: All participant-directed individual 401(k) account plans that, at any time from October 1, 2014 through the date of judgment (the \"Class Period\"), that (1) have total Plan assets of less than $10 million; (2) paid Nationwide for recordkeeping and other administrative services through the Nationwide Retirement Flexible Advantage Retirement Plans Program; and (3) paid recordkeeping and administrative service fees to Nationwide in excess of $64 per participant. Excluded from the Plaintiff Class are employees of Plaintiff's law firms; and * a Defendant Class represented by Defendant Andrus Wagstaff, P.C.: All sponsors of participant-directed individual 401(k) account plans that, at any time from October 1, 2014 through the date of judgment (the \"Class Period\"), (1) have total Plan assets of less than $10 million; (2) entered into Program Agreements with Nationwide through the Nationwide Retirement Flexible Advantage Retirement Plans Program to provide recordkeeping and administrative services for their companies' defined contribution retirement plans; and (3) paid recordkeeping and administrative service fees to Nationwide in excess of $64 per participant. In his Opinion & Order, Judge Sargus finds that the putative Defendant Class members do not share a juridical link, and as a result, the Plaintiff lacks standing to sue each Defendant, and Rule 23 certification of the putative Defendant Class would be improper. The Court also opines that the Plaintiff can only assert a cause of action against Nationwide and her plan sponsor, AW. Likewise, each of the 250,000 putative Plaintiff Class members can only assert causes of action against Nationwide and their individual plan sponsors. Hence, Judge Sargus says, the Plaintiff Class lacks standing to sue AW and all similarly-situated plan sponsors.[CC] NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Williams Suit Moved to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as JAMES BO WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. the Plaintiff, vs. NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOE 1 through and including DOE 10, Case No. 19STCV28243 (Filed Aug. 14, 2019), was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 18, 2018. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide compliant pay stubs, and failed to pay minimum wage and/or overtime wages under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff Williams worked as a Grip for one day on or about December 10, 2018, on a production entitled \"NBC Sports Molorcross Media Day\". He was not paid until on or about February 8, 2019, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Alan Harris, Esq. MinJi Gal, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor Glendale CA 91203 Telephone: 323.962.3777 Facsimile: 323.962.3004 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] NBTY INC: Court Refuses to Disgorge Settlement Payments in Pearson ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Objector Theodore Frank, Motion Seeking Disgorgement of Side Payments in the case captioned NICK PEARSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NBTY, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 11-cv-7972. (N.D. Ill.). This case is before the Court on Objector Theodore Frank's motion seeking disgorgement of side payments Defendants made to other objectors to settle their appeals. This case began as a putative class action on behalf of consumers who purchased glucosamine, a dietary supplement touted to improve joint health. The named Plaintiff, Nick Pearson, alleged, on behalf of the class, that Defendants, Target Corporation, NBTY, Inc., and Rexall Sundown, Inc., violated consumer protection laws by making false claims about the efficacy of the supplement. Pearson, along with Plaintiffs in five other cases, executed a global, nationwide settlement agreement. That initial settlement established a constructive common fund of $14.2 million, only $2 million of which was guaranteed to go to class members. As approved, the settlement required Defendants to pay, in addition to money paid on the class members' claims: $1.5 million in notice and administration costs; $30,000 in incentive awards to the six named Plaintiffs; $1.13 million to the Orthopedic Research and Education Foundation; and $1.93 million in attorneys' fees and expenses a significant reduction from what counsel had requested. The objectors, including Frank, appealed, and the Seventh Circuit reversed, determining that, although Judge Zagel had improved the settlement with his modifications, he had not gone far enough. On remand, the parties reached a new settlement, this time with the assistance of a neutral third-party mediator. The new settlement, in direct response to concerns raised by the Seventh Circuit, established a $7.5 million settlement fund to pay class member claims, attorneys' fees and expenses, and incentive awards. On top of that, the settlement required Defendants to pay an additional $1.5 million for notice and administration costs. Despite these improvements, several class members, including Frank, Steven Buckley, Randy Nunez, and Patrick Sweeney, filed objections. None of the objectors challenged the reasonableness of the settlement. Rather Nunez objected because his attorney, who had been named interim class counsel in another case pending in California, was not involved in the negotiations that led to the new settlement. Buckley similarly raised no challenge to the terms of the settlement but objected to class counsel's fee petition, arguing that counsel should get no more than $1.5 million. Judge Zagel approved the settlement, over these objections, awarded $25,000 in incentive awards to five class representatives ($5,000 to each), and awarded class counsel 33% of the net settlement fund. Additionally, Judge Zagel awarded Frank's counsel attorney's fees in the amount of $180,000, to be paid from the gross settlement fund. Frank appealed, and the Seventh Circuit reversed. The Seventh Circuit determined that the circumstances three objectors voluntarily dismissed their appeals before appellate briefing began were such that this Court should have allowed Frank formally to raise his suspicion that the settling objectors acted in bad faith. On remand, consistent with the Seventh Circuit's directives, this Court provided Frank with the opportunity to pursue his theory. The parties conducted discovery, filed motions, and argued the matter, but the record failed to confirm suspicions of blackmail or other wrongdoing. For the Court to order disgorgement, Frank would have to demonstrate that the objector/appellants violated some rule or statute or did something unlawful, that the settlement payments amounted to ill-gotten gains. Without more, the dismissal of an appeal does not necessarily indicate objector blackmail. Litigants routinely dismiss matters for reasons other than blackmail as Frank knows, having himself dismissed his appeal. And litigants settle disputes every day for reasons having nothing to do with the merits of their claims or defenses. The dismissals raised red flags on appeal because the Seventh Circuit thought that they came possibly at the expense of the class. But after considering the evidence and arguments on that question, this Court cannot say that is the case. The settlement agreements executed by Defendants and the three objector/appellants show that Defendants NBTY and Rexall paid $10,000 to Patrick Sweeney, $60,000 to Steven Buckley, and $60,000 to Randy Nunez in exchange for each objector/appellant's agreement to remain part of the Pearson class, to dismiss his appeal, and to release all claims, including any claim for fees. Initially, each of these settlements was far less than the $180,000 Frank received. Frank suggests that the appeals were meritless, designed to leverage payments that should have gone to the class. But at the initial status hearing following the Seventh Circuit's remand, Frank conceded that he had no evidence to support his claim of objector blackmail. Moreover, his assertion remains demonstrably false with respect to at least two of the objectors. In response to Frank's motion, Buckley explained that he filed his objection and his notice of appeal challenging only counsel's fee petition-a challenge similar to that asserted by Frank. Frank's assertions notwithstanding, this Court does not read the Seventh Circuit's decision to preclude all payments beyond those contemplated in a settlement agreement. Nor has the Seventh Circuit held that all side settlements necessarily remain problematic or improper. Indeed, Safeco Insurance Company of America v. American International Group, 710 F.3d 754, 758 (7th Cir. 2013), instructs that side settlements can, in fact, be acceptable. In Safeco, after describing the side settlement, the Seventh Circuit observed that the terms of the settlement do not matter to the other members of the class, who still split $351 million among them. Likewise, the side settlements here had no effect on the settlement fund or the class distributions. The money Defendants paid to the objectors remained separate and apart from the settlement fund; the settlement fund was firmly defined before the objectors filed their appeals; and there simply is no mechanism by which those funds would have gone to the class. As such, the settlements did not deprive any class member of his or her reasonable expectations—on the contrary, class members got exactly what they bargained for. Absent some indication that such settlements harm the class or somehow diminish the relief available to the class, this Court finds no basis to inject itself into these arms' length transactions with an unfounded order of disgorgement. The Court finds no evidence to show that the side settlements reached between Defendants and objector/appellants Nunez, Buckley, and Sweeney harmed the class or came at the expense of the class. As a result, equitable relief such as disgorgement is neither available nor appropriate. Accordingly, Frank's motion seeking to disgorge side payments is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 23, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available https://tinyurl.com/yyz27pgw from Leagle.com. Nick Pearson, Plaintiff, represented by Stewart M. Weltman - [email protected] - Siprut PC, Charles C. Sweedler , Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman, 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-3697, pro hac vice, Elaine Ryan - [email protected] - Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, PC & Howard J. Sedran , Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-3697 Richard Jennings, Plaintiff, represented by Carol V. Gilden - [email protected] - Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Jeffrey Ian Carton - [email protected] - Denlea & Carton Llp, pro hac vice & Peter Newton Freiberg - [email protected] - Denlea & Carton Llp. Target Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bradley Joseph Andreozzi - bradley.andreozzi dbr.com - Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, David B. Sudzus - david.sudzus dbr.com - Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Justin O'Neill Kay -justin.kay dbr.com - Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Kara L. McCall - [email protected] - Sidley Austin LLP, Michael W. Davis - [email protected] - Sidley Austin LLP & Theodore R. Scarborough, Jr. , Sidley Austin LLP. NBTY, Inc., a Delaware Corporation & Rexall Sundown, Inc., a Florida corporation, Defendants, represented by Kara L. McCall , Sidley Austin LLP, Michael W. Davis , Sidley Austin LLP & Theodore R. Scarborough, Jr. , Sidley Austin LLP. Randy Nunez, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Todd David Carpenter [email protected] - Carpenter Law Group & James Richard Patterson - [email protected] - Patterson Law Group, Apc, pro hac vice. NEW YORK, NY: Class in Suit over Police Record Access Certified --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, R. C., A. G., J. J. Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, JAMES O'NEILL, Defendants, Docket No. 153739/2018, Motion Seq. No. 004 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Lyle E. Frank of the New York County Supreme Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The action arises out of the Plaintiffs' allegation that the New York City Police Department (\"NYPD\") has policies regarding access to sealed records that are in violation of Criminal Procedure Law Section 160.50(1) and Section 160.55(1)(c). The three named Plaintiffs allege to have been aggrieved by these policies and are suing for both injunctive relief and for some monetary damages. The Plaintiffs now move for class certification for all those who have sealed records and have either been aggrieved or may be aggrieved by these alleged unlawful practices of the NYPD. According to them, between 2014 and 2016, there were 400,000 arrests that were required to be sealed that the NYPD maintains access to. The Defendant, City of New York, opposes such certification, arguing mainly that the Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the requirements for class certification and that the class certification is premature, as there has been limited discovery with no depositions thus far in the case. Additionally, the City argues that due to the doctrine of stare decisis and the likelihood that an order in this case will be precedent as to all other similar claims, such class certification is unnecessary. Plaintiff avers, and Judge Frank agrees, that there are likely tens of thousands of members of the class that would be impacted by this case. This appears to be a conservative estimate, based on the number provided of 400,000 arrests over a three-year period that ended almost three years ago. He also agrees with the arguments set forth by the Plaintiffs as to why class certification is appropriate. All the factors required for class certification pursuant to CPLR Section 901(a) are met. Finally, the City argues that the governmental operations doctrine makes class certification unnecessary, in short that the doctrine of stare decisis would sufficiently resolve the matter without the need for class certification. However, it is simply speculative at this point to say that any order issued by the Court in the case would be binding on all potential class members. Moreover, if the allegations levied by the Plaintiffs are true, the doctrine of stare decisis has not dissuaded the NYPD from continuing their alleged unlawful policies in violation of the laws regarding sealed records, rules the Court. Accordingly, Judge Frank granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. He appointed the Bronx Defender Services and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP as the counsel for the class. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2019 Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/WjFTY7 from Leagle.com. NISSAN MOTOR: Face Ellis Suit in Missouri Western District ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. et al. The case is captioned as Scott Ellis, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs. Nissan North America, Inc. and Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00750-FJG (W.D. Mo., Sept 16, 2019). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., is a Japanese multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Nishi-ku, Yokohama. The company sells its cars under the Nissan, Infiniti, and Datsun brands with in-house performance tuning products labelled Nismo.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Pamela Nagel Jorgensen, Esq. MCINNES LAW, LLC 1900 West 75th Street, Suite 120 Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 417-2728 Facsimile: (913) 273-1671 E-mail: [email protected] NMS MANAGEMENT: Yip Seeks to Certify Class of Mobile Examiners -------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDI YIP, On behalf of herself and all others similarly-situated, and OVETA TRUBOW, the Plaintiffs, vs. NMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., EXAMONE WORLD WIDE, INC., and ELAINE TAULE, the Defendants, Case No. 9:19-cv-80538-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. granting conditional certification of a Collective Action under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for the proposed Putative Class defined as: \"all persons who are currently and/or who were formerly employed by or engaged by for NMS Management Services, Inc., ExamOne World Wide, Inc., and/or Elaine Taule and who worked out of or through NMS Management Services, Inc.'s Palm vSprings, Florida, office in the position of \"Mobile Examiner,\" \"Mobile Phlebotomist,\" \"Paramedical Examiner\" and/or any other similarly titled position\"; 2. appointing Ms. Yip as the representative of the Putative Class with authority to appear at any mediation/settlement conference on behalf of and to bind the Putative Class; 3. expediting production by Defendants, within 10 days from the entry of an Order from the Court, of a complete list of each person -- including his/her last known home address, cellular telephone number, fax number, and email address -- who worked as a \"Mobile Examiner\" or other similarly titled positions for Defendants at any time between April 18, 2016 and the present; 4. requiring Defendants to format and produce, on an expedited basis, a list both in hard copy and electronically in an Excel spreadsheet, of each such person listed alphabetically, and with each person's last known home address, telephone number, fax number, and email addresses in a separate field corresponding with each name to facilitate the preparation and sending of notice; 5. permitting Ms. Yip's counsel to send a Court-Approved Notice by email and by U.S. Mail to all members of the Putative Class about their rights to opt into this collective action by filing a Consent to Join Lawsuit and to call/text each to ensure that they received the forms; 6. permitting Ms. Yip's counsel to send a Court-Approved Reminder Notice by email and by U.S. Mail to all Putative Class members and to call/text each to ensure that they received the Reminder Notice; and 7. requiring Defendants to provide a copy of the Court-Approved Notice to all Putative Class members currently employed by Defendants in their next paychecks /pay stubs by mail at their last known addresses, and by email.[CC] Ms. Yip worked for Defendants as a \"Mobile Examiner\" from January 3, 2013 to October 9, 2017. She claims that (1) while Defendants classified and paid her as an independent contractor, she should have been classified and paid as an employee; (2) that she was paid on a per appointment basis, that she did not regularly receive at least a minimum wage when her pay was divided by the hours she worked each week, that she regularly worked more than 40 hours per week but was not paid for this time, reducing her regular rate of pay below the minimum wage, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiffs are: Chris P. Wido, Esq. THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC 25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200 Beachwood, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 291-4744 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Brian H. Pollock, Esq. FAIRLAW FIRM 7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: 305 230-4884 E-mail: [email protected] NOBULL LLC: Conner Files Class Suit under ADA in New York --------------------------------------------------------- Nobull, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Nobull, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09104 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 1, 2019). NOBULL is a footwear, apparel and accessory brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Email: [email protected] NOPALERA GRILL: Sorto Seeks Regular & OT Wages for Servers ---------------------------------------------------------- ROCIO SORTO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NOPALERA GRILL GALVESTON, LLC; NOPALERA ENTERPRISES, LLC; and EVELIA MENDEZ, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-03541 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime wages from Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. In connection with their business operations, Defendants collectively employ numerous waiters, waitresses, servers, bartenders, busboys, food runners, cooks, kitchen help, etc. The Defendants employed Sorto from approximately January 2014 through January. She was employed as a server/waitress. The Defendants do not pay server/waitresses, including Sorto, at the minimum wage for all hours worked, nor do they pay servers/waitresses, including Sorto, overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 per each seven day workweek at a rate of time and one-half as required by the FLSA.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. Bridget Davidson, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 NORTH CAROLINA: Sex Offenders Class Certified in Grabarczyk Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Terrence W. Boyle grants the Plaintiff's motions for class certification and to appoint class counsel in the lawsuit titled KENNETH S. GRABARCZYK, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. JOSHUA STEIN, Attorney General of the State of North Carolina, in his official capacity; BOB SCHURMEIER, Director of the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, in his official capacity; SEAN BOONE, District Attorney of Alamance County, North Carolina, in his official capacity, Case No. 5:19-cv-00048-BO (E.D.N.C.). The class is defined as: All persons placed on the North Carolina Sex Offender Registry solely on the basis of an offense committed in a state other than North Carolina and who both committed the predicate offense prior to December 1, 2006, and moved into the state of North Carolina prior to December 1, 2006. Counsel for the Plaintiff is appointed as class counsel.[CC] NOTRE DAME DE NAMUR: Moore Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit titled JOHN S. MOORE, III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NOTRE DAME DE NAMUR UNIVERSITY, a California Non-Profit Public Benefit Corporation, Case No. 19-CIV-04765, was removed on Sept. 23, 2019, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-05936-JST to the proceeding. On August 15, 2019, the action was commenced in the Superior Court. On September 4, 2019, the First Amended Class Action Complaint was filed in the Superior Court. The FACAC alleges the existence of a Collective Bargaining Agreement between the University and Service Employees International Union, Local 1021, from July 1, 2017, to June 30, 2020. The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the California Labor Code by failing to pay wages for all hours and failing to authorize and permit paid rest breaks, among other failures.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julian Hammond, Esq. Polina Brandler, Esq. Ari Cherniak, Esq. HAMMONDLAW, P.C. 1829 Reisterstown Rd., Suite 410 Baltimore, MD 21208 Telephone: (310) 601-6766 Facsimile: (310) 295-2385 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] The Defendant is represented by: Michael J. Vartain, Esq. Kathryn J. Burke, Esq. VARTAIN LAW GROUP, P.C. 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 780 San Francisco, CA 94111-2664 Telephone: (415) 391-1155 Facsimile: (415) 391-1177 E-mail: [email protected] NOVATIME TECHNOLOGY: Thome Sues over Collection of Biometric Data ----------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY THOME, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NOVATIME TECHNOLOGY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06256 (Ill. Cir., Sept. 19, 2019), seeks to redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric data. NOVAtime is a provider of automated time and attendance solutions which provides software and data collection timeclocks to companies across an array of industries. The company designs and manufactures the subject timeclocks. The company designs and administers the software that operate the time clocks. Chief among the products NOVAtime manufactures are biometric time keeping devices including fingerprint readers and other similar devices (Biometric Data Readers) which require scans of users' biometric data in order for those users to clock in and out of work. NOVAtime requires users to scan their biometric identifiers, namely their fingerprints or hand geometry, when using Biometric Data Readers as an authorization method to track their time at work by using a scan of that biometric information to clock in and out of work shifts and/or meal breaks. Once a user has registered his or her fingerprint or hand geometry with a Biometric Data Reader, that information is retained in NOVAtime's database(s). According to its website, NOVAtime \"provides complete Time and Attendance / Workforce Management solutions that are fully equipped with badge time clocks, biometric time clocks, proximity time clocks, and web-based kiosk devices, as well as integration capabilities with virtually any human resource or payroll application.\" Unlike ID badges or key fobs -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints and hand geometry are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each individual. This exposes individuals who use NOVAtime's Biometric Data Readers to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a database containing fingerprints, hand geometry, or other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed -- like in the recent Google+, Equifax, Uber, FacebooldCambridge Analytica, and Marriott data breaches or misuses -- individuals have no means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or improper use of this highly personal and private information, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312 233 1550 Facsimile: 312 233 1560 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] - and - Brandon M Wise, Esq. Paul A. Lesko, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Telephone: 314-833-4825 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] NPAS SOLUTIONS: Court Enters Protective Order in Whittum TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has entered the parties' Stipulated Protective Order in the case, LEISA WHITTUM, and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. NPAS SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00877-JAD-EJY (D. Nev.). The action is likely to involve confidential personal health information protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (\"HIPAA\") and state privacy laws, trade secrets, commercial and/or proprietary or personal information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of the action is warranted. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in the matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, nonpublic manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of the case. Even after final disposition of the litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by the Order will remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs. Final disposition will be deemed to be the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in this action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of the action. Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of confidentiality, including without limitation a redaction of Confidential Health Information or Confidential Patient Information, at any time. A Party that seeks to file under seal any Protected Material must comply with District of Nevada Local Rule IA 10-5. Any violation of the Order may be punished by any and all appropriate measures including, without limitation, contempt proceedings and/or monetary sanctions. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2019 Protective Order is available at https://is.gd/fsZiEi from Leagle.com. Leisa Whittum, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew I. Knepper -- [email protected] -- Knepper & Clark LLC, Miles N. Clark -- [email protected] -- Knepper & Clark LLC & David H. Krieger -- [email protected] -- Haines & Krieger, LLC. NPAS Solutions, LLC, Defendant, represented by John H. Mowbray -- [email protected] -- Spencer Fane LLP & Mary E. Bacon -- [email protected] -- Spencer Fane LLP. NRT WEST: Bid to Certify Three Classes in Chinitz TCPA Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, RONALD CHINITZ, Plaintiff, v. NRT WEST, INC., d/b/a Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-06100-NC (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Nathaniel M. Cousins of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Chinitz's motion to certify three nationwide classes. In the class action, Chinitz accuses Defendant NRT of making unlawful robocalls. NRT, more commonly known as Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage, is a residential brokerage company. It operates regional offices, where it contracts with local realtors or \"sales associates.\" In NRT's Palo Alto office, NRT has hired over 100 current or former sales associates since 2014. Similar Coldwell Banker entities operate throughout the United States. In 2003 and 2018, Chinitz placed his landline and VOIP numbers on the national do-not-call registry, respectively. In 2017, after Chinitz placed his home in Santa Cruz, California on an online real estate listing portal for sale, he received unwanted calls on behalf of NRT sales associates. After receiving those calls, Chinitz asked the caller to not call him back, but he continued to receive unwanted calls. One of those associates was Matt Christensen. On more than one occasion, Chinitz received calls using a prerecorded message. According to Matt Christensen, it was common practice in the industry to use third-party services or online listings to gather lists of prospective real estate clients and to use those lists to call prospective clients. Although NRT provided various onboarding documents regarding cold calling practices, Christensen did not receive any specific training regarding the requirements of the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Likewise, Christensen had access to NRT's internal do-not-contact lists, but did not use those lists to screen his calls. Christensen also used third-party services to call homeowners on his behalf. On Oct. 4, 2018, Chinitz initiated the putative class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (\"TCPA\"). He amended his complaint on Dec. 14, 2018, alleging putative class claims for (1) calling individuals on the national do-not-call registry; (2) calling individuals on its internal do-not-call registry; (3) using a non-exempt artificial or prerecorded message; and (4) violating the UCL. On Feb. 20, 2019, the Court dismissed Chinitz's UCL claim. Chinitz moved to certify three classes: a. National Do-Not-Call Registry Class (NDNC Class): All persons in the United States who: (a) received more than one call made by one of NRT's real estate agents on NRT's behalf or by another agent of NRT on NRT's behalf; (b) promoting NRT's goods or services; (c) in a 12-month period; (d) on their residential telephone line; (e) whose residential telephone number(s) appear on the DNC; (f) at any time since Oct. 4, 2014. b. National Internal Do-Not-Call Class (IDNC Class): All persons in the United States who: (a) received more than one call made by one of NRT's real estate agents on NRT's behalf or by another agent of NRT on NRT's behalf; (b) promoting NRT's goods or services; (c) in a 12-month period; (d) on their residential telephone line; (e) who made a request not to receive calls from or on behalf of NRT; (f) at any time since Oct. 4, 2014. c. National Prerecorded Message Residential Class (Prerecorded Message Class): All persons in the United States to whom: (a) one of NRT's real estate agents on NRT's behalf, or another agent of NRT on NRT's behalf, initiated one of more non-emergency telephone calls; (b) promoting NRT's goods or services; (c) to a recipient's residential telephone line; (d) through the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice; (e) at any time since Oct. 4, 2014. Chinitz sought both monetary relief and injunctive relief. All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. Magistrate Judge Cousins found that Chinitz has failed to meet his burden of proof and thus denied Chinitz's motion for class certification. Among other things, the judge found that (i) Chinitz has satisfied the numerosity requirement as to the NDNC class, but not the IDNC and Prerecorded Message classes; (ii) Chinitz is typical; (iii) Chinitz and his counsel are adequate representatives; and (iv) Chinitz has identified common questions, but has not shown by a preponderance of evidence that common answers exist to those questions. Because Chinitz failed to demonstrate all four requirements of Rule 23(a), the Judge did not address the requirements of Rule 23(b). A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/gqs54n from Leagle.com. Ronald Chinitz, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Hassan Ali Zavareei -- [email protected] -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Sabita J. Soneji -- [email protected] -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, George Volney Granade, Reese LLP, Michael Robert Reese -- [email protected] -- Reese LLP & Tanya Susan Koshy -- [email protected] -- Tycko and Zavareei LLP. NRT West, Inc., doing business as, Defendant, represented by Aaron Paul Rudin -- [email protected] -- Gordon & Rees LLP. OAKLEY TRANSPORTATION: Smith Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Drivers ----------------------------------------------------------------- James Smith, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, vs. Oakley Transport, Inc., Oakley Transportation Group, Inc. (dba Oakley Transport), the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-05854 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 19, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay minimum wage, failed to provide off-duty meal periods, failed to provide off-duty paid rest periods, failed to timely provide code-compliant wage statements, and failed to pay earned wages upon discharge under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff worked as a truck driver from December 9, 2017, through April 9, 2019, for Defendants and seeks relief for violations of the California law. Oakley Transport employs and has employed truck drivers, such as Plaintiff, who was responsible for transporting time-sensitive freight, such as food, to and from Defendants' designated pick-up and drop-off locations.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated are: Matthew C. Helland, Esq. Daniel S. Brome, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, LLP 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 277-7235 Facsimile: (415) 277-7238 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] - and - Jason T. Brown, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Lotus Cannon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] PATTERSON COS: Bid to Dismiss Plymouth County Suit Partly Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil File No. 18-871 (MJD/SER) (D. Minn.), Judge Michael J. Davis of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint. The matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (\"R&R\") of U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau, dated July 25, 2019, granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Defendants filed objections to the R&R. Pursuant to statute, Judge Davis has conducted a de novo review upon the record of those portions of the R&R to which objections were made. Based on that review, he adopted the R&R, with the modification that, on page 23 of the R&R, the amount \"$39.92\" is amended to read \"$32.92.\" Accordingly, the Judge granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as set forth in the R&R with the modification set forth. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/e4ji8S from Leagle.com. Plymouth County Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexi Pfeffer-Gillett -- [email protected] -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Anne M. Lockner -- [email protected] -- Robins Kaplan LLP, Brant D. Penney -- [email protected] -- Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Dianne M. Anderson, Saxena White P.A., pro hac vice, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. -- [email protected] -- Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Heather Schlesier -- [email protected] -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph E. White, III -- [email protected] -- Saxena White P.A., pro hac vice, Kyla Janine Grant, Saxena White P.A., pro hac vice, Lester R. Hooker, Saxena White P.A., pro hac vice, Lucas F. Olts, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Maya Susan Saxena -- [email protected] -- Saxena White P.A., pro hac vice & Steven Bennett Singer -- [email protected] -- Saxena White P.A., pro hac vice. Patterson Companies, Inc., Scott P. Anderson & Ann B. Gugino, Defendants, represented by Aaron G. Thomas -- [email protected] -- Briggs & Morgan, PA, Jordan Weber -- [email protected] -- Briggs & Morgan, PA & Patrick S. Williams -- [email protected] -- Briggs & Morgan, PA. R. Stephen Armstrong & James W Wiltz, Defendants, represented by Aaron G. Thomas, Briggs & Morgan, PA. Pembroke Pines Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers, Movant, represented by Anne M. Lockner, Robins Kaplan LLP, Lucas F. Olts, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Robert David Klausner, Klausner Kaufman, P.A., pro hac vice, Stephen H. Cypen, Cypen & Cypen, pro hac vice & Steven Bennett Singer, Saxena White P.A. Central Laborers Pension Plan, Movant, represented by Anne M. Lockner, Robins Kaplan LLP, Lucas F. Olts, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Steven Bennett Singer, Saxena White P.A. Gwinnett County Public Employees Retirement System, Movant, represented by David A. Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Lucas F. Olts, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Steven Bennett Singer, Saxena White P.A. & Tricia L. McCormick, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice. University of Puerto Rico Retirement System, Movant, represented by Carolyn G. Anderson -- [email protected] -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP & June Pineda Hoidal -- [email protected] -- Zimmerman Reed LLP. Employees Retirement System of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, Movant, represented by June Pineda Hoidal, Zimmerman Reed LLP. PENN CREDIT: Williams Sues over Debt Collection Practices --------------------------------------------------------- Laquanna Williams individually and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Penn Credit Corporation, and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-04320-JDW (E.D. Pa., Sept. 19, 2019), seeks to recover damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Defendant attempted to collect the Debt from the Plaintiff, the Debt was in default, or Defendant treated the Debt as if it was in default from the time that Defendant acquired it for collection, the lawsuit says. Penn Credit is a nationwide accounts receivables management firm.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff are: Antranig Garibian, Esq. GARIBIAN LAW 1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 326 9179 E-mail: aggaribianlaw.com PETROBRAS: 2nd Cir. Upholds Securities Case Settlement Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's approval of the proposed settlement in the Petrobras Securities Litigation. The case concerns objections to a roughly $3 billion-settlement agreement in a securities class action against Petrobras. Two purchasers of Petrobras shares, Richard and Emelina Gielata, objected to the proposed settlement, arguing that the settlement class should have excluded claims based on foreign purchases of securities (which were likely meritless under U.S. securities law). The district court approved the proposed settlement and determined that the Gielatas's objections were without merit, reasoning that the defendants are permitted to settle meritless claims. On appeal, the Gielatas assigned a portion of their claim to their son, Joseph Gielata, a retired attorney who had drafted his parents' original objection in the district court. All three Gielatas, proceeding pro se under a single brief written by Joseph Gielata, now argue that there is a conflict between shareholder claims and claims based on purchases of debt securities because the noteholder claims included the foreign-purchaser group, which were \"weaker,\" and the district court should have created subclasses with independent representation for each group. The parties dispute the appropriate standard of review in the case. The appellees urge the application of an abuse of discretion standard in Literary Works in Elec. Databases Copyright Litig., whereas the Gielatas insist that a de novo standard is more appropriate because the adequacy of class representation is a due process issue and less deference is given to the district court's decision when a class is certified simultaneously with the approval of a class settlement. However, even in cases where the Court addressed the adequacy of class representation, it has still applied an abuse of discretion standard. Accordingly, it applies an abuse of discretion standard. The appellees insist that the Gielatas' subclass arguments are waived on appeal because the Gielatas failed to raise them in the district court. The Gielatas reply that they asserted a conflict between subgroups in the settlement class, albeit not this exact conflict, and that another objector raised the subclasses issue, which the district court then fully addressed. The Court agrees with the appellees. The Gielatas did not assert their appellate arguments in the district court. Although their objection referenced the relevant case law related to subclasses in class action settlements, they asserted a conflict between shareholders and noteholders who could meet the domesticity requirement, on the one hand, and noteholders who could not meet the domesticity requirement, on the other; they did not make arguments about conflict between shareholders and all noteholders, as they do on appeal. The thrust of their arguments was to exclude foreign claims from the settlement class and appoint independent counsel to assist the settlement administrator to sort and remove the foreign claims. They did not argue for the creation of subclasses based on shareholders and noteholders or for appointment of class representatives for those subclasses, nor did they adopt the objections filed by others. Barring manifest injustice or an extraordinary need, then, the Court will not consider those arguments because the Gielatas waived (or at least forfeited) the arguments they now raise on appeal. The Gielatas have waived their arguments on appeal by failing to raise them in the district court despite ample opportunity. They elected not to argue in the district court for any subclasses, and they identified the chief conflict as being between domestic purchasers, which included both shareholders and noteholders, and foreign purchasers. The Gielatas have thereby waived their challenge to the district court's class certification and approval of the settlement, and the Court sees no manifest injustice or extraordinary need to exercise its discretion to nonetheless entertain the challenge. The Court has reviewed the remainder of the Gielatas's arguments and finds them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the Court affirmed the judgment of the district court. The case is captioned In Re: Petrobras Securities Litigation. Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited Employees Retirement System of the State of Hawaii, North Carolina Department of State Treasurer, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Aura Capital Ltd., Dimensional Emerging Markets Value Fund, DFA Investment Dimensions Group Inc., on behalf of its series Emerging Markets Core Equity Portfolio, Emerging Markets Social Core Equity Portfolio and T.A. World ex U.S. Core Equity Portfolio, DFA Investment Trust Company, on behalf of its series The Emerging Markets Series, DFA Austria Limited, solely in its capacity as responsible entity for the Dimensional Emerging Markets Trust, DFA International Core Equity Fund, and DFA International Vector Equity Fund by Dimensional Fund Advisors Canada ULC solely in its capacity as Trustee, Dimensional Funds plc, on behalf of its sub-fund Emerging Markets Value Fund, Dimensional Funds ICVC, on behalf of its sub-fund Emerging Markets Core Equity Fund, SKAGEN AS, Danske Invest Management A/S, Danske Invest Management Company, New York City Employees' Retirement System, New York City Police Pension Fund, Board of Education Retirement System of the City of New York, Teachers' Retirement System of the City of New York, New York City Fire Department Pension Fund, New York City Deferred Compensation Plan, Forsta AP-fonden, Transamerica Income Shares, Inc., Transamerica Funds, Transamerica Series Trust, Transamerica Partners Portfolios, John Hancock Variable Insurance Trust, John Hancock Funds II, John Hancock Sovereign Bond Fund, John Hancock Bond Trust, John Hancock Strategic Series, John Hancock Investment Trust, JHF Income Securities Trust, JHF Investors Trust, JHF Hedged Equity & Income Fund, Aberdeen Emerging Markets Equity Fund, Aberdeen Global Equity & Income Fund, Aberdeen Global Natural Resources Fund, Aberdeen International Equity Fund, each a series of Aberdeen Funds; Aberdeen Canada Emerging Markets Fund, Aberdeen Canada Socially Responsible Global Fund, Aberdeen Canada Socially Responsible International Fund, Aberdeen Canada Funds EAFE Plus Equity Fund and Aberdeen Canada Funds Global Equity Fund, each a series of Aberdeen Canada Funds, Aberdeen EAFE Plus Ethical Fund, Aberdeen EAFE Plus Fund, Aberdeeen EAFF Plus SRI Fund, Aberdeeen Emerging Markets Equity Fund, and Aberdeen Global Equity Fund, each a series of Aberdeen Intitutional C, Aberdeen Fully Hedged International Equities Fund, Aberdeen International Equity Fund, Aberdeen Global Ethical World Equity Fund, Aberdeen Global Responsible World Equity Fund, Aberdeen Global World Equity Dividend Fund, Aberdeen Global World Equity Fund, Aberdeen Global World Resources Equity Fund, Aberdeen Emerging Markets Equity Fund, Aberdeen Ethical World Equity Fund, Aberdeen Multi-Asset Fund, Aberdeen World Equity Fund, Aberdeen World Equity In, Aberdeen Latin America Equity Fund, Inc., Aberdeen Latin America Equity Fund, Inc., AAAID Equity Portfolio, Alberta Teachers Retirement Fund, Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc., Aurion International Daily Equity Fund, Bell Aliant Regional Communications Inc., BMO Global Equity Class, City of Albany Pension Plan, Desjardins Dividend Income Fund, Desjardins Emerging Markets Fund, Desjardins Emerging Markets Fund, Desjardins Global All Capital Equity Fund, Desjardins Overseas Equity Value Fund, Devon County Council Global Emerging Market Fund, Devon County Council Global Equity Fund, DGIA Emerging Markets Equity Fund L.P., Erie Insurance Exchange, First Trust/Aberdeen Emerging Opportunity Fund, GE UK Pension Common Investment Fund, Hampshire County Council Global Equity Portfolio, London Borough of Hounslow Supperannuation Fund, MacKenzie Universal Sustainable Opportunities Class, Marshfield Clinic, Mother Theresa Care and Mission Trust, MTR Corporation Limited Retirement Scheme, Myria Asset Managment Emergence, M, National Pension Service, and NPS Trust Active 14, Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, Washington State Investment Board, Aberdeen Latin American Income Fund Limited, Aberdeen Global ex Japan Pension Fund ppit, FS International Equity Mother Fund, NN Investment Partners B.V., acting in the capacity of management, NN Investment Partners B.V., acting in the capacity of management company of the mutual fund NN Global Equity Fund, NN Investment Partners B.V., acting in the capacity of management company of the muitual fund NN Hoog Dividend Aandelen Fonds, NN Investment Partners B.V., acting in the capacity of management copmany of the mutual fund NN Institutioneel Dividend Aandelen, NN Investment Partners Luxembourg S.A., acting in the capacity of management company SICAV and its Sub-Funds, and NN (L) SICA, for and on behalf of NN (L) Emerging Markets High Dividend, NN (L) First, Aura Capital Ltd., WGI Emerging Markets Fund, LLC, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Trust, Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, Trustees of the Estate of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, DBA Kamehameha Schools, Louis Kennedy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Ken Ngo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, City of Providence, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Handelsbanken Fonder AB, Public Employee Retirement System of Idaho, Peter Kaltman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Union Asset Management Holding AG, Jonathan Messing, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Spencer Bueno, Mathis B. Bishop, Catherine O. Bishop, Joseph Gielata, Richard Gielata, Emelina Gielata, Objectors-Appellants, v. Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. Petrobras, PricewaterhouseCoopers Auditores Independentes, BB Securities Ltd., Theodore Marshall Helms, Petrobras Global Finance B.V., Petrobras America Inc., Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA), Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Standard Chartered Bank, Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited, Banco Bradesco BBI S.A., Banca IMI, S.p.A., Scotia Capital (USA) Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Itau BBA USA Securities, Inc., JP Morgan Securities LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Defendants-Appellees, Mariangela Mointeiro Tizatto, Josue Christiano Gome Da Silva, Daniel Lima De Oliveira, Santander Investment Securities Inc., Banco Votorantin Nassau Branch, Gustavo Tardin Barbosa, Jose Sergio Gabrielli, Silvio Sinedino Pinheiro, Paulo Roberto Costa, Jose Carlos Cosenza, Renato de Souza Duque, Guillherme de Oliveira Estrella, Jose Miranda Formigl Filho, Maria Das Gracas Silva Foster, Almir Guilherme Barbassa, Jose Raimundo Branda Pereira, Servio Tulio Da Rosa Tinoco, Paulo Jose Alves, Alexandre Quintao Fernandes, Marcos Antonio Zacarias, Cornelis Franciscus Joze Looman, Defendants, Case Nos. 18-2120 (L), 18-2270 (Con), 18-2276 (Con), 18-2324 (XAP) (2d Cir.), A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2019 Summary Order is available at https://is.gd/4viQyN from Leagle.com. Joseph Gielata, pro se, La Jolla, CA; Richard Gielata, Emelina Gielata, pro se, Coraopolis, PA., for Objectors-Appellants. Jeremy Lieberman -- [email protected] -- Emma Gilmore -- [email protected] -- Brenda F. Szydlo -- [email protected] -- Jennifer B. Sobers -- [email protected] -- Pomerantz LLP, New York, NY., for Plaintiffs-Appellees. Lewis J. Liman -- [email protected] -- Jared Gerber -- [email protected] -- Joon H. Kim, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, New York, NY., for Defendants-Appellees. PILOT MOUNTAIN: Spain Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------- MALINDA SPAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PILOT MOUNTAIN FORD, INC., a North Carolina Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-416 (E.D.N.C., Sept. 18, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. As a result, the Defendant caused thousands of text messages to be sent to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members who either never provided Defendant with consent to contact them or who had revoked any prior express consent, the lawsuit says. The Defendant is an automotive dealership that sells vehicles for individuals and businesses.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class are: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM 11 N. Market Street Asheville, NC 28801 Telephone: 828-258-2991 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305 479-2299 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] PRINCE GEORGE'S, MD: Strange Seeks Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------- LYNN STRANGE, the Plaintiff, vs. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Dr. Suite 3151 Upper Marlboro, MD 20772, the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-02761-TDC (D. Md., Sept. 18, 2019), alleges that Defendant unlawfully failed or refused to compensate Plaintiff in full and on time for her work as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Maryland Wage and Hour Law; and Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Plaintiff brings this civil action for damages, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated present and past employees of the Defendant. Ms. Strange is a resident of Prince George's County, Maryland. She has been employed by Defendant from 2004 through the present at Defendant's State Attorney's Office, Juvenile Division, as an Administrative Aide. The Plaintiff frequently works for Defendant in excess of 40 hours per week but is not compensated at the legally-required overtime rate for those hours, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorney for the Plaintiff is: Steven K. Hoffman, Esq. JAMES & HOFFMAN, P.C. 1130 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 950 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 496-0500 Facsimile: (202) 496-0555 E-mail: [email protected] PROPETRO HOLDING: Faces Logan Suit Over Share Price Drop -------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD LOGAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PROPETRO HOLDING CORP., DALE REDMAN, JEFFREY SMITH, IAN DENHOLM, SPENCER D. ARMOUR, III, SCHUYLER E. COPPEDGE, STEPHEN HERMAN, MATTHEW H. HIMLER, PETER LABBAT, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, EVERCORE GROUP L.L.C., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., JOHNSON RICE & COMPANY L.L.C., and TUDOR, PICKERING, HOLT & CO. SECURITIES, INC., Case No. 7:19-cv-00217 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 16, 2019), is brought on behalf of those who acquired ProPetro securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with its March 2017 initial public offering. The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In the IPO, the Company sold 25 million shares of common stock at a price of $14 per share. The Company received proceeds of approximately $175 million from the Offering, net of underwriting discounts and commissions. On August 8, 2019, after the market closed, the Company issued a press release delaying its second quarter earnings conference call and quarterly report, citing an ongoing review by its audit committee. In a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on the same day, the Company stated that the review concerned, among other things, expense reimbursements and certain transactions involving related parties or potential conflicts of interest. The Form 8-K also stated that approximately $370,000 had been improperly reimbursed to members of senior management. Moreover, the Company expected to report a material weakness in its internal control over disclosure. On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.59 per share, or over 26%, to close at $12.75 per share on August 9, 2019, on unusually high trading volume. As a result, purchasers of ProPetro's securities during the Class Period, including the Plaintiff and the class, suffered injury through their purchase of ProPetro's securities at artificially inflated prices. ProPetro is incorporated under the laws of Delaware with its principal executive offices located in Midland, Texas. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of ProPetro. Goldman Sachs, Barclays, Credit Suisse, J.P. Morgan, Evercore, RBC Capital, Piper Jaffray, Raymond James, Deutsche, Johnson, and Tudor served as underwriters for the Company's IPO. ProPetro is an oilfield services company that provides hydraulic fracturing and complementary services to leading upstream oil and gas companies engaged in the exploration and production of North American unconventional oil and natural gas resources.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 PURDUE PHARMA: Stock Files RICO Class Action in Oklahoma -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P. The case is styled as William Stock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc., The Purdue Frederick Company, Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., TEVA Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Cephalon, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Actavis PLC, Actavis, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc. and AmerisourceBergen Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00526-GKF-FHM (N.D. Okla., Oct. 1, 2019). The docket says the case was filed pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company owned principally by descendants of Mortimer and Raymond Sackler. In 2007, it paid out one of the largest fines ever levied against a pharmaceutical firm for mislabeling its product OxyContin, and three executives were found guilty of criminal charges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradford D Barron, Esq. Barron Law Firm PLLC PO BOX 369 CLAREMORE, OK 74018 Tel: (918) 341-8402 Fax: (918) 515-4691 Email: [email protected] - and - Zachary T Barron, Esq. Barron Law Firm PLLC PO BOX 369 CLAREMORE, OK 74018 Tel: (918) 341-8402 Fax: (918) 515-4691 Email: [email protected] QUAD/GRAPHICS: Court OKs Bid to Amend Complaint in Clark -------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issue an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Complaint in the case captioned PAUL CLARK and CHARLES WILLAMS, individually, and on behalf of other members of the public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Q.G. PRINTING II, LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company; QUAD/GRAPHICS INC., a Wisconsin corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 1:18-cv-00899-AWI-EPG. (E.D. Cal.). This is a proposed class action suit in which the named Plaintiff, Paul Clark, (Plaintiff) alleges various causes of action against Defendants under the Private Attorneys General Act. The Court will grant the motion to the extent Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the Complaint. Generally, a party seeking to amend a pleading after the deadline specified in a scheduling order must show good cause for amendment under Rule 16(b), then, if good cause be shown, the party must demonstrate that amendment was proper under Rule 15. And under Rule 15(a), leave to amend should be granted unless amendment would cause prejudice to the opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates undue delay. Here, Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend seeks only to add one factual allegation that Defendants have failed to identify any meal and rest premiums they have made to class members on the members' wage statements, in the event such payments were in fact made. Additionally, the Court finds any prejudice to Defendants in allowing the amendment is minimal or non-existent. For those reasons, and for the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiff's motion is granted to the extent it seeks leave of Court to amend the Complaint. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 23, 2019 Order is available https://tinyurl.com/yyfwoce3 from Leagle.com. Paul Clark, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ari Yale Basser , Capstone Law, APC, Bevin Elaine Allen Pike - [email protected] - Capstone Law APC, Joseph Hakakian - [email protected] - Capstone Law APC & Orlando Villalba [email protected] - Capstone Law APC. QG Printing II, LLC, a Conneciticut limited liability company & Quad/Graphics, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation, Defendants, represented by Gregory G. Iskander - [email protected] - Littler Mendelson, P.C., James Phuc Van - [email protected] - Littler Mendelson & Andrew Hoon Woo - [email protected] - Littler Mendelson PC. RAIL DELIVERY: Canava Files Class Cert. Bid; Hearing on Nov. 25 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled SALVADOR CANAVA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. RAIL DELIVERY SERVICES, INCORPORATED AND GREG P. STEFFLRE, JUDI GIRARD STEFFLRE, Case No. 5:19-cv-00401-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to: (1) conditionally certify Count 1 in the complaint as an FLSA collective action in accordance with 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act and authorize notice to the FLSA collective action class members of their right to opt-in to the collective action claims; and (2) certify Counts 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 as Rule 23(b)(3) class actions and authorize notice to the class members pursuant to Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court will commence a hearing on November 25, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Getman, Esq. GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC 260 Fair St. Kingston, NY 12401 Telephone: (845) 255-9370 Facsimile: (845) 255-8649 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Susan Martin, Esq. Jennifer Kroll, Esq. MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C. 4647 N. 32nd St., Suite 185 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 Facsimile: (602) 240-2345 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] - and - Edward Tuddenham, Esq. 23 Rue Du Laos Paris, France Telephone: 33 684 79 89 30 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Howard Z. Rosen, Esq. ROSEN MARSILI RAPP LLP 3600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 389-6050 Facsimile: (213) 389-0663 E-mail: [email protected] RED ROBIN: Seeks to Decertify Vigueras Class & Subclasses --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MANUEL VIGUERAS, the Plaintiff, v. RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS RED ROBIN BURGER SPIRITS EMPORIUMS, a Nevada corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-01422-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants will move the Court on October 21, 2019, for an order decertifying the Certified Class and all Subclasses as certified in the Court's October 23, 2018 Order.[CC] Attorneys for the Defendant are: Lonnie D. Giamela, Esq. Sean F. Daley, esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] REYES SINGLE: Faces Port Properties Suit in California State Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reyes Single PLY Roofing Masters Corp. et al. The case is captioned as PORT PROPERTIES, LLC and SHAWN K DUKE, and ALL PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, vs. REYES SINGLE PLY ROOFING MASTERS CORP. and CESAR REYES, the Defendant, Case No. CIVDS1927591 (Cal. Super., Sept. 16, 2019). Reyes Single was founded by four brothers in 2007. The company provides professional roofing installation services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are Represented by: SKAPIK LAW GROUP 5861 Pine Avenue Suite A-1 Chino Hills, CA 91709 Telephone: (909) 398-4404 RMS PROPERTIES: Vladovich Seeks OT Premium for Landscapers ---------------------------------------------------------- EDUARD VLADOVICH, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RMS PROPERTIES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06312 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 22, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime premium pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant employs a staff of employees who work for the company as construction workers and landscapers, who work to improve properties for Defendant’s clients. The Plaintiff was employed as a construction worker with Defendant's company. He was misclassified as an independent contractor by Defendant and was paid straight-time for all hours worked, despite working in excess of 40 hours per week throughout his employment. The exact number of employees who have suffered the same unpaid overtime wage injury as Plaintiff, and have yet to receive redress is unknown at this time, but believed to be at least 40 employees, the lawsuit says. The Defendant operates a commercial property management company named RMS Properties, LLC, which is located at 1111 N. Plaza Drive, Suite 200, Schaumburg, IL 60713. The Defendant leases commercial properties as well as makes improvements to various commercial properties for its clients.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Brandon A. Thomas, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC 1 Glenlake Parkway, N.E., Suite 650 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (678) 330-2909 Facsimile: (678) 638-6201 E-mail: [email protected] SAFE HAVEN SECURITY: FLSA Class Certified in Martin Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Ortrie D. Smith grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification in the lawsuit styled ISAIAH MARTIN, et al., o/b/o themselves and all others similarly situated v. SAFE HAVEN SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-00063-ODS (W.D. Mo.). The Court conditionally certifies an FLSA collective action consisting of: all current and former sales representatives who worked for Defendant at any time from September 19, 2016, to the present, at Defendant's place of business in Kansas City, Missouri, who were not properly compensated for all time worked above forty hours in a workweek. Judge Smith directs the parties to jointly (or if necessary, individually) file a proposed notice plan within fourteen days of this Order. Plaintiffs Isaiah Martin, Kirk Kincaid, and Erik Fouts allege Defendant Safe Haven Security Services, Inc., which sells and installs residential security systems, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs, who were employed as sales representatives in Kansas City, Missouri, contend the Defendant refused to pay them (and others similarly situated to them) for more than five hours per week of overtime, despite working more than forty-five hours per week.[CC] SLIDE FIRE: Court Narrows Claims in Prescott NDTPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned DEVAN PRESCOTT, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SLIDE FIRE SOLUTIONS, LP, Defendant. Case No. 2:18-cv-00296-GMN-BNW. (D. Nev.). This case arises from the tragic mass shooting that occurred during the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival, in Las Vegas, Nevada. That day, an individual opened fire on concertgoers from the thirty-second floor of his hotel room at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino. In approximately eleven minutes, the shooter killed fifty-eight people, and injured hundreds more. Plaintiffs and their loved ones attended that Route 91 Festival. Plaintiffs allege that Slide Fire obtained a favorable evaluation from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) by representing bump stocks as intended to assist persons with limited mobility in their hands. Based upon this misrepresentation, according to Plaintiffs, the ATF concluded that bump stocks are not subject to regulation as firearm devices under the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act. Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint, bringing the following claims against Slide Fire: (1) negligenc; (2) negligence per se (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress under a theory of bystander liability (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress under a theory of direct liability (5) negligent entrustment (6) negligent products liability (7) strict products liability (8) public nuisance (9) private nuisance (10) false advertising in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and (11) deceptive trade practices under Nevada Revised Statute (NRS). LEGAL STANDARD Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6) where a pleader fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A pleading must give fair notice of a legally cognizable claim and the grounds on which it rests, and although a court must take all factual allegations as true, legal conclusions couched as a factual allegations are insufficient. Accordingly, Rule 12(b)(6) requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. This standard asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Slide Fire moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint on the following grounds: (1) Plaintiffs' common-law claims are barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) (2) the amended allegations fail to plausibly demonstrate how an exception to the PLCAA applies, warranting dismissal of all claims and (3) even if the PLCAA is not a bar to this action, Plaintiffs' claims are not cognizable under Nevada law. Scope of Amendment As a preliminary matter, Slide Fire contends that the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint for the limited purpose of pleading additional facts to support an exception to the PLCAA. By incorporating five unrelated new causes of action and not pleading additional facts to support an exception to the PLCAA, Slide Fire claims that Plaintiffs have exceeded the scope of the Court's Order. The Court disagrees. First, Slide Fire's argument is factually misplaced. Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint does include new facts to establish an exception to the PLCAA. Also, the new claims are not unrelated as Slide Fire argues; they are premised upon the same acts and omissions alleged in the initial complaint. Secondly, the Court's prior Order permitted Plaintiffs to plead facts in support of an exception to the PLCAA. The Court did not limit Plaintiffs' amendment to the predicate exception, as Slide Fire asserts. Finally, even if Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint exceeded the scope of this Court's Order, this would not, in and of itself, warrant striking portions of the pleading. Slide Fire has not made any argument to establish prejudice, and the Court cannot discern any conceivable harm. Given this case's procedural posture, particularly the Court's imposition of a stay pending resolution of the present Motion to Dismiss, any prejudice resulting from Plaintiffs' addition of new claims is significantly mitigated. PLCAA Congress enacted the PLCAA upon finding that manufacturers and sellers of firearms are not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products that function as designed and intended. To that end, the PLCAA provides that federal courts must immediately dismiss any case meeting the definition of a qualified civil liability action. Consequently, the PLCAA bars Plaintiffs from asserting their general tort claims3 unless an exception to the PLCAA applies here. Exceptions to the PLCAA In enacting the PLCAA, Congress codified six exceptions to the definition of qualified civil liability action, pursuant to which a seller or manufacturer of qualified products may be liable for a third party's unlawful misuse of its products. Of those six exceptions, Plaintiffs point to two that may apply here, thus permitting the case to proceed: (a) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se and (b) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought. The Court addresses each exception in turn. Negligent Entrustment and Negligence Per Se The PLCAA does not bar actions against sellers of qualified products for negligent entrustment or negligence per se. The PLCAA defines negligent entrustment as the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others. Because the PLCAA does not create a public or private cause of action or remedy, courts look to state law. Negligent Entrustment Under Nevada law, the key elements are whether an entrustment actually occurred, and whether the entrustment was negligent. Negligent entrustment applies where one who has the right to control [an instrumentality] permits another to use it in circumstances where he knows or should know that such use may create an unreasonable risk of harm to others. Slide Fire argues that this claim fails because there is no allegation that Slide Fire sold, or otherwise entrusted the shooter with, a bump stock. Plaintiffs respond that the negligent entrustment theory is cognizable under a theory of indirect entrustment and, therefore, they need not plead a direct sale to demonstrate this claim's plausibility. The Court agrees with Slide Fire that the entrustment element is lacking from this claim. Even under Plaintiffs' indirect entrustment theory, the allegations tying Slide Fire to the shooter are too attenuated to constitute entrustment. Negligence Per Se To prevail under a negligence per se claim, a plaintiff must prove that (1) he or she belongs to a class of persons that a statute is intended to protect (2) the plaintiff's injuries are the type the statute is intended to prevent (3) the defendant violated the statute (4) the violation was the legal cause of the plaintiff's injury, and (5) the plaintiff suffered damages. Plaintiffs assert that Slide Fire violated NRS 104.2314, which codifies the implied warranty of merchantability in Nevada, and NRS 598.0915(5), which counts knowingly false representations as to the characteristics of goods and services as a deceptive trade practice under Nevada law. Slide Fire argues that these statutes do not support a claim for negligence per se under Nevada law, and that Plaintiffs otherwise fail to satisfy the remaining elements of negligence per se. The Nevada Supreme Court has endorsed negligence per se actions arising from violations of Nevada statutes in limited situations including, inter alia, building code violations, municipal code violations, and traffic statute violations. These decisions underscore the requirement that the statute in question must have been intended to protect against the type of injury asserted and the class of persons who suffer the injury. Here, the Court concludes that the statutes at issue, governing breach of implied warranty of merchantability and deceptive trade practices, are not intended to protect against the injuries Plaintiffs assert. These statutes do not have the requisite specificity to meet the requirements of negligence per se. The PLCAA's Predicate Exception Plaintiffs' next proffered exception to the PLCAA arises under 15 U.S.C. Section 7903(5)(A)(iii), which provides that the PLCAA does not bar actions in which a manufacturer or seller of qualified products knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought. The PLCAA provides examples where this exception applies, such as when a manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product. Here, Plaintiffs argue in favor of three avenues to establish a predicate statutory violation: (1) Slide Fire's alleged false entry on its application for a federal firearms license (FFL) (2) Slide Fire's alleged misrepresentations to the ATF about bump stocks being intended for persons with limited mobility and (3) Slide Fire's alleged misrepresentations to the public at large concerning the safety and lawful status of bump stocks. The Court finds that only the third avenue, misrepresentations to the public concerning the safety and lawful status of bump stocks, plausibly alleges an applicable predicate statutory violation. False Entry on FFL Application With its first avenue to establish a predicate statutory violation, Plaintiffs claim that Slide Fire violated 18 U.S.C. Section 923(d)(1)(D) by knowingly and falsely representing itself to the ATF as a manufacturer of firearms in order to obtain a Type 7 FFL. Slide Fire argues that, as a matter of law, it correctly represented itself as a manufacturer. Citing relevant ATF opinions, Slide Fire explains that attaching bump stocks to existing firearms and offering them for sale qualifies as manufacturing within the meaning of the relevant statutes and regulations. Therefore, Slide Fire contends, it is pure speculation that it made any misrepresentations or false entries on its FFL application. The Court agrees with Slide Fire: applicable ATF rulings and regulations confirm a firearms manufacturer can encompass entities, such as Slide Fire, who obtain firearms from third-party manufacturers, reassemble or alter them to change their function or utility, and offer them for further distribution. In light of these ATF Rulings, Plaintiffs' allegations do not plausibly reveal that Slide Fire knowingly made a false statement by applying as a Manufacturer of Firearms Other than Destructive Devices. Plaintiffs' claims depend on alleging that bump stocks significantly alter the function of semi-automatic weapons. Because the allegations show how a bump stock alters a rifle's function and rate in which it fires bullets and given the broad interpretation of manufacturer under federal firearms laws, Slide Fire would not have violated the law by applying for a Type 7 FFL as a manufacturer of firearms as alleged in the Amended Complaint. Misrepresentations to the ATF Plaintiffs' second avenue to escape the PLCAA's restrictions arises from allegations that Slide Fire provided false information to the ATF in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1001(a)(2). Section 1001(a)(2) criminalizes the making of any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation\" in any matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government. According to Plaintiffs, in 2010 Slide Fire sent a letter to the ATF explaining that bump stocks are intended to assist persons whose hands have limited mobility. ATF then reviewed the bump stock device in view of Slide Fire's letter and concluded that this device did not need to be regulated as a firearm under the National Firearms Act or Gun Control Act. Plaintiffs allege that, had Slide Fire represented the true purpose behind bump stocks to convert a semi-automatic weapon into one with the capability of a fully automatic weapon the ATF would have subjected bump stocks to greater regulatory restrictions. Slide Fire, in response, argues that its marketing of bump stocks was not a consideration in ATF's 2010 letter approving its sale and manufacture. Slide Fire contends that Plaintiffs have not come forward with any statute or regulation that would make it illegal to sell the bump stock device unless it was useful or beneficial to persons with disabilities. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged how Slide Fire could have violated 18 U.S.C. Section 1001(a)(2) by making materially false statements or representations to the ATF in its 2010 Letter. Slide Fire recently produced the 2010 letter it sent to the ATF. That Letter states that the bump stock device has the added benefit of allowing someone with limited mobility in their fingers the ability to use their off-hand to assist them in firing the rifle. The Amended Complaint does not, however, allege that this language about the device's added benefit was false. Rather, it imputes the ATF's statement that the device was intended to assist persons whose hands have limited mobility as Slide Fire's purpose for the device. Because the Amended Complaint does not allege or reveal falsity of Slide Fire's statement that its bump stocks had the \"added benefit\" of assisting those with limited mobility in their fingers, Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that Slide Fire violated 18 U.S.C. Section 1001(a)(2) by making this statement to the ATF. Misrepresentations to the Public The third avenue that Plaintiffs pursue to establish a predicate exception arises through allegations that Slide Fire knowingly violated Nevada's Deceptive Trade Practices Act (NDTPA), specifically, NRS 598.0915(5), through the manner in which it conducted its sale and marketing of bump stocks. Plaintiffs allege that Slide Fire violated the NDTPA, by making several false or misleading statements in connection with the sale of its bump stocks. First, Slide Fire apparently made the false representation that the ATF approved the legality of its bump stocks by displaying ATF Approved\" on the legend of its website's homepage. Slide Fire argues that any alleged violation of the NDTPA cannot serve as a predicate statute because Plaintiffs cannot establish any alleged violation proximately caused the harm for which Plaintiffs seek relief. Because the Court finds that the NDTPA may serve as predicate statute, the Court now turns to the allegations in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. To survive Slide Fire's Motion to Dismiss, the Amended Complaint must plausibly allege that Slide Fire knowingly violated this statute and that the violation proximately caused Plaintiffs' alleged harm. 15 U.S.C. Section 7903(5)(A)(iii). The Court finds that the Amended Complaint plausibly alleges how Slide Fire violated the NDTPA for purposes of the predicate exception. Thus, Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that Slide Fire knowingly made the false statement that the bump stock was approved by the ATF in violation of the NDTPA. Claims for Relief Negligence To state a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must plead: (1) the existence of a duty of care (2) breach of that duty (3) legal causation and (4) damages. Duty In determining whether a duty exists, courts rather than juries possess the ultimate responsibility to define the scope of duty in relation to particular circumstances and to define the legal standard of reasonable conduct in light of the apparent risk. Slide Fire argues there is no legal basis to establish it had a duty to market a bump stock solely as a device to help individuals with limited mobility. Slide Fire further contends that because Plaintiffs' injuries were caused by the intentional criminal actions of a third party, Plaintiffs' cannot establish foreseeability without demonstrating that the parties enjoyed a special relationship. While Slide Fire is correct that it is under no duty to control the dangerous conduct of another, Plaintiffs' allegations center upon Slide Fire's duty to reasonably and safely sell and market bump stocks given its alleged knowledge that customers would purchase them seeking an inexpensive alternative to a fully automatic machine gun. Plaintiffs argue that Slide Fire was best situated to control who had access to bump stocks and therefore could have taken reasonable precautions to limit their sale and distribution. According to the Amended Complaint, while Slide Fire manufactures bump stocks purportedly for use by disabled gun owners, Slide Fire took no action to limit its sales or marketing efforts to such persons. On the contrary, Slide Fire promoted bump stocks as inexpensive alternatives to machine guns, thus permitting others and the shooter in this case to circumvent federal law in obtaining fully automatic weapons. Assuming Plaintiffs' allegations are true, as the Court must at this stage, then Slide Fire's purposeful campaign to promote bump stocks as akin to machine guns establishes a foreseeable risk that third-party criminals may use bump stocks in furtherance of a military-style assault. Because of the potential for harm attendant to the sale of machine guns and given Plaintiffs' allegations that Slide Fire marketed bump stocks to circumvent the federal prohibition on machine guns, the Court cannot say as a matter of law that Slide Fire owed no duty to Plaintiffs. Breach Slide Fire argues that even if it owed Plaintiffs a duty of care, there is no evidence that Slide Fire breached any such duty. Slide Fire explains that the ATF expressly found that its product did not circumvent the law, leaving no basis for a finding of a breach. The problem with Slide Fire's argument here is that the breaches identified in the Amended Complaint concern Slide Fire's acts and omissions after the ATF's evaluation, when Slide Fire is alleged to have negligently marketed and promoted the bump stock. Whether or not the ATF concluded that the bump stock is legal under federal law, Nevada common law imposes stand-alone duties upon manufactures in the context of marketing and selling their products. Causation Next, Slide Fire argues that the shooter's intentional conduct constitutes a superseding and intervening ac, such that Plaintiffs cannot establish proximate cause. Plaintiffs respond that because the shooter's actions were foreseeable, his unlawful acts do not supersede causation. While unlawful conduct can interrupt and supersede the causation between a negligent act and injury, an unlawful act will not supersede causation if it was foreseeable. Plaintiffs point the Court to other cases in which courts have held a firearm manufacturer or seller may be liable in negligence for allegedly enabling criminal acts of third parties. Because Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded that the shooter's actions were a foreseeable consequence of Slide Fire's negligent marketing, distribution, and sales, the Court is satisfied, at this stage, that he did not break the chain of causation. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Slide Fire moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) under theories of direct liability and bystander liability. According to Slide Fire, the bystander claim should be dismissed because Plaintiffs fail to allege a close relationship to any victim of the shooting. With respect to direct liability, Slide Fire contends that Nevada does not recognize such a theory. The Court agrees on both points. Bystander Liability A bystander who witnesses an accident may recover for emotional distress provided the bystander-plaintiff can prove that he or she (1) was located near the scene (2) was emotionally injured by the contemporaneous sensory observance of the accident and (3) was closely related to the victim. Under Nevada law, the closeness of the relationship between victim and bystander member is determined upon family membership, either by blood or marriage. Here, Plaintiffs have not alleged the relation between the victims and themselves. Because Nevada law imposes strict limitations on the relationships that may give rise to a claim of NIED bystander liability, this claim, as presently pleaded, will be dismissed with leave to amend. Direct Liability Nevada law does not provide a cause of action for plaintiffs to allege direct infliction of emotional distress from conduct that was merely negligent. In Schoen, Schoen, 896 P.2d at 477, which Plaintiffs cite in support of their direct NIED theory, the Nevada Supreme Court noted that if a bystander can recover for the negligent infliction of emotional distress, it is only logical that the direct victim be permitted the same recovery. However, the Court made this observation in service of its conclusion that the direct victim should be able to assert a negligence claim that includes emotional distress as part of the damage suffered as well as an intentional tort cause of action. Rather than recognizing a new cause of action for direct NIED, the Schoen Court merely held that emotional distress is a category of damages recoverable under existing tort theories of liability. Other courts in this District are in accord with this reading of Schoen. In light of this authority establishing that Nevada does not recognize an NIED claim based upon a theory of direct liability, the Court dismisses this claim with prejudice, though this does not foreclose recovery of emotional damages with Plaintiffs' negligence claim. Strict Products Liability According to Slide Fire, Plaintiffs' strict products liability claim is premised upon bump stocks being unreasonably dangerous solely because of the potential for third-party misuse, which Slide Fire argues is a theory unsupported by any legal authority. In response, Plaintiffs make clear that they are not proceeding under a no defect form of strict products liability. Consequently, for Plaintiffs to adequately support a claim for strict products liability under Nevada law, they must allege an injury caused by a defect in the product, and that such defect existed when the product left the hands of the defendant. Here, Plaintiffs provide only a conclusory allegation that Slide Fire's product is defective. Plaintiffs do not explain how Slide Fire's bump stock device failed to perform in the manner reasonably expected or malfunctioned under normal handling conditions. Nor do Plaintiffs identify applicable legal authority that removes this pleading requirement and permits their theory of strict products liability to proceed under Nevada law as currently pleaded. The Court thus dismisses this claim, but does so without prejudice because it is not certain that Plaintiffs are entirely unable to provide factual allegations that can support a claim for strict products liability. Public Nuisance With respect to Plaintiffs' public nuisance cause of action, Plaintiffs' have not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. In Nevada, there is no private right of action for a public nuisance. Accordingly, the Court dismisses this claim with prejudice. Private Nuisance Slide Fire argues that dismissal is warranted on the private nuisance claim because NRS 40.140 limits such claims to those implicating an interference with the use and enjoyment of real property. Because firearm use is neither a nuisance per se nor an activity that concerns use and enjoyment of real property, Slide Fire contends that Nevada law does not recognize a private nuisance claim in this context. Plaintiffs have not responded to Slide Fire's Motion as to private nuisance. The Court construes the lack of response as Plaintiffs consenting to dismissal of this claim. False Advertising in Violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act A cause of action under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act extends to a plaintiff that alleges an injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sale. Moreover, a plaintiff suing under Section 43(a) must show economic or reputational injury flowing directly from the deception wrought by the defendant's advertising which occurs when deception of consumers causes them to withhold trade from the plaintiff. Here, Plaintiffs' alleged injuries do not support a claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act as currently pleaded because they are not to a commercial interest in reputation and sale. Rather, the alleged injuries are to Plaintiffs' ability to carry on their commercial business. The Court thus dismisses this claim without prejudice. Deceptive Trade Practices Pursuant to NRS 598.0915(5) Pursuant to NRS 598.0915(5), a defendant engages is a deceptive trade practice if, in the course of his or her business or occupation, the defendant knowingly makes a false representation as to the characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, alterations or quantities of goods or services for sale or lease or a false representation as to the sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation or connection of a person therewith. Here, Plaintiffs allege that Slide Fire violated NRS 598.0915(5) and caused them commercial injury by: (1) creating the false and misleading impression that the bump stock device could be used by members of the public for a lawful, safe purpose and (2) displaying the ATF approved' legend on its homepage thereby knowingly creating the false and misleading impression that the ATF letter was an official approval of the legality of the bump stock. These allegations do not, however, reveal a direct harm of commercial injury by Slide Fire's actions. According to the Amended Complaint, it was not the false statement about the lawfulness of a bump stock device or ATF's approval that deprived Plaintiffs of their commercial business, it was the emotional trauma they experienced as a result of defendants' sale of the bump stock device and its subsequent use by the shooter. Thus, while NRS 598.0915(5) is not limited to only consumers or competitors of a defendant, Plaintiffs' alleged commercial injuries here are too attenuated to establish standing for this claim. Nevertheless, the Court is not certain that Plaintiffs would be unable to cure this deficiency; and thus, dismissal is without prejudice. Slide Fire's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged a claim for negligence against Slide Fire. By contrast, Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged the following claims, and they are dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend, negligent infliction of emotional distress under a theory of bystander liability, negligent products liability, strict products liability, false advertising in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, deceptive trade practices pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 598.0915, and private nuisance. Last, the following claims alleged by Plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice: public nuisance, negligent infliction of emotional distress (direct); negligence per se pursuant to NRS 104.2314 and NRS 598.0915 and negligent entrustment of a dangerous instrument. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019 Memorandum Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y526ramt from Leagle.com. Devon Prescott & Brooke Freeman, Plaintiffs, represented by Erica D. Entsminger , Eglet Prince, Jonathan Lowy , pro hac vice, Robert M. Adams , Eglet Prince, Robert T. Eglet , Eglet Prince, 400 S. 7th St., Suite 400, Las Vegas, NV 8910, Aaron D. Ford , Nevada Attorney General, Cassandra Cummings , Eglet Adams & Richard Hy, 400 S. 7th St., Suite 400, Las Vegas, NV 8910, Slide Fire Solutions, LP, Defendant, represented by Danny C. Lallis - [email protected] - Pisciotti Malsch, F. Thomas Edwards , Holley Driggs Walch Fine Wray Puzey & Thompson, James D. Boyle , Holley Driggs Walch Fine Wray Puzey & Thompson 800 S. Meadows Parkway, Suite 800, Reno, NV 89521 & Jeffrey Martin Malsch - [email protected] - Pisciotti Malsch PC, pro hac vice. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Interested Party, represented by Matthew Joseph Christian , c/o Las Vegas Metropolitan Police DepartmentRisk Management. Larry Bertsch, Special Administrator for the Estate of Stephen Paddock, Interested Party, represented by Lisa A. Rasmussen , Law Office of Lisa Rasmussen, 601 South 10th Street, Suite 100, Las Vegas, NV 89101 SMITH-PALLUCK ASSOCIATES: Court Grants Protective Order in Renteri ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued a Protective Order in the case captioned JOSE RENTERIA, and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. SMITH-PALLUCK ASSOCIATES CORP., doing business as LAS VEGAS ATHLETIC CLUBS, Defendant. Case No. 2:19-cv-01261-JAD-NJK. (D. Nev.). This Order will govern the use, handling and disclosure of all documents, testimony or information produced or given in this action which are designated to be subject to this Order in accordance with the terms hereof. Any party or non-party producing or filing documents or other materials in this action may designate such materials and the information contained therein subject to this Order by typing or stamping on the front of the document, or on the portion(s) of the document for which confidential treatment is designated, Confidential. All documents, transcripts, or other materials subject to this Order, and all information derived therefrom including, but not limited to, all testimony, deposition, or otherwise, that refers, reflects or otherwise discusses any information designated Confidential hereunder, shall not be used, directly or indirectly, by any person, including Plaintiff and LVAC for any business, commercial or competitive purposes or for any purpose whatsoever other than solely for the preparation and trial of this action in accordance with the provisions of this Order. All depositions or portions of depositions taken in this action that contain confidential information may be designated as Confidential and thereby obtain the protections accorded other confidential information. The parties shall have twenty-one (21) days from the date a deposition is taken, or fourteen (14) days from the date a deposition transcript is received, whichever date is greater, to serve a notice to all parties designating portions as Confidential. Until such time, all deposition testimony shall be treated as confidential information. To the extent any designations are made on the record during the deposition, the designating party need not serve a notice redesignating those portions of the transcript as confidential information. Any party may challenge any such designation in accordance with Paragraph 13 of this Order. Documents produced pursuant to this Order shall not be made available to any person designated in Subparagraph 6(f) unless he or she shall have first read this Order, agreed to be bound by its terms, and signed the attached Declaration of Compliance. Third parties who are the subject of discovery requests, subpoenas or depositions in this case may take advantage of the provisions of this Protective Order by providing the parties with written notice that they intend to comply with and be bound by the terms of this Protective Order. All persons receiving any or all documents produced pursuant to this Order shall be advised of their confidential nature. All persons to whom confidential information and/or documents are disclosed are hereby enjoined from disclosing same to any person except as provided herein, and are further enjoined from using same except in the preparation for and trial of the above-captioned action between the named parties thereto. No person receiving or reviewing such confidential documents, information or transcript shall disseminate or disclose them to any person other than those described above in Paragraph 6 and for the purposes specified, and in no event shall such person make any other use of such document or Inadvertent failure to designate any document, transcript, or other materials Confidential will not constitute a waiver of an otherwise valid claim of confidentiality pursuant to this Order, so long as a claim of confidentiality is promptly asserted after discovery of the inadvertent failure. If a party designates a document as Confidential after it was initially produced, the receiving party, on notification of the designation, must make a reasonable effort to assure that the document is treated in accordance with the provisions of this Order, and upon request from the producing party certify that the designated documents have been maintained as confidential information. Disclosure including production) of information after the parties' entry of this Protective Order that a party or nonparty later claims was inadvertent and should not have been disclosed because of a privilege, including, but not limited to, the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine Privileged Information, shall not constitute a waiver of, or estoppel as to, any claim of attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, or other ground for withholding production as to which the disclosing or producing party would be entitled in this action. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 23, 2019 Order is available https://tinyurl.com/y3fsn9qt from Leagle.com. Jose Renteria, Plaintiff, represented by George Haines , Haines and Krieger, LLC, Matthew I. Knepper , Knepper & Clark LLC, Miles N. Clark , Knepper & Clark LLC, Shawn Wayne Miller , Haines & Krieger, LLC & David H. Krieger , Haines & Krieger, LLC, 8985 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. 130, Henderson, Nevada Smith-Palluck Associates Corp, doing business as Las Vegas Athletic Clubs, Defendant, represented by Joel Edward Tasca - TASCA BALLARDSPAHR.COM - Ballard Spahr LLP & Stacy H. Rubin - RUBINS BALLARDSPAHR.COM - Ballard Spahr LLP. SONY CORP: 9th Circuit Upholds Settlement Approval in Young Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KEVIN YOUNG; BRADLEY SELDIN; BRUCE STERMAN; CHARLES CARTE; BRIAN HANLON; NICHOLE M. GRAY; WOODROW CLARK II; REBECCA CERVENAK; JOHN RUSSO; MATTHEW J. MILLER; RACHEL L. MILLER; BRADLEY VAN PATTEN; BENJAMIN KRAMER; JAMES A. SMITH; ANGELA TURNER; KATHERINE A. WIRKUS; MICHAEL BARBAT; DAVID BROWNLEE; ROBERT ALAN DISHMAN; JOAN GOODMAN; DAVID MCAFEE; DAWN THOMPSON; THE STEREO SHOP; MICHELE CRIDEN; BRIAN CALEB BATEY; A-1 COMPUTERS, INC.; YEVGENIYA LISITSA, Esquire, Attorney; DANIEL MEIR; KIMBERLY RAIMONDO; DRAKE DAILEY-CHAWLIBOG; MEGHAN DOWLING; MICHAEL HULL; DAVID SHAWN; DEWEESE SMITH; REGINA SHANNON; RENEE MEIER; FIRST CHOICE MARKETING, INC.; MICHAEL JAMES DOYLE; REBECCA COHEN; ELLIS GREENSPAN; LOUIS MESSINA; PATRICE NEALON; ELIZABETH PORTER; DAWN POTOVIN; DAWN POTOVIN; MARYLIN SHARP; GRACE SHIRE; DAN WEHKING; STEVEN WILEY; NANCY RUAN; CHAD CONOVER; SUSANNE HILLER; ROBERT HYAMS; MATTHEW WEINER; GERASIMOS MOLFETAS; THOMAS R. TUOHY; BEVERLEE SCLAR; DAVID PETREE; MIKE KATZ-LACABE; JAMES O'NEIL; LLOYD RANOLA; ALFRED H. SIEGEL; TOM PHAM; KATHLEEN TAWNEY; CALVIN CALKINS; AUTOMATION ENGINEERING, LLC; EDWARD KLUGMAN; GENE POWERS; RICHARD S.E. JOHNS; BRANDON MARTINEZ; ANGELO MICHAEL D'ORAZIO; RON NELSON, Jr.; UNIVISION-CRIMSON HOLDING, INC.; PIYA ROBERT ROJANASATHIT; MICHAEL S. WILSON; RITZ CAMERA & IMAGE, LLC; STEVEN BUGGE; A. KEITH THROWER; KRISTINA YEE; JOSEPHY G. O'DANIEL; JASON AMES; WILBUR FRANKLIN; BEATRIZ HERNANDEZ; LINDA LINCOLN; KRISTIN STARR BARNES; MARK BERGERON; MICHAEL JANUSA; ADAM RONQUILLO; TERRI WALNER; ANNA JAWOR; KRISTA LEPORE; THE NATIONWIDE GROUP; MATT BRYANT; LAURA GALLARDO; SPENCER HATHAWAY; ALEXANDRA LE; ROBERT MCGRANAHAN; PATRICK MCGUINNESS; ERINN TOZER; DAVID GIBBONS; VALENTINA JUNCAJ; VIOLET SELCA; CORIE LEVY; SCOTT BEALL; THEODORE WOLFENDALE; CHRISTOPHER BESSETTE; ALEXANDER C. EIDE; POLLY COHEN; SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT; INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS; DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS; ERIC MCGUIRE; KCN SERVICES, LLC; BRAD MARCUS; BASIL BOURQUE; KEVIN LITWIN; MELINDA LAWSON; DAVID TOLCHIN; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; KAREN STROMBERG; CITY OF PALO ALTO; CITY OF RICHMOND; MATTHEW SABA; SHAWN SELLERS; TRACFONE WIRELESS, INC.; ACER, INC.; ACER AMERICA CORPORATION; GATEWAY, INC.; GATEWAY U.S. RETAIL, INC.; MICROSOFT MOBILE INC.; MICROSOFT MOBILE OY; DELL, INC.; DELL PRODUCTS L.P., Plaintiffs-Appellees, CHRISTOPHER ANDREWS, Objector-Appellant, v. LG CHEM LTD.; LG CHEM AMERICA, INC.; SONY CORPORATION; SONY ELECTRONICS, INC.; SAMSUNG SDI AMERICA; HITACHI LTD.; HITACHI MAXELL, LTD; MAXELL CORPORATION OF AMERICA; SONY ENERGY DEVICES CORPORATION; SAMSUNG SDI CO, LTD.; HITACHI AMERICA LTD.; HITACHI MAXELL CORPORATION OF AMERICA; TOSHIBA AMERICA, INC; TOSHIBA CORPORATION; LG CHEM AMERICA; LG CORPORATION; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD.; SAMSUNG SDI CHUSIK HOESA; SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA; SANYO ELECTRIC CO., INC; NEC TOKIN CORPORATION; NEC CORPORATION; LG CHEMICAL LTD.; LG CHEMICAL AMERICA, INC.; HITACHI MAXELL, LTD.; PCM, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-15795 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's approval of the class-action settlement agreement between the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (\"IPPs\") and Defendants Sony Corp., Sony Energy Devices Corp., and Sony Electronics Inc. The district court approved the class-action settlement agreement between the IPPs and Sony. Andrews, a class member objecting to the settlement, appealed the lower court's ruling. He argued that the notice of settlement was deficient, errors in the settlement agreement and the district court's approval order rendered the settlement unfair, and the class members were denied access to crucial documents because they were improperly sealed. The Ninth Circuit finds that district court properly found that the notice of settlement was sufficient. The Appellate Court states that Andrews' contention that a settlement notice cannot precede the formulation of a claims process is unsupported, and the rest of Andrews's attacks on the notice are inconsistent with the record or irrelevant. The district court did not err in finding the notice satisfied due process and Rule 23, the Appellate Court opines. Next, the Apellate Court reviews the district court's approval of a class action settlement for clear abuse of discretion. Andrews raises a host of objections to the settlement agreement and district court's approval order, including that the $19.5 million settlement amount was unjustifiably low compared to the $177 million in total alleged damages attributable to Sony. The Appellate Court finds those arguments to be unpersuasive. The district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement agreement. Finally, Andrews argued that many documents were improperly sealed, preventing the class members from accurately assessing the settlement's fairness. But several documents Andrews identifies are not sealed. Rather, they are publicly available with limited redactions. For the documents that are sealed, Andrews offers nothing persuasive to counter the district court's finding that the documents pertinent to the Plaintiffs' settlement with the Sony defendants, motion for approval, and motion for reimbursement of costs were all readily available. Thus, objectors were able to access all the information relevant to the settlement. The district court did not abuse its discretion, the Appellate Court holds. In light of the foregoing, the Court accordingly affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 4, 2019 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/UeyYmc from Leagle.com. SPIRIT AIRLINES: 2nd Circuit Vacates in Part Dismissal of Cox Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, THOMAS COX, JOHN COX, CHRISTIE NEPTUNE, CYNTHIA COE, HAYFAA BAROUD, TERRY MURRAY, ALBERT EYZAGIRRE, YULIUS MUSTAFA, DODZI AMEMADO, DIANA CARRILLO, JULIE FEINER, VICTORIA EYZAGIRRE, DAVID LANGTON, GRETA SCHOENEMAN, SUSAN HOTT, SHIRIN BEGUM, SILVA IAHDJIAN, MICHAEL WYANT, SUSY KOSHKAKARYAN, HEATHER MCGLASHAN, JILL BRUA, MARYAM AFKARIAN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 18-3484-cv (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated in part the Nov. 26, 2018, judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, dismissing the Cox, et al.'s putative class action in which Plaintiffs alleged claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud against Spirit. On appeal, the Plaintiffs pursued only their breach-of-contract claims. At the outset, Spirit argued that its Contract of Carriage precludes the Plaintiffs' claims because that document specifically provides, one carry-on bag is permitted in the aircraft cabin for a charge. The 2nd Circuit holds that Spirit's argument fails at the pleading stage. Under U.S. law and regulation, \"an air carrier may incorporate by reference in a ticket or written instrument any term of the contract for providing interstate air transportation, provided that certain notice requirements are satisfied. Spirit acknowledges that the present record is devoid of any allegations that it complied with these notice requirements. Thus, it cannot now rely on the Contract of Carriage as a basis for affirming the district court's dismissal. The district court held that the Airline Deregulation Act (\"ADA\") preempts the Plaintiffs' breach-of-contract claims. The Appellate Court disagrees. It finds that if carriage of the Plaintiffs' carry-on items was within the scope of Spirit's contractual obligations, then the ADA does not preempt the Plaintiffs' breach-of-contract claims. If carriage of the Plaintiffs' carry-on items was not within the scope of Spirit's contractual obligations, then the Plaintiffs' breach-of-contract claims fail because Spirit did not breach any alleged contractual obligation that forbade it from charging a separate fee for that service. If the latter, then the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' complaint was proper because it failed to state a claim, not because the Plaintiffs' claims are preempted. Whether, in light of state-law principles of contract interpretation, the carriage of the Plaintiffs' carry-on items was in fact within the scope of Spirit's obligations, is a question for the district court to consider in the first instance. The Court concludes only that, in light of what appear to be ambiguities in the contract that the Plaintiffs allege Spirit to have breached, and its conclusion that ADA preemption does not apply, the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim was not dismissible on the pleadings. Nevertheless, the Appellate Court agrees with the district court that the Plaintiffs have effectively conceded that there was only an agreement as to the price term, destination and dates of travel, and no other terms were either disclosed or made part of the contract. That concession is not fatal at the pleading stage, however, because the Appellate Court holds that \"price\" is an ambiguous term. Finally, it observes that, if any such ambiguity resolves in the Plaintiffs' favor, then any obligation as to carriage of carry-on items would still be one Spirit has voluntarily undertaken, notwithstanding its own professed contrary intent. It is the reasonable meaning of the parties' words or conduct that govern. On that score, the ADA's preemption of state law does not preclude application of state-law contract interpretation principles to the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim. The Appellate Court has considered the remainder of the parties' arguments and finds them to be without merit. Accordingly, it vacated in part the judgment of the district court, and remanded the case. A full-text copy of the 2nd Circuit's Sept. 10, 2019 Summary Order is available at https://is.gd/XDAKnu from Leagle.com. John Hermina, Hermina Law Group, Laurel, MD. Gregory Allen, Milford, CT (on the brief), Appearing for Appellants. Stephanie Drotar -- [email protected] -- Mark W. Robertson -- [email protected] -- (on the brief), O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, NY, Appearing for Appellee. Andrew Appelbaum, Flyers Rights Education Fund, Washington, DC, amicus curiae in support of Plaintiffs-Appellants Cox et al. Kim Richman -- [email protected] -- Richman Law Group, Brooklyn, NY, for National Consumers League, amicus curiae in support of Plaintiffs-Appellants Cox et al. Seth P. Waxman -- [email protected] -- Catherine M.A. Carroll -- [email protected] -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hall and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, for Airlines for America, amicus curiae in support of Defendant-Appellee Spirit Airlines, Inc. Appearing for Amici. STANLEY STEEMER: Runnels Seeks Overtime Compensation ---------------------------------------------------- LATEEF RUNNELS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STANLEY STEEMER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00767-BP (W.D. Mo., Sept. 20, 2019), seeks unpaid wages and overtime compensation, and related penalties and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked as a nonexempt employee. He regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week. Over the course of his employment Plaintiff was on a commission basis, with a minimum hourly guarantee of at least $9.75 per hour. Additionally, for the weeks in which Plaintiff's regular rate fell below the minimum hourly guarantee, Stanley Steemer failed to properly pay overtime compensation pursuant to 29 C.F.R. section 785.111(b). Instead, Defendant solely based overtime compensation on Plaintiff's pay and not accounting for the minimum hourly rate, the lawsuit says. Stanley Steemer is a US-based company that provides carpet cleaning, tile and grout cleaning, upholstery cleaning, hardwood floor cleaning and air duct cleaning. The company also does water damage restoration and sells a line of cleaning products for home and office use. It was founded in 1947 in Dublin, Ohio.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Eric L. Dirks, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON, LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 945-7110 Facsimile: (816) 945-7118 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Michael Hodgson, Esq. THE HODGSON LAW FIRM 3609 SW Pryor Road Lee's Summit, MO 64082 Telephone: (913) 890-3529 [email protected] - and - Heather J. Hardinger, Esq. THE MEYERS LAW FIRM, LC 503 One Main Plaza 4435 Main Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: 816 444-8500 Facsimile: 816 444-8508 E-mail: [email protected] STEIN MART INC: Castaneda Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- Sylvia Garza-Castaneda, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Stein Mart, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIV-DS-1921230 (Cal. Super., July 29, 2019), was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 6, 2019 under Case No. 19-cv-01644. Castaneda seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest, redress for failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, reimbursement of business-related expenses, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law, the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. Stein Mart operates 26 stores in California where Castaneda worked in one of their locations.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Roland Bainer, Esq. BAINER LAW FIRM 1901 Harrison Street Suite 1100 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (510) 922-1802 Fax: (510) 844-7701 Email: [email protected] Stein Mart is represented by: Krista M. Cabrera, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 3579 Valley Centre Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 847-6700 Facsimile: (858) 792-6773 Email: [email protected] - and - Archana A. Manwani, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 555 South Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2411 Telephone: (213) 972-4500 Facsimile: (213) 486-0065 Email: [email protected] SWAROVSKI NORTH: Calif. Court Denies Dismissal of Lerman Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANNA LERMAN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SWAROVSKI NORTH AMERICA LIMITED, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19cv638-LAB (BLM) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Larry Alan Burns of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied Swarovski Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. In January 2019, Plaintiff Lerman placed two telephone calls to Swarovski's customer-service line to obtain information about her online merchandise purchase and to change an expected delivery date. Although the company representative provided no disclaimer that the calls might be recorded, Lerman alleges that the company nonetheless recorded her calls without consent, in violation of California Penal Code Section 632.7. In fact, according to the complaint, Swarovski has company-wide policy of recording all inbound consumer telephone calls without providing notice, which is why Lerman has brought the suit as a putative class action. Swarovski moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Lerman cannot state a claim under section 632.7. It argues that section 632.7 prohibits recording \"without consent\" only where a party \"intercepts or receives and intentionally records\" that communication. In Swarovski's view, the phrase \"without consent\" modifies both \"intercepts or receives\" and \"intentionally records.\" So, even if Lerman didn't consent to Swarovski recording the call, she necessarily consented to the company receiving the call by virtue of her placing the call, and thus Swarovski cannot be liable. Judge Burns finds Swarovski's interpretation of section 632.7 creative but unpersuasive. The reality, as Lerman correctly points out, is that a person cannot record a call without access to that call -- that is, without either intercepting or receiving the call. To read the statute as requiring consent to both the reception of the call and the recording of the call would be to twist the plain language of the statute past its breaking point. But even assuming for the sake of argument that the language was ambiguous, the Judge couldn't adopt Swarovski's reading because it would frustrate the statute's purpose. Under Swarovski's reading, any customer-service call made to a business -- or any call to anyone, for that matter -- could be recorded by the recipient because the dialer necessarily consented to the other party \"receiving\" the call. As pled, Lerman's complaint states a valid claim for violation of section 632.7, the judge finds. The Judge therefore denies Swarovski's motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/eBCR03 from Leagle.com. Anna Lerman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Zev Benjamin Zysman -- [email protected] -- Law Offices of Zev B. Zysman, APC. Swarovski North America Limited, Swarovski Retail Ventures Limited & Swarovski Digital Business USA Inc., Defendants, represented by Stephanie A. Sheridan -- [email protected] -- Steptoe & Johnson LLP. TAPESTRY, INC: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as NORMA GARCIA and KARINA ANDRADE, individually, on a representative basis, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. TAPESTRY, INC., a Maryland Corporation which will do business in California as Coach Leatherware California, Inc. DBA Coach; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-01537-DMG-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court, having considered the Joint Notice of Settlement and Stipulation to Vacate Dates, and for good cause shown, orders that all remaining dates and deadlines in the action are vacated. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is denied as moot and the September 20, 2019 hearing was vacated. The motion for preliminary approval of class settlement shall be filed within 60 days.[CC] TARGET CORPORATION: Ornelas et al. Suit Moved to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as JOSEPH D. ORNELAS and RODNEY ALAN ROBINSON, JR., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CIVDS-1924533 (Aug. 19, 2019), was removed from the Superior Court of California County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District for the Central District of California on Sept. 20, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-01814 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that Defenants failed to pay overtime compensation, failed to provide adequate itemized wage statements, failed to pay waiting time penalties in violation of the California Labor Code.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Joseph R. Becerra, Esq. BECERRA LAW FIRM 4014 Long Beach Blvd., Suite 300 Long Beadi, CA 90807 Telephone: (213) 542-8501 Facsimile: (213) 542-5556 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Torey J. Favarote, Esq. GLEASON & FAVAROTE LLP 4014 Long Beach Blvd., Suite 300 Long Beach, CA 90807 Telephone: (213) 452-0510 Facsimile: (213) 452-0514 E-mail: [email protected] TILE SHOP: 7th Cir. Affirms IWPCA Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, issued an Opinion affirming the District Court’s judgment granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned ADRIEL OSORIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE TILE SHOP, LLC, Defendant-Appellee. No. 18-2609. (7th Cir.). Adriel Osorio filed this class action alleging that The Tile Shop's recoverable draw system violates the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA) and its implementing regulations. As relevant here, the regulatory scheme prohibits employers from deducting more than 15% from an employee's wages per paycheck as repayment for previous cash advances. Osorio's suit claimed that The Tile Shop's compensation system functions as a series of cash advances and his former employer deducted more than 15% of his wages at various points to recoup previous draw payments. The district judge granted The Tile Shop's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings with respect to Osorio's IWPCA claim. His original complaint alleged that the company did not have his written authorization to recoup the draw payments. The judge ruled that he had authorized the recoupment by signing the pay plan attached to his offer of employment. The Court reviews a summary judgment de novo, construing evidence and drawing inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. The IWPCA prohibits deductions by employers from wages or final compensation unless certain conditions are met. As the Court explained, the Act's implementing regulations establish requirements for deductions from wages pursuant to a cash advance repayment agreement, one of which is the 15%-per-paycheck limitation. In the district court, The Tile Shop made two arguments in opposition to Osorio's reformulated IWPCA claim. The first was that the draw reconciliations are not deductions from wages or compensation\" within the meaning of the Act. The second was that the draw system does not involve cash advances within the meaning of the regulations. The judge agreed with The Tile Shop's second argument, holding that the draws are not cash advances. On appeal The Tile Shop reiterates both arguments. The Court finds the first inquiry dispositive. The IWPCA is triggered only if the draw reconciliations constitute deductions from wages or final compensation. The Act broadly defines wages as any compensation owed an employee by an employer pursuant to an employment contract or agreement between the 2 parties. But neither the statute nor the implementing regulations define the term deductions, nor has any court defined the term as used in the Act. Considered in context, the term deductions as used in the Act refers to withholdings from an employee's gross wages, not the formula used to calculate an employee's gross wages. This poses an insurmountable obstacle for Osorio. The draw-reconciliation system is part of The Tile Shop's formula for calculating a sales associate's semimonthly commission earnings. It is not a deduction from the sales associate's wages or final compensation. Osorio's paystub confirms this understanding: the draw payments and reconciliations appear as line items under Earnings, not under Deductions. To borrow an accounting phrase, the draw reconciliation is made above the line to calculate the employee's gross wages before withholding for taxes and other applicable deductions are made. Because the draw reconciliations are not deductions from wages or final compensation within the meaning of section 115/9, The Tile Shop's compensation system does not violate the IWPCA. A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's September 23, 2019 Opinion is available https://tinyurl.com/y3r9y8g5 from Leagle.com. Michael D. Karpeles - [email protected] - for Defendant-Appellee. Mark Anthony Bulgarelli , Progressive Law Group LLC, 1570 Oak Ave Ste 103, Evanston, IL, 60201-4231, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Jonathan H. Claydon - [email protected] - for Defendant-Appellee. Bryan J. Morben - [email protected] - for Defendant-Appellee. Joseph M. Sokolowski - [email protected] - for Defendant-Appellee. TOKYO HIBACHI: Jones Seeks to Certify Class of Restaurant Servers ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as DEVAN JONES and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. H&J RESTAURANTS, LLC d/b/a TOKYO HIBACHI, the Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00105-TBR (W.D. Ky.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of: \"all current and former servers employed by Defendant at its Tokyo Hibachi restaurant in Paducah, Kentucky at any time since July 22, 2016\"; and 2. authorizing notice of the action via U.S. Mail and email to those members of the conditionally certified collective action. The Plaintiff challenges Defendant's common pay policies and practices for servers. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has violated the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Philips Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] TRAVEL NURSE: Court Dismisses Individual Claims in K. Call's Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an Order dismissing the All Individual Claims in the case captioned KAREN CALL, Plaintiff, v. TRAVEL NURSE ACROSS AMERICA, LLC, Defendant. Case No. 2:18-cv-03027-KJM-AC. (E.D. Cal.). The parties jointly stipulate to dismiss all individual claims brought by plaintiff Karen Call, agreeing this putative class action should be resolved on an individual basis because counsel for Plaintiff do not believe proceeding with the class action is feasible, while all putative class claims and causes of action should be dismissed without prejudice. In response to the parties' stipulation, the court directed the parties to meet and confer and submit a supplemental filing addressing the factors identified in Diaz v. Tr. Territory of Pac. Islands, 876 F.2d 1401, 1407-09 (9th Cir. 1989). As explained below, the court now APPROVES the stipulation. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs the litigation of class actions in federal court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires courts to approve the proposed voluntary dismissal of class claims even before the class is formally certified. Where parties seek to voluntarily dismiss class claims, the court must inquire into possible prejudice from the following circumstances: (1) class members' possible reliance on the filing of the action if they are likely to know of it either because of publicity or other circumstances (2) lack of adequate time for class members to file other actions, because of a rapidly approaching statute of limitations (3) any settlement or concession of class interests made by the class representative or counsel in order to further their own interests. Here, the court is satisfied that dismissal of this action will result in no prejudice to the putative class members. It is the court's understanding that the statute of limitations on certain class claims may have expired on or about March 20, 2019, and therefore some potential class members would be barred from bringing their claims once this case was dismissed. The court is also satisfied the settlement and dismissal are not tainted by collusion, based on the parties' representation that the settlement was a result of the parties discovering plaintiff was owed wages for training time due to a clerical error when calculating her wages and no other individuals appear to have suffered from the same error. Further, plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel have received no monetary consideration for dismissal of the class claims, rather, plaintiff's counsel only recovered costs for filing and service and a portion of the attorney's fees attributed to investigating and prosecuting the individual claims. The court approves the parties' stipulation. All of the individual claims and allegations brought by Karen Call are dismissed with prejudice and all of the claims and allegations of the putative class members are dismissed without prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 23, 2019 Order is available https://tinyurl.com/y45lzpza from Leagle.com. Karen Call, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff Geraci - [email protected] - Cohelan Khoury and Singer & Michael D. Singer - [email protected] - Cohelan Khoury & Singer. Travel Nurse Across America, LLC, An Arkansas Limited Liability Company, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Dawson Sulzer - [email protected] - Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete LLP, Kimberly T. Bernstein , Constangy, Brooks, Smith, & Prophete LLP, Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum , Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete & Sayaka Karitani , Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete, LLP, Plaza Tower600 Anton Boulevard11th FloorCosta Mesa, CA 92626 TRIAD SENIOR: Webster Sues over Collection of Biometric Data ------------------------------------------------------------ ANGELA WEBSTER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TRIAD SENIOR LIVING, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH10787 (Ill. Cir., Sept. 18, 2019), seeks to redress and curtail the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs sensitive biometric data pursuant to the Biometric Information Privacy Act. When the Defendant or one of its affiliated facilities hires an employee, including Plaintiff, he or she is enrolled in an employee database shared and maintained by and between the Defendant and the affiliate facilities to monitor the time worked by hourly employees. While many employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), the Defendant's employees are required to have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes Loews employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks, the lawsuit says. Triad is a senior living community management corporation that manages independent living, assisted living, memory care, and nursing facilities in eight states, including Illinois.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Haley R. Jenkins, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312 233 1550 Facsimile: 312 233 1560 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] TRIANTOS ENTERPRISES: Fontanez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- JERRY FONTANEZ v. TRIANTOS ENTERPRISES, INC. dba GALAXY HAMBURGERS; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV32961 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 16, 2019), alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by, among other things, failing to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees minimum and overtime wages. TRIANTOS ENTERPRISES, INC. is a California corporation, doing business in Los Angeles County, California, as Galaxy Hamburgers located at 13400 Alondra Ave., in Cerritos, California. The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840 Glendale, California 91203 Telephone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 E-mail: [email protected] TRUEACCORD CORP: Certification of Class Sought in Lindala Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- William Lindala moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit titled WILLIAM LINDALA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. TRUEACCORD CORP., Case No. 2:19-cv-01370-WED (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) (\"The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.\"). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff contends. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] TRUEACCORD CORP: Court Stays Lindala Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as WILLIAM LINDALA, the Plaintiff, v. TRUEACCORD CORP., the Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-1370 (E.D Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings on the motion for class certification. In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), the court suggested that class action plaintiffs \"move to certify the class at the same time that they file their complaint.\" \"The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.\" However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court suggested that the parties \"ask the district court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or investigation.\" The plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings on the motion for class certification is granted. The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under Damasco. On September 20, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly refers to as a \"protective\" motion for class certification. (ECF No. 3.) In this motion the plaintiff moved to certify the class described in the complaint but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on that motion.[CC] UNITED AIRLINES: Vallarta Sues over Misleading Travel Insurance --------------------------------------------------------------- DIANA VALLARTA and LISA SALMONS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-05895-DMR (N.D. Cal., Sept. 20, 2019), relates that the Defendant's website encourages ticket purchasers to protect their trip with travel insurance provided by Allianz or the Travel Guard Group (depending on when the insurance was purchased) -- third-party insurers that have partnered with United to offer travel insurance exclusively through United's website. United does not disclose, however, that it has a financial interest in the travel insurance and, in fact, receives illegal kickback from the insurer in exchange for brokering the insurance sale. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's website misled them into paying for the cost of that illegal kickback, and that the Defendant is therefore liable for these damages, among other things. The Plaintiffs bring claims for unjust enrichment, violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, and for violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Had United disclosed that the price of the travel-insurance product on United's website incorporates an illegal commission paid to United (as opposed to being based solely on underwriting risk and insurer profit), the Plaintiffs would have not purchased the travel insurance and/or would have paid less for travel insurance, the lawsuit says. United Airlines, Inc. is a major American airline headquartered at Willis Tower in Chicago, Illinois. United operates a large domestic and international route network, with an extensive presence in the Asia-Pacific region.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Marc L. Godino, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 9160 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Kevin Landau, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 373-1671 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] - and - Kevin Landau, Esq. Brett Cebulash, Esq. TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP 80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 931-0704 - and - Dennis Stewart, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 UNITED COLLECTION: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL THORSON and MARILYN MUELLER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01364 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) (\"The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.\"). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] VERO BEACH, FL: Doe Can't Proceed Anonymously in Parlor Video Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JOHN DOE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF VERO BEACH, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-14212-ROSENBERG/MAYNARD (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Anonymously. In his class action complaint, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant City violated his Fourth Amendment rights by installing video equipment in a massage parlor and recording the activities within that massage parlor \"on a 24/7 basis\" for a period of 60 days. Defendant, City of Vero Beach, through its police department, violated John Doe's constitutional rights by surreptitiously videotaping him while in a state of undress in a licensed massage parlor. As a result of the video recordings, the Plaintiff was actually charged with crimes of solicitation of prostitution and subjected to public humiliation. Through his Motion, the Plaintiff sought the Court's leave to proceed anonymously, under the pseudonym John Doe. It is the Plaintiff's second attempt to seek the Court's leave to proceed anonymously. He previously sought anonymity by incorporating a motion to proceed anonymously in his Response to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. In the Court's Order Granting the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, the Court also denied the Plaintiff's request to proceed anonymously. However, he was granted leave to amend his complaint and to file a renewed motion to proceed anonymously provided that he contemporaneously files a motion for leave to proceed anonymously, setting forth specific details about the risks the case poses to him and relevant legal support for his request. Quoting Doe v. Frank, Judge Rosenberg explains that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) requires that \"every pleading\" in federal court \"must name all the parties.\" However, the rule is not absolute, and a party may proceed anonymously, by showing that he has a substantial privacy right which outweighs the customary and constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. The Eleventh Circuit has elucidated several factors to be considered in this evaluation: (1) whether the plaintiffs seeking anonymity are challenging governmental activity; (2) whether they will be required to disclose information of the utmost intimacy; (3) whether the plaintiffs will be compelled to admit their intention to engage in illegal conduct and thus risk criminal prosecution; (4) whether the plaintiffs were minors; (5) whether they were threatened with violence or physical harm by proceeding in their own names and; (6) whether their anonymity posed a unique threat of fundamental unfairness to the defendant. Based on her review of the Frank factors, Judge Rosenberg finds that none of these factors weigh in the Plaintiff's favor. As a result, she finds that the case does not present an \"exceptional circumstance\" justifying the Plaintiff's anonymity in the case. Accordingly, she denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed Anonymously. She ordered the Plaintiff to file his Amended Complaint with his full name within two business days of the rendition of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/hs5mwn from Leagle.com. John Doe, Plaintiff, represented by Bradford L. Jefferson, Bradford L Jefferson PA. City of Vero Beach, a Florida Municipality, Defendant, represented by William Edward Lawton -- [email protected] -- Dean Ringers Morgan & Lawton & Gail C. Bradford -- [email protected] -- Dean, Ringers, Morgan & Lawton, PA. VISA INC: Certification of ATM Operators Class Sought ----------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL ATM COUNCIL, INC., et al., the Plaintiffs, v. VISA INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:11-cv-01803-RJL (D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: \"all ATM Operators that originated an Authorized Surcharged ATM Cash Disbursement at a Qualified ATM at any time between October 1, 2007 and the present\"; 2. appointing class representatives; and 3. appointing class counsel.[CC] Class Counsel for Plaintiffs are: Jonathan L. Rubin, Esq. Daniel J. Mogin, Esq. Jennifer M. Oliver, Esq. MOGINRUBIN LLP 1615 M Street, NW, Third Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 630-0616 Facsimile: (877) 247-8586 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] WALGREEN CO: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss first amended class action complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) in the case captioned WASHTENAW COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. WALGREEN CO., GREGORY D. WASSON, and WADE MIQUELON, Defendants. Case No. 15-cv-3187. (N.D. Ill.). Industriens Pensionforsikring, A/S, as lead plaintiff, brings this shareholder class action lawsuit against defendants Walgreen Co. (Walgreens), former Walgreens Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Gregory D. Wasson, and former Walgreens Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Wade Miquelon for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Legal Standard A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim tests the sufficiency of the complaint, not its merits. When considering dismissal of a complaint, the Court accepts all well pleaded factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. To survive a motion to dismiss, plaintiff must state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Rule 9(b) requires plaintiffs to plead with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud. Particularity in pleading fraud, including securities fraud, means describing the who, what, when, where, and how of the fraud. To adequately plead defendants made material misrepresentations or omissions in violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the 34 Act, plaintiff must allege (1) a material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant (2) scienter (3) a connection between the misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a security (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission (5) economic loss and (6) loss causation. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) requires that the complaint specify each statement alleged to be misleading and the reason or reasons why it is misleading. The PSLRA also requires that plaintiffs plead with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind. To establish a strong inference of scienter, the allegations must be more than merely plausible, they must be as compelling as any opposing inference of non-fraudulent intent. Forward-Looking Statements March 25, 2014, Second Quarter Report In the first amended complaint, plaintiff has re-alleged certain FY16 EBIT goal-related statements and added new ones. To start, plaintiff re-alleges that on March 25, 2014, Walgreens issued its second quarter report and press release. That same day, Wasson and Miquelon held a conference call with investors to present the report and answer questions. With respect to the FY16 EBIT goal, Miquelon stated that Walgreens was currently tracking below the Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) needed to achieve the goal, yet Walgreens' presentation slides for the March 25 conference call unequivocally stated the FY16 EBIT goal remained at $9.0 to $9.5 billion. Also, Miquelon stated: \"We continue to recognize that there are risks to achieving this goal; however, we remain focused on delivering it.\" Plaintiff asserts that these statements, in tandem with the slides, were false and misleading because by March 25 defendants knew that the FY16 EBIT goal was tracking at least $1 billion below target. In the September 2016 motion to dismiss ruling, the Court concluded that these statements were not actionable because plaintiff did not sufficiently allege that the $9.0 to $9.5 billion goal was not attainable. To clarify, statements about earnings forecasts or goals may be actionable if they are made with the knowledge that they are incorrect or are otherwise without a reasonable basis. Plaintiff has cured its earlier pleading deficiencies by providing additional allegations raising a strong inference that by March 2014 defendants knew that the $9.0 to $9.5 billion earnings goal was not attainable. For example, in a December 17, 2013, email to Miquelon, the Vice President of Global Finance stated in reference to the earnings shortfall: I can see that we're trying to have adequate upside to offset the risk shown on the slide, but based on what I see, we don't have support to imply this range of value is reasonable. Plaintiff provides other communications and allegations from early 2014 through the beginning of the class period starting in March 2014 that underscore Miquelon's and Wasson's knowledge that by early March 2014, the FY16 EBIT goal of $9.0 to $9.5 billion did not have a reasonable basis and was not attainable. Such allegations include that Walgreens prepared a long-range plan refresh in January and February 2014, which provided management with the forecast of FY16 EBIT at $8.4 billion. Under these allegations, plaintiff has adequately alleged particular facts to show that defendants should not be protected by the safe harbor provision for these March 25 forward-looking statements. May 15, 2014, Goldman Sachs Analyst Report Next, plaintiff adds new goal-related allegations focusing on defendants' statements and omissions made in May 2014. On May 15, Miquelon made statements during investor meetings hosted by Goldman Sachs. That same day, Goldman Sachs issued a report Takeaways from Day 1 of meetings with management, which stated, of the five targets all are tacking on/ahead of plan with the exception being the adj. EBIT goal of at least $9.0bn as core growth has lagged. That said, Walgreens did not back away from this target. Plaintiff also highlights a May 23 Goldman Sachs report that provided additional information discussed with Miquelon at the May 15 meeting. The report stated in pertinent part: During our meetings, Wade Miquelon, CFO, highlighted that Walgreens is tracking on or ahead of plan for each of its five FY16 financial targets with the lone exception of adj. EBIT. That said, management believes this target remains achievable and sees further upside beyond FY16 by leveraging a global footprint, expanding in growth markets, and bringing Alliance's best practices to the US. Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that by March 2014 defendants knew the $9.0 to $9.5 billion earnings goal did not have a reasonable basis and was not attainable. Defendants nevertheless argue that they cannot be held liable for the May 2014 statements written by third-party analysts because defendants did not have the ultimate authority over the content of the analysts' reports. The context in which Goldman Sachs analysts reported Miquelon's statements was the May 15 investor meeting hosted by Goldman Sachs. The May 15 report stated that at the meeting with Miquelon, Miquelon highlighted the FY16 targets, including the EBIT goal. The May 15 report was entitled Takeaways from Day 1 of meetings with management and stated that Walgreens did not back away from this target. Without any attribution to Miquelon, these statements are the author's takeaways or conclusions from the meeting. And, the statement that Walgreens did not back away from the FY16 EBIT target is too broad to create any inference that this statement should be attributed to Miquelon. On the other hand, the May 23 report specifically identified Miquelon as the speaker by stating Wade Miquelon, CFO, highlighted and then immediately stated that management believed the FY16 EBIT target remains achievable. Because the Goldman Sachs report specifically attributed this statement to Miquelon, this May 2014 statement is actionable. Generic drug inflation/reimbursement pressures Plaintiff also brings additional claims related to defendants' allegedly false and misleading statements that concealed or failed to fully disclose the impact of generic drug price inflation and reimbursement pressures. Because these statements are not forward-looking, but instead discuss historical and present facts that are not contingent on any future event, they are not protected by the PSLRA's safe harbor provision. April 17, 2014, J.P Morgan Conference Call On April 17, 2014, J.P. Morgan hosted a conference call with Wasson. At the conference call, the J.P Morgan analyst asked Wasson about the impact of generic price inflation. Wasson replied, we think that it was really kind of a one-time phenomenon and that it was probably an anomaly. He further stated that Walgreens had a better opportunity than anyone to offset that generic inflation. Plaintiff argues that Wasson knew that these statements were false or misleading because the generic inflation and reimbursement problems were structural and systemic not an anomaly or one time phenomenon. Defendants contend that these statements are not actionable because plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege that Wasson knew generic inflation and reimbursement problems were more than an anomaly. On the contrary, plaintiff has adequately alleged that Wasson was aware of the systemic generic drug price inflation and reimbursement pressures at the time he made these statements. Allegations in the first amended complaint, taken as true for purposes of this motion to dismiss, reveal that during the relevant time period, Wasson and Miquelon, as Walgreens' most senior officers, were regularly informed of generic inflation and pricing trends in the generic drug market, along with third-party reimbursement trends, both of which had a substantial impact of Walgreens' profits. Wasson's April 17, 2014 statements survive defendants' motion to dismiss. April 30, 2014, Barclay's Conference Plaintiff next re-alleges its claim in relation to statements made by Walgreens' Head of Investor Relations, Rick Hans, who appeared at the Barclay's Retail and Consumer Discretionary Conference on April 30, 2014. Plaintiff highlights the following question posed to Hans: When we think about maybe this fiscal year, how has the gross margin advantage from generics helped you? I'm not talking about the supply chain changes. In response, Hans stated, we've had a kind of a dearth of new generics. So that caused a big mismatch, it's kind of that peak to trough that we've talked about relative to the introduction of new generics and that had an impact on the margin. Plaintiff asserts that this statement misled investors by explaining that the drop in pharmacy margin was due to the lack of new generic drugs, rather than the generic drug price inflation combined with Walgreen's unfavorable contracts with PBMs. The questioned posed, however, unequivocally states that the inquiry did not involve supply chain changes, such as generic pricing or generic drug price inflation. Rather, the question asked about the gross margin advantages generics have over branded drugs. As previously discussed, generic drugs generate a higher profit margin than branded drugs due to their lower production costs, and, as alleged in the first amended complaint, the profit margins on generic drugs are typically 50% higher than branded competitors. Therefore, Hans' answer concerning the lack of new generics directly responds to the question about the gross margin advantage on generics and not generic drug price inflation. Accordingly, Hans' answer is not misleading nor actionable. May 16, 2014, Morgan Stanley Conference Call Last, plaintiff seeks to revive its claim concerning a May 16, 2014 analyst report issued by Morgan Stanley after a conference call with Wasson and Miquelon. In the report, Morgan Stanley stated Walgreens has not seen any unusual activity in relation to generic price inflation and that its joint venture with Alliance leaves Walgreens in better shape than peers to cope with generic price increases. In the September 2016 ruling, the Court concluded it was unclear who made these statements, therefore, the allegations were insufficient to state a claim. Plaintiff contends that it has cured this deficiency by alleging new surrounding facts in the first amended complaint. The Court agrees. It is undisputed that Wasson and Miquelon were the only Walgreens' executives in attendance on the conference call. Moreover, Wasson's statement that Walgreens has not seen any unusual activity is similar to his earlier statement at the J.P. Morgan investor conference raising an inference that he made the later statement. Plaintiff further relies on Wasson's September 17, 2017 testimony in the SEC proceedings where he stated it was most likely it could've been both of us who addressed the generic price inflation at the May 2014 call. Viewing the well pleaded allegations in plaintiff's favor, its additional allegations sufficiently connect Wasson to the statements made in the May 16 Morgan Stanley report. The May 2014 Morgan Stanley statements thus survive defendant's motion to dismiss. Loss Causation Walgreens further argues that the Court should dismiss all of plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims because plaintiff fails to adequately allege loss causation under the fraud-on-the-market theory of damages. The fraud-on-the market theory is based on the presumption that the market price of shares traded on well-developed markets reflects all publicly available information, and, hence, any material misrepresentations. Walgreens contends that because it withdrew its FY16 earnings target at the June 24, 2014 conference call, the relevant misrepresentations were publicly known on that date. Yet, Walgreens points out, the stock price did not drop until after the August 6, 2014, disclosure. Walgreens therefore argues that because it disclosed the actionable misrepresentations to the public on June 24, over a month before the August 6 stock drop, there was no causal connection to establish loss causation. To prove loss causation, the plaintiff has the burden to establish that the price of the securities they purchased was inflated that is, it was higher than it would have been without the false statements and that it declined once the truth was revealed. The loss causation element of a Section 10(b) claim attempts to distinguish cases where the misrepresentation was responsible for the drop in the share's value from those in which market forces are to blame. At the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff who has suffered an economic loss must provide a defendant with some indication of the loss and the causal connection that the plaintiff has in mind. Drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor, it has adequately alleged a direct casual connection between defendants' various misstatements and omissions and the stock drop on August 6 by asserting that the artificial inflation in Walgreens common stock prices was removed through the corrective disclosure on August 6, which revealed the true magnitude of the FY16 EBIT target shortfall, along with generic price inflation and unfavorable reimbursement contracts. Under the detailed allegations in the first amended complaint, defendants' loss causation argument fails at this procedural posture. Section 20(a) Claims Plaintiff also brings claims based on controlling person liability against Wasson and Miquelon in violation of Section 20(a) of the 34 Act. A violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 is necessary predicate to support a violation of Section 20(a). Defendants argue that plaintiff cannot bring a § 20(a) claim because there is no predicate violation of Section 10(b), an argument that is unavailing at this juncture. The Court thus denies this aspect of defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court grants in part and denies in part defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 23, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3x7s3o4 from Leagle.com. Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Frank Anthony Richter - [email protected] - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, James E. Barz - [email protected] - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Nicole Temkin Schwartzberg , Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087, pro hac vice. Walgreen Co., Defendant, represented by Amy Curtner Andrews - [email protected] Sidley Austin LLP, Heather Benzmiller Sultanian , Sidley Austin LLP, James Wallace Ducayet - [email protected] - Sidley Austin LLP, John M. Skakun III - [email protected] - Sidley Austin Llp & Kristen R. Seeger [email protected] Sidley Austin LLP. Gregory D. Wasson, Defendant, represented by Thomas B. Quinn - [email protected] - Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP & Eli Joseph Litoff - [email protected] - Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP. WALGREEN CO: Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Atwood Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, Douglas E. Atwood, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen J. Peterson; Michelle Brooks; Walgreen Co. Defendants-Appellees. Arkansas Grocers & Retail Merchants Association Amicus on Behalf of Appellee(s), Case No. 16-1152 (8th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders denying Atwood's motion to remand and granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Arkansas citizen Atwood filed a class action complaint in state court against Walgreen Co., an Illinois corporation, and Stephen J. Peterson and Michelle Brooks, who are Arkansas citizens and who serve as the district managers responsible for the 43 Walgreens stores located in Arkansas. Atwood claimed that the Walgreens Balance Rewards program violated Arkansas's statutory prohibition on price discrimination in the sale of manufactured products. Atwood alleged that the program was implemented in all Arkansas Walgreens stores in September 2012. Membership is free and does not require an initial purchase, but customers must provide identifying information, including their names, addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses. After signing up, customers may use their rewards cards to receive discounts on certain products. In April 2015, Atwood and another customer went to three different Arkansas Walgreens stores and purchased the same products. Atwood paid more for the products than the unidentified customer because he did not present a rewards card at checkout and the unidentified customer did. Based on those transactions, Atwood alleged that the program violated Arkansas Code Section 4-75-501. Although the complaint alleged damages and diversity of parties sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (\"CAFA\"), Atwood asserted that the local controversy exception to CAFA jurisdiction applied. The Defendants removed the case to federal district court, alleging jurisdiction under the CAFA. Atwood moved to remand based on the local controversy exception to CAFA jurisdiction. The district court denied Atwood's motion to remand and later granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Atwood appeals, arguing that the court erred in considering extrinsic evidence to decide whether it had jurisdiction, in denying his motion to remand, and in dismissing his complaint on the merits. The Court finds that the affidavits make clear that \"the real target in the action\" is Walgreens and that the district managers' conduct does not form a significant basis for Atwood's claim. In concluding that CAFA removal is not foreclosed by the complaint's conclusory allegations that the local Defendants engaged in the same conduct as the diverse Defendant, the Court respectfully disagrees with the rulings to the contrary in Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, Inc. In light of its determination that the district managers' conduct did not form a significant basis for Atwood's claim, the Court concludes that Atwood has not met his burden of establishing that the local controversy exception to CAFA jurisdiction applies. The Court has also considered and find to be lacking merit Atwood's argument that the district court was without jurisdiction to decide the merits of his case because he did not have Article III standing. Although the Defendants had argued that any injury was caused by Atwood's choice not to participate in the program -- and not by the alleged illegality of the program -- standing in no way depends on the merits of the Plaintiff's contention that particular conduct is illegal. Finally, Atwood argued that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint with prejudice. The Court held the appeal in abeyance pending the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision in Rhodes v. Kroger Co., which held that the defendant grocery chain's rewards program did not violate Arkansas Code Section 4-75-501, because it was only the named plaintiffs' willful refusal to take part in the Kroger Plus program that created the situation that is the primary focus of the class-action complaint. The Arkansas Supreme Court thus concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to state a viable cause of action as a matter of law and affirmed the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice. The Eighth Circuit concludes that Rhodes applies with equal force in the instant case and thus forecloses Atwood's claim. Accordingly, the Eighth Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the Atwood case. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2019 Order is available at https://is.gd/bA4CNG from Leagle.com. Gene Andrew Ludwig -- [email protected] -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. Rodney Paul Moore, I, for Amicus on Behalf of Appellee(s). Chad W. Pekron -- [email protected] -- for Defendant-Appellee. Michael Alan Thompson -- [email protected] -- for Amicus on Behalf of Appellee(s). Robert Ryan Younger -- [email protected] -- for Defendant-Appellee. Ryan Kent Culpepper -- [email protected] -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. Kale L. Ludwig -- [email protected] -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. WALT DISNEY: Website not Accessible to Deaf People, Wineguard Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAY WINEGARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY and AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC. d/b/a EYEWITNESS NEWS ABC 7, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05392 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2019), alleges that Defendants denied the Plaintiff, who is deaf, and deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals' access to goods and services provided to non-disabled individuals through its Website www.abc7ny.com, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the American with Disabilities Act; the New York State Human Rights Law; the New York State Civil Rights Law; and the New York City Human Rights Law. Deaf or hard of hearing individuals require closed captioning to understand audio components of video content. Closed captioning displays text on videos, television programming, or DVD video programming in addition to online websites allowing deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals the same and equally accessible experience as non-deaf or hard of hearing individuals to watch videos by reading the captioned text. Without closed captioning deaf and hard-of-hearing people cannot enjoy video content on the Website while the general public can. The Defendants have videos on its Website without closed captioning, or with limited closed captioning, which are inaccessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. Without closed captioning, deaf and hard-of-hearing people cannot understand the audio portion of the videos on the Website, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class are: Mitchell Segal, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL, P.C. 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 415-0100 Facsimile: (516) 706-6631 WE CARE HOMES: Migues Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective ------------------------------------------------------ NELLIE MIGUES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. WE CARE HOMES, INCORPORATED, And KYLE JONES, Case No. 6:19-cv-00976-MJJ-PJH (W.D. La.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order conditionally certifying the case as a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and approving notice on an expedited basis.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] WELTMAN WEINBERG: Ct. Narrows Claims in Bitzko Case --------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Brenda K. Sannes issued a Memorandum-Decision and Order in the lawsuit titled CHRISTY BITZKO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WELTMAN, WEINBERG & REIS CO., LPA, Case No. 1:17-cv-00458-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), ruling that: -- Defendant's motion is denied in part and granted in part; -- Plaintiff's partial summary judgment motion is denied in part and granted in part; and -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted in part. Plaintiff Christy Bitzko brings this action against the Defendant alleging that it engaged in unlawful debt collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending her a debt collection letter on law firm letterhead even though WWR attorneys were not meaningfully involved in its creation, among other violations. Judge Sannes ruled that the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted as to the Plaintiff's 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(1) \"amount of debt\" claim but is otherwise denied. The Plaintiff's 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(1) \"amount of debt\" claim is dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is granted as to her 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e \"debt increase\" claim but is otherwise denied. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is granted as to her claim that the failure to disclose that the consumer's balance was subject to future interest and/or late fees violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e for the following Rule 23(b)(3) class: All consumers to whom Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA (WWR) mailed letters seeking to collect debts: (i) which were primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; and (ii) which debts were subject to increase based on interest and/or late fees; and (iii) to whom WWR sent letters failing to disclose that the amount of the debt was subject to increase; (iv) during the period from on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action and on or before a date 21 days after the filing of this action. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is otherwise denied. The Plaintiff is appointed as class representative, and the Interim Class Counsel Barshay Sanders, PLLC, is appointed as class counsel. Judge Sannes further directed the parties to meet and confer regarding a proposed class notice and submit a proposed notice to the Court today, October 7, 2019.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 E-mail: [email protected] . The Defendant is represented by: Glenn M. Fjermedal, Esq. DAVIDSON FINK, LLP 28 East Main Street, Suite 1700 Rochester, NY 14614 Telephone: (585) 756-5950 E-mail: [email protected] WEST VIRGINIA: Minors File Civil Rights Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the governor of West Virginia and other officials. The case is styled as Jonathan R. minor, by Next Friend, Sarah Dixon, Anastasia M. minor, by Next Friend, Cheryl Ord, Serena S. minor, by Next Friend, Theo S. minor, by Next Friend, L. Scott Briscoe, Garrett M. minor, by Next Friend, Gretchen C. minor, by Next Friend, April Flowers, Dennis R. minor, by Next Friend, Debbie Stone, Chris K., Calvin K., Carolina K. minors, by Next Friend, Katherine Huffman, Karter W. minor, by Next Friend, Ace L. minor, by Next Friend, Isabelle Santillion and individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Jim Justice in his official capacity as the Governor of West Virginia, Bill Crouch in his official capacity as the Cabinet Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Jeremiah Samples in his official capacity as the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Resources, Linda Watts in her official capacity as the Commissioner of the Bureau for Children and Families; and West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00710 (S.D. W.Va., Sept. 30, 2019). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. James Conley Justice II is an American coal mining and agriculture businessman and politician serving as the 36th Governor of West Virginia since 2017.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian L. Ooten, Esq. James A. Meade, Esq. Richard W. Walters, Esq. SHAFFER & SHAFFER P. O. Box 3973 Charleston, WV 25339-3973 Phone: (304) 369-0511 Fax: (304) 369-5431 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] - and - Erin Snyder, Esq. Jeremiah Underhill, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS OF WEST VIRGINIA 1207 Quarrier Street, Suite 400 Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: (304) 346-0847 Fax: (304) 346-0867 Email: [email protected] [email protected] WHIRLPOOL CORP: NJ Court Narrows Claims in DeFillippo Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JUSTIN DEFILLIPPO, DEREK SCACHETTI, and TIMOTHY BABBITT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-12523-NLH-AMD (D. N.J.), Judge Noel L. Hillman of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint. The putative class action concerns claims by the Plaintiffs and all similarly situated individuals arising out of allegedly defective refrigerators manufactured by the Defendant. Plaintiffs DeFillippo, Scachetti, and Babbitt, on behalf of themselves and others who are similarly situated, claim that the Defendant has violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (\"NJCFA\"), the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (\"TCCWNA\"), New York's General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, and the Magnuson-Moss Act. The Plaintiffs also assert claims against Whirlpool for common law fraud, breach of implied and express warranties, and unjust enrichment. All these claims arise out of Whirlpool's sale of French Door Bottom Mount refrigerators. Whirlpool has moved to dismiss all the claims of each of the Plaintiffs on various bases depending on the particular claim and the plaintiff who asserts it. The Plaintiffs have opposed Whirlpool's motion. Judge Hillman finds that the internal technical service pointers (\"TSPs\") provided by the Plaintiffs show that Whirlpool had knowledge of cooling issues with certain FDBM refrigerator models, and this provides a factual predicate to the Plaintiffs' consumer fraud claims regarding Whirlpool's knowledge of the defect as alleged by the Plaintiffs. The TSPs, as well as Plaintiffs' other averments, are more than sufficient to survive Whirlpools' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' NJCFA and GBL claims, the Judge states. With regard to Whirlpool's argument that because Scachetti's alleged defect manifested outside of the warranty period, his NJCFA claim fails, the Judge does not agree. He agrees with the reasoning of Maniscalo, which presented claims similar to the ones in the instant case. He does not find that the law precludes NJCFA claims in all situations when a defect manifests after the expiration of a warranty. Accordingly, under the allegations lodged in the case, where Scachetti has paid for repairs due to the alleged defect which existed at the time it was sold to the original buyer, still existed when Scachetti took possession of the refrigerator, and which was allegedly known to Whirlpool, Scachetti's NJCFA claim is not barred simply because the defect manifested itself after the expiration of the one-year warranty period. Turning to the Plaintiffs' warranty claims, the Judge holds that a close review of the Plaintiffs' warranty claims demonstrates that their express and implied warranty claims are viable for each Plaintiff at this stage in the case, but not their unconscionability claim. The Court has already determined that the Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded fraud claims based on their allegations that Whirlpool knew of the defect and failed to disclose it to the public, and that Whirlpool lulled owners of the FDBM refrigerators with temporary fixes until the warranty period expired. Those fraud claims, and not a claim for an unconscionable warranty, is the proper path for prosecuting those allegations. Because DeFillippo and Babbitt have pleaded viable claims for Whirlpool's express and implied warranty claims, their MMWA claims may proceed as well. Scachetti's MMWA claim must be dismissed. The Plaintiffs claim that Whirlpool has been unjustly enriched and received an economic benefit from the sale of the FDBM refrigerators to the Plaintiffs. Whirlpool has moved to dismiss this claim advanced by Scachetti and Babbitt because they did not directly purchase their refrigerators from Whirlpool and to in order to sustain an unjust enrichment claim, the Plaintiffs must have conferred a direct benefit on Whirlpool, and not a third party. Beacause Scachetti and Babbitt did not purchase their refrigerators directly from Whirlpool, the Judge holds that their claims against Whirlpool for unjust enrichment must be dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Hillman granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The following claims may proceed against Whirlpool: (i) Count One - Breach of Express Warranty (DeFillippo and Babbitt); (ii) Count Two - Breach of Implied Warranty (DeFillippo and Babbitt); (iii) Count Three - Magnuson-Moss Act (DeFillippo and Babbitt); (iv) Count Four - Unjust Enrichment (DeFillippo); (v) Count Five - Common Law Fraud; (vi) Count Six - New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; (vii) Count Seven - New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act; and (viii) Count Eight - New York General Business Law Sec. 349 and 350. The following claims are dismissed: (i) Count One - Breach of Express Warranty (Scachetti); (ii) Count Two - Breach of Implied Warranty (Scachetti); (iii) Count Three - Breach of Magnuson-Moss Act (Scachetti); and (iv) Count Four - Unjust Enrichment (Scachetti and Babbitt). A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/8h8lxO from Leagle.com. JUSTIN DEFILLIPPO, DEREK SCACHETTI & TIMOTHY BABBITT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by BRUCE HELLER NAGEL -- [email protected] -- NAGEL RICE, LLP, JOSEPH LOPICCOLO -- [email protected] -- POULOS LOPICCOLO PC & RANDEE M. MATLOFF -- [email protected] -- NAGEL RICE, LLP. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by LATHROP BARRERE NELSON, III -- [email protected] -- MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS & MEGAN B. TRESEDER -- [email protected] -- LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP. WILLIS TOWERS: Fourth Circuit Vacates Dismissal of Proxy Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: WILLIS TOWERS WATSON PLC PROXY LITIGATION. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WILLIS TOWERS WATSON PLC; TOWERS WATSON & CO.; WILLIS GROUP HOLDING PLC; VALUEACT CAPITAL MANAGEMENT; JOHN J. HALEY; DOMINIC CASSERLEY; JEFFREY W. UBBEN, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-1874 (4th Cir.), Judge Albert Diaz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of the complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appeal concerns a securities class action by a putative class of former shareholders in Towers. The Plaintiffs allege that several Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act by omitting material facts in proxy documents, rendering statements in those documents false or misleading. The case arises from the merger of Towers and Willis into Willis Towers Watson plc (\"WTW\"). John Haley and Dominic Casserley, the CEOs of Towers and Willis respectively, began discussions in January 2015 about a merger. Negotiations continued for several months. A major investor in Willis, ValueAct Capital Management, and its CEO Jeffrey Ubben were closely involved in the negotiations. ValueAct -- which normally invests in companies for three to five years -- had held shares in Willis for five years, and it sought to increase the value of its stake before it sold. The two companies announced the merger in June 2015. Following the announcement, Towers' stock price dropped by 8.8% while shares in Willis rose by 3.3%. Several banks, analysts, and financial publications criticized the deal as unfair to Towers. But despite the criticism, Haley did not attempt to renegotiate the terms. In October 2015, Towers filed a proxy statement with the US Securities and Exchange Commission in anticipation of a shareholder vote on the merger. The proxy stated that the Towers board had considered all conflicts of interest, even though the board wasn't aware of Haley and Ubben's discussions about compensation. Towers and ValueAct pressed for approval of the merger, but shareholders seemed poised to vote against it. So, Haley approached ValueAct and Willis about renegotiating the merger terms. In November 2015, Towers issued a press release and an update to the proxy statement detailing the revised merger terms. The proxy update said nothing about Haley's compensation deal or Haley's alleged choice not to negotiate the best deal for Towers shareholders. The following month, Towers shareholders approved the merger. WTW's board subsequently initiated share buybacks and crafted a compensation plan for Haley that was substantially similar to what Ubben had proposed before the merger. WTW shareholders approved the compensation plan. Soon after, ValueAct sold its shares in WTW and Ubben resigned from WTW's board. Following the merger, a group of Towers shareholders sued Towers in state court to vindicate their statutory appraisal rights. The state court suit proceeded to discovery. Between February and August of 2017, numerous documents and depositions became public. In the Plaintiffs' telling, those documents revealed (for the first time) the material facts of the class action. Armed with the documents from the state court suit, the Plaintiffs filed suit in a Virginia federal district court in November 2017. The amended class action complaint alleges two counts under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Count I alleges that WTW, Towers, Willis, Haley, and Casserley omitted facts from the proxy documents so as to render statements therein materially false or misleading, in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9. Count II alleges that Haley, Ubben, ValueAct, and Casserley are liable under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as control persons of the organizations that violated Section 14(a). The district court dismissed the Section 14(a) claim on two alternative grounds. First, the court held that the class complaint was barred by the Exchange Act's statute of limitations because a reasonable Plaintiff would have been on notice of the material facts more than one year before the complaint was filed. Second, it held that the complaint failed to allege that the facts omitted from proxy documents were material. The district court also dismissed the Section 20(a) claim because, without the Section 14(a) claim, the plaintiffs could not prove a required predicate securities violation. The appeal followed. Judge Diaz holds that (at the pleading stage) the district court erred in dismissing the Plaintiffs' suit as time barred. There is no dispute that the November 2017 class action complaint was filed within three years of the violation, which took place in 2015. With respect to the separate one-year \"discovery\" limitations period, the district court appeared to hold that it began running when the plaintiffs had inquiry notice. Under that standard, the statute of limitations begins running when the Plaintiffs have such knowledge as would put a reasonably prudent purchaser on notice to inquire, so long as that inquiry would reveal the facts on which the claim is ultimately based. The Judge expresses no opinion on whether the Defendants can prove, after discovery, that the suit is time barred. As a separate ground for dismissing the Section 14(a) claim, the district court held that the alleged omissions described were immaterial as a matter of law because shareholders knew that Haley would be CEO of WTW, and he was therefore operating under a potential conflict of interest. Again, Judge Diaz disagrees with the district court. The Appellate Court finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the omitted facts were material. The district court erred in concluding otherwise, Judge Diaz finds. The Plaintiffs' complaint repeatedly alleges that Haley and Ubben (who the Plaintiffs say was slated to serve on WTW's compensation committee) secretly negotiated Haley's future compensation package. And these are not bare allegations. Rather, the Plaintiffs allege that Haley and Ubben had a meeting on Sept. 10, 2015 that was undisclosed to the Towers board or shareholders, that Ubben presented Haley at that meeting with a written compensation plan, and that Haley's final compensation after the merger was substantially similar to that plan. In their brief, the Defendants presented three alternative grounds for affirming the district court's dismissal order. They first contended that the complaint fails to plead that the alleged omissions rendered any affirmative statements in the proxy materials false or misleading. Next, they contended that the Plaintiffs fail to allege the requisite scienter for their claims because they sound in fraud. Their last argument for affirming concerns the one-year statute of limitations. Judge Diaz finds that none support dismissal of the complaint. First, the Plaintiffs adequately allege that Haley had a conflict of interest that gave him an incentive to close the merger deal even if it was bad for Towers shareholders. And while the proxy statement did include a general disclosure that Towers officers might have different interests than Towers shareholders, that doesn't immunize Towers from liability for making a misleading statement that it had considered all conflicts. Second, because these are issues of first impression in the circuit, and they have not been fully developed in the briefing, the Judge will direct the district court to consider them in the first instance. Lastly, even if he adopted the Defendants' view of the facts, it's not clear that the right course would be imputing that knowledge to the Plaintiff class. Accordingly, Judge Diaz rejects the alternative basis for affirming the district court's decision. Finally, because the district court erred in dismissing the Section 14(a) claim, Judge Diaz vacates the dismissal of the Section 20(a) claim as well. He expressed no opinion on any defenses to liability that the Defendants didn't press on appeal. For the reasons given, Judge Diaz vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with his Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2019 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/a9ixkX from Leagle.com. ARGUED: Salvatore J. Graziano -- [email protected] -- BERNSTEIN, LITOWITZ, BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, New York, New York, for Appellant. John A. Neuwirth -- [email protected] -- WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP, New York, New York; Richard S. Horvath, Jr., ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE MALLORY & NATSIS LLP, San Francisco, California, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: John Rizio-Hamilton -- [email protected] -- Rebecca E. Boon -- [email protected] -- Julia K. Tebor -- [email protected] -- BERNSTEIN, LITOWITZ, BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, New York, New York; Susan R. Podolsky, LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN R. PODOLSKY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Edward J. Fuhr -- [email protected] -- Eric H. Feiler -- [email protected] -- Johnathon E. Schronce -- [email protected] -- HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Joshua S. Amsel, Amanda K. Pooler, WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP, New York, New York, for Appellees Willis Towers Watson PLC, Towers Watson & Co., Willis Group Holding PLC, John J. Haley, and Dominic Casserley. WINDHAM PROFESSIONALS: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH WOOD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WINDHAM PROFESSIONALS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01329 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) (\"The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.\"). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] YOUNIQUE, LLC: Court Grants Bid to Certify Settlement Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Meghan Schmitt, et al., the Plaintiff v. Younique, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01397-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. James V. Selna entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiffs' motion certifying proposed Settlement Class; 2. granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement; 3. directing dissemination of notice to the Class pursuant to the proposed notice plan; and 4. appointing Heffler Claims Group as the Settlement Administrator for the dissemination of notice. The Court finds that (1) common factual and legal issues predominate over individual questions, and (2) a class action is a superior method to resolve the class claims. Class counsel shall file a motion for final settlement approval within 45 days of the Response Deadline, the Court says.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are: Adam Gonnelli, Esq. Jason Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER LAW GROUP 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212 969-7811 Facsimile: 888 749-7747 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for the Defendants are: Sascha Henry, Esq. Abby Meyer, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN 333 S Hope St Los Angeles, CA 90071 ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***",
"URL": "http://bankrupt.com/CAR_Public/191007.mbx"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Google can't enforce German Microsoft injunction: ruling Dan Levine SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Friday ruled that Google Inc’s Motorola Mobility unit cannot enforce a patent injunction that it obtained against Microsoft Corp in Germany, diminishing Google’s leverage in the ongoing smartphone patent wars. The injunction would have barred Microsoft from “offering, marketing, using or importing or possessing” in Germany some products including the Xbox 360 and certain Windows software. The ruling against the German injunction came from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Microsoft deputy general counsel David Howard said the company was pleased with the ruling. A representative for Google’s Motorola unit declined to comment. Brian Love, a professor at Santa Clara Law school in Silicon Valley, said the decision helps Microsoft counteract a favorable dynamic for Google in Germany. “To some extent Germany has a reputation as place you can go and get an injunction relatively easy,” Love said. The current Xbox 360 is the market-leading console in the United States. Microsoft is expected to unveil its next generation Xbox video game console in 2013. Microsoft has said that Motorola’s patents are standard, essential parts of its software and that Motorola is asking far too much in royalties for their use. Google closed on its $12.5 billion Motorola Mobility acquisition this year. Microsoft sued Motorola in the United States in 2010, and Motorola then filed a lawsuit in Germany. Earlier this year, Microsoft announced plans to move its European distribution center to the Netherlands from Germany ahead of a possible injunction. After a court in Mannheim issued the sales ban, U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle granted Microsoft’s request to put the German order on hold earlier this year. According to Robart, the ruling would remain in effect until he could determine whether Motorola could appropriately seek a sales ban based on its standard essential patents. In its ruling on Friday, a three-judge 9th Circuit unanimously upheld Robart’s order. Since Microsoft had already brought a lawsuit against Motorola for breach of contract in the United States, U.S. courts have the power to put the German injunction on hold, the 9th Circuit said. “At bottom, this case is a private dispute under Washington state contract law between two U.S. corporations,” the court ruled. European regulators are investigating claims that Motorola over-charged Microsoft and Apple Inc for use of its patents in their products and thereby breached antitrust rules. The case in the 9th Circuit is Microsoft Corporation vs. Motorola Inc, Motorola Mobility Inc and General Instrument Corporation, 12-35352.",
"URL": "https://www.reuters.com/article/net-us-microsoft-google-ruling/google-cant-enforce-german-microsoft-injunction-ruling-idUSBRE88R1HH20120929"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Washington [US], January 18 (ANI): Microsoft Corporation will lay off approximately 10,000 employees by the end of the third fiscal quarter of 2023 in response to macroeconomic conditions and changing customer priorities, the US Securities and Exchange Commission said on Wednesday. \"On January 18, 2023, Microsoft Corporation announced to its employees a series of actions it is taking in response to macroeconomic conditions and changing customer priorities. These actions include workforce reductions of approximately 10,000 employees by the end of the third fiscal quarter of 2023, changes to our hardware portfolio, and lease consolidation to create higher density across our workspaces,\" the US Securities and Exchange Commission said in a statement. \"Collectively these actions will result in a charge of USD 1.2 billion in the second quarter of our 2023 fiscal year, representing a USD 0.12 negative impact to diluted earnings per share,\" the statement added. Earlier, it was reported that Microsoft was laying off thousands of employees to cut 5 per cent of its workforce. Thousands of job cuts are expected in human resources and engineering divisions on Wednesday, Reuters reported citing Sky News. The layoffs would be the latest in the US technology sector, where companies including Amazon.com Inc and Meta Platforms Inc have announced retrenchment exercises in response to slowing demand and a worsening global economic outlook. The company had 221,000 full-time employees, including 122,000 in the United States and 99,000 internationally, as of June 30, according to filings. Microsoft is under pressure to maintain growth rates at its cloud unit Azure, after several quarters of the downturn in the personal computer market hurt Windows and devices sales, Reuters reported. It had said in July last year that a small number of roles had been eliminated. In October, news site Axios reported that Microsoft had laid off under 1,000 employees across several divisions. Shares of Microsoft, which is set to report quarterly results on January 24, were marginally higher in late afternoon trading, reported Reuters. Microsoft's move could indicate that the tech sector may continue to shed jobs. Microsoft is the latest big tech company to face a challenging economy, and the job cuts will come just days after Microsoft implemented a new unlimited time off policy. Microsoft employees that have an unused vacation balance will get a one-time payout in April, and managers will be able to approve unlimited \"Discretionary Time Off.\"The cuts also come just weeks after Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella warned of two years of challenges ahead for the tech industry. In an interview with CNBC, Nadella admitted Microsoft wasn't \"immune to the global changes\" and spoke of the need for tech companies to be efficient. (ANI)",
"URL": "https://www.hongkongnews.net/news/273391666/microsoft-to-lay-off-10000-employees-by-third-quarter-of-2023"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "19 Jan 2023, 02:55 GMT+10 Microsoft to lay off 10,000 employees by third quarter of 2023 Washington [US], January 18 (ANI): Microsoft Corporation will lay off approximately 10,000 employees by the end of the third fiscal quarter of 2023 in response to macroeconomic conditions and changing customer priorities, the US Securities and Exchange Commission said on Wednesday. \"On January 18, 2023, Microsoft Corporation announced to its employees a series of actions it is taking in response to macroeconomic conditions and changing customer priorities. These actions include workforce reductions of approximately 10,000 employees by the end of the third fiscal quarter of 2023, changes to our hardware portfolio, and lease consolidation to create higher density across our workspaces,\" the US Securities and Exchange Commission said in a statement. \"Collectively these actions will result in a charge of USD 1.2 billion in the second quarter of our 2023 fiscal year, representing a USD 0.12 negative impact to diluted earnings per share,\" the statement added. Earlier, it was reported that Microsoft was laying off thousands of employees to cut 5 per cent of its workforce. Thousands of job cuts are expected in human resources and engineering divisions on Wednesday, Reuters reported citing Sky News. The layoffs would be the latest in the US technology sector, where companies including Amazon.com Inc and Meta Platforms Inc have announced retrenchment exercises in response to slowing demand and a worsening global economic outlook. The company had 221,000 full-time employees, including 122,000 in the United States and 99,000 internationally, as of June 30, according to filings. Microsoft is under pressure to maintain growth rates at its cloud unit Azure, after several quarters of the downturn in the personal computer market hurt Windows and devices sales, Reuters reported. It had said in July last year that a small number of roles had been eliminated. In October, news site Axios reported that Microsoft had laid off under 1,000 employees across several divisions. Shares of Microsoft, which is set to report quarterly results on January 24, were marginally higher in late afternoon trading, reported Reuters. Microsoft's move could indicate that the tech sector may continue to shed jobs. Microsoft is the latest big tech company to face a challenging economy, and the job cuts will come just days after Microsoft implemented a new unlimited time off policy. Microsoft employees that have an unused vacation balance will get a one-time payout in April, and managers will be able to approve unlimited \"Discretionary Time Off.\"The cuts also come just weeks after Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella warned of two years of challenges ahead for the tech industry. In an interview with CNBC, Nadella admitted Microsoft wasn't \"immune to the global changes\" and spoke of the need for tech companies to be efficient. (ANI)",
"URL": "https://www.newzealandnews.net/news/273391666/microsoft-to-lay-off-10000-employees-by-third-quarter-of-2023"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Washington [US], January 18 (ANI): Microsoft Corporation will lay off approximately 10,000 employees by the end of the third fiscal quarter of 2023 in response to macroeconomic conditions and changing customer priorities, the US Securities and Exchange Commission said on Wednesday. \"On January 18, 2023, Microsoft Corporation announced to its employees a series of actions it is taking in response to macroeconomic conditions and changing customer priorities. These actions include workforce reductions of approximately 10,000 employees by the end of the third fiscal quarter of 2023, changes to our hardware portfolio, and lease consolidation to create higher density across our workspaces,\" the US Securities and Exchange Commission said in a statement. \"Collectively these actions will result in a charge of USD 1.2 billion in the second quarter of our 2023 fiscal year, representing a USD 0.12 negative impact to diluted earnings per share,\" the statement added. Earlier, it was reported that Microsoft was laying off thousands of employees to cut 5 per cent of its workforce. Thousands of job cuts are expected in human resources and engineering divisions on Wednesday, Reuters reported citing Sky News. The layoffs would be the latest in the US technology sector, where companies including Amazon.com Inc and Meta Platforms Inc have announced retrenchment exercises in response to slowing demand and a worsening global economic outlook. The company had 221,000 full-time employees, including 122,000 in the United States and 99,000 internationally, as of June 30, according to filings. Microsoft is under pressure to maintain growth rates at its cloud unit Azure, after several quarters of the downturn in the personal computer market hurt Windows and devices sales, Reuters reported. It had said in July last year that a small number of roles had been eliminated. In October, news site Axios reported that Microsoft had laid off under 1,000 employees across several divisions. Shares of Microsoft, which is set to report quarterly results on January 24, were marginally higher in late afternoon trading, reported Reuters. Microsoft's move could indicate that the tech sector may continue to shed jobs. Microsoft is the latest big tech company to face a challenging economy, and the job cuts will come just days after Microsoft implemented a new unlimited time off policy. Microsoft employees that have an unused vacation balance will get a one-time payout in April, and managers will be able to approve unlimited \"Discretionary Time Off.\"The cuts also come just weeks after Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella warned of two years of challenges ahead for the tech industry. In an interview with CNBC, Nadella admitted Microsoft wasn't \"immune to the global changes\" and spoke of the need for tech companies to be efficient. (ANI)",
"URL": "https://www.mexicostar.com/news/273391666/microsoft-to-lay-off-10000-employees-by-third-quarter-of-2023"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Washington [US], January 18 (ANI): Microsoft Corporation will lay off approximately 10,000 employees by the end of the third fiscal quarter of 2023 in response to macroeconomic conditions and changing customer priorities, the US Securities and Exchange Commission said on Wednesday. \"On January 18, 2023, Microsoft Corporation announced to its employees a series of actions it is taking in response to macroeconomic conditions and changing customer priorities. These actions include workforce reductions of approximately 10,000 employees by the end of the third fiscal quarter of 2023, changes to our hardware portfolio, and lease consolidation to create higher density across our workspaces,\" the US Securities and Exchange Commission said in a statement. \"Collectively these actions will result in a charge of USD 1.2 billion in the second quarter of our 2023 fiscal year, representing a USD 0.12 negative impact to diluted earnings per share,\" the statement added. Earlier, it was reported that Microsoft was laying off thousands of employees to cut 5 per cent of its workforce. Thousands of job cuts are expected in human resources and engineering divisions on Wednesday, Reuters reported citing Sky News. The layoffs would be the latest in the US technology sector, where companies including Amazon.com Inc and Meta Platforms Inc have announced retrenchment exercises in response to slowing demand and a worsening global economic outlook. The company had 221,000 full-time employees, including 122,000 in the United States and 99,000 internationally, as of June 30, according to filings. Microsoft is under pressure to maintain growth rates at its cloud unit Azure, after several quarters of the downturn in the personal computer market hurt Windows and devices sales, Reuters reported. It had said in July last year that a small number of roles had been eliminated. In October, news site Axios reported that Microsoft had laid off under 1,000 employees across several divisions. Shares of Microsoft, which is set to report quarterly results on January 24, were marginally higher in late afternoon trading, reported Reuters. Microsoft's move could indicate that the tech sector may continue to shed jobs. Microsoft is the latest big tech company to face a challenging economy, and the job cuts will come just days after Microsoft implemented a new unlimited time off policy. Microsoft employees that have an unused vacation balance will get a one-time payout in April, and managers will be able to approve unlimited \"Discretionary Time Off.\"The cuts also come just weeks after Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella warned of two years of challenges ahead for the tech industry. In an interview with CNBC, Nadella admitted Microsoft wasn't \"immune to the global changes\" and spoke of the need for tech companies to be efficient. (ANI) ",
"URL": "https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/273391666/microsoft-to-lay-off-10000-employees-by-third-quarter-of-2023"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Washington [US], January 18 (ANI): Microsoft Corporation will lay off approximately 10,000 employees by the end of the third fiscal quarter of 2023 in response to macroeconomic conditions and changing customer priorities, the US Securities and Exchange Commission said on Wednesday. \"On January 18, 2023, Microsoft Corporation announced to its employees a series of actions it is taking in response to macroeconomic conditions and changing customer priorities. These actions include workforce reductions of approximately 10,000 employees by the end of the third fiscal quarter of 2023, changes to our hardware portfolio, and lease consolidation to create higher density across our workspaces,\" the US Securities and Exchange Commission said in a statement. \"Collectively these actions will result in a charge of USD 1.2 billion in the second quarter of our 2023 fiscal year, representing a USD 0.12 negative impact to diluted earnings per share,\" the statement added. Earlier, it was reported that Microsoft was laying off thousands of employees to cut 5 per cent of its workforce. Thousands of job cuts are expected in human resources and engineering divisions on Wednesday, Reuters reported citing Sky News. The layoffs would be the latest in the US technology sector, where companies including Amazon.com Inc and Meta Platforms Inc have announced retrenchment exercises in response to slowing demand and a worsening global economic outlook. The company had 221,000 full-time employees, including 122,000 in the United States and 99,000 internationally, as of June 30, according to filings. Microsoft is under pressure to maintain growth rates at its cloud unit Azure, after several quarters of the downturn in the personal computer market hurt Windows and devices sales, Reuters reported. It had said in July last year that a small number of roles had been eliminated. In October, news site Axios reported that Microsoft had laid off under 1,000 employees across several divisions. Shares of Microsoft, which is set to report quarterly results on January 24, were marginally higher in late afternoon trading, reported Reuters. Microsoft's move could indicate that the tech sector may continue to shed jobs. Microsoft is the latest big tech company to face a challenging economy, and the job cuts will come just days after Microsoft implemented a new unlimited time off policy. Microsoft employees that have an unused vacation balance will get a one-time payout in April, and managers will be able to approve unlimited \"Discretionary Time Off.\"The cuts also come just weeks after Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella warned of two years of challenges ahead for the tech industry. In an interview with CNBC, Nadella admitted Microsoft wasn't \"immune to the global changes\" and spoke of the need for tech companies to be efficient. (ANI)",
"URL": "https://www.singaporestar.com/news/273391666/microsoft-to-lay-off-10000-employees-by-third-quarter-of-2023"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Washington [US], January 18 (ANI): Microsoft Corporation will lay off approximately 10,000 employees by the end of the third fiscal quarter of 2023 in response to macroeconomic conditions and changing customer priorities, the US Securities and Exchange Commission said on Wednesday. \"On January 18, 2023, Microsoft Corporation announced to its employees a series of actions it is taking in response to macroeconomic conditions and changing customer priorities. These actions include workforce reductions of approximately 10,000 employees by the end of the third fiscal quarter of 2023, changes to our hardware portfolio, and lease consolidation to create higher density across our workspaces,\" the US Securities and Exchange Commission said in a statement. \"Collectively these actions will result in a charge of USD 1.2 billion in the second quarter of our 2023 fiscal year, representing a USD 0.12 negative impact to diluted earnings per share,\" the statement added. Earlier, it was reported that Microsoft was laying off thousands of employees to cut 5 per cent of its workforce. Thousands of job cuts are expected in human resources and engineering divisions on Wednesday, Reuters reported citing Sky News. The layoffs would be the latest in the US technology sector, where companies including Amazon.com Inc and Meta Platforms Inc have announced retrenchment exercises in response to slowing demand and a worsening global economic outlook. The company had 221,000 full-time employees, including 122,000 in the United States and 99,000 internationally, as of June 30, according to filings. Microsoft is under pressure to maintain growth rates at its cloud unit Azure, after several quarters of the downturn in the personal computer market hurt Windows and devices sales, Reuters reported. It had said in July last year that a small number of roles had been eliminated. In October, news site Axios reported that Microsoft had laid off under 1,000 employees across several divisions. Shares of Microsoft, which is set to report quarterly results on January 24, were marginally higher in late afternoon trading, reported Reuters. Microsoft's move could indicate that the tech sector may continue to shed jobs. Microsoft is the latest big tech company to face a challenging economy, and the job cuts will come just days after Microsoft implemented a new unlimited time off policy. Microsoft employees that have an unused vacation balance will get a one-time payout in April, and managers will be able to approve unlimited \"Discretionary Time Off.\"The cuts also come just weeks after Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella warned of two years of challenges ahead for the tech industry. In an interview with CNBC, Nadella admitted Microsoft wasn't \"immune to the global changes\" and spoke of the need for tech companies to be efficient. (ANI)",
"URL": "https://www.philippinetimes.com/news/273391666/microsoft-to-lay-off-10000-employees-by-third-quarter-of-2023"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Washington [US], January 18 (ANI): Microsoft Corporation will lay off approximately 10,000 employees by the end of the third fiscal quarter of 2023 in response to macroeconomic conditions and changing customer priorities, the US Securities and Exchange Commission said on Wednesday. \"On January 18, 2023, Microsoft Corporation announced to its employees a series of actions it is taking in response to macroeconomic conditions and changing customer priorities. These actions include workforce reductions of approximately 10,000 employees by the end of the third fiscal quarter of 2023, changes to our hardware portfolio, and lease consolidation to create higher density across our workspaces,\" the US Securities and Exchange Commission said in a statement. \"Collectively these actions will result in a charge of USD 1.2 billion in the second quarter of our 2023 fiscal year, representing a USD 0.12 negative impact to diluted earnings per share,\" the statement added. Earlier, it was reported that Microsoft was laying off thousands of employees to cut 5 per cent of its workforce. Thousands of job cuts are expected in human resources and engineering divisions on Wednesday, Reuters reported citing Sky News. The layoffs would be the latest in the US technology sector, where companies including Amazon.com Inc and Meta Platforms Inc have announced retrenchment exercises in response to slowing demand and a worsening global economic outlook. The company had 221,000 full-time employees, including 122,000 in the United States and 99,000 internationally, as of June 30, according to filings. Microsoft is under pressure to maintain growth rates at its cloud unit Azure, after several quarters of the downturn in the personal computer market hurt Windows and devices sales, Reuters reported. It had said in July last year that a small number of roles had been eliminated. In October, news site Axios reported that Microsoft had laid off under 1,000 employees across several divisions. Shares of Microsoft, which is set to report quarterly results on January 24, were marginally higher in late afternoon trading, reported Reuters. Microsoft's move could indicate that the tech sector may continue to shed jobs. Microsoft is the latest big tech company to face a challenging economy, and the job cuts will come just days after Microsoft implemented a new unlimited time off policy. Microsoft employees that have an unused vacation balance will get a one-time payout in April, and managers will be able to approve unlimited \"Discretionary Time Off.\"The cuts also come just weeks after Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella warned of two years of challenges ahead for the tech industry. In an interview with CNBC, Nadella admitted Microsoft wasn't \"immune to the global changes\" and spoke of the need for tech companies to be efficient. (ANI)",
"URL": "https://www.sierraleonetimes.com/news/273391666/microsoft-to-lay-off-10000-employees-by-third-quarter-of-2023"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": " Last Updated: October 11 2019 Article by James B. Musgrove and Jeffrey B. SimpsonMcMillan LLP These appeals raise a fundamental question: are courts at a stage where the balance struck by Parliament of Canada's competition law should be upset by applying new principles of liability for price-fixing cases, resulting in near-automatic certification of class actions? In doing so, are courts going a bridge too far?1 Introduction On September 20th of this year the Supreme Court of Canada released its long anticipated decision in Pioneer Corporation et al v. Godfrey, which dealt with a number of important cartel class action questions. It is the first meaningful decision by the Supreme Court in the area in more than 6 years2. So much anticipated was the decision that many pending cartel class actions had been halted or paused pending the decision in Godfrey. Presumably those paused cases will now commence again and the ruling in Godfrey will inform those cases. As foreshadowed in the title of this Brief, by and large that information will not be welcome for defendants. The Godfrey Issues Godfrey brought to the Supreme Court a number of key issues which had been the subject of debate within and amongst lower courts over the last number of years. These included the applicable limitation period for actions alleging a breach of the Competition Act (\"Act\"); whether umbrella purchasers (that is, purchasers of the relevant product who buy it not from alleged conspirators, but rather from third parties who did not participate in a conspiracy) have a cause of action; whether the Act excludes parallel or similar common law causes of action, such as civil conspiracy; and, finally, whether it is necessary at the certification stage to be able to show a methodology which can demonstrate injury to each individual proposed class member, or merely injury to \"the level\" (of purchaser – that is indirect purchasers once, twice, thrice, etc. removed from the initial purchase). As noted, these questions were all answered to the advantage of plaintiffs and the disadvantage of defendants, with the exception of an important subset of the proof of injury question, discussed below. Limitation Period Issues (i) Discoverability Section 36 of the Act provides for a right of civil recovery for those who are injured as a result of breaches of the criminal provisions of the Act. Section 36(4) provides the following specific statutory limitation period: \"No action may be brought...after two years from (i) a day on which the conduct was engaged in... The question which the Supreme Court was asked to answer in relation to this provision was whether it means that the limitation period runs from the last day on which the conspirators conspired, or whether the discoverability principle applies, such that the cause of action does not accrue for the purposes of the running of the limitation period until the material facts on which it is based have been discovered or ought to have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence. The Court noted that whether or not the discoverability principle applies is a matter of construction of the relevant statute. Where the event triggering a limitation period is an element in a cause of action, discoverability will apply. The Court found that because the limitation period states that it runs two years from \"a day on which the conduct [contrary to Part VI] was engaged in\" the event triggering the limitation period is an element of the underlying cause of action. Therefore, the limitation period is subject to the discoverability principle.3 The majority of the Court was bolstered in its conclusion that this was the appropriate way to approach the matter by considering the overall statutory scheme, noting that price fixing conspiracies are invariably conducted through secrecy and deception, meaning they are by their very nature unknown to potential claimants. Therefore it would have been absurd, in the Court's view, and would render the cause of action granted by section 36 almost meaningless, if the discoverability principle did not apply. The Court also noted that application of discoverability to the limitation period was supported by the objects of the statute, and by the unfairness of allowing wrongdoers to escape liability. (ii) Fraudulent Concealment The plaintiff had argued that, even if the discoverability principle did not apply, the limitation period should be extended beyond two years pursuant to the doctrine of fraudulent concealment. Because of its decision on discoverability the Court did not have to consider fraudulent concealment, but it did. It noted that fraudulent concealment is an equitable doctrine that prevents limitation periods being used as an instrument of injustice. It provides that where a defendant fraudulently conceals the existence of the causes of action the limitation period is suspended until the plaintiff discovers the fraud or ought reasonably to have discovered the fraud. The issue was whether there has to be a 'special relationship' between the two parties concerned for fraudulent concealment to apply. The Court found that was not the case. A special relationship could be one reason for the doctrine of fraudulent concealment to apply but that, in addition, if it was unconscionable for the defendant to rely on an advantage gained by having concealed the existence of a cause of action the equitable doctrine could apply. Umbrella Purchasers As noted above, the concept of umbrella purchasers relates to whether or not customers buying the cartelized product from third parties, not participants in the conspiracy, have a cause of action against the conspirators. The claim is based on the theory that, as the Court in Godfrey put it, \"a rising tide lifts all boats\". This issue had been a debate in a number of courts of appeal. The defendants argued that allowing claims by umbrella purchasers would expose defendants to indeterminate liability. The Supreme Court determined that the question was one of statutory interpretation and, if the alleged injured person can prove injury, section 36 provides that they have a cause of action against those who engaged in the conduct and caused the injury. It noted that while proof might be difficult, if the umbrella purchaser can prove such loss or damage the Act gives them a cause of action. It found that approach to be consistent with the purposes of the Act to discourage anticompetitive conduct and provide a recourse for those who suffer damages as a result. It found that this did not expose defendants to indeterminate liability because the umbrella purchasers would have to show that they suffered injury resulting from the unlawful conduct. Additional Causes of Action Beyond The Competition Act The defendants in Godfrey argued that section 36 of the Act, providing for the right to claim damages following from breach of the criminal provisions of the Act, represented a complete code, ousting other parallel common law causes of action such as civil conspiracy to injure. Again, a number of lower Court rulings had explored this issue with varying outcomes. The Supreme Court has answered that question reasonably clearly. It found that section 36 is not duplicative of the tort of civil conspiracy nor does it represent a comprehensive and exhaustive code regarding anticompetitive conspiratorial conduct. Loss as a Common Issue The most complex and lengthy aspect of the majority decision in Godfrey, and likely that which will have the most practical impact, is the question of what proof the plaintiff must offer of loss or injury, at the certification stage, in order to have a class action certified. In order to certify a class action there must be proof of injury, as injury is an element of the cause of action itself. That has led to a debate in the cases over the years as to whether the plaintiff has to offer a methodology to show injury to all proposed class members, or only need offer a methodology to show that injury resulted to \"the level\" of purchaser (that is to the level of direct purchaser, to the level of the immediate indirect purchaser, to the level of the secondary indirect purchaser, etc.) of the cartelized product. In considering this question, the Supreme Court in Godfrey first confirmed its earlier decision in Vivendi4 that success for one class member cannot be failure for another class member. Courts are not to certify a class action where some members of the proposed plaintiff class will be injured by the success of the action. But then the question is whether the methodology proposed must be able to demonstrate that there was injury to all class members at a particular level of purchase, or simply that the injury reached that level of purchaser, whether or not such methodology can demonstrate injury to any particular purchaser at that level. The Court found that the issue in Godfrey may be moot in that the plaintiffs' expert purported to opine that he could show injury to all class members at various levels of purchase. Leaving that aside, the Court found that it was not necessary to have a methodology which could show that each and every class member suffered a loss; rather, only that the methodology proposed be sufficiently credible to establish that the loss reached the requisite purchaser level. It found that showing that loss reached a particular level of purchaser will significantly advance litigation, and is therefore all that is necessary to certify the action. One bright spot for defendants is that the Supreme Court criticized the court below for stating \"the aggregate damages provisions...allow for an aggregate award even where some class members have suffered no financial loss\". The Supreme Court found that this was not so. Rather, the Court found that, where the evidence at trial showed that the damage could be shown to reach the relevant level of purchaser by way of aggregate evidence, but that it was not possible to determine which purchasers at that level had suffered damage and which had not, then ultimately it might be that individual issues trials would be required to determine which of the class members suffered damage and which did not. Aggregate damages could not be awarded to obviate proof of injury. Conclusion As noted at the outset, the Godfrey case represents a fairly clear victory for plaintiffs seeking to certify price fixing class actions. It reduces the burden on plaintiffs to show a methodology to prove injury as a condition of certification; it extends the potential limitation periods; it expands the class of plaintiffs to those who did not buy from the price-fixers; and it confirms a broader potential set of causes of action. If there is a silver lining for defendants it falls on the post-certification side of the ledger. The Court noted that, while it is possible to bring an action on behalf of umbrella purchasers, it is likely to be difficult for them to prove damages. As well, and more significantly, it noted that while an action may be certified even if the plaintiff cannot offer a methodology which demonstrates who suffered injury by use of common evidence; nevertheless, if class members seek to actually obtain damages they must prove injury at trial, either with common evidence, if it is available, or by separate trials, if necessary. There is no doubt that making class actions easier to certify will result in more payments to plaintiffs – simply because the vast majority of class actions settle if certified. But, if cases become easier and easier to certify – as appears to be the case, such that it is now unambiguously easier to certify class actions in Canada than it is in the United States – the result may be that more cases will be taken to trial, where proof of injury may not be possible. At some point Canadian courts may decide that ease of certification has gone too far. As Madam Justice Côté, in dissent, seems to have indicated in the quote which begins this Brief, the balance may be somewhat off kilter in the certification of competition law class actions at the moment. When things are unbalanced they tend to come back into balance over time. In the interim we may see fewer, or more focused certification battles, with some defendants choosing to go directly to trial, where their prospects may be brighter. Time will tell. Footnotes 1 Côté J., in dissent, in Godfrey. 2 Since Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 447. 3 This was the decision of the majority, but not of Madam Justice Côté, in dissent. 4 Vivendi Canada Inc. v. Dell'Ariello, [2014] 1 SCR 3. The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained. © McMillan LLP 2019 To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com. Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article. Do you have a Question or Comment?Click here to email the AuthorInterested in the next Webinar on this Topic?Click here to register your Interest ContributorJames B. MusgroveMcMillan LLP Email FirmView Website Events from this Firm More from this Firm More from this Author News About this Firm Authors James B. MusgroveJeffrey B. Simpson More Popular Related Articles on Anti-trust/Competition Law from Canada Supreme Court Of Canada Determines That Limitation Period Contained In S. 36(4)(a)(i) Of The Competition Act Is Subject To Discoverability Dentons In Pioneer Corp. v. Godfrey, 2019 SCC 42, an 8-1 majority of the Supreme Court of Canada determined that the discoverability rule applies to the limitation period in s. Competition Bureau Intensifies Focus On Non-Notifiable Transactions, Digital Economy Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP The Canadian Competition Bureau (Bureau) issued two announcements in September 2019 that impact companies doing business in Canada. Supreme Court Of Canada Issues Landmark Competition Class Action Decision In Godfrey Appeals Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Today, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a landmark competition class action decision in Toshiba Corporation, et al v Neil Godfrey and Pioneer Corporation, et al v Neil Godfrey. Supreme Court Of Canada: Substance-Over-Form Dictates Whether Discoverability Applies To Statutory Limitations Theall Group LLP There are many statutes containing limitation periods that bar plaintiffs from bringing an action after a specified period of time. Godfrey v Sony: Supreme Court Protects Victims Of Price-Fixing Conspiracies Siskinds LLP On September 20, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a decision in Godfrey v Sony Corp., a class action related to alleged price-fixing in the market for optical disc drives (\"ODDs\"). In association with Mondaq Advice Centres (MACs) Competition and Antitrust Labour and Employment Intellectual Property More Advice CentersRelated Topics Anti-trust/Competition Law Antitrust, EU Competition Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration Class Actions Personal Injury Related Articles Making It Rain: Supreme Court Allows Umbrella Purchaser Claims Torys LLP Competition Bureau Reinforces Its Focus On Non-Notifiable Transactions McCarthy Tétrault LLP Supreme Court Class Action Decision In Godfrey Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP Supreme Court Of Canada Clarifies Procedures For Class-Action Certification Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP The Impact Of Informer Privilege On The Competition Bureau's Immunity Program Fasken Up-coming Events Search Region / Country...WorldwideLatin AmericaEuropeAsia PacificMiddle EastAsiaEuropean UnionBrazilCanadaChinaGermanyIndiaIrelandNetherlandsSwitzerlandUnited Arab EmiratesUKUnited StatesTopic...Accounting and AuditAnti-trust/Competition Law- Antitrust, EU Competition - Cartels, MonopoliesCorporate/Commercial Law- Corporate and Company Law- Corporate Governance- M&A/Private EquityEmployment and HR- Contract of Employment- Discrimination, Disability & Sexual Harassment- Employee Benefits & Compensation- Employee Rights/ Labour Relations- Employment Litigation/ Tribunals- Health & Safety- Energy Law- RenewablesFamily and Matrimonial- Wills/ Intestacy/ Estate PlanningFinance and Banking- Debt Capital Markets- Financial Services- Fund Management/ REITsFood, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences- Food and Drugs Law- HealthcareInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-structuring- Financial Restructuring- Insolvency/Bankruptcy- Insurance Laws and ProductsIntellectual Property- CopyrightLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration- Disclosure & Electronic Discovery & PrivilegeMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment- Advertising, Marketing & BrandingPrivacy- Data Protection- Privacy ProtectionReal Estate and Construction- Real Estate- Industry Updates & Analysis- Knowledge Management- TechnologyTax- Tax AuthoritiesTechnology- Fin Tech- New Technology- SecurityWealth Management- Wealth & Asset ManagementShow More FiltersTimeframe...This WeekNext Two WeeksNext MonthNext QuarterEvent Type...BriefingBusiness BreakfastConferenceOtherPodcastRoundtableSeminarSpeaking EngagementSymposiumVideo/ AudioWebinarWorkshopLocation...Brazil- Rio de Janeiro- Sao PauloCanada- Edmonton- Ontario- Toronto- VancouverChina- Beijing- ShanghaiGermany- DusseldorfIndia- New DelhiIreland- DublinNetherlands- RotterdamSwitzerland- LausanneUK- Birmingham- LondonUnited Arab Emirates- DubaiUnited States- California- Dallas- Los Angeles- New York- San Diego- San Francisco- Virginia- Washington- Washington, DCGO Tools Print Font Size:Translation ChannelsMondaq on Twitter Free News Alert Custom RSS Feed Contact Us | Your Privacy | Feedback © Mondaq® Ltd 1994 - 2019 All Rights Reserved Login / Register Free News Alert Privacy/ Cookies Terms & Conditions About Mondaq Unsubscribe TOPICS| REGIONS| COMPARATIVE GUIDES| ADVICE CENTRE| ABOUT ",
"URL": "http://mondaq.com/canada/x/853064/Antitrust Competition/The Godfrey Decision Competition Class Action Certification Made Even Easier"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, November 6, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 222 Headlines 10TH AVENUE: Pazaran Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA 7-ELEVEN INC: Class Certified in Munoz Suit over Background Checks ADIENT PLC: Barreto Hits Share Price Drop ALEXION PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Solaris-Related Suit Still Pending ALL HEART HOMECARE: Khakimova Seeks Unpaid Wages ANTHEM INC: Motion to Quash Filed in Savett Suit ANTHEM: Faces Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit APPLE & EVE: Reaves Seeks to Stop False Marketing of Switch Drink AT&S AMERICAS: Piper Alleges Gender Bias on Employee Pay AVIVA LONDON: Settlement of Griffiths Suit Wins Court Approval BAYCARE HEALTH: Final Approval of $85,000 Settlement Sought BIRD RIDES: Faces Class Action in California Over Scooters BOSE CORP: Wireless Headphone Ads Misleading, Calloway et al. Say CALISTA TOOLS: Slade Suit Asserts ADA Violation CAPITAL EXPRESS: Gassy Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code CHEF BLYTHE'S: Morgan Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA CHINELUS CORP: Accused by Pacheco of Not Paying Minimum, OT Wages COLUMBIA GAS: Faces Class Action Over Merrimack Valley Explosion COMPLYRIGHT INC: Christiansen Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. CONN APPLIANCES: Certification of Nationwide Classes Sought DAKOTA OF ROCKY: Initial Certification of Collective Action Sought DEBT RECOVERY: Joyce Disputes Debt Collection Practices DGD TRANSPORT: Vilches Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA DOLLAR TREE: Approval of Revised Class Settlement Sought DUNHILL 100 LLC: Medina Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ELNIK SYSTEMS: Perez et al. Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA ESSENDANT INC: Pietras Balks at Merger Deal with Staples, Inc. F & M CAFETERIA: Refused to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Lopez Claims FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Location Tracking FALLS MUSIC: November Trial Scheduled for Stamped Class Action FEDERATED LAW: James Sues Over Debt Collection Practices FIFTH THIRD: Magee Sues Over Hidden Fees on ATM Withdrawals GRAIN PROCESSING: Settlement Claims Process Set to Start GRAY TELEVISION: Mowrer Sues Over for Inflated Prices for TV Ads GUIDANCE CORP: SOGB Sues over Refusal to Pay Rent HAIN CELESTIAL: Manley Calls Alba Botanica Sunscreen Ad Deceptive HERSHEY CO: Clark Sues Over Product Mislabeling HUFF DISTRIBUTING: Vincent Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Route Drivers INFINITY ASSURANCE: Plantation Suit Moved to S.D. Florida J.F. MEAT: Conretras Files Labor Suit in New York JOHN C. HEATH: Pena Sues over Unauthorized Text Messages JORDAN SCHOOL: Class Certified in Girls' High School Football Case JPAY INC: Does Not Deliver 30-Min. Video Service, Salim Says K12 INC: Souders Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls KB HOME: Bayberry Lakes et al. Seek to Certify Homeowners Class KERYX BIOPHARMA: Rosenblatt Balks at Merger Deal with Akebia KRAFT HEINZ: Tarzian Files Suit Over Fraud LA GRINGA FOOD: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Perez Says LAS VEGAS HOTEL: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations LINCOLN AUTO: Mintz Attorney Discusses TCPA Class Action Ruling LIVE NATION: Gaetano Files Suit Over Overpriced Tickets MATIZ LATIN CUISINE: Cardoso Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay MAYFIELD CARE: Hughes Sues over Use of Biometric Identifiers MAZUMA FEDERAL: Settlement of Bowens Class Suit Wins Court Okay MICROSOFT CORP: Antitrust Suits Ongoing in Canada MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Suit Remains Dormant MICROSOFT CORP: Interlocutory Appeal Okayed in Moussouris Case MID-AMERICA: Vega Sues over Use of Biometric identifiers MONSANTO COMPANY: Finneman Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO: Must Face Class Actions Over Herbicide MOVEMENT MORTGAGE: Fails to Pay Compensation, Morua Says NEW 32ND: Does Not Pay Proper Wages, Montero Suit Says NICHICON: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of $21.5MM Settlement NIKODEMO OPERATING: Eduoard Sues Over Lost, Unpaid Wages NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend Fuel Surcharges-Related Suit NY SWEET SPOT: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Huziankou Says PARKLAND HEALTH: Baldridge Sues Over Unpaid Hospital Bills PEKIN INSURANCE: Sued over Unsolicited Faxed Advertisements PGNV LLC: Ramos Seeks Minimum Wage and Overtime under FLSA PHILIP MORRIS: Gilchrist Files Securities Class Action PNC FINANCIAL: Rossini FCRA Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Continues to Class Suits in Minnesota PRIVATUS CARE: Markova Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law RAD MEDICAL: Accused by Mendez of Not Paying Minimum and OT Wages RAWLINGS SPORTING: Sotelo Files Fraud Class Action RED ROBIN: Court Certifies Class & Subclasses in Vigueras Suit RENTGROW INC: Faces McIntyre Suit Alleging FCRA Violations RICHLINE GROUP: Faces Kiler ADA Class Action RITZ CARLTON: Baltodano Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida ROGERS PAVEMENT: Accused by Pittman Suit of Not Paying Overtime RON DESANTIS: Stephenson Sues over Political Campaign Text Ads SCHWAB INVESTMENTS: Vedder Price Discusses Class Action Ruling SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Kasich Sues Over Defective EZ Seeds SILVERWARE POS: Clark Sues over Use of Biometric identifiers SIRIUS XM: Bid For Class Certification in Buchanan Suit Underway SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend Biometric Information-Related Suit SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend Suits Over Credit Card Info SOLUDOS LLC: Violates Disabilities Act, Figueroa Suit Says STARKIST: 9th Cir. Affirms Tuna Under-filling Settlement Approval STUBBS & WOOTTON: Figueroa Suit Asserts ADA Breach SUBARU OF AMERICA: Sauer Sues Over Flaw in Turbo Charged Engines SUNDANCE INC: Jackson Sues over Use of Biometric Identifiers TAPESTRY INC: Ornelas Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California TD AMERITRADE: Kim Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA TECHNOLOGY INSTALL: O'Brien Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA TOO FACED: Underpays Makeup Artists, Provencio Claims TRI STATE ADJUSTMENTS: Court Shelves Loveland Case TRl CITY FOODS: Young Sues over Use of Biometric Information UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Carlton Fields Discusses 9th Cir. Rulings ULTIMATE FITNESS: Huff Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Tyndall Suits Pile Up Despite Settlement US STEEL: Faces Class Action Over Carnegie Way Campaign USA MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Araujo Says VAN TASSEL-PROCTOR: Jones Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime VENTURE 475 LLC: Dillon Seeks to Stop Illegal Telemarketing Calls VICTIM SERVICES: Must Face Claims Over Use of Gov't Letterheads WALKER CONSTRUCTION: Sullivan Suit Asserts ADA Violation YOUR BEAUTIFUL: Lucero Suit Asserts FLSA & NYLL Violation YUMMY HOUSE: Lopez Seeks Overtime Pay for Hours Worked Over 40 [*] Torkin Manes Attorney Discusses Historical Sexual Abuses Cases ********* 10TH AVENUE: Pazaran Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- FELIX PAZARAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. 10TH AVENUE GROUP, INC. d/b/a 44 & X - HELLS KITCHEN RESTAURANT, SCOTT HART, and BRUCE HOROWYTZ, Case No. 1:18-cv-09335 (S.D.N.Y., October 12, 2018), alleges that, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants: (a) unpaid overtime compensation, (b) liquidated damages, (c) prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and (d) attorneys' fees and costs. 44 & X is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York with a principal place of business located in New York City. The Individual Defendants are joint owners, officers, members, directors, managing agents, and proprietors of 44 & X. The Defendants' primary business was and is the sale of food and drinks for consumption. 44 & X constitutes a \"restaurant\" within the meaning of the New York Labor Law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] 7-ELEVEN INC: Class Certified in Munoz Suit over Background Checks ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned Edward Munoz, the Plaintiff, vs. 7-ELEVEN, INC., the Defendants, Case 2:18-cv-03893-RGK-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gary Klausner entered an order on Oct. 18, 2018, granting Plaintiff's motion to certify class and subclass: Disclosure Class: \"all persons in the United States who (1) from a date prior to the filling of the initial complaint in this action to the date notice is sent to the Disclosure Class; (2) applied for employment with Defendant; (3) about whom Defendant procured a consumer report; and (4) who were provided the same form Fair Credit Reporting Act disclosure and authorization as the disclosure and and authorization form from that Defendant provided to Plaintiff\"; and California Subclass: \"all members of the Disclosure Class who reside in California.\"[CC] ADIENT PLC: Barreto Hits Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------ Julio Barreto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Adient PLC, R. Bruce McDonald, Jeffrey M. Stafeil, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-09116 (S.D. N.Y., October 4, 2018), alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Adient is an Irish corporation that designs, engineers and manufactures automotive seating. Nearly half of its annual revenues derive from the sale of metal components used in seat frames produced by its seat structures and mechanisms. On May 3, 2018, Defendants announced they recorded a $299 million impairment charge related to its seat structures and mechanisms business and admitted that it was facing significant operational and financial headwinds and a planned margin expansion was no longer achievable. This news drove the price of Adient shares down $6.14 per share, or about 10%, to close at $55.84 that day. On June 11, 2018, Adient announced the sudden and immediate resignation of CEO McDonald and slashed its earnings guidance. This news drove the price of Adient shares down $8.88 per share, or about 15.6%, to close at $48.10 that day. Barreto purchased Adient common stock and suffered damages thereby. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Fax: (631) 367-1173 Email: [email protected] [email protected] - and - Michael W. Stocker, Esq. Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. Danielle Smith, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ALEXION PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Solaris-Related Suit Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the solaris-related class action complaint remains pending. On December 29, 2016, a shareholder filed a putative class action against the Company and certain former employees in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging that defendants made misrepresentations and omissions about Soliris. On April 12, 2017, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. On July 14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended putative class action complaint against the Company and seven current or former employees. The complaint alleges that defendants made misrepresentations and omissions about Soliris, including alleged misrepresentations regarding sales practices, management changes, and related investigations, between January 30, 2014 and May 26, 2017, and that the Company's stock price dropped upon the purported disclosure of the misrepresentations. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September 12, 2017. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on November 13, 2017, and defendants' filed a reply brief in further support of their motion on December 28, 2017. Defendants' motion to dismiss is now fully briefed and pending before the court. Alexion Pharmaceuticals said, \"Given the early stages of this litigation, an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.\" Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops and commercializes various therapeutic products. The company was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. ALL HEART HOMECARE: Khakimova Seeks Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------ FERUZA KHAKIMOVA, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by ALL HEART HOMECARE AGENCY, INC., along with other entities affiliated or controlled by ALL HEART COMPLAINT HOMECARE AGENCY, INC., the Plaintiffs, vs. ALL HEART HOMECARE AGENCY, INC., and/or any other related entities, the Defendants, Case No. 159788/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 23, 2018), seek to recover wages and benefits which Plaintiffs were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive pursuant to New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, beginning in October 2012 and, on information and belief, continuing through the present, the Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in excess of ten hours per day, without providing the proper hourly compensation for all hours worked, including, overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week, \"spread of hours\" compensation. While employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiff provided services to homebound, disabled and/or ailing clients, including but not limited to personal care services, such as assistance with dressing, bathing and personal grooming, cooking, serving food, toileting, lifting and moving immobile clients, cleaning, such as mopping, vacuuming, cleaning bathrooms, doing laundry, taking out garbage, making transportation arrangements, and escorting clients to appointments. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs their applicable overtime rate for all the time spent in mandatory training sessions when Plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours that week, the lawsuit says. Defendant is a home health agency.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq. Joel L. Goldenberg, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 E-mail: [email protected] ANTHEM INC: Motion to Quash Filed in Savett Suit ------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the case of ADAM SAVETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ANTHEM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02317-MMA-KSC (S.D. Cal., Oct. 5, 2018) has filed a notice of motion for an order quashing or limiting a subpoena that was issued to non-party AT&T on August 3, 2018, by Defendant Anthem, Inc. in the out-of-district matter captioned Savett v. Anthem, Inc., 1:18-cv-0274 (N.D. Ohio). The case is assigned to Judge Michael M. Anello and referred to Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford. Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health benefits company in the United States. The company was formerly known as WellPoint, Inc. and changed its name to Anthem, Inc. in December 2014. Anthem, Inc. was founded in 1944 and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Logan, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 Facsimile: (415) 373-9435 E-mail: [email protected] ANTHEM: Faces Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit -------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that an Anthem shareholder claims in Indiana court that the company concealed the risks of its failed merger with Cigna, causing Anthem to lose millions of dollars in deal-related and litigation costs after the acquisition was blocked by regulators and courts. A copy of the Complaint is available at https://is.gd/4b8uQ2 APPLE & EVE: Reaves Seeks to Stop False Marketing of Switch Drink ----------------------------------------------------------------- DERRICK REAVES, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. APPLE & EVE, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-05728 (E.D.N.Y., October 12, 2018), is a consumer protection action seeking redress for, and a stop to, the Defendant's alleged unfair and deceptive practice of advertising and marketing its Switch Sparkling beverages as healthy, low-calorie drinks having \"No Preservatives\" and \"No Sugar Added.\" The Defendant's \"No Preservatives\" representations are deceptive because the beverages contain the preservatives citric acid and/or ascorbic acid, Mr. Reaves argues. He asserts that the \"No Preservatives\" labeling deceives consumers into believing that they are receiving healthier preservative-free beverages even though these products cannot live up to these claims. He adds that the beverages' \"No Sugar Added\" representations are misleading because they lead consumers to believe that they are receiving a low-calorie product when they are not. Apple & Eve is organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business located in Port Washington, New York. The Company develops, markets Products throughout the United States. The Products are available at numerous retail and online outlets, as well as in schools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] AT&S AMERICAS: Piper Alleges Gender Bias on Employee Pay -------------------------------------------------------- CATHERINE PIPER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. AT&S AMERICAS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH12799 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Oct., 12, 2018), alleges employment discrimination. According to the complaint, Piper was employed by Defendant AT&S at all relevant times until the Defendant terminated her employment in April 2017. Paying similarly situated younger employees or male employees more than employees aged 40 years or older is discriminatory as unequal pay under the Illinois Human Rights Act. Piper at all relevant times was over the age of 40 years old. During Piper's tenure with AT&S she was paid substantially less than her similarly situated younger peers and male peers. AT&S paid Piper less than at least her male peers on the basis of her gender and age in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act, the lawsuit says. AT&S Americas LLC distributes and markets printed circuit boards.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: John M. Liston, Esq. HR LAW COUNSEL 50 South Main Street, Suite 200 Naperville, IL 60540 Telephone: (847) 528-5024 E-mail: [email protected] AVIVA LONDON: Settlement of Griffiths Suit Wins Court Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned JOHN W. GRIFFITHS, the Plaintiff, vs. AVIVA LONDON ASSIGNMENT CORPORATION, et al., the Defendants, Case 1:15-cv-13022-NMG (D. Mass., Oct., 23, 2018), the Court entered an order on Oct. 23, 2018, granting: 1. final approval to its appointment of Marcus & Auerbach LLC and Krasnoo, Klehm & Falkner LLP as Class Counsel and its designation and appointment of Jerome M. Marcus and Jonathan Auerbach (Marcus & Auerbach LLC) as lead counsel for the Settlement Class, and its appointment of John W. Griffiths as Settlement Class Representative; and 2. certification of Settlement Class: \"all beneficiaries of structured settlement annuities assigned to Athene London Assignment Corporation (formerly known as Aviva London Assignment Corporation and as CGNU London Annuity Service Corp.), which includes all annuities covered by the Capital Maintenance Agreement between CGU International Insurance plc and CGNU London Annuity Service Corp., dated February 1, 2002, where such annuities remained in force as of October 2, 2013\". Excluded from the proposed class are the officers and directors of any defendant and members of their immediate families and any entity in which any defendant has a controlling interest, the legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of any such excluded party, the judicial officer(s) to whom this action is assigned, and the members of their immediate families. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are those persons identified, who submitted timely and valid requests for exclusion from the Settlement Class. Such persons shall not receive any monetary benefits of the Settlement Agreements and shall not be bound by this Final Judgment. The Settlement Administrator shall make a distribution to each Class Member who has not served an Exclusion Request in the amount of that Class Member's Individual Recovery. Distribution of Funds: (a) Any money remaining from the Settlement Amount and any Contingent Settlement Payment, including any accrued interest thereon, after the payments for administration costs, taxes, service award, attorney's fees and expenses are made, shall be distributed as follows to Class Members who have not excluded themselves from the Settlement Class, provided that the payment to each such class member shall be equal to or greater than $10.00. -- The \"Annuity Proportion\" shall be calculated for each annuity by dividing the premium paid for each annuity by the total premium paid for all annuities assigned to Athene London Assignment Corporation where such annuities remained in force as of October 2, 2013. -- The \"Annuity Recovery\" shall be calculated for each annuity by multiplying the Annuity Proportion by the Settlement Amount and any Contingent Settlement Payment. -- The \"Individual Recovery\" shall be calculated for each beneficiary of each annuity by dividing the Annuity Recovery by the number of beneficiaries of that annuity remaining in the Settlement Class.[CC] BAYCARE HEALTH: Final Approval of $85,000 Settlement Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- ELAYNE FIGUEROA, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BAYCARE HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., the Defendant, Case 8:17-cv-01780-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla., Oct. 18, 2018), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting final approval of parties' Settlement; 2. dismissing Plaintiff's and the Settlement Classes' claims against Defendants with prejudice; and 3. granting Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, the settlement provides for payments to be made to the approximately 2,009 class members. Defendant will create a non-reversionary common fund for Class Members consisting of $85,000. The Class Members will not be required to take any action to receive a portion of the funds, making it a \"claims paid\" settlement. Members of the class will receive a pro rata gross amount of the settlement fund totaling approximately $42.30. This gross amount is consistent with FCRA class action settlements that have been approved by other federal courts. If the requested amounts are granted for attorneys' fees, administrative expenses, and a Class Representative Service award, the parties anticipate that each class member will receive a net payment of approximately $20.41. If any money remains in the fund after these distributions and after Class Members have had 60 days to cash their settlement checks, left over funds shall be paid as a cy pres donation to BayCare Emergency Assistance Program, Inc., a non-profit charity. The proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, and should be granted final approval by the Court, the lawsuit says.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant: Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esq. Nathan J. Paulich, Esq. THOMPSON, SIZEMORE, GONZALEZ & HEARING, P.A. 201 North Franklin Street, Suite 1600 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 273-0050 Facsimile: (813) 273-0072 E-mail: [email protected] BIRD RIDES: Faces Class Action in California Over Scooters ---------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that people with visual or mobility impairment brought a federal class action accusing Bird Rides, Neutron Holdings, Los Angeles, Santa Monica and Beverly Hills of public nuisance, unjust enrichment and ADA violations by allowing motorized scooters on sidewalks and crosswalks. A copy of the Complaint is available at https://is.gd/w1wE5U BOSE CORP: Wireless Headphone Ads Misleading, Calloway et al. Say ----------------------------------------------------------------- LINDA CALLOWAY, DALE DEAN, ROSE FARELLA, JAYME HESTER, ANGELITA PIERRE-NOEL, and DWAYNE STOWE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. BOSE CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case 1:18-cv-12207 (D. Mass., Oct. 23, 2018), challenges the actions of Bose Corporation in the marketing and sale of Bose SoundSport, SoundSport Free, and SoundSport Pulse wireless headphones. According to the complaint, Bose markets the Headphones as \"sports headphones,\" and represents on its website, marketing materials, and product packaging that the Headphones are sweat-, weather-, and water-resistant. Bose uses images of sweat-drenched athletes wearing the Headphones while exercising in its promotional materials. Indeed, Bose's website features the following tagline: \"Sweating it out in the gym or running through the rain, these are sport earphones built to keep you going every step of the way.\" Bose further represents on its website, marketing materials, and product packaging that the Headphones are rechargeable and offer five or six hours of wireless listening on a single charge. In reality, the Headphones are not sweat-, weather-, or water-resistant and do not function as advertised when exposed to sweat, moisture, or water. And the Headphones' batteries do not last five or six hours on a single charge. This is because the Headphones contain one or more defects that cause the battery life to degrade and diminish and eventually stop retaining a charge after normal usage, a process that accelerates when the Headphones are exposed to sweat or moisture. As a result of the defect(s), the Headphones regularly fail to hold a reasonable charge. The Plaintiffs are among the tens of thousands of consumers nationwide whose expensive Headphones (generally sold for $150 to $250) experience rapidly diminishing battery life and eventual failure to retain a charge after using the Headphones. The Plaintiffs further allege that the Headphones fail to retain an adequate charge in part due to the Headphones’ failure to resist sweat, weather, and water. Despite receiving countless complaints from consumers, Defendant refuses to acknowledge or attempt to fix the defects. Instead, when consumers return the defective Headphones under Bose's warranty, Bose sends replacement Headphones that contain the exact same defects, leaving consumers caught in a cycle of use, malfunction, and replacement. Once the standard one-year warranty period expires, consumers are often left with only a broken pair of Headphones. Reasonable consumers like Plaintiffs expect that high-end rechargeable Bluetooth headphones that cost between $150 and $250 will continue to function after minimal use, and they would not have purchased the Headphones or would have paid less had they known that Defendant's battery life, rechargeability, and sweat-, weather-, and water-resistant representations were false, and that the Headphones contain one or more defects that cause their batteries to rapidly fail. As a result of Bose's actions and omissions, Plaintiffs and the proposed class have suffered damages. Wireless rechargeable headphones that are unable to retain a charge for a reasonable amount of time are essentially worthless. Had Plaintiffs and the members of the class known that Defendant’s representations were false and that the Headphones contained the defect(s), they would not have bought them or would otherwise have paid less for them. At a minimum, the defective Headphones certainly are worth substantially less than what Plaintiffs and members of the class paid to purchase them, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Sean K. Collins, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SEAN K. COLLINS 184 High Street, Suite 503 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 320-8485 Facsimile: (617) 227-2843 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. Todd Naylor, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A. One West 4th Street, 18th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45249 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] - and - Justin C. Walker, Esq. FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC 4270 Ivy Pointe Boulevard, Suite 225 Cincinnati, OH 45245 Telephone: (513) 943-6660 Facsimile: (513) 943-6669 E-mail: [email protected] - and - W.B. Markovits, Esq. Paul M. DeMarco, Esq. Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Telephone: (513) 665-0200 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] CALISTA TOOLS: Slade Suit Asserts ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------- Calista Tools, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Linda Slade individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Calista Tools, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv- 1:18-cv-09855 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2018). Calista's extensive line consists of professional hair products - shampoos, conditioners, styling products, finishing sprays, and hot tools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 Email: [email protected] CAPITAL EXPRESS: Gassy Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------- JAMES GASSY, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CAPITAL EXPRESS LINES, a California Corporation; SAMRA GURDIP, a natural person, and DOES 1-20, the Defendants, Case No. RG18922919 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a former driver at Defendants' trucking facility, and provided services as employees and/or agents of Defendant at said facilities. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from April 2015 to March 2018. Additionally, the Plaintiff, while still under the control of the employer, would not be driving when loading/unloading of the truck, when the truck is being worked on for either repairs or maintenance, inspections of the truck, refueling of the truck, and if there are any truck malfunctions. The Plaintiff would not be compensated for the previously mentioned activities, the lawsuit says. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Mark E. Burton Jr., Esq. Elvin Minh Huy Vu, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA Telephone: (415) 568 2555 Facsimile: (415) 568 2556 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] CHEF BLYTHE'S: Morgan Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA --------------------------------------------------- Lori Morgan, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), the Plaintiffs, vs. Chef Blythe's Southern Bistro, Inc. and Willard Bridges, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02818-M (N.D. Tex., Oct. 23, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in operating a operate a restaurant. As part of the payment scheme that Defendants used to pay Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendants paid Plaintiff and Class Members a subminimum wage and purported to utilize the tip credit against the payment of the full minimum wage. The use of the tip credit results in huge savings to Defendants because Defendants pay Plaintiff and Class Members less than minimum wage in direct wages per hour -- prior to accounting for the receipt of tips that Plaintiff and Class Members were paid by customers, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Telephone: 817 479-9229 Facsimile: 817 887-1878 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] CHINELUS CORP: Accused by Pacheco of Not Paying Minimum, OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- RAMIRO PACHECO and KENYA B. CASTILLO ALVARENGA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CHINELUS CORP. (D/B/A CHINELOS MEXICAN DELI GROCERY), CHINELOS II CORP. (D/B/A CHINELOS II), LUCERO RODRIGUEZ, GRACIELA VELEZ, and ALMA FELICES, Case No. 1:18-cv-09372 (S.D.N.Y., October 12, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked. Chinelus Corp., doing business as Chinelos Mexican Deli Grocery, is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York and maintains its principal place of business in Bronx, New York. Chinelos II Corp., doing business as Chinelos II, is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York and maintains its principal place of business in New York City. The Individual Defendants serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of the Defendant Corporations. The Defendants own, operate, or control Mexican restaurants/delis, located at 695 East 187th Street, in Bronx, New York, under the name \"Chinelos Mexican Deli Grocery\" and at 530 West 136th St., in New York City under the name \"Chinelos II.\"[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: [email protected] COLUMBIA GAS: Faces Class Action Over Merrimack Valley Explosion ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Williams, writing for MASSLIVE, reports that another lawsuit has been filed against Columbia Gas of Massachusetts on behalf of the victims of the Merrimack Valley explosions. Attorney Michael Burg of the Denver-based law firm Burg, Simpson, Eldredge, Hersh & Jardine, filed a complaint in Suffolk Superior Court on Oct. 22 on behalf of residents of Andover and Lawrence whom were directly impacted by the explosions. In the suit, Burg accuses Columbia of operating with a \"comprised\" distribution method, relying on cast iron piping installed as far back as the mid-1800s which is \"highly susceptible to cracking and joint separation. \"The Columbia Gas distribution system is comprised, to a large degree, of antiquated materials highly susceptible to corrosion and leaking, such as cast iron, wrought iron, and non-cathodically protected steel,\" the lawsuit states. \"Despite the known risks associated with cast and wrought iron piping, these materials continue to comprise a large portion of the Columbia Gas distribution system.\" Cast iron and wrought iron mains are employed in just over 471 miles of Columbia Gas' distribution system, as of the end of 2017. Crews were working to replace a cast iron main with a new plastic distribution main line on the day of the explosions. Explosions in Lawrence, Andover and North Andover caused upwards of 70 fires, injured more than two dozen people and resulted in the death of an 18-year-old from Lawrence, who died after a chimney fell on his vehicle. Preliminary investigative reports show over-pressurized gas lines as the believed cause of the disaster, that the work crews \"did not account for the location of the sensing lines or require their relocation to ensure the regulators were sensing actual system pressure,\" according to the National Transportation Safety Board. Valves controlling the flow of gas were not shut off for more than three hours after issues were detected at a monitoring center in Ohio. The company did not have a way to remotely modify the flow of gas, NTSB said. Homes in Andover, Lawrence and North Andover were evacuated in September. Thousands of residences were left with damaged gas lines. Columbia says its has repaired just over half of the damaged lines and expects to have all 6,1000 lines back to \"gas ready\" by its deadline in mid-November. Temperatures have already dropped into the 30s with the weather getting colder by the day. As of Oct. 19 there were still 1,881 families, 6,646 individual people, in alternative housing like trailers and hotel rooms. The company says it has received more than 21,000 claims and has paid $23 million. This lawsuit is one of several filed against the gas company. [GN] COMPLYRIGHT INC: Christiansen Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action styled as Paul Christiansen individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ComplyRight, Inc. a Minnesota corporation, Defendant, Case No. 30-2018 01010711-CU-BT-CXC, was removed from the State of California, Orange County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 25, 2018, and assigned Case No. 8:18-cv-01920. The nature of suit is stated as Torts - Personal Property - Other Personal Property Damage. ComplyRight, Inc. provides human resource products and services for businesses in the United States. It specializes in business-to-business direct marketing, sales, service, and fulfillment.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. CONN APPLIANCES: Certification of Nationwide Classes Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE DURAN and ROSA RESENDEZ, On Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CONN APPLIANCES, INC. (d/b/a Conn’s), the Defendant, Case 1:18-cv-00761-RP (W.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2018), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify nationwide classes of: \"sales associates paid hourly and/or commission for Fair Labor Standards Act violations and sales associates paid commission only for FLSA violations\". The Plaintiffs further ask the Court that notice be issued to the putative collective action members.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Shreedhar R. Patel, Esq. Allen R. Vaught, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant: Michael A. Harvey, Esq. Christopher M. Jordan, Esq. Tracy McCreight, Esq. MUNSCH HART KOPF & HARR, PC 303 Colorado Street, Suite 2600 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 391-6145 Facsimile: (713) 222-5886 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] DAKOTA OF ROCKY: Initial Certification of Collective Action Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ THOMAS T. McDOUGLE, and ROSEMARIE TAYLOR, for themselves and other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs, vs DAKOTA OF ROCKY HILL, LLC, the Defendant, Case 3:17-cv-00245-SRU (D. Conn., Oct. 19, 2018), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. preliminarily certifying a collective action and granting permission to issue notice to all servers who have worked for Dakota Steakhouse from February 15, 2014 until the date of final judgment in this case; 2. permitting them to send notice to potential opt-in Plaintiffs; 3. authorizing them to send summary notice and proposed notice to potential Opt-In Plaintiffs; and 4. directing Defendant to produce a list of potential opt-in Plaintiffs' names, last-known mailing addresses, last-known telephone numbers, email addresses, and dates of employment and Social Security numbers if Plaintiffs' mailings are returned to sender as undeliverable.[CC] Attorney for Plaintiff: Thomas J. Durkin, Esq. HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC 221 Main St., Suite 502 Hartford, CT 06106 Telephone: (860) 522 8888 Facsimile: (860) 218 9555 E-mail: [email protected] DEBT RECOVERY: Joyce Disputes Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------- James Joyce and Susan Joyce, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Debt Recovery Solutions of Ohio, Inc., Murphy Law Office, LLC, Murphy Petty Ltd. and Christopher Murphy,, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02317, (N.D. Ohio, October 4, 2018), seeks statutory damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Murphy Law Office is a law firm engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts originally owed to others, especially on behalf of Debt Recovery Solutions. Defendants sought payment of an alleged debt of $1,028.92, consisting of allegedly unpaid medical bills and prejudgment interest, via a collection letter. The letter provides that the recipient must serve an answer within twenty-eight days, rather than the thirty days specified by law, thus creating a misleading impression, notes the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Geoffrey C. Parker, Esq. Jonathan L. Hilton, Esq. HILTON PARKER LLC 10400 Blacklick-Eastern Rd. NW Suite 110 Pickerington, OH 43147 Tel: (614) 992-2277 Fax: (614) 427-5557 Email: [email protected] [email protected] DGD TRANSPORT: Vilches Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------ RENE VILCHES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff, vs. DGD TRANSPORT L.L.C., and LUIS LOPEZ, the Defendants,Case 1:18-cv-24410-CMA (S.D. Fla., Oct. 23, 2018), seeks double damages and reasonable attorney fees from the Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, for all overtime wages still owing from the Plaintiff's entire employment period with the Defendants. According to the complaint, between the period of on or about June 23, 2017 through on or about February 12, 2018, except for one week of work, the Plaintiff worked an average of 60 hours a week for the Defendants and was paid an average of $11.00 per hour but was not paid the extra half time rate for any hours worked over 40 hours in a week as required by the FLSA. The Plaintiff claims the half time overtime rate for each hour worked above 40 in a week using the applicable wage as the basis to calculate the overtime due and owing to the Plaintiff. The Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay the Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the FLSA as the Defendants knew of the overtime requirements of the FLSA and recklessly failed to investigate whether the Defendants' payroll practices were in accordance with the FLSA. The Defendants remain owing the Plaintiff these wages since the commencement of the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants, the lawsuit says. DGD Transport, offers on-demand tech for transportation, warehousing and asset-based services.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71 st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: [email protected] DOLLAR TREE: Approval of Revised Class Settlement Sought -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LOVELY NAKOOKA and ELVA REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case 3:17-cv-03955-JD (N.D. Cal., Oct. 23, 2018), the parties will move the Court on December 13, 2018, for: 1. preliminary approval of their revised proposed class settlement; 2. conditional certification of the settlement class: \"all non-exempt hourly store employees who worked for Dollar Tree in the State of California at any time from July 13, 2013, through the date [of preliminary approval],\" excluding \"any individuals who already have resolved the claims asserted in the Action, whether by settlement or adjudication.\" A total of approximately 64,151 current and former employees encompass the Class. 3. approval of the class notice; 4. appointment of plaintiffs as the class representatives, Randall B. Aiman Smith, Reed W.L. Marcy, Hallie Von Rock, Carey A. James, and Brent A. Robinson of Aiman-Smith and Marcy as the class counsel, and Rust Consulting, Inc., as the settlement administrator; and 5. setting of the final approval hearing. Specifically, the revised settlement: -- increases the Maximum Settlement Amount by 50%, from $900,000 to $1,350,000; -- decreases the proposed Class Representative Service Payments from $1,000 to $750 each; -- decreases the proposed Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Payment from $240,000 to $215,000, with Fees now representing less than 16% of the Maximum Settlement Amount; -- decreases the anticipated Settlement Administrator Fees Payment from $111,635 to $99,962, which is the lowest among seven bids the parties received; and -- makes other changes to the notice and approval process to meet the Court's concerns. These changes will produce settlement shares for Class Members of $15.81, about 80% more than before, and enough to cover the cost of two or three shirts which, for the average Class Member, would have been enough for his or her tenure at Dollar Tree, the lawsuit says. Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Esq. Reed W.L. Marcy, Esq. Hallie Von Rock, Esq. Carey A. James, Esq. Brent A. Robinson, Esq. AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1150 Oakland, CA 94621 Telephone: (510) 817-2711 Facsimile: (510) 562-6830 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant: Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq. Ryan D. Derry, Esq. Paul A. Holton, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 101 California Street, 48th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 856-7000 Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] DUNHILL 100 LLC: Medina Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------- ALBERT MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dunhill 100 LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 9:18-cv-81374-DMM (S.D. Fla., October 12, 2018), alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Dunhill 100 LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company whose principal office is located in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. The Defendant is a real estate company. To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, the Plaintiff asserts. He argues that the Defendant's unsolicited text messages caused him actual harm, including invasion of his privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: [email protected] ELNIK SYSTEMS: Perez et al. Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- EDWIN PEREZ and LEONARD SPINAZZOLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs ELNIK SYSTEMS LLC, CLAUS JOENS, and STEFAN JOENS, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-15230 (D.N.J., Oct. 23, 2018), seeks equitable and legal relief for the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, the New Jersey Wage Payment Act, and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act. According to the complaint, Mr. Perez routinely worked between 40-45 hours per week for Defendants as a field service manager, and occasionally worked more than 45 hours per week. Perez was paid at a rate of $41.00 per hour for all hours worked, and did not receive overtime premiums for the hours he worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. During weeks in which Mr. Spinazzola was required to travel for work, the number of hours he worked varied depending on the client, location, and the job, but he typically worked between 40 and 70 hours per week during such weeks. Spinazzola was paid at a rate of $45.48 per hour for all hours worked, including travel time when he traveled to clients, but he did not receive overtime premiums for any hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week during their employment with Defendants, yet Defendants failed to compensate them their full overtime premiums for the hours they worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the lawsuit says. Elnik Systems is a United States-based manufacturing company which produces processing equipment for the metal injection molding industry.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Adam Sackowitz, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 460-0047 E-mail: [email protected] ESSENDANT INC: Pietras Balks at Merger Deal with Staples, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH PIETRAS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ESSENDANT INC., RICHARD D. PHILLIPS, CHARLES K. CROVITZ, DENNIS J. MARTIN, SUSAN J. RILEY, ALEXANDER M. SCHMELKIN, STUART A. TAYLOR, II, PAUL S. WILLIAMS, and ALEX D. ZOGHLIN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01506-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 27 2018), seeks to enjoin the Defendants from closing a tender offer by Staples, Inc., via its affiliate Egg Merger Sub Inc. or taking any steps to consummate a proposed merger transaction, unless and until the material information is disclosed to Essendant shareholders or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act. The case is a class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated public shareholders of Essendant Inc. against Essendant and the members of the Essendant's board of directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On September 14, 2018, Essendant entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, whereby each shareholder of Essendant common stock will receive $12.80 per share in cash. According to the complaint, on September 24, to convince Essendant shareholders to tender their shares, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the SEC. In particular, the Recommendation Statement contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: the background to the Proposed Transaction; the valuation analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., in support of its fairness opinion; and the conflicts of interest Citigroup faced as a result of its ongoing dealings with Essendant, Staples and certain affiliates. The Tender Offer is scheduled to expire at one minute after 11:59 p.m., New York City time, on October 22, 2018. It is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the Recommendation Statement is disclosed to the Company's shareholders prior to the Expiration Time so they can properly determine whether to tender their shares.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971 1341 Facsimile: (212) 202 7880 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. The Brandywine Building 1000 West Street, 10th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984 3800 F & M CAFETERIA: Refused to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Lopez Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARMEN LOPEZ and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. F. & M. CAFETERIA, INC., MARIA M FABRE, Case No. 1:18-cv-24214-KMW (S.D. Fla., October 12, 2018), alleges that the Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay the Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. F. & M. Cafeteria, Inc., is a company that regularly transacts business within Miami-Dade County. The Individual Defendant is a corporate officer, owner or manager of the Defendant Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: [email protected] FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Location Tracking ------------------------------------------------------- Ian Lopez, writing for Law.com, reports that Facebook was tagged with a class action lawsuit Oct. 19 alleging the social media giant tracks locations despite users changing their privacy settings to prevent it. Brought before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the lawsuit alleges that Facebook tracked plaintiff Brett Heeger's whereabouts despite his having \"expressly attempted to limit\" such \"by turning the location history tracking and storage option to off\" in his user account. \"Plaintiff relied on Facebook's promise that, if he turned location history 'off,' Facebook would no longer build a location history logging his private location information,\" the complaint said. \"Nevertheless, Facebook continued to track and store his private location information without his knowledge or consent even when plaintiff did not use the Facebook app or tag his location in posts.\" The suit, filed by attorneys from Tycko & Zavareei and Stueve Siegel Hanson, largely mirrors a class action against Google over similar data practices, with both companies accused of violating California privacy laws. The allegations against Google spawned from an Associated Press investigation that revealed some of the company's apps and services were tracking users' physical whereabouts after users set their device's settings to prevent such recording. Facebook is charged with violating California's Invasion of Privacy Act, which prohibits using \"an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person.\" The lawsuit claims Facebook's \"applications, software, device components, and other technology on plaintiff's and each class members' mobile phone\" constitute as tracking devices under the law. Also among charges brought against Facebook under California law is an alleged violation of the state's Constitutional Right of Privacy, with the company accused of having \"intentionally intruded on plaintiff's and class members' solitude, seclusion, right of privacy, and private affairs by continuing to track, build and store detailed location histories without their knowledge or consent.\" These actions are \"particularly egregious,\" it notes, because the company \"surreptitiously, and in an unfair and deceptive manner, continued and continues to track plaintiff and class members after they affirmatively disabled location history on their mobile phones.\" Plaintiffs attorneys are also alleging that location information transmitted by Facebook between user devices and Facebook's servers unbeknownst to users is a violation of the Stored Communications Act. The company's actions, plaintiffs claim, also violate a 2011 consent decree with the Federal Trade Commission to not share information like physical location when a user asks them not to. \"This behavior by Facebook was malicious, oppressive, and willful, and calculated to injure plaintiff and class members in conscious disregard of their rights,\" the complaint adds. A Facebook spokesperson told The Recorder in an email that \"Facebook's data policy and related disclosures explain our practices relating to location data and provide information about the privacy settings we make available.\" \"This lawsuit is without merit and we will defend ourselves vigorously,\" they added. But plaintiffs attorney Sabita Soneji, an Oakland partner at Tycko & Zavareei, noted that \"Facebook's disclosures about location tracking are both misleading and omit crucial information.\" The suit isn't the first brought against Facebook by Tycko & Zavareei. The firm filed a complaint against the company in August alleging it shared user data with mobile device makers like Apple and Samsung without user consent. Ms. Soneji is also the plaintiffs attorney in that lawsuit. That investigation led the firm to \"find out about this separate but equally egregious privacy violation,\" Soneji said. \"A reasonable consumer thinks that turning off 'location history' means that Facebook will no longer track or store his location information,\" Ms. Soneji added. \"Indeed, reasonable consumers only turn off that feature because they want to protect their private location data. In reality, Facebook continues to track and store users' location information without users' consent—and regardless of their privacy settings.\" [GN] FALLS MUSIC: November Trial Scheduled for Stamped Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- cim reports that a class action involving up to nearly 80 revellers injured in stampede at the Falls Music and Arts Festival will go to trial this month. The multimillion-dollar class action involves festivalgoers injured during a stampede at the music festival in 2016. The festivalgoers were leaving Aussie band DMAs' performance to see London Grammar on another stage when the overcrowded exit became congested, causing a panic which saw many people being injured and trampled on. The stampede resulted in 19 revellers being hospitalised and 76 people needing first aid treatment. The case will now go to trial in the Melbourne Supreme Court on November 19 after the parties failed to reach a court settlement in a second attempt. Damages are likely to be in excess of $4 million, according to lawyers leading the case. The festival started in 1993, with a small one-day concert, held in Lorne named Rock Above The Falls. Its initial success saw it expand, becoming a multi-day music festival held annually in Lorne, Marion Bay, Yelgun and Fremantle, Australia over the New Year's Eve and January period. The festival has a strong focus on sustainability, winning multiple awards over the years including being named the winner of the Major Festival category of the Australian Event Awards in 2014. [GN] FEDERATED LAW: James Sues Over Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------- Tonya James, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Federated Law Group, PLLC, Absolute Resolutions Investments, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-24436-DPG (S.D. Fla. October 25, 2018) seeks damages and declaratory relief for violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (\"FDCPA\"). The complaint says that Defendants Federated and Absolute collect and attempt to collect debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States Postal Services, telephone and internet. The Plaintiff received a collection letter via email from Defendant Federated as an attempt to collect an alleged debt, on behalf of Defendant Absolute, with an alleged balance owed of $18,809.51. However, the Letter fails to identify information necessary for Plaintiff to identify the account, namely the original account number with which the debt is associated, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Florida, County of Miami-Dade, residing at 700 214th NW Street, Apt. 104, Miami, FL 33169. Federated Law Group, PLLC is a \"debt collector\" as the phrase is defined and used in the FDCPA with an address at 887 Donald Ross Rd., Juno, FL 33408. Absolute is a company that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3475 Sheridan St. Ste 310 Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (754) 217-3084 Fax: (954) 272-7807 Email: [email protected] FIFTH THIRD: Magee Sues Over Hidden Fees on ATM Withdrawals ----------------------------------------------------------- LENOX MAGEE, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FIFTH THIRD BANK, Case No. 1:18-cv-00722-SJD (S.D. Ohio, October 15, 2018), alleges that Fifth Third regularly charges fees, including fees on accountholders, who withdraw funds from out-of-network ATMs, on consumer account holders without prior notice, and without consumers' consent. This practice breaches the contract governing the relationship between Fifth Third and its customers, Mr. Magee contends. He adds that the assessment of these fees without disclosing that they would be charged to Fifth Third's customers is also an unfair and deceptive practice. Fifth Third Bank is a national bank with its headquarters and principal place of business located in Cincinnati, Ohio. Among other things, Fifth Third Bank is engaged in the business of providing retail banking services to consumers, including Plaintiff and the putative classes, which includes the issuance of debit cards for use by consumers in conjunction with their checking accounts. Fifth Third operates banking centers and conducts business throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart E. Scott, Esq. SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER 1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 696-3232 Facsimile: (216) 696-3924 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Andrea R. Gold, Esq. Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] GRAIN PROCESSING: Settlement Claims Process Set to Start -------------------------------------------------------- Meredith Ecklund, writing for Muscatine Journal, reports that members of the class action lawsuit involving Grain Processing Corp will soon be able to start the claims process. Court documents filed on Oct. 22 show Judge John Telleen granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement, notification of the class and setting a fairness hearing. The long-form notice that includes specific details on how members may file claims will be mailed by Nov. 19 to \"all Class Members who can be identified by reasonable means . . . \" To claim funds from the settlement, members must file forms by March 19. Those who signed a settlement agreement last winter opted out of the class action and are not eligible to file a claim. A notification to the public will go out no later than Nov. 26 in the Muscatine Journal and broadcast on local television and radio. Earlier in October, a settlement of more than $50 million in benefits to the class was reached between the class action and GPC after more than six years of litigation. The judge will determine whether the settlement is \"fair, adequate and reasonable\" to class members at the hearing. If class members want to object to the settlement, written objections must be filed by Jan. 3 with the court. The fairness hearing is set for 10 a.m. the week of Feb. 4 at Muscatine County Courthouse or a location to be determined, according to the documents. Final approval will be considered at that time. The lawsuit claimed the corporation that currently employs more than 1,000 Muscatine residents was negligent and a nuisance with plant emissions. Residents within 1.5 miles of the plant located on Oregon Street in the Southend from April 24, 2007, and Sept. 1, 2017, have been included in the class which totals more than 10,000 people. \"Clean air is a right, not a privilege,\" attorney for the class Sarah Siskind said in a news release. \"We're eager to close this chapter on the litigation so that Muscatine citizens, and GPC, can move on.\" [GN] GRAY TELEVISION: Mowrer Sues Over for Inflated Prices for TV Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- MOWRER FOR IOWA, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated v. GRAY TELEVISION, INC.; HEARST TELEVISION INC.; NEXSTAR MEDIA GROUP, INC.; SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC.; TEGNA INC.; TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY, Case No. 1:18-cv-06892 (N.D. Ill., October 12, 2018), alleges that the Defendants engaged in unlawful collusion and conspired to artificially inflate the price of purchasing local television advertisements, in violation of the Sherman Act. Gray Television, Inc., is a television broadcast company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Gray owns and operates television stations and digital assets in the United States. Hearst Television Inc., headquartered in New York City, is a diversified media and information Company. Hearst operates television stations and cable networks throughout the United States. Nexstar Media Group, headquartered in Irving, Texas, operates as a television broadcasting and digital media company in the United States. Sinclair Broadcast Group., Inc., headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland, operates as a television broadcast company in the United States. Tegna, Inc., is a broadcasting, digital media, and marketing services company headquartered in McLean, Virginia. Tegna owns and operates 47 television stations in 39 markets across the United States. Tribune Media Company, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, operates through its subsidiaries as a media and entertainment company in the United States. Tribune offers news, entertainment, and sports programming through Tribune Broadcasting local television stations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leonard A. Gail, Esq. Hillary Coustan, Esq. MASSEY & GAIL LLP 50 East Washington Street, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 283-1590 Facsimile: (312) 379-0467 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] - and - Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq. Steven Sklaver, Esq. Bryan Caforio, Esq. Oleg Elkhunovich, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] GUIDANCE CORP: SOGB Sues over Refusal to Pay Rent ------------------------------------------------- SOGB Inc., the Plaintiff, v. ROBERT GUIDA, GUIDANCE CORPORATION, GUIDANCE MEDICAL PERSONNEL, Inc., GUIDANCE STAFFING, GUIDANCE INTERNATIONAL, and GUIDANCE Rx, the Defendants, Case No. 655077/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 12, 2018), alleges that Plaintiff has been damaged in the total sum of at least $56,000, plus pre- and post- judgment interest, attorney's fees, court costs, court reporter fees, and all other additional costs incurred as a result of the instant litigation, resulting from the Defendants' failure to pay debt owed to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff asks that this Court enter judgment in its favor and in favor of all others similarly situated. According to the complaint, on or about August 17, 2009, the Plaintiff and Guidance Corp. entered into a commercial sublease agreement with respect to commercial office space premises located at 29 Broadway, Suite 1300, New York, NY 10006. Separately, Defendant Guida, as an individual, personally and unconditionally guaranteed the performance of the Commercial Sublease Agreement in a Guaranty of Payment, and waived his right to a jury trial. He guarantees the full performance of the Commercial Sublease Agreement. Guidance Corporation failed to make the rent payments for the months of September and October 2016 at $7,000 per month. On Oct. 2016, Guidance was notified that the rent was late and due. On October 31, 2016, Defendant Guida was observed surreptitiously moving personal property out of the rented premises, without notice to the over-tenant (SOGB), the landlord, or building security, in violation of building policies, in an attempt to vacate the premises and skip out on the owed rent. Rent is due and owing from the Defendant in the amount of $7,000/ month times 8 months or $56,000.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Erik Dykema, Esq. ZELLER IP GROUP PLLC 155 Water Street, Suite 6/6 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (972) 920-8002 E-mail: [email protected] HAIN CELESTIAL: Manley Calls Alba Botanica Sunscreen Ad Deceptive ----------------------------------------------------------------- KATY MANLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., the Defendant, Case: 1:18-cv-07101 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 23, 2018), alleges that the Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes certain of its Alba Botanica brand sunscreen using deceptive and misleading labeling, in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The action seeks to remedy the unfair and deceptive business practices arising from the marketing and sale of the Defendant's \"Alba Botanica Very Emollient Mineral Spray Sunscreen\". The Defendant misrepresents that its Product provides adequate sun protection. The Product contains significantly less protection than advertised, by design and corporate practice and procedure. But for the Defendant's misrepresentations, Plaintiff and similarly situated purchasers of the Product would not have purchased or paid the price they did for the Product, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class: William M. Sweetnam, Esq. Natasha Singh, Esq. SWEETNAM LLC 100 North La Salle Street, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 757-1888 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] HERSHEY CO: Clark Sues Over Product Mislabeling ----------------------------------------------- Howard Clark, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. The Hershey Company, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-06113, (N.D. Cal., October 4, 2018, seeks redress for violations of warranty, negligent and intentional misrepresentations/omissions and California consumer protection laws. Defendant manufactures, packages, distributes, advertises, markets, and sells a house-brand product identified as \"Brookside Dark Chocolate\" products. Its packaging, labeling, and advertising scheme is intended to give consumers the impression that they are buying a premium, \"all natural\" product with natural flavoring ingredients despite containing artificial flavoring, says the complaint. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Michael T. Houchin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Fax: (619) 564-6665 Email: [email protected] [email protected] HUFF DISTRIBUTING: Vincent Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Route Drivers ------------------------------------------------------------------ LORI VINCENT, the PLAINTIFF, vs. HUFF DISTRIBUTING, LLC., the DEFENDANT, Case 3:18-cv-02186 (N.D. Fla., Oct. 23, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for any hours worked over 40 per week. According to the complaint, the Defendant is in the business of producing and distributing various snack foods. The Defendant employed Route Drivers, who delivered Defendant's products and other snack products to Defendant's customers including chain retail grocery stores. The Plaintiff was a Route Driver employed by Defendant, between March 26, 2018 and July 22, 2018. Defendant monitored Plaintiff's performance levels and standards of conduct to ensure compliance with its mandatory standardized training and minimum requirements for vehicles. Plaintiff any lacked control over assignments and did not exercise discretion or make management decisions, instead Plaintiff followed strict dispatch assignments provided, controlled and monitored by Defendant. Defendant's actions were deceptive, willful and intentionally calculated to misclassify Plaintiff as an independent contractor in violation of the FLSA. As a result of Defendant's intentional misclassification, the Plaintiff was not paid time and one-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week during one or more work weeks, the lawsuit says. Attorney for Plaintiff: Clayton M. Connors, Esq. R. John Westberry, Esq. WESTBERRY & C ONNORS , LLC. 4400 Bayou Blvd., Suite 32A Pensacola, FL 32503 Telephone: (850) 473-0401 Facsimile: (850) 473-1388 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] INFINITY ASSURANCE: Plantation Suit Moved to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- Plantation Open MRI, LLC on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated agent of Gloria Diaz, the Plaintiff, vs. Infinity Assurance Insurance Company, the Defendant, Case No.: CACE-18-024614, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit Court, to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale) on Oct. 22, 2018. The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:18-cv-62532-DPG to the proceeding. The suit alleges insurance-related claims. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Darrin P. Gayles.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jaime Eileen Martin, Esq. VERNIS, BOWLING OF BROWARD Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304 713 NE 17th Terrace Telephone: (860) 670-6897 - and - Jose Pete Font, Esq. FONT & NELSON, LLC 200 S. Andrews Ave.,Suite 501 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 248-2920 Facsimile: (954) 248-2134 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant: Rachel Marie La Montagne, Esq. SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP 200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-6300 Facsimile: (305) 381-9982 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Victoria San Pedro Madani, Esq. Suzanne Youmans Labrit, Esq. SHUTTS & BOWEN 200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 379-9154 Facsimile: (305) 415-9872 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] J.F. MEAT: Conretras Files Labor Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against J.F. Meat & Grocery Corp. The case is styled as Adelyn Paniagua Conretras, Sadiel Castillo, idividually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. J.F. Meat & Grocery Corp d/b/a C-Town Supermarket, Luis Ferreira, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-09851 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. C-Town Supermarkets is a chain of independently owned and operated supermarkets operating in the northeastern United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. JOHN C. HEATH: Pena Sues over Unauthorized Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------- MARCELO PENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHN C. HEATH, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC d/b/a LEXINGTON LAW FIRM, a Utah professional Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-24407-UU (S.D. Fla., Oct. 23, 2018), alleges that the Defendant sells credit repair and monitoring services to consumers. To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. This case arises from Defendant's unauthorized text messages to cellular subscribers who never provided the Defendant with prior express consent, as well as cellular subscribers who expressly requested not to receive the text messages. The lawsuit notes that the Defendant has been sued before for violating the TCPA and was aware of the restrictions imposed upon it by the TCPA. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1 st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305 479-2299 E-mail: [email protected] JORDAN SCHOOL: Class Certified in Girls' High School Football Case ------------------------------------------------------------------ S.G., by and through her general guardian, BRENT GORDON, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. JORDAN SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., the Defendants, Case 2:17-cv-00677-RJS-DBP (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Shelby entered an order on Oct. 9, 2018, granting in part and denying in part, the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. The Court certified a class under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: \"all present and future Jordan, Canyon, and Granite school district female high school students who seek to participate and/or are or were deterred from participating on girls high school football teams\". This class is certified with respect to all factual and legal issues relating to the Plaintiffs' Equal Protection Claim against Defendants. The court denied certification of a class of: \"female students seeking more athletic opportunities\". Because Plaintiffs failed to provide the court an evidentiary basis from which to infer that Rule 23(a)'s numerosity requirement was satisfied with respect to the female athletes class. The Court said, \"Although mindful of the arguments made by the Defendants in their motion to file a joint supplemental memorandum in opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class, those arguments would not change the court's analysis concerning adequacy or numerosity. Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion is denied. After the benefit of the parties' briefing and careful consideration of the Rule 23(g) factors, the court designates the following as class counsel: D. Loren Washburn, Mark Smith, and Jacob Fonnesbeck. The court declines to appoint Brent Gordon as counsel because he is likely to be a necessary witness. The class representatives shall be the named student plaintiffs: S.G., L.D., B.S., M.C., D.R., I.N., and I.C.\"[CC] JPAY INC: Does Not Deliver 30-Min. Video Service, Salim Says ------------------------------------------------------------ OUMER SALIM, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. JPAY, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-00730-ALM-KPJ (E.D. Tex., October 12, 2018), is brought on behalf of persons who, after December 1, 2009, paid a fee to JPay for a 30-minute Video Visitation session and received less than a 30-minute session. The lawsuit seeks to recover for JPay's failure to deliver the service as promised and paid for. JPay, Inc., is a provider of corrections-related services in more than 30 states across the country, as well as a provider of Video Visits for individuals in community corrections. JPay provides video conferencing services to prisons throughout the country. Family and friends, who would otherwise be unable to visit an incarcerated person can use the service offered through JPay to have a \"Video Visitation.\" JPay charges for these Video Visitation sessions in 30-minute increments. Complaints from around the country indicate families and friends of inmates consistently complain that video sessions do not last the entire 30 minutes session, according to the complaint.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. Dean Gresham, Esq. STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road - Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] K12 INC: Souders Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls ------------------------------------------------------ KRISTYNA SOUDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. K12 INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-09106 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 23, 2018), seeks to recover damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby causing Plaintiff to incur unwanted and unnecessary charges and invading Plaintiff's privacy. According to the complaint, beginning in or around February of 2018, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone numbers ending in -4086 in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendants' services. Defendants used an \"automatic telephone dialing system\" to place its calls to Plaintiff. Furthermore, at one or more instance during these calls, Defendant utilized an \"artificial or prerecorded voice\" as prohibited by 47 U.S.C. section 24 227(b)(1)(A). Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's prior express consent to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice on its cellular telephones pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 8 227(b)(1)(A). Defendant placed multiple calls soliciting its business to Plaintiff on its cellular telephones beginning in or around February of 2018. Defendant failed to establish and implement reasonable practices and procedures to effectively prevent telephone solicitations in violation of the regulations prescribed under 47 U.S.C. section 19 227(c)(5), the lawsuit says. K12 Inc. is a for-profit education company that sells online schooling and curricula. K12 is an education management organization that provides online education designed as alternatives alternative to traditional \"bricks and mortar\" education for public school students from kindergarten to 12th grade.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: 323 306-4234 Facsimile: 866 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com abacon@ toddflaw.com [email protected] [email protected] KB HOME: Bayberry Lakes et al. Seek to Certify Homeowners Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against KB Home et al., ask the Court to certify a class of: \"all current owners of the homes in the Bayberry Lakes subdivision in Daytona Beach, Florida, (a) which Defendants designed, developed, constructed, built, and/or sold; (b) with claims that are not otherwise barred; and (c) which allegedly have the Stucco Deficiencies.\" The Plaintiffs' proposed class consists of all of the owners of the 275 homes in the Bayberry Lakes subdivision, which were all built by Defendants. The case is captioned as \"BAYBERRY LAKES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation; DAWN ADAMS; LUIS and ADALINA ALBELO; JASON BELL and KIMBERLY DANIELS; JOHN and MICHELLE BETROS; CRAIG and CASEY BROWN; MICHAEL BROWN; NATHAN and MICHELLE BURHANS; PAUL CAIRNS; JENNIFER CARON; PAMELA COTE and TODD KOEHLER; SANDRA CONGER; KENNY and LISA CORBIN; MATTHEW and GLENAE COVINGTON; JOSEPH DUNN; JOHN and OLADUNNI DURO-EMANUEL; AMAL FANOUS; THOMAS and AMANDA FOGLIO; RANDALL FRANK; IRINA GEIDEL; LOUIS GILL; ERWIN GREENE and LATESHA HUNTLEY; RICHARD and TERESA GREGO; RODNEY HAIGLER; PETER HELLINGER; VIRGINIA HEWETT; JEFFREY and TINA JACOBSON; SHARON JAMES; MAREK and CAROLINA JURACEK; WILLIAM KAMER; ERNEST OMAR-KASHIF; PAMELA LIPPELT; LOLITA LIPPELT and RICHARD GREGO; ANTHONY and DONNA MADDOX; STEPHANIE MILLER; ANGELA MOBLEY; MIKE and CELAYNE MOORE; FREDERIC NDIAYE; JONATHAN and SAMANTHA NEMERGUT; THO NGUYEN; THUAN NGUYEN; JOAN ORTAGUS; DHAVAL and DHANIAXMI PATEL; GARY and ANNETTE PELHAM; MICHAEL and KATHLEEN RIDALL; MATTHEW SPROUSE; NORMAN and GWEN STUART; EDWARD THOMAS; ROBERT TROWBRIDGE; KEVIN and HELEN TUCKER; HARRISON and HELEN WAITHAKA; RYAN WILL; KEVIN ZAHNEN and SABRINA FALLETTA; THOMAS ZAHNEN; ED and JANICE ZAPKA, as individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. GERALD BOENEMAN, an individual; GEORGE GLANCE, III, an individual; MICHAEL HOLDER, an individual; KB HOME GOLD COAST, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; KB HOME JACKSONVILLE, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; KB HOME ORLANDO, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and JOSHUA SPALTEN, an individual, the Defendants\"; - and - \"KB HOME ORLANDO, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, KB HOME JACKSONVILLE, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; KB HOME GOLD COAST, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. BRANCO PREMIER STUCCO, LLC, a Florida corporation, BRANCO LATH & STUCCO, INC., a Florida corporation, MCNEAL & WHITE CONTRACTORS, INC., a Florida corporation, R&R STUCCO, INC., a Florida corporation, ADVANCED WRAPPING AND CONCRETE SOLUTIONS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, FRITZ BOGAUSCH CONCRETE SPECIALISTS, INC., a Florida corporation, LEOR CONSTRUCTION LLC, a Florida corporation, DAVE’S PAINTING OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, M&D PROFESSIONAL PAINTING, BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE, INC., a Delaware corporation, and 84 LUMBER COMPANY, a Pennsylvania limited partnership, the Third-Party Defendants\", Case No. 6:18-cv-00072-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla., Oct. 1, 2018).[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Phillip E. Joseph, Esq. James C. Prichard, Esq. Evan J. Smallc Kelly M. Corcoran BALL JANIK LLP 201 E Pine Street, Suite 600 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 455 5664 Facsimile: (407) 902 2105 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] KERYX BIOPHARMA: Rosenblatt Balks at Merger Deal with Akebia ------------------------------------------------------------ JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC., KEVIN J. CAMERON, MARK J. ENYEDY, STEVEN C. GILMAN, MICHAEL T. HEFFERNAN, JODIE MORRISON, DANIEL P. REGAN, MICHAEL ROGERS, AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS, INC., and ALPHA THERAPEUTICS MERGER SUB INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-12205 (D. Mass., Oct. 23, 2018), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction against the Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed transaction ,and in the event defendants consummate the proposed transaction, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages. According to the complaint, this action stems from a proposed transaction announced on June 28, 2018 pursuant to which Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. will be acquired by Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. On June 28, 2018, Keryx's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Akebia. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Keryx's stockholders will receive 0.37433 shares of Parent common stock for each share of Keryx they own. On October 1, 2018, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Registration Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges herein that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Registration Statement, the lawsuit says. Keryx, a commercial stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on providing medicines for patients with kidney disease in the United States.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 - and - RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 - and - Glen DeValerio, Esq. Daryl Andrews, Esq. ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP 265 Franklin Street, Suite 1702 Boston, MA 02100 Telephone: (617) 936-2796 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] KRAFT HEINZ: Tarzian Files Suit Over Fraud ------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit asserting fraud has been filed against Kraft Heinz Food Company. The case is styled as Katrina Tarzian, Senia Hardwick on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kraft Heinz Food Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07148 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 25, 2018). The Kraft Heinz Foods Company produces and markets food and beverage products worldwide. The company offers condiments and sauces, cheese and dairy, meals, meats, refreshment beverages, and coffee and other grocery products primarily under the Heinz, Kraft, ABC, Capri Sun, Classico, Jell-O, Kool-Aid, Lunchables, Maxwell House, Ore-Ida, Oscar Mayer, Philadelphia, Planters, Plasmon, Quero, Smart Ones, and Velveeta brands.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. LA GRINGA FOOD: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Perez Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL MORALES PEREZ, ELDER ESTUARDO PEREZ RAMOS, FRANCISCO ALVAREZ RIVERA, and JUANA SANTOS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. LA GRINGA FOOD CORP. (D/B/A LA GRINGA), DOS LOCOS ON COOPER AVE LLC (D/B/A DOS LOCOS), JOHN PAUL CAMPBELL, ADALIS VALDEZ, and HENRY DOE, Case No. 1:18-cv-05726 (E.D.N.Y., October 12, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked. La Gringa Food Corp. (d/b/a La Gringa) is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York and maintains its principal place of business in Queens. Dos Locos on Cooper Ave LLC (d/b/a Dos Locos) is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York and maintains its principal place of business in Flushing. The Individual Defendants serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of the Defendant Corporations. The Defendants own, operate, or control two Mexican restaurants, located at 63-34 Woodhaven Blvd., in Queens, New York, under the name \"La Gringa,\" and at 79-11 Cooper Avenue, in Flushing, New York, under the name \"Dos Locos.\"[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: [email protected] LAS VEGAS HOTEL: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations -------------------------------------------------------- David O. Klein, Esq., of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that a nationwide class action lawsuit was filed against Las Vegas Hotel involving the receipt of SMS text messages that were allegedly sent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. [GN] LINCOLN AUTO: Mintz Attorney Discusses TCPA Class Action Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Esteban Morales, Esq. -- [email protected] -- of Mintz, in an article for Lexology, reports that in mid-2017, the Second Circuit concluded consent to receive calls is unilaterally irrevocable so long as it is a contract term. Whereas prior decisions considered \"a narrow question: whether the [Telephone Consumer Protection Act] allows a consumer who has freely and unilaterally given his or her informed consent [to] later revoke that consent,\" in Reyes v. Lincoln Auto. Fin. Servs. the Second Circuit addressed \"a different question[:] whether the TCPA also permits a consumer to unilaterally revoke his or her consent to be contacted by telephone when that consent is given, not gratuitously, but as bargained-for consideration in a bilateral contract.\" Reyes v. Lincoln Auto. Fin. Servs., 861 F.3d 51, 56 (2d Cir. 2017) (emphasis added). No, answered the Second Circuit. Relying on common law, \"consent to another's actions can 'become irrevocable' when it is provided in a legally binding agreement\" and on that basis, it affirmed the trial court's judgment. Id. at 57. Since then, a number of courts across the country (and notably in the Eleventh Circuit) have sided with Reyes in several defendant-friendly summary judgment rulings. The trend began picking up earlier this year when the Northern District of Ohio, relying on Reyes, rejected the plaintiff's oral revocation theory and granted summary judgment for the defendant in Barton v. Credit One Fin., No. 16-cv-2652, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72245 (N.D. Ohio, Apr. 27, 2018). Though the plaintiff may have orally asked the defendant to stop calling, his cardholder agreement provided for specific revocation procedures, which the plaintiff could not unilaterally alter, and with which the plaintiff did not comply. Id. at *8-*9. In line with Reyes, the District of Connecticut also granted summary judgment for the defendant in Harris v. Navient Sols. The plaintiff, who defaulted on student loans, signed promissory notes in which she provided her telephone number and which contained language confirming the notes could only be modified in writing and with the assent of both parties. Harris v. Navient Sols., LLC, No. 3:15-cv-564, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140317, *1-*2 (D. Conn. Aug. 7, 2018). The notes also provided for calls using an automatic telephone dialing system. Id. at *2. Notably, the court pointed to recent FCC statements in ACA Int'l v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018), in which the FCC conceded that a 2015 ruling touching on revocation of consent \"did not address whether contracting parties can select a particular revocation procedure by mutual agreement\" and \"[h]ere, the promissory notes provide a revocation procedure: modification of the contract in writing,\" which did not happen. Id. at n.5 (internal quotations omitted). While Harris was somewhat expected given that the district court was situated in the Second Circuit, the issue heated up as courts in the Eleventh Circuit issued rulings in Few v. Receivables Performance Mgmt., No. 1:17-CV-2038, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134324 (D. Ala. Aug. 9, 2018) and Medley v. Dish Network, LLC, No. 8:16-cv-2534, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144895 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2018). As in Harris, the plaintiff in Few consented to receipt of calls through automated systems and argued that she continued to receive calls despite revoking consent. Few, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134324 at *3-*4. Relying on Eleventh Circuit precedent, the court noted that \"common law concepts allow the unilateral revocation of consent, but only in the absence of any contractual restriction to the contrary.\" Id. at *5 (internal quotations omitted; emphasis added). Because the plaintiff consented \"as part of a bargained-for exchange and not merely gratuitously, she was unable to unilaterally revoke that consent.\" Id. at *6. Later that same month, the Middle District of Florida sided with Reyes in Medley, where the plaintiff sued after signing an agreement authorizing Dish \"to contact [her] through an automated or predictive dialing system or prerecorded messaging . . . .\" Medley, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144895 at *3. The Middle District of Florida pointed out that the Eleventh Circuit has yet to rule on \"whether consent may be unilaterally revoked when it is given as part of a bargained-for contract\" before concluding that under \"black-letter contract law [] one party to an agreement cannot, without the other party's consent, unilaterally modify the agreement once it has been executed.\" Id. at *28-*31 (internal quotations omitted). Notably, Medley also distinguished other recent decisions (including one from the Middle District of Florida) that have found the contrary; the plaintiff in Patterson v. Ally Financial, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-1592, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15203 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2018) did not provide his telephone number \"as part of the ultimate contract,\" while Ammons v. Ally Financial, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-00505, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108588 (M.D. Tenn. June 27, 2018) relied on an overbroad reading of Osorio, concluded Medley. Id. at *33-*36. The trend is clear -- regardless of the jurisdiction, post Reyes an increasing number of courts are willing to hold plaintiffs to their word. Given the expense of defending a TCPA class action and its potential exposure, the safest course for creditors and other businesses receiving a do-not-call request is to halt communication. Enterprising professional plaintiffs, however, may find creative ways to \"revoke\" consent (such as with a fax in Medley) that may go unnoticed. The trend in decisions like Reyes, Barton, Harris, Few, and Medley, however, provides peace of mind allowing businesses to rely on prior agreements memorializing consent. [GN] LIVE NATION: Gaetano Files Suit Over Overpriced Tickets ------------------------------------------------------- Todd Gaetano individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01195 (N.D. N.Y., October 4, 2018), seeks to recover obtained benefits and monies from artificially inflated ticket prices and restitution and disgorgement of such inequitably obtained profits; preliminary and permanent injunctive relief; monetary and punitive damages and interest; costs and expenses, including reasonable fees for attorneys and experts; and such other and further relief resulting from unjust enrichment. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. controls approximately 80% of event tickets sold in the US, working with third-parties who buy tickets from Ticketmaster using its proprietary and exclusive ticket reselling platform to offer the tickets for sale in the secondary market. Eventgoers, including the Plaintiff, are forced to pay an artificially elevated price beyond the original face value of the ticket, restraining price competition, says the complaint. The Defendants increased prices to artificially inflated levels, depriving purchasers of free and open competition, adds the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1 Penn Plaza, Suite 2527 New York, NY 10119 Tel: (212) 792-0046 Email: [email protected] - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 891 Northern Blvd., Suite 201 Great Neck, NY 11021 Tel: (516) 303-0552 Email: [email protected] - and - Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq. PASKOWITZ LAW FIRM, P.C. 208 East 51st Street, Suite 380 New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 685-0969 MATIZ LATIN CUISINE: Cardoso Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Cardoso, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Oscar Cano and Alfredo Quesada (a/k/a Sigifredo Quesada), individually and Matiz Latin Cuisine Corp., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-05487, (E.D. N.Y., October 1, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees and prejudgment and post-judgment interest associated with the bringing of this action, plus any additional relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws. Defendants operate a restaurant located at 110-72 Queens Blvd., Forest Hill NY where Cardoso worked as a cook. He claims to have regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week without overtime pay. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Darren P. B. Rumack, Esq. THE KLEIN LAW GROUP 39 Broadway Suite 1530 New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 344-9022 Fax: (212) 344-0301 MAYFIELD CARE: Hughes Sues over Use of Biometric Identifiers ------------------------------------------------------------ CASSANDRA E. HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MAYFIELD CARE CENTER, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH13122 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Oct. 22, 2018), seeks damages and injunctive relief for the Defendant's violation Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, since approximately April 1, 2017, the Defendant has owned and operated a nursing home located at 5905 West Washington in Chicago, Illinois. The Defendant requires its employees in Illinois to clock \"in\" and \"out\" of their work shifts by scanning their fingerprints, and its biometric computer systems then verify the employee and clock the employee \"in\" or \"out.\" Unlike traditional time clock punch cards that can be changed, replaced if lost or compromised, fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes the Defendant's workforce to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed, employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking. BIPA expressly obligates the Defendant to obtain an executed, written release from an individual, as a condition of employment, in order to capture, collect and store an individual's biometric identifiers, especially a fingerprint, and biometric information derived from it. Despite the requirements under BIPA, the Defendant's practice of collecting, storing and using its employees' biometric information without informed written consent violates its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights under the BIPA. Furthermore, the Defendant's failure to provide a written policy regarding its schedule and guidelines for the retention and permanent destruction of its workforces' biometric information violates section 15(a) of the BIPA, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Frank Castiglione, Esq. Kasif Khowaja, Esq. THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC 70 East Lake Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 356-3200 Facsimile: (312) 386-5800 E-mail: [email protected] - and - James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan A venue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 201-0575 Facsimile: (312) 332-0600 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] MAZUMA FEDERAL: Settlement of Bowens Class Suit Wins Court Okay --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOY L. BOWENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MAZUMA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, the Defendant, Case No. No. 15-00758-CV-W-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Beth Phillips entered an order on October 23, 2018: 1. certifying a class for settlement purposes: \"any member of Defendant who, between the implementation of Defendant's automated overdraft program in April 1, 2011 and September 30, 2015, was assessed an overdraft fee when the member had sufficient money in his or her \"current balance,\" but insufficient money in his or her available balance to complete the transaction that caused the fee.\" 2. appointing Joy L. Bowens as the Class Representative; 3. approving Kick Law Firm, APC and McCune Wright Arevalo LLP as Class Counsel; and 4. appointing Garden City Group, LLC as the Claims Administrator. 5. approving Public Citizen as cy pres recipient of any residue in the Settlement Fund, receiving 100% of the residue; and 6. approving payment of the Claims Administrator's fees and costs of up to $34,375 to be paid to the Claims Administrator from the Settlement Fund by the deadline specified in the Settlement Agreement. The Court finds the requested attorneys' fees of $453,333.33 to be reasonable as a percentage of the value of the Settlement and under the lodestar method, and therefore awards fees amount to be paid to Class Counsel from the Settlement Fund by the deadline specified in the Settlement. The amount is in line with market rates for contingency fees in a case such as this. Therefore, the requested fee is reasonable and approved under the percentage-of-the-benefit methodology. Further, the hourly rates of the attorneys are reasonable and in line with prevailing market rates, and the hours worked are also reasonable. Therefore, the requested fees amount is also separately and independently approved under a lodestar analysis. The Court further finds that the fee-sharing arrangement among class Counsel was disclosed to and approved by the Named Plaintiff. The Court further finds that the request for reimbursement of litigation costs in the amount of $34,591.84 is reasonable based on the work necessary to achieve this favorable class settlement, and is to be paid to Class Counsel from the Settlement Fund by the deadline specified in the Settlement Agreement. The Court finds that Joy L. Bowens assisted with the prosecution and litigation of the case, including producing documents, responding to written discovery, attending mediation, and having been willing to testify at trial. The Court therefore awards a service award in the amount of $12,000.00 to be paid to Plaintiff Joy L. Bowens from the Settlement Fund by the deadline specified in the Settlement Agreement. Within 10 days of the date of this order, Defendant Mazuma Credit Union, shall distribute the Settlement Fund to the Claims Administrator, less amounts that will be credited to Class Members by Defendant.[CC] MICROSOFT CORP: Antitrust Suits Ongoing in Canada ------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a hearing has been held in the antitrust and unfair competition class suits in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. Antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filed against the company in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada. All three have been certified on behalf of Canadian indirect purchasers who acquired licenses for Microsoft operating system software and/or productivity application software between 1998 and 2010. The trial of the British Columbia action commenced in May 2016. Following a mediation, the parties agreed to a global settlement of all three Canadian actions, and have submitted the proposed settlement agreement to the courts in all three jurisdictions for approval. A hearing to approve the settlement in British Columbia occurred on September 21, 2018, and in Ontario on October 18, 2018. A hearing in Quebec is scheduled for October 25, 2018. Microsoft Corporation develops, licenses, and supports software, services, devices, and solutions worldwide. The company was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Redmond, Washington. MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Suit Remains Dormant -------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the purported class action suit filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, remains dormant. Microsoft Mobile Oy, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class of Canadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1,600 hours, including a subclass of users with brain tumors, alleging adverse health effects from cellular phone use. Microsoft was served with the complaint in June 2014 and has been substituted for the Nokia defendants. The litigation has been dormant for more than three years. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Microsoft Corporation develops, licenses, and supports software, services, devices, and solutions worldwide. The company was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Redmond, Washington. MICROSOFT CORP: Interlocutory Appeal Okayed in Moussouris Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal in Moussouris v. Microsoft case. Current and former female Microsoft employees in certain engineering and information technology roles brought this class action in federal court in Seattle in 2015, alleging systemic gender discrimination in pay and promotions. The plaintiffs moved to certify the class in October 2017. Microsoft filed an opposition in January 2018, attaching an expert report showing no statistically significant disparity in pay and promotions between similarly situated men and women. In June 2018, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs sought an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which was granted in September 2018. Microsoft Corporation develops, licenses, and supports software, services, devices, and solutions worldwide. The company was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Redmond, Washington. MID-AMERICA: Vega Sues over Use of Biometric identifiers -------------------------------------------------------- Javier Vega, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MID-AMERICA TAPING & REELING INC., the Defendant, Case No.: 2018CH13186 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook County, Oct. 23, 2018), seeks to stop Defendant's capture, collection, use and storage of individuals' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by Defendant's conduct. This case concerns Defendant's conduct of capturing, collecting, storing, and using Plaintiffs and other workers' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information without regard to BIPA and the concrete privacy rights and pecuniary interests Illinois' BIPA protects. Defendant does this in the form of finger scans, which capture a person's fingerprint, and then Defendant uses that fingerprint to identify that same person in the future. Choosing to shun more traditional timekeeping methods, Defendant has instead implemented an invasive program that relies on the capture, collection, storage and use of its workers' fingerprints, while disregarding the applicable Illinois statute and the privacy interests it protects. BIPA expressly obligates Defendant to obtain an executed, written release from an individual, as a condition of employment, in order to capture, collect and store an individual's biometric identifiers, especially a fingerprint, and biometric information derived from it. BIPA further obligates Defendant to inform its employees in writing that a biometric identifier or biometric information is being collected or stored; to tell its employees in writing for how long it will store their biometric information and any purposes for which biometric information is being captured, collected, and used; and to make available a written policy disclosing when it will permanently destroy such information. Despite the requirements under BIPA, Defendant's practice of capturing, collecting, storing and using its employees' biometric information without informed written consent violates its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights under BIPA. Furthermore, Defendant's failure to provide a written policy regarding its schedule and guidelines for the retention and permanent destruction of its workforces' biometric information violates section 15(a) of BIPA, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Frank Castiglione, Esq. KasifKhowaja, Esq. THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC 70 East Lake Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 356-3200 Facsimile: (312) 386-5800 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] - and - James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan A venue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 201-0575 Facsimile: (312) 332-0600 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] MONSANTO COMPANY: Finneman Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Connie Finneman, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01792 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 22, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC. 9500 Nall Ave., Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207-2950 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 Facsimile: (913) 839-0567 E-mail: [email protected] MONSANTO: Must Face Class Actions Over Herbicide ------------------------------------------------ Christopher Cole, writing for Law360, reports that Monsanto must face several proposed class actions by farmers who accuse the agriculture giant of producing an herbicide that drifted across farmlands, damaging crops and ultimately forcing growers to buy seeds. [GN] MOVEMENT MORTGAGE: Fails to Pay Compensation, Morua Says -------------------------------------------------------- SYDNEY MORUA, an individual, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MOVEMENT MORTGAGE, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG 18924431 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 12, 2018) alleges that the Defendant failed to compensate the Plaintiff and California Class for all their missed meal breaks and unpaid rest periods. According to the complaint, the Defendant's uniform policy and practice is unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practice whereby Defendant retained and continues to retain wages due Plaintiff and the other members of the California Class. The Defendant originates home loans. It offers renovation loans for minor or major upgrades on a home, fixed rate conventional mortgages, home affordable refinance programs, and federal housing administration loans to assist borrowers who may need a low down payment.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP Website: www.bamlawca.com 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 NEW 32ND: Does Not Pay Proper Wages, Montero Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------ Zoila M. Guaman Montero and Deisy Sailema, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. New 32nd St Inc. d/b/a Enail, \"Shawn\" Doe and \"Nicole\" Doe Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-09859 (S.D. N.Y. October 25, 2018) is an action brought by Plaintiffs on their own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated employees, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices. The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs their lawfully earned minimum wages, overtime compensation, failed to provide them with a wage notice at the time of hiring as well as proper wage statements for each pay period in violation of the NYLL. Montero is a resident of Queens County and was employed as a Nail 32nd Technician from on or about September 2016 to October 12, 2018. Sailema is a resident of Queens County and was employed as a Nail 32nd Technician from on or about May 2017 to May 25, 2018. New 32nd St Inc. d/b/a Enail is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York 32nd with a principal place of business located at 35 East Street, New York, NY 10016.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lorena P. Duarte, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Phone: 718.353.8588 Dir: 718.353.8522 Email: [email protected] NICHICON: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of $21.5MM Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a class of indirect purchasers asked a judge on Oct. 29 to sign off on a $21.5 million settlement with Nichicon for fixing the price of capacitors. A copy of the INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENTS WITH NICHICON AND FOR APPROVAL OF THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF is available at: https://is.gd/KR2KmU NIKODEMO OPERATING: Eduoard Sues Over Lost, Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Saint Surin Eduoard, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nikodemo Operating Corp., Dimitrios Kaloidis, Ioanis Paraponiaris and Steve Zaharakis, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-05554, (E.D. N.Y., October 4, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages and unpaid spread of hours premiums pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor laws including lost wages caused by retaliatory termination of his employment. Nikodemo Operating Corp. operates a diner \"Floridian Diner\" located at 2301 Flatbush Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11234 where Eduoard worked as a kitchen worker. Defendants automatically deducted one hour as a lunch break each day that Plaintiff worked, notwithstanding the fact that he never took a lunch break of any length and failed to pay him for that one hour. Nikodemo is accused of rounding down employees' hours worked to the nearest hour, substantially reducing the amount of time worked. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neil M. Frank, Esq. Joseph A. Myers, Esq. FRANK AND BOLAND PC 500 Bi-County Boulevard, Suite 465 Farmingdale, NY 11735 Tel: (631) 756-0400 Fax: (631) 756-0547 Email: [email protected] [email protected] NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend Fuel Surcharges-Related Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Norfolk Southern Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself against a consolidated fuel surcharges related suit In 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against the company and other Class I railroads in various Federal district courts regarding fuel surcharges were consolidated in the District of Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. In 2012, the court certified the case as a class action. The defendant railroads appealed this certification, and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the District Court's decision and remanded the case for further consideration. On October 10, 2017, the District Court denied class certification; the findings are subject to appeal. Norfolk Southern said \"We believe the allegations in the complaints are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the cases. We do not believe the outcome of these proceedings will have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations, or liquidity.\" No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Norfolk Southern Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the rail transportation of raw materials, intermediate products, and finished goods. Norfolk Southern Corporation was founded in 1883 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia. NY SWEET SPOT: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Huziankou Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DZIANIS HUZIANKOU, TIMUR KIM, AND AYATOLLA KUANYSH, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. NY SWEET SPOT CAFE INC. d/b/a \"Sweetspot Cafe,\" OLGA PERRY and IGOR SONIN, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:18-cv-05715 (E.D.N.Y., October 12, 2018), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by (i) failing to pay the minimum wage, (ii) failing to pay overtime premium pay, (iii) failing to pay for all hours worked, and (iv) making unlawful deductions. NY Sweet Spot Cafe Inc., doing business as Sweetspot Cafe, is a domestic business corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York with its principal place of business located in Brooklyn, New York. The Individual Defendants own, operate and control Sweetspot Cafe's day-to-day operations and management and jointly employed the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees. Sweetspot Cafe is a restaurant located at 2376 Coney Island Avenue, in Brooklyn, New York. Sweetspot Cafe serves Russian food and seats approximately 75 customers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. Milana Dostanitch, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 Facsimile: (212) 444-1030 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] PARKLAND HEALTH: Baldridge Sues Over Unpaid Hospital Bills ---------------------------------------------------------- Marianna Baldridge, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dallas County Hospital District (d/b/a Parkland Health and Hospital System), Defendant, Case No. DC-18-15079 filed in the M-298th Judicial District, Dallas County TX, on October 4, 2018, seeks full refund of all unfair amounts charged and collected, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs and other relief for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Parkland Hospital is a governmental entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, which is duly licensed to provide medical care in the State of Texas, and whose principal place of business is in Dallas County, Texas. Baldridge is a patient who availed emergency care at Parkland Hospital whose bills were not paid in whole or part by commercial insurance or a governmental healthcare program and who did not have their bills waived or written off in full. According to the complaint, the Defendant charges their patients using their own internally developed rate schedule which consists of artificial, grossly inflated and unreasonable rates; and bills their self-pay emergency care patients at rates which average several times what is collected from all other categories of emergency care patients covered by commercial insurers. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: John W. Pate, Esq. Michael Heygood, Esq. HEYGOOD, ORR & PEARSON 6363 N. State Highway 161, Suite 450 Irving, TX 75038 Tel: (214) 237-9001 Fax: (214) 237-9002 Email: [email protected] [email protected] PEKIN INSURANCE: Sued over Unsolicited Faxed Advertisements ----------------------------------------------------------- QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., the Plaintiff, vs. PEKIN INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.: 2018CH13211 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Oct. 23, 2018), seeks injunction prohibiting Defendant from sending unsolicited faxed advertisements to Illinois consumers. According to the complaint, Pekin is an insurance company with its principal place of business in Illinois. On October 15, 2008, Plaintiff instituted a civil class action captioned \"Quality Management and Consulting, Inc. v. Commercial Asphalt Maintenance, LLC, et al,\" Case No. 08CH38641, in this Court (the \"Underlying Action\"). In the Underlying Action, the Plaintiff sought relief on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated plaintiffs who also received unsolicited faxes from Commercial Asphalt. The Underlying Complaint alleged that Commercial Asphalt violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and committed common law conversion by sending unsolicited faxes to Quality and hundreds of others. The Underlying Complaint further alleged that Commercial Asphalt knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the other class members had not given express invitation or permission for Defendant or anybody else to fax advertisements about Defendant's goods or services. The Underlying Complaint further alleged that its misappropriation of paper, toner, and employee time was wrongful and without authorization. Commercial Asphalt tendered the defense of the Underlying Action to Pekin, and Pekin disclaimed its duty to defend and refused the tender. On May 16, 2013, the Court in the Underlying Action granted Quality's motion for class certification and certified the following class: \"All persons who (1) were successfully sent one or more facsimiles between October 8, 2007 and November 28, 2008, advertising the services of \"Commercial Asphalt Maintenance\" located at 1748 N. Aurora Road, Naperville, IL, and (2) with respect to whom Defendant cannot provide evidence of prior express permission or invitation for sending of such faxes.\" On August 19, 2014, the Court in the Underlying Action granted Quality's motion for summary judgment and entered final judgment in favor of the class and against Commercial Asphalt. The Judgment was entered against Commercial Asphalt in the total amount of $1,120,500. Defendant's actions caused damages to Plaintiff and the other class members because their receipt of Defendant's unsolicited fax advertisements caused them to lose paper and toner consumed as a result. Defendant's actions prevented Plaintiff's fax machine from being used for Plaintiff's business purposes during the time Defendant was using Plaintiff's fax machine for Defendant's illegal purpose. Defendant's actions also cost Plaintiff employee time, as Plaintiff's employees used their time receiving, routing, and reviewing Defendant's illegal faxes and that time otherwise would have been spent on Plaintiff's business activities, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON+ WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: 847 368-1500 - and - Phillip A. Bockm Esq. BOCK& HATCH, LLC 134 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312 658-5500 PGNV LLC: Ramos Seeks Minimum Wage and Overtime under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- FREDY HUMBERTO RAMOS PELICO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PGNV LLC (D/B/A EMPANADA MAMA), HERMES B NY LLC (D/B/A EMPANADA MAMA EXPRESS), COVADONGA INC. (D/B/A EMPANADA MAMA), SOCRATES NANAS, and GIOVANI MORALES, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-09761 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants own, operate, or control two restaurants and catering services companies, located at 95 Allen St., New York, New York. The Plaintiff is a former delivery worker of PGNV LLC. However, he was required to spend a considerable part of his work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to mopping and cleaning the floor of the businesses , making the bags where the empanadas would go, carrying down and stocking deliveries when the van would arrive, cleaning the bathroom and the carpets, organizing and packing food, making coffee and milk shakes, taking out the garbage, refilling the sauce containers and sweeping and washing the sidewalk in front of the business (non-tipped duties). The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES , P.C . 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: [email protected] PHILIP MORRIS: Gilchrist Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Wayne Gilchrist, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Philip Morris International Inc., Andre Calantzopoulos, Martin G. King, and Jacek Olczak, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-09856 (S.D. N.Y. October 25, 2018) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Philip Morris common stock between February 8, 2018 and April 18, 2018, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Philip Morris and certain of its officers and/or directors. Over the last several years, says the complaint, Philip Morris has been facing stagnant or negative sales trends due to a decrease in smoking percentages worldwide. Throughout the Class Period, the Company reassured investors that its sales initiatives were combatting this decline and that favorable sales trends at the end of 2017 were continuing through the first quarter of 2018. However, these statements were materially false and misleading because Defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that: (i) Philip Morris was experiencing a faster decline in cigarette and heated tobacco sales volumes during the first quarter of 2018 than investors had been led to believe, (ii) the Company's highly-touted heated tobacco sales initiatives had faltered, and (iii) the Company was experiencing adverse sales headwinds in key markets, says the complaint. As a result of these misrepresentations, Philip Morris stock traded at artificially inflated price levels throughout the Class Period, it adds. After the above revelations entered the market, the price of Philp Morris stock dropped by nearly 22% from its Class Period high, causing Plaintiff and other Class members to suffer significant losses and damages. Wayne Gilchrist purchased Philip Morris common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and has been damaged thereby. Philip Morris is one of the world's largest tobacco companies, producing several top selling cigarette brands. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, Philip Morris is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes, tobacco products, and other nicotine-containing products, including heated tobacco units, outside the United States. The Company is well-known worldwide for its best-selling product, Marlboro cigarettes. Andre Calantzopoulos is and, throughout the Class Period, was the Chief Executive Officer & Director of Philip Morris beginning in May 8, 2013 and through the Class Period. Martin G. King is and, throughout the Class Period, was the Chief Financial Officer of Philip Morris beginning in January 2018 and through the Class Period. Jacek Olczak is and, throughout the Class Period, was the Chief Operating Officer of Philip Morris beginning in January 2018 and through the Class Period.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Naumon A. Amjed, Esq. Ryan T. Degnan, Esq. Melissa L. Troutner, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (610) 667-7706 Fax: (610) 667-7056 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] PNC FINANCIAL: Rossini FCRA Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit styled STEPHEN ROSSINI and MATTHEW KANE, on behalf of themselves and all similar situated individuals v. PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. and PNC BANK, N.A., Case No. GD-18-011610, was removed on October 12, 2018, from the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-01370-MRH to the proceeding. By their Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert four individual and putative class claims against the Defendants under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James M. Pietz, Esq. Ruairi McDonnell, Esq. FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300 429 Fourth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 288-4333 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] - and - Martell Harris, Esq. THE TRIAL LAW FIRM, LLC BNY Mellon Center 500 Grant Street, Suite 2900 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 588-0030 E-mail: [email protected] The Defendants are represented by: Catherine S. Ryan, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 225 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 288-3131 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Michael O'Neil, Esq. Bruce R. Van Baren, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 207-1000 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Continues to Class Suits in Minnesota --------------------------------------------------------- Polaris Industries Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself against two class action lawsuits in Minnesota. The company is a party to two putative class actions pending against it in the U.S., both of which were previously reported in the company's quarterly report filed on July 25, 2018. One putative class action is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota and arises out of allegations that certain Polaris products suffer from unresolved fire hazards allegedly resulting in economic loss, and is the result of the consolidation of the three putative class actions the company reported in its April 26, 2018 quarterly report and that were filed between April 5-10, 2018: James Bruner, Jose Luna, Clint Halvorsrod, Robert Lenz, Michael Zeeck, Chad Rogers, Richard Berens, Steve Bailey, Michael Jacks, Bryan Forrest and Ed Beattie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Polaris Industries/Sales Inc. (D. Minn.), June 15, 2018. The second putative class action also is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota and alleges excessive heat hazards on certain other Polaris products and seeks damages for alleged personal injury and economic loss: Riley Johannesshon, Daniel Badilla, James Kelley, Kevin Wonders, William Bates and James Pinion, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Polaris Industries (D. Minn.), October 4, 2016. Polaris Industries said. \"As these proceedings are still in the early stages, we are unable to provide an evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or an estimate of the range of possible loss.\" Polaris Industries Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures, and markets power sports vehicles worldwide. The company operates through four segments: Off-Road Vehicles (ORVs)/Snowmobiles, Motorcycles, Global Adjacent Markets, and Aftermarket. Polaris Industries Inc. was founded in 1954 and is headquartered in Medina, Minnesota. PRIVATUS CARE: Markova Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law --------------------------------------------------------- MARYNA MARKOVA, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by PRIVATUS CARE SOLUTIONS, INC., along with other entities affiliated or controlled by, PRIVATUS CARE SOLUTIONS, INC., the Plaintiffs, vs. PRIVATUS CARE SOLUTIONS, INC., and/or any other related entities, theDefendants, Case No.: 159787/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 23, 2018), seeks to recover wages and benefits which Plaintiffs were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive pursuant to New York Labor Law According to the complaint, the Defendant has maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in excess of ten hours per day, without providing the proper hourly compensation for all hours worked, and overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week, and \"spread of hours\" compensation. While employed by Defendant, the Plaintiff provided services to homebound and/or ailing elderly clients, including but not limited to, personal care services, such as assistance with dressing, bathing and personal grooming, cooking, serving food, changing diapers and toileting, cleaning, such as mopping, vacuuming, cleaning bathrooms, taking out garbage, and escorting clients to the doctors. During her employment, the Plaintiff was paid an hourly rate of approximately $11.30 to approximately $14.57 per hour. The Plaintiff worked 24-hour shifts, she was only paid for approximately 16 hours of her 24-hour shift, and she was not paid for every hour that she worked. The Plaintiff was not paid any hourly rate for the other 8 hours worked. When Plaintiff worked 24-hour shifts for Defendant, she was generally not permitted to leave the client's residence during her shift, the lawsuit says. Privatus Care is a home care services agency.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq. Joel Goldenberg, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW FIRM LLC 281 Summerhill Road, Suite 210 East Brunswick, NJ 08816 Telephone: (212) 808-2224 E-mail: naydenskiyl [email protected] RAD MEDICAL: Accused by Mendez of Not Paying Minimum and OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- ELVIS RAFAEL MENDEZ and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. RAD MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, INC., DAVID DIAZ, Case No. 1:18-cv-24211-UU (S.D. Fla., October 12, 2018), is brought as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act arising from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. Rad Medical Transportation, Inc., is a corporation that regularly transacts business within Dade County, Florida. The Individual Defendant is a corporate officer, owner or manager of the Defendant Corporation. Rad Medical is a healthcare provider in Florida. The provider is a land vehicle with a capacity to meet special height, clearance, access, and seating, for the conveyance of persons in non-emergency situations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: [email protected] RAWLINGS SPORTING: Sotelo Files Fraud Class Action -------------------------------------------------- A fraud class action has been filed against Rawlings Sporting Goods Company Inc. The case is styled as Richard Sotelo on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rawlings Sporting Goods Company Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-09166 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 25, 2018). Rawlings Sporting Goods Company, Inc. manufactures and markets sporting goods for professional athletes, national governing bodies, and sports leagues worldwide. It offers baseball, basketball, football, and softball game-related product lines, including gloves, wood and alloy bats, helmets, protective products, baseballs, bags, and batting gloves.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas S. Alch, Esq. Shoop APLC 350 South Beverly Drive Suite 330 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (310) 277-1700 Fax: (310) 277-8500 Email: [email protected] RED ROBIN: Court Certifies Class & Subclasses in Vigueras Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Manuel Vigueras, the Plaintiff, v. Red Robin International, Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case 8:17-cv-01422-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal., Oct. 23, 2018), the Hon. Judge James V. Selna entered an order on Oct. 23, 2018, granting certification to Vigueras' proposed class and subclasses of: Class: \"all persons who are employed or have been employed by Defendant as non-exempt, hourly employees, however titled, in Defendant's restaurants in the state of California from July 14, 2013 to the present\"; First Meal Period Subclass: \"all Class Members who worked more than 5 hours in a workday, and were not provided with a lawful, timely uninterrupted 30-minute meal period or compensation in lieu thereof\"; Second Meal Period Subclass: \"all Class Members who worked more than 10 hours in a workday, and were not provided with a lawful, timely uninterrupted 30-minute meal period or compensation in lieu thereof.\" Rest Period Subclass: \"all Class Members who worked more than 3-1/2 hours in a workday and were not authorized or permitted to take one net 10 minute rest period for every four hours worked or major fraction thereof, or compensation in lieu thereof\"; Indemnification Subclass: \"all Class Members who were not reimbursed for necessary expenditures incurred to perform their job duties\"; and Unfair Business Practices Subclass: \"all Class Members who (1) were subject to unlawful, illegal, unfair or deceptive business acts or practices by Defendant and, (2) are entitled to restitution for unpaid wages, unpaid meal or rest premiums or unreimbursed expenses from Defendant based on conduct occurring at any time from July 14, 2013 to the present\".[CC] RENTGROW INC: Faces McIntyre Suit Alleging FCRA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA MCINTYRE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. RENTGROW, INC., d/b/a Yardi Resident Screening, Case No. 1:18-cv-12141 (D. Mass., October 12, 2018), seeks damages for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. RentGrow, Inc., provides online resident screening solutions for property management companies and the multifamily housing industry in the United States. The Company's products include TotalScreen, an online resident screening tool/system, which offers a range of components, such as credit, criminal, and eviction/landlord and tenant records screenings, as well as rental payment history records, address searches, executive management reports, and verifications; and ScreeningWorks, an online resident screening for independent rental owners with various units.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Claude F. Lefebvre, Esq. THE CONSUMER & FAMILY LAW CENTER OF CLAUDE F. LEFEBVRE PO Box 479 Pawtucket, RI 02862 Telephone: (401) 728-6060 RICHLINE GROUP: Faces Kiler ADA Class Action -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Richline Group, Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Marion Kiler individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Richline Group, Inc. doing business as: Gemvara.com, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05980 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2018). Richline Group, Inc. manufactures and distributes jewelry. It offers precious metals, pearls, findings, gemstones, raw materials, hand tools, equipment, displays, packaging products, beads, fashion earrings, and chains. The company provides an ear piercing system for use in jewelry and department stores, pharmacies, medical clinics, salons, and beauty supply stores.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. RITZ CARLTON: Baltodano Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida ------------------------------------------------------------------ Marcia Baltodano and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. The Ritz Carlton Hotel Company, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 18-029405-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on Oct. 23, 2018. The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-24393-KMW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kathleen M. Williams. The suit alleges Civil Rights Act violation.[BN] Attorneys for Plantiff: Nathaly Lewis, Esq. Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant: Elizabeth Mercedes Rodriguez, Esq. Viktoryia Johnson, Esq. FORD & HARRISON LLP 1 S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2130 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 808-2100 Facsimile: (305) 808-2101 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] ROGERS PAVEMENT: Accused by Pittman Suit of Not Paying Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN PITTMAN, Individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. ROGERS PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE, INC., DOUG ROGERS and RICHARD ROGERS, Case No. 1:18-cv-00717-MRB (S.D. Ohio, October 11, 2018), accuses the Defendants of unlawfully denying overtime compensation to the Plaintiff for hours worked in their paving business, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Rogers Pavement is a for-profit Ohio Corporation first registered with the Ohio Secretary of State in 1996. The Individual Defendants are owners, officers or employees of Rogers Pavement. The Defendants are in the paving business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christian A. Jenkins, Esq. Robb S. Stokar, Esq. MINNILLO & JENKINS Co., LPA 2712 Observatory Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 723-1600 Facsimile: (513) 723-1620 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] RON DESANTIS: Stephenson Sues over Political Campaign Text Ads -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH STEPHENSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RON DESANTIS, the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-02606 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 23, 2018), alleges that Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, through his political campaign, or its agents, sending text messages to Plaintiff and other individuals without their consent through automatic telephone dialing system. According to the complaint, at 2:14 p.m. on October 18, 2018, the Plaintiff received the following text message from telephone number (855) 206-9488 on his personal cellular phone: \"Vote DeSantis today to protect our Constitution. www.rondesantis.com Gillum & his radical friends will be a disaster for the FL Supreme Court. DeSantis will appoint justices who will uphold our Constitution.\" In response, Plaintiff sent the following text: \"Don't text me and don’t call me. \"I’m voting for Gillum!!!\" He did not receive a response. A 3:18 p.m. on October 21, 2018, Plaintiff received the following text message from telephone number (321) 204-7412 on his personal cellular phone: \"Florida Gubernatorial Debate Tonight on CNN at 8pm ET Ron DeSantis vs Andrew Gillum Pres. Trump needs every Republican in Florida to step up and help stop the radical left-wing by voting for Ron DeSantis. Andrew Gillum is a radical far-left democrat. His campaign is powered by Socialist Bernie Sanders & Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Gillum wants to abolish ICE, allow sanctuary cities, add Billions in new FL taxes, and defund the police. He wants to impeach Pres. Trump. WE MUST STOP GILLUM! VOTE EARLY, starting tomorrow in many counties. Learn More at RonDeSantis.com/EarlyVoting Paid by Ron DeSantis, Republican, for governor.\" Defendant's political campaign, or its agents, sent the text messages identified. The Plaintiff has had his cellular phone number since approximately 2004. He has never provided his cellular phone number to any political campaigns. Plaintiff called the phone numbers from which the text messages were sent. The Plaintiff never gave his permission for Defendant or Defendant’s political campaign to send text messages to Plaintiff's cellular phone or to contact him in any other way. The Plaintiff is outraged that Defendant's campaign, or its agents, would send text messages to his personal cellular phone and he hopes this lawsuit will hold Defendant and his campaign accountable for violating the law, the lawsuit says. Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Rd., Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: 561-447-8888 Facsimile: 561-447-8831 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] SCHWAB INVESTMENTS: Vedder Price Discusses Class Action Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- Vedder Price, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that in February 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion dismissing with prejudice the claims brought by Northstar Financial Advisors, Inc., on behalf of its clients who invested in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund, against Schwab Investments, Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. and the trustees of the Schwab Trust. Northstar alleged that, between August 2007 and February 2009, Schwab had managed the Fund's investments in a manner that deviated from the Fund's stated investment objectives and policies, resulting in investor losses. Northstar claimed under Massachusetts law that the Fund's trustees breached a purported fiduciary duty owed directly to the Fund's shareholders, that the Fund breached a purported contract with its shareholders embodied in the Fund's proxy statement and prospectus and that the Fund's shareholders had claims against Schwab as third-party beneficiaries under the Fund's investment advisory agreement. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had previously decided that these were legitimate claims under state law, the District Court, on remand from the Ninth Circuit, dismissed Northstar's claims with prejudice, determining that they were essentially claims of misrepresentation in the sale of securities and were therefore precluded from being brought as a class action by the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standard Act (SLUSA). Following this decision, Northstar appealed the decision of the District Court to the Ninth Circuit. On September 14, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the District Court's dismissal of Northstar's class claims, agreeing that the claims were precluded by SLUSA. However, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the District Court had erred in dismissing the claims with prejudice and remanded the case to the District Court to give Northstar an opportunity to amend its complaint. The Ninth Circuit's opinion was issued under the caption Northstar Financial Advisors, Inc. v. Schwab Investments, et. al., Case No. 16-15303. [GN] SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Kasich Sues Over Defective EZ Seeds ------------------------------------------------------- PETE KASICH, and all others similarly situated v. THE SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO COMPANY, INC., and THE SCOTTS COMPANY LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-01373-JFC (W.D. Pa., October 12, 2018), seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated purchasers of Scotts Turf Builder EZ Seed in Pennsylvania. Mr. Kasich accuses the Defendants of misrepresenting and selling a defective combination mulch-grass seed product, Scotts Turf Builder EZ Seed (\"EZ Seed\" or the \"Product\"). He asserts that according to the Product's labeling and advertising, the Product was uniformly represented as causing grass to grow \"50% THICKER WITH HALF THE WATER\" compared to \"ordinary seed\" and that the Product \"Grows Anywhere! Guaranteed!\" (the \"Representations\"). He contends that the Representations are materially false and misleading because the Product does not in fact make grass grow \"50% THICKER WITH HALF THE WATER\" compared to \"ordinary seed.\" The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Marysville, Ohio. Scotts is the world's largest marketer of branded consumer lawn and garden products, including a variety of grass seed products. The Scotts Company LLC is an Ohio Limited Liability Company with a principal place of business located in Marysville. The Scotts Company LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Scott A. Kamber, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLC 201 Milwaukee Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80206 Telephone: (303) 222-9008 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 E-mail: [email protected] SILVERWARE POS: Clark Sues over Use of Biometric identifiers ------------------------------------------------------------ LAVELL CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SILVERWARE POS, INC., an Illinois Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.: 2018CH13115 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Oct. 22, 2018), seeks injunctive and other equitable relief as is necessary to protect the interests of Class, including an order requiring the Defendant to collect, store, and use biometric identifiers or biometric information in compliance with the Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, SilverWare is a developer of point of sale (\"POS\") systems for the hospitality industry. It offers a range of POS systems that enable businesses-primarily restaurants-to track their employees' time by using a biometric finger scanner. When employees first begin their jobs at a restaurant that uses Silverware's POS system, they are required to scan their fingerprint in its biometric time tracking system as a means of authentication, instead of using key fobs or other identification cards. While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks in the workplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or identification cards-which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised-fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with the employee. This exposes employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed, employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the BIPA, specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints. Despite this law, Silverware disregards restaurant employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the BIPA.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312 589 6370 Facsimile: 312 589 6378 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] - and - David Fish, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 355 7590 Facsimile: (630) 778 0400 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] SIRIUS XM: Bid For Class Certification in Buchanan Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sirius XM Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the motion for class certification in the lawsuit filed by Thomas Buchanan is pending. On March 13, 2017, Thomas Buchanan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against the company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The plaintiff in this action alleges that the company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the \"TCPA\") by, among other things, making telephone solicitations to persons on the National Do-Not-Call registry, a database established to allow consumers to exclude themselves from telemarketing calls unless they consent to receive the calls in a signed, written agreement, and making calls to consumers in violation of our internal Do-Not-Call registry. The plaintiff is seeking various forms of relief, including statutory damages of five hundred dollars for each violation of the TCPA or, in the alternative, treble damages of up to fifteen hundred dollars for each knowing and willful violation of the TCPA and a permanent injunction prohibiting the company from making, or having made, any calls to land lines that are listed on the National Do-Not-Call registry or the company's internal Do-Not-Call registry. The plaintiff has filed a motion seeking class certification, and that motion is pending. Sirius XM said, \"We believe we have substantial defenses to the claims asserted in this action, and we intend to defend this action vigorously.\" Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the United States. The company broadcasts music plus sports, entertainment, comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather programs, including various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop to country, dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play sports from principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and entertainment channels for various audiences; national, international, and financial news; and limited run channels. Sirius XM Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation. SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend Biometric Information-Related Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself against a potential class action complaint alleging Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (\"BIPA\") violations. On January 7, 2016, a potential class action complaint was filed against Six Flags Entertainment Corporation in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois. On April 22, 2016, Great America, LLC was added as a defendant. The complaint asserts that the company violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (\"BIPA\") in connection with the admission of season pass holders and members through the finger scan program that commenced in the 2014 operating season at Six Flags Great America in Gurnee, Illinois, and seeks statutory damages, attorneys' fees and an injunction. An aggrieved party under BIPA may recover (i) $1,000 if a company is found to have negligently violated BIPA or (ii) $5,000 if found to have intentionally or recklessly violated BIPA, plus reasonable attorneys' fees in each case. The complaint does not allege that any information was misused or disseminated. On April 7, 2017, the court certified two questions for consideration by the Illinois Appellate Court of the Second District. On June 7, 2017, the Illinois Appellate Court granted the company's motion to appeal. Accordingly, two questions regarding the interpretation of BIPA were certified for consideration by the Illinois Appellate Court. On December 21, 2017, the Illinois Appellate Court found in company's favor, holding that the plaintiff had to allege more than a technical violation of BIPA and had to be injured in some way. On March 1, 2018, the plaintiff filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. On May 30, 2018, the Illinois Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's leave to appeal. Six Flags said, \"We intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves against this litigation. Since this litigation is still in an early stage, the outcome is currently not determinable and a reasonable estimate of loss or range of loss in excess of the immaterial amount that we have recorded for this litigation cannot be made.\" Six Flags Entertainment Corporation owns and operates regional theme and water parks under the Six Flags brand name. The company's parks offer various thrill rides, water attractions, themed areas, concerts and shows, restaurants, game venues, and retail outlets. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation was founded in 1961 and is based in Grand Prairie, Texas. SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend Suits Over Credit Card Info ---------------------------------------------------------- Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself from four potential class action complaint. During 2017, four potential class action complaints were filed against Six Flags Entertainment Corporation or one of its subsidiaries. Complaints were filed on August 11, 2017 in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois, on September 1, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, on September 11, 2017 in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, and on November 30, 2017 in the Superior Court of Ocean County, New Jersey. The complaints allege that the company, in violation of federal law, printed more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number on customers' receipts, and/or the expiration dates of those cards. A willful violation may subject a company to liability for actual damages or statutory damages between $100 and $1,000 per person, punitive damages in an amount determined by a court, and reasonable attorneys' fees, all of which are sought by the plaintiffs. The complaints do not allege that any information was misused. Six Flags SAID, \"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this litigation. Since this litigation is in an early stage, the outcome is currently not determinable and a reasonable estimate of loss or range of loss cannot be made.\" No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation owns and operates regional theme and water parks under the Six Flags brand name. The company's parks offer various thrill rides, water attractions, themed areas, concerts and shows, restaurants, game venues, and retail outlets. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation was founded in 1961 and is based in Grand Prairie, Texas. SOLUDOS LLC: Violates Disabilities Act, Figueroa Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- Jose Figueroa has brought a class action lawsuit against Soludos LLC. The case is captioned Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Soludos LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09891 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Soludos LLC designs, manufactures, and sells shoes for women, men, and kids. It offers espadrilles, sandshoes, lace-ups, low cuts, sandals, canvas shoes, and summer and beach shoes. The company sells its products through retail stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: [email protected] STARKIST: 9th Cir. Affirms Tuna Under-filling Settlement Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the District Court's approval of a class-action settlement in a case where consumers sued over the under-filling by StarKist of its cans of tuna, with two of the three judges on the panel declaring that a pay-off to class members in the form of vouchers was not akin to a \"coupon settlement\" which requires heightened scrutiny under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Circuit Judge Michelle Friedland agreed with her colleagues -- Senior Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith and District Court Chief Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn of the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation -- that the settlement notice satisfied due process and that the class counsel did not engage in misconduct. However, she insisted that \"the vouchers to purchase StarKist canned tuna must be considered coupons\" under the act. Her concurring and dissenting opinion responds to the Oct. 19 memorandum opinion which affirms the Sept. 29, 2016 decision by District Court Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. of the Northern District of California giving final approval to a $12 million settlement of the action. That action was brought by one Patrick Hendricks in February 2013. Citing federal law requiring that five-ounce cans contain an average of 2.84 to 3.23 ounces of tuna, he alleged that StarKist's cans actually held an average of 2.81 to 3.11 ounces of tuna. Hendricks averred that he would not have purchased the StarKist product if he had known that the cans contained .08 to 1 percent less tuna than federally mandated. Under the settlement, consumers -- who stated under penalty of perjury that they bought 5-ounce cans of StarKist tuna between Feb. 19, 2009 and Oct. 31, 2014 -- could receive $25 or $50 in vouchers redeemable for cans of the StarKist product. A group of objectors appealed. [GN] STUBBS & WOOTTON: Figueroa Suit Asserts ADA Breach -------------------------------------------------- Jose Figueroa has filed a class action lawsuit against Stubbs & Wootton Corp. under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Stubbs & Wootton Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09886 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2018). Stubbs & Wootton produces bespoke and ready-to-wear luxury slippers. It is located at 340 Worth Avenue, Palm, Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: [email protected] SUBARU OF AMERICA: Sauer Sues Over Flaw in Turbo Charged Engines ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHERYL SAUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-14933 (D.N.J., October 12, 2018), is brought on behalf of all persons, who purchased or leased certain vehicles equipped with uniform and uniformly defective engines designed, manufactured, distributed, warranted, marketed, and sold or leased by the Defendant. The vehicles at issue all contain turbo charged engines, including but not limited to the 2014 Subaru Forester XT, 2015 Subaru Forester XT, 2016 Subaru Forester XT, 2014 Subaru WRX, 2015 Subaru WRX, 2016 Subaru WRX, 2014 Subaru WRX STi, 2015 Subaru WRX Sti, and 2016 Subaru WRX STi (the \"Class Vehicles\"). The Plaintiff alleges that the Class Vehicles' engines have a serious design defect that causes the engines to suffer damage due to the engines being tuned too highly. Additionally, the Defendant applied an undisclosed fix (\"the Fix\") during a \"claimed\" mandatory emissions recall to the Engines in an attempt to fix the design defect in the Engines that rendered the Class Vehicles unusable due to intermittent stalling and sudden accelerating following the application of the Fix. Subaru of America, Inc., is a domestic corporation duly organized under the laws of the state of New Jersey, and engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of motor vehicles and related equipment and services. The Defendant is also in the business of marketing, supplying and selling written warranties to the public at large through a system of authorized dealerships.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. Ross H. Schmierer, Esq. DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 525 Route 73 North, Suite 410 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 797-9951 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Tom Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, PC 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (424) 278-9125 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] SUNDANCE INC: Jackson Sues over Use of Biometric Identifiers ------------------------------------------------------------ DWAYNE JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SUNDANCE, INC., a Michigan corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH13118 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Oct. 22, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendant's capture, collection, use and storage of individuals' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The lawsuit seeks to obtain redress for all persons injured by the Defendant's conduct. According to the complaint, the Defendant has implemented an invasive program that relies on the capture, collection, storage and use of its workers' fingerprints, while disregarding the applicable Illinois statute and the privacy interests it protects. The Defendant's employees in Illinois have been required to clock \"in\" and \"out\" of their work shifts by scanning their fingerprints, or by entering a code at a cash register. When clocking in and out using the fingerprint scans, the Defendant's biometric computer systems then verify the employee and clock the employee \"in\" or \"out.\" Unlike traditional time clock punch cards that can be changed or replaced if lost or compromised, fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each BIPA defines a \"biometric identifier\" as \"a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry.\" BIPA defines \"biometric information\" as \"any information\", regardless of how it is captured, converted, stored, or shared, based on an individual's employee. This exposes the Defendant's workforce to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed, employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Frank Castiglione, Esq. KasifKhowaja, Esq. THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC 70 East Lake Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 356-3200 Facsimile: (312) 386-5800 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] - and - James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan A venue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 201-0575 Facsimile: (312) 332-0600 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] TAPESTRY INC: Ornelas Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Ornelas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Tapestry, Inc., a Maryland Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.: RG18920047, was removed from the Alameda County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California (Oakland). The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-06453-DMR to the proceeding on Oct. 22, 2018. The suit alleges labor-related violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Attorneys for Defendant: Gregory William Knopp, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 229-1000 Facsimile: (310) 229-1001 E-mail: [email protected] TD AMERITRADE: Kim Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- WON KIM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs TD AMERITRADE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 519332/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sept. 26, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation and other damages for Plaintiff and their similarly situated co-workers, salaried Investment Consultants, Fixed Income Specialists, and/or Senior Fixed Income Specialists who are or were employed by Defendants from August 1, 2011 through December 15, 2017 in New York, from August 1, 2013 through December 15, 2017 in California, and from August 1, 2014 through December 15, 2017 in states other than New York and California under the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant applied the same employment policies, practices, and procedures to all Plaintiffs, including policies, practices, and procedures with respect to payment of overtime pay and other wages. TD Ameritrade is a brokerage firm that provides online investment services for individuals and institutions.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300 0375 Attorneys for Defendant: Melanie L. Ronen, Esq. Keesal Young & Logan, Esq. 400 Oceangate Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 436 2000 TECHNOLOGY INSTALL: O'Brien Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY O'BRIEN, 7821 Chase Lake Road Fowlerville, MI 48836, the Plaintiff, vs. TECHNOLOGY INSTALL PARTNERS, LLC c/o Kathleen C Hopkins 3681 S. Green Road, Suite 402 Beachwood, OH 44122, and RYAN TEMPLE 13701 Enterprise Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44135, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02448 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 23, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, by and through counsel, files this collective action complaint against Defendants, to challenge policies and practices of the Defendants that violate the FLSA. The Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective were classified by the Defendants as non-exempt employees and paid on an hourly basis. They regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week as security system installers, repairers, and maintenance service providers and/or other similar job titles/functions. The Defendants' policy and practice is to deny earned wages, including overtime wages, to its non-exempt hourly employees. The Defendants require their employees to be present and perform work in excess of 40 hours per work week, fail to properly and accurately report wages earned and hours worked, and fail to properly and accurately calculate overtime compensation, the lawsuit says. Technology Install Partners provides security solutions for commercial and residential customers, including access control technology to fire alarm systems.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. Joseph F. Scott, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM , LLC The Caxton Building 812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (216) 350-6313 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] TOO FACED: Underpays Makeup Artists, Provencio Claims ----------------------------------------------------- ROSE PROVENCIO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TOO FACED COSMETICS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.: 18CV336593 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 23, 2018),seeks to enjoin Defendant's unlawful conduct, to obtain restitution of unpaid wages and unlawful deductions made from Makeup Artist's pay, and to prosecute a private enforcement action to collect civil penalties under the abor Code Private Attorney General Act. The case involves Defendant-employer's deliberate scheme to misclassify its Makeup Artists as independent contractors, thereby denying them the fundamental protections due o employees under California law. This combined class and PAGA enforcement action is brought against Defendants – who require Makeup Artists to work sales promotion events at retailers like Sephora USA, Inc., Macy's, Inc., and Ulta Beauty, Inc. – for engaging in a pattern and practice of willfully misclassifying its Makeup Artists, including plaintiff Rose Provencio, as independent contractors, instead of affording them their true status as employees, thus denying these works the basic wage-and-hour rights and protections guaranteed to employees by the California Labor Code and the IWC's applicable Wage Order. The result of Defendants' misclassification scheme is that Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Makeup Artists were, and are, routinely denied payment of all earned wages, including: (i) the compensation earned but left unpaid, pursuant to California law's requirement that employees be paid at least the minimum wage for each hour worked; (ii) the premium wages earned for each day an employee is deprived an uninterrupted, duty-free meal period mandated by California law; (iii) the premium wages earned for each day an employee is deprived an uninterrupted, duty-free rest period mandated by California law; and (iv) failure to reimburse Makeup Artist for all job related business expenses, the lawsuit says. Attorneys for Plaintiff and Class: Kevin R. Allen, Esq. Daniel Velton, Esq. VELTON ZEGELMAN P.C. 1261 Lincoln Ave., Suite 208 San Jose, CA 95125 Telephone: (408) 505-7892 Facsimile: (408) 228-1930 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] TRI STATE ADJUSTMENTS: Court Shelves Loveland Case -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned PETER LOVELAND, the Plaintiff, v. TRI STATE ADJUSTMENTS INC., the Defendant, Case 2:18-cv-01662-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order on Oct. 19, 2018, granting Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings. The Court said, \"The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under Damasco. October 18, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly refers to as a \"protective\" motion for class certification. In this motion the plaintiff moved to certify the class described in the complaint but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on that motion. In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), the court suggested that class action plaintiffs \"move to certify the class at the same time that they file their complaint.\" \"The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.\" However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court suggested that the parties \"ask the district court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or investigation\".\"[CC] TRl CITY FOODS: Young Sues over Use of Biometric Information ------------------------------------------------------------ JOE YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TRl CITY FOODS, INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, and NCR CORPORATION, a Maryland Corporation, the Respondent in Discovery, Case No. 2018CH13114 (Ill. Cir Ct., Cook Cty, Oct. 22, 2018), seeks liquidated damages under the Biometric Information Privacy Act, as compensation for the injuries Tri City has caused to its employees. According to the complaint, Tri City is a franchisee of the Burger King restaurant chain. When employees first begin their jobs at one of Tri City's restaurants, they are required to scan their fingerprints in its time clocks. That's because Tri City uses a biometric time tracking system that requires employees to use their fingerprints as a means of authentication, instead of key fobs or identification cards. While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks in the workplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or identification cards -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with the employee. This exposes employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed, employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act, specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints. Despite this law, Tri City disregards its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the BIPA, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312 589 6370 Facsimile: 312 589 6378 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] - and - David Fish, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 355 7590 Facsimile: (630) 778 0400 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Carlton Fields Discusses 9th Cir. Rulings ------------------------------------------------------------ Carlton Fields, in an article for JDSupra, reports that a putative class action against Uber filed by some of the company's California-based drivers has crashed. The Ninth Circuit reversed rulings denying Uber's motion to compel arbitration, certifying the class of drivers, and enjoining Uber from distributing and enforcing a new arbitration agreement. Relying on its decision in a previous class action against Uber (Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 848 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2016), the Ninth Circuit held that the arbitration agreements delegated the threshold question of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Thus, the determination of arbitrability was not within the district court's province. The plaintiffs argued the district court's determination that the arbitration agreements were unenforceable should be upheld because the named class representatives had \"constructively opted out of arbitration on behalf of the entire class.\" The Ninth Circuit held the plaintiffs had no authority to take that action on behalf of and binding the other drivers. Although the plaintiffs found a Georgia Supreme Court case (Bickerstaff v. Suntrust Bank, 788 S.E. 787 (Ga. 2016)) supporting their position, they were unable to point to any federal case doing so. Bickerstaff relied exclusively on state law grounds and did not discuss the Federal Arbitration Act. The plaintiffs' second argument, that the arbitration agreements were unenforceable because they contain class action waivers that violate the National Labor Relations Act, was extinguished by the United States Supreme Court in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018). Because the arbitration agreements were enforceable, Uber's motion to compel arbitration should have been granted, and because the plaintiff's claims would be arbitrated, the district court's order certifying the class and restricting Uber's communications with the class were also reversed. O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 14-16078 (9th Cir. Sept. 25, 2018). [GN] ULTIMATE FITNESS: Huff Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts ------------------------------------------------------------ LEAH HUFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ULTIMATE FITNESS GROUP, LLC D/B/A ORANGETHEORY FITNESS, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 9:18-cv-81369-DMM (S.D. Fla., October 11, 2018), accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by allegedly sending unsolicited marketing text messages. Ultimate Fitness, doing business as Orangetheory Fitness, is a Florida limited liability company whose principal office is located in Boca Raton, Florida. The Defendant is a fitness franchise that offers group personal training workouts. To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, says the complaint.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: [email protected] UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Tyndall Suits Pile Up Despite Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Gorman, writing for Reuters, reports that fourteen more women accusing a former University of Southern California gynecologist of sexual misconduct sued the physician and the university on Oct. 23, as their lawyer decried a proposed class-action settlement with the school as \"grossly inadequate.\" Women's rights attorney Gloria Allred said the tentative $215 million deal reached to settle claims brought in federal court against Dr. George Tyndall and USC by his former patients would let the university off too easy, without the school fully accounting for its role in the scandal. Hundreds of women have accused Tyndall of subjecting them to molestation, lewd comments and other sexually inappropriate behavior during medical exams while they were his patients at the university's student health clinic. Some of the allegations date back nearly 30 years. The university has acknowledged failing to properly act on at least eight complaints that were made against Tyndall between 2000 and 2014 but were never brought to light until uncovered during an inquiry that the university opened in 2016. An attorney for Tyndall, whose medical license was suspended in August, has said that her client denies all the allegations but agreed to the settlement to avoid the expense of continued litigation. Many accusers have recounted sensing something unprofessional or \"creepy\" about Tyndall but trusting him nevertheless, only to fully comprehend the sexual abuse retrospectively. Tyndall resigned from the university last year after an internal investigation found that his pelvic examination practices were beyond accepted medical standards and that he had harassed patients. Widespread faculty and student outrage over the university's handling of the matter led to then-USC President C.L. Max Nikias to resign. The Los Angeles Police Department has opened a criminal investigation. In suing the university, Tyndall's former patients had accused USC of complicity and negligence in its duty to protect students. Allred said her latest filing brings to 50 the number of clients she is representing in three lawsuits against Tyndall and USC. She vowed to press ahead in state court with those cases to \"determine what USC knew and when they knew it.\" She called the tentative settlement of a class-action federal case on behalf of hundreds of Tyndall's patients -- making each eligible for $2,500 to $250,000 -- \"grossly inadequate compensation.\" \"USC, not just their insurance carriers, should bear the financial consequences for their alleged failure to act to properly remove or discipline Dr. Tyndall when complaints were initially made,\" Allred said. USC issued a statement defending the settlement as a deal reached \"collaboratively with lawyers representing the interests of the entire proposed class,\" which the university said is expected to include 14,000 to 17,000 women. It said the deal would \"help heal the university community.\" Allred was flanked by two of her latest clients in the case, along with the first named plaintiff in the lawsuits, Daniella Mohazab, who called the proposed settlement \"a mockery.\" On Oct. 18, 93 lawsuits were filed on behalf of current and former USC students against Tyndall and the university. [GN] US STEEL: Faces Class Action Over Carnegie Way Campaign ------------------------------------------------------- Joseph S. Pete, writing for nwi.com, reports that investors claim in a class action lawsuit that U.S. Steel's Carnegie Way efficiency campaign was \"a sham\" that \"fabricated cost savings\" partly by putting off maintenance that eventually needed to happen anyway. The lawsuit was filed last fall in U.S. District Court in the Western District of Pennsylvania in response to a 27 percent plunge in stock prices after the steelmaker's unexpected loss of $180 million in the first quarter of 2017. The suit filed by Christakis Vrakas and other shareholders named the steelmaker, executives like former CEO Mario Longhi and U.S. Steel's underwriters as defendants, alleging they violated federal securities law. The class action suit further alleges U.S. Steel made false and misleading claims in investor conference calls, presentations, prospectuses and press releases in 2016 and 2017. Judge Cathy Bissoon has been weighing U.S. Steel's motion to dismiss the case, giving the plaintiffs until Oct. 30 the opportunity to address deficiencies she found in their claim. Attorney Vincent Coppola argued in the lawsuit that U.S. Steel's cost-cutting initiative wasn't actually what was presented to shareholders, citing 11 confidential company insiders and the steelmaker's former chief operating officer. \"Although the Carnegie Way purportedly consisted of three elements, it was widely known throughout the company that the only element actually implemented was Operational Excellence which, according to plaintiffs' confidential sources, was 'all about cost-cutting at the expense of operations,'\" Coppola argued in the lawsuit. \"Indeed, the U.S. Steel defendants severely curtailed the maintenance initiative because that would cost money.\" U.S. Steel's deferred maintenance and layoffs during the downturn in 2016 led to \"thousands of tons of missed steel production\" when the market turned around, depriving investors of profits they would have otherwise pocketed, the suit alleges. U.S. Steel is asking the judge to dismiss the case, saying there's no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, just a difference of philosophy. \"Despite complaining that U.S. Steel made inadequate capital investments and obscured that fact, the complaint makes no challenge to any of U.S. Steel's regularly disclosed financial figures, including capital expenditures,\" U.S. Steel attorney Geoffrey Ritts argued in a motion to dismiss. \"The complaint ultimately is little more than a lengthy disagreement with managerial decisions and business strategies, and it is well established that such disagreements do not a disclosure claim make.\" [GN] USA MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Araujo Says -------------------------------------------------------- LUCAS ARAUJO, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v. USA MANAGEMENT, LLC; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. RG18925458 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 22, 2018), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay all straight time wages and overtime wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, for at least four years prior to the filing of this action and through to the present, the Defendants have had a continuous widespread policy of not paying Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all hours worked, including before clocking in for their work shift, after clocking out for their work shift, and during unpaid meal periods. Further, the Defendants have had a continuous and widespread policy to shave the time Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked.[BN] Attorneys for Lucas Araujo, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public: William Turley, Esq. David Mara, Esq. Jill Vecchi, Esq. Matthew Crawford, Esq. THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 234 2833 Facsimile: (619) 234 4048 VAN TASSEL-PROCTOR: Jones Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Ralph Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Van Tassel-Proctor Inc. and Ted Van Tassel, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00741, (W.D. Ark., October 4, 2018) seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of failure to pay lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Van Tassel-Proctor is a commercial building construction company where Jones worked as construction worker. He claims to have regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week without overtime pay. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. Chris Burks, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: [email protected] [email protected] VENTURE 475 LLC: Dillon Seeks to Stop Illegal Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- TODD DILLON, individually, and KAREN LONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VENTURE 475, LLC, a New York limited liability company D/B/A SYNERGY CAPITAL, Case No. 1:18-cv-09304 (S.D.N.Y., October 11, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making unsolicited, prerecorded and autodialed telemarketing calls to consumers without their consent, including to consumers registered on the National Do Not Call registry. Venture 475, LLC, doing business as Synergy Capital, is a New York limited liability company headquartered in New York City. Synergy Capital was formed in 2011 as a capital loan provider focused on providing capital to businesses.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 5 Penn Plaza, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: [email protected] VICTIM SERVICES: Must Face Claims Over Use of Gov't Letterheads --------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a prior settlement and $50,000 fine do not absolve debt collectors from claims that they used government seals and letterheads to trick consumers into paying illegal fees, a federal judge said on Nov. 1. Four California residents sued Victim Services Inc. and its affiliated companies in 2014 for allegedly using false threats of criminal prosecution to obtain fees of about $200 each as part of a state-sanctioned bad check diversion program. On Nov. 1, a defense attorney urged U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria to dismiss the case, or at least deny the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. He said the plaintiffs lack standing to sue because their claims were already resolved in a 2015 settlement with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). \"The relief the plaintiffs seek in this action has already been achieved by this settlement,\" defense attorney Sean Hardy said. Under the terms of a 2015 consent decree, the debt collectors pledged to stop using prosecutors' seals and letterheads, to clearly disclose their identities, and to stop threatening criminal prosecution in collection letters. They also paid a $50,000 fine. Judge Chhabria said the prior settlement and fine do not address allegedly illegal fees that plaintiffs say they were pressured to pay under false pretenses. \"Their theory is that you wrongfully took money from the class members,\" Judge Chhabria said. \"You're saying ‘We should be able to keep that money because we already paid a fine to the CFPB.'\" The judge said potential class members should be allowed to seek restitution for those fees, but he suggested a state court judge might be better suited to resolve the dispute, given that the fees were part of a state program. \"Let the state court decide whether the state's own program is being violated or not,\" Judge Chhabria said. The plaintiffs say the program requires that county district attorneys individually determine whether each check writer can be prosecuted or referred to the program. To avoid prosecution, the person must pay their debt and attend an intervention program at their own expense. According to the lawsuit, the debt collectors get automatic referrals from county prosecutors and then demand fees for \"financial accountability\" classes, which no one is actually required to attend. \"They were worried if they didn't sign up for the program and pay fees, they would go to jail,\" said plaintiffs' attorney Beth Terrell in an interview after the court hearing. Judge Chhabria said on Nov. 1 he will deny the debt collectors' motions to dismiss and that he will likely certify a class of California consumers who received debt collection letters prior to March 30, 2015, when the CFPB settlement was reached. The judge rejected the plaintiffs' argument that debt collection practices were not \"materially different\" after the collectors agreed to stop using DA letterheads and seals, among other reforms. \"Those are significant changes,\" Judge Chhabria said. \"It's not on DA letterhead, and it's not the same letter.\" Because all three named plaintiffs received letters before 2015, Judge Chhabria said they lack standing to seek an injunction. \"It seems to me there needs to be a plaintiff who was subject to the defendants' conduct based on the way they're doing it now,\" Judge Chhabria said. The plaintiffs asked for permission to add a new named plaintiff who received a debt collection letter after March 30, 2015. The judge said he would consider that request, but a new lawsuit might need to be filed to pursue those claims. The judge scheduled a case management conference for Nov. 15 and asked the defense attorneys to figure out whether they intend to oppose the request to add a new named plaintiff. The defendants include Victim Services Inc., National Corrective Group Inc., American Justice Solutions Inc. and Birch Grove Holdings Inc., collectively doing business as CorrectiveServices. Matt Jonsson, CEO of National Corrective Group, and Karl Thomas Jonsson, principal shareholder and officer of Victim Services, are also named as defendants. WALKER CONSTRUCTION: Sullivan Suit Asserts ADA Violation -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walker Construction, Inc. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr. on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Walker Construction, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09870 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Walker Construction is a Vermont based excavation and concrete company specializing in all aspects of residential and commercial excavation.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. YOUR BEAUTIFUL: Lucero Suit Asserts FLSA & NYLL Violation --------------------------------------------------------- MARIA DE LOURDES PEREA LUCERO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. YOUR BEAUTIFUL THREADING SALON, INC. (D/B/A BEAUTIFUL BROWS THREADING & NAILS), 1003 SWEET GIRL INC. (D/B/A BEAUTIFUL NAIL AND SPA), BEAUTIFUL BROWS, INC. (D/B/A BEAUTIFUL BROWS), ROXANNE DOE, SULEMA DOE, and RYMA DOE, Case No. 1:18-cv-09323 (S.D.N.Y., October 11, 2018), alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that she has worked. Beautiful Brows Threading & Nails, 1003 Sweet Girl Inc. and Beautiful Brows, Inc., are domestic corporations organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York and maintains their principal place of business in Bronx, New York. The Individual Defendants serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of the Defendant Corporations. The Defendants own, operate, or control three beauty salons, located at 1526 Westchester Ave., in Bronx, New York, under the name \"Beautiful Brows Threading & Nails\", at 1003 Southern Blvd., in Bronx under the name \"Beautiful Nail and Spa\", and at 815 E Tremont Ave., in Bronx under the name \"Beautiful Brows.\"[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: [email protected] YUMMY HOUSE: Lopez Seeks Overtime Pay for Hours Worked Over 40 -------------------------------------------------------------- Henry Lopez, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Yummy House Chinese Cuisine, Inc. and Zhao Junwu, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02460, (M.D. Fla., October 4, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wage compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Yummy House is a Chinese Restaurant in Hillsborough County where Lopez Gonzalez worked as a Hibachi Chef. He claims to have routinely worked for Yummy House in excess of 40 hours per week, without being paid overtime. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Monica Espino, Esq. ESPINO LAW 2655 S. LeJeune Road, Suite 802 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Tel: (305) 704-3172 Fax: (305) 722-7378 Email: [email protected] [*] Torkin Manes Attorney Discusses Historical Sexual Abuses Cases ------------------------------------------------------------------ Loretta Merritt, Esq. -- [email protected] -- of Torkin Manes LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that in Ontario, class actions are governed by the Class Proceedings Act[1], (the \"CPA\"). Class actions allow an individual to advance a legal claim on behalf of two or more persons where common issues exist. The goals of class actions are judicial efficiency, improved access to justice for those whose claims might not otherwise be pursued, and behaviour modification (of those whose actions affect large numbers of people). The CPA came into force in Ontario on January 1, 1993. The CPA outlines the legal requirement for a claim to be certified by the court as a class action: 1) a valid cause of action, 2) an identifiable class of two or more people, 3) common issues, 4) a representative plaintiff and 5) the Court must be satisfied that a class proceeding is a preferable procedure for resolving the common issues. The CPA also provides the procedural framework for the prosecution of these claims including rules regarding notice, settlement, lawyers' fees, etc. Class action legislation developed as a result of product liability cases. The CPA provides an effective procedure to obtain a remedy for product liability claims that affect many people, particularly where the individual claims are small as compared to the significant cost of legal fees in a lawsuit. For example, if there is a defect in a small car part, a class action may be appropriate and preferable to individual lawsuits. Recently, there have been several cases in which class actions have been certified for claims arising out of historical sexual abuse in institutions and, in particular, claims against private schools, religious organizations, and government run facilities. While there may be some advantages to pursuing historical sexual abuse claims by way of a class action, there are also distinct disadvantages. Class Proceedings in Historical Sexual Assault In a class action, the class members (i.e., the people who have a claim to damages) have a very minor role to play, are not involved in instructing the lawyers or making decisions about how the case proceeds and have no input into settlements. Class members are usually not involved until the last stage of the case where their individual damages are determined. Conversely, if those persons hired a lawyer and brought their own lawsuit the client is the one making decisions and instructing the lawyer. For sexual abuse survivors, legal cases are usually about more than just money. They are about coming forward, being heard and acknowledged and holding people to account, as well as gaining a sense of justice and closure. In a class action these goals can get lost. Also, in sexual abuse class actions the quantum of damages is usually much lower than the recovery in an individual action. So, to the extent that a sexual abuse survivor wants to maximize their financial recovery, an individual action is usually a better option. The certification of historical institutional abuse cases as class actions began with the Rumley[2] case in British Columbia. There, the court certified a class action for abuse survivors from the Jericho Hill School for the Deaf. The government ran the school and had already set up a compensation scheme for those abused at the school. The government's compensation scheme had a maximum payment of $60,000 for each abuse victim. In considering whether or not to certify the case as a class action, the court specifically said that $60,000.00 was too low a cap on damages in 2001. The case was ultimately settled for compensation of up to a maximum of $125,000.00 per class member. Unfortunately, class members in institutional abuse cases in Ontario have not fared nearly as well. For example, in 2010 the Johnston[3] case settlement caped the abuse victims' compensation up to a maximum of $50,000.00 per class member. However, the lawyers were awarded legal fees in the amount of $1,118,499.64. In the Huronia[4] and related cases[5], the maximum compensation to the abuse victims was even lower. In the Huronia cases, the settlement agreement arranged by the class's lawyers provided for maximum compensation of up to $35,000.00 per class member. However, the average actual payment to survivors was only $3,711.22. The lawyers got legal fees of over $16 million dollars. In the Seed[6] case which involved abuse at the Ross MacDonald School for the Blind (Ontario School for the Blind), the settlement package provided for compensation up to $37,500.00 per class member. However, only 181 class members actually received compensation for an average payment of $16,285.00. The lawyers got legal fees of $2,520,000.00 plus disbursements and HST. One interesting thing about these institutional abuse cases in Ontario is that aggregate damages have never been awarded or paid as part of a settlement package in these cases. Aggregate damages are damages paid to class members for having been at the school or institution but who were not specifically abused. Although aggregate damages are identified as a common issue to justify certification of the case as a class action, in the Ontario class action settlements, the settlements have provided for damages only for those who were actually physically or sexually assaulted, no aggregate damages. Therefore, one of the principal justifications for certifying the dispute as a class action is undermined in those settlements. In one recent class action for institutional abuse, the judge has expressed his concern about the settlement and legal fees. In the Welsh[7] case, Justice Perell expressed great disappointment and disapproval of proposed settlement which provided that ninety percent (90%) of the class members would get no compensation, no apology, or anything at all (even indirectly). The lawyers basically admitted that aggregate damages were not available in law and only those who were actually physically or sexually assaulted could receive compensation. Perell. J approved the settlement reluctantly because he felt the alternative of forcing the case to trial would be even worse for the survivors. He also disapproved of the legal fees. In fact, he ordered that lawyers donate $1.5 million dollars of their $3.75 million legal fee to a charity or charities for the deaf. The case is under appeal including the court's order that the lawyers contribute to a charity. Individual Actions for Sexual Assault On the other hand, if survivors of historical institutional abuse sue in individual actions with their own lawyer, the damages are much greater and can be in the six figure range. In several cases compensation of between $100,000.00 and $200,000.00 or more was awarded at trial[8]. In individual cases, personal injury lawyers often work on a contingency basis taking a percentage of the damages recovered. This means abuse survivors do not have to pay legal fees up front or as they go along. There are other even bigger problems with class action for abuse institutional cases; namely notice and opting out. Class actions are commenced by a representative plaintiff bringing a motion to the court to have the class action certified. Once this is done, the court sets a procedure to ensure that all people who are members of the class and who are entitled to compensation get notice and are given the right to \"opt out\" in order to maintain the right to pursue an individual lawsuit at some future time. Class members \"opt out\" by coming forward and saying they do not want to be part of the class action. A time limit is set and if class members do not opt out by the specified date, they are deemed to be included in the class. Next, there is a trial of the common issues (often \"liability\" or legal responsibility is a common issue) and after the trial of the common issues, there are individual damages trials. It is at this point class members need to come forward and pursue their individual claims for damages. If they fail to come forward, they are forever prohibited from pursuing compensation. The only way they can pursue an individual lawsuit is if they come forward before the \"opt-out\" deadline and follow the procedures set out by the Court for opting out within the opt-out deadline at the beginning of the class action. If they do neither, they get nothing. Sexual abuse survivors usually suffer serious psychological problems as a result of their abuse in childhood. There are also well established links between childhood sexual abuse and substance abuse problems, problems with education and employment and criminal activity in later life. Many abuse survivors become homeless, move around the country or are \"off the grid\". In addition to the long passage of time in historical abuse cases, these other problems can make it difficult, if not impossible, to reach significant numbers of victims when the judicial notice of the class action is given. If a class member does not receive notice he or she has no opportunity to \"opt-out\" and his/her right to seek compensation, or to be heard and acknowledged will be forever lost. Even if class members do get notice of the class proceeding, the \"opt out\" procedure in class actions is especially troublesome in historical sexual assault cases. It often takes abuse survivors 20, 30, or 40 years or even longer to come forward. There are many reasons why sexual abuse survivors do not come forward including misplaced shame, guilt and fear of coming forward, or simply a desire to avoid thinking about and confronting the horrendous pain they suffered. The importance of allowing abuse survivors to come forward in their own time was recently acknowledged by the Ontario government when it enacted Bill 132 amending the Limitations Act, 2002 to eliminate limitation periods for cases based on sexual assault. This amendment is a clear message to abuse survivors that their claims are important and that justice should not be rendered unavailable to them simply because it has taken them time to be ready to address the issue legally. The elimination of limitation periods provides more access to justice for abuse survivors. Conversely, class actions for historical sexual abuse claims require survivors to come forward and opt out or risk forever having their claims extinguished. In my view, any law or rule that requires an abuse survivor to come forward at a specific time is potentially harmful and contrary to the public interest expressed by the Ontario government in amending the Limitations Act. In order to exercise the right to opt-out and preserve their right to bring an individual claim for damages, the abuse survivor must do all the following: -- They must receive the notice; -- They must understand the notice; -- They must be ready to admit to themselves that they have been abused and be willing to admit to strangers that they have been abused; -- They should get legal advice on whether an individual action or a class action settlement is a better option for them; -- They must make that decision about which is a better option before they know what the settlement will actually be; and -- They must send a letter or complete a form to be sent to the class action lawyer to exercise their right to opt-out. For the average person, being told they are part of a lawsuit they knew nothing about and having to follow this process is bewildering. Imagine the distress for an abuse survivor who is not ready to admit to themselves that they are a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, yet alone tell anyone else about it. One of the goals of class actions is judicial economy. Now that the law of vicarious liability is clear, we know institutions are liable for assaults committed by employees in residential care facilities. This is not a significant common issue. Where there are significant common issues such as whether the Government or the school is the proper defendant, a class action may be appropriate to determine that discrete issue. However, where it is clear who ran the institution, then really the issue comes down to whether a particular individual was abused, the amount of their losses and damages. In such cases, there is no significant judicial economy achieved by certifying the case as a class action. It is usually in an institutional defendant's interest to have a class action. In Ontario, if a historical institutional abuse class action is certified, the defendant will enjoy the opportunity to pay pennies on the dollar for those who come forward and collect damages under the class proceeding. To extent that the money they have put up as settlement fund is not actually paid out, it is usually returned back to the defendant. As well, for all the other abuse survivors who have not come forward to collect their money under the class action and have not already opted-out, the defendant enjoys the benefit of having all those claims extinguished and minimizes their liability to pay what would otherwise be valid claims. One way to reconcile the difficulty presented by the \"opt out\" provision with the benefit of a class proceedings would be to have an \"opt-in\" provision for historical institutional abuse cases. In this way, potential class members who are notified of the class proceeding would have the choice of either coming forward, opting in and becoming part of the class action or staying silent and not having their claims extinguished. If the abuse survivor was not ready to come forward, he or she could stay silent and still preserve their right to pursue an individual action at a future time should they become ready to do so. Arguably, a legislative amendment is necessary to provide for an \"opt-in\" provision. In the interim, at a minimum class counsel should be required to advise potential class members to get independent legal advice (ILA) before making a decision whether or not to \"opt-out\". The notice should contain a statement that most personal injury lawyers work on contingency and give free consultations. Adding such a provision to the notice will not help abuse survivors who do not receive the notice or those who get the notice but are still as yet unable to speak about the abuse, but it may help people who are ready to come forward to better understand the advantages and disadvantages of class actions vs. individual lawsuits. The notice should also provide information about the new program whereby sexual abuse survivors who are 16 years of age, were assaulted in Ontario and live in Toronto, Ottawa or Thunder Bay are eligible for a certificate for 4 hours of free legal advice. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2018. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***",
"URL": "http://bankrupt.com/CAR_Public/181106.mbx"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "FRANCE Telecom and Microsoft Corporation said they will collaborate on developing internet telephony and technology for distributing video and data over telephone lines. One of the collaboration projects is a series of phones based on Microsoft software that use internet technology to carry calls. That includes a handset that consumers can use as a mobile phone, but that switches to a wireless internet network while at home. The companies say the phone will be launched in 12 to 18 months. The second joint project involves the development of software that allows operators to provide voice, video and data services to consumers. It will likely be one or two years before results of that project come to market. The companies have each dedicated dozens of engineers to the projects, they said. France Telecom, one of the world's largest telecommunications operators, has more than 126m customers. It had revenue of ?53.5m in 2004. Microsoft, the Redmond, Washington, software giant, had revenue of $37bn last year.",
"URL": "https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/france-telecom-and-microsoft-link-on-net-phone/25974569.html"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Computer retail may face problems By Nigar Orujova Computer retail stores in Baku selling illegal software may face serious problems, said Evgeny Danilov Microsoft Director of Licensing in Central and Eastern Europe. The computer retail of Baku reveals serious shortcomings, in regards to the sale of counterfeit softwares, he said. This was clear after the raids undertaken this year under the \"Mystery customer\" program prepared by \"Microsoft Azerbaijan. Monitoring, organized by the company showed the actual absence of sales of counterfeit softwares in large stores. Moreover, Danilov said, a large retail has tried to convince clients in the feasibility and economic benefits of owning licensed softwares. However, he said, companies that are in the \"yellow zone\", still retain their positions and do not try to enter the \"green zone\". \"The reason is that there is still a demand to save. On the other hand, there is no internal control over discipline. There are also companies that were in the \"red zone\" with which we have not been able to find common ground. Two test purchases were made, information was brought to the market, and the situation immediately changed for the better. We came to the conclusion that the raids will be conducted on a regular basis,\" said Danilov. A few days ago the company has set its next goals, he added, and shops, which will continue to trade computers with illegal software, are waiting for trouble. Microsoft Corporation, operating in Azerbaijan since 2005, is represented by seven experts, focused on interaction between the public and private sectors as well as issues of humanitarian concern. Microsoft Azerbaijan's main aim is to offer the latest products and software designs that would contribute to Azerbaijan's development through their introduction into e-government, business administration and education. -- Nigar Orujova is AzerNews’s staff journalist, follow her on Twitter: @o_nigar Follow us on Twitter @AzerNewsAz",
"URL": "https://www.azernews.az/business/79441.html"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "11:01 05/03/2019 MOSCOW, March 5 (RAPSI) – The Russian Supreme Court has dismissed a claim to review a decision to recover nearly $55,000 from Moscow Regional company Strela in in favor of Microsoft Corporation for violating the U.S. company’s exclusive rights to operational systems, the court’s ruling reads. The Supreme Court has upheld rulings of lower courts saying the amount of the payment was defined by a mutual agreement signed by the litigants with no objections and was not disputed by the defendant. In December 2015, Strela and Microsoft signed agreement including provision on random checks in companies that are customers of Strela to preserve the exclusive rights of the American corporation to software products. During the inspections it was found that Strela violated the terms of delivery of personal computers and software under contracts between the defendant and its customers. The OEM versions of the Windows operating system were not licensed and were accompanied by fake certificates of authenticity, the court noted. According to the subsequent agreement, the defendant was to acquire 2,500 licenses and install those on consumers’ computers and to pay $50,000 in compensation to the plaintiff. Yet, these obligations were not met. On March 16, 2018, the Moscow Commercial Court ruled in favor of Microsoft. The court dismissed Strela’s argument that Microsoft had no power to inspect the companies or to force certain agreements because earlier Strela did not contest these actions by Microsoft. Later in the year this decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals and Russia’s Intellectual Property Court. ",
"URL": "http://rapsinews.com/judicial_news/20190305/296027457.html"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": " Last Updated: 2 August 2019 Article by Employment Law DepartmentPerchstone & Graeys In many parts of the world, sexual harassment is a cankerworm that continues to eat deep into the very fabric of the society. Unfortunately, even in presumably organized environments such as the workplace, sexual harassment remains a major issue and has seen many employees either quit their jobs or have their employment terminated as a result of their refusal to succumb to the sexual advances of either their employers or co-employees. This is particularly in view of the fact that the perpetrators of sexual harassment in the workplace are often those in superior positions. Consequently, in a society plagued by scarcity of jobs, many employees, for the fear of losing their source of livelihood, are forced to accept or tolerate incessant sexual harassment by their co-employees and/or employers. In recent times however, there has been an increase in awareness of the fundamental rights of citizens and widespread protest against sexual harassment of any nature. #MeToo Movement The #metoo movement arguably ushered the modern day worldwide protest against sexual harassment both in the workplace, and the society as a whole. The phrase 'me too' was originated by a social activist Tarana Burke, in order to promote empowerment through empathy among women of color who had, at one point or another, been sexually abused. However, the #metoo movement gained traction and in fact became a global phenomenon sometime in 2017 following widespread accusations of the alleged predatory behavior by Harvey Weinstein, an American film producer. On October 15, 2017 an actress Alyssa Milano tweeted the hashtag #metoo to encourage victims of sexual abuse to talk about their experience. Within 24 hours, more than 4.7 million people on social media were reported to have used the hashtag #metoo, with many expressing their traumatic experiences as victims of sexual harassment. Since then, the #metoo movement has led to many governments and organizations critically examining their current structures and making radical changes to quell sexual harassment. Sexual Harassment in Nigeria In Nigeria, save for Section 34 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN) which guarantees the right of Nigerian citizens to respect for their dignity of human person, there seems to be a dearth of laws that specifically regulate sexual harassment, especially in the workplace. The CFRN, by Section 254C(1)(g) gives the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) the exclusive powers to adjudicate over matters relating to or connected with any dispute arising from discrimination or sexual harassment in the workplace. To this end, NICN through the National industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure Rules) 2017 provides some guidance on what constitutes or may ground a claim for sexual harassment. Under Order 14 of the NICN Rules, sexual harassment is divided into four main heads, as follows: Physical conduct of a sexual nature: such as unwanted physical contact, ranging from touching to sexual assault and rape, strip search by or in the presence of the opposite sex, or gesture that constitutes sexual harassment; Verbal form of sexual harassment: such as unwelcome innuendoes, suggestions and hints, sexual advances, comments with sexual overtones, sex related jokes or insults, or unwelcome graphic comments about a person's body, unwelcome and inappropriate enquiries about a person's sex life and unwelcome whistling at a person or group of persons; A non-verbal form of sexual harassment which includes unwelcome gestures indecent exposures, unwelcome display of sexually explicit pictures and objects; and Quid pro quo harassment: where an owner, employer, supervisor, member, supervisor, member of management or co-employee undertakes or attempts to influence or influences the process of employment, promotion, training discipline, dismissal, salary increments of other benefits of an employee or job applicant in exchange for sexual favours. The above list is not exhaustive. Additionally, the United Nations Convention on The Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) also defines sexual harassment to include such unwelcome sexually determined behaviour as physical contact and advances, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography and sexual demands, whether by words or actions; conducts that can be humiliating and may constitute a health and safety problem; discriminatory conduct that gives a woman reasonable grounds to believe that her objection would put her at a disadvantage in connection with her employment, including recruiting or promotion, or when it creates a hostile working environment. Interestingly, Section 254C (2) of the CFRN empowers the NICN to deal with any matter connected with or pertaining to the application of any international convention, treaty or protocol of which Nigeria has ratified relating to labour, employment, workplace, industrial relations or matters connected therewith. Consequently, the NICN has in a number of decisions adopted international treaties such as the CEDAW and ILO Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention 1958 No 111 which have been ratified by Nigeria in determining matters relating to sexual harassment. Sexual harassment through the cases InEjikeMaduka v. Microsoft1, Mrs. Maduka a former employee of Microsoft Nigeria Ltd sued her employer: Microsoft Nigeria, together with its parent company, Microsoft Corporation. Her grouse, amongst other things, was that her employment was wrongfully terminated on account of her refusal to succumb to the sexual advances of her boss, the Chief Executive Officer of the company. Consequently, she sought (together with other reliefs) a declaration that the termination of her employment amounted to an infringement of her rights to dignity and freedom from discrimination. The Court found that the 3rd Respondent consistently tickled and touched Mrs. Maduka and some other female workers in the office against their will despite their protests. Consequently, the Court declared that the sexual harassment of Mrs. Maduka was an infringement of her fundamental right to dignity of human person and freedom from discrimination. The Court also held that by the inaction and silence of Microsoft Nigeria and Microsoft Corporation, both companies tolerated and ratified the acts of the Chief Executive Officer. Accordingly, both companies were held liable in damages for not taking utmost care to ensure that the employee's fundamental right to freedom from discrimination and degrading treatment in the workplace was not violated. The facts inPastor (Mrs.) Abimbola Patricia Yakubu v. Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria & Anor2are also instructive. In this case, Pastor (Mrs.) Yakubu (the claimant) claimed that she was at various times subjected to incessant seductive and unwelcome gestures from her boss, including outrageous marriage proposals, notwithstanding that he was fully aware that she was married. However, when she declined, he made her work under hostile circumstances, many times late into the night for no justifiable reason. When she further declined his sexual advances, he took steps to frustrate her employment by first transferring her to Kaduna and forcing her to report to a junior officer. Subsequently, her employment was terminated without fair hearing or just cause. The Court held that the claimant's right to human dignity and self-worth was violated by the 2nd defendant and awarded the sum of N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira) in favour of the claimant. The Court went further to express its disappointment with the manner in which the employer (1st defendant) condoned the acts of the 2nd defendant, and stated that it would have awarded damages against the 1st defendant but could not do so, in view of the fact that the claimant did not ask for it. Similarly, in Stella AyamOdey v. Ferdinand Daapah&Cuso International3, the claimant averred that at every single opportunity, the 1st defendant made several sexual advances towards her, and she turned him down despite his persistent overtures. According to the claimant, she respectfully and emphatically told the 1st defendant that she was not interested in him as she was engaged. However, four (4) days after handing her wedding invitation to the 1st defendant, she was called into his office and asked to resign. She also averred that the 1st defendant asked her to write that she was getting married and relocating to Abuja, which she refused to do. Subsequently, the 1st defendant terminated her appointment without reason. After a careful review of the evidence before it, the Court held that the victimization, sexual harassment and subsequent termination of the claimant's employment because she turned down the sexual advances and overtures of the 1st defendant are malicious, unlawful and unconstitutional. Consequently, the Court awarded damages in the sum of N7,000,000 (Seven million Naira) in favour of the claimant. What employers must do A major takeaway from the above cases is that in appropriate circumstances, the Court will not hesitate to award damages against both the employer and the employee who committed the act of sexual harassment. This is because the law now imposes a responsibility on employers to provide a safe and secure work environment, and to ensure that preventive measures are put in place to prevent occurrences of sexual harassment in the workplace. In light of the above, it is pertinent for employers to pro-actively take steps to ensure that the workplace is free from all forms of sexual harassment. This can be achieved by, amongst other things: having a zero-tolerance policy on sexual harassment; strict implementation and continuous review of anti-sexual harassment policies; creating a work culture and environment where employees feel comfortable to report instances of sexual harassment without fear of victimization or job loss; periodic training/awareness sessions on sexual harassment involving even senior officers; and setting up independent disciplinary committees to dispassionately investigate sexual harassment allegations, etc. The foregoing does not exhaust the strategies to be considered by employers to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. In all, going by recent trends and activism against sexual harassment, it suffices to say that it is more cost effective to prevent and/or avoid sexual harassment, than to face the risk/consequences of a legal action. Footnotes 1. (unreported) Suit NO: NICN/LA/492/2012 2. (unreported) Suit No NICN/LA/673/2013 3. (unreported) Suit No: NICN/ /CA/ 03/2016 The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com. Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article. Do you have a Question or Comment?Click here to email the AuthorInterested in the next Webinar on this Topic?Click here to register your Interest ContributorEmployment Law DepartmentPerchstone & Graeys Email Firm Events from this Firm More from this Firm More from this Author News About this Firm Authors Employment Law Department More Popular Related Articles on Employment and HR from Middle East & Africa Amendments To The KSA Labour Law STA Law Firm The Consultative Assembly of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, also known as Majlis ash-Shura or Shura Council (the Council), met on 7 May 2019 A Guide To Saudi Employment Law 2018-2019 STA Law Firm The basis of Saudi Arabia's employment legislation framework is fashioned on two pillars. Tread Carefully: Insubordination And Insolence Can Easily Be Confounded ENSafrica Unfair dismissal disputes arising from allegations of insubordination have had their fair share of attention from South African arbitrators and the courts. Does Section 187(1)(C) Of The LRA Apply To Individual Dismissals? ENSafrica Section 187(1)(c) of the South African Labour Relations Act, 1995 (\"LRA\") has always been controversial because of the interplay between the definition of automatically The New DIFC Employment Law 2019 PWC We have outlined below the key changes forming part of the new employment law framework. In association with Mondaq Advice Centres (MACs) Investment Immigration Trademarks in SAARC Countries More Advice CentersRelated Topics Employment and HR Discrimination, Disability & Sexual Harassment Related Articles PenCom Introduces The Enhanced Contributor Registration System Deloitte Nigeria Tax Appeal Tribunal Rules That Employers Cannot Be Held Liable For Tax On Employees' Voluntary Pension Contribution Andersen Tax LP Tax, Regulatory And Other Considerations For Employee Compensation Andersen Tax LP Retirement Planning: Catching The Retirement Wave Perchstone & Graeys Presidency Rejects National Housing Fund (Establishment) Bill Andersen Tax LP Up-coming Events Search Region / Country...WorldwideEuropeAsia PacificAustralasiaAsiaEuropean UnionAustraliaCanadaChinaFranceIrelandSouth KoreaNew ZealandSwedenSwitzerlandUKUnited StatesTopic...Accounting and Audit- Accounting StandardsCorporate/Commercial Law- Corporate and Company LawEmployment and HR- Contract of Employment- Discrimination, Disability & Sexual Harassment- Employee Benefits & Compensation- Employee Rights/ Labour Relations- WhistleblowingEnergy and Natural Resources- Energy Law- Oil, Gas & Electricity- RenewablesFinance and Banking- Financial ServicesFood, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences- Food and Drugs Law- HealthcareImmigration- General ImmigrationInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-structuring- Financial Restructuring- Insolvency/BankruptcyMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment- Advertising, Marketing & Branding- Social MediaReal Estate and ConstructionTaxWealth Management- Wealth & Asset ManagementShow More FiltersTimeframe...This WeekNext Two WeeksNext MonthNext QuarterEvent Type...BriefingBusiness BreakfastConferenceOtherPodcastRoundtableSeminarSpeaking EngagementSymposiumVideo/ AudioWebinarWorkshopLocation...Australia- Melbourne- PerthCanada- Ontario- Toronto- VancouverChina- UnknownFrance- ParisIreland- DublinNew Zealand- AucklandSouth Korea- SeoulSweden- StockholmSwitzerland- LausanneUK- Birmingham- LondonUnited States- California- Dallas- Florida- Los Angeles- New York- San Francisco- Unknown- Washington, DCGO Tools Print Font Size:Translation ChannelsMondaq on Twitter Free News Alert Custom RSS Feed Contact Us | Your Privacy | Feedback © Mondaq® Ltd 1994 - 2019 All Rights Reserved Login / Register Free News Alert Privacy/ Cookies Terms & Conditions About Mondaq Unsubscribe TOPICS| REGIONS| COMPARATIVE GUIDES| ADVICE CENTRE| ABOUT ",
"URL": "http://mondaq.com/Nigeria/x/832402/Discrimination Disability Sexual Harassment/MeToo Sexual Harassment In The Workplace"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "June 20 2011 11:55 AM Nokia gears up to reclaim Asian market throne Struggling with dwindling sales numbers while addressing the continued onslaught of Apple smartphones and their cheaper counterparts powered by Google's Android, Finnish mobile giant Nokia aims to arrest its sliding market shares by refocusing its energy towards the lucrative Asian market. Nokia chief executive Stephen Elop will personally present the company's fresh business approach at the Nokia Connection 2011 set be held in Singapore on June 21, according to a statement issued by the company on Monday. Experts regard the exploding region as the next big thing for most industries, according to Reuters, and for the stiffening competition in the mobile phone industry, Asian consumers flushed with more disposable cash offer growth opportunities for firms aiming to reclaim its lost glory, such as the case of Nokia. At present, Asia represents a teeming market that holds the distinction as the biggest purchaser of mobile handsets to date, giving Nokia the platform it requires for a viable turnaround and possible growth targets later on, with analysts projecting that the phone market industry in the region will expand by 40 percent over the next half-decade. Nokia said that part of its growth plan is to streamline its operations that would mean a leaner workforce, which means the company will let go of some 9000 employees while it scrambles to improve its sales numbers by forging partnerships that would add premium to its products. Nokia spokesman Doug Dawson told Reuters that Elop's strategy plan includes the earlier sealed deal with Microsoft Corporation, where the CEO used to work, that will see the deployment of Windows Phone 7 on soon-to-be-released Nokia smartphones. Elop's spirited efforts to revive the company's fortunes is hoped to arrest the dwindling market shares value of Nokia, which so far has shed some 40 percent since he assumed the position last year. Yet by capturing a considerable chunk of the projected more than one billion mobile phone units that are expected to be snatched by Asian consumers up to 2015, Nokia hopes to lure more buyers by raising its production of more affordable handsets in the region. In effect, Nokia will want to reclaim its dominance in a market where it made its mark in the middle part of the 1990s by introducing its hit basic phones that served as precursors for the features phones that the company later produced and brought considerable growth. As the company reconfigures its strategy in colliding head-on in the smartphone industry, where it currently lags behind regional players such as Samsung, LG and HTC, plans to reinvigorate its feature phones are now underway, with Reuters reporting that a 200 million investment will be injected in Vietnam for the establishment of a low-end factory by next year. The move, according to Nokia, will complement its existing features phones production currently spread in the North American, South American, European and Asian regions while it awaits the realization of its smartphones ventures with Microsoft, which experts said will most likely catch up with Apple and Google soon.",
"URL": "https://www.ibtimes.com.au/nokia-gears-reclaim-asian-market-throne-1282680"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Press Release – MarketResearch.biz The report published on the MarketResearch.Biz titled Oil and Gas Cloud Applications market brings an analytical view of the Oil and Gas Cloud Applications market performance in the global as well as the regional scenario. In a detailed chapter-wise format, … Oil and Gas Cloud Applications Market Business Opportunities, Top Players, Trends Overview Of Next 10 years 2021-2030|Microsoft Corporation, Oracle Corporation, SAP SE The report published on the MarketResearch.Biz titled Oil and Gas Cloud Applications market brings an analytical view of the Oil and Gas Cloud Applications market performance in the global as well as the regional scenario. In a detailed chapter-wise format, the Oil and Gas Cloud Applications study figure out various aspects corresponding to the global and regional Oil and Gas Cloud Applications market. To start with, the Oil and Gas Cloud Applications market definition, applications, classification, and Oil and Gas Cloud Applications industry value chain structure are included in the report, to update target audience on binding Oil and Gas Cloud Applications market dynamics including drivers, restraints, threats, opportunities, trends, applications, geographical/regional Oil and Gas Cloud Applications markets, and competitive landscape. Recent developments, market trends presented by the Oil and Gas Cloud Applications market globally are studying in association with studying in detail the competitive landscape of the Oil and Gas Cloud Applications market and the development status as determined by key regions. Click To Get a Sample PDF of Report @ https://marketresearch.biz/report/oil-and-gas-cloud-applications-market/request-sample Furthermore, the report defines the global Oil and Gas Cloud Applications market and segments like by type, application, region, Oil and Gas Cloud Applications geographical/regional markets, and competitive outline. An overall segmentation evaluation of the global Oil and Gas Cloud Applications market has been included in the report. Complete information about key segments of the Oil and Gas Cloud Applications market and their growth expectations are available in the report. The in-depth analysis of their sub-segments is also included in the Oil and Gas Cloud Applications report. The revenue share and forecasts along with Oil and Gas Cloud Applications market projections are offered in the report. Macroeconomic and microeconomic factors that currently overcome and also those that are estimated to come up are covered in this report. By Using time-trusted analytic tools like SWOT analysis and Porter’s five forces analysis, the Oil and Gas Cloud Applications report appraise information sourced to gauge market penetration, get an easy understanding of Oil and Gas Cloud Applications consumer demographics, and analyze how same would affect the Oil and Gas Cloud Applications industry’s future course of action. By referring to historical data, the Oil and Gas Cloud Applications report estimated the growth demonstrated by the Oil and Gas Cloud Applications market in the last year and witnessed growth curve of the Oil and Gas Cloud Applications market during the forecast period 2021-2030. Other important factors that have been exactly studied in the global Oil and Gas Cloud Applications market report are: Oil and Gas Cloud Applications Demand and supply dynamics, import and export scenario, industry processes and cost structures, and Oil and Gas Cloud Applications major R&D initiatives. Click Do Enquiry regarding this analysis Report @ https://marketresearch.biz/report/oil-and-gas-cloud-applications-market/#inquiry With all this information the report provides recommendations and strategies to Oil and Gas Cloud Applications new players, investors, suppliers/manufacturers. The global Oil and Gas Cloud Applications market research study has been created using key inputs from industry expertize. In addition to this, the trends and revenue analysis of the regional Oil and Gas Cloud Applications market comparing to the global Oil and Gas Cloud Applications market has been included in this report. This will give a clear picture to the readers how the Oil and Gas Cloud Applications market will grow worldwide during the forecast period. – What will the Oil and Gas Cloud Applications market size and the growth rate be in 2030? – What are the major and essential factors driving the global Oil and Gas Cloud Applications market? – Help for decision-making by studying historical and future data on Oil and Gas Cloud Applications market – Factors Restraining the growth of Oil and Gas Cloud Applications market. – Opportunities, threats faced by the players in Oil and Gas Cloud Applications market. – List of the leading players in Oil and Gas Cloud Applications market. 1 Report Overview 1.1 Study Scope 1.2 Key Market Segments 1.3 Players Covered 1.4 Market Analysis through Type 1.5 Market through Application 1.6 Study Objectives 1.7 Years Considered 2 Global Growth Trends 2.1 Oil and Gas Cloud Applications Market Size 2.2 Oil and Gas Cloud Applications Growth Trends through Regions 2.3 Industry Trends 3 Market Share through Key Players 3.1 Oil and Gas Cloud Applications Market Size through Manufacturers 3.2 Oil and Gas Cloud Applications Key Players Head workplace and Area Served 3.3 Key Players Oil and Gas Cloud Applications Product/Solution/Service 3.4 Date of Enter into Oil and Gas Cloud Applications Market 3.5 Mergers & Acquisitions, Expansion Plans 4 Breakdown Data through Product 4.1 Global Oil and Gas Cloud Applications Sales through Product 4.2 Global Oil and Gas Cloud Applications Revenue through Product 4.3 Oil and Gas Cloud Applications Price through Product 5 Breakdown Data through End User 5.1 Overview 5.2 Global Oil and Gas Cloud Applications Breakdown Data through End User Request for Full ToC: https://marketresearch.biz/report/oil-and-gas-cloud-applications-market/#toc MarketResearch.biz is a professional market research, analytics, and solutions firm that assists customers in making well-informed business decisions by providing strategic and tactical help. We are a group of passionate and driven individuals that believe in giving our all to whatever we do and never back down from a challenge. Data mining, information management, and revenue enhancement solutions and suggestions are all available through MarketResearch.biz. We serve industries, individuals, and organizations all around the world, and we supply our services in the quickest time feasible. Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz Original url",
"URL": "https://business.scoop.co.nz/2021/11/12/oil-and-gas-cloud-applications-market-business-opportunities-top-players-trends-overview-of-next-10-years-2021-2030/"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Apple Inc. has no interest in acquiring TikTok, the company said on Tuesday, denying a report by news website Axios from earlier in the day. Axios, citing sources outside Apple, earlier reported the iPhone maker has expressed interest in buying the ByteDance-owned firm. Microsoft Corporation is currently negotiating a deal to acquire the popular short-video app, with a 45-day deadline imposed by President Donald Trump's administration. Last week, Trump said he was planning to ban TikTok amid concerns its Chinese ownership represents a national security risk because of the personal data it handles. — Reuters",
"URL": "https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/money/companies/749870/apple-says-it-has-no-interest-in-buying-tiktok/story/"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "DPM meets with top Microsoft executive over unlicensed software use KIEV, June 26 – Deputy Prime Minister Kostiantyn Hryschenko and Jan Muehlfeit, chairman of Microsoft Corporation in Europe at a meeting on June 21 discussed the problem of the use of unlicensed software on the PCs of the executive power agencies, Hryschenko's press service reported. Hryschenko said that over 10 years, the share of pirate software used at government agencies had fallen by 2.5 times. However, the Ukrainian government understands that all the software has to be legalized, and UAH 100 million has been allocated in the national budget this year for the purpose. Muehlfeit confirmed the interest of Microsoft in the Ukrainian market and its readiness to look for compromises in the minimization of Ukraine's expenses as a part of the process of the legalization of software.",
"URL": "http://www.ukrainianjournal.com/index.php?w=article&id=16719"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Board members at Microsoft Corporation made a decision in 2020 that it wasn't appropriate for its co-founder Bill Gates to continue sitting on its board as they investigated the billionaire's prior romantic relationship with a female Microsoft employee that was deemed inappropriate, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal. Citing unnamed sources, The Journal reported online Sunday that board members looking into the matter hired a law firm in late 2019 to conduct an investigation after a Microsoft engineer alleged in a letter that she had a sexual relationship with Gates over several years. The Journal reported that Gates resigned before the board's investigation was finished, citing another person familiar with the matter. An unnamed spokeswoman for Gates acknowledged to The Journal that there was an affair almost 20 years ago, and that it ended \"amicably.\" The spokesperson told The Journal that \"his decision to transition off the board was in no way related to this matter.\"\" When he left Microsoft's board last year, Gates said he was stepping down to focus on philanthropy. Microsoft couldn't be immediately reached for comment. Earlier this month, Bill and Melinda Gates announced that they were divorcing after 27 years of marriage but would keep working together at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, one of the largest charitable foundations in the world. Gates was formerly the world's richest person and his fortune is estimated at well over $100 billion. Earlier Sunday, The New York Times reported that Gates had developed \"a reputation for questionable conduct in work-related settings.\" The Times reported that on at least a few occasions, Gates made overtures to women who worked for him at Microsoft and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Times cited people with direct knowledge of his behaviour. - Associated Press",
"URL": "https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/bill-gates-left-microsoft-board-amid-probe-into-relationship-with-staffer/NCMGC3N376K754AI4DP3IOWPDI/"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Aug 24, 2014, 5:15 AM Microsoft Has Nearly $US93 Billion In Overseas Cash, And It's Reduced Its Tax Bill By Almost $US30 Billion Microsoft Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella Microsoft’s stash of cash stored overseas, not subject to U.S. taxes, is growing. In its latest regulatory filing, the software giant said it has now stockpiled $US92.9 billion offshore and that this money could have cost the company $US29.6 billion in taxes, but didn’t. That compares to $US76.4 billion from the previous year, worth an estimated tax bill of $US24.4 billion, according to a report released in May from Washington think tank Citizens for Tax Justice. Here’s the exact language Microsoft used in the filing to discuss its offshore cash: As of June 30, 2014, we have not provided deferred U.S. income taxes or foreign withholding taxes on temporary differences of approximately $US92.9 billion resulting from earnings for certain non-U.S. subsidiaries which are permanently reinvested outside the U.S. The unrecognised deferred tax liability associated with these temporary differences was approximately $US29.6 billion at June 30, 2014. Income taxes paid were $US5.5 billion, $US3.9 billion, and $US3.5 billion in fiscal years 2014, 2013, and 2012, respectively. Just to give you an idea of how much money $US30 billion is, that’s how much Microsoft’s home state of Washington will spend in two years, reports International Business Times’ David Sirota, who first noticed Microsoft’s increase in offshore cash. Foreign Sales Mean No U.S. Taxes U.S. corporations don’t have to pay taxes on income they earn overseas as long as they also spend that money overseas. If they try to “repatriate” the money — bring it back to spend in the U.S. to, say, pay shareholder dividends or hire new employees or make an acquisition — they are taxed at a high 35% rate, less any taxes they already paid on the money in the country where it was earned, according to the CTJ. However, like all things taxes, it’s not that simple. There’s been growing debate over how some companies assign income to overseas subsidiaries. For instance, a company can licence patents to foreign offices that have lower tax rates. When the company sells a product that relies on those patents, it gets to assign at least some of that money to the foreign office and not pay U.S. taxes on it. That’s true even if the tech was originally invented in the U.S. In 2012, Microsoft top tax person, Bill Sample, explained during testimony to a Senate subcommittee looking into the offshore tax situation . He said: The legal ownership of intellectual property developed as a result of our research and development activities generally resides with Microsoft Corporation in the U.S. In accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 482 and applicable Treasury Regulations, our three foreign ROC [regional operating centres] groups, Ireland, Singapore and Puerto Rico, licence the rights to use the relevant intellectual property to produce and sell Microsoft software products in their respective regions. Lots Of Companies Do It REUTERS/Stringer Apple Inc. CEO Tim Cook. Microsoft certainly isn’t alone in stockpiling cash overseas, out of the reach of the IRS. Fortune 500 corporations have stashed nearly $US2 billion in offshore accounts, saving about $US550 billion in taxes, the CTJ says . Microsoft isn’t even the biggest cash hoarder. That would be Apple. In September, Apple reported it had $US137.7 billion in offshore accounts. The CTJ report also found that Cisco had $US48 billion, HP had $US38 billion, Google nearly $US39 billion, and Oracle $US26 billion offshore, based on each company’s latest annual report as of May. And plenty of non-tech companies do the same: GE with $US110 billion, Pfizer with $US69 billion, and so on, says CTJ. However the tech industry, led by Microsoft and Apple, are the poster children. The CTJ raised this red flag in its report: A large number of the biggest corporations appear to be increasing their offshore cash significantly. 105 of the companies surveyed in this report increased their declared offshore cash by at least $US500 million each in the last year alone. Eight particularly aggressive companies each increased their permanently reinvested foreign earnings by more than $US5 billion in the past year. These include Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Google, and Cisco. Looking For A Tax Overhaul Fortune Brainstorm TECH 2014 Cisco CEO John Chambers None of this is illegal. Far from it. A corporation owes it to its shareholders to keep its tax bill as small as possible. What these companies want is an overhaul of regulations that will permanently reduce the tax rate on repatriated cash. They would also welcome something called a “tax holiday ” which would give them a one-time pass to use the cash in the U.S., paying little to no taxes on the money. Cisco CEO John Chambers has been advocating for a tax code overhaul on offshore cash for years. Early last year, he even went so far as to say that Cisco would stop hiring U.S. employees or acquiring U.S. companies if the tax law wasn’t changed. That turned out to be an empty threat. Cisco has since acquired U.S. companies including its $2.7 billion acquisition of Sourcefire last year. A Catch-22 Using the offshore loophole to avoid paying U.S. taxes is also a Catch-22. Unless corporations can convince the U.S. to let them use that money without the high tax rate, or they give up and pay it, they can’t touch the money at home. When asked for comment on this story, Microsoft PR pointed us to a portion of Bill Sample’s 2012 Congressional testimony: Microsoft’s tax results follow from its business, which is fundamentally a global business that requires us to operate in foreign markets in order to compete and grow. In conducting our business at home and abroad, we abide by U.S. and foreign tax laws as written. That is not to say that the rules cannot be improved–to the contrary, we believe they can and should be. In our view, the U.S. international tax rules are outdated and are not competitive with the tax systems of our major trading partners. These rules all too often provide a disincentive for U.S. investment. Business Insider Emails & Alerts Site highlights each day to your inbox. Email Address Join Follow Business Insider Australia on Facebook , Twitter , LinkedIn , and Instagram .",
"URL": "https://www.businessinsider.com.au/microsofts-offshore-cash-2014-8"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "What is two-factor authentication, and how does it keep you safe online? HOME MAIL NEWS FINANCE SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT LIFE SHOPPING YAHOO PLUS MORE... Try it free Yahoo Finance Tip: Try a valid symbol or a specific company name for relevant results Trending Tickers BTC-USD DOGE-USD ETH-USD BTC-CAD NQ=F Sign in Notifications Today News • 16 hours ago Fed decision, retail sales: What to know this week Older News • Jun 12, 2021 'Extremely cruel move:' Jobless workers brace for early end to unemployment benefits in 25 states News • Jun 11, 2021 S&P 500 ekes out record closing high as traders shake off inflation concerns Breaking News • Jun 11, 2021 U.S. House lawmakers introduce bipartisan bills to target Big Tech News • Jun 11, 2021 WallStreetBets founder: Meme stock trading isn't market manipulation News • Jun 11, 2021 Stocks extend gains, Dow adds 100+ points, or 0.4%, as investors shake off strong inflation data News • Jun 10, 2021 Stocks close higher, S&P 500 sets new record high as investors look past hotter-than-expected inflation data News • Jun 10, 2021 Bond market becomes battleground for fight over inflation News • Jun 10, 2021 Salesforce CEO: We're going to rebuild all of our technology to become Slack-first News • Jun 10, 2021 Dow gains 200+ points, or 0.6%, as traders shrug off hotter-than-expected inflation data Breaking News • Jun 10, 2021 U.S. jobless claims: 376,000 Americans filed, 370,00 expected Breaking News • Jun 10, 2021 Moderna files for U.S. authorization for COVID-19 vaccine use in teens News • Jun 09, 2021 Keystone pipeline canceled after Biden had blocked permit Breaking News • Jun 09, 2021 GameStop sales top estimates, losses narrow more than expected News • Jun 09, 2021 Stocks lose steam in final stretch of trading, Dow closes lower by 153 points, or 0.4% News • Jun 09, 2021 Stocks open mixed, with Nasdaq outperforming as technology stocks gain; Treasury yields sink News • Jun 08, 2021 S&P 500 ends near the flat line; meme stock resurgence fuels rally in Clover Health, Wendy’s News • Jun 08, 2021 World Bank warns of widening inequality amid fastest global economic rebound in 80 years News • Jun 08, 2021 Stocks open mostly higher; S&P 500 trades within striking distance of all-time high News • Jun 07, 2021 Stocks end mixed: S&P 500 ends slightly below record high as inflation concerns linger News • Jun 07, 2021 Stocks open mixed as S&P 500 hovers near record high; Reopening stocks outperform News • Jun 06, 2021 Here’s what to expect from Apple’s WWDC 2021 News • Jun 06, 2021 GameStop earnings, consumer inflation data: What to know this week News • Jun 05, 2021 G7 nations reach historic deal to tax big multinationals News • Jun 04, 2021 Technology stocks rally after mixed jobs report suggests gradual recovery; Nasdaq gains 1.5% Breaking News • Jun 04, 2021 Facebook suspends Trump's accounts for 2 years News • Jun 04, 2021 Stocks rise as investors eye mixed May jobs report; Nasdaq gains 0.7% as tech stocks outperform Breaking News • Jun 04, 2021 U.S. employers added 559,000 jobs (+675,000 expected), unemployment rate fell to 5.8% (5.9% expected) Morning Brief • Jun 04, 2021 The biggest question in Friday's jobs report News • Jun 03, 2021 NY Fed's John Williams: US economy 'quite a ways off' from tapering asset purchases News • Jun 03, 2021 Stocks fall despite strong jobs data; Nasdaq sheds 1% as tech shares sink News • Jun 03, 2021 Stocks open lower as geopolitical, inflation concerns outweigh strong jobs data Breaking News • Jun 03, 2021 U.S. jobless claims: 385,000 Americans filed, 387,000 expected Breaking News • Jun 03, 2021 Private payrolls increased by 978,000 in May, beating expectations: ADP News • Jun 02, 2021 The worst is yet to come for cyberattacks Breaking News • Jun 02, 2021 Federal Reserve to begin winding down corporate bond holdings News • Jun 02, 2021 Stocks end flat ahead of jobs data; AMC shares skyrocket in ‘meme stock’ resurgence Breaking News • Jun 02, 2021 AMC stock surges more than 100% to record intraday high, market cap overtakes GameStop News • Jun 02, 2021 Stocks drift up as S&P 500 hovers just below record high; Oil prices extend gains News • Jun 01, 2021 Stocks end mixed to kick off June: Dow ekes out gain while S&P 500 and Nasdaq tick below the flat line News • Jun 01, 2021 Stocks open higher: Dow gains 250+ points, or 0.8%, while S&P 500 nears record high News • May 31, 2021 Three-child policy: China lifts cap on births per family News • May 30, 2021 Epic v. Apple fight: Billions at stake as judge determines fate of App Store News • May 29, 2021 The problem with antitrust suits against Amazon News • May 29, 2021 Faster than expected inflation ‘is actually a good sign,’ White House official says News • May 28, 2021 Million-dollar lotteries as COVID-19 vaccine incentives spread to more states News • May 28, 2021 Stocks post third straight day of gains after economic data tops estimates News • May 28, 2021 Dow adds 100+ points, or 0.4%, to head for a third straight day of gains after economic data tops estimates News • May 27, 2021 Stocks end mostly higher, Dow gains 139 points, or 0.4%, after jobless claims improve to new pandemic-era low News • May 27, 2021 Walmart CEO to HBS grads: 'Life and business are about balance but if you’re going to lean, lean towards the long term' View all notifications Mail Sign in to view your mail Finance Finance Watchlists Watchlists My Portfolio My Portfolio Screeners Screeners Saved Screeners Saved Screeners Equity Screener Equity Screener Mutual Fund Screener Mutual Fund Screener ETF Screener ETF Screener Future Screener Future Screener Index Screener Index Screener Yahoo Finance Plus Yahoo Finance Plus Dashboard Dashboard Research Reports Research Reports Investment Ideas Investment Ideas Community Insights Community Insights Blog Blog Markets Markets Cryptocurrencies Cryptocurrencies Calendars Calendars Trending Tickers Trending Tickers Stocks: Most Actives Stocks: Most Actives Stocks: Gainers Stocks: Gainers Stocks: Losers Stocks: Losers Top ETFs Top ETFs Futures Futures World Indices World Indices Currencies Currencies Top Mutual Funds Top Mutual Funds Options: Highest Open Interest Options: Highest Open Interest Options: Highest Implied Volatility Options: Highest Implied Volatility US Treasury Bonds Rates US Treasury Bonds Rates Currency Converter Currency Converter News News Latest News Latest News Politics Politics Stock Market News Stock Market News Cryptocurrency News Cryptocurrency News Morning Brief Morning Brief Aarthi Swaminathan Aarthi Swaminathan Adam Shapiro Adam Shapiro Adriana Belmonte Adriana Belmonte Akiko Fujita Akiko Fujita Alexis Christoforous Alexis Christoforous Alexis Keenan Alexis Keenan Amanda Fung Amanda Fung Andy Serwer Andy Serwer Anjalee Khemlani Anjalee Khemlani Ben Werschkul Ben Werschkul Brian Cheung Brian Cheung Brian Sozzi Brian Sozzi Brooke DiPalma Brooke DiPalma Daniel Howley Daniel Howley Emily McCormick Emily McCormick Erin Fuchs Erin Fuchs Ethan Wolff-Mann Ethan Wolff-Mann Ines Ferré Ines Ferré Jared Blikre Jared Blikre Javier E. David Javier E. David Alexandra Canal Alexandra Canal Jessica Smith Jessica Smith Julia La Roche Julia La Roche Julie Hyman Julie Hyman Kristin Myers Kristin Myers Lisa Scherzer Lisa Scherzer Lulu Chiang Lulu Chiang Max Zahn Max Zahn Melody Hahm Melody Hahm Michael Kelley Michael Kelley Myles Udland Myles Udland Nishant Mohan Nishant Mohan Pras Subramanian Pras Subramanian Reggie Wade Reggie Wade Rick Newman Rick Newman Seana Smith Seana Smith Sheila Bair Sheila Bair Sibile Marcellus Sibile Marcellus Zack Guzman Zack Guzman Personal Finance Personal Finance Home Home Retirement Retirement Taxes Taxes Rates Rates Broker Center Broker Center Cryptocurrencies Cryptocurrencies Videos Videos Yahoo Finance Live Yahoo Finance Live Influencers with Andy Serwer Influencers with Andy Serwer Yahoo Finance Presents Yahoo Finance Presents Yahoo U Yahoo U A Time for Change A Time for Change Yahoo Finance All Markets Summit Yahoo Finance All Markets Summit Berkshire Hathaway Berkshire Hathaway Events Events ETF Report ETF Report Davos Davos Women and Money Women and Money FA Corner FA Corner Industries Industries Basic Materials Basic Materials Communication Services Communication Services Consumer Cyclical Consumer Cyclical Consumer Defensive Consumer Defensive Energy Energy Financial Services Financial Services Healthcare Healthcare Industrials Industrials Real Estate Real Estate Technology Technology Utilities Utilities Tech Tech Reviews Reviews How To How To Games Games Video Video Contact Us Contact Us More More Personal Finance Personal Finance Home Home Retirement Retirement Taxes Taxes Rates Rates Broker Center Broker Center Cryptocurrencies Cryptocurrencies Videos Videos Yahoo Finance Live Yahoo Finance Live Influencers with Andy Serwer Influencers with Andy Serwer Yahoo Finance Presents Yahoo Finance Presents Yahoo U Yahoo U A Time for Change A Time for Change Yahoo Finance All Markets Summit Yahoo Finance All Markets Summit Berkshire Hathaway Berkshire Hathaway Events Events ETF Report ETF Report Davos Davos Women and Money Women and Money FA Corner FA Corner Industries Industries Basic Materials Basic Materials Communication Services Communication Services Consumer Cyclical Consumer Cyclical Consumer Defensive Consumer Defensive Energy Energy Financial Services Financial Services Healthcare Healthcare Industrials Industrials Real Estate Real Estate Technology Technology Utilities Utilities Tech Tech Reviews Reviews How To How To Games Games Video Video Contact Us Contact Us U.S. markets open in 6 hours 44 minutes S&P Futures 4,247.50 +1.75 (+0.04%) Dow Futures 34,474.00 +12.00 (+0.03%) Nasdaq Futures 14,010.75 +16.50 (+0.12%) Russell 2000 Futures 2,330.80 +0.30 (+0.01%) Crude Oil 71.21 +0.30 (+0.42%) Gold 1,862.10 -17.50 (-0.93%) Silver 27.91 -0.24 (-0.84%) EUR/USD 1.2105 -0.0003 (-0.024%) 10-Yr Bond 1.4620 0.0000 (0.00%) Vix 15.65 -0.45 (-2.80%) GBP/USD 1.4111 +0.0005 (+0.0383%) USD/JPY 109.6690 +0.0340 (+0.031%) BTC-USD 39,335.20 +4,172.64 (+11.87%) CMC Crypto 200 980.48 +38.67 (+4.11%) FTSE 100 7,134.06 +45.88 (+0.65%) Nikkei 225 29,161.80 +213.07 (+0.74%) Read full article Oops! Something went wrong. Please try again later. More content below Oops! Something went wrong. Please try again later. More content below Oops! Something went wrong. Please try again later. More content below Oops! Something went wrong. Please try again later. More content below GOOG -0.30% GOOGL -0.20% MSFT +0.25% CSCO -0.47% +4 Captions will look like this 10 10 Video Quality Best Better Good Auto More Captions Settings Caption Languages English Closed Captions ON More Captions Settings Effects Plain Position Bottom Font Size Medium Font Family Helvetica Font Color White Background Color Black Background Transparency 75% Tech support: What is two-factor authentication and how to use it Tech support: What is two-factor authentication and how to use it Yahoo Finance's Dan Howley discusses what is two-factor authentication and how to use it. Yahoo Finance What is two-factor authentication, and how does it keep you safe online? Daniel Howley · Technology Editor Sun, June 13, 2021, 7:23 AM · 4 min read Oops! Something went wrong. Please try again later. More content below Oops! Something went wrong. Please try again later. More content below Oops! Something went wrong. Please try again later. More content below Oops! Something went wrong. Please try again later. More content below GOOG -0.30% GOOGL -0.20% MSFT +0.25% CSCO -0.47% +2 With major cyberattacks dominating headlines in recent weeks, you may be wondering how you can protect yourself online, whether it’s your social media accounts or banking accounts. And the best way to do that is via two-factor, or sometimes multi-factor, authentication, which requires you to enter a second randomly generated password in addition to your standard account password. Many businesses use two-factor authentication as a standard security measure. In fact, the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack was successful, in part, because the legacy VPN profile hackers used to break into the network wasn’t using two-factor authentication. But what is two-factor authentication and how do you set it up for your accounts? I’ve got you covered in this week’s Tech Support. Security for your security When you create an online account for any service, you set up a password. But many of us, yours truly included, have incredibly bad password habits. We use easily guessable passwords, re-use passwords, or use slight variations of passwords we already use for other accounts. Have you ever seen the list of the most used passwords of 2020? It would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous. Top choices include, and these are real, “123456,” “123456789,” and “password,” to name a few. Using two-factor authentication can prevent hackers and cybercriminals from gaining access to your most important online accounts. (Getty) Two-factor authentication can save you from your horrible password habits by adding another layer of security. Even if you think your passwords are as secure as possible, they can still be hacked, making two-factor authentication a must. Types of two-factor authentication There are three main types of two-factor authentication. The most common form uses text messages. When you enter your user name and password into an online account portal, the app or service you’re signing into will ask to send you a passcode to your phone number. You’ll then have to enter that number to finish signing in. This method has its flaws, though. Hackers have been able to clone victims’ phone numbers, giving them access to their text messages and their two-factor sign-in passcodes. Story continues The more secure method is to use a two-factor sign-in app. Google ( GOOG , GOOGL ) and Microsoft ( MSFT ) offer such authenticator apps for iOS and Android that provide you with a one-time passcode for your apps. You may use a similar kind of app for work such as Duo Mobile ( CSCO ). The issue, though, is that you’ll always need to carry your phone with you if you plan to sign into a new account. What’s more, if you switch to a new phone, you’ll have to remember to deactivate two-factor authentication on your old phone. The reason for that is that your authenticator app is tied to your old device. Once you deactivate two-factor authentication on your old phone, you can enable it and your authenticator app on your new one. Other two-factor authenticators use physical keys to log you in. In these instances, you’d use a key fob that generates a randomized passcode that you enter after inputting your username and password. While these are incredibly secure, they’re also a pain, because it means you won’t be able to log into your account if you don’t have the fob with you at all times. Increasingly, companies are relying on things like fingerprint readers and face scanners to act as a form of two-factor authentication, as well, adding even more security to their systems. How do you enable it? Each app and service has different methods for activating two-factor authentication. Much of the time, you’ll receive a prompt to enable the feature when signing up for a new user account. In other instances, you can turn the security feature on by going into your app’s user profile settings. Sign up for Yahoo Finance Tech newsletter Got a tip? Email Daniel Howley at [email protected] over via encrypted mail at [email protected] , and follow him on Twitter at @DanielHowley . More from Dan: JBS ransomware breach 'shows us we've got another problem,' senator says Apple and Facebook need each other than they'd ever admit Colonial Pipeline CEO on paying ransom after hack: 'Hardest decision I made' The worst is yet to come for cyberattacks Follow Yahoo Finance on Twitter , Facebook , Instagram , Flipboard , SmartNews , LinkedIn , YouTube , and reddit . Tip: Try a valid symbol or a specific company name for relevant results Related Quotes Symbol Last Price Change % Change CSCO Cisco Systems, Inc. 54.77 -0.26 -0.47% GOOG Alphabet Inc. 2,513.93 -7.67 -0.30% GOOGL Alphabet Inc. 2,430.20 -4.93 -0.20% MSFT Microsoft Corporation 257.89 +0.65 +0.25% TRENDING 1. U.S. data firm Equinix clinches new JV deals with Singapore's GIC 2. UPDATE 2-Toshiba's chairman says wants to stay on, hits out at former CEO 3. Upmarket retailer Ted Baker reports loss for pandemic-hit year 4. Treasuries Dip With Focus on Fed; Stocks Mixed: Markets Wrap 5. JPMorgan, TD Securities Urge Treasuries Bears to Hold Firm Recommended Stories Reuters China's cryptocurrency-mining crackdown spreads to Yunnan in southwest - media China's crackdown on cryptocurrencies has spread to the country's southwest with a campaign against misuse of electricity by bitcoin miners in Yunnan province, local media reported on Saturday. In addition to concerns about the huge amounts of energy needed for the computing power to create cryptocurrencies, the central government is also concerned about speculation after a surge in the price of bitcoin. China accounts for a over half of global bitcoin production, but some miners have been considering moving elsewhere after the State Council, China's cabinet, vowed to clamp down on bitcoin mining and trading last month. 2d ago Yahoo Finance 'In the Heights' makes splashy debut amid rising box office optimism — but ticket sales still a question \"In the Heights\" will test the theatrical comeback following the success of \"A Quiet Place II.\" 2d ago Ad • Empire Financial Research Why this Ad? I like this ad I don't like this ad Try Yahoo Finance Plus Ad Legend Who Bought AAPL at $0.35 Says Buy This Now Wall Street legend Whitney Tilson says there's a huge new tech trend coming – and he's giving away his top pick for free right here. Reuters Bid of $28 million wins a rocket trip to space with Bezos SEATTLE (Reuters) -A seat on a spaceship ride with billionaire Jeff Bezos went for $28 million during a live auction on Saturday, concluding the month-long bidding process for the sightseeing trip on the Blue Origin's maiden voyage next month. The bidding closed seven minutes after the auction began. The July 20 launch of Blue Origin's New Shepard booster from West Texas would be a landmark moment as U.S. firms strive toward a new era of private commercial space travel. 2d ago USA TODAY The secret IRS files: Trove of never-before-seen records reveal how wealthiest avoid income tax ProPublica obtained IRS information showing how billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett pay little in income tax compared to their wealth. 14h ago Yahoo Finance UK 'Last in, first out' fears holding back UK workers from changing jobs as vacancies soar Employees are wary of the lingering effects of the pandemic uncertainty, forcing them to remain stagnant instead of pursuing career opportunities. 8h ago Ad • SmartAsset Why this Ad? I like this ad I don't like this ad Try Yahoo Finance Plus Ad Washington: Startup Is Changing the Way People Retire NYC startup kicks off 2021 by disrupting the retirement industry . Miami Herald Dog food with salmonella meant to be trashed got sent to some Publix and Target stores One lot of Freshpet Select Small Dog Bite Size Beef & Egg Recipe Dog Food sold at select Publix and Target stores has been recalled, Freshpet announced Sunday. 10h ago The Wall Street Journal Forget Going Back to the Office—People Are Just Quitting Instead Workers are deciding to take on new jobs and careers as the economy rebounds, spurning a return to business as usual. Some are burned out from extra pandemic workloads and stress, while others prefer the flexibility of remote work. 21h ago Insider Monkey 10 Best Money Saving Tips According to Experts In this article we discuss the 10 best money saving tips according to experts. If you want to skip our detailed analysis of these tips, go directly to the 5 Best Money Saving Tips According to Experts. Saving money has become an uphill task for many average Americans amid flat wages, rising rents, astronomical healthcare […] 2d ago Ad • Comparisons.org Why this Ad? I like this ad I don't like this ad Try Yahoo Finance Plus Ad There Has Never Been A Better Time To Cash-Out Take advantage of lower mortgage rates & cut your monthly payments. 5 Best Mortgage Refinance of 2021 Reuters Exclusive-Toshiba's No.2 shareholder calls for immediate resignation of board chair, 3 directors TOKYO (Reuters) -Toshiba Corp's second-biggest shareholder on Sunday demanded the board chairman and three other directors immediately resign after an investigation found the company had colluded with the Japanese government to pressure foreign investors. The letter, seen by Reuters, is from 3D Investment Partners, which owns a 7.2% stake in Toshiba. It is likely to heighten scrutiny into governance at Toshiba, a renowned industrial conglomerate in crisis sparked by Thursday's report. 1d ago Motley Fool Up 60% In 2021, Is It Too Late to Buy Seagate Stock? Seagate Technology (NASDAQ: STX), one of the largest HDD (hard disk drive) makers in the world, is often considered a slow-growth stock. Demand for platter-based HDDs has waned in recent years, and they're gradually being displaced by flash memory-based SSDs (solid-state drives), which are smaller, faster, more power-efficient, and less prone to damage. Unlike its main competitor Western Digital (NASDAQ: WDC), which bought the flash memory chipmaker SanDisk in 2016 to expand its SSD business, Seagate still generates most of its revenue from traditional HDDs. 18h ago Yahoo News 360 Ransomware attacks: How should the U.S. respond? Ransomware attacks are increasingly targeting companies’ computer systems, demanding money in exchange for returning access and data. How should the U.S. respond? 11h ago Ad • Banyan Hill Why this Ad? I like this ad I don't like this ad Try Yahoo Finance Plus Ad New Battery Stuns EV Market This small company behind it is sparking a potential 20,300% market surge. Click here for details. Yahoo Money 'Extremely cruel move:' Jobless workers brace for early end to unemployment benefits in 25 states About 4.5 million workers in 25 states see their jobless benefits significantly reduced or cut to zero this month or in early July. 2d ago Motley Fool The Summer Movie Season Is Underway: Why That's Good News for AMC Stock AMC is best known for its part in the meme stock-trading frenzy, but its business is slowly recovering. 2d ago Bloomberg Crisis Reaches Crossroads for Global Interest Rates: Eco Week (Bloomberg) -- Sign up for the New Economy Daily newsletter, follow us @economics and subscribe to our podcast.The Federal Reserve’s much awaited interest-rate meeting this week is just one of a panoply by global central banks whose policies are increasingly diverging as economies respond in different ways to the coronavirus crisis.An anticipated decision in Washington on Wednesday to stay the course with an easing stance for the duration of the American summer may only underscore how what was o 1d ago Ad • Wells Fargo Checking – Member FDIC. Why this Ad? I like this ad I don't like this ad Try Yahoo Finance Plus Ad Open account online. Get started. Get a $200 checking bonus when you apply for an eligible checking account online in minutes with qualifying direct deposits. Learn more. FX Empire Stock Futures Are Off to Positive Start Ahead of Monday’s Session Stock futures are trading slightly higher on Sunday evening as investors gear up for this week’s Fed meeting. 8h ago Bloomberg Mall Owner Washington Prime Files For Chapter 11 Bankruptcy (Bloomberg) -- Washington Prime Group Inc., a real estate investment trust that operates enclosed malls and strip centers across the U.S., filed for bankruptcy after the Covid-19 pandemic curtailed in-person shopping.The Chapter 11 filing in Houston will allow Washington Prime to continue operating while it seeks to implement a restructuring agreement that it reached with certain creditors, according to a board resolution filed with the bankruptcy petition. The company, which estimated its asset 3h ago Bloomberg Gold Drops as Investors Await Fed Meeting for Clues on Policy (Bloomberg) -- Gold extended a decline as investors await this week’s Federal Reserve meeting for clues on the future path of monetary policy.Fed officials could project interest-rate liftoff in 2023 amid faster economic growth and inflation, but they won’t signal scaling back bond purchases until August or September, according to economists surveyed by Bloomberg. More than half predict the quarterly rate-forecast “dot plot,” released after the conclusion of the central bank’s two-day gathering 2h ago Ad • LastPass Why this Ad? I like this ad I don't like this ad Try Yahoo Finance Plus Ad LastPass Identity Solutions For Your Company LastPass Protects Every Access Point Through An All-In-One Single Sign-On, Password Management and MFA Solution. Bloomberg After the Pandemic, a Wave of Spending by Older Consumers (Bloomberg) -- The world’s emergence from the coronavirus pandemic is set to unleash a wave of spending by older consumers, with increasing opportunities for investors in aging-linked stocks.That’s the view of money managers who see huge pent-up demand from wealthy seniors for medical services and luxury goods. They also expect that the forced adoption of the internet by older people during lockdown will open up this demographic permanently to e-commerce companies and social networks.The number 4h ago Reuters Philips recalls some 3-4 million \"CPAP\", ventilator machines due to foam part Philips, the Dutch medical equipment company, on Monday said it would recall ventilators and \"CPAP\" breathing devices globally because of a foam part that might degrade and be inhaled. It left its full year financial guidance of \"low-to-mid-single-digit\" comparable sales growth unchanged. Philips had first disclosed the issue, for which it then took a 250 million euro ($303 million) charge, in its first quarter-earnings report in April. 53m ago MarketWatch Musk says Tesla sold about 10% of bitcoin to test market, and will ‘resume allowing crypto transactions’ when 50% of miners use clean energy Prices of the world's No. 1 crypto on Sunday trade sharply higher after digital-asset bull Elon Musk says Tesla would resume allowing transactions at the vehicle-maker's stores when key members of bitcoin infrastructure can confirm that 50% of the energy used to mine for bitcoin is derived from clean energy sources. 6h ago More Stories Display Advertisement ",
"URL": "https://finance.yahoo.com/news/what-is-two-factor-authentication-how-does-it-keep-you-safe-112307564.html"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Battletoads review: A cute but challenging beat ’em up game » OnMSFT.com Home How-To Xbox Microsoft / Office 365 Windows 10 Windows Insider Battletoads review: A cute but challenging beat ’em up game by Laurent Giret Email Twitter: @LaurentGiret Aug 19th, 2020 in Feature Stories | Review This month is quite a busy one for Microsoft’s Xbox Game Studios Division. No less than four new Microsoft games are coming this month, and the company kicked things off pretty nicely yesterday with Microsoft Flight Simulator, which went to become the highest-rated Microsoft game in years . Battletoads, which will be released tomorrow, August 20, plays in a whole different category, and you have to wonder if Microsoft gave it the best chances to make an impact after shipping it so close to a juggernaut. Battletoads is one of Rare’s oldest franchises, with the first game being released on the Nintendo NES back in 1991. The beat ‘em up series really shined on Nintendo consoles in the nineties, with Rare releasing a couple of other Battletoads games for the Game Boy and the SNES. There hasn’t been a new Battletoads game since the release of Battletoads Arcade in 1994, though the franchise managed to reach cult classic status over the years. Side-Scrolling beat ‘em up games really saw their golden age in the nineties, where Rare’s notoriously difficult Battletoads games had to compete with other popular franchises such as Double Dragon, Final Fight, Streets of Rage, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and more. Fast forward to 2020, this genre is apparently still popular as we’ve seen with the recent release of Street of Rage 4, which is currently available on Xbox Game Pass for Console and PC. It seems like a good time to bring the Battletoads series back to life, though this new game is being developed by Dlala Studios, with the assistance of Rare. Battletoads – Official Release Date Trailer This month is quite a busy one for Microsoft’s Xbox Game Studios Division. No less than four new Microsoft games are coming this month, and the company kicked things off pretty nicely yesterday with Microsoft Flight Simulator, which went to become the highest-rated Microsoft game in years. Battletoa Battletoads was first announced at E3 2018 as a reboot of one of Rare’s oldest franchises, and the game was initially expected to ship in 2019. After Microsoft showed the game again at gamescom 2019 and X019 last year, the August 20, 2020 release date was officially announced last month. Battletoads is clearly not a big budget game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, but Dlala Studios has apparently made good use of the additional development time to improve the game’s hand-drawn cartoon art style and create lots of cutscenes with professional voice acting. To be honest, this focus on story-telling often feels a bit odd for a beat ‘em up game. There are indeed a lot of cutscenes in Battletoads, and you can clearly see Dlala Studios’ ambition to create an entertaining, family-friendly cartoon game with some funny moments. The game’s sense of humour may probably not resonate with all adult players, but fortunately, you can skip all the cutscenes if you prefer to focus on the button-mashing action. This new Battletoads game once again features Rash, Zitz, and Pimple, the three toad warriors from outer space who can morph parts of their bodies to smash enemies. The Dark Queen, the antagonist of the previous Battletoads game is also still there, and the game continues to mix different gameplay styles with platforming levels, obstacle courses, space shooting, and more. The action is also punctuated by boss fights, puzzle sequences, and various hacking mini-games that require some real dexterity. Each toad has unique morph attacks and characteristics. Rash, the toad with the cool sunglasses is the most-balanced character, while Zitz is fast but weak and Pimple compensates his slowness with powerful punches. If you play solo, you can switch between the three toads on the fly using the d-pad, and having three characters available at all times makes the game less difficult than previous episodes. When one of your toads has been knocked out, you just have to wait for their health bar to recharge in the background before you can use them again in battle. The game is even easier in local co-op, which supports up to three players (unfortunately, Xbox Live multiplayer is unsupported). You can revive your buddies when they have been knocked out, and you and your friends should have much less trouble fighting off the waves of enemies that the game will throw at you. Battletoads also offers frequent autosaves and different difficulty levels, and you can also count on a series of tutorials to explain you the control scheme that will often change depending on the genre you will be playing level-to-level. The combat gameplay is pretty simple: You have one key for basic attacks, another one for powerful Morph and Charge attacks, as well as another button for the Launcher attack to throw enemies in the air. The amphibian heroes can also use their tongues for various purposes including grabbing enemies, spitting gum at them, and eating flies to restore health. The right trigger also allows you to dash to avoid enemy attacks, and this will be very useful when you’ll need to fight off five or more enemies at once. The random button mashing won’t work on some enemies that won’t be vulnerable after being knocked out by a charge attack. The game can also become really challenging when you’re facing multiple enemies using ranged attacks, or other foes using the environment to create zone damage. In these cases, the dash move and the toads’ various tongue abilities become really essential, especially when you’re playing solo. Overall, Battletoads is a competent brawler, though the classic beat ‘em up levels can quickly become repetitive. You’ll basically be moving from one area to the next with different waves of spawning enemies, and the action is only slowed down by various puzzles and mini-games that can be more annoying than anything else. But again, Battletoads is a game that mixes different genres and challenges, and the vehicle and space combat sections should cater to the different skills of everyone. This Battletoads reboot doesn’t do anything special to reinvent an old genre, but it doesn’t really need to. It’s not that easy to bring old franchises back to life, and Dlala Studios deserve credit for making an accessible game that’s fun to play in co-op. The hand-drawn art style is also a labor of love and something that we rarely see in video games these days. Battletoads may not be game of the year material like Microsoft Flight Simulator is, but it’s great filler content for Microsoft’s Xbox Game Pass subscription service. It’s just bit unfortunate that it may go unnoticed in the sea of new Xbox Game Pass games coming in the next couple of weeks. Battletoads will be available tomorrow on Xbox One, Windows 10, Steam , and Xbox Game Pass. The Microsoft Store version supports Xbox Play Anywhere, which means that you can buy it once and it play it for free on both your console and PC. If you have yet to subscribe to Xbox Game Pass Ultimate, we remind you that you can get your first month for just $1 and enjoy other upcoming Xbox Game Studios titles such as Tell Me Why and Wasteland 3 on day one. For nostalgics, the Rare Replay anthology , also available on Xbox Game Pass, includes the original Battletoads game released on the NES in 1991, as well as the Battletoads Arcade game from 1994. The latter, also known as Super Battletoads, was notorious for its gory effects and weaponry, and it’s fun to see how the 2020 reboot went in a completely different direction. Download QR-Code Battletoads Developer: Xbox Games Studios, Rare Ltd Price: $19.99 Download QR-Code Xbox Game Pass Ultimate Developer: Microsoft Corporation Price: $14.99/month $1.00 Share This Post: Tags: Battletoads | Game Review | Rare | Video Games | Xbox | Xbox One Onmsft.com See Also 1. Free Games to Play Now Free Games to Play Now 2. 100 Free Games Online 100 Free Games Online 3. Top 10 Gaming Headsets Top 10 Gaming Headsets 4. Hoyle Card Games Hoyle Card Games 5. Top Online Games Top Online Games 6. Top 5 Games of 2020 Top 5 Games of 2020 7. Computer Bowling Games Computer Bowling Games 8. New Video Games New Video Games Disqus Realtime Notification - Disqus Realtime Notification - Recent Xbox posts You can now buy official Xbox and Halo masks to help keep yourself and others safe Aug 21st, 2020 1:54 am | By Brad Stephenson Epic Games is actually giving Fortnite players the evil Apple skin from their #FreeFortnite video Aug 21st, 2020 12:15 am | By Brad Stephenson Overwatch: Origins Edition, F1 2020, and Wreckfest are free to play with Xbox Live Gold this weekend Aug 20th, 2020 8:58 am | By Laurent Giret Marvel’s Avengers Open Beta kicks off tomorrow on Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and PC Aug 20th, 2020 6:46 am | By Laurent Giret Battletoad players rewarded with Sea of Thieves video game cosmetics on Xbox One and Windows 10 Aug 20th, 2020 3:51 am | By Brad Stephenson Recent comments Sardoc Spamfish 11/10, would cringe again. You can now buy official Xbox and Halo masks to help keep yourself and others safe · 2 hours ago Kenji There's a WiFi issue on Windows 10 Version 2004 (May 2020) Update. I had to uninstall it to get... Windows 10 May 2020 Update can now be installed on the Surface Pro X and Laptop 3 · 4 hours ago Kenji I had the similar wireless connectivity issue on Windows 10 on the aftermath of May 2020 Update... No new Windows 10 Insider Dev build today, and there may not be one this week due to a blocking bug · 4 hours ago Adam Collins Why is it so difficult for Microsoft to modify teams so it behaves like outlook when accessing... How to run multiple instances of Microsoft Teams with two different accounts · 9 hours ago Willem Evenhuis The video and slogan are not enough to sway me over. I think the device could have done better on... Microsoft amps up Surface Duo marketing with “How To Do One Better” YouTube video series » OnMSFT.com · 12 hours ago About OnMSFT.com Contact OnMSFT Privacy Policy Copyright 2010-2020 OnMSFT.com LLC CA: Do Not Sell My Info What we use: Azure Microsoft 365 MS Fabric Core WordPress / Bootstrap Simple Social Icons Onmsft.com See Also 1. Free Games to Play Now Free Games to Play Now 2. 100 Free Games Online 100 Free Games Online 3. Top 10 Gaming Headsets Top 10 Gaming Headsets 4. Hoyle Card Games Hoyle Card Games 5. Top Online Games Top Online Games 6. Top 5 Games of 2020 Top 5 Games of 2020 7. Computer Bowling Games Computer Bowling Games 8. New Video Games New Video Games Disqus Realtime Notification - Disqus Realtime Notification -",
"URL": "https://www.onmsft.com/review/battletoads-review-a-cute-but-challenging-beat-em-up-game"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Business EconomyPosted at: Jul 10 2020 10:46PM Mukesh Ambani is eighth richest in the worldNew Delhi, Jul 10 (UNI) India's richest man and CMD of Reliance Industries Mukesh Ambani is eighth richest man in the world, according to the latest Bloomberg Billionaires Index released on Friday.Mr Ambani's wealth is now worth USD 68.3 billion, surpassing business tycoon and philanthropist Warren Buffett’s USD 67.9 billion, the report said.At number one, American internet entrepreneur and industrialist Jeff Bezos's total net worth stood at USD 188 Billion, co-founder of Microsoft Corporation Bill Gates was at second place with USD 115 Billion, followed by French billionaire businessman and art collector Bernard Arnault at USD 92.8 Billion and Cofounder, Chairman and CEO, Facebook Mark Zuckerberg having net worth at USD 92.7 Billion on fourth place. Please log in to get detailed story. ",
"URL": "http://www.uniindia.com/mukesh-ambani-is-eighth-richest-in-the-world/business-economy/news/2074517.html"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "World North America Cyber warfare Print article US and allies expose details of China’s cyber attacks Matthew Cranston United States correspondent Jul 19, 2021 – 9.00pm Save Log in or Subscribe to save article Share Washington | Australia has joined the United States and other Five Eyes nations to expose in detail the Chinese government’s role in cyber attacks around the world, including this year’s hack of Microsoft Exchange Server email software. The US administration, alongside its allies, formally called out China for a malicious cyber campaign using the Microsoft Exchange Server, a senior administration official told a select media briefing on Sunday (Monday AEST) . Businesses and governments around the world, including in Australia, were caught up in the massive hack, in which malicious operators broke into private and government computer networks via the widely-used Exchange software. “We will show how the [People’s Republic of China] Ministry of State Security ... uses criminal contract hackers to conduct unsanctioned cyber operations globally, including for their own personal profit,” the official said. Months of work by US intelligence in cooperation with Australia, UK, Canada and New Zealand – as well as with the European Union and, for the first time, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) – have culminated in consensus to call out China’s activity and provide fresh insights into its state-sponsored cyber attacks. “The National Security Agency, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and Federal Bureau of Investigation will expose over 50 tactics, techniques, and procedures Chinese state-sponsored cyber actors used when targeting US and allied networks,” the official said. Related Quotes Advertisement “The PRC’s actions threaten security, confidence and stability in cyber space. “The US and our allies and partners are not ruling out further action to hold the PRC accountable.” The federal government issued a statement condemning the Chinese cyber attacks. “In consultation with our partners, the Australian Government has determined that China’s Ministry of State Security exploited vulnerabilities in the Microsoft Exchange software to affect thousands of computers and networks worldwide, including in Australia,” it read. “These actions have undermined international stability and security by opening the door to a range of other actors, including cybercriminals, who continue to exploit this vulnerability for illicit gain.” While details around the Microsoft Exchange event will be exposed, the administration said there were dozens of other instances, including one major US company that had been threatened with ransomware. Australian companies were not mentioned. Advertisement “There are victims globally from this activity,” the senior source said. US President Joe Biden has repeatedly addressed the cyber attack issue internationally, committing last month at the G7 summit in the UK to dealing with ransomware attacks, and ramping up pressure on President Vladimir Putin to rein in cyber criminals working within Russia’s borders. The US and its allies, however, see the actions of China’s contractual arrangement as “distinct” from criminal cyber activity carried out on Russian soil. “Showing how the [Chinese] Ministry of State Security is using criminal contract hackers to conduct unsanctioned cyber operations globally for their own profit, showing extortion and crypto jacking, is significant,” the US official said. The source said the US government had raised these cyber attack allegations with Chinese officials. Last week, Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell said cyber attacks , the estimated cost of which has soared to more than $US20 billion ($27 billion) globally this year, were his No. 1 concern for a major event causing financial instability. Advertisement Major cyber attacks this year include America’s largest beef producer, JBS, as well as Australian-backed Colonial Pipeline , which had to shut down the 8850 kilometres of pipeline that transports half the fuel supply of the US east coast. In response to the Colonial Pipeline attack, the Department of Homeland Security Transportation Security Administration issued updated cybersecurity rules for such crucial infrastructure. These include mandatory incident reporting requirements. Microsoft Corporation assistant General Counsel Kemba Walden has been invited to appear before a hearing by the House committee on energy and commerce this week. President Biden issued an executive order in May aimed at “modernising cybersecurity defences by protecting federal networks, improving information-sharing between the US government and the private sector on cyber issues, and strengthening the United States’ ability to respond to incidents when they occur”. Advertisement The co-ordinated expose of China’s role in global cyber crime is part of the Biden administration’s efforts to strengthen the defence of allies against Beijing’s increasingly aggressive behaviour. This new aggression extends to areas such as trade and economic coercion, of which Australia has been a prime target over the past year at least. “These efforts in cooperation with NATO the EU and Five Eyes nations will allow us to enhance our information sharing, including network defence information ... and strengthen cyber resilience,” the senior source said. The Biden administration is also concerned about the costs to consumers and businesses of cyber attacks. It launched the StopRansomware.gov website, which provides a one-stop hub of ransomware resources to assist individuals and businesses in protecting their networks and responding to the blackmail which comes with these sorts of attacks. Washington also announced last week the Rewards for Justice program, which offers $US10 million ($13.6 million) for information that leads to the identification or location of state-sponsored cyber-activity against key infrastructure. The biggest stories in business, markets and politics and why they matter. Need to know. Our daily reporting, in your inbox. Sign up now Matthew Cranston is the United States correspondent, based in Washington. He was previously the Economics correspondent and Property editor. Connect with Matthew on Twitter . Email Matthew at [email protected] Save Log in or Subscribe to save article Share License article Introducing your Newsfeed Follow the topics, people and companies that matter to you. Find out more Read More Cyber warfare Cyber security China relations USA China Joe Biden EU Jerome Powell Vladimir Putin Putin's Russia Western alliance NATO New Zealand UK Microsoft FBI Russia G7 summit Federal Reserve Latest Stories Before the Bell Dow plunges, oil collapses on rising delta variant threat Australian shares are poised to drop sharply, following selling in Europe and in New York, as clouds roll in fast on the global economic outlook. 10 mins ago Need to Know NSW puts 29 venues and transport routes on exposure list The latest list comes as 98 new cases are reported and the mother of the NSW removalists dies in her home from COVID-19. Follow updates here. Opinion Chanticleer Telstra risks poking the China bear Telstra has a long history of financial partnerships with the federal government, but jointly owning a telco network in the South Pacific is a massive overreach. Property tax Short-term pain, long-term gain if stamp duty replaced: NHFIC report Ditching stamp duty would increase housing mobility, lead to more efficient housing use and reduce government revenue volatility. But it could come at a cost. Sponsored Advertisement Latest In North America Welfare Generation Z should fear a universal basic income Jul 18, 2021 Allison Schrager and Bloomberg Opinion Federal Reserve Democrats weigh backing Jay Powell as Fed leadership choice looms Jul 18, 2021 James Politi and Colby Smith Coronavirus pandemic Virus still killing Americans faster than guns, cars and flu combined Jul 18, 2021 Tom Randall Opinion Biden's White House How big spending got its groove back Jul 17, 2021 Paul Krugman Science Moon wobble is bad news for living on the coast Jul 16, 2021 Nick Allen Most Viewed In World Australian business faces years in the China deep freeze UK’s big reopening marred by infection chaos and Johnson’s U-turn Virus surge a test for Singapore’s exit strategy US and allies expose details of China’s cyber attacks England’s ‘freedom day’ marred by soaring cases and isolation chaos Israeli firm’s spyware found on phones of hacked media, business leaders How the ‘best-tasting chicken in the world’ came to Australia Jill Dupleix Five recipes cajoled out of top Australian restaurant chefs Discover Australia’s hottest new wine region with a road trip New Stockland CEO’s plan to house Australia Michael Bleby How to get the link between executive pay and climate right Ampol CEO charges up for the future The elite gym that bans mobile phones Susan Owens Property developer, 79, just can’t put the brakes on cycling House of Patou is still so Frenchy, so chic Waislitz, Tinder founders and Billy Slater back Aussie digital clinic Jessica Sier How Rich Lister Peter Cooper’s ‘next gen’ is picking winners Australia needs more $100m SMSFs: Liberal MP",
"URL": "https://www.afr.com/world/north-america/us-and-allies-to-expose-details-of-china-s-cyber-attacks-20210719-p58av3"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Press Release – Commerce Commission The Commerce Commission has received a clearance application in relation to the proposed acquisition by Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft), via a wholly owned subsidiary, of Activision Blizzard Inc (Activision). Both parties are developers, publishers … The Commerce Commission has received a clearance application in relation to the proposed acquisition by Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft), via a wholly owned subsidiary, of Activision Blizzard Inc (Activision). Both parties are developers, publishers and distributors of video games for PC, gaming consoles and mobile platforms. Microsoft is a global technology company headquartered in the USA. In relation to video games, in New Zealand, Microsoft: distributes its own video game titles through its online distribution platforms the Microsoft Store, the Xbox Store and Bethesda.net; distributes video games developed by other software companies (such as Activision Blizzard) through its online platforms; offers multi-title gaming subscriptions through Xbox Live and Xbox Game Pass; and produces and sells the Xbox range of video-game consoles, as well as personal computer (PC) hardware and peripherals such as mice and keyboards. Microsoft’s games include the Minecraft, Forza, Elder Scrolls and Halo titles. Activision Blizzard is also headquartered in the US, and develops, publishes and distributes video games. It produces games via its Activision, Blizzard and King business units. Activision Blizzard’s games include the Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, Overwatch and Candy Crush titles. A public version of the clearance application will be available shortly on the Commission’s case register . Background We will give clearance to a proposed merger if we are satisfied that the merger is unlikely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition in a market. Further information explaining how the Commission assesses a merger application is available on our website . Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz Original url",
"URL": "https://business.scoop.co.nz/2022/06/16/microsoft-seeks-clearance-to-acquire-activision-blizzard/"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, December 7, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 242 HeadlinesACXIOM CORPORATION: AR Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit Still PendingALLIED WASTE: Asks AZ Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud LawsuitAMERICREDIT CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities SuitBENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Settlement Hearing Set January 13, 2006BLUE CROSS: Allowed To Spend Proceeds From Tobacco LitigationBORLAND SOFTWARE: Discovery Continues in DE Shareholder LawsuitBOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suits in MA CourtBOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Seeks Dismissal of EEOC Discrimination ChargeBOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Recalls Vena Cava Filters For Injury HazardCARDINAL HEALTH: Asks OH Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud SuitCARDINAL HEALTH: Trial in CA ERISA Fraud Suit Set January 7,2006CARDINAL HEALTH: Plaintiffs File Consolidated ERISA Suits in OHCONAGRA STORE: Recalls Chewy Granola Bars Due to Wrong PackagingDSW INC.: Settles FTC Charges Due To Unfair Trade PracticesFINOVA CAPITAL: Appeals Certification of Thaxton Entities SuitsGENZYME CORPORATION: Biosurgery Shareholders Launch Fraud SuitsIMCLONE SYSTEMS: Implementing NY Stock Lawsuit Settlement TermsMICROSOFT CORPORATION: IL Man Launches Suit Over Xbox 360 DefectNEW YORK: Cook Withdraws From Lawsuit V. Flushing Hindu TempleNORTH TEXAS: FTC Rules Physicians Illegally Fixed Prices in AreaNUVEEN INVESTMENTS: IL Securities Lawsuit Dismissal Deemed FinalOHIO POWER: Named As Defendant in Canadian Environmental LawsuitPACKAGING CORPORATION: Linerboard Suit Discovery To End 12/2005PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Lawsuit Over Medicare Automatic EnrolmentPREMIERE GLOBAL: Discovery Proceeds in MD TCPA Violations SuitPUBLIC SERVICE: Named As Defendant in Canada Environmental SuitRYLAND GROUP: Continue To Face Securities Lawsuits in N.D. TexasSEPRACOR INC.: Discovery Proceeds in MA Securities Fraud LawsuitSYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Stock Lawsuit DismissalTHOMSON NEWSPAPERS: Copyright Suit in Canada Heads to High CourtWATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Phentermine HCl Product LitigationWATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Seek Transfer of Suit AppealWELLMAN INC.: Antitrust Settlement Hearing Set December 15, 2005WFS FINANCIAL: Suit Status Conference Set January 18,2006 in CA Meetings, Conferences & Seminars* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals* Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud CasesCIPHERGEN BIOSYSTEMS: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Suit in CAMIKOHN GAMING: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NVMIKOHN GAMING: Goldman Scarlato Lodges NV Securities Fraud SuitSTONE ENERGY: Roy Jacobs to File Securities Fraud Lawsuit in LASTONE ENERGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in LAUNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities suit in NY *********ACXIOM CORPORATION: AR Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit Still Pending--------------------------------------------------------------Acxiom Corporation's board of directors continues to face aclass action filed in Pulaski County Circuit Court in Arkansas,styled \"Indiana State District Council of Laborers and HODCarriers Pension Fund v. Morgan, et al., CV05-8498.\"The suit alleges that the board members are not independent fromCharles Morgan, the Company's chief executive officer andchairman of the board of directors. Based on this purportedlack of independence, the lawsuit alleges that the board did notuse good faith in considering the June 3, 2005 letter fromValueAct Capital.In addition to seeking class action status, the plaintiffs arealso seeking an order requiring the defendants to properlyconsider the ValueAct transaction or any other transaction inthe best interests of Acxiom shareholders and to rescind anymeasures that would prevent ValueAct from negotiating for thepurchase of the Company. The suit is in its early stages andthe defendants have not yet responded to the complaint.ALLIED WASTE: Asks AZ Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit---------------------------------------------------------------Allied Waste Industries, Inc. asked the United States DistrictCourt for the District of Arizona to dismiss the consolidatedsecurities class action filed against it and five of its currentand former officers.The amended complaint asserts claims against all defendantsunder Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 andRule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and claims against theofficers under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. Thecomplaint alleges that from February 10, 2004, to September 13,2004, the defendants caused false and misleading statements tobe issued in the Company's public filings and public statementsregarding its anticipated results for fiscal year 2004. Thelawsuits seek an unspecified amount of damages.On October 19, 2005, the Court heard oral arguments on a motionthe Company has filed to dismiss the complaint. The motion hasnot been decided, and is currently under submission with theCourt.The first identified complaint in this litigation is styled\"Steven Zack, et al. v. Allied Waste Industries, Inc., et al.,\"filed in the United States District Court for the District ofArizona. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax: 610.660.0450, E-mail: [email protected] (2) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail: [email protected] (3) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax: 212.682.1892, E-mail: [email protected] (4) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax; 610.667.7056, E- mail: [email protected] CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs filed a second amended class action againstAmeriCredit Corporation and certain of its officers anddirectors after the United States District Court for theNorthern District of Texas, Forth Worth Division partiallydismissed an earlier, similar securities class action.In fiscal 2003, shareholders launched several complaints,alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.Additionally, a complaint was filed in fiscal 2003 against theCompany and certain of its officers and directors in the 48thJudicial District Court in Tarrant County, Texas, allegingviolations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933in connection with the Company's secondary public offering ofcommon stock on October 1, 2002.These complaints have been consolidated into one action, styled\"Pierce v. AmeriCredit Corp., et al.,\" in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort WorthDivision; the plaintiff in Pierce seeks class action status. InPierce, the plaintiff claims, among other allegations, thatdeferments were improperly granted by the Company to avoiddelinquency triggers in securitization transactions and enhancecash flows to incorrectly report charge-offs and delinquencypercentages, thereby causing the Company to misrepresent itsfinancial performance throughout the alleged class period.The plaintiff also alleges that the Company's registrationstatement and prospectus for the offering contained untruestatements of material facts and omitted to state material factsnecessary to make other statements in the registration statementnot misleading.The Company believes that its granting of deferments, which is acommon practice within the auto finance industry, complied withthe covenants contained in its securitization and warehousefinancing documents, and that the Company's deferment activitieswere properly disclosed to all constituents, includingshareholders, asset-backed investors, creditors and creditenhancement providers, the Company said in a disclosure to theSecurities and Exchange Commission.Additionally, a class action complaint, styled \"Lewis v.AmeriCredit Corp.,\" was filed in fiscal 2003 against the Companyand certain of its officers and directors alleging violations ofSections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connectionwith the Company's secondary public offering of common stock onOctober 1, 2002.In Lewis, also pending in the United States District Court forthe Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, theplaintiff alleges that the Company's registration statement andprospectus for the offering contained untrue statements ofmaterial facts and omitted to state material facts necessary tomake other statements in the registration statement notmisleading.In April 2004, two rulings were issued by the United StatesDistrict Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort WorthDivision, affecting the Pierce and Lewis lawsuits. On April 1,2004, the Court, in response to motions to dismiss filed by theCompany and the other defendants, ruled that the plaintiff'scomplaint in the Pierce lawsuit was deficient and ordered theplaintiff to cure such deficiencies or the case would bedismissed. On April 27, 2004, the Court issued an orderconsolidating the Lewis case into the Pierce case. Inconnection with the order consolidating the Lewis and Piercecases, the Court granted the plaintiffs permission to file anamended, consolidated complaint, which they have done.On September 30, 2005, the Court issued an Order that theCompany's and the individual defendants motion to dismiss shouldbe partially granted and partially denied and that the plaintiffshould be given one final opportunity to re-plead the complaintonly as to those claims brought pursuant to the Securities Actof 1933. The Court dismissed the claims alleging violations ofSection 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Pursuant to the Court's Order, onOctober 28, 2005, the plaintiff filed a second amendedconsolidated complaint concerning the Securities Act of 1933claims.BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Settlement Hearing Set January 13, 2006--------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District ofNew York will hold a fairness hearing in the proposed $9,750,000settlement in the matter, \"In re: Bennett Environmental, Inc.Securities Litigation, Case No. 04 Civ. 5852 (LTS).\" The casewas filed on behalf of all persons or entities who from June 2,2003 through and including July 22, 2004, purchased theCompany's common stock or purchased \"units\" of the Company'ssecurities pursuant to the private placement announced onJanuary 12, 2004 and in either case were damaged thereby. Theproposed Settlement is with Bennett Environmental Inc., JohnBennett, Allan Bulckaert, Robert Griffiths, Danny Ponn andRichard Stern.The hearing will be held before the Honorable Laura TaylorSwain, in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007-1581at 2:30 p.m. on January 13, 2006 to determine whether theproposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,reasonable, and adequate, and to consider the application ofLead Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigationexpenses.For more details, contact Bennett Environmental Inc. SecuritiesLitigation, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., ClaimsAdministrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6366, Merrick, NY 11566-9000,Phone: 800-298-5765, Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com;and Daniel L. Berger, Jeffrey N. Leibell and Avi Josefson ofBERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN, LLP, 1285 Avenue of theAmericas, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (800) 380-8496, Web site:http://www.blbglaw.com.BLUE CROSS: Allowed To Spend Proceeds From Tobacco Litigation-------------------------------------------------------------Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota was cleared to startspending settlement money from a lawsuit against the tobaccoindustry, The St. Paul Business Journal reports.Eagan-based Blue Cross, which originally filed the lawsuit morethan 11 years ago, agreed to a $469 million settlement in 1998.The settlement was delayed by a class action lawsuit from somepolicyholders who wanted larger shares from the settlement.Blue Cross plans to distribute about $241 million to preventionand health improvement programs, with work scheduled to start inearly 2006. In addition, the insurer will also give $70 millionto offset the deficit of the Minnesota Comprehensive HealthAssociation, which provides health plans to those who can'totherwise afford them; $41 million, minus legal fees, to roughly38,000 fully insured employer groups; $30 million to supportcommunity clinics serving the uninsured and under-insured; and$30 million to approximately 200,000 fully insured individuals.Back in 2001, Blue Cross transferred $21 million of thesettlement proceeds to the Blue Cross and Blue Shield ofMinnesota Foundation. The company also paid roughly $36 millionin taxes on the settlement.BORLAND SOFTWARE: Discovery Continues in DE Shareholder Lawsuit---------------------------------------------------------------Discovery is still proceeding in the remaining stockholder classaction filed against Borland Software, Inc., styled \"Dieterichv. Harrer, et al., Case No. 024-N.\"On November 27, 2002, a stockholder class action and derivativelawsuit, styled \"Dieterich v. Harrer, et al., Case No.02CC00350,\" was filed against Starbase Corporation, or Starbase,and five former directors of Starbase in the Superior Court ofthe State of California for Orange County, claiming that theformer directors had breached fiduciary duties owed to Starbaseand stockholders of Starbase. The Company is paying the costsof defending this litigation pursuant to indemnificationobligations under the merger agreement relating to itsacquisition of Starbase. Following a series of motions, the casewas dismissed without prejudice on August 20, 2003.On October 28, 2003, a stockholder class action relating to thesame matter, Dieterich v. Harrer, et al, Case No. 024-N, wasfiled against the former directors of Starbase in Chancery Courtof the State of Delaware, alleging breach of fiduciary duties bythe former directors of Starbase. The lawsuit also named asdefendants the Company, and four of its former executiveofficers: (1) Dale Fuller, (2) Keith Gottfried, (3) Frederick Ball, and (4) Doug BarreDefendants moved to dismiss and in August 2004, the ChanceryCourt granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.Discovery has commenced and there is no date set for trial.BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suits in MA Court--------------------------------------------------------------Boston Scientific Corporation and certain of its officers anddirectors face several securities class actions filed in theUnited States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.On September 23, 2005, Srinivasan Shankar, on behalf of himselfand all others similarly situated, filed a purported securitiesclass action suit on behalf of those who purchased or otherwiseacquired the Company's securities during the period March 31,2003 through August 23, 2005, alleging that the Company andcertain of its officers violated certain sections of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934.The complaint principally alleges that the Company did notadequately disclose its ability to satisfy FDA regulationsgoverning medical device product quality, which resulted in theartificial inflation of the Company's stock price and enabledcertain of the Company's officers to profit from the sale ofCompany stock at such inflated prices. The complaint seeksunspecified damages, equitable, and injunctive relief.On September 28, 2005, October 27, 2005, November 2, 2005 andNovember 3, 2005, Jack Yopp, Robert L. Garber, Betty C. Meyerand John Ryan, respectively on behalf of themselves and allothers similarly situated, filed a purported securities classaction suit in the same Court on behalf of the same purportedclass, alleging similar misconduct and seeking similar relief.The Company believes the suits will be consolidated.BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Seeks Dismissal of EEOC Discrimination Charge----------------------------------------------------------------Boston Scientific Corporation moved to dismiss the charge ofdiscrimination filed against it with the Minnesota Department ofHuman Rights and the Minnesota office of the U.S. EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).On March 3, 2005, the African Assistance Program filed thecharge, purportedly on behalf of certain of the Company's blackemployees of African national origin, alleging discriminatoryand retaliatory employment practices in violation of Title VIIof the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. At present, theEEOC is handling this matter on behalf of both agencies.BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Recalls Vena Cava Filters For Injury Hazard--------------------------------------------------------------Boston Scientific Corporation (NYSE: BSX) is voluntarilyrecalling all Stainless Steel Greenfieldr Vena Cava Filters with12Fr Femoral Introducer Systems manufactured before March 10,2004. This recall does not affect vena cava filters that havebeen implanted in patients.This recall includes only the Stainless Steel Greenfieldr VenaCava Filter with 12Fr Femoral Introducer Systems manufacturedprior to March 10, 2004. All unused devices with a \"use beforedate\" prior to March 2007 are to be returned to BostonScientific. The product code for these devices under recall isM001505010. The product code and the use before date of thedevice are located on the box and pouch label. The total numberof devices involved in this recall is estimated at 18,000.The Company is initiating this recall because of reports ofdetachment at the bond between the carrier capsule and the outersheath of the filter's delivery system during the implantprocedure. If the carrier capsule should detach during animplantation procedure, there is a risk of cardiac and pulmonaryembolization. Potential adverse events include serious patientinjury or death.The Company initiated this recall after a review of complaintrecords and analysis of returned devices revealed the potentialproblem. A total of eight complaints were received, of which twowere reported as involving serious patient injury requiringintervention and one was reported as a death.A vena cava filter is a small cone-shaped device that isimplanted in the inferior vena cava, the large vein that carriesblood from the lower part of the body to the heart. The filterprevents pulmonary embolism by capturing blood clots before theycan be carried to the lungs. The blood clots are trapped in thefilter while blood flows both through and around the entrappedclot, allowing the clot to dissolve naturally.The products affected by this recall were distributed tohospitals worldwide. Boston Scientific is notifying affectedhospitals through detailed recall notification letters,including instructions on how to return recalled product.The Company is working with the U.S. Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) and is notifying officials in othercountries of this recall.Inquires may be directed to Boston Scientific at 888-272-1001.Any adverse reactions experienced with the use of this product,and/or quality problems should also be reported to the FDA'sMedWatch Program by phone at 1-800-FDA-1088, by Fax at1-800-FDA-0178, by mail at MedWatch, HF-2, FDA, 5600 FishersLane, Rockville, MD 20852-9787, or on the MedWatch website athttp://www.fda.gov/medwatch.CARDINAL HEALTH: Asks OH Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs ask the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of Ohio filed a consolidated amended securities classaction against Cardinal Health, Inc. and certain of its officersand directors, captioned \"In re Cardinal Health, Inc. FederalSecurities Litigation.\"Since July 2, 2004, ten purported class action complaints havebeen filed by purported purchasers of the Company's securitiesagainst the Company and certain of its officers and directors,asserting claims under the federal securities laws. These casesinclude: (1) Gerald Burger v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV 575), (2) Todd Fener v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV 579), (3) E. Miles Senn v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV 597), (4) David Kim v. Cardinal Health, Inc. (04 CV 598), (5) Arace Brothers v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV 604), (6) John Hessian v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV 635), (7) Constance Matthews Living Trust v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV 636), (8) Mariss Partners, LLP v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV 849), (9) The State of New Jersey v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV 831) and (10) First New York Securities, LLC v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV 911)The Cardinal Health federal securities actions purport to bebrought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securitiesduring various periods beginning as early as October 24, 2000and ending as late as July 26, 2004 and allege, among otherthings, that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act byissuing a series of false and/or misleading statementsconcerning the Company's financial results, prospects andcondition. Certain of the complaints also allege violations ofSection 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, claimingmaterial misstatements or omissions in prospectuses issued bythe Company in connection with its acquisition of BindleyWestern Industries, Inc. in 2001 and Syncor in 2003.The alleged misstatements relate to the Company's accounting forrecoveries relating to antitrust litigation against vitaminmanufacturers, and to classification of revenue in the Company'sPharmaceutical Distribution business as either operating revenueor revenue from bulk deliveries to customer warehouses, amongother matters. The alleged misstatements are claimed to havecaused an artificial inflation in the Company's stock priceduring the proposed class period. The complaints seekunspecified money damages and equitable relief against thedefendants and an award of attorney's fees.On December 15, 2004, the Cardinal Health federal securitiesactions were consolidated into one action captioned \"In reCardinal Health, Inc. Federal Securities Litigation,\" and onJanuary 26, 2005, the Court appointed the Pension Fund Group aslead plaintiff in this consolidated action. On April 22, 2005,the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint namingthe Company, certain current and former officers and employeesand the Company's external auditors as defendants. The complaintseeks unspecified money damages and other unspecified reliefagainst the defendants. On August 22, 2005, the Company andcertain defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the consolidatedamended complaint.The suit is styled \"In re Cardinal Health, Inc. SecuritiesLitigation, case no. 2:04-cv-00575-ALM-NMK,\" filed in the UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, underJudge Algenon L. Marbley. Representing the plaintiffs is JohnR. Climaco, Climaco Lefkowitz Peca Wilcox & Garofoli LPA - 1,1228 Euclid Avenue, Suite 900, Cleveland, OH 44115-1891, Phone:216-621-8484, Fax: 216-771-1632, E-mail: [email protected] the Company is John M. Newman, Jr., Geoffrey J.Ritts, Jones, Day, Reavis, & Pogue, North Point, 901 LakesideAve, Cleveland, OH 44114-1190, Phone: 216-586-3939, E-mail:[email protected] or [email protected] HEALTH: Trial in CA ERISA Fraud Suit Set January 7,2006----------------------------------------------------------------Trial in the consolidated class action filed against CardinalHealth, Inc., Syncor International Corporation and certainofficers and employees of the Company is set for January 7,2006in the United States District Court for the Central District ofCalifornia.A purported class action complaint, captioned Pilkington v.Cardinal Health, et al, was filed on April 8, 2003, against theCompany, Syncor and certain officers and employees of theCompany by a purported participant in the Syncor Employees'Savings and Stock Ownership Plan (the \"Syncor ESSOP\"). Arelated purported class action complaint, captioned Donna Brown,et al. v. Syncor International Corp, et al., was filed onSeptember 11, 2003, against the Company, Syncor and certainindividual defendants.Another related purported class action complaint, captionedThompson v. Syncor International Corp., et al., was filed onJanuary 14, 2004, against the Company, Syncor and certainindividual defendants. Each of these actions was brought in theUnited States District Court for the Central District ofCalifornia. A consolidated complaint was filed on February 24,2004 against Syncor and certain former Syncor officers,directors and/or employees alleging that the defendants breachedcertain fiduciary duties owed under ERISA based on the sameunderlying allegations of improper and unlawful conduct allegedin the federal securities litigation.The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified money damages andother unspecified relief against the defendants. On April 26,2004, the defendants filed Motions to Dismiss the consolidatedcomplaint. On August 24, 2004, the Court granted in part anddenied in part Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. The Courtdismissed, without prejudice, all claims against defendants EdBurgos and Sheila Coop, all claims alleging co-fiduciaryliability against all defendants, and all claims alleging thatthe individual defendants had conflicts of interest precludingthem from properly exercising their fiduciary duties underERISA. A claim for breach of the duty to prudently manage planassets was upheld against Syncor, and a claim for breach of thealleged duty to \"monitor\" the performance of Syncor's PlanAdministrative Committee was upheld against defendants Monty Fuand Robert Funari. Trial of these claims is presently scheduledfor February 7, 2006The suit is styled \"Carol Pilkington v. Cardinal Health Inc, etal., case no. #: 2:03-cv-02446-RGK-RC,\" filed in the UnitedStates District Court for the Central District of California,under Judge R. Gary Klausner. Representing the Company is TedAllan Gehring, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, 333 S Grand Ave, 45thFl., Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197, Phone: 213-229-7000.Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Christopher Kim, Lisa J. Yang, Lim Ruger & Kim, 1055 W 7th St, Ste 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone: 213- 955-9500 Email: [email protected] or [email protected] (2) Edward Chang, Joseph H. Meltzer, Schiffrin and Barroway, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706, E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected] (3) Edward W Ciolko, Richard S. Schiffrin, Schiffrin & Barroway, 3 Bala Plaza E, Ste 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706, Email: [email protected] (4) Elizabeth A Leland, Lynn Lincoln Sarko, T. David Copley, Tobias Kammer, Keller Rohrback, 1201 3rd Ave, Ste 3200 Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-1900, Email: [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] (5) Gary A Gotto, Dalton Gotto Samson & Kilgard, National Bank Plz, 3101 N Central Ave, Ste 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012-2600, Phone: 602-248-0088, Fax: 602-230-6360 (6) Ron Kilgard, Keller Rohrback, 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012, Phone: 602-248- 0088, Email: [email protected] HEALTH: Plaintiffs File Consolidated ERISA Suits in OH---------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for theSouthern District of Ohio to dismiss an amended consolidatedclass action against Cardinal Health, Inc. and certain of itsofficers, directors and employees.Since July 2, 2004, 14 purported class action complaints havebeen filed by purported participants in the Cardinal HealthProfit Sharing, Retirement and Savings Plan (collectivelyreferred to as the \"Cardinal Health ERISA actions\"). Thesecases include: (1) David McKeehan and James Syracuse v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV 643), (2) Timothy Ferguson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV 668), (3) James DeCarlo v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV 684), (4) Margaret Johnson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV 722), (5) Harry Anderson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV 725), (6) Charles Heitholt v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV 736), (7) Dan Salinas and Andrew Jones v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV 745), (8) Daniel Kelley v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV 746), (9) Vincent Palyan v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV 778), (10) Saul Cohen v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV 789), (11) Travis Black v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV 790), (12) Wendy Erwin v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV 803), (13) Susan Alston v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV 815), and (14) Jennifer Brister v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV 828)The Cardinal Health ERISA actions purport to be brought onbehalf of participants in the Cardinal Health Profit Sharing,Retirement and Savings Plan and the Syncor Employees' Savingsand Stock Ownership Plan (the \"Syncor ESSOP,\" and together withthe Cardinal Health Profit Sharing, Retirement and Savings Plan,the \"Plans\"), and also on behalf of the Plans themselves. Thecomplaints allege that the defendants breached certain fiduciaryduties owed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act(ERISA), generally asserting that the defendants failed to makefull disclosure of the risks to the Plans' participants ofinvesting in the Company's stock, to the detriment of the Plans'participants and beneficiaries, and that Company stock shouldnot have been made available as an investment alternative forthe Plans' participants.The misstatements alleged in the Cardinal Health ERISA actionssignificantly overlap with the misstatements alleged in theCardinal Health federal securities actions. The complaints seekunspecified money damages and equitable relief against thedefendants and an award of attorney's fees. On December 15,2004, the Cardinal Health ERISA actions were consolidated intoone action captioned \"In re Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISALitigation.\"On January 14, 2005, the court appointed lead counsel andliaison counsel for the consolidated Cardinal Health ERISAaction. On April 29, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed aconsolidated amended ERISA complaint naming the Company, certaincurrent and former directors, officers and employees, theCompany's Employee Benefits Policy Committee and PutnamFiduciary Trust Company as defendants. The complaint seeksunspecified money damages and other unspecified relief againstthe defendants. On August 22, 2005, the Company and certaindefendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the consolidated amendedERISA complaint.The suit is styled \"In re Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISALitigation, case no. 2:04-cv-00643-ALM-NMK,\" filed in the UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, underJudge Algenon L. Marbley. Representing the plaintiffs are JamesEdward Arnold, Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott - 2, 471 East BroadStreet, Suite 1400, Columbus, OH 43215, Phone: 614-469-1400, E-mail: [email protected] . Representing the Company are J.Kevin Cogan, Jones Day, 325 John H. McConnell Blvd., PO Box165017, Columbus, OH 43216-5017, Phone: 614-469-3939, Fax:614-461-4198, Email: [email protected] STORE: Recalls Chewy Granola Bars Due to Wrong Packaging----------------------------------------------------------------ConAgra Store Brands of Lakeville, Minn. is voluntarilyrecalling 10 oz. cartons of Giant brand Chocolate Chip ChewyGranola Bars with a manufacturing code of May 20, 06 G1,2151523200 on the top flap. The cartons are being recalledbecause they may contain individually packaged Peanut ButterChocolate Chunk Chewy Granola Bars. People who are allergic topeanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergicreactions if they consume these granola bars.The individually packaged bar wrappers correctly state PeanutButter Chocolate Chunk Chewy Granola Bars and are safe to beconsumed by anyone other than those allergic to peanuts. Theproduct was only distributed in Delaware, Maryland, New York,Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District ofColumbia.There have been no reported illnesses associated with thisproduct. The company has notified the Food and DrugAdministration and is working with them to assure the qualityand safety of the food supply.If there are any questions, product should not be consumed butrather returned to the store of purchase for a full refund. Formore information, consumers can call 1-800-722-1344.DSW INC.: Settles FTC Charges Due To Unfair Trade Practices-----------------------------------------------------------Shoe discounter DSW Inc. agreed to settle Federal TradeCommission charges that its failure to take reasonable securitymeasures to protect sensitive customer data was an unfairpractice that violated federal law. According to the FTC, DSW'sdata-security failure allowed hackers to gain access to thesensitive credit card, debit card, and checking accountinformation of more than 1.4 million customers. The settlementwill require DSW to implement a comprehensive information-security program and obtain audits by an independent third-partysecurity professional every other year for 20 years.Columbus, Ohio-based DSW operates approximately 190 stores in 32states. In 2004, DSW generated $961 million in net sales andsold approximately 23.7 million pairs of shoes.According to the FTC's complaint, DSW uses computer networks toobtain authorization for credit card, debit card, and checkpurchases at its stores and to track inventory. For credit anddebit card purchases, DSW collects information, such as name,card number, and expiration date, from the magnetic stripe onthe back of the cards. This magnetic stripe information isparticularly sensitive because it contains a security code thatcan be used to create counterfeit cards that appear genuine inthe authorization process. For check purchases, DSW collectsinformation such as routing number, account number, checknumber, and the consumer's driver's license number and state. Ineach case, the information was wirelessly transmitted to acomputer network located in the store, and from there was sentto the appropriate bank or check processor.The FTC charges that until at least March 2005, DSW engaged in anumber of practices that, taken together, failed to providereasonable and appropriate security for sensitive customerinformation. Specifically, the agency alleges that DSW: (1) created unnecessary risks to sensitive information by storing it in multiple files when it no longer had a business need to keep the information; (2) failed to use readily available security measures to limit access to its computer networks through wireless access points on the networks; (3) stored the information in unencrypted files that could be easily accessed using a commonly known user ID and password; (4) failed to limit sufficiently the ability of computers on one in-store network to connect to computers on other in-store and corporate networks; and (5) failed to employ sufficient measures to detect unauthorized access.The FTC charges that a total of approximately 1.4 million creditand debit cards and 96,000 checking accounts were compromised,and that there have been fraudulent charges on some of theseaccounts. Further, some customers whose checking accountinformation was compromised have incurred out-of-pocket expensesin connection with closing their accounts and ordering newchecks. Some checking account customers have contacted DSW torequest reimbursement for their expenses, and DSW has providedsome amount of reimbursement to these customers. According toDSW's SEC filings, as of July 2005, the company's exposure forlosses related to the breach ranges from $6.5 million to $9.5million.The FTC alleges that DSW's failure to secure customers'sensitive information was an unfair practice because it causedsubstantial injury that was not reasonably avoidable byconsumers and not outweighed by offsetting benefits to consumersor competition. The settlement requires DSW to establish andmaintain a comprehensive information security program thatincludes administrative, technical, and physical safeguards. Thesettlement also requires DSW to obtain, every two years for thenext 20 years, an audit from a qualified, independent, third-party professional to assure that its security program meets thestandards of the order. DSW also will be subject to standardrecord keeping and reporting provisions to allow the FTC tomonitor compliance.This is the FTC's seventh case challenging faulty data securitypractices by retailers and others.The Commission vote to accept the proposed consent agreement was4-0. The FTC will publish an announcement regarding theagreement in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will besubject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today andcontinuing through January 2, 2006, after which the Commissionwill decide whether to make it final. Comments should beaddressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, Room H-135, 600Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC isrequesting that any comment filed in paper form near the end ofthe public comment period be sent by courier or overnightservice, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washingtonarea and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightenedsecurity precautions.NOTE: Consent agreements are for settlement purposes only and donot constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation.Copies of the complaint and consent order are available from theFTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer toprevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices inthe marketplace and to provide information to help consumersspot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English orSpanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints),or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, calltoll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaintform at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-relatedcomplaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online databaseavailable to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcementagencies in the U.S. and abroad. For more details, contactClaudia Bourne Farrell, Office of Public Affairs, Phone:202-326-2181 or Jessica Rich, Bureau of Consumer Protection,Phone: 202-326-3224 or visit the Website:http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/12/dsw.htm.FINOVA CAPITAL: Appeals Certification of Thaxton Entities Suits---------------------------------------------------------------FINOVA Capital Corporation appealed the United States DistrictCourt for the District of South Carolina's ruling granting classcertification for the consolidated lawsuit filed against it overits loan to The Thaxton Group, Inc. and several relatedentities.Under its loan agreement, FINOVA has a senior secured loan tothe Thaxton Entities of approximately $108 million at September30, 2004. The Thaxton Entities were declared in default undertheir loan agreement with FINOVA after they advised FINOVA thatthey would have to restate earnings for the first two fiscalquarters of 2003, and had suspended payments on theirsubordinated notes. As a result of the default, FINOVAexercised its rights under the loan agreement, and acceleratedthe indebtedness. The Thaxton Entities then filed a petitionfor bankruptcy protection under chapter 11 of the federalbankruptcy code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for theDistrict of Delaware on October 17, 2003, listing assets ofapproximately $206 million and debts of $242 million.The first lawsuit, a complaint captioned \"Earle B. Gregory, etal, v. FINOVA Capital Corporation, James T. Garrett, et al.,\"was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County,South Carolina, case no. 2003-CP-29-967, and was served onFINOVA on October 17, 2003. An amended complaint was served onNovember 5, 2003, prior to the deadline for FINOVA to answer,plead, or otherwise respond to the original complaint. TheGregory action was properly removed to the United StatesDistrict Court for the District of South Carolina on November17, 2003, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u0015\u0015 1334 and 1452. Theplaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court, butthe U.S. District Court denied this motion in an order datedDecember 18, 2003.The second Thaxton-related complaint, captioned \"Tom Moore, AnnaNunnery, et al., v. FINOVA Capital Corporation, Moore & VanAllen PLLC, and Cherry, Bekaert & Holland LLP, case No. 8:03-372413 (\"Moore\"),\" was filed in the United States District Courtfor the District of South Carolina on November 25, 2003, and wasserved on FINOVA on December 2, 2003. The third complaint,captioned \"Sam Jones Wood and Kathy Annette Wood, et al., v.FINOVA Capital Corporation, Moore & Van Allen PLLC, and Cherry,Bekaert & Holland LLP,\" was filed in the Superior Court forGwinnett County, Georgia, case no. 03-A13343-B, and was servedon FINOVA on December 9, 2003. FINOVA properly removed the Woodaction to the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Georgia (Atlanta Division) on January 5, 2004. Thefourth complaint, captioned \"Grant Hall and Ruth Ann Hall, etal., v. FINOVA Capital Corporation, Moore & Van Allen PLLC, andCherry, Bekaert & Holland LLP, case no. 03CVS20572,\"(\"Hall\") was filed in the Mecklenberg County, North Carolina,Superior Court, and was also served on FINOVA on December 9,2003. FINOVA properly removed the Hall action to the UnitedStates District Court for the Western District of North Carolina(Charlotte Division) on January 5, 2004. The fifth complaint,captioned \"Charles Shope, et al., v. FINOVA Capital Corporation,Moore & Van Allen PLLC, and Cherry, Bekaert & Holland LLP, caseNo. C 204022 (\"Shope\"),\" was filed in the United States DistrictCourt for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, andwas served on FINOVA on January 13, 2004.Each of the five Thaxton-related lawsuits are styled as classactions, purportedly brought on behalf of certain definedclasses of people who had purchased subordinated notes from theThaxton Entities. The complaints by the subordinatednoteholders allege claims of fraud, securities fraud, andvarious other civil conspiracy and business torts in the sale ofthe subordinated notes. Each of the complaints seeks anunspecified amount of damages, among other remedies. Inaddition to FINOVA, the complaints each name as co-defendantsThaxton's accountants and attorneys, and in the Gregory case,several officers of the Thaxton Entities.Upon motion by FINOVA to the United States Judicial Panel forMultiDistrict Litigation (Docket 1612), all five Thaxton-relatedactions were transferred on June 18, 2004 to the United StatesDistrict Court for the District of South Carolina forcoordinated pre-trial proceedings (the \"MDL Litigation\"). InJune 2005, the South Carolina District Court certified the MDLLitigation as a class action.On October 6, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for theFourth Circuit issued an order granting the Company's petitionfor permission to appeal the order of the South CarolinaDistrict Court certifying the class action cases and stayingfurther proceedings in the South Carolina District Court duringthe pendency of the appeal or until the further order of theCourt of Appeals.GENZYME CORPORATION: Biosurgery Shareholders Launch Fraud Suits---------------------------------------------------------------Genzyme Corporation in the United States District Courtcontinues to face four class actions filed in Massachusetts andNew York regarding the exchange of all of the outstanding sharesof Biosurgery Stock and Molecular Oncology Stock for shares ofthe Company's stock. Each of the suits was filed on behalf ofholders of Biosurgery Stock.The first case, filed in Massachusetts Superior Court in May2003, alleged a breach of the implied covenant of good faith andfair dealing in the Company's charter and a breach of its boardof directors' fiduciary duties. The plaintiff in this casesought an injunction to adjust the exchange ratio for thetracking stock exchange. The Court dismissed the complaint inNovember 2003, but the plaintiff in this case has appealed thisdismissal. This appeal was argued before the MassachusettsAppeals Court in March 2005 and the Company is awaiting theAppeals Court's ruling.Two substantially similar cases were filed in MassachusettsSuperior Court in August and October 2003. These cases wereconsolidated in January 2004, and in July 2004, the consolidatedcase was stayed pending disposition of a fourth case, which wasfiled in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District ofNew York in June 2003. This case alleges violations of federalsecurities laws, common law fraud, and a breach of the mergeragreement with Biomatrix in addition to the state law claimscontained in the other cases. The plaintiffs are seeking anadjustment to the exchange ratio, the rescission of theacquisition of Biomatrix, and unspecified compensatory damages.In November 2005, the plaintiffs in this case dropped all of theclaims alleged in the initial complaint relating to the issuanceof Biosurgery Stock and the acquisition of Biomatrix, andnarrowed the putative class to include only those individualswho held Biosurgery Stock on May 8, 2003. Discovery in this caseis ongoing.IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Implementing NY Stock Lawsuit Settlement Terms---------------------------------------------------------------Imclone Systems, Inc. is implementing the settlement of theconsolidated securities class action filed against it andcertain of its officers and directors in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of New York, styled\"Irvine v. ImClone Systems Incorporated, et al., No. 02 Civ.0109 (RO).\"In the corrected consolidated amended complaint, filed onOctober 22, 2002, plaintiffs asserted claims against theCompany, its former President and Chief Executive Officer, Dr.Samuel D. Waksal, its former Chief Scientific Officer and then-President and Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Harlan W. Waksal, andseveral of the Company's other present or former officers anddirectors, for securities fraud under sections 10(b) and 20(a)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities andExchange Commission Rule 10b5-1, on behalf of a purported classof persons who purchased the Company's publicly tradedsecurities between March 27, 2001 and January 25, 2002. Thecomplaint also asserted claims against Dr. Samuel D. Waksalunder section 20A of the Exchange Act on behalf of a separatepurported sub-class of purchasers of the Company's securitiesbetween December 27, 2001 and December 28, 2001.The complaint generally alleged that various public statementsmade by or on behalf of the Company or the other defendantsduring 2001 and early 2002 regarding the prospects for FDAapproval of ERBITUX were false or misleading when made, that theindividual defendants were allegedly aware of material non-public information regarding the actual prospects for ERBITUX atthe time that they engaged in transactions in the Company'scommon stock and that members of the purported stockholder classsuffered damages when the market price of the Company's commonstock declined following disclosure of the information thatallegedly had not been previously disclosed. The complaintsought to proceed on behalf of the alleged classes describedabove, sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount andsought recovery of plaintiffs' costs and attorneys' fees.On June 3, 2003, the court granted, in part, a motion to dismissfiled by all defendants and dismissed plaintiff's claims exceptthose asserted against the Company, Dr. Samuel D. Waksal, andDr. Harlan W. Waksal. On April 14, 2004, the court grantedplaintiffs' motion for class certification. On January 24,2005, the Company announced that it had reached an agreement inprinciple to settle the consolidated class action for a cashpayment of $75 million, a portion of which will be paid by theCompany's insurers. The settlement is subject to thenegotiation and execution of definitive settlement documents andto Court approval.On July 29, 2005 the Court approved the proposed settlement. OnAugust 5, 2005, the Company paid the remaining $25 million intoescrow. These funds will be held in escrow until such time thatthe settlement becomes final and thereafter will be distributedpursuant to the terms of the settlement documents. As ofSeptember 30, 2005, the Company has collected from its insurersall of the outstanding receivable amounting to $20.5 million,which was reflected as a receivable in Other current assets, asof December 31, 2004. The amount received from the insurersincludes $8.75 million, less attorneys fees of $875,000 that waspaid to the Company under the derivative settlement.The suit is styled \"Irvine v. ImClone Systems Incorporated, etal., No. 02 Civ. 0109 (RO),\" filed in the United States DistrictCourt for the Southern District of New York, under Judge RichardOwen. Representing the Company are John J. Clarke, Jr., DLAPiper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP(NYC) 1251 Avenue of the AmericasNew York, NY 10020 Phone: 212-835-6120 Fax: 212-835-6001 E-mail:[email protected] ; and Dennis E. Glazer, Patrick J.Murray and Jocelyn Emily Strauber, Davis Polk & Wardwell 450Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212)450-4000.Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Ken H. Chang, Robert Craig Finkel, Marian Probst Rosner, Wolf Popper LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 451-9667 Fax: (212) 486-2093 E-mail: [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] ; (2) Erin Green Comite, Edmund Scott, David Searby, Scott and Scott LLC 108 Norwich Avenue P.O.Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Phone: 860-537-5537 (3) William C. Fredericks, Ann Meredith Lipton, Peter Sloane, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC) One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 594- 5300 Fax: (212) 868-1229 E-mail: [email protected] , [email protected] CORPORATION: IL Man Launches Suit Over Xbox 360 Defect----------------------------------------------------------------A Chicago resident who bought Microsoft Corporation's new Xbox360 initiated a lawsuit in an Illinois federal court against theworld's largest software maker, claiming that the new video gameconsole has a design flaw that causes it to overheat and freezeup, Reuters reports.Filed by Robert Byers, the proposed class action claims that inMicrosoft's bid to gain a share in the $25 billion global videogame market, the company was so intent on releasing the Xbox 360before competing next-generation machines from Sony Corporationand Nintendo Co Ltd. that it sold a \"defectively designed\"product. The suit seeks unspecified damages and litigation-related expenses, as well as the replacement or recall of Xbox360 game consoles.According to Mr. Byers, the power supply and central processingunit in the Xbox 360 overheat, affecting heat-sensitive chipsand causing the console to lock up. Complaints about the problemsurfaced quickly on gaming enthusiast Web sites after the Xbox360 debuted last November 22. Console owners reported that somesystems had crashed during regular use as well as during onlinegame play using the Xbox Live service. Problems included screensgoing black and the appearance of a variety of error messages.Though Microsoft spokeswoman Molly O'Donnell told Reuters thatthe company does not comment on pending litigation. She did tellReuters that at the time the complaints started to surface, \"Wehave received a few isolated reports of consoles not working asexpected.\" She declined to say, however, how many reportsMicrosoft had received and instead told Reuters that callsreporting the issue to the company represented a \"very, verysmall fraction\" of units sold.The suit is styled, \"Byers v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No.1:05-cv-06834,\" filed in the United States District Court forthe Northern District of Illinois, under Judge David H. Coar.Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Richard Joseph Doherty andJames Michael Smith of Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates, 25 EastWashington St., Suite 900, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone:(312) 372-8822, E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] YORK: Cook Withdraws From Lawsuit V. Flushing Hindu Temple--------------------------------------------------------------The Hindu Temple Society of North America scored a victory inits battle against a group of members who are seeking to replaceits current leaders with a new group of elected trustees, TheQueen Chronicle reports.A temple cook, who claimed in a lawsuit that he was exploited,withdrew his name from the suit, although his former attorneysays the decision may have been coerced. The move leavesKrishnan Chittur, the attorney who filed the class actionlawsuit in New York on behalf of the cook and other workers atthe Flushing temple, without a plaintiff in his case. Mr.Chittur is also representing a group of six temple members whowant to replace the Flushing temple's board of trustees with aleadership body elected by the congregation.Temple attorney Robert Greene told The Queens Chronicle of thegroup that is seeking elections, \"They seem to have used (thecook) in their attempts to smear the temple.\"Federal Judge Victor Pohorelsky interviewed the cook for morethan an hour before determining that he had withdrawn from thelawsuit of his own volition, according to Mr. Green. The cook,Lakshminarayanan Parameshwaran, told The Queens Chroniclethrough an interpreter that he felt he was being used as a pawnby opponents of the temple's current board of trustees. Theinterpreter is also employed by the temple. \"He experienced somedifficulties in the kitchen,\" according to the temple'sinterpreter. \"Krishnamurthy Aiyer (a member of the group seekingelections) talked to him and said if he files a suit he will getbetter pay and other things.\"The class action lawsuit was filed in federal court on July14th, with Lakshminarayanan as its sole signatory. It claims thetemple's cooks and priests, who were brought over from Indiaunder religious worker visas, were forced to work long hourswithout overtime. According to Mr. Chittur, this is a violationof the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York's labor laws.In addition, the lawsuit also accuses the temple of obtainingreligious worker visas for its cooks under the pretext that theywould only be performing religious duties such as preparingcooked offerings and food for religious festivals. Mr. Chitturtold The Queens Chronicle that the cooks in fact function asordinary restaurant cooks at the temple's canteen and forprivate catering assignments outside the temple's premises.However, the temple's lawyers counter that the labor laws citedin the lawsuit cover commercial, not religious workers and thatalthough anyone can eat at the canteen, it is difficult to findand passersby are unlikely to know of its existence, unless theyare worshipping at the temple. The temple's lawyers also saythat Lakshminarayanan and other cooks are not exploited, as theyreceive annual salaries of $35,000 to $50,000 as well as housingand four weeks' vacation per year.Lakshminarayanan told The Queens Chronicle through the temple'sinterpreter that he decided to withdraw from the lawsuit afterhe came to believe that his \"lawsuit was being linked to theother case\" and that he \"was being used as a pawn\" in the othercase and felt \"misled.\" Though he did not elaborate on how hecame to believe the cases were being linked he said through theinterpreter that he had since decided to cease communicationswith Mr. Chittur. The interpreter told The Queens Chronicle thatLakshminarayanan's working conditions and compensation had notchanged.Mr. Chittur finds it suspicious that he has been unable tocommunicate with Lakshminarayanan since early this month, whenhe says the cook called to tell him that he was being pressuredto end the lawsuit. When Lakshminarayanan was brought beforeJudge Pohorelsky, he was \"surrounded by a battalion of templepersonnel,\" according to Mr. Chittur. \"Attorney-client privilegeis not going to take place like that. It's like having sex inpublic,\" he explained.As a result, Mr. Chittur told The Queens Chronicle that he'sbeen receiving calls from former and present temple employeeswho want to join his class action suit. \"If they were thinkingof getting rid of this lawsuit, this has made it much worse forthem. A lot of people believe this guy's being bought off.\"Mr. Chittur might be able to revise the lawsuit if he finds newplaintiffs, but the temple's lawyers say it will likely bedismissed early next year. In fact, Dr. Uma Mysorekar, thetemple's director told The Queens Chronicle, \"This case isfinished. It's a good thing both for the temple and for(Lakshminarayanan) because he is relieved of this and we arealso relieved of this.\"The other case, however, the one involving six dissident templemembers who want to replace the temple's board of trustees withan elected body is not. In 2003, in response to a suit broughtin state court, Judge Joseph Golia appointed a referee tooversee the election of a new board of trustees. The referee hasset a January 15th election date.Judge Golia's court has issued certain orders suggesting thatthe election will go forward on that day, barring further actionby the courts. The temple's lawyers say that if they cannotobtain a favorable ruling by that time, they will file anemergency motion to postpone the election.Mr. Chittur told The Queens Chronicle, \"These fellows have beenblowing smoke every step of the way. They're dragging their feetbecause they know in this election they will lose hands down.\"The suit is styled, \"Parameswaran v. Mysorekar et al, Case No.1:05-cv-03162-JG-VVP,\" filed in the United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of New York, under Judge John Gleesonwith referral to Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky. Representing thePlaintiff/s is Krishnan Shanker Chittur of Chittur & Associates,P.C., The Lincoln Building, 60 East 42nd St., Suite 1501, NewYork, NY 10165, Phone: (212) 370-0447, Fax: 212-370-0465, E-mail: [email protected] . Representing the Defendant/s are,Robert L. Greene, 67 Wall St., Suite 2200, New York, NY 10005,Phone: 917-543-9081, Fax: 212-943-2300, E-mail:[email protected] and Steven C. Stern of Miranda &Sokoloff, LLP, 240 Mineola Blvd., The Esposito Building,Mineola, NY 11501, phone: (516) 741-7676 ext. 311, Fax:(516) 741-9060, E-mail: [email protected] TEXAS: FTC Rules Physicians Illegally Fixed Prices in Area----------------------------------------------------------------In a unanimous administrative opinion and order made public onDecember 1,2005, the Federal Trade Commission ruled that NorthTexas Specialty Physicians (NTSP), an association of independentphysicians in the Forth Worth, Texas area, illegally fixedprices in its negotiations with payors, including insurancecompanies and health plans. The Commission opinion, authored byCommissioner Thomas B. Leary, affirmed a November 2004 ruling byAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ) D. Michael Chappell, with somemodifications, and issued an order that requires the respondentassociation to cease and desist from the illegal conduct and toterminate pre-existing contracts with payors for physicianservices.The Commission concluded that NTSP's contracting activities withpayors \"amount(s) to unlawful horizontal price fixing.\" Theopinion states that, through a variety of mechanisms, NTSP wasable to orchestrate price agreements among its physicians. Theevidence in the case, the Commission found, \"shows not onlynegotiation activity in aid of a collective agreement on aminimum fee schedule, but also specific enforcement mechanisms -such as the powers of attorney and collective withdrawal frompayor networks - in order to coerce agreement from payers.\"These actions, when viewed as a whole, the Commission wrote,\"leave no doubt that the overriding purpose behind NTSP'sconduct was to fix prices.\"The Commission specifically addressed Respondent's claims onappeal and found that: (1) the FTC does have jurisdictional authority to review alleged anticompetitive conduct by NTSP, because it is a corporation that is \"organized to carry on business for its own profit and that of its members;\" (2) NTSP's argument that its physicians are not \"members\" under Texas law is invalid because it \"elevates form over substance;\" (3) NTSP satisfies the interstate commerce jurisdictional requirement, because its actions to maintain fee levels, if successful, could be expected to affect the flow of interstate payments from out-of-state payors to NTSP physicians; (4) NTSP is not a \"sole actor\" when it negotiates on behalf of the competing physicians who control it, but rather, under antitrust law, is the agent for the group, and thus, the member physicians conspired to fix prices even though they did not communicate directly with one another; and (5) NTSP's claims of teamwork, spillover, and other efficiencies were not legitimate and not supported by the evidence.In response to the cross appeal of Complaint Counsel, theCommission held that the ALJ incorrectly found it was necessaryto define a relevant market in a case of this kind. TheCommission also found that the ALJ's order was inappropriatelynarrow in some of its core provisions and contained twounwarranted provisos.\"This is not really a close case,\" the Commission concluded.\"NTSP's conduct is similar to conduct that has been held per seunlawful and summarily condemned in other contexts. . . . [W]ehave analyzed the conduct under our more flexible Polygramframework, and considered each of Respondent's defenses indepth. Our ultimate conclusion is the same.\" A brief descriptionof the Commission's legal analysis in issuing the decision andorder is provided below.The Commission opinion states that an \"outright per secondemnation\" of NTSP's conduct could be supported byapplication of the Supreme Court's 1982 opinion in Arizona v.Maricopa County Medical Society. The Commission notes, however,that in its later 1999 California Dental Ass'n v. FTC opinion,the Supreme Court \"urged caution in the application of the perse label to conduct in a professional setting . . . .\" TheCommission also notes that \"since Maricopa, we have a betterunderstanding of the potential integration efficiencies\" ofassociations like NTSP. Accordingly, after the firstadministrative trial of a physician association case in over 20years, the Commission adopted the more flexible methodology ofits own recent opinion in the Polygram Holdings, Inc. case andthe opinion of the D.C. Circuit Court that upheld Polgram onappeal.The Polygram approach allows for a more extensive considerationof Respondent's defenses. Accordingly, the Commission notes, \"wehave available in this case an extensive record on which tobuttress our conclusions about the likely effects ofRespondent's conduct.\" The opinion emphasizes, however, that thePolygram methodology \"is not the same thing as a full blown ruleof reason inquiry.\" Once the Commission has found that\"Respondent's proferred justifications for NTSP's inherentlysuspect conduct are not legitimate . . . it is not necessary togo on and find actual adverse market effects.\"NTSP had approximately 480 physician members at the time oftrial in April 2004, including over 100 primary care physicians,and others in 26 medical specialties. These physicians havedistinct economic interests and many compete with one another.NTSP's main functions are to negotiate and review contractproposals for the services of its members, to review paymentissues, and to act as a lobbyist for the interests of itsmembers. NTSP has negotiated both risk-sharing contracts (wheredoctors are typically reimbursed on a dollar-per-patient basis)and non-risk sharing contracts (which provide \"fee-for-service\"payments). The challenged conduct involved only the negotiationof non-risk sharing contracts, which were more common for NTSP.In negotiation of its non-risk sharing contracts, NTSP engagedin conduct designed to enhance the collective bargaining powerof its members. This conduct included the use of member polls onprospective fees, and communication of the results to members,in a way that affected payment levels in non-risk sharingcontracts. In addition, NTSP's agreement with its membersgranted NTSP the right of first negotiation with payors andinhibited independent negotiations by individual physicians.NTSP's illegal conduct also included refusals to deal andrefusals to forward payor offers to member physicians that NTSPitself deemed unacceptable.The administrative complaint against NTSP was filed in September2003. The Initial Decision in favor of Complaint Counsel wasissued in November 2004. Both NTSP and Complaint Counselsubsequently appealed to the Commission. The Commission foundthat the practices described above taken together amounted toillegal price fixing, and entered an order that would prohibitthem.The opinion and order approved by the Commission upholds theinitial decision of the ALJ and adopts the findings of fact andconclusions of law as those of the Commission, except where theyare inconsistent with the Commission's opinion and order. Theorder requires that NTSP cease and desist from engaging in theanticompetitive price-fixing conduct alleged in the complaint.The conduct barred includes \"entering into, adhering to,participating in, maintaining, implementing, or otherwisefacilitating any combination, conspiracy, agreement, orunderstanding between physicians with respect to their provisionof physician services: (i) to negotiate on behalf of any physician with any payor; (ii) to deal, refuse to deal, or threaten to refuse to deal with any payor; (iii) regarding any term, condition, or requirement upon which any physician deals, or is willing to deal, with any payor, including, but not limited to price terms; or (iv) not to deal individually with any payor, or not to deal with any payor through any arrangement other than Respondent.\"In addition, the order prohibits exchanging, or facilitating theexchange or transfer, of any information among physiciansconcerning their willingness, or lack thereof, to deal with ornot deal with a payor, and prohibits any attempts to engage inthe conduct described above. It also bars NTSP from pressuringor inducing anyone to engage in such conduct. Finally, the ordercontains reporting and distribution requirements to ensure thatNTSP complies with its terms and requires NTSP to terminate anypreexisting contract with any payor to provide physicianservices, with extensions allowed under certain circumstances.The order will terminate in 20 years.In order to avoid interference with potential efficiencies, theorder does not prohibit any agreement involving conduct that isreasonably necessary to further a qualified risk-sharing jointarrangement or a qualified clinically integrated arrangementamong physicians. The order also allows NTSP to act as amessenger or an agent on behalf of physicians for contracts withpayors, but for three years NTSP is required to notify theCommission in advance before doing so.The Commission vote approving issuance of the opinion and orderwas 4-0.Copies of the Commission's opinion and order are available fromthe FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC's Bureau of Competitionseeks to prevent business practices that restrain competition.The Bureau carries out its mission by investigating alleged lawviolations and, when appropriate, recommending that theCommission take formal enforcement action. To notify the Bureauconcerning particular business practices, call or write theOffice of Policy and Evaluation, Room 394, Bureau ofCompetition, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave,N.W., Washington, DC 20580, Electronic Mail: [email protected] ;Telephone (202) 326-3300. For more information on the laws thatthe Bureau enforces, the Commission has published \"PromotingCompetition, Protecting Consumers: A Plain English Guide toAntitrust Laws,\" which can be accessed at the Website:http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/index.htm. For more details, contact Nancy Ness Judy, Office of Public Affairs by Phone:202-326-2180 or visit the Website:http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/12/ntsp.htm.NUVEEN INVESTMENTS: IL Securities Lawsuit Dismissal Deemed Final---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District ofIllinois' dismissal of the securities class action filed againstNuveen Investments, Inc., styled \"James Jacobs et al v NuveenInvestments, Inc. et al., No. 05 C0143 (N.D. Ill.)\" is deemedfinal, after plaintiffs failed to file an appeal.An individual purporting to be a shareholder of one open-endfund sponsored by Nuveen filed the suit, which also names asdefendants: (1) Nuveen Investments, Inc., (2) Nuveen Institutional Advisory Corp. (merged into NAM as of 1/1/05), (3) NWQ Investment Management Company, LLC, (4) Rittenhouse Asset Management, Inc., (5) Institutional Capital Corp, and (6) the individual Nuveen fund directors, including Nuveen's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Timothy R. SchwertfegerPurporting to sue on behalf of investors in all Nuveen-sponsoredopen-end mutual funds with equity holdings, the plaintiffalleged that the defendants breached common law fiduciaryduties, duties of care and Sections 36(a), 36(b) and 47(b) ofthe Investment Company Act of 1940 by failing to ensure thatopen-end funds participated in securities class actionsettlements for which these funds were eligible. The complaintcontained no specific allegations that the Nuveen funds failedto participate in particular settlements but lists 136settlements during the period from January 10,2000 throughJanuary 10,2005, and alleged that the funds failed to submitclaims in some of those proceedings. The plaintiff claimed asdamages disgorgement of fees paid to the investment advisers,compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees, andother unspecified relief.The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on March14, 2005. By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 20, 2005,the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint,dismissing the plaintiff's federal claims under Sections 36(a),36(b), and 47(b) with prejudice, and dismissing the plaintiff'scommon law or state law claims without prejudice. The Companyhas no information regarding whether the plaintiff intends toappeal the court's decision.The suit is styled \"Jacobs v. Bremner, et al, case no. 1:05-cv-00143,\" filed in the United States District Court for theNorthern District of Illinois, under Judge Milton I. Shadur.Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Hank Bates and J. Allen Carney, Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams, LLP, 11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72212, Phone: (501) 312-8500 (2) Marvin Alan Miller, Jennifer Winter Sprengel and Matthew Eric Van Tine, Miller Faucher and Cafferty, LLP, 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 782-4880 (3) Randall K Pulliam, Baron & Budd, P.C., 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, TX 75219, Phone: (214) 521- 3605Representing the Company are James Kevin McCall and James L.Thompson of Jenner & Block, LLC, One IBM Plaza, 330 North WabashAvenue, 40th Floor, Chicago, IL 60611, Phone: (312)222-9350OHIO POWER: Named As Defendant in Canadian Environmental Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------Ohio Power Co. was named as one of 21 defendants in a lawsuitfiled in the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada. Thedefendants are alleged to own or operate coal-fired electricgenerating stations in various states that, through negligencein design, management, maintenance and operation, have emittednitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter that haveharmed the residents of Ontario.The lawsuit seeks class action designation and damages ofapproximately $50 billion, with continuing damages of $4 billionannually. The lawsuit also seeks $1 billion in punitive damages.PACKAGING CORPORATION: Linerboard Suit Discovery To End 12/2005---------------------------------------------------------------Fact discovery in the consolidated opt-out direct antitrustlawsuit filed against Packaging Corporation of America in theUnited States District Court for the Eastern District ofPennsylvania is expected to close this month.On May 14, 1999, the Company was named as a defendant in twoConsolidated Class Action Complaints that alleged a civilviolation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The suits,then captioned \"Winoff Industries, Inc. v. Stone ContainerCorporation, MDL No. 1261\" (E.D. Pa.) and \"General RefractoriesCo. v. Gaylord Container Corporation, MDL No. 1261,\" (E.D. Pa.),name PCAthe Company as a defendant based solely on theallegation that it is successor to the interests of TennecoPackaging Inc. and Tenneco Inc., both of which were also namedas defendants in the suits, along with nine other linerboard andcorrugated sheet manufacturers. The complaints allege that thedefendants, during the period October 1, 1993 through November30, 1995, conspired to limit the supply of linerboard, and thatthe purpose and effect of the alleged conspiracy was toartificially increase prices of corrugated containers andcorrugated sheets, respectively.On November 3, 2003, Pactiv Corporation (formerly known asTenneco Packaging), Tenneco and the Company entered into anagreement to settle the class action lawsuits. The settlementagreement provides for a full release of all claims against theCompany as a result of the class action lawsuits and wasapproved by the Court in an opinion issued on April 21, 2004.Approximately 160 plaintiffs opted out of the class and togetherfiled about ten direct action complaints in various courtsacross the country. All of the opt-out complaints makeallegations against the defendants, including the Company,substantially similar to those made in the class actions.The settlement agreement does not cover these direct actioncases. These actions have all been consolidated as \"In reLinerboard, MDL 1261 (E.D. Pa.)\" for pretrial purposes. Theseactions have almost all been consolidated as \"In re Linerboard,MDL 1261 (E.D. Pa.)\" for pretrial purposes.On June 30, 2005, Pactiv, Tenneco, and the Company entered intoan agreement to settle one of the opt-out suits, styled\"Conopco, Inc., et al. v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation,et al., Case No. 03-CV-3549,\" (E.D. Pa.). The settlementagreement provides for a full release of all claims against PCAas a result of the action and was approved by order of the Courton July 28, 2005. The Company has made no payments to theplaintiffs as a result of the settlement of any of the opt-outsuits. Fact discovery is proceeding and is currently set toclose December 30, 2005.The litigation is styled \"In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation,case no. 2:10-md-01261-JD,\" filed in the United States DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge JanE. Dubois.PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Lawsuit Over Medicare Automatic Enrolment-------------------------------------------------------------In the latest legal challenge to the new Medicare prescriptiondrug program, lawyers representing low-income Pennsylvaniansinitiated a lawsuit that asks the courts to block automaticenrollment of thousands of people who receive both Medicare andMedicaid into managed care plans, The Pittsburgh Post Gazettereports.Filed recently in the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, thesuit, which seeks class action status, alleges that the federalgovernment lacked legal authority to permit the change. Theautomatic enrollments could force some Medicare and Medicaidrecipients, known as \"dual eligibles,\" to change their doctorsor hospitals.Alissa Halperin, managing attorney for the Philadelphia officeof the Pennsylvania Health Law Project, which filed the lawsuitwith Community Legal Services of Philadelphia told ThePittsburgh Post Gazette, that more than 110,000 Pennsylvanianscould be affected by the auto-enrollment, as well as about90,000 other dual eligibles in about a dozen other states. Shealso told The Pittsburgh Post Gazette that while the governmentallowed dual eligibles to opt out of the automatic enrollmentprocess, which it termed \"passive enrollment,\" those provisionswere \"poorly crafted and explained.\" Ms. Halperin adds, \"I can'ttell you the number of people who were shocked when we explainedit to them.\"The lawsuit follows another filed on behalf of dual eligibleslast month in federal court in New York City. That lawsuit,filed by attorneys representing the Medicare Rights Center andother consumer advocacy groups, warned that many dual eligiblescould lose access to their medications as their drug coverageshifts next month from Medicaid to the new Medicare drugprogram, known as Part D.People generally qualify as dual eligibles if they are disabledor old enough to qualify for Medicare coverage and also have lowincomes that qualify them for Medicaid coverage.Named as defendants in the latest suit are: Mark McClellan,administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,and Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt.Plaintiffs include several Pennsylvania dual eligibles and twogroups, Action Alliance of Senior Citizens of GreaterPhiladelphia and the Center for Advocacy for the Rights andInterests of the Elderly.The lawsuit concerns members of Medicaid managed care plans whoalso receive Medicare. It alleges that automatically enrollingthose dual eligibles in the new Medicare managed care plans,could unfairly deprive them of access to their medicalproviders. Generally under Medicare managed care plans, membersare restricted to a network of doctors and other medicalproviders.The suit is styled, \"ERB et al v. MCCLELLAN et al, Case No.2:05-cv-06201-JP,\" filed in the United States District Court forthe Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge John R. Padova.Representing the Plaintiff/s is Alissa Eden Halperin, PA HealthLaw Project, 437 CHESTNUT ST., SUITE 900, PHILADELPHIA, PA19460, Phone: 215-625-3897, E-mail: [email protected] GLOBAL: Discovery Proceeds in MD TCPA Violations Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against one ofPremiere Global Services, Inc.'s subsidiaries, Xpedite in theCircuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, allegingviolations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).Paul Worsham filed the suit on February 22, 2005, alleging thatXpedite transmitted pre-recorded telephone calls advertisingData Communications services to telephone numbers in Maryland,including to Mr. Worsham's telephone number, in violation of theTCPA, as amended, and applicable Federal CommunicationCommission (FCC) rules. The complaint also alleges violationsof federal caller identification requirements under FCC rulesand violations of the Maryland Telephone Consumer ProtectionAct. The complaint seeks statutory damages under the federaland Maryland statutes for each of four alleged violations of thetwo statutes and injunctive relief.PUBLIC SERVICE: Named As Defendant in Canada Environmental Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Public Service Co. of Oklahoma was named as one of 21 defendantsin a lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario,Canada. The defendants are alleged to own or operate coal-firedelectric generating stations in various states that, throughnegligence in design, management, maintenance and operation,have emitted nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and particulatematter that have harmed the residents of Ontario.The lawsuit seeks class action designation and damages ofapproximately $50 billion, with continuing damages of $4 billionannually. The lawsuit also seeks $1 billion in punitive damages.RYLAND GROUP: Continue To Face Securities Lawsuits in N.D. Texas----------------------------------------------------------------Ryland Group, Inc. and two of its officers continue to faceseveral securities class actions filed on behalf of purchasersof the Company's publicly traded securities during the periodbetween October 22, 2003 through January 7, 2004, inclusive.The complaints, filed in the United States District Court forthe Northern District of Texas, charges Ryland Group, R. ChadDreier, and Gordon Milne with violations of Sections 10(b) and20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5promulgated thereunder. Between October 22, 2003 and January 7,2004, the defendants issued a series of materialmisrepresentations to the market concerning the Company'sfinancial results.The first identified complaint in this litigation is styled \"TDHPartners, LLP, et al. v. Ryland Group, Inc., et al., case no.04-CV-0073,\" filed in the United States District Court for theNorthern District of Texas. The plaintiff firms in thislitigation are: (1) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, (2) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail: [email protected] (3) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail: [email protected] (4) Paskowitz & Associates, Phone: 800.705.9529, E-mail: [email protected] (5) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E- mail: [email protected] (6) The Brualdi Law Firm, 29 Broadway - Suite 1515, New York, NY, 10006, Phone: 212.952.0602, Fax: 212.952.0608, (7) Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail: [email protected] INC.: Discovery Proceeds in MA Securities Fraud Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities classactions filed against Sepracor, Inc. and certain of its currentand former officers and a current director in the United StatesDistrict Court for the District of Massachusetts.Several suits were initially filed on behalf of certain personswho purchased the Company's common stock and/or debt securitiesduring different time periods, beginning on various dates, theearliest being May 17, 1999, and all ending on March 6, 2002.These complaints allege violations of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended, and the rules and regulationspromulgated thereunder by the Securities and ExchangeCommission. Primarily they allege that the defendants madecertain materially false and misleading statements relating tothe testing, safety and likelihood of approval of tecastemizole(formerly SOLTARA) by the United States Food and DrugAdministration, or FDA.On April 11, 2003, two consolidated amended complaints werefiled, one on behalf of the purchasers of the Company's commonstock and the other on behalf of the purchasers of its debtsecurities. These consolidated amended complaints reiterate theallegations contained in the previously filed complaints anddefine the alleged class periods as May 17, 1999 throughMarch 6, 2002. The Company filed a motion to dismiss bothconsolidated amended complaints on May 27, 2003. On March 11,2004, the court, while granting in part the motion to dismiss,did allow much of the case to proceed.On September 8, 2005, in both the debt purchasers' action andthe equity purchasers' action, the district court granted theplantiff's motion for class certification. The parties arecurrently engaged in discovery.The suit is styled \"In Re: Sepracor, Inc. Securities Litigation,Case No. 1:02-cv-12338-MEL,\" filed in the United States DistrictCourt for the District of Massachusetts, under Judge Morris E.Lasker.Lawyer for the defendants is Mary Jo Johnson of Wilmer CutlerPickering Hale and Dorr LLP, 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109,Phone: 617-526-6750, Fax: 617-526-5000 or E-mail:[email protected] . Lawyers for the plaintiffs are: (1) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax: 617-439-0134 or E-mail: [email protected] (2) Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory M. Nespole or David L. Wales of Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-545- 4600, E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected] (3) David Pastor of Gilman and Pastor, LLP, Stonehill Corporate Center, 999 Broadway, Suite 500, Saugus, MA 01906, Phone: 781-231-7850, Fax: 781-231-7840 e-mail: [email protected] INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Stock Lawsuit Dismissal---------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for theCentral District of California's ruling dismissing theconsolidated securities class action filed against SyncorInternational Corporation and certain of its officers anddirectors.Eleven purported class action lawsuits have been filed againstthe Company and certain of its officers and directors, assertingclaims under the federal securities laws. These cases include: (1) Richard Bowe v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., No. CV 02- 8560 LGB (RCx) (C.D. Cal.), (2) Alan Kaplan v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., No. CV 02- 8575 CBM (MANx) (C.D. Cal), (3) Franklin Embon, Jr. v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., No. CV 02-8687 DDP (AJWx) (C.D. Cal), (4) Jonathan Alk v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., No. CV 02- 8841 GHK (RZx) (C.D. Cal), (5) Joyce Oldham v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV 02-8972 FMC (RCx) (C.D. Cal), (6) West Virginia Laborers Pension Trust Fund v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., No. CV 02-9076 NM (RNBx) (C.D. Cal), (7) Brad Lookingbill v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV 02-9248 RSWL (Ex) (C.D. Cal), (8) Them Luu v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV 02-9583 RGK (JwJx) (C.D. Cal), (9) David Hall v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV 02-9621 CAS (CWx) (C.D. Cal), (10) Phyllis Walzer v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV 02- 9640 RMT (AJWx) (C.D. Cal), and (11) Larry Hahn v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV 03-52 LGB (RCx) (C.D. Cal.).The Syncor federal securities actions purport to be broughton behalf of all purchasers of Syncor shares during variousperiods, beginning as early as March 30, 2000 and ending as lateas November 5, 2002. The actions allege, among other things,that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Actand Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of theExchange Act by issuing a series of press releases and publicfilings disclosing significant sales growth in Syncor'sinternational business, but omitting mention of certainallegedly improper payments to Syncor's foreign customers,thereby artificially inflating the price of Syncor shares.A lead plaintiff has been appointed by the Court in the Syncorfederal securities actions, and a consolidated amended complaintwas filed May 19, 2003, naming the Company and 12 individuals,all former officers, directors and/or employees, as defendants.The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified money damages andother unspecified relief against the defendants. The Companyfiled a Motion to Dismiss the consolidated amended complaint onAugust 1, 2003, and on December 12, 2003, the Court granted theMotion to Dismiss without prejudice. A second amendedconsolidated class action complaint was filed on January 28,2004, naming the Company and 14 individuals, all former Syncorofficers, directors and/or employees, as defendants.The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the second amendedconsolidated class action complaint on March 4, 2004. On July 6,2004, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss withoutprejudice as to the Company, Monty Fu, Robert Funari and HaigBagerdjian. As to the other individual defendants, the Motionto Dismiss was granted with prejudice. On September 14, 2004,the lead plaintiff filed a Motion for Clarification of theCourt's July 6, 2004 dismissal order. The court clarified itsJuly 6, 2004 dismissal order on November 29, 2004 and the leadplaintiff filed a third amended consolidated complaint onDecember 29, 2004.The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the third amendedconsolidated complaint on January 31, 2005. On April 15, 2005,the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss with prejudice. The leadplaintiff has appealed this decision. Plaintiff filed itsopening appellate brief on September 28, 2005. The Company'sbrief is presently due on December 14, 2005.The suit is styled \"Richard Bowe, et al v. Syncor Intl Corp, etal, case no. Richard Bowe, et al v. Syncor Intl Corp, et al2:02-cv-08560-LGB-RC,\" filed in the United States District Courtfor the Central District of California, under Judge Lourdes G.Baird. Representing the plaintiffs is Frank J. Johnson, Frank JJohnson Law Offices, 402 West Broadway, 27th Floor, San Diego,CA 92101, Phone: 619-230-0063. Representing the Company are JoeKendall and Willie Briscoe, Provost Umphrey Law Firm, 3232McKinney Ave, Ste 700, Dallas, TX 75204, Phone: 214-744-3000;and Theodore M Hess-Mahan and Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro GraceHaber & Urmy, 75 State St, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:617-439-3939.THOMSON NEWSPAPERS: Copyright Suit in Canada Heads to High Court----------------------------------------------------------------A class action battle between The Globe and Mail and itsfreelancers over who owns the rights to material reproduced indatabases and CD-ROMs will go before the Supreme Court soon, TheGlobetechnology.com reports.The case involved a lawsuit launched by Canadian author andfreelance writer Heather Robertson, who wrote two articles thatwere published in The Globe in 1995 that was later included inseveral databases. It specifically pitted thousands of freelancewriters against the Thomson Newspapers Corporation, then thepublisher of The Globe and Mail (now published by Bell GlobeMedia), an earlier Class Action Reporter story (October 13,2004) reports.In her suit Ms. Robertson argued that the inclusion of thearticles without permission or compensation constituted aninfringement of her copyright. She wanted extra pay forfreelancers when their work was resold in electronic form. Forits part, The Globe argued that inclusion of the work in thedatabase fell within its copyright as a collective work orcompilation of material, an earlier Class Action Reporter story(October 13, 2004) reports.The case has raised a range of issues about copyright,contracts, and the point at which a newspaper ceases to be anewspaper and becomes an electronic collection of searchablearticles.However, its practical impact will be mainly on people who havewritten for newspapers in the past. The Globe, like otherpapers, has had freelancers sign written contracts since thelate 1990s, which state specifically that the writer has signedover the rights to electronic reproduction.Still, Ms. Robertson's lawyer, Michael McGowan toldGlobetechnology.com, \"copyright lasts 50 years after the deathof the author, so there is a lot of stuff from years ago that'sstill under copyright that The Globe could not use [if the paperloses the case].\"The Supreme Court is hearing several appeals and cross-appeals,because both The Globe and Ms. Robertson were on losing sides ofsome of the rulings made by the lower courts in Ontario. But thekey issue before the top court, Mr. McGowan tellsGlobetechnology.com, is \"to what extent writers will share inthe commercial proceeds of on-line databases and CD-ROMs.\"The Globe's central argument is that Canadian copyright lawspecifies that the paper can reproduce material it has purchasedin \"any material form,\" and that this includes electronicdatabases and CD-ROMs. The paper also says that freelancersagree to \"implied licenses\" for electronic reproduction whenthey sell their stories.The Globe's submission to the Supreme Court says the OntarioCourt of Appeal was wrong when it ruled, in a split decision,that the content of The Globe's database is essentially a set ofindividual stories, and not a collective work.In that ruling, the appeals court said the \"collectivecopyright\" The Globe holds on the whole paper is lost when thestories are placed on a searchable database. Two of the threejudges on the appeals court panel said, \"The effect of anewspaper is lost when articles are placed in the database. Theoriginality of the collective work through the editors'judgment, skill and labour, is dissipated\" because databasesdon't have the \"function, form or content of either a periodicalor a newspaper. . . . A database is not a newspaper.\"The Canadian Newspaper Association and the Canadian CommunityNewspapers Association previously intervened on behalf of TheGlobe, arguing that technological developments shouldn't forcepublishers to lose their rights to reproduce their \"collectiveworks\" in electronic media. The associations further said intheir filings with the court that if papers are forced to removefreelance stories from their databases, it would impair thepublic's ability to use them for research purposes.University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist toldGlobetechnology.com that the Supreme Court has become veryinterested in copyright issues. In the past, according to him,the top court generally favored the creators of material, but inmore recent decisions it has tried to balance the rights ofcreators and users. He told Globetechnology.com, \"I would expectthat their analysis [in this case] would again focus on how tobalance the interests of all parties.\"Prof. Geist also noted that while the top court's decision mayclarify many of the issues, the class action itself will likelyend up back in the lower courts for resolution. According tohim, \"If the court finds for Robertson in a manner that allowsthe case to proceed, there would still be the prospect offurther litigation on the merits of the case itself.\" Still, headded, \"in many instances these cases often settle once some thekey legal principals have been addressed.\"WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Phentermine HCl Product Litigation----------------------------------------------------------------Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its affiliates faceapproximately 50 suits in various state and federal courts,alleging personal injury as a result of using phenterminehydrochloride products. The suits also name otherpharmaceutical firms.Most of the cases involve multiple plaintiffs, and several werefiled or certified as class actions. The Company believes itwill be fully indemnified by Rugby's former owner, AventisPharmaceuticals (Aventis, formerly known as Hoechst MarionRoussel, Inc., and now known as Sanofi-Aventis) for the defenseof all such cases and for any liability that may arise out ofthese cases, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission. Aventis is currently controlling thedefense of all these matters as the indemnifying party under itsagreements with the Company.WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Seek Transfer of Suit Appeal---------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs seek to transfer its appeal of the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of New York's rulinggranting summary judgment in favor of Watson Pharmaceuticals,Inc. and other pharmaceutical firms to the United States Courtof Appeals for the Federal Circuit.Beginning in July 2000, a number of suits have been filedagainst the Company, Rugby Group and other company affiliates invarious state and federal courts, alleging violations of federalantitrust laws, related to its Ciprofloxacin hydrochlorideproduct. The suits allege claims under various federal andstate competition and consumer protection laws. Severalplaintiffs have filed amended complaints and motions seekingclass certification. The defendants have opposed these classcertification motions, which remain pending, an earlier ClassAction Reporter story (April 11,2005) states.As of March 7, 2005, approximately 42 cases had been filedagainst the Company, Rugby and other Watson entities. Twenty-twoof these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of New York, styled \"In re:Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No.001383.\" In May 2003, the court hearing the consolidated actiongranted the Company's motion to dismiss and made rulingslimiting the theories under which plaintiffs can seek recoveryagainst Rugby and the other defendants. Portions of thatdecision are expected to be appealed.On May 28, 2004, the defendants, including the Company andcertain of its affiliates, filed motions for summary judgment inthe consolidated action pending in the U.S. District Court forthe Eastern District of New York, seeking dismissal of severalof the claims asserted by the plaintiffs, including claimsalleging violation of the antitrust laws. On July 9, 2004, theplaintiffs filed oppositions to the defendants' summary judgmentmotions, and the direct purchasers filed a cross-motion forpartial summary judgment on their claims. A hearing on thesemotions took place on February 28, 2005.On May 7, 2005, three groups of plaintiffs from the consolidatedaction, including the direct purchaser plaintiffs, the indirectpurchaser plaintiffs, and plaintiffs Rite Aid and CVSCorporation, filed Notices of Appeal in the United States Courtof Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing, among otherthings, the March 31, 2005 Order granting summary judgment infavor of the defendants. On August 25, 2005, defendants filed amotion to transfer the appeals of the judgment in defendants'favor in the consolidated action from the United States Court ofAppeals for the Second Circuit to the United States Court ofAppeals for the Federal Circuit. Appellants filed their briefsin opposition to the motion to transfer on or about September26, 2005. Defendants filed their reply in support of the motionto transfer on October 21, 2005. All parties have requestedoral argument on the motion.The suit is styled \"In Re: Ciprofloxin Hydrochloride AntitrustLitigation, case no. 1:00-md-01383-DGT-SMG,\" filed in the UnitedStates District Court for the Eastern District of New York,under Judge David G. Trager. Representing the Company is DavidE. Everson of Stinson, Mag & Fizzell, P.C., 1201 Walnut, Suite2900, Kansas City, MO 64106, Phone: 816-842-8600, Fax:816-691-3495, E-mail: [email protected] . Representingthe plaintiffs are Robert S. Schachter, Joseph S. Tusa ofZwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, 41 Madison Avenue, 32ndFloor, New York, NY 10010, Phone: 212-223-3900, Fax:212-371-5969, E-mail: [email protected] INC.: Antitrust Settlement Hearing Set December 15, 2005----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Western District ofNorth Carolina, Charlotte Division will hold a fairness hearingfor the proposed settlements by Wellman Inc. and Nan Ya in thematter, In re: Polyester Staple Antitrust Litigation, MDL DocketNo. 3:03CV1516. The case was filed on behalf of all individualsor entities (excluding governmental entities and non-classplaintiffs), who purchased Polyester Staple in the United Statesdirectly from defendants from April 1, 1999 to July 31, 2001.The court will hold the hearing on December 15, 2005, at 10:00a.m., at the United States District Court for the WesternDistrict of North Carolina, 250 Charles R. Jonas Federal Bldg.,401 West Trade St., Charlotte, NC 28202.For more details, contact Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. Cohen,Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. by Mail: West Tower, Suite500, 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-3964,Phone: (202) 408-4600, Fax: (202) 408-4699, E-mail:[email protected] FINANCIAL: Suit Status Conference Set January 18,2006 in CA---------------------------------------------------------------A status conference in the class action filed against WFSFinancial, Inc. and WestCorp is set for January 18, 2006 in theOrange Count Superior Court in California. A settlement hasbeen reached for the suit, and the court has granted preliminaryapproval. The consolidated securities class action is styled\"In re WFS Financial Shareholder Litigation, case no.04CC00559.\"Beginning on May 24, 2004 and continuing thereafter, a total offour separate purported class action lawsuits relating to theannouncement by the Company and Westcorp that they werecommencing an exchange offer for the Company's outstandingpublic shares. The suit also names as defendants the Company'sindividual board members. On June 24, 2004, the actions wereconsolidated.On July 16, 2004, the court granted a motion by plaintiff AlaskaHotel & Restaurant Employees Pension Trust Fund, in Case No.04CC00573, to amend the consolidation order to designate it thelead plaintiff in the litigation. The lead plaintiff filed aconsolidated amended complaint on August 9, 2004, and then filedthe present \"corrected\" consolidated amended complaint onSeptember 15, 2004. All of the shareholder-related actionsallege, among other things, that the defendants breached theirrespective fiduciary duties and seek to enjoin or rescind thetransaction and obtain an unspecified sum in damages and costs,including attorneys' fees and expenses.The parties have tentatively agreed to a full and finalresolution of the Action and, on January 19, 2005, the partiesentered into a Memorandum of Understanding, also known as theMOU, concerning the terms of the tentative settlement. Theparties are in the process of preparing a formal settlementagreement based on the terms of the MOU and will present it tothe Court for approval.Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the parties have agreed, amongother things, that additional disclosures will be made in theRegistration Statement on Form S-4 (as filed with the SEC onJuly 16, 2004), the claims asserted in the Action will be fullyreleased, and the Action will be dismissed with prejudice.Further, pursuant to the MOU, WFS has agreed to pay plaintiffs'attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $675,000, or insuch lesser amount as the Court may order. The effectiveness ofthe settlement agreement is contingent on the transactionactually occurring. The parties prepared a formal settlementagreement based on the terms of the MOU and obtained preliminaryapproval for the settlement from the Court on June 17, 2005. Theparties have further agreed, with the Court's consent, that theparties will not proceed with providing notice of the proposedsettlement to shareholders nor schedule a final hearing onapproval of the settlement unless and until the necessaryregulatory approvals for the transaction have been obtained.Subsequently, on September 12, 2005, the Company entered into anAgreement and Plan of Merger by and among Wachovia Corporation,also known as Wachovia, the Company, Western Financial Bank andWestcorp, also known as the Wachovia Merger Agreement.Accordingly, on September 12, 2005, WestCorp terminated themerger agreement dated as of May 23, 2004, which is the subjectof the Action. Thereafter, counsel for plaintiffs indicated thatthey are evaluating the Wachovia Merger Agreement to determinewhether and to what extent they might proceed with the Action. Afurther status conference in the Action is scheduled for January18, 2006. Meetings, Conferences & Seminars* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals-------------------------------------------------December 7, 2005ASBESTOS INSURANCE CONFERENCEMealey PublicationsThe Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery ParkContact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;[email protected] 12-14, 200510TH ANNUAL DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATIONAmerican ConferencesThe Waldorf Astoria, New York, NY, United StatesContact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563 December 12-13, 2005VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCEMealey PublicationsCaesars Palace, Las VegasContact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;[email protected] 12-13, 2005LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCEMealey PublicationsThe Ritz-Carlton Pentagon City, Washington DCContact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;[email protected] 23-24, 2005ADVANCED INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUESMealey PublicationsThe Four Seasons Hotel, PhiladelphiaContact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;[email protected] 5-8, 2006INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLEMealey PublicationsThe Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZContact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;[email protected] 16-17, 2006ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITYALI-ABACoral Gables, Miami, FloridaContact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614May 25-26, 2006INSURANCE COVERAGE 2006: CLAIM TRENDS & LITIGATIONPractising Law InstituteNew YorkContact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; [email protected] 28-30, 2006LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMSALI-ABABostonContact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614* Online Teleconferences------------------------December 01-30, 2005HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONGCONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERSCLEOnline.ComContact: 512-778-5665; [email protected] 01-30, 2005CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECTLIABILITYCLEOnline.ComContact: 512-778-5665; [email protected] 01-30, 2005HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURYCLEOnline.ComContact: 512-778-5665; [email protected] 01-30, 2005IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?CLEOnline.ComContact: 512-778-5665; [email protected] 01-30, 2005BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE& CONSUMER LAW UPDATESCLEOnline.ComContact: 512-778-5665; [email protected] 7, 2005PERCHLORATEMealey PublicationsContact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;[email protected] 8, 2005SSRI's TELECONFERENCEMealey PublicationsContact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;[email protected] 14, 2005FINITE RISK REINSURANCEMealey PublicationsContact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;[email protected] 14, 2005CLASS CERTIFICATION--HOW TO GET A CLASS CERTIFIED OR DEFEATCERTIFICATIONMealey PublicationsContact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;[email protected] 15, 2005D&O TELECONFERENCEMealey PublicationsContact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;[email protected] 15, 2005PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ISSUESMealey PublicationsContact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;[email protected] PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1CEB OnlineContact: [email protected] or 1-800-232-3444TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2CEB OnlineContact: [email protected] or 1-800-232-3444TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3CEB OnlineContact: [email protected] or 1-800-232-3444TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTSCEB OnlineContact: [email protected] or 1-800-232-3444CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1CEB OnlineContact: [email protected] or 1-800-232-3444CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2CEB OnlineContact: [email protected] or 1-800-232-3444CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3CEB OnlineContact: [email protected] or 1-800-232-3444CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTSCEB OnlineContact: [email protected] or 1-800-232-3444PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZINGYOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURECEB OnlineContact: [email protected] or 1-800-232-3444EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINAITONCEB OnlineContact: [email protected] or 1-800-232-3444STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTENDISCOVERYCEB OnlineContact: [email protected] or 1-800-232-3444CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONSCEB OnlineContact: [email protected] or 1-800-232-3444ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIESLawCommerce.Com/Mealey'sOnline Streaming VideoContact: [email protected] BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERSLawCommerce.Com/Mealey'sOnline Streaming VideoContact: [email protected] WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASESLawCommerce.Com/Mealey'sOnline Streaming VideoContact: [email protected] TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIESBig Class ActionContact: [email protected] DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATIONOnline Streaming VideoLawCommerce.Com/Mealey'sContact: [email protected] LITIGATIONOnline Streaming VideoLawCommerce.Com/Mealey'sContact: [email protected] DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOLOnline Streaming VideoLawCommerce.Com/Mealey'sContact: [email protected] Class ActionContact: [email protected] OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAMOnline Streaming VideoLawCommerce.Com/Mealey'sContact: [email protected] I FILE A CLASS ACTION?LawCommerce.Com / Law Education InstituteContact: [email protected] EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEMOnline Streaming VideoLawCommerce.Com/Mealey'sContact: [email protected] STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSIONOnline Streaming VideoLawCommerce.Com/Mealey'sContact: [email protected] AN ASBESTOS CASELawCommerce.ComContact: [email protected] IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCOSALES AND ADVERSTISINGAmerican Bar AssociationContact: 800-285-2221; [email protected] ________________________________________________________________The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in theClass Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions viae-mail to [email protected] are encouraged. New Securities Fraud CasesCIPHERGEN BIOSYSTEMS: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Suit in CA-------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, initiated a classaction suit in the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California against Ciphergen Biosystems, Inc.(\"Ciphergen\" or the \"Company\") (NASDAQ: CIPHE) and certain ofits officers and directors, on behalf of all persons or entitieswho purchased the publicly traded common stock of Ciphergenbetween August 8, 2005 and November 16, 2005 (the \"ClassPeriod\").The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendantsviolated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and ExchangeAct of 1934 by publicly issuing a series of false and misleadingstatements regarding the Company's financial condition, thuscausing Ciphergen's shares to trade at artificially inflatedlevels.The complaint alleges that on November 16, 2005, Ciphergendisclosed, inter alia, that its Audit Committee had determinedthat the Company's previously reported results for the quarter-ended June 30, 2005 should no longer be relied upon and wouldneed to be restated because revenue was recognized on certaintransactions \"in a manner inconsistent with the Company'srevenue recognition policy.\" Indeed, the Company indicated thatthe restatement would reduce previously reported revenues forsuch quarter by $503,000 or 7% and result in an increase in theCompany's previously reported net loss for such quarter by$301,000 or 3%. The Company also advised that the AuditCommittee's investigation was not yet complete and that it wasalso \"reviewing the appropriateness of revenue recognition inconnection with certain transactions that took place in thefourth quarter of fiscal 2004 and in fiscal 2005.\"On November 17, 2005, as a result of these disclosures, thecomplaint alleges that the price of Ciphergen common stockdeclined from a prior day close of $1.73 to close at $1.36 pershare, a decline of approximately 21%, on unusually heavyvolume.For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox, Joel B. Strauss,Donald R. Hall and Jeffrey P. Campisi of KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMERLLP, 805 Third Ave., 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone:(800) 290-1952 or (212) 687-1980, Fax: (212) 687-7714, E-mail:[email protected] , Web site: http://www.kaplanfox.com/and Laurence D. King of KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER, LLP, 555 MontgomeryStreet, Suite 1501, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone:(415) 772-4700, Fax: 415-772-4707.MIKOHN GAMING: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NV---------------------------------------------------------------The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securitiesclass action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of MikohnGaming Corporation (d/b/a Progressive Gaming InternationalCorporation) (\"PGIC\" or the \"Company\") (NASDAQ: PGIC) betweenFebruary 22, 2005 through October 19, 2005, inclusive (the\"Class Period\").The case is pending in the United States District Court for theDistrict of Nevada against defendant PGIC and one or more of itsexecutive officers. The action charges that defendants violatedfederal securities laws by issuing a series of materially falseand misleading statements to the market throughout the ClassPeriod, which statements had the effect of artificiallyinflating the market price of the Company's securities. No classhas yet been certified in the above action.For more details, contact Charles J. Piven of The Law Offices OfCharles J. Piven, P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone:410-986-0036, E-mail: [email protected] GAMING: Goldman Scarlato Lodges NV Securities Fraud Suit---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a lawsuitin the United States District Court for the District of Nevada,on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquiredpublicly traded securities of Mikohn Gaming Corporation (d/b/aProgressive Gaming International Corporation) (\"Mikohn\" or the\"Company\") (NASDAQ:PGIC) between February 22, 2005 and October19, 2005, inclusive, (the \"Class Period\"). The lawsuit was filedagainst Mikohn, Russel H. McMeekin and Michael A. Sicuro(\"Defendants\").The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges thatDefendants failed to disclose that the impact of FinancialAccounting Standards Board's accounting Standard (\"SFAS\") 153 onthe Company's public filings.On October 20, 2005, Defendants revealed that because theCompany failed to properly account for two non-monetarytransactions in accordance with SFAS 153, the Company expectedto report a loss of $0.09 per share rather than a gain of $0.08to $0.10 per share, as Defendants had previously reported. TheCompany changed the accounting treatment after its auditor, BDOSeidman, informed the Company that it had to comply with SFAS153 and that it could not recognize the revenues in the thirdquarter from these two transactions. In reaction to this news,shares of Mikohn fell dramatically, falling nearly 30% in veryheavy volume.For more details, contact Brian D. Penny, Esq. of The Law Firmof Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C, Phone: 888-753-2796, E-mail:[email protected] ENERGY: Roy Jacobs to File Securities Fraud Lawsuit in LA---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Roy Jacobs & Associates was retained to commencea class action in the United States District Court for theWestern District of Louisiana, on behalf of a class of personswho purchased the securities of Stone Energy Corporation(NYSE:SGY) between March 4, 2002 and October 6, 2005, inclusive(the \"Class Period\").The complaint to be filed alleges that Stone made false andmisleading statements regarding its financial performance. OnOctober 6, 2005 Stone announced, among other things, itsintention to take a significant reserve write-down of its\"proven\" oil reserves of $161 million -- a 20% decline. As aresult, Stone's stock price fell $7.93 to $48.14. On November 8,2005, Stone announced its intention to restate its financialstatements for 2001 through 2004 and for the first two quartersof 2005. The Company launched an internal investigation into itsreserve practices and admits that it overstated its oilreserves.For more details, contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs &Associates, Phone: 888-884-4490, E-mail:[email protected] ENERGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in LA---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a classaction lawsuit in the United States District Court for theWestern District of Louisiana on behalf of all securitiespurchasers of Stone Energy Corporation (NYSE: SGY) (\"StoneEnergy\" or the \"Company\") between June 17, 2005 and October 6,2005 inclusive (the \"Class Period\").The complaint charges Stone Energy, David H. Welch, Kenneth H.Beer, D. Peter Canty and James H. Prince with violations of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, theComplaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose andmisrepresented the following material adverse facts which wereknown to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that Stone Energy materially overstated its financial results by improperly overvaluing its oil reserves; (2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial condition; and (3) that as a result of the above, the values of the Company's proven reserves, assets and future net cash flows were materially overstated at all relevant times.On October 6, 2005, Stone Energy shocked the market when itissued a press release announcing that it intends to take asignificant reserve write-down. On this news, shares of theCompany's stock fell $7.93 per share or almost 14% to close at$48.14 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, onNovember 9, 2005, Stone Energy issued a press release announcingthat it would restate certain historical financial statementsand provided selected financial data from 2001 to 2004 and forthe first six months of 2005.For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A.Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of PrussiaRoad, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706,E-mail: [email protected] , Web site:http://www.sbclasslaw.com/.UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities suit in NY----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a lawsuit inthe United States District Court for the Southern District ofNew York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwiseacquired publicly traded securities of Universal AmericanFinancial Corporation (\"Universal American\" or the \"Company\")(NASDAQ:UHCO) between February 16, 2005 and October 28, 2005,inclusive, (the \"Class Period\"). The lawsuit was filed againstUniversal American and certain officers and directors(\"Defendants\").The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges thatDefendants issued a series of materially false and misleadingstatements concerning the Company's medical loss ratio, which isa ratio measuring the relationship between the cost ofhealthcare provided to premium income. Defendants claimed thatthe profitability of certain businesses was contingent upon theCompany's ability to accurately predict and manage costs relatedto the provision of healthcare services. Defendants furtherstated that they had reversed a negative trend-line in themedical loss ratio they had been experiencing.On October 28, 2005, Defendants announced a 22% decline in netincome resulting directly from higher medical care costs andexpenses. In reaction to this news, Universal American's stockprice fell $7.50 per share to close below $15.00 per share.During the Class Period, insiders sold stock for proceeds inexcess of $200 million.For more details, contact Leigh Lasky, Esq. of The Law Firm ofLasky & Rifkind, Ltd., Phone: 800-495-1868, E-mail:[email protected] . *********A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissionsvia e-mail to [email protected] are encouraged.Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuringnews on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of targetasbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-relatedliabilities. *********S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O NClass Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published byBankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, MarylandUSA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and LyndseyResnick, Editors.Copyright 2005. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited withoutprior written permission of the publishers.Information contained herein is obtained from sources believedto be reliable, but is not guaranteed.The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact ChristopherBeard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * * ",
"URL": "http://bankrupt.com/CAR_Public/051207.mbx"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "SoftBank announces AI-focused second $108 billion Vision Fund with LPs including Microsoft, Apple and Foxconn | TechCrunch TechCrunch Login Startups Apps Gadgets Videos Audio Extra Crunch Newsletters Events Advertise — Crunchbase More Search search Facebook privacy Transportation Enterprise Def Con 2019 Close Screen SoftBank announces AI-focused second $108 billion Vision Fund with LPs including Microsoft, Apple and Foxconn Catherine Shu @catherineshu / 8:28 pm CDT • July 25, 2019 comment Comment SoftBank Group announced today that it will launch its second Vision Fund with participation from Apple, Foxconn, Microsoft and other tech companies and investors. Called the Vision Fund 2, the fund will focus on AI-based technology. SoftBank said the fund’s capital has reached about $108 billion, based on memoranda of understandings. SoftBank Group’s own investment in the fund will be $38 billion. It is worth noting that the second Vision Fund’s list of expected limited partners does not currently include any participants from the Saudi Arabia government (the first Vision Fund’s close ties to people, including Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who have been implicated in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi , has understandably been a major source of concern for investors, companies and human rights observers). But SoftBank Group also said it is still in discussions with other participants and that the total amount of the fund is expected to increase. The full list of participants who have signed MOUs so far are: “ Apple, Foxconn Technology Group, Microsoft Corporation, Mizuho Bank, Ltd., Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, MUFG Bank, Ltd., The Dai-ichi Life Insurance Company, Limited, Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Limited, SMBC Nikko Securities Inc., Daiwa Securities Group Inc., National Investment Corporation of National Bank of Kazakhstan, Standard Chartered Bank, and major participants from Taiwan.” SoftBank’s intention to launch Vision Fund 2 was first reported earlier this week by The Wall Street Journal. The new fund is expected to decrease SoftBank’s reliance on Saudi Arabian investment and also potentially change the relationship between startups, corporate giants like Microsoft and investors . The second Vision Fund could help SoftBank extend its position as the most influential investor globally. Through its first $97 billion Vision Fund, the giant invested in dozens of high-profile growing companies, including ride-hailing giants Didi Chuxing and Grab , and India-based grocery delivery startup Grofers , payments firm Paytm and budget lodging startup Oyo . The maiden Vision Fund, which was announced in October 2016 and began investing in early 2017 , has earned 62% returns to date, SoftBank said last month. SoftBank, known for consistently cutting checks of $100 million and larger, has invested in 24 of 377 unicorns globally (companies with valuation of $1 billion or more), according to research firm CB Insights. camera Image Credits: Alessandro Di Ciommo/NurPhoto (opens in a new window) / Getty Images Add a Comment Disrupt SF 2019 Snap Inc., Impossible Foods, Blue Origin and more... San Francisco Oct 2 - 4 Save $1300 Today Sign up for Newsletters See all newsletters (opens in a new window) The Daily Crunch Week in Review Startups Weekly The Station Extra Crunch Roundup Event Updates Sponsorship Insider Crunchbase Daily Email Subscribe facebook (opens in a new window) twitter (opens in a new window) linkedin (opens in a new window) mail (opens in a new window) Copy Share Link Copy Share Link checkmark Copy Tags Fundings & Exits TC Venture Capital Apple crunchbase (opens in a new window) Asia Foxconn crunchbase (opens in a new window) Japan Microsoft crunchbase (opens in a new window) SoftBank announces AI-focused second $108 billion Vision Fund with LPs including Microsoft, Apple and Foxconn Catherine Shu 8:28 pm CDT • July 25, 2019 SoftBank Group announced today that it will launch its second Vision Fund with participation from Apple, Foxconn, Microsoft and other tech companies and investors. Called the Vision Fund 2, the fun... Inside the Porsche Taycan’s minimalist, 911-inspired interior Kirsten Korosec 5:06 pm CDT • August 22, 2019 Porsche has taken the wraps off the interior of the all-new, all-electric Porsche Taycan ahead of its world debut September 4. Gone are the buttons and the clutter. This is a sleek interior for the... Hey students, launch your startup this year with this special Extra Crunch discount Danny Crichton 12:28 pm CDT • August 22, 2019 Entrepreneurship is on the rise, and nowhere is that more true than on college campuses. Students are ditching boring office jobs to seek out their own opportunities, whether that is launching a bo... TechCrunch Privacy Policy About Our Ads Code of Conduct Terms of Service © 2013-2019 Verizon Media. All rights reserved. Powered by WordPress VIP (opens in a new window) . Fonts by TypeKit (opens in a new window) .",
"URL": "https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/25/softbank-announces-ai-focused-second-108-billion-vision-fund-with-lps-including-microsoft-apple-and-foxconn/"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "The Commerce Commission has published a Statement of Preliminary Issues relating to the clearance application for Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft) to acquire 100% of the shares in Activision Blizzard Inc (Activision). The Statement outlines the key competition issues that the Commission currently considers important in deciding whether or not to grant clearance to the proposed acquisition. The Commission invites interested parties to provide comments on the likely competitive effects of the proposed acquisition. Submissions can be sent by email to [email protected] with the reference ‘Microsoft/Activision’ in the subject line. Parties should provide a public version of their submission at the same time for publication on the Commission’s case register. Any submissions should be received by close of business on 27 July 2022. The Commission is currently scheduled to make a decision on the application by 11 August 2022. However, this date may be extended as the investigation progresses. The Statement of Preliminary Issues and a public version of the application will be available on the Commission’s case register .",
"URL": "https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU2207/S00201/statement-of-preliminary-issues-released-for-microsofts-acquisition-of-activision-blizzard.htm"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Microsoft issues out-of-band patch for exploited memory corruption bug in Internet Explorer 17 hours ago News by Bradley Barth Microsoft Corporation yesterday released an emergency patch for a remote code execution vulnerability in Internet Explorer that attackers have been actively exploiting in the wild. Tweet Microsoft Corporation yesterday released an emergency patch for a remote code execution vulnerability in Internet Explorer that attackers have been actively exploiting in the wild. Designated CVE-2018-8653, the zero-day memory corruption bug results from the mishandling of objects in memory by the JScript component of Internet Explorer’s scripting engine, according to an official advisory from Microsoft, as well as a separate advisory published by the CERT Coordination Center at Carnegie Mellon’s Software Engineering Institute. Found in versions 9, 10 and 11 of IE, the flaw is considered critical on certain Windows platforms, and of moderate severity on others. Attackers can capitalise on this vulnerability by tricking victims into viewing a malicious website/HTML document or opening specially crafted PDFs, Microsoft Office files, or other docs that support embedded IE scripting engine content. In such a scenario, the attackers could gain the same level of privilege as the current user. If the current user has admin privileges, that means the attackers \"could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights,\" Microsoft warns in its official advisory. The bug’s discovery is credited to Clement Lecigne of Google’s Threat Analysis Group. No further details are currently available regarding the zero-day attacks that sought to capitalise on the flaw. Microsoft says that users can lessen the vulnerability’s impact by restricting access to the jscript.dll file via a special command. This workaround would affect only those websites that specifically request the use of jscript as a scripting engine. But many other websites would still function as intended because under its default settings IE doesn’t normally use jscript.dll. More typically, IE instead uses Jscript9.dll, which does not contain the vulnerability. This article was originally published on SC Media US. Topics: Security Patching Privacy/surveillance Resilience Risk management Vulnerabilities Servers, Cloud & Infrastructure MORE FROM SC MAGAZINE The benefits of open-sourced security Malicious document builder LCG Kit a key component in recent phishing campaigns Phishers turn to non-delivery notifications to fool users More on this Topic What were the most popular stories on SC in 2018? Facebook subjected to lawsuit, exposé over user data practices As cryptocurrency values tank, threat actors take cryptomining malware to the bank Connected light bulbs give off more than just light Google pulls 15 apps from Play Store for fraudulent ad revenue grab ",
"URL": "https://www.scmagazineuk.com/microsoft-issues-out-of-band-patch-exploited-memory-corruption-bug-internet-explorer/article/1521737"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "T R O U B L E D C O M P A N Y R E P O R T E R Monday, November 4, 2002, Vol. 6, No. 218 Headlines37POINT9: Lawsuit Filed Against Hydrogiene Corp. is DismissedACOUSTISEAL: Has Until January 2 to Make Lease-Related DecisionsAMERICAN FINANCIAL: S&P Affirms BB+ Preferred Share Rating ANC RENTAL: Expanding Scope of Ernst & Young & Young's RetentionARMSTRONG HOLDINGS: Begins Reconciling 3,800+ Proofs of ClaimASPEN GROUP: Brings-In Robert Calentine as Interim CEOAUDIBLE INC: Balance Sheet Insolvency Widens to $11MM at Sept 30BCE INC: Closes CDN$2-Billion Public Debt OfferingBELL CANADA: Disposing of Remaining Assets -- Canbras and AxtelBORDEN CHEMICALS: Wants Lease Decision Time Extended to April 24BUDGET GROUP: Court OKs Young Conaway as Local Delaware CounselCALPINE: Receives $22MM from Nevada Power for Past-Due PaymentsCEDARA SOFTWARE: Will Publish First Quarter Results on Nov. 22CLUBCORP INC: S&P Keeping Watch on B+ Corporate Credit Rating CORVUS INVESTMENTS: Fitch Keeping Watch on Low B-Rated ClassesENRON CORP: Saeger, et. al. Gets OK to Hire Manatt as CounselENRON CORP: Employee Committee Encouraged by Fastow's IndictmentEOTT ENERGY: U.S. Trustee Appoints Unsecured Creditors CommitteeEUROSTAR I CDO: Fitch Cuts Class A-3 & B Note Ratings to B+/CCEXTENDED STAY: Amends Bank Credit Facility to Ensure FlexibilityFINET.COM INC: Fails to Maintain Nasdaq Listing RequirementsGENTEK INC: Seeks Approval to Hire Ordinary Course ProfessionalsGLOBAL CROSSING: Urges Court to Approve Settlement with FusionGOODYEAR TIRE: Underperformance Prompts S&P to Cut Rating to BB+ GWIN INC: Moore Stephens Expresses Going Concern DoubtHEALTHTRAC INC: Requires Additional Cash to Continue OperationsHIGHLANDS INSURANCE: Files for Chapter 11 Reorganization in Del.HIGHLANDS INSURANCE: Case Summary & Largest Unsecured CreditorsHORSEHEAD: Signs-Up McKinney & Stringer as Environmental CounselINDIGO BOOKS: Working Capital Deficit Tops $22 Mill. at Sept. 28INFINITE GROUP: Clarifies Issues re DARPA Contract TerminationINPRIMIS INC: Changes Company Name to Ener1, Inc. INT'L THUNDERBIRD: TSX Halts Trading for Listing NoncomplianceKAISER ALUMINUM: Seeks Approval of Release with Terrence HayesLAIDLAW INC: Wants to Keep Exclusivity Until February 28, 2003LORAL SPACE: S&P Drops Corporate Credit Rating to SD from CCMARK NUTRITIONALS: Committee Hires Kingman as Bankruptcy CounselMETAWAVE COMMS: Has Until April 24 to Meet Nasdaq RequirementsMIIX GROUP: Nine-Month Net Loss Balloons to $50 MillionMITEC TELECOM: Brings-In Rajiv Pancholy as New President and CEOMORTON CUSTOM: Files for Chapter 11 Reorganization in WilmingtonMORTON HOLDINGS: Case Summary & Largest Unsecured CreditorsNATIONSRENT INC: Brings-In UBS Warburg as Financial AdvisorNAVISTAR INT'L: S&P Keeping Watch on BB Corporate Credit RatingsNDCHEALTH CORP: S&P Ratchets Corp. Credit Rating Down a Notch NETIA HOLDINGS: Asks Nasdaq Panel to Review Delisting DecisionNETIA HOLDINGS: Will Not Make Interest Payments on Certain NotesNETZEE INC: September 30, 2002 Equity Deficit Tops $10 MillionNEWFOUNDLAND CAPITAL: Reports Improved Performance in Q3 2002NORSKE SKOG: Reports $20MM Net Loss on $392MM Sales in Q3 2002NQL: ViewCast Unit Acquires Assets of Delta Computec Subsidiary OHIO CASULATY: S&P Changes Outlook on BB Rating to Negative OM GROUP: Low Liquidity Spurs S&P to Lower Credit Rating to BB-OWENS-BROCKWAY: S&P Rates Proposed $300M Sr. Secured Notes at BB PACIFIC GAS: Wants to Pay $1.3M for SEC Filing & Printer FeesPERLE SYSTEMS: Net Capital Deficiency Widens to $3 MillionPHOTOCHANNEL: Raising $750K with Proposed LP Unit Financing POPE & TALBOT: Harmac Pulp Mill Resumes Operations After Outage REVLON CONSUMER: S&P Puts B-/CCC- Credit Ratings on Watch Neg. ROYAL CARIBBEAN: S&P Affirms BB+ Rating on Two Related Deals SATX INC: Court Approves First Amended Disclosure StatementS-C NEWCO: S&P Junks Corp. Credit Ratings over Market PressuresSLI INC: Committee Signs-Up KPMG LLP as Financial AdvisorSMARTDISK CORP: Posts Better Financial Results for Third QuarterSTANDARD MEMS: US Trustee Appoints 3-Member Creditors Committee TEXAS PETROCHEMICALS: Pursuing Options to Refinance Secured DebtTHOMAS GROUP: Sept. 30 Balance Sheet Upside-Down by $1.7 MillionUNIFAB INT'L: Shareholders' Meeting to Convene on Dec. 13, 2002UNION ACCEPTANCE: Files for Chapter 11 Reorganization in IndianaUNIROYAL TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Win Nod to Hire White & Case LLPUS AIRWAYS: Wants Court Okay to Assume & Ratify Charge Card PactUSI HOLDINGS: S&P Affirms B+ Rating & Removes it from Watch U.S. STEEL: Will Pay Q3 Common Stock Dividend on Dec. 10, 2002VERITAS DGC: S&P Rates $275-Million Senior Secured Notes at BB+ VINTAGE CAPITAL: Fitch Slashes Class C Note Rating to Junk LevelV-ONE CORP: Net Capital Deficiency Tops $629K at September 30WINSTAR: Trustee Seeks Approval of $1.5M Settlement with SavvisWORKGROUP TECHNOLOGY: Nasdaq Delists Shares Effective October 31W.R. GRACE: Court Stretches Lease Decision Time to April 1, 2003W.R. GRACE: Sealed Air Turns to Third Cir. to Get Lawsuit Tossed* BOND PRICING: For the week of November 4 - November 8, 2002 *********37POINT9: Lawsuit Filed Against Hydrogiene Corp. is Dismissed-------------------------------------------------------------A Synergie Holdings Ltd. Inc., (PinkSheets:SYHO) company spokesperson announced dismissal of a lawsuit brought against Hydrogiene, its officers and directors, and others not related to the company, by 37Point9 in a frivolous attempt to justify its loss of a license held with Magna IV Ltd., to produce and sell the Hydrogiene series of Ultimate Bidets and Surface Shield anti-microbiological disinfectant, according to Synergie Holdings Ltd. Inc. Termination of the license was brought about by 37Point9's financial insolvency and inability to conform to terms of license agreement to produce and market the products within a reasonable period of time, according to Synergie Holdings Ltd. Inc. The spokesperson said the attempt by 37Point9's president, Douglas Brown, and 37Points' majority stockholder, Bruce Barren, to discredit Hydrogiene and its Chairman and CEO Charles Kallmann was an egregious, unfounded attempt to derail Hydrogiene's resurgence from its two year dormancy, caused by a former, now-ousted board of directors, according to Synergie Holdings Ltd. Inc. The spokesperson added Synergie Holdings Ltd. Inc., and its other subsidiaries, of which Hydrogiene Corp., is one, is now well on its way to productivity and sales of its Theraclense-Ultimate Bidets and derivatives with assembly operations to start at initial facility in Henderson, Nev. An agreement with a national sales organization will be announced shortly; this organization to represent Hydrogiene to the mass merchant retail market, as well as hotel/leisure and medical/hospital markets.ACOUSTISEAL: Has Until January 2 to Make Lease-Related Decisions----------------------------------------------------------------By order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Missouri, Acoustiseal, Inc., obtained an extension of its lease decision period. The Court gives the Debtor until January 2, 2003, to determine whether to assume, assume and assign, or reject its unexpired nonresidential real property leases.Acoustiseal, Inc., filed for chapter 11 protection on September 4, 2002. Cynthia Dillard Parres, Esq., and Mark G. Stingley, Esq., at Bryan, Cave LLP represent the Debtor in its restructuring efforts. When the Company filed for protection from its creditors, it listed an estimated assets of $10-$50 million and estimated debts of over $50 million.AMERICAN FINANCIAL: S&P Affirms BB+ Preferred Share Rating ---------------------------------------------------------- Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its triple-'B' counterparty credit and senior debt, triple-'B'-minus subordinated debt, and double-'B'-plus preferred stock ratings on American Financial Group Inc. In addition, Standard & Poor's affirmed its single-'A' counterparty credit and financial strength ratings on the members of the Great American Insurance Co. pool and the Republic Indemnity Co., pool, which primarily consist of AFG's specialty lines division, and constitute the property/casualty (P/C) subsidiaries expected to remain as part of AFG's insurance operations following the group's intended sale of its personal lines division through an initial public offering.At the same time, Standard & Poor's said it lowered its ratings on Great American Financial Resources Inc., AFG's majority-owned life insurance holding company, as well as the ratings on GAFRI's core life insurance subsidiaries. The outlook on AFG and GAFRI is negative.Standard & Poor's also took several other actions on GAFRI's noncore life insurance subsidiaries.Standard & Poor's also affirmed its single-'A' counterparty credit and financial strength ratings on personal lines writers Atlanta Casualty Co., Infinity Insurance Co., Leader Insurance Co., Windsor Insurance Co., and related insurance subsidiaries, following AFG's announcement of its intention to contribute these subsidiaries to a newly formed insurance holding company, Infinity Property and Casualty Corp., to execute its planned IPO. Standard & Poor's also assigned its triple-'B' counterparty credit rating to Infinity. The outlook on Infinity is negative.The negative outlook on AFG and GAFRI reflects lower than historical consolidated capital adequacy at the operating companies (including P/C and life operating companies) at midyear 2002 as well as a relative decline in the quality of capital given a moderate amount of intangible assets in the group's statutory capital. AFG's consolidated operating performance has improved through the first six months of 2002. A sustained track record of improved earnings and a gradual improvement in capital adequacy will be necessary for a revision of the outlook to stable.The negative outlook on Infinity and its related entities reflects uncertainty in AFG's ability to successfully execute its intended IPO. Standard & Poor's expects that if the IPO is successful and executed under the current terms, at the point it is completed the outlook on the Infinity group should change to stable.ANC RENTAL: Expanding Scope of Ernst & Young & Young's Retention----------------------------------------------------------------ANC Rental Corporation and its debtor-affiliates sought and obtained the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware's authority to supplement the Debtors' retention of Ernst & Young. Specifically, the Debtors expect Ernst & Young to provide:A. various tax services to Debtors, including tax review, calculation and analysis relating to the Debtors' bankruptcy restructuring and post-bankruptcy operations, andB. business license compliance services, including analyzing the business license requirements for the Debtors, to conduct a review of the Debtors compliance with business license requirements and to prepare business licenses for the Debtors.Aside from reimbursement of actual and necessary expenses, Ernst& Young will be paid based on the hourly rates of itsprofessionals rendering tax services and business licensesservices: Partners $525 Principals 525 Senior Managers 425 Managers 315 - 330 Seniors 225 - 240 Staff 160 - 175 Paraprofessional 85 - 100(ANC Rental Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 21; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900) ARMSTRONG HOLDINGS: Begins Reconciling 3,800+ Proofs of Claim-------------------------------------------------------------Armstrong Holdings, Inc., and its debtor-affiliates, ask Judge Newsome to disallow and expunge 46 more disputed claims, without prejudice to their right to object to these proofs of claim on any other grounds whatsoever to the extent that any of the proofs of claim survive expungement under this Objection.Rebecca Booth, Esq., at Richards Layton & Finger PA, in Wilmington, Delaware, remind the Court that the Debtors listed 182,584 claims in their Schedules. The general bar date for filing proofs of claim in these cases expired on August 31, 2001. By separate Order, Judge Newsome set March 20, 2002, as the bar date asbestos-related property damage claims. To date, Ms. Booth reports that 3,835 proofs of claim, many of which were duplicates or amendments, have been filed with the Debtors' claims agent, Trumbull. In addition, approximately 722 proofsof claim were received after the Bar Date, for a total of 4,557 proofs of claim related to asbestos property damage. Group A: Amended and Superseded ClaimsThe proofs of claim in Group A are those claims that were amended and, therefore, superseded by a subsequent proof of claim filed by or on behalf of the same claimant. The Debtors should not be required to pay twice on the same obligation. Moreover, elimination of redundant claims will enable the Debtors to maintain a claims registry that more accurately reflects claims that have been asserted against the Debtors.Therefore, the Debtors object to each proof of claim in this group and ask the Court to disallow and expunge the amended or superseded claims. The proofs of claim in Group A are: Claimant Surviving Claim -------- ---------------Carlino Arcadia Associates LP $572,348.15Philadelphia, PACorpus Christi Gasket & Fastener 23,250,000.00Corpus Christi, TXBrad Dusenka UnliquidatedHouston, TXRene Laurel UnliquidatedHouston, TXCommonwealth of Massachusetts Dept. of Revenue 327,515.56Boston, MAMewEnergy Midwest LLC 248,245.49Chicago, ILSteven Tancredi UnliquidatedHouston, TXToyota Motor Credit Corporation 72,960.34Torrence, CAUniversity of Delaware 247,800.00Newark, DEWagman-Carlino JV 28,937.41Philadelphia, PA Groups B and C: Duplicate ClaimsThe Debtors assert that the proofs of claim in these two groups are duplicative of other proofs of claim filed by or on behalf of the same claimants.With respect to the proofs of claim in Group B, Ms. Booth notes, \"[I]t appears that the claimant erroneously filed the same proof of claim against the same Debtor more than once.\"With respect to the proofs of claim in Group C, Ms. Booth observes, it appears that these claims were filed by Noteholders or Bondholders of AWI, and are duplicates of proofs of claim property filed by an indenture trustee, or scheduled by the Debtors on the indenture trustee's behalf, on account of the claims arising from these notes and bonds. The claims of the indenture trustee are for the full amount due and owing on the note or bond. Under the Trust Agreement governing these notes or bonds, the indenture trustee has the right to assert allclaims on behalf of its respective noteholder or bondholder.Indeed, Ms. Booth says, for each series of notes outstanding: (1) the appropriate indenture trustee has already filed a proof of claim; or (2) AWI has scheduled the indenture trustee's claim in its Schedules as non-contingent and undisputed, in each case for the total principal amount outstanding, plus accrued interest, on each such series of notes or bonds as of the Petition Date.Thus, Ms. Booth concludes, any claims asserted by or on behalf of individual noteholders or bondholders are duplicative of the master claim filed by the appropriate indenture trustee or scheduled by AWI. The proofs of claim in Group C are those claims filed by individual noteholders or bondholders that also are included in one or more of the indenture trustee proofs of claim.Therefore, the Debtors ask the Court to disallow the duplicate claims and expunged them from the claims registry of these cases.The proofs of claim in Group B are: Claimant Claim Amount -------- ------------Carey Canada, Inc. UnliquidatedPhiladelphia, PACarroll College UnliquidatedMt. Pleasant, SCCelotex Corporation UnliquidatedPhiladelphia, PAGMI Insultation 1,940.00Lebanon, PAKeysor-Century Corporation 409,869.05Saugus, GACommonwealth of Massachusetts Dept. of Revenue 326,857.09Boston, MAModern Handling Equipment Co. 37,630.97Bristol, PARutgers University UnliquidatedPiscataway, NJStanford University UnliquidatedSan Francisco, CAThe Asbestos Settlement Trust (Celotex) UnliquidatedPhiladelphia, PAThomas Moore College UnliquidatedCovington, KYTown of Hooksett UnliquidatedHampton, SCUnion County Board of Education UnliquidatedHampton, SCUSM Corp. Bailey Div. UnliquidatedSeabrook, NYThe proofs of claim in Group C are: Claimant Surviving Claim -------- ---------------Lois A. Berry and William V. Berry $279.39Annville, PAAnthony & Patricia Lang 5,000.00St. John, MDCurtis R. Rasmussen 6,877.40 Group D: Holdings InterestsAWI is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Armstrong Holdings, Inc., a publicly traded company, which is not a debtor in these cases. The claims in Group D represent equity interests in Holdings and not claims against any of the Debtors.Holdings is not a debtor in these Chapter 11 cases, and equityinterests in Holdings may not be asserted as claims against any of the Debtors. Accordingly, the Debtors object to the allowance of Mildred Bogienski's unliquidated Holdings Interest and ask the Court to disallow and expunge Ms. Bogienski's Holdings Interest. Group E: Late ClaimsThe claims in Group E were filed after the Bar Date, or other deadline to file proofs of claim as authorized by the Bankruptcy Code or prior Court Order. Section 502(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a proof of claim will not be allowed if not timely filed. Because the claims in this Group were not timely filed, the Debtors object to these claims and ask the Court to disallow and expunge these claims: Claimant Date Filed Asserted Amount -------- ---------- ---------------American Inks & Coatings Corp. 09/04/2001 UnliquidatedBlue Bell, PAAsbestos Claims Management Corp. 12/12/2001 UnliquidatedDallas, TexasBonezzi Switzer Murphy & Polito 10/05/2001 3,954.65Cleveland, OHCanadian National Railway Co. 06/10/2002 58,610.00Toronto, CanadaEcredit.Com 09/10/2001 10,600.00Dedham, MAFranchise Tax Board 08/08/2002 3,027,272.49Sacramento, CAModern Handling Equipment Corp. 05/06/2002 37,630.97Bristol, PANGC Settlement Trust 12/12/2001 UnliquidatedDallas, TXThe Asbestos Settlement Trust 03/01/2002 UnliquidatedPhiladelphia, PA Group F: No DocumentationMs. Booth describes the proofs of claim in Group F as those filed without the supporting documentation required. These proofs of claim, therefore, do not constitute valid, prima facie claims because they have no supporting documentation. Ms. Booth reminds Judge Newsome that, for a proof of claim to be legally sufficient, it must: (a) be in writing; (b) make a demand upon the debtor's estate; (c) express an intent to hold the debtor liable for the debt; (d) be properly filed; and (e) be based on facts that would allow, as a matter of equity, the document to be accepted as a proof of claim.Rule 3001(b) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure further requires that the proof of claim be signed by the creditor or the creditor's authorized agent. If a proof of claim fails to comply with each of these requirements, it is not entitled to prima facie validity.Ms. Booth asserts that the proofs of claim in Group F contain nodocumentation from which Judge Newsome could reasonably rely to accept the proof of claim as evidence that each of these respective claimants has a valid claim. Furthermore, nothing in the Debtors' books and records evidences or supports a valid claim against the Debtors in the amounts asserted by any of the holders of the proofs of claim in this Group. Therefore, the Debtors object to each of these proofs of claim and ask the Court to disallow and expunge these claims: Claimant Asserted Amount -------- ---------------Acorn Glen Quality Assisted Living UnliquidatedPrinceton, NJCanadian National Railway Company 58,610.00Toronto, CanadaMinnie Etheridge 20,000.00Catherine, ALThe Hartford UnliquidatedHartford, CNH L Yoh Company LLC 35,155.74Lancaster, PAKTK Corporation UnliquidatedPrinceton, New JerseyUnipak LLC 10,213.32Louisville, KYViacom Inc. UnliquidatedPittsburgh, PAZurich American Insurance Company UnliquidatedBaltimore, MD(Armstrong Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 30; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900) DebtTraders reports that Armstrong Holdings Inc.'s 9.000% bonds due 2004 (ACK04USR1) are trading between 58.5 and 60. See http://www.debttraders.com/price.cfm?dt_sec_ticker=ACK04USR1for real-time bond pricing.ASPEN GROUP: Brings-In Robert Calentine as Interim CEO------------------------------------------------------ Aspen Group Resources Corporation, (OTC Bulletin Board: ASPGF; Toronto: ASR), appointed Robert Calentine to the position of interim Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Calentine has been on the Board of Directors of Aspen since May, 2002, and was former CEO and founder of Custom Steel Inc., a leading supplier of custom fabricated steel products.Aspen also announced that it has appointed Ron Mercer as Vice-President of Operations. Mr. Mercer has been with Aspen since 1999 in various capacities. Aspen has received the resignation of Jack Wheeler as a director and officer of Aspen. Mr. Wheeler has served Aspen in various capacities as Chairman, President, CEO and a director since September of 1999. The Board of Directors of Aspen thank Mr. Wheeler for his years of service and wish him success in his future endeavors.Aspen also announced that it has received a notice of default from its bank with regard to its loan facility. Management of Aspen is actively pursuing resolutions with its bank to rectify the events of default and put the loan back in good standing as soon as possible. For additional information on Aspen Group Resources Corporation visit http://www.asgrc.comAUDIBLE INC: Balance Sheet Insolvency Widens to $11MM at Sept 30----------------------------------------------------------------Audible, Inc. (NASDAQ: ADBL), the leading provider of downloadable spoken word audio that informs and entertains anywhere and any time with audio editions of books, newspapers, magazines, radio programs and original shows, announced results for the quarter ended September 30, 2002. Highlights include: -- Growth to over 182,000 customers, an increase of 79% year over year. -- Audible.com(R) and Apple integrated the iPod and iTunes with Audible's Internet audio service. -- The Audible Internet audio service has been integrated into Palm's new Tungsten T handheld and will also be offered to users of future Palm handhelds. -- The new MSN 8 gives users free trial offers for Audible's downloadable audiobooks. -- Audible.com demonstrated downloads of spoken audio to Windows powered Smartphone. -- Audible.com and Cox High Speed Internet entered into a comarketing partnership. -- Audible.com and Toshiba Cable Modems entered into a comarketing partnership. -- Audible.com and Mac Publishing entered into a wide- ranging distribution and programming partnership. -- Audible.com named one of the \"Best of Today's Web\" by PC World magazine. -- Kenwood's Music Keg, powered by PhatNoise, will ship compatible with Audible's Internet audio service. -- Deloitte and Touche named Audible one of New Jersey's fastest growing technology companies in their \"Fast 50\" program, noting the company's 5,879% growth record over the past five years. At September 30, 2002, Audible recorded a total shareholders' equity deficit of about $11 million.\"In an environment where significant economic growth is a challenge to many companies, Audible has once again exceeded its consumer content growth goals,\" observed Donald Katz, chairman and CEO, Audible, Inc. \"This performance comes in advance of the positive effect of many of the important co-marketing and service bundling relationships the company has struck with leading partners in the broadband, CD-burning, audio device, and retail sectors. \"Perhaps most importantly, our core consumer is no longer drawn from the ranks of early adopters,\" continued Katz. \"The environmental acceptance of concepts such as downloading audio files and burning your own CDs is proving to be a tremendous catalyst as we move closer to profitability. With increased awareness of our audio service, we believe broad customer acceptance of the Audible audio service will emanate from the ranks of any and all consumers who want to make better use of their time.\" Consumer content revenue increased 24% in the third quarter over the prior quarter to $3,002,039. Net loss per share for the third quarter was $0.16. Net cash used during the quarter was $3.1 million. Audible's cash and cash equivalents totaled $3.7 million on September 30, 2002. In related news, Audible, Inc., announced that it has received a Nasdaq Staff Determination letter on October 29, 2002 indicating that the company has failed to comply with Marketplace Rule 4310(C)(8)(D) which required that Audible regain, by October 28, 2002, a minimum bid price for its common stock of $1.00 and with Marketplace Rule 4310(C)(2)(A) which requires that Audible meet the initial inclusion requirements of the Nasdaq SmallCap Market. Specifically, Rule 4310(C)(2)(A) requires that Audible have (i) stockholder's equity of $5 million; (ii) market value of listed securities of $50 million; (iii) $750,000 net income from continuing operations in the most recently completed fiscal year or in two of the last three most recently completed fiscal years. Accordingly, the company's securities are subject to de-listing from the Nasdaq Small Cap Market. Audible will be requesting a hearing before the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel to review the Staff Determination. The request for a hearing will defer the de-listing of Audible's common stock pending a decision by the panel. There can be no assurance that the panel will grant the company's request for continued listing. If the company's common stock is de-listed from the Nasdaq Small Cap Market, the company expects that its common stock would trade on NASD's OTC Bulletin Board. Management sees no negative impact of the potential of moving to OTC on operations or the achievement of growth and profitability. Audible(R) -- http://www.audible.com-- is the Internet's largest, most diverse provider of premium spoken audio services for content download or playback on personal computers or AudibleReady(TM) PC-based mobile devices. Audible has more than 34,000 hours of audio programs and 125 content partners that include leading audiobook publishers, broadcasters, entertainers, magazine and newspaper publishers and business information providers. Audible.com is Amazon.com's -- http://www.amazon.com-- exclusive provider of spoken word products for downloading or streaming via the Web. Additionally, the Company is strategically aligned with Random House, Inc., to pioneer the first-ever imprint to produce spoken word content specifically suited for digital distribution, Random House Audible. Among the Company's key business partners are Apple Corp., Card Access Inc., Casio Inc., Compaq Computer Corporation, Handspring, Hewlett-Packard Company, Microsoft Corporation, Royal Philips Electronics, RealNetworks, Inc., SONICblue Incorporated's Rio Audio Group, Sony Electronics, Texas Instruments and VoiceAge Corp. BCE INC: Closes CDN$2-Billion Public Debt Offering--------------------------------------------------BCE Inc., (TSX, NYSE: BCE) closed a public offering of $300 million 6.20% Series A Notes, $1,050 million 6.75% Series B Notes, and $650 million 7.35% Series C Notes, further to its prospectus supplement dated October 25, 2002 to its August 1, 2002 shelf prospectus filing. Total gross proceeds were $2 billion.BCE is Canada's largest communications company. It has 24 million customer connections through the wireline, wireless, data/Internet and satellite services it provides, largely under the Bell brand. BCE leverages those connections with extensive content creation capabilities through Bell Globemedia which features some of the strongest brands in the industry - CTV, Canada's leading private broadcaster, The Globe and Mail, the leading Canadian daily national newspaper and Sympatico.ca, a leading Canadian Internet portal. As well, BCE has extensive e-commerce capabilities provided under the BCE Emergis brand. BCE shares are listed in Canada, the United States and Europe.BELL CANADA: Disposing of Remaining Assets -- Canbras and Axtel---------------------------------------------------------------As a result of the adoption on July 17, 2002 of the Plan of Arrangement, and the completion of the sale of Bell Canada International Inc.'s (Nasdaq:BCICF) (TSX:BI) interest in Telecom Americas Ltd., on July 24, 2002, BCI's consolidated statements of earnings and cash flows for the third quarter of 2002 reflect only the activities of BCI as a holding company. Axtel S.A de C.V., and Canbras Communications Corp., are recorded under Investments on the balance sheet at the lower of carrying value and estimated net realizable value and their operating results are not reflected on BCI's consolidated statements of earnings. Third Quarter Results Cash on hand during the third quarter increased by $99.6 million reflecting the cash proceeds received to date from the sale of BCI's interest in Telecom Americas of $300.8 million, offset by the repayment of BCI's bank facility in the amount of $174.1 million and corporate interest and overhead expenses. BCI's balance sheet as at September 30, 2002 includes cash of $153.5 million. Current assets also include a note receivable, at an estimated net realizable value of $269.6 million, representing the remaining proceeds to be received on March 1, 2003 from the payment of the balance due under the America Movil S.A. de C.V. note. BCI's interests in Axtel and Canbras are recorded on the balance sheet at $96.6 million. Total liabilities include BCI's 11% senior unsecured notes due September 2004 in the amount of $160 million and accrued liabilities of $29.0 million. Net earnings for the third quarter were $2.2 million, or $0.06 per share, reflecting foreign exchange gains on the America Movil Note received as partial payment for BCI's interest in Telecom Americas, partially offset by corporate overhead and interest expenses and a loss from the early monetization on September 26, 2002 of US$50 million of the America Movil Note. Cash outlays from October 1, 2002 to March 1, 2003 are estimated at approximately $15 million to $20 million including accounts payable, accrued liabilities, net interest and overhead costs. On March 1, 2003, BCI expects to receive the balance of US$170 million due under the America Movil Note. For the last 10 months of 2003, BCI estimates cash outlays (including accounts payable, accrued liabilities, net interest and overhead costs) at approximately $35 million. The foregoing estimates exclude any amounts that may be required to settle contingent liabilities such as law suits, the Vesper guarantees and the Comcel voice over IP claim. Update on Assets Held for Disposition Pursuant to the court approved Plan of Arrangement, BCI is actively seeking to dispose of its remaining assets, Canbras and Axtel. The following is a summary of the third quarter financial and operational results of both companies. -- Canbras' revenues reached $14.8 million in the quarter, up $1.2 million over the third quarter of 2001 driven primarily by cable and internet access subscriber growth partially offset by a devaluation of 20% in the Brazilian real compared to the Canadian dollar. EBITDA was $3.7 million, up $3.2 million over the same quarter last year, primarily due to a reduction in operating expenses driven by the devaluation in the Brazilian real and higher revenues. Debt at the end of the period was $35 million. As existing cash and cash generated from operations are not expected to be sufficient to meet current liabilities over the next 12 months, Canbras is pursing refinancing alternatives as well as new sources of financing. There can be no assurance that such refinancing alternatives or any new financing can be arranged on acceptable terms or at all. -- Axtel's revenues were $95.8 million for the quarter, an increase of $1.9 million over the third quarter of 2001 driven by higher revenue per subscriber. EBITDA reached $26.9 million, up $16.6 million over the same quarter last year due primarily to reduced general and administrative expenses. Debt at the end of the period was $839 million. Axtel is pursing refinancing alternatives as well as new sources of financing. For example, Axtel is currently in discussions with its major supplier with respect to the terms of its supply and financing contracts. There can be no assurance that such refinancing or any new financing can be arranged on acceptable terms or at all. Plan of Arrangement Update -- The court-appointed monitor Ernst & Young Inc., is in discussions with BCI and BCI's stakeholders in order to formulate a recommendation to the court on the process of identifying and determining claims against BCI. A final recommendation is expected to be approved before year-end 2002. BCI is operating under a court supervised Plan of Arrangement, pursuant to which BCI intends to monetize its assets in an orderly fashion and resolve outstanding claims against it in an expeditious manner with the ultimate objective of distributing the net proceeds to its stakeholders and dissolving the company. BCI is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol BI and on the NASDAQ National Market under the symbol BCICF. Visit its Web site at http://www.bci.ca BORDEN CHEMICALS: Wants Lease Decision Time Extended to April 24----------------------------------------------------------------For the fifth time, Borden Chemicals and Plastics Operating Limited Partnership and its debtor-affiliates, ask the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to extend their lease decision period. The Debtors tell the Court that they need until April 24, 2003 to decide whether to assume, assume and assign, or reject all unexpired nonresidential real property leases.In connection with the conduct of its business, BCP may be a party to various unexpired nonresidential real property leases. The Debtors have indicated that they have been considering various strategic alternatives, including sales of substantially all of its assets. Consequently, the Debtors obtained Court's approval for the sale of its PVC and VCM/E Plants located at its now-idled Geismar Facility. The Debtors point out that potential purchasers of BCP's remaining assets may be interested in having the Debtors assume some or all unexpired leases associated with remaining assets and assign them to the purchasers. With respect to the sale of the Debtors' remaining assets, the Debtors and potential purchasers require additional time to coordinate their separate and cooperative analyses of these issues and negotiate a mutually acceptable strategy. Although the Debtors and their professionals have worked diligently and continuously toward finalizing various possible transactions, the process described in the Bidding Procedures will extend beyond the current deadline. Borden Chemicals and Plastics Operating Limited Partnership, producer PVC resins, filed for chapter 11 protection on April 3, 2001. Michael Lastowski, Esq., at Duane, Morris, & Hecksher represents the Debtors in their restructuring efforts.BUDGET GROUP: Court OKs Young Conaway as Local Delaware Counsel---------------------------------------------------------------Budget Group Inc., sought and obtained approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to employ Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP as local Delaware counsel to perform legal services that will be necessary during these Chapter 11 cases.The Debtors will compensate Young Conaway on an hourly basis, and reimburse the firm for actual, necessary expenses and other charges incurred. The principal attorneys and paralegals presently designated to represent the Debtors and their currentstandard hourly rates include: Robert S. Brady - $400 Edward J. Kosmowski - $280 Edmon L. Morton - $280 Joseph A. Malfitano - $260 Matthew B. Lunn - $220 Thomas Hartzell (paralegal) - $135As legal counsel, Young Conaway will:A. provide legal advice with respect to the powers and duties as debtors in possession in the continued operation of their businesses and management of their properties;B. prepare and pursue confirmation of a plan of reorganization and approval of a disclosure statement;C. prepare, on behalf of the Debtors, necessary applications, motions, answers, orders, reports and other legal papers;D. appear in Court and protect the Debtors' interests before the Court; andE. perform all other legal services for the Debtors, which may be necessary and proper in these proceedings.Robert S. Brady, a partner at Young Conaway, tells the Court that the Firm received a $148,220 retainer in connection with planning and preparation of initial documents for filing the Debtors' Chapter 11 cases. A portion of this amount has been applied to prepetition fees and expenses, including the Chapter 11 filing fees. Young Conaway will hold the balance as security for postpetition fees and expenses. (Budget Group Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 10; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900) DebtTraders reports that Borden Chemical & Plastics' 9.500% bonds due 2005 (BCPU05USR1) are trading between 0.5 and 2. See http://www.debttraders.com/price.cfm?dt_sec_ticker=BCPU05USR1 for real-time bond pricing.CALPINE: Receives $22MM from Nevada Power for Past-Due Payments--------------------------------------------------------------- Calpine Corporation (NYSE: CPN) has received approximately $22 million from Las Vegas-based Nevada Power Company for all outstanding payables owed to Calpine for power deliveries Calpine made to Nevada Power during the period of May 1, 2002 through September 15, 2002. Calpine provides power and other ancillary services to Nevada Power through a variety of short-term contracts.In April 2002, Nevada Power requested that its power suppliers extend payment terms to help overcome the utility's short-term liquidity problems. Subsequently, Nevada Power withheld a significant portion of the power payments owed to Calpine for power deliveries during the period from May 1, 2002 through September 15, 2002.Although Nevada Power was no longer meeting its full payment obligations, Calpine continued to deliver much needed electricity to Nevada Power customers during the hot summer months, when power demand is at its highest.Curt Hildebrand, Calpine vice president, stated, \"Calpine recognizes that with a vital product like electricity, customers require a reliable energy provider. Calpine continues to demonstrate our long-term commitment to the Nevada power market by continuing to provide a dependable source of electricity to Nevada Power customers.\"Based in San Jose, Calif., Calpine Corporation is an independent power company that is dedicated to providing wholesale and industrial customers with clean, efficient, natural gas-fired power generation. It generates and markets power through plants it develops, owns and operates in 23 states in the United States, three provinces in Canada and in the United Kingdom. Calpine also is the world's largest producer of renewable geothermal energy, and it owns approximately 1.0 trillion cubic feet equivalent of proved natural gas reserves in Canada and the United States. The company was founded in 1984 and is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol CPN. Formore information about Calpine, visit its Web site at http://www.calpine.com * * *As reported in the April 3, 2002 issue of the Troubled Company Reporter, Standard & Poor's lowered its corporate credit rating on Calpine Corp., to double-'B' from double-'B'-plus. The outlook is stable. At the same time, Standard & Poor's lowered its rating on Calpine's senior unsecured debt to single-'B'-plus from double-'B'-plus, two notches below the corporate credit rating; its rating on the \"SLOBS\" (Tiverton/Rumford and Southpoint/Broad River/Rockgen) to double-'B' from double-'B'-plus; and its rating on the convertible preferred stock to single-'B' from single-'B'-plus.DebtTraders reports that Calpine Corp.'s 10.500% bonds due 2006 (CPN06USR2) are trading between 37 and 39. See http://www.debttraders.com/price.cfm?dt_sec_ticker=CPN06USR2for real-time bond pricing.CEDARA SOFTWARE: Will Publish First Quarter Results on Nov. 22--------------------------------------------------------------Cedara Software Corp., (TSX:CDE/NASDAQ:CDSW) a leading provider of medical imaging software, will release the financial results for its first quarter after close of market on Friday, November 22, 2002. The Company will hold a conference call on Monday,November 25, 2002 at 11:00 a.m. EST to discuss first quarter performance and to provide an update by Cedara's recently appointed CEO, Abe Schwartz. Conference Call DetailsThe conference call can be accessed via audio webcast by visiting http://www.cedara.com/investors/index.htmlor by going to http://www.cedara.comand clicking on \"Investors\". Participants in the conference call are asked to dial 416-695-5806 or 1-800-273-9672, five to ten minutes prior to the November 25, 2002, 11:00 a.m. start of the teleconference to participate in the call. Please note the revised conference call time of 11:00 a.m. and not 4:00 p.m. This conference call will be recorded and will be available on instant replay at the end of the call, until midnight December 20, 2002. To listen to thereplay, please dial 416-695-5800 or 1-800-408-3053, and enter pass code 1300056. Cedara Software Corp. Annual MeetingCedara Software Corp., also announced it will convene its annualmeeting of shareholders on Tuesday November 26, 2002 at 3:00 p.m. EST at the Sheraton Centre Hotel, Essex Ballroom, 123 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario. The doors will open at 2:30 p.m. for product demonstrations and refreshments.Cedara Software Corp., is a leading provider of medical imaging software serving healthcare solution providers world-wide and is positioned to deliver sustainable software value to its Original Equipment Manufacturer and Value Added Reseller partners. Cedara's software enables healthcare devices and information technology to perform medical imaging, image distribution, diagnostic review and therapy guidance.As of March 31, 2002, Cedara posted a working capital deficit of about $4.7 million and a shareholders' equity deficit of $10 million.CLUBCORP INC: S&P Keeping Watch on B+ Corporate Credit Rating ------------------------------------------------------------- Standard & Poor's Ratings Services has placed its single-'B'-plus corporate credit rating on ClubCorp Inc., on CreditWatch with negative implications, based on the company's weaker-than-expected third quarter operating performance, its modest covenant cushion, and limited liquidity. Dallas, Texas-based ClubCorp is the largest owner and operator of golf and business clubs and destination golf resorts in the world. The company operates 119 country clubs, golf clubs and public golf facilities, three destination golf resorts and 77 business and sports clubs located in 30 states and five countries. As of September 3, 2002, ClubCorp had $674.2 million of debt outstanding.\"The CreditWatch listing reflects uncertainty regarding ClubCorp's level of earnings and its ability to deliver expected operating performance amid a soft economy,\" said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Andy Liu. Liquidity for the company is tight. ClubCorp has some borrowing availability remaining on its revolving credit facility, and the access to capital market is limited. The company's performance has been adversely affected by the soft economy and negative travel trends. Memberships and golf rounds at its business/sports clubs and golf facilities declined, and the travel slump pressured occupancy rates at its resort properties. Operating performance is expected to remain weak for the medium term until the economy strengthens. On the other hand, the company has made significant progress in divesting under-performing and non-core properties. In resolving the CreditWatch, Standard & Poor's will assess ClubCorp's near-term operating outlook, including cost reduction efforts; refinancing plans regarding its bank loans; and any non-core asset divestitures that the company may undertake. CORVUS INVESTMENTS: Fitch Keeping Watch on Low B-Rated Classes--------------------------------------------------------------Fitch Ratings has placed the following classes of notes issued by Corvus Investments Ltd., and Taunton CDO Ltd., on Rating Watch Negative: Corvus Investments Ltd. -- $200,000,000 class A-2 fixed-rate notes due 2030 'AAA'; -- $65,000,000 class B floating-rate notes due 2030 'AA'; -- $60,000,000 class C floating-rate notes due 2030 'A'; -- $40,000,000 class D floating-rate notes due 2030 'BBB'; -- $25,000,000 class E floating-rate notes due 2030 'BB'; -- $10,000,000 class F fixed-rate notes due 2030 'B'. Taunton CDO Ltd. -- $26,000,000 class B floating-rate notes due 2031 'AA'; -- $24,000,000 class C floating-rate notes due 2031 'A'; -- $16,000,000 class D floating-rate notes due 2031 'BBB'; -- $10,000,000 class E floating-rate notes due 2031 'BB'; -- $4,000,000 class F fixed-rate notes due 2031 'B'. Continued deterioration in the credit quality of their reference pools, coupled with a number of reference obligations that have become subjects of credit events as well as the potential for physical delivery of reference obligations that are currently deferring interest (PIKing) to the trusts, have increased the credit risk of both transactions to a point where their risk may no longer be consistent with their ratings. The physical delivery of PIKing reference obligations would reduce the notional amount of the credit default swaps, thus reducing current incoming cash flows. As of Sept. 30, 2002, Corvus Investments Ltd. had a Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF) of 37.05 versus a trigger of 32. Taunton CDO Ltd. had a WARF of 37.93 versus a trigger of 32. Reference obligations that were subjects of credit events represented 3.5% and 8.25% of the total reference pool of Corvus Investments Ltd. and Taunton CDO Ltd., respectively. Both transactions were failing their E and F OC tests, with Taunton CDO Ltd. also failing its D OC test. Fitch is currently reviewing these transactions in detail. Appropriate action will ensue upon completion of its analysis. Both Corvus Investments Ltd., and Taunton CDO Ltd., are Collateralized Debt Obligations that may have characteristics of both synthetic and cash flow CDOs. At issuance, both transactions entered into separate credit default swaps with Barclays Bank PLC as the swap counterparty. In its capacity as such, Barclays has the option to settle each swap (in whole or in part), in which case the respective transactions could become cash flow CDOs. As of Sept. 30, 2002, both Corvus Investments Ltd. and Taunton CDO Ltd. did not hold any physical assets in their portfolios. Both transactions' reference pools primarily consisted of RMBS, CDO, and CMBS securities.ENRON CORP: Saeger, et. al. Gets OK to Hire Manatt as Counsel-------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP was previouslyretained -- at Enron Corporation and its debtor-affiliates' expense -- to represent Rex Rogers.Four other Enron employees: -- Elizabeth Saeger, -- John Lavorato, -- Jeffrey Hodge, and -- Mark Taylor.are being asked by the government agencies to give testimony orinformation as witnesses about the Debtors.Judge Arthur Gonzalez of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York permits Manatt, Phelps &Phillips to, at the Debtors' expense, serve as counsel to thefour employees, nunc pro tunc to March 29, 2002.As the four employees' representative, Manatt and its clientswill enter into retainer agreements as required by the Districtof Columbia Court of Appeals' rules of ethics. Either party have the right to terminate the relationship in accordance to the terms of the agreements.Manatt's current regular hourly rates for its professionals who will handle the case are: Michael Rauh $475 Lindsey W. Cooper, Jr. 230Manatt will seek payment from the Debtors of legal fees and disbursement of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses in its representation of the employees with respect to the investigation, consistent with the Fee Orders. (Enron Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 46; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)ENRON CORP: Employee Committee Encouraged by Fastow's Indictment----------------------------------------------------------------The following is the statement of Richard D. Rathvon, co-chair of the Enron Employment Related Issues Committee, regarding the federal indictment brought Thursday against former Enron CFO Andrew Fastow, thus: \"The Employee Committee is encouraged that the authorities are taking aggressive action against those who mismanaged Enron into bankruptcy. The indictment against Mr. Fastow, the previous freezing of his assets, the plea of former Fastow aide Michael Kopper, all represent additional steps down the path to justice for former Enron employees hurt by the bankruptcy. \"Current and former Enron employees can be reassured by the indictment against Mr. Fastow that justice is moving forward. And they can be reassured that the Employee Committee continues to pursue justice and fairness down additional paths that will hopefully lead to the recovery of an additional $80 million for severed employees who opted-in to the settlement agreement approved by the bankruptcy court in August. \"Under terms of the Severance Settlement Agreement reached with Enron and approved by the Bankruptcy Court in August, the Committee will do all within its scope to recover the $80 million or more we believe to have been wrongfully distributed or received. Under terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Employee Committee will redistribute recovered bonus money to severed employees who opted-in to the settlement.\"Employees interested in more details of the Settlement agreement and the pursuit of retention bonuses should visit http://www.employeecommittee.com The Employee Committee is an official committee appointed by the United States Trustee charged with representing the collective interests of all current, former and retired employees of Enron in Enron's bankruptcy case. The Employee Committee serves as a strong advocate for the interests of former and current Enron employees during the bankruptcy process. Members of the committee were selected by the trustee and the make-up of the committee was designed to reflect the broad diversity of Enron's current and former workforce. The Committee is working to provide employees with timely, accurate information on the status of the bankruptcy case.EOTT ENERGY: U.S. Trustee Appoints Unsecured Creditors Committee----------------------------------------------------------------Pursuant to Sections 1102(a) and 1102(b)(1) of the BankruptcyCode, United States Trustee for Region 7 Richard W. Simmons names four eligible creditors of EOTT Energy Partners, L.P., and its debtor-affiliates, to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors:1. John Robert Chambers, Chairman Lehman Energy Fund 600 Travis, Ste 7330 Houston, Texas 77002 E-mail: [email protected] . Timothy S. Collins Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. 720 E. Wisconsin Ave. Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 E-mail: [email protected] . Keith Chan The Dreyfus Corporation 200 Park Ave. New York, New York 10166 E-mail: [email protected] . Derek Schrier Farallon Capital Management, LLC One Maratime Plaza, Ste, 1325 San Francisco, California 94111 E-mail: [email protected] (EOTT Energy Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 4; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)DebtTRaders that Eott Energy Partners/Fin.'s 11.000% bonds due 2009 (EOT09USR1) are trading between 57 and 59. See http://www.debttraders.com/price.cfm?dt_sec_ticker=EOT09USR1for real-time bond pricing.EUROSTAR I CDO: Fitch Cuts Class A-3 & B Note Ratings to B+/CC--------------------------------------------------------------Fitch Ratings, the international rating agency, has taken the following actions on Eurostar I CDO Notes, a collateralized debt obligation backed predominantly by high yield bonds. Securities downgraded and removed from Rating Watch Negative are: -- Class A-3 notes to 'B+' from 'A-'; -- Class B notes to 'CC' from 'CCC'. The following securities have been affirmed and removed from Rating Watch Negative: -- Class A-1 and A-2: 'AAA'; -- Class C 'CC'. Fitch's downgrades reflect the deterioration in credit quality of the portfolio: the portfolio contains nine defaulted assets with a total par value of EUR40.5 million and seven 'CCC' or below rated assets with a total par value of EUR33.89m. The weighted average Fitch rating of the current portfolio is B+ (excluding defaulted assets). The downgrade of class B is also due to the fact that class B is currently deferring interest, thus increasing its principal balance. Due to the failure of the overcollateralisation tests, interest proceeds have been diverted from class B and C notes to pay down EUR13.19m of the class A-1 and A-2 notes. This mechanism has improved the credit quality of the class A-1 and A-2 notes and allowed Fitch to affirm their ratings. Interest proceeds will continue being diverted until such time that the coverage tests are back into compliance. In June 2000, Stichting EuroStar I CDO, a Dutch foundation, issued EUR306.31m of various classes of fixed- and floating-rate notes and invested the proceeds in a portfolio of sub-investment grade debt securities. EXTENDED STAY: Amends Bank Credit Facility to Ensure Flexibility----------------------------------------------------------------Extended Stay America, Inc. (NYSE:ESA), a leading provider of extended stay lodging, has amended its $900 million bank credit facility to provide flexibility to accelerate the pace of development of new hotels as market conditions warrant. The amendment modifies certain definitions and increases the total leverage covenant from 4.50 to 5.00 for the period from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2004, and from 4.50 to 4.75 for the period from April 1, 2004, to June 30, 2004. The leverage covenant returns to the previously scheduled level of 4.50 beginning July 1, 2004. The amendment retains the existing pricing grid which provides for increases to the interest rate on outstanding loans under the credit facility by 0.25% if total leverage is greater than or equal to 4.25 or by 0.75% if total leverage is greater than or equal to 4.75. George D. Johnson, Jr., CEO, commented, \"With the projected decline in the rate of supply of new hotel rooms for the next few years, we strongly believe that now is the time to prudently accelerate our pace of development and thereby further increase our industry-leading market share by having additional hotels in operation as the economy recovers.\" Extended Stay America currently owns and operates 452 hotels under the Extended StayAmerica, StudioPLUS, and Crossland brands. The Company currently has 16 hotels under construction. The Company plans to increase the number of sites upon which it will commence construction during the fourth quarter from 9 to 16 sites, which would increase the total number of construction starts for 2002 from 24 to 31 sites with total development costs of approximately $250 million. Depending on a number of factors including improvements in the overall U.S. economy, improvements in demand for lodging products in the overall lodging industry, and improvements in demand for the Company's extended stay lodging, the Company plans to commence construction on 31 sites in 2003 with total development costs of approximately $270 million and has identified 10 additional sites with total development costs of approximately $86 million for which construction could commence in 2003. The Company will continue to seek the necessary approvals and permits for additional sites and may seek to increase the number of construction starts in the future. At June 30, 2002, Extended Stay America's balance sheets show that its total current liabilities exceeded its total current assets by about $31 million.FINET.COM INC: Fails to Maintain Nasdaq Listing Requirements------------------------------------------------------------FiNet.com, Inc., (Nasdaq:FNCM), and its wholly owned subsidiaries, have received a Nasdaq determination letter dated October 23, 2002. The Company also announced its consolidated third quarter financial results for the three-month period ended September 30, 2002. Nasdaq Determination Letter The Nasdaq determination letter notifies the Company that it has failed to comply with either the minimum $2,000,000 net tangible assets or the minimum $2,500,000 stockholders' equity requirements for continued listing as set forth in Marketplace rule 4310(c)(2)(B). The letter states that as a result of its failure to maintain the minimum requirements, the Company's securities will be delisted from The Nasdaq SmallCap Market at the opening of business on October 31, 2002. Once delisted, the Company expects that its stock will trade on the Nasdaq-operated Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board. There can be no assurance that there will be a market maker for the Company's securities or that an active market will develop. Third Quarter Financial Results Revenues for the three-month period ended September 30, 2002 decreased 40%, or $1.2 million, to $1.8 million compared to the three-month period ended June 30, 2002. Revenues remained constant compared to the three-month period ended September 30, 2001. The decrease in revenues is primarily attributable to a substantial decrease in loan settlements during the three-month period ended September 30, 2002. The business-to-business segment decreased loan production by 17%, to $43.8 million, compared to $52.9 million for the three-month period ended June 30, 2002. The business-to-business segment's relative contribution to total loan production remained the same compared to the three-month period ended June 30, 2002. Loan settlements for the three-month period ended September 30, 2002 decreased to $39.0 million, a decrease of 39%, compared to $64.1 million for the three-month period ended June 30, 2002. Gross margin for the three-month period ended September, 2002 decreased to negative $0.2 million from $1.0 million from the prior three month period ended June 30, 2002, and decreased 133%, or $0.8 million, compared to the three-month period ended September 30, 2001. The decrease in gross margin is attributable to a 39% decrease in loan settlements. Loss from operations for the three-month period ended September 30, 2002 increased by 180%, or $1.8 million, to $2.8 million compared to $1.0 million for the three-month period ended June 30, 2002 and increased by 27%, or $0.6 million compared to the three-month period ended September 30, 2001. Other Financial Highlights Net loss available to common stockholders for the three-month period ended September 30, 2002 increased 167%, or $2.5 million, to $4.0 million compared to the three-month period ended June 30, 2002, and increased 82%, or $1.8 million, from $2.2 million compared to the three-month period ended September 30, 2001. Net loss also included a write-off amount of $0.9 million representing the remaining equity balance of FiNet's Equity-Method Investee. FiNet's senior management along with its Board of Directors made a determination that a decline in fair value of its investment occurred and it is other-than-temporary. Net loss per share for the three-month period ended September 30, 2002 was $0.42 per share, compared to a net loss of $0.18 per share in the three-month period ended June 30, 2002 and compared to a net loss of $0.23 per share in the three month period ended September 30, 2001. The total cash position of the Company as of September 30, 2002 was $2.3 million, of which $1.0 million was immediately available and $1.3 million was restricted. At September 30, 2002, FiNet.com's balance sheets show a total shareholders' equity deficit of about $2.4 million.FiNet.com, Inc., is a financial services holding company. Monument Mortgage, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary conducts diversified mortgage banking and brokering operations and is a provider of both traditional and online mortgage services to a diversified customer base consisting of mortgage lenders, mortgage brokers, real estate agents and consumers. Monument Mortgage offers its services to mortgage broker businesses through http://www.monument.comand to real estate broker businesses and to consumers through http://www.homewardsolutions.comand http://www.finet.com GENTEK INC: Seeks Approval to Hire Ordinary Course Professionals----------------------------------------------------------------GenTek Inc., and its debtor-affiliates want to continue the employment and retention of various attorneys, accountants and other professionals in matters arising in the ordinary course of their businesses and unrelated to these Chapter 11 cases, while they operate as debtors-in-possession under the Bankruptcy Code. Consistent with the dimensions of these cases and the geographic diversity of the Debtors' businesses, the Debtors will employ the Ordinary Course Professionals on terms substantially similar to those in effect before the Petition Date.Mark S. Chehi, Esq., at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, explains that the continued employment of these ordinary course professionals will enable the Debtors to continue normal business activities that are essential to their stabilization and reorganization efforts. On the contrary, Mr. Chehi notes that the administration of the Debtors' estates would be severely hindered if the Debtors were required to: (a) submit to the Court an application, affidavit and proposed retention order for each Ordinary Course Professional; (b) wait until an order is approved before any Ordinary Course Professional continues to render services; and (c) withhold payment of the normal fees and expenses of the Ordinary Course Professionals until they comply with the compensation and reimbursement procedures applicable to professionals retain to do Chapter 11-related tasks.Under these conditions, Mr. Chehi points out that there is asignificant risk that some Ordinary Course Professionals would be unwilling to provide services, and that others would suspendservices pending a specific order authorizing the services.Since many of the matters are active on a day-to-day basis, anydelay or need to replace professionals could have significantadverse consequences. Moreover, requiring the Ordinary CourseProfessionals to file retention pleadings and participate in thepayment approval process along with the Chapter 11 Professionalswould unnecessarily burden the Clerk's Office, the Court and theOffice of the United States Trustee, while adding significantlyto the administrative costs of these cases without anycorresponding benefit to the Debtors' estates.Nevertheless, recognizing the importance of providing information regarding Ordinary Course Professionals to the Court and the United States Trustee, the Debtors propose these retention procedures: -- Each Ordinary Course Professional will be required to file with the Court a declaration of proposed professional and disclosure statement within 30 days after the Court approves this Motion. The Ordinary Course Professional will serve the disclosure to: * the U.S. Trustee; * the counsel for any official committees to be appointed; * the counsel to the Debtors' secured lenders; and * the counsel for the Debtors; -- After serving the required Declaration, the U.S. Trustee, the Committee and the Lenders will have 20 days to object to the retention of an Ordinary Course Professional; -- Any objection must be filed with the Court on or before the Objection Deadline and served to: * the Ordinary Course Professional; * the U.S. Trustee; * the counsel to the Committee; * counsel to the Lenders; and * the counsel to the Debtors; -- If any objection cannot be resolved and withdrawn within 20 days after the service, the matter will be scheduled for hearing before the Court; and -- If no objection is received by the Objection Deadline, or if an objection is withdrawn, the Debtors will be authorized to retain the Ordinary Course Professional as a final matter without further order of the Court.The Debtors also seek the Court's consent to retain additionalOrdinary Course Professionals, as future circumstances require,without the need to file individual retention applications orprovide further hearing or notice to any party. In hiring newOrdinary Course Professionals, the Debtors suggest to the Courtthese procedures: -- The Debtors will only file a supplement to the current list of Ordinary Course Professionals with the Court and serve a copy of the Supplement to: * the U.S. Trustee; * the counsel for the Committee; and * the counsel to the Lenders. -- As with the Ordinary Course Professionals, each Additional Ordinary Course Professional will be required to file and serve a Declaration within 30 days after the filing of the Supplement; -- The U.S Trustee, the Committee and the Lenders then would be given 20 days after service of each required Declaration to object to the retention of the Additional Ordinary Course Professional in question; and -- If no objection is submitted, or the objection is withdrawn, the Debtors would be authorized to retain the Additional Ordinary Course Professional as a final matter without further order.In consideration for an Ordinary Course Professional's services,the Debtors will implement these guidelines for payment of feesand expenses of an Ordinary Course Professional: -- The Debtors will pay, without formal application to the Court by any Ordinary Course Professional, fees and expenses not exceeding a total of $30,000 per month, for each Ordinary Course Professional. The Debtors also propose that aggregate monthly payments to all Ordinary Course Professionals be limited to $300,000, unless additional payments are authorized by the Court; -- If a Professional's fee exceed an average of $30,000 per month, any payments to a particular Ordinary Course Professional would become subject to court approval; -- However, any contingent fee amounts received by the Ordinary Course Professionals from recoveries realized on the Debtors' behalf, are exempted from the monthly limitations. The limitations would apply only to direct disbursements by the Debtors; -- The monthly allowance for fees and expenses of Ordinary Course Professionals be applied on an average \"rolling\" basis. If any professional's fees and expenses: (a) are in any month less than $30,000, the remainder of the monthly allowance will be made available for payment to that professional during subsequent months, in addition to the monthly allowance amount; and (b) exceed $30,000 -- plus any unused amounts from prior months -- in any month, the Debtors will pay no more than $30,000 -- plus any unused amounts from prior months. The Debtors will roll the average into following months, when it can be paid if the fees and expenses in those months are less than the allowance amount; and -- The Debtors believe that there are certain Ordinary Course Professionals that may be allowed to a monthly cap in excess of the $30,000 standard. In this case, the Debtors will seek the agreement of the U.S. Trustee, the Committee and the Lenders to a higher cap, not exceeding $75,000, for any Ordinary Course Professional who will exceed $30,000. (a) If the Debtors are able to obtain their agreement to a higher cap, the agreement would be evidenced by the filing of a notice of increased cap amount; and (b) In the absence of an agreement, the $30,000 cap will be enforced.The Debtors intend to file a payment summary statement with theCourt every 120 days and to serve the statement to the U.S.Trustee, the Committee's and the Lenders' respective counsels.The summary statement will include this information for eachOrdinary Course Professional: (i) the name of the Ordinary Course Professional; (ii) the aggregate amounts paid as compensation for services rendered and reimbursement of expenses incurred by that Ordinary Course Professional during the statement period; and(iii) a general description of the services rendered by that Ordinary Course Professional.Mr. Chehi assures the Court that, although certain of theOrdinary Course Professionals may hold unsecured claims againstthe Debtors, these Ordinary Course Professionals have no interest materially adverse to the Debtors, their estates, creditors or shareholders. (GenTek Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 3; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)GLOBAL CROSSING: Urges Court to Approve Settlement with Fusion--------------------------------------------------------------Paul M. Basta, Esq., at Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, in New York,recounts that in November 2000, Global Crossing Ltd., and its debtor-affiliates, entered into an agreement with Financial Fusion Inc. to develop and license certain software. The Software was designed to support a comprehensive program to facilitate the exchange of information, particularly buy and sell orders relating to stock purchases and other securities, between broker/traders and accountants at financial institutions. The Service would act as a critical link between front office and back office transaction, payment and settlement systems for financial institutions.During the course of the Software's development, it becameapparent that both the Debtors and Fusion neither had theresources nor the expertise to bring the Service to market. As a result, the Debtors and Fusion sought a business partner whoseprofessional relationships with financial institutions could beleveraged to implement the Service. They identified the Societyof Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications SCRL -- SWIFT -- as an ideal business partner for bringing the Service to the market. Swift has strong relationships with many financial institutions and is in the business of implementing software and services to facilitate the management and operation of financial institutions.On November 28, 2001, Mr. Basta informs the Court that theDebtors, Fusion and Swift entered into a strategic cooperationagreement whereby the Service could be implemented and brought to market. The Agreement provided that the Debtors' rights in the Software would be modified to grant Swift rights to use theSoftware to develop and operate the Service. Additionally, under the Agreement, the Debtors were required to:-- provide Swift on-site resources to perform system and network administration for Swift's data center in Culpepper, Virginia;-- transfer title to the Hosting Assets to Swift; and-- reimburse Swift up to $100,000 for hosting the Service.Under the Agreement, Swift and Fusion agreed to pay the Debtors$2,000,000, payable on December 31, 2002, with an additional$3,000,000 to be paid out as a percentage of future revenuesgenerated by the Service.To date, the Debtors have incurred $790,000 in costs in itsefforts to develop the Service and fulfill its obligations underthe Agreement. In order perform its outstanding obligationsunder the Agreement, the Debtors anticipate that it would incurat least an additional $800,000 in expenses through the end of2002.The Debtors does not believe that it is in its best interests tocontinue to develop and operate the Service or to perform itsother obligations under the Agreement. As a result of theDebtors' Chapter 11 cases, Mr. Basta reminds the Court that theDebtors have revised their business plan to concentrate onproviding core network services and connectivity for customersbetween the top 200 cities in the world. Under their currentbusiness plan, the Debtors are neither pursuing plans under which they would install, monitor and maintain telecommunications equipment at individual customer locations, nor are they involved in the development of software for the financial industry or any other customer group.As a result of this change in business strategy and theconcomitant downsizing in the Debtors' employee base, Mr. Bastarelates that the Debtors do not currently employ the personnelwith the requisite expertise or have the resources that arerequired to develop and support the Service. To complete theinstallation of the Hosting Assets at the Virginia Site andimplement and market the Service, the Debtors would have to hirenew employees with the necessary skills. Hiring these personneland deploying additional resources would place an unduly largeburden -- in terms of operating and capital expenditures -- onthe Debtors in light of their current business strategy.Accordingly, the Parties have agreed to terminate the Debtors'involvement in the Agreement and to relieve the Debtors of anyfurther obligations under the Agreement, as set forth in asettlement agreement dated August 27, 2002.The salient terms of the Settlement Agreement are:-- On or before January 15, 2003, Swift will pay to the Debtors $950,000;-- All the Debtors' obligations to Fusion and Swift under the Agreement, and all obligations of Swift and Fusion to the Debtors under the Agreement, will terminate and will be deemed to be fully and finally satisfied and of no further force and effect;-- Certain obligations contained in the Agreement will remain in full force and effect. Any transfer of intellectual property from the Debtors to Swift that has taken place prior to the Settlement Agreement, including transfer of rights to the Software, will be unaffected by the termination of the Agreement;-- As soon as the Settlement is approved, the Debtors will no longer be a party to the Agreement;-- The Debtors and Fusion agree that Swift's right to use the Software will remain valid and in force, and neither party will seek to further amend this consent in any way that will limit Swift's or Fusion's rights under Agreement;-- Each of Fusion and Swift on the one hand, and the Debtors on the other hand, release and discharge the other from, and irrevocably and unconditionally waive, any and all claims, causes of actions, actions, suits, debts, dues, sums of money, accounting reckonings, bonds, bills, specialties, controversies, agreements, promises, various trespasses, damages, judgments, extent executions and demands whatsoever which the releasing party could have asserted against the released party arising under the Agreement, subject only to the rights expressly granted to the respective Parties under the Settlement Agreement; and-- The Debtors affirm that all right, title and interest in the Hosting Assets at the Virginia Site passed to Swift effective July 18, 2002, free and clear of any liens. The Hosting Assets constitute certain assets provided and installed by the Debtors at the Virginia Site for the Service pursuant to its obligations under the Agreement.The purpose of this affirmation in the Settlement Agreement is to record the fact that the Debtors have complied with itsobligations and acknowledge that from the Transfer Date forward,all responsibility for and risk in the Hosting Assets passed toSwift.The Debtors ask the Court to approve the Settlement Agreement with Swift and Fusion, pursuant to Rule 9019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.Mr. Basta contends that the Settlement Agreement is fair andequitable, falls well within the range of reasonableness, andenables the parties to avoid the costs of litigation to resolveoutstanding issues arising from the Debtors' performance underthe Agreement. Termination of the Agreement enables the Debtorsto cover costs, earn a profit, and be relieved of an obligationto develop and market a product in a field that is not part oftheir current business plan.Under the Settlement Agreement, Mr. Basta points out that theDebtors will recoup the $790,000 in costs already expended, andearn a $160,000 profit for its efforts under the Agreement. TheDebtors estimate they would need to spend at least an additional$800,000 to complete their obligations under the Agreement.(Global Crossing Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 25; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900) DebtTraders reports that Global Crossing Holdings Ltd.'s 9.625% bonds due 2008 (GBLX08USR1) are trading between 1.625 and 1.875. For real-time bond pricing, see http://www.debttraders.com/price.cfm?dt_sec_ticker=GBLX08USR1 GOODYEAR TIRE: Underperformance Prompts S&P to Cut Rating to BB+ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Standard & Poor's Ratings Services placed its double-'B'-plus corporate credit rating on Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., on CreditWatch with negative implications due to concern over Goodyear's financial performance relative to expectations and the likely need to dedicate substantial near-term cash flow to address its underfunded pension benefit obligation. Akron, Ohio-based Goodyear is the world's largest tire manufacturer, supplying products to both the replacement and original equipment markets. The company's total debt, unadjusted for operating leases or trade receivables securitization, totaled $3.6 billion at September 30, 2002, including $687 million of debt due within one year. \"The CreditWatch listing follows the announcement of third-quarter 2002 results showing EBIT underperformance, relative to Standard & Poor's expectations, due largely to disappointing results in the North American tire segment,\" said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Nancy C. Messer. Although the company's other six operating segments reported improved operating income for the third quarter year-over-year, the North American tire segment accounts for 50% of Goodyear's sales, 30% of income, and over 40% of assets. Standard & Poor's is concerned about the adequacy of the company's ongoing restructuring actions to improve revenues and margins in the North American segment over the near term. In addition, the company indicated that its underfunded benefit obligation is estimated to total $2 billion at year-end 2002, compared with $1 billion at December 31, 2001, due to the decline in market valuation of the plan assets.Goodyear has reported disappointing financial results in recent years for a number of reasons, including competitive pricing conditions; product shortages; mix shifts; and depressed demand in key markets. Increased debt levels resulting from the 1999 alliance with Sumitomo Rubber Industries Ltd. made Goodyear especially vulnerable to profit pressures. Standard & Poor's is concerned that credit protection measures may not improve in the near term to a level commensurate with the ratings, specifically lease- adjusted debt to capital near 50% and funds from operations to debt in the 25%-30% range. Standard & Poor's expects to resolve the CreditWatch listing after meeting with management and completing further analysis of the company's operational, product mix, and pricing strategies; end-market demand; and pension obligation funding strategy. Standard & Poor's will review the company's prospective covenant compliance. Goodyear had cash balances of $595 million at Sept. 30, 2002, but cash contributions for pension funding requirements that could be in excess of the company's free cash flow, an accounts receivable securitization program that requires the company to maintain a 'BB' corporate credit rating, and significant near-term debt.GWIN INC: Moore Stephens Expresses Going Concern Doubt------------------------------------------------------Gwin Inc. provides sports handicapping analysis and advice to sports bettors worldwide through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Global SportsEDGE, Inc. Global SportsEDGE provides professional handicapping advice on professional football games played by the National Football League, professional basketball games played by the National Basketball Association, college football and basketball games played by Division I of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, and professional major-league baseball. Over the next year, the Company plans to expand its operations to cover sporting events in Europe and Asia, and to expand handicapping services to include soccer, cricket and rugby. The Company's business is highly seasonal and the seven months ended July 31, 2002 exclude virtually all of the college and professional football season. This has historically been the period in which a substantial part of annual revenues are generated. Comparisons to twelve month periods ending in December on a \"pro-rata\" basis may not be effective. Gwin's net loss decreased from $6,162,866 for the year ended December 31, 2000 to $5,527,352 for the year ended December 31, 2001. The net loss used in earnings per share calculation in 2001 was further increased by an imputed non-cash dividend on the Series C Preferred Shares of $1,092,000 to $6,619,352.This imputed dividend was a result of a 50% upward adjustment in the conversion rate attached to those Preferred Shares after issuance. The net loss for the seven months ended July 31, 2002 was $2,075,443. The Company's working capital deficit as of July 31, 2002, was $3,013,361. Of that amount, approximately $396,000 represents revenues from sales which will not be recognized until after July 31, 2002. Since July 31, 2002, Gwin has raised approximately $750,000 from its existing security holders. On October 11, 2002, the firm of Moore, Stephens, P.C., independent auditors for Gwin Inc. said of the Company: \"[T]he Company has suffered a loss from operations, has a working capital deficiency and accumulated deficit that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.\"HEALTHTRAC INC: Requires Additional Cash to Continue Operations---------------------------------------------------------------HealthTrac Inc.'s financial statements have been prepared on the going concern basis, which assumes the realization of assets and the settlement of liabilities in the normal course of business. The application of the going concern concept is dependent on the Company's ability to generate future profitable operations and receive continued financial support from its shareholders and from external financing. The Company incurred a loss from operations of $2,121,903 for the six months ended August 31, 2002 and has an accumulated deficit of $119,195,227 at August 31, 2002. For the six months ended August 31, 2002, the Company used $387,360 in cash to fund operations, and at August 31, 2002, the Company has a working capital deficiency of $2,450,638. Management projects that the Company will require additional cash and working capital to fund planned operations and capital asset additions for fiscal 2003 of approximately $600,000 (unaudited). Although management is of the opinion that sufficient cash will be obtained from operations and external financing to meet the Company's liabilities and commitments as they become due in fiscal 2003, there can be no assurance that funds from external financings will be available when required on an economical basis to the Company. The ability of the Company to continue as a going concern and realize the carrying value of its assets is dependent on the Company's ability to increase its revenues by increasing its customer base and reducing its operating costs so that the Company achieves profitable operations. To date, subsequent to August 31, 2002 the Company has raised no funding through external common share private placements. If the Company is unable to obtain sufficient funds for operations, it will be required to reduce operations or liquidate assets.HIGHLANDS INSURANCE: Files for Chapter 11 Reorganization in Del.----------------------------------------------------------------Highlands Insurance Group, Inc., (OTC Bulletin Board: HIGP) announced that the Company and five of its non-insurance company subsidiaries have commenced Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The Company and its debtor subsidiaries will be debtors in possession and have filed a joint plan for the reorganization of their debts. The joint plan will not become effective until it is approved by the bankruptcy court. Under the plan as proposed, the assets of the debtors will be transferred to a liquidating trust for the benefit of the debtors' secured and unsecured creditors and the holders of the Company's Series One Preferred Stock in accordance with the terms of a liquidating trust agreement. The Company's common stock will be cancelled with no consideration being paid. The Company is a property and casualty insurance holding company. In December of 2001, because of continuing financial losses, the Company adopted a plan to run-off its insurance business and cause its insurance company subsidiaries to cease issuing new or renewal policies, except as otherwise required by law. Regulatory actions taken by various of the State Departments of Insurance prohibit the Company's insurance company subsidiaries from making any dividend or tax sharing payments to the Company, and have thereby eliminated the Company's only significant sources of revenue. The bankruptcy filings arose as a result of the foregoing and the Company's substantial debt servicing requirements.HIGHLANDS INSURANCE: Case Summary & Largest Unsecured Creditors---------------------------------------------------------------Lead Debtor: Highlands Insurance Group, Inc. 1000 Lenox Drive Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648-0426Bankruptcy Case No.: 02-13196Debtor affiliates filing separate chapter 11 petitions: Entity Case No. ------ -------- Highlands Holding Company, Inc. 02-13197 Northwestern National Holding Company, Inc. 02-13198 American Reliance, Inc. 02-13199 aka Vik Brothers Insurance, Inc. Highlands Claims and Safety Services, Inc. 02-13200 Highlands Services Corporation 02-13201Type of Business: Insurance Holding CompanyChapter 11 Petition Date: October 31, 2002Court: District of Delaware (Delaware)Judge: Peter J. WalshDebtors' Counsel: Richard W. Riley, Esq. Duane Morris LLP 1100 North Market Street Suite 1200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: 302-657-4900 Fax : 302-657-4901Total Assets: $1,643,969,000Total Debts: $1,820,612,000A. Debtor's 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors:Entity Nature Of Claim Claim Amount------ --------------- ------------JP Morgan Chase Morgan, 100% of the Common $47,710,117 270 Park Avenue Stock of (1) Highlands 20th Floor Holding Co., Inc., (2) (35.9M Sec.)New York, NY 10017 American Reliance, Inc.; (3) Highlands Claims and Safety Services, Inc.Insurance Partners, LP Holder of Convertible $40,177,946Brad Cooper Subordinated Debenture54 Thompson Street of the DebtorNew York, NY 10012Fax: 212-985-2411Insurance Partners, LP Holder of Convertible $22,143,527Insurance Partners Subordinated Debenture Offshore (Bermuda) of the Debtor Cedar House 41 Cedar Avenue, P.O. Box HM 1179Hamilton, HM EX, BermudaFax: 441-292-8656Richard M. Haverland Holder of Convertible $2,199,452 521 Pretty Brook Road Subordinated DebenturesPrinceton, NJ 08540 of the DebtorFax: 561-231-6371Comptroller of State of Corp. Franchise Tax $1,247,201 TexasP.O. Box 13528Austin, TX 78744-3528Fax: 512-463-4617Computer Science Corp. Trade Debt $580,000Michael E. Nemeth 9500 Arboretum BoulevardAustin, TX 78759MCLP I Limited Partnership Holder of Convertible $527,868 c/o Bob Samuelson Subordinated Debentures2 Canal Park of the DebtorCambridge, MA 02141 JLT Re Solutions, Inc. Settlement Agreement $265,000 c/o Klett Rooney Lieber & Schorling650 Broad Street, 8th FloorNewark, NJ 07102Charles J. Bachand Holder of Convertible $208,947 Subordinated Debentures Of the DebtorW. Dale Montgomery Holder of Convertible $203,449 Subordinated Debentures of the DebtorMichael A. Weberpal Holder of Convertible $184,000 Subordinated Debentures of the DebtorJohn W. Cowley Employee & Retention $166,250 Agreement Alleged AmountJP Morgan Securities Inc. Financial Advisory $150,000 Services Kenneth D. Javor Holder of Convertible $109,972 Subordinated Debentures Of the DebtorFirst International Financial Advisory $103,527 Securities ServicesRobert C. Resch Holder of Convertible $71,482 Subordinated Debentures of the DebtorHighlands Insurance Co. Intercompany Payable $63,938Robert M. Stephano Holder of Convertible $54,986 Subordinated Debentures of the Debtor Alliance of American Assessment for $50,000 Insurers membership servicesMark W. Phillips Holder of Convertible $40,000 Subordinated Debentures of the DebtorB. American Reliance's 2 Largest Unsecured Creditors:Entity Nature Of Claim Claim Amount------ --------------- ------------JP Morgan Chase Bank, as 100% of the $47,710,117 Agent Outstanding Common270 Park Avenue Stock of Northwestern 20th Floor National Holding New York, NY 10017 Company, Inc.State of New Jersey 1995 and 1998 Corp. $1,586,278 Div. of Taxation business taxesConferences & Appeals BranchQuakerbridge Road, Bldg. 53rd FloorMercerville, NJ 06618C. Claims & Safety's 2 Largest Unsecured Creditors:Entity Nature Of Claim Claim Amount------ --------------- ------------JP Morgan Chase Bank, as 100% of the $47,710,117 Agent Outstanding Common270 Park Avenue Stock of Northwestern ($8.4M Sec.)20th Floor National Casualty New York, NY 10017 Company, Inc. and Pacific Insurance CompanyHighlands Insurance Co. Miscellaneous $386 Intercompany PayablesD. Highland Holdings' 2 Largest Unsecured Creditors:Entity Nature Of Claim Claim Amount------ --------------- ------------JP Morgan Chase Bank, as 100% of the $47,710,117 Agent Outstanding Common270 Park Avenue Stock of Highlands ($26.5M Sec.)20th Floor Insurance CompanyNew York, NY 10017 Highlands Insurance Co. Intercompany Payables $394 E. Highland Services' 3 Largest Unsecured Creditors:Entity Nature Of Claim Claim Amount------ --------------- ------------Northwestern National Miscellaneous $31,311Casualty Company Intercompany PayablesHighlands Insurance Intercompany Account $6,003 Group, Inc. Pacific Automobile Miscellaneous $2,003 Insurance Company Intercompany Payables HORSEHEAD: Signs-Up McKinney & Stringer as Environmental Counsel----------------------------------------------------------------Horsehead Industries, Inc., and its debtor-affiliates sought and obtained approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to employ McKinney & Stringer, PC, as their Special Environmental Counsel, nunc pro tunc to August 19, 2002.McKinney & Stringer will perform any legal services on any environmental-related matters in these Chapter 11 cases, including protecting the Debtors' interests in the case of Horsehead Industries, Inc., d/b/a Zinc Corporation of America, vs. Tetra Tech, Inc., and Atkins Benham, Inc., f/k/a Roberts/Schorick & Associates.The principal attorneys presently designated to represent the Debtors and their current standard hourly rates are: David A. Cheek $295 per hour Mark D. Coldiron $300 per hour John P. Falcone $190 per hourHorsehead Industries, Inc., d/b/a Zinc Corporation of America, the largest zinc producer filed for chapter 11 protection on August 19, 2002. Laurence May, Esq., at Angel & Frankel, PC represents the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. When the Company filed for protection from its creditors, it listed $215,579,000 in assets and $231,152,000 in debts. INDIGO BOOKS: Working Capital Deficit Tops $22 Mill. at Sept. 28----------------------------------------------------------------Indigo Books & Music Inc. (TSX: IDG), Canada's largest book retailer, reported strong sales results for the second consecutive quarter due to significant inventory and merchandising improvements. Both superstores and traditional format stores showed strong comparable sales growth in the second quarter continuing the first quarter sales trends. Comparative stores sales at Chapters and Indigo superstores, including The World's Biggest Bookstore, increased 6.2% while comparative store sales at Coles increased 5.0% during the quarter. Year to date, comparable store sales are 7.0% and 4.8% at superstores and mall stores respectively. At September 28, 2002, the Company's balance sheets show that its total current liabilities exceeded its total current assets by about $22 million.\"I am extremely pleased to see the trend we started in the first quarter is continuing,\" said Heather Reisman, CEO of Indigo. \"Our strategy of careful product selection, improved merchandising, working closely with publishers and other suppliers, as well as the tremendous efforts of our store teams, have clearly put us on the right track going into the all-important holiday season.\" Total consolidated revenues for the second quarter ended September 28, 2002 grew 9.8% or $15.3 million to $171.2 million from $155.9 million in the second quarter last year. The increase was due in part to the operation of 12 additional superstores for the full quarter, offset by sales decreases from closing nine mall stores. Second quarter sales at Chapters and Indigo superstores, including The World's Biggest Bookstore, grew 13.2% to $118.2 million compared to sales of $104.5 million in the same period last year. Total mall store revenues declined to $36.4 million in the second quarter, a decrease of $1.0 million or 2.7% in comparison to $37.4 million in the second quarter last year, due to the closure of nine stores. The total number of superstores at September 28, 2002 was 89 as compared to 92 superstores at the end of the second quarter last year. The total number of mall stores at the end of the quarter was 181, compared to 190 last year. The store closures are part of the Company's ongoing initiative to streamline the real estate portfolio and close under-performing locations. Consolidated earnings before interest, taxes, restructuring charges, amortization and non-controlling interest in the second quarter was $2.3 million compared to $1.0 million in the second quarter last year, representing an increase in operating earnings of $1.3 million. The increase is due to improved performance across all areas of the business stemming from higher sales and lower operating costs. The consolidated net loss for the second quarter was $7.6 million as compared to a net loss of $31.3 million in the same period last year, an improvement of $23.7 million. The consolidated net loss in the second quarter last year included restructuring and other charges of $21.2 million due to store closures and acquisition of all shares of Indigo Books & Music, Inc. Excluding restructuring and other charges, the consolidated net loss improved $2.5 million over the prior year. Indigo is a Canadian company and the largest book retailer in Canada, operating bookstores in all provinces under the names Indigo Books Music & more, Chapters, The World's Biggest Bookstore and Coles. Indigo operates http://www.chapters.indigo.caan online retailer of books, gifts, videos, and DVDs. Indigo is a publicly traded company listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the stock symbol IDG. To learn more about Indigo, please visit the About Our Company section of http://www.chapters.indigo.ca INFINITE GROUP: Clarifies Issues re DARPA Contract Termination--------------------------------------------------------------Infinite Group (NASDAQ:IMCI) provided the following further clarifications regarding the previously announced termination of its primary contract with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Contract # MDA972-02-C-0013. What happened to the DARPA contract? \"On October 30th, 2002, Infinite received a Notice of Termination of Contract #MDA972-02-C-0013. The Contract was terminated for the Government's convenience under the clause entitled Termination, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.249.6.\" Why was the DARPA contract terminated? \"The Government has the right to terminate a contract for 'default' or 'convenience.' In this case, the Government's contract with Infinite Photonics, a subsidiary of Infinite Group, was terminated for the Government's convenience. Termination for convenience is the right of the Government to terminate or cancel performance of work under a contract, in whole or in part, if the contracting officer determines that termination is in the Government's interest. This right is contained in most Government contracts. Alternatively, Termination for default typically will occur in situations where the Government determines that the Contractor has failed to perform within the specified terms of the contract. To reiterate, the Contract was terminated for the Government's convenience.\" How far had Infinite Photonics progressed in the execution of the contract? \"The contract was executed approximately ten months ago in February 2002. The original term of the contract was 24 months with an approximate total value of $12 million. As of June 30th, the Company had billed the Government approximately $2 million for its Research and Development efforts under the Contract. Incremental billings occurred during the quarter ended September 30, 2002. Financial results for the third quarter will be reported in the very near future.\" What happens next? \"We will work very closely with the Government on the settlement process. For contracts terminated for the convenience of the Government, the settlement process may occur by negotiated agreement, by determination of the Terminating Contracting Officer, or by costing out those efforts associated with the Termination. The Company is entitled under the Contract to payment for all work allowable under the Contract that has occurred as of the termination date and all costs allowable under the Contract's settlement provisions.\" What does the termination mean to Infinite Group? \"We are currently assessing both the short and long-term impact of the termination. Although the Company has had regular contact with DARPA throughout the term of the Contract, the receipt of a Notice of Termination for Convenience was unexpected at this time. We do remain committed to developing our laser diode technologies for commercial and military applications, and have confidence that our technologies have strong commercial potential across multiple markets. We intend to vigorously explore all means to continue these efforts.\" * * * As reported in Troubled Company Reporter's August 7, 2002 edition, the Company during 2001 continued to experience operating losses, due primarily to losses in the discontinued Plastics Group attributed to falling demand for injection molds, and to the start-up costs for the Photonics Group. These losses resulted in reductions in cash flow and a negative working capital position. Infinite is currently focused on its two primary lines of business and is are actively pursuing additional capital through the equity line of credit agreement, private equity sources, strategic alliances, venture capital and investment banking sources.At December 31, 2001, Infinite had a working capital deficit of approximately $1.7 million, ($1.3 million after eliminating the assets and liabilities of its discontinued operations). The working capital deficit was primarily caused by recurring losses at the former Plastics Group resulting in slow payments to the Company's vendors. A going concern qualification was included in the opinion issued by Infinite's auditors on its 2000 financial statements as a result of one of the Company's primary lenders not having issued its waiver for certain loan covenant violations that existed at December 31, 2000 at the Laser Fare subsidiary. The loan covenants are measured annually at December 31. The loan covenant violations which existed at December 31, 2000 related to failure to meet certain levels of working capital, debt to tangible net worth ratio and exceeding capital expenditure limits. Due to the acquisition of LENS equipment in a non-monetary transaction and acquisition of stent equipment, the Company exceeded the capital expenditure limitations to support the growth of its Laser Group. Subsequent to the issuance of the financial statements and the repayment of a certain portion of the related debt, the bank issued a waiver letter for the violations. At December 31, 2001, the Company was in violation of certain covenants related to its failure to meet certain levels of debt to tangible net worth ratio and exceeding the capital expenditure limits. It had completed acquisition of the LENS equipment in a non-monetary transaction in 2001, which also caused the Company to exceed capital limitation requirements. The covenant violations were waived by the bank prior to the issuance of the financial statements.INPRIMIS INC: Changes Company Name to Ener1, Inc. -------------------------------------------------On October 23, 2002, Inprimis, Inc.'s Articles of Incorporation were amended to change its name to Ener1, Inc. The new trading symbol for the Company's common stock is \"ENEI\". In addition, the Company's Articles of Incorporation were further amended to increase its authorized common stock to 500,000,000 shares. The action was approved by a consent of the Company's Board of Directors and by a consent of the Company's majority shareholders. As a result of such amendment 4,010,000 shares of the Company's Class A Preferred Stock were converted, according to their terms, into an aggregate of 200,500,000 shares of common stock. Based upon conversion of the preferred stock, the Company currently has outstanding 309,447,020 shares of common stock. * * *As reported late last year, Datawave (CDNX:DTV.V, OTCBB:DWVSF)decided not to proceed closing the Plan of Arrangement withInprimis as announced on October 12, 2001. DataWave informedInprimis that it may reconsider its decision if Inprimis is ableto demonstrate that the Plan of Arrangement would be in the bestinterest of DataWave shareholders. In October 2001, Inprimis'securities were delisted from Nasdaq and thus, is now currentlytrading on Over-The-Counter Bulletin Board.Also, on March 5, 2002, Inprimis, Inc., appointed Kaufman, Rossin & Co., as the independent accounting firm to audit Inprimis' financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2001 replacing Deloitte & Touche LLP, which resigned as Inprimis' independent accounting firm on January 23, 2002.INT'L THUNDERBIRD: TSX Halts Trading for Listing Noncompliance--------------------------------------------------------------International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation (TSX: INB) announces the following update: The Company previously announced that its common shares were suspended from trading by the TSX as of the close of the market on Friday, November 1, 2002, for failure to meet the continued listing requirements of TSX. The Company will have one year to seek resumption of trading on the TSX by applying for reinstatement. The Company will be required to meet all of the TSX's listing requirements for original listing in order to be considered for reinstatement of trading privileges. The TSX will automatically de-list the Company's shares if such reinstatement has not been approved by October 31, 2003. On October 9, 2002, the Company applied for a new listing with the TSX Venture Exchange, and that exchange has not made its decision on whether the Company's shares will be listed for trading. The Company's common shares are referenced on the \"pink sheets\" in the U.S. -- http://www.pinksheets.com-- but have not actively been traded through that medium. The \"pink sheets\" as well as the OTC Bulletin Board Service are quotation mediums in the U.S. In order for shareholders to utilize the \"pink sheets\" for trading, the Company must comply with certain requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission rule 15c2-11 and the filing information requirements of NASD Rule 6740. The Company is meeting with various \"market makers\" in the U.S. that could offer shareholders the opportunity to trade shares on the OTC Bulletin Board Service and on the \"Pink Sheets.\" The Company will issue a press release once it has complied with the aforementioned rules and/or the TSX Venture Exchange makes its decision on the Company's listing. International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation is an owner and manager of international gaming facilities. Additional information about the Company is available on its World Wide Web site at http://www.thunderbirdgaming.com As reported in Troubled Company Reporter's September 27, 2002 edition, International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation said that its \"going concern\" challenges may be overcome in part if the Company's major creditors were willing to enter into \"work-outs\" with the company. The Company is no longer in default with respect to the Prime Receivables and MRG loans. Prime has agreed to a payment plan on the $730,000 balance whereby the Company will begin payments of $10,000 per month for 73 months. No interest will be charged on the $730,000 current balance unless the Company collects on one or more of its receivables, including the lawsuit filed by the Company against the Spotlight 29 tribe.KAISER ALUMINUM: Seeks Approval of Release with Terrence Hayes--------------------------------------------------------------Kaiser Aluminum Corporation recently initiated talks with Terrence Hayes as well as their re-insurers led by AXA Corporate Solutions (U.K.) Ltd. for the consensual resolution of the Hayes' dispute. According to Patrick M. Leathem, Esq., at Richards, Layton & Finger, the resolution of the Hayes issues will pave the way for the substantial reduction of the Debtors' ongoing attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with the Louisiana State Court Proceeding.More importantly, a settlement with Mr. Hayes will allow theDebtors to obtain from Mr. Hayes the excess of $2,400,000 infunds he is holding. Although the Debtors will receive the funds from Mr. Hayes, Mr. Leathem notes that the funds will still be held pending resolution of the claims of the Debtors' liability insurance carriers. Additionally, the settlement will eliminate the risk that Mr. Hayes may prevail on his claims against the Debtors.Consequently, the Debtors entered into a settlement agreementwith Mr. Hayes and AXA, pursuant to which, the Debtors will berelieved of their obligation under the revenue and jointprosecution agreement with Mr. Hayes to prosecute claims againstthe remaining Third Party Defendants. The Release furtherprovides that:A. Payment of Funds and Dismissal of Haves' Claims -- $2,419,700 will be transferred by wire from a client trust to a client trust account of Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, LLP, counsel for the Debtors; -- Mr. Hayes will release the Debtors and AXA from any claims arising from the litigation or the settlement of the litigation arising from the Gramercy Explosion. This includes the release of any claims for breach of any of the agreements between Mr. Hayes and the Debtors; and -- Upon Court approval of the Release by a final, non- appealable order, Mr. Hayes will dismiss, with prejudice, his appeal of the Court's ruling on the motion for relief from stay. The parties agree that Hayes reserves and does not release his rights against Thomas and Betts and Schweitzer.B. Relation to other Settlements -- Mr. Hayes will consent to the Debtors' assignment to AXA of their right, title, interest and obligation in and of the revenue and cost sharing provisions and cooperation provisions with respect to his previous agreements with the Debtors; and -- The Debtors acknowledge that they have no interest in and are not owed any further repayments or obligations from Mr. Hayes for any reason.C. Mutual Releases -- Mr. Hayes will agree that the Debtors do not owe him any money or any other obligation for any cooperation, defense or other costs under their previous agreements. Mr. Hayes will also agree that the Debtors will not owe any continuing or future obligation to cooperate or pay for defense or other costs under the previous agreements; -- The parties will acknowledge that the Debtors' only continuing obligation to Mr. Hayes under the previous agreements is their responsibility to make periodic payments. These payments are funded via a third-party annuity purchased long before the Petition Date; and -- The only claims Mr. Hayes retains arising from the Gramercy Explosion against the Debtors are claims that may arise should the Debtors fail to meet their obligations for the periodic payments or fail to meet their obligations under the Release.Thus, the Debtors ask Judge Fitzgerald to approve the Release. (Kaiser Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 17; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900) LAIDLAW INC: Wants to Keep Exclusivity Until February 28, 2003--------------------------------------------------------------Laidlaw Inc., has filed a motion with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of New York in Buffalo, New York, to extend the period during which Laidlaw has the exclusive right to file a plan of reorganization and to solicit acceptances thereof through February 28, 2003. A related filing will be made with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Ontario. As previously announced, Laidlaw has reached agreements to settle various issues with, among others, certain constituencies of Safety-Kleen Corp., and certain parties to the federal securities class action litigation, In re Laidlaw Bondholders Litigation. Laidlaw is working to resolve the remaining outstanding issues, including certain claims asserted in the bankruptcy proceeding by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The Company expects to commence the solicitation of votes for its plan of reorganization as soon as practicable after the resolution of these pension funding issues. \"We are pleased with the progress that we have made to date with our banks and bondholders,\" said Stephen F. Cooper, Laidlaw's vice chairman and chief restructuring officer. \"We will now focus on resolving our remaining outstanding issues and intend to emerge from bankruptcy as soon as practicable.\" Copies of various filings and other documents related to the Company's reorganization may be obtained from the courts in Buffalo and Toronto and also are available in the reorganization section of the Company's Web site at http://www.laidlaw.com LORAL SPACE: S&P Drops Corporate Credit Rating to SD from CC------------------------------------------------------------ Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its corporate credit rating on satellite leasing and manufacturing company Loral Space & Communications Ltd., to 'SD' from double-'C'. An 'SD' rating denotes a selective default. The ratings on Loral's series C and series D preferred stocks were lowered to 'D' from single-'C'. These actions follow completion of the company's exchange offer on a portion of the preferred issues for $13.7 million cash and 45.8 million shares of common stock. The exchange represented a 93% discount off the preferred stock liquidation preference. Standard & Poor's viewed the exchange as coercive and tantamount to a default on the original terms of the preferred issues.Standard & Poor's also removed the ratings from CreditWatch, where they were placed with negative implications on Sept. 19, 2002 in response to the subpar exchange offer. At that time, the corporate credit rating was lowered to double-'C' in anticipation of a selective default by the company upon completion of the exchange offer.Subsequent to the selective default, Standard & Poor's raised its corporate credit rating on Loral to triple-'C'-plus and assigned its double-'C' rating to the preferred stock not tendered in the exchange. The liquidation preference of the remaining series C and series D preferred shares are $187.3 million and $36.7 million, respectively. The triple-'C'-minus senior unsecured debt rating on Loral and the triple-'C'-plus senior unsecured debt rating on wholly owned subsidiary Loral Orion Inc. were affirmed.The outlook is negative.\"Loral modestly improved its balance sheet and increased its cash flow generating potential by completing the exchange offer. However, the company's liquidity remains strained,\" said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Eric Geil. \"Based on earlier company guidance, Loral expects to have roughly $100 million in cash and borrowing availability at year-end 2002, after accounting for cash used in the exchange offer, down from $180.7 million at June 30, 2002. We are concerned that Loral could exhaust its remaining liquidity in 2003, given the potential for continued satellite leasing and manufacturing industry weakness. The company operates in a competitive environment and still faces financially much stronger rivals.\"Standard & Poor's also said that persistent industry weakness could continue to exert downward pressure on the ratings. Absent stronger demand to boost cash flow, or management steps to stabilize falling liquidity, the ratings could be lowered.DebtTraders reports that Loral Space & Communications Ltd.'s 9.500% bonds due 2006 (LOR06USR1) are trading between 64 and 68. See http://www.debttraders.com/price.cfm?dt_sec_ticker=LOR06USR1 for real-time bond pricing.MARK NUTRITIONALS: Committee Hires Kingman as Bankruptcy Counsel----------------------------------------------------------------The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Mark Nutritionals, Inc., asks for authority from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas to employ the Law Offices of William B. Kingman (Kingman, P.C.) to serve as its counsel.Kingman, P.C.'s employment includes: a) investigating the acts, conduct, assets, liabilities and financial condition of the Debtor, the operation of the Debtor's business and the desirability of the continuance of such business, and any other matter relevant to the case or to the formulation of a Plan of Reorganization; b) participating in preparation of the Plan; c) requesting the appointment of a trustee or examiner, if necessary; d) counseling the Creditors' Committee in matters relating to the administration of this Bankruptcy Estate; e) representing the Creditors' Committee in negotiations with the Debtor, Debtor's Counsel, secured and priority creditors and their respective counsel; f) preparing and filing pleadings relating to the administration of the Bankruptcy Estate and the potential reorganization of the Debtor and related disclosures; g) making court appearances on behalf of the Creditors' Committee; h) analyzing schedules and pleadings filed by the Debtor and other parties in interest; i) analyzing, negotiating and litigating claims brought in the forms of objections or as adversary proceedings; and j) representing the Creditors' Committee in all other relevant matters relating to the administration of this case in order to maximize the interests of the creditors in this case.The Creditors' Committee tells the Court that the hourly fee for services rendered by the Firm is $215, and $60 for paralegals and employees.Mark Nutritionals, Inc., filed for chapter 11 protection on September 17, 2002. William H. Oliver, Esq., at Pipkin, Oliver & Bradley, LLP represents the Debtor in its restructuring efforts. When the Company filed for protection from its creditors it listed estimated debts of over $10 million.METAWAVE COMMS: Has Until April 24 to Meet Nasdaq Requirements--------------------------------------------------------------Metawave(R) Communications Corp. (Nasdaq:MTWV), the leading worldwide provider of smart antenna solutions for wireless voice and data networks, has been granted an additional 180-day grace period, or until April 24, 2003, to regain compliance with the $1.00 per share minimum bid price requirement of the Nasdaq SmallCap Market. During this extension period, Metawave will maintain its listing on the Nasdaq SmallCap Market and will continue to trade under the ticker symbol \"MTWV.\" Metawave(R) Communications Corp., is the leading worldwide provider of smart antenna solutions for wireless voice and data networks. The company's smart antenna offerings provide wireless operators, tower owners and infrastructure manufacturers with cost-effective solutions that maximize capacity and performance, improve quality and increase efficiency of CDMA, GSM and next generation wireless networks. Metawave's smart antenna solutions have been deployed in 14 of the top 20 markets in the US and five of the nine regions in Mexico. Founded in 1995, the company is headquartered in Redmond, Washington, with offices in California and Texas. For more information, call 888/METAWAVE or visit the company's Web site at http://www.metawave.com * * * Going Concern Consideration At December 31, 2001, Metawave's independent auditors' report, as prepared by Arthur Andersen LLP and dated April 3, 2002, which appears in its 2001 Form 10-K, includes the following explanatory paragraph: \"The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 20 to the financial statements, uncertainties regarding asserted and potential unasserted claims exist that raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. Management's plans in regard to these matters are also described in Note 20. The financial statements do not include any adjustments relating to the recoverability and classification of asset carrying amounts or the amount and classification of liabilities that might result should the Company be unable to continue as a going concern.\" As a result of this opinion, the Company said it may experience an adverse impact on future sales if customers choose not to purchase our products due to concerns about our ongoing viability. In addition, suppliers may refuse to provide product components or insist upon unacceptable payment terms. Further, the Company may have increased difficulty raising capital due to this opinion.MIIX GROUP: Nine-Month Net Loss Balloons to $50 Million-------------------------------------------------------The MIIX Group, Inc., (NYSE:MHU) a provider of management and consulting services to the medical professional liability insurance industry, announced net operating income for the third quarter ended September 30, 2002, of $1.5 million compared to net operating income for the third quarter ended September 30, 2001 of $4.2 million. Net income for the third quarter ended September 30, 2002 was $0.9 million, compared to net income of $2.5 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2001. MIIX Insurance Company ceased writing insurance and voluntarily entered into run-off on September 1, 2002. For the nine months ended September 30, 2002, the Company incurred a net operating loss of $43.8 million compared with net operating income of $13.2 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2001. There was a net loss for the nine months ended September 30, 2002 of $50.6 million compared to net income of $10.8 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2001. Patricia Costante, Chairman and CEO, observed: \"While the income for the third quarter was modest, we are very pleased to report significant progress in the Company's transformation from an insurer underwriting risks to a company providing management and consulting services. We have two primary objectives in achieving this transformation. The first objective is to manage the run-off operations prudently and efficiently to protect shareholder value and existing insureds. Our second objective is to continue to build our insurance management services and related consulting businesses. Run-off insurance operations progressed well in the third quarter. Loss and loss adjustment expense reserves were adjusted as the result of an internal study. Loss severity trends continued to move adversely, particularly in Pennsylvania, resulting in reserve increases, but there were also other reserve adjustments and the overall effect for the quarter, net of reinsurance, was a charge of about $3.7 million. Reserves for losses and legal costs associated with future anticipated claims not yet presented increased as a component of total reserves from 59.4% at June 30, 2002 to 60.3% at September 30, 2002. Investment results were impacted by continuing weakness in high yield debt securities and the Company wrote down investment values on certain securities by approximately $5.7 million. Otherwise, however, the investment portfolio was reasonably strong, with about $12 million of unrealized gains at September 30, 2002 and more than 93% of the portfolio rated at BBB or above. Underwriting expenses dropped as the result of reduced operations and the aggressive downsizing actions taken in the first quarter of this year. Overall, MIIX Insurance Company statutory surplus grew from $64.1 million at the beginning of the quarter to $71.2 million at September 30, 2002. The Company's insurance operations remain in voluntary run-off in all states in which they were operating. There continues to be a substantial risk, however, that the Company's insurance operations may become subject to mandatory control in New Jersey and/or Virginia as a result of several factors, including without limitation the severity trends and continued potential for losses in the Company's investment portfolio due to deterioration in the market for corporate securities. Further information about the run-off operations is contained in the supplementary data to be filed with the Form 10-Q in this and future quarters. The supplementary data provides detail about loss reserves, the investment portfolio, reinsurance recoverables and associated collateral, other balance sheet accounts, and operating expenses relating to run-off operations. The Company's insurance management services and consulting operations progressed in the third quarter. As previously reported, the Company provides ongoing management services to MIIX Advantage Insurance Company of New Jersey. The Company has agreed to sell to MIIX Advantage Insurance Company of New Jersey the renewal rights associated with its New Jersey physician book of business, certain intellectual property and ongoing management services. The contracts with MIIX Advantage provide an ongoing base of service revenues to the Company. The Company is currently seeking to grow its related consulting business by providing similar services to self-funded entities and other healthcare provider owned insurers. As the Company reported in a prior press release, the New York Stock Exchange notified the Company that the Company's stock price and market capitalization were below New York Stock Exchange listing thresholds and requested the Company to provide a business plan demonstrating compliance with continued listing standards. The Company subsequently submitted a plan, which the New York Stock Exchange has reviewed and accepted as demonstrating compliance with continued listing standards. The Company will continue to be listed on the Exchange but will remain subject to oversight by the Exchange for a period of time expected to be 18 months. Any future adverse development affecting the Company's plan may result in delisting. The third quarter was a very significant period of transition for the Company. The effects of the Company's run-off business plan are beginning to be seen as cancellation requests are moving premium and liabilities off the books and the claim count inventory declined in the third quarter. Case closures outpaced new reports. While future results, particularly with respect to loss reserves, cannot be predicted with great confidence at this time due to rapidly changing conditions, the Company is striving to protect the potential values we believe exist in MIIX Insurance Company and its subsidiary insurance companies. In addition, the Company is engaged in attempting to generate future revenues through service and consulting arrangements with insurers and healthcare providers.\" Third Quarter 2002 Performance Results Total Premiums Written: Total premiums written in the third quarter of 2002 amounted to negative $2.3 million, a decrease of $73.3 million compared to the third quarter of 2001. The negative total premiums written resulted from extensive cancellation activity associated with the Company's decision to place MIIX Insurance Company and its subsidiary insurance company into voluntary solvent run-off earlier this year. The negative total premiums written were composed of net cancellations of $0.6 million in Texas, $0.6 million in New Jersey, $0.5 million in Maryland, $0.3 million in Arizona and $0.3 million in all other states. Net Premiums Earned: Net premiums earned for the third quarter of 2002 decreased by $25.8 million compared to third quarter 2001. The decrease is the net result of reduced direct and assumed premiums earned of $24.4 million and an increase in ceded premiums earned of $1.4 million. The decrease in gross premiums earned occurred primarily as the result of ceased insurance operations and cancellation activity in the second and third quarters of 2002. The increase in ceded premiums earned primarily followed from the decline in gross premiums earned, and included additional ceded premiums of $4.5 million related to the Company's aggregate reinsurance contracts associated with loss and loss adjustment expense reserve adjustments made this quarter. Net Investment Income: Net investment income decreased $6.2 million for the third quarter of 2002 compared to 2001. The decrease in net investment income reflects the impact of declining market yields coupled with a decline in the invested asset base, as well as an increase in average short-term investments held during the third quarter of 2002. Realized Investment Losses: Net realized losses on investments were $0.6 million in the third quarter of 2002, compared to net realized losses of $2.2 million in the third quarter of 2001. Included in realized losses in the third quarter of 2002 were $5.7 million of write-downs, including $2.6 million associated with United Airlines debt and most of the balance associated with continued poor performance from collateralized bond and loan obligation securities. Other Revenue/Expenses: Net other income and expenses decreased $0.3 million for the third quarter of 2002 compared to 2001. Other revenue and expenses for the third quarter of 2002 include the Company's premium financing program associated with run-off operations as well as revenues and expenses related to the Company's management services and related contracts with MIIX Advantage Insurance Company of New Jersey, which commenced insurance operations on September 1, 2002. The net decrease consists of a decrease of $0.6 million related to third quarter 2001 net other income of Hamilton National Leasing, the Company's former subsidiary sold in the second quarter of 2002, and an increase of $0.3 million in net revenues and expenses of other non-insurance operations. Net revenues and expenses for other non-insurance operations in third quarter 2002 includes $0.1 million associated with management services and renewal rights provided to MIIX Advantage Insurance Company of New Jersey. Loss and Loss Adjustment Expenses: Loss and loss adjustment expenses were $21.2 million for the third quarter of 2002, compared to $47.1 million in the third quarter of 2001, a decrease of $25.9 million. Loss and loss adjustment expenses for the third quarter of 2002 included net adjustments to increase direct and assumed loss and allocated loss adjustment expense reserves by $30.7 million and to decrease unallocated loss adjustment expense reserves by $24.1 million. Ceded loss and ALAE reserves were increased by $11.2 million. The adjustments followed from an internal study conducted by the Company. Direct and assumed adjustments to loss and ALAE reserves included a net increase in Pennsylvania hospital reserves of $23.5 million, a net decrease in Pennsylvania physician reserves of $9.5 million, a net decrease in New Jersey physician reserves of $0.8 million, and a net increase in reserves held on all other business written outside of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, primarily Texas and Ohio, of $17.5 million. The net adjustment primarily reflects continued adverse severity trends, particularly with respect to Pennsylvania hospital claims but also apparent elsewhere, somewhat offset by better than expected activity in the 2002 accident year. The net adjustment to ULAE reserves primarily reflects the greater level of claims activity associated with claims made business written in recent years. Claims made business generally has a shorter development tail than occurrence policies, and the duration of anticipated future claim handling activity, and therefore claim activity costs per dollar of indemnity payment, has diminished. Funds Held Charges: Funds held charges relate to the Company's ceded reinsurance program. Funds held charges increased by $2.7 million in the third quarter of 2002 compared to the third quarter of 2001. The funds held charges for third quarter 2002 include an additional amount of $3.9 million associated with the adjustments to ceded loss and loss adjustment reserves made in the quarter. Funds held charges for the third quarter of 2001 included $1.4 million of additional charges relating to adjustments to ceded loss and loss adjustment expense reserves in that quarter. Underwriting Expenses: Underwriting expenses decreased by $5.1 million in the third quarter of 2002 compared to the third quarter of 2001. The net decrease in the quarter is principally due to the effects of discontinued insurance operations, with reduced commissions and a reduction in compensation and benefits resulting from downsizing actions taken in the first quarter of 2002. In addition, underwriting expenses in the third quarter of 2001 included $0.4 million in one-time severance charges. Provision for Income Taxes: The Company had no federal tax expense in the third quarter of 2002 due to its significant loss carryforward position. For the nine months ended September 30, 2002, the Company recognized a net operating loss carryback benefit related to tax years 1997 and 1996, resulting from a tax law change passed in the first quarter of 2002. Subsequent Event: In October 2002, a further downsizing of Company staff occurred in accordance with the detailed restructuring plan developed in the first quarter. With this action, 19 employees, or 14% of the prior workforce, were released. No further charge beyond the restructuring charge recorded in the first quarter is anticipated as a result of this action. Book Value and Share Information As of September 30, 2002, book value was $7.57 per share based on 13,382,173 outstanding shares. Excluding unrealized gains and losses, book value was $6.64 per share on the same share base. Weighted average shares outstanding were 13,479,760 and 13,605,579 for the quarters ended September 30, 2002 and 2001, respectively. Headquartered in Lawrenceville, New Jersey, The MIIX Group -- http://www.miix.com-- provides management and claims administrative services to the medical professional liability insurance industry, and a range of consulting products to physician and healthcare providers. The MIIX Group of Companies currently protects existing physician, medical professional, and institutional insureds through its long-term commitment to run-off insurance operations. * * *As reported in the Company's Form 10-Q filed on August 14, 2002, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company has been subjected to a number of adverse developments during fiscal2002 as a result of unexpected and unprecedented increases in loss severity during fiscal 2001. These increases required the Company to record an increase in its net loss reserves of approximately $29.5 million; in consequence, the Company was also required to take a valuation allowance against a deferred tax asset approximately of $9.5 million during 2002. As a result of these adjustments, the Company has, among other things: -- Closed its operations in Dallas and Indianapolis; -- Implemented a workforce reduction program; -- Ceased writing insurance in the states of Virginia, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania and other states; -- Submitted a risk-based capital plan to the New Jersey Department of Insurance and Banking; -- Placed its New Jersey insurance operations into voluntary solvent runoff; -- Engaged investment bankers to seek offers for any or all of the Company's assets and properties; -- Withdrawn from the A.M. Best Rating System; -- Announced that it will cease writing new insurance business in the State of New Jersey effective September 1, 2002; -- Been advised by the New York Stock Exchange that it no longer satisfies two of the applicable listing criteria and that its common stock may be delisted; -- Received a \"going concern qualification\" from the Company's independent accountants in its report accompanying the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001.The Company anticipates that its subsidiary, MIIX Insurance Company, will cease doing business as an operating insurance company on September 1, 2002. Thereafter, the Company's business will consist principally of managing the runoff of existing claims and managing the operations of a newly formed New Jersey insurance company, MIIX Advantage Insurance Company of New Jersey. Thus, the Company does not anticipate near term significant revenues from continuing operations. Because the subsidiary, MIIX Insurance Company, will no longer be writing insurance policies after August 31, 2002, our revenues and expenses will decline significantly, and our historical financial statements cannot be relied upon as indicative of future performance.MITEC TELECOM: Brings-In Rajiv Pancholy as New President and CEO----------------------------------------------------------------Mitec Telecom Inc. (TSX: MTM), a leading designer and manufacturer of wireless network products for the telecommunications industry, named Rajiv Pancholy as the Company's new President and Chief Executive Officer, effective October 30, 2002. Mr. Pancholy replaces Myer Bentob, who stepped down from the post on September 12, 2002.\"A number of momentous corporate initiatives and developments have come together over the past few days, and Mr. Pancholy's appointment is the capstone,\" said Myer Bentob, Chairman of Mitec's Board of Directors. \"We are absolutely delighted that Mr. Pancholy will be heading up the Mitec team and I feel confident that his broad-based expertise in the wirelesstelecommunications industry will enable us to weather these turbulent times and spur us on to the next level of growth and success.\"Mr. Pancholy is a telecommunications industry veteran who brings to Mitec a rich experience base, having worked for both a wireless service provider and a network equipment provider. Most recently, he was President and Chief Operating Officer of Microcell Connexions, where he presided over Microcell becoming the first Canadian carrier to launch advanced 2.5G data services. Prior to joining Microcell in 1999, he held various senior management positions at Nortel, where he managed the development of new products as well as alliances with key carrier customers. His last position at Nortel was VicePresident & General Manager in the Enterprise Networks group. Currently, Mr. Pancholy is on the investment committee of a major financial institution in Canada and acts as a venture advisor to several venture capital institutions in the United States and Canada. \"I am truly delighted to be joining the Mitec team,\" Mr. Pancholy said. \"While we face certain challenges at the present time, I am confident that these can be fully dealt with and we can realize the goal of making Mitec a vibrant, growth-oriented global company. This is a company blessed with depth in technology and the trust and loyalty of its customers. I look forward to building the future on these strengths.\"Mitec Telecom is a leading designer and manufacturer of products for the telecommunications industry. The Company sells its products worldwide to network providers for incorporation into high-performing wireless networks used in voice and data/Internet communications. Additionally, the Company provides value-added services from design to final assembly and maintains test facilities covering a range from DC to 60 GHz. Headquartered in Montreal, Canada, the Company also operates facilities in the United States, Sweden, United Kingdom, China and Thailand.Mitec Telecom Inc., is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol MTM. On-line information about Mitec is available at http://www.mitectelecom.com. In its recent financial statements filed with SEDAR, Mitec hasexperienced recent losses, negative cash flows and it hasviolated substantially all of its Canadian debt covenants. Assuch, the realization of assets and the discharge of liabilitiesare subject to significant uncertainty. The Company'scontinuation as a going concern is dependent upon, amongst otherthings; the injection of new capital by investors, thecontinuing support of the Corporation's lenders which isdependent on certain conditions including a capital injection byNovember 1, 2002, maintaining a satisfactory sales level, thecontinued viability of the Corporation's significant customers,a return to profitable operations and the ability to generatesufficient cash from operations, financing arrangements and newcapital to meet its obligations as they become due.MORTON CUSTOM: Files for Chapter 11 Reorganization in Wilmington----------------------------------------------------------------Morton Custom Plastics, LLC, a leading supplier of highly engineered injection molded plastic components to original equipment manufacturers, announced that it has reached a definitive agreement with Wilbert, Inc., for the sale of all of MCP, LLC's assets. Wilbert, based in Chicago, Illinois, is a privately held holding company operating TPi, the largest thermoformer of highly engineered plastic components in the U.S. with facilities located in Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, North Carolina and Tennessee serving industrial original equipment manufacturers. MCP, LLC is a Limited Liability Corporation managed by Morton Industrial Group, Inc. (OTCBB: MGRP). Haskell G. Knight, who assumed the positions of President and Chief Operating Officer of Morton Custom Plastics, LLC to effect the restructuring of MCP, LLC, said: \"We are very excited about the new opportunity with the Wilbert organization. Their financial strength will make MCP, LLC a much stronger company and help it to realize its full potential as a plastics leader in both thermoforming and injection molding. Our company has been affected by the economic downturn of 2001, including the fallout from the September 11th attacks and the continued sluggish economy in 2002. While our injection molding business is experiencing growth, the thermoforming business continues to struggle. The prospective partnership with Wilbert, a leading thermoformer, provides MCP, LLC and our customers, vendors and employees a clear path for great success going forward.\" Mr. Knight added that the company \"has taken aggressive actions to manage operations during the past two difficult years, including the necessary steps to consolidate operations, reduce costs and maximize synergies within the company's core businesses. As a result, we've demonstrated that the MCP, LLC entities form a compelling platform upon which to grow and expand, with the right financial support.\" To facilitate the sale of Morton Custom Plastics, LLC, the subsidiary has voluntarily filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the District of Delaware in Wilmington. The sale of Morton Custom Plastics, LLC's assets located in Lebanon, Kentucky; St. Matthews, South Carolina; and Harrisburg and Concord, North Carolina will be done pursuant to Section 363. As part of the agreement and subject to Court approval, the company has obtained commitments for up to $2.5 million in debtor-in-possession financing from its existing lender, GE Capital, to fund working capital and other needs until the sale closes later this year or early next year. Mr. Knight said that MCP, LLC entered Chapter 11 protection with the understanding that the company's financial reorganization will be completed on an accelerated timetable, targeting the year-end. \"During the reorganization, MCP, LLC will continue to operate in the normal course of business, maintaining our strong customer relationships with reliable, timely service and quality products.\" The MCP, LLC transaction is subject to approval of the Court, the Boards of Directors of Wilbert, Inc. and Morton Industrial Group, Inc. and the completion of the 20-day auction process for qualified bidders required under Section 363. Morton Industrial Group, Inc.'s metal fabrication business, Morton Metalcraft Co., and its remaining plastics facility in West Des Moines, Iowa are not affected by the filing or this sale transaction as they are financed independently from Morton Custom Plastics, LLC. Wilbert, Inc., based in Chicago, Illinois, is a privately held holding company for Wilbert Funeral Services, the largest source of burial vaults and funeral service supplies in North America and TPi - Thermoform Plastics, Inc., Trienda Corporation, and Synergy World, Inc., three companies that form the largest heavy gauge thermoforming operation in North America. With headquarters in Harrisburg, North Carolina, Morton Custom Plastics, LLC employs approximately 645 personnel at its manufacturing facilities in Harrisburg and Concord, North Carolina; St. Matthews, South Carolina; and Lebanon, Kentucky. MCP, LLC manufactures injection molded parts and performs pre- and post-molding services for use by a wide range of customers, including those in the high tech, motorized recreational equipment, agricultural machinery and equipment, medical equipment and supplies, office furniture and appliance industries. The company also provides thermoforming services to the marine motor, automotive and commercial equipment industries.MORTON HOLDINGS: Case Summary & Largest Unsecured Creditors-----------------------------------------------------------Lead Debtor: Morton Holdings, LLC 1021 W. Birchwood Morton, Illinois 61550Bankruptcy Case No.: 02-13224Debtor affiliates filing separate chapter 11 petitions: Entity Case No. ------ -------- Morton Custom Plastics, LLC 02-13226 Morton Lebanon Kentucky IBRB, LLC 02-13227Chapter 11 Petition Date: November 1, 2002Court: District of Delaware (Delaware)Judge: Peter J. WalshDebtors' Counsel: Jeremy W. Ryan, Esq. Norman L. Pernick, Esq. Saul Ewing LLP 222 Delaware Avenue Wilmington, Delaware 19899 302-421-6805 Estimated Assets: Estimated Debts: Holdings, LLC $0 to $50,000 $10 to $50 Mill. Custom Plastics, LLC $10 to $50 Mill. $10 to $50 Mill. Lebanon Kentucky IBRB, LLC $10 to $50 Mill. $10 to $50 Mill. A. Custom Plastics' 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors:Entity Nature Of Claim Claim Amount------ --------------- ------------General Electric Capital Bank loan $31,700,000 Corporation (25,000,000 sec.)335 Madison Ave., 12th FlNew York, NY 10017c/o Hydee Feldstein, Esq.Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP515 S. Flower Street, 25th FlLos Angeles, CA 90071213-683-6249 Victory Lane Productions, Litigation 7,800,000 LLCc/o Michael J. Brown, Esq.625 Lakeland East Drive, Suite AFlowood, MS 39232601-936-7070Worthington Ind. Inc., Litigation 7,800,000and W.I. Products Inc.f/k/a Worthington Custom Plasticsc/o Michael G. Long, Esq., Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP52 E. Gray St.P.O. Box 1008Columbus, OH 43216-1008614-464-6400G.E. Polymerland Trade debt $788,4599930 Kincey AvenueHuntersville, NC 28078800-752-7842Aristech Acrylics Note $557,892Kim Zink7350 Empire Dr.Florence, KY 41042800-354-9858Delta Mold Inc. Trade debt $515,9139415 Stockport PlaceCharlotte, NC 28273704-588-6600Midsouth Customer/Vendor offset $409,000P.O. Box 400Annville, KY 40402606-364-5142Kleerdex Note $403,655100 Gaither Drive Suite BMount Laurel, NJ 08054856-866-1700 x202Ashland Chemical Co. Trade debt $303,1644450 Northwest ExpresswayDoraville, GA 30340614-790-4524Ferguson Supply & Box Mfg. Trade debt $298,4692500 Cindy LaneCharlotte, NC 28269704-597-0310LNP Engineering Plastics Trade debt $209,382Bayer Corporation Trade debt $196,508Angell Mfg. Company Trade debt $164,334Carolina Custom Finishing Trade debt $132,173Erickson's, Inc. Trade debt $151,266 GE Operation Services Trade debt $162,664General Polymers Trade debt $138,965Georgia Gulf Trade debt $194,763MSI Mold Builders Trade debt - Tooling $178,613Wrobel Engineering Co. Trade debt $270,920154 Bodwell St.Avon, MA 02322508-586-8338B. Lebanon Kentucky's Largest Unsecured Creditor:Entity Nature Of Claim Claim Amount------ --------------- ------------General Electric Capital Bank Loan $31,700,000 Corporation (25,000,000 sec.)335 Madison Ave., 12th FlNew York, Ny 10017C/O Hydee Feldstein, Esq.Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP515 S. Flower Street, 25th FlLos Angeles, CA 90071213-683-6249NATIONSRENT INC: Brings-In UBS Warburg as Financial Advisor-----------------------------------------------------------NationsRent Inc., sought and obtained the Court's approval to employ UBS Warburg LLC as financial advisors in its Chapter 11 cases.UBS Warburg will assist the Debtors in: (a) identifying and evaluating potential third parties to a potential transaction as defined in the Engagement Letter; (b) contacting and meeting with potential Transaction Parties; (c) preparing a memorandum that describes the Debtors and their business operations for distribution to Transaction Parties; (d) evaluate the financial aspects of a Transaction; (e) advising the Debtors as to the structure and form of a proposed Transaction; (f) developing a general negotiating strategy with a potential Transaction Party and participating in these negotiations; (g) in any proceeding relating to regulatory approvals required for a Transaction; and (h) assisting with other matters that fall within UBS Warburg's expertise as may be mutually agreed upon by both parties.In consideration for its services, the Debtors proposed to payUBS Warburg: -- an initial fee of $175,000, payable promptly upon entry of an order approving the Motion; provided that this will be offset against the Transaction Fee; and -- a Transaction Fee payable at the closing of the Transaction, equal to the greater of: (1) $1,000,000; or (2) 1% of the Transaction Value. The Transactions must be consummated during the term UBS Warburg's engagement or within 12 months thereafter unless UBS Warburg chooses to terminate its engagement; A Transaction includes: (a) any merger, consolidation, reorganization or other business combination under which the business of the Debtors is combined with that of the Transaction Party; or (b) the sale, transfer or other disposition of 50% or more of the capital stock or assets of the Debtors by way of tender or exchange offer, option, negotiated purchase, leveraged buyout, minority investment or partnership, joint or collaborative venture or otherwise; This does not include a reorganization or recapitalization of the Debtors wherein the Debtors' creditors and other parties in interest surrender their debt and equity claims against the Debtors in exchange for new debt or equity claims as reorganized without a material new investment by any third party, creditor or other party in interest.The Debtors will also reimburse UBS Warburg for reasonable out- of-pocket expenses not to exceed $15,000 without the Debtors' prior written approval.The Debtors will indemnify, hold harmless, and defend UBS Warburg and its affiliates, directors, agents, employees or principals under certain circumstances. In particular, Mr. DeFranceschi says, these Parties will be indemnified by the Debtors for any losses, claims, damages, liabilities and expenses relating to or arising out of matters contemplated by UBS Warburg's engagement. This includes any legal proceeding in connection with matters relating to or referred to in the parties' Engagement Letter or arising out of issues in which UBS becomes involved in any capacity.(NationsRent Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 21; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)NAVISTAR INT'L: S&P Keeping Watch on BB Corporate Credit Ratings----------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services placed its double-'B' corporate credit ratings on Navistar International Corp., and its subsidiary Navistar Financial Corp., a leading North American producer of heavy- and medium-duty trucks, on CreditWatch with negative implications. The CreditWatch listing is the result of Standard & Poor's concerns that the loss or postponement of the Ford Motor Co. V6 diesel engine business, combined with heavy cash outlays associated with the recently announced $456 million restructuring charge and continued challenging end market conditions, could pressure the credit profile and cash flow. Additionally, the company has approximately $200 million in manufacturing debt maturities it needs to refinance in the next 12 months, which heightens financial risk. In the past Navistar has tried to diversify to help reduce its exposure to the cyclical swings in the truck market, as evidenced by its role as a leading supplier of mid-range diesel engines to Ford. However, Navistar announced that Ford no longer considers the V6 diesel engine program viable and commencement of Navistar's production is very uncertain. The company has indicated that this decision by Ford does not affect Navistar's supply of V8 engines to Ford. Accordingly, Navistar is taking a $120 million to $130 million after-tax charge associated with assets directly related to the V6 program. \"The longer-term impact of this event on Navistar's engine strategy is unclear, as the V6 program had been viewed as a significant factor in its engine growth strategy,\" said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Eric Ballantine. Elements of the $456 million restructuring charge include costs associated with the closing of the Chatham, Ont., heavy-duty truck facility, and the ceasing of operations at its body plant located in Springfield, Ohio; asset write-downs related to the company's V6 diesel engine program with Ford; and costs related to exiting the Brazilian domestic truck market. Cash outlays associated with this charge are significant and come at a time when cash generation is weak as a result of soft market conditions. Navistar continues to experience very challenging end market conditions. The company's key end markets, heavy-duty and medium-duty trucks, are expected to continue to experience very weak demand over the near term, reflecting the reluctance by trucking customers to place orders for new trucks during the current soft economic conditions in the U.S. Standard & Poor's will meet with Navistar's management to assess its long-term engine strategy, its ability to cope with present business conditions, its plans to refinance near-term debt maturities, and the impact of the proposed restructuring charge on the company's cash flow and liquidity. NDCHEALTH CORP: S&P Ratchets Corp. Credit Rating Down a Notch ------------------------------------------------------------- Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its corporate credit rating on NDCHealth Corp., to 'BB-' from 'BB'. The downgrade reflects weakened debt protection measures and the expectation of a more leveraged financial profile for the Atlanta, Georgia-based provider of transaction-processing products to the health-care industry.At the same time, Standard & Poor's assigned its 'BB-' rating to the company's planned $200 million secured bank facility, which would replace the company's existing $150 million unsecured facility due 2003. The bank facility consists of a $125 million term loan due 2008 and a $75 million revolving credit facility due 2007.Standard & Poor's also assigned its 'B' rating to NDCHealth's planned $175 million senior subordinated notes due 2012. Proceeds from the notes and the term loan, totaling $300 million, would be used to redeem $144 million in outstanding convertible notes due November 2003, to repay $91 million of the company's existing revolving credit facility, and to bolster cash balances. The new $75 million revolving credit facility would be unused and available.Total debt after refinancing is expected to be about $325 million. The outlook is stable.By May 2003, NDCHealth is expected to acquire the remaining interest in TechRx Inc. (unrated), a provider of software that automates the prescription-fulfillment process. The price, expected to be $100 million-$200 million, can be paid in cash or equity, or a combination of both at the company's option.\"Despite expectations for acquisition-based and internal sales growth, profitability gains could be muted and capital spending could increase over the near term, while the company integrates new products, challenging free cash flow,\" said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Emile Courtney.The stable outlook assumes NDCHealth successfully integrates TechRx and improves cash flow over the near term.NETIA HOLDINGS: Asks Nasdaq Panel to Review Delisting Decision--------------------------------------------------------------Netia Holdings S.A. (WSE: NET), Poland's largest alternative provider of fixed-line telecommunications services (in terms of value of generated revenues), announced that on October 29, 2002 it submitted a request to the Nasdaq Listing and Hearing Review Council to review the earlier decision of the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel to delist Netia's American Depositary Shares from The Nasdaq Stock National Market, effective as of the opening of the business on October 15, 2002.Netia Holdings BV's 13.75% bonds due 2010 (NETH10NLN1) are trading at 16 cents-on-the-dollar, DebtTraders reports. See http://www.debttraders.com/price.cfm?dt_sec_ticker=NETH10NLN1 for real-time bond pricing.NETIA HOLDINGS: Will Not Make Interest Payments on Certain Notes----------------------------------------------------------------Netia Holdings S.A. (WSE: NET), Poland's largest alternative provider of fixed-line telecommunications services (in terms of value of generated revenues), announced that, in accordance with the terms of the restructuring agreement entered into earlier this year with its noteholders, Netia Holdings B.V., one of Netia's Dutch finance subsidiaries, will not make the following interest payments due on November 1, 2002 on certain notes: (i) US$10,250,000 on the 10-1/4% Dollar Notes due 2007 issued by BV I, (ii) US$10,887,000.50 on the 11-1/4% Discount Dollar Notes due 2007 issued by BV I and (iii) EUR 5,822,801.57 on the 11% Discount DM Notes due 2007 issued by BV I. In addition, these interest payments are not being made by the Company in accordance with the Dutch Court's grant on July 12, 2002 of provisional payment suspensions on the repayment of all obligations of BV I and Netia's other two Dutch finance subsidiaries.NETZEE INC: September 30, 2002 Equity Deficit Tops $10 Million--------------------------------------------------------------Netzee, Inc. (OTCBB: NETZ), a provider of integrated Internet banking products and services and Internet commerce solutions, it achieved its fourth consecutive quarter of positive pro forma EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) and generated positive pro forma cash earnings. For the quarter ended September 30, 2002, EBITDA totaled $1.3 million and cash earnings totaled $375,000 compared to an EBITDA loss of $205,000 and a cash loss of $1.1 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2001. For the quarter ended June 30, 2002, EBITDA was $892,000 and cash loss was $27,000. Pro forma EBITDA and pro forma cash loss numbers for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 include the impact of approximately $250,000 in severance payments to our former Chief Financial Officer. Excluding these costs, Netzee would have reported second quarter EBITDA of $1.1 million and cash earnings of $223,000. In its September 30, 2002 balance sheets, Netzee recorded a total shareholders' equity deficit of about $10 million, and a working capital deficiency of about $24 million.Netzee's recent achievements include: -- Migrated over 75 financial institutions to the Netzee Internet Banking version 4.0 platform. -- Released the beta version of Premier Internet Banking version 6.0 to four credit union customers. Version 6.0 features a consolidated transaction server which creates a seamless upgrade path to new product releases. -- Increased the end user acceptance rate of bill payment, due largely to the consumer account direct bill payment option. Revenues for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 totaled $4.5 million, compared with $4.4 million in the quarter ended June 30, 2002 and $6.2 million in the quarter ended September 30, 2001. The decline in revenue as compared to the prior year is due largely to the previously disclosed disposition of non-core businesses, including the sale of our Digital Visions business in November 2001, as well as the anticipated customer attrition during 2001 and 2002 of certain non-core business we acquired from John H. Harland Company in November 2000. Netzee ended the third quarter of 2002 with 543 financial institution customers contracted for its Internet banking products and 512 installed. There were over 900,000 end users of Netzee's core Internet banking products at September 30, 2002. Third quarter 2002 gross profit and gross margin were $3.0 million and 66 percent, respectively, compared with $2.9 million and 47 percent in the year-ago period, and $2.8 million and 63 percent in the second quarter of 2002. Gross margin improved from the year-ago period due to the dispositions and attrition of the lower-margin, non-core businesses noted above. Net loss for the third quarter of 2002 totaled $2.8 million, compared with $22.1 million in the third quarter of 2001 and $5.7 million in the second quarter of 2002. For the nine months ended September 30, 2002, EBITDA totaled $2.7 million and cash earnings totaled $29,000. This compares to EBITDA loss of $3.7 million and cash loss of $6.3 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2001. Pro forma EBITDA and pro forma cash loss numbers for the nine months ended September 30, 2002 include the impact of a $750,000 settlement of a lawsuit and approximately $250,000 in severance payments to our former Chief Financial Officer. Excluding these costs, Netzee would have reported year-to-date EBITDA of $3.7 million and cash earnings of $1.0 million. Net loss, excluding the impact of change in accounting principle, for the nine months ended September 30, 2002 totaled $14.8 million as compared to $52.4 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2001. Year to date revenues in 2002 totaled $13.7 million as compared to $20.1 million during the same period in 2001. The Company was notified by a significant customer of the completion of their conversion to another Internet banking system as of September 30, 2002, significantly ahead of their schedule. Revenue for the third quarter and year-to-date period attributable to this customer was approximately $255,000 and $922,000, respectively. As previously disclosed, another significant customer is expected to complete their conversion during the fourth quarter of 2002. Revenue for the third quarter and year-to-date period attributable to this customer was approximately $510,000 and $1,448,000, respectively. As of September 30, 2002, Netzee had approximately $5.7 million in cash on hand and cash available under its line of credit. Netzee provides financial institutions with a suite of Internet-based products and services, including full-service Internet banking, bill payment, cash management, Internet commerce services, custom web design and hosting, branded portal design, targeted marketing and implementation and marketing services. Netzee was formed in 1999 as a subsidiary of InterCept, Inc., and as the successor to a company founded in 1996. Netzee became a public company in November 1999. The company's stock is quoted through the OTC Bulletin Board under the symbol NETZ. Further information about Netzee is available at http://www.netzee.com NEWFOUNDLAND CAPITAL: Reports Improved Performance in Q3 2002-------------------------------------------------------------Newfoundland Capital Corporation Limited announces its unaudited financial results for the third quarter of 2002. The third quarter of 2002 marked the beginning of Newfoundland Capital Corporation Limited as a pure Broadcasting Company. The Company divested of its Publishing and Printing Division on July 25, 2002 to a newly incorporated company, Optipress Inc., (TSX-OPP) which completed its Initial Public Offering on that date. The transaction was effective June 30, 2002. This reportable segment has been accounted for as discontinued operations from the beginning of the third quarter of 2002, therefore the amounts shown below relate only to continuing operations with the exception of net income. Net income for the third quarter of 2002 was $4.3 million, a significant improvement over the prior year's net loss of $5.0 million. Excluding the gain on sale of the Publishing and Printing Division in the current period and the restructuring charges in 2001, net income from continuing operations would be $1.1 million compared to last year's $0.2 million. The after tax gain on disposal of the Publishing and Printing Division was $3.3 million. This is net of a deferred pre-tax gain of $3.5 million.Revenue from continuing operations increased by 22% to $13.3 million in the quarter. Cash flow was $2.3 million as compared to $2.1 million in 2001. The third quarter saw Radio improve operating earnings by 43% to $3.2 million from last year's $2.3 million. Operating cash flow rose 25% to $3.7 million from $2.9 million last year.Year-to-date, net income was $6.6 million as compared to a loss of $4.8 million a year ago. After adjusting for the gain from Publishing and Printing and restructuring charges, net income from continuing operations would be $2.8 million well ahead of 2001 results which would have been at breakeven.On revenue from continuing operations of $35.4 million, cash flow was $6.1 million, a 37% improvement over the $4.4 million posted last year. Radio operating earnings were $8.6 million, 50% better than last year's $5.7 million. Radio cash flow was $9.6 million, well ahead of the $7.6 million achieved in 2001.Newfoundland Capital Corporation Limited (TSX - NCC.A, NCC.B) is a public company based in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. The Company owns and operates 42 radio stations representing a total of 57 licenses across Canada with a significant presence in Alberta and Atlantic Canada.Newfoundland Capital's September 30, 2002 balance sheets show a working capital deficit of about $9 million.NORSKE SKOG: Reports $20MM Net Loss on $392MM Sales in Q3 2002--------------------------------------------------------------Continuing weak economic conditions contributed to a third quarter net loss for Norske Skog Canada Limited of $20.1 million on sales of $392.6 million. Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, amortization and before other non-operating income and expenses (EBITDA) were $42.4 million. The net results include an after-tax foreign exchange loss of $4.7 million from the translation of U.S. dollar denominated debt. For the same period a year ago, the company recorded net earnings of $18.8 million on sales of $322.1 million and EBITDA of $45.0 million. These earnings reflect an income tax recovery of $22.8 million from reduced provincial corporate income tax rates. They also include an after-tax foreign exchange loss of $9.0 million from the translation of U.S. dollar denominated debt. The current quarter's results compare favorably with the previous quarter, when the company's net loss was $24.4 million on sales of $359.8 million and EBITDA of $6.0 million. This net loss includes an after-tax foreign exchange gain of $13.2 million from the translation of U.S. dollar denominated debt, a release of future income taxes of $9.7 million and an after-tax write-off of deferred financing costs of $10.3 million for repaid term and operating credit facilities. The company said its improved third quarter operating performance primarily reflected higher specialty paper sales volumes, a stronger U.S. dollar, and improved pulp and paper production costs. Newsprint prices in North America increased from their trough levels in the second quarter. The North American US$50 per tonne price increase announced August 1 partially took effect during the third quarter. Pricing for specialty grades appear to have stabilized after some slippage early in the quarter. The company also reports it exceeded its upgraded $100.0 million synergy target in the quarter well ahead of the accelerated timeline. As of September 30, 2002, NorskeCanada had captured $110.0 million in synergies on an annualized run-rate basis (assuming full capacity), of which $104.0 million related to EBITDA (the original target was $60 million by August 31, 2003). Adjusting for actual operating rates from curtailment, results for the third quarter include EBITDA-improving synergies of approximately $24.0 million, or $94.0 million annually. In August, the company's paper operations returned to full capacity following significant market downtime in the early part of the year. Operating rates were largely boosted from the stronger seasonal demand for the company's specialty papers; newsprint volumes remained unchanged quarter over quarter. While the company will continue to run full well into the fourth quarter, it will not rule out further curtailment later in the year or early in 2003 if markets deteriorate. \"Our approach is to be highly disciplined in matching production with our order book,\" said president and CEO Russell Horner. \"If market conditions worsen, we will need to adjust our run rate accordingly.\" A major achievement in the quarter was the successful negotiation of new five-year collective agreements with the company's two unions - the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada and the Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada. The terms of the settlement, reached 10 months before the existing agreements expire, provide a competitive wage increase and ensure operational stability at all of the company's operations for the next five years. Horner said the constructive conclusion of negotiations is another outcome of the company's intensive program to dramatically improve operational performance. \"While markets have been at their historic worst, our employees have been at their historic best,\" commented Horner. \"Costs are down, synergies are up, and our machine efficiency is better than ever. \"However, we will continue to raise the performance bar. Although we have exceeded our synergy goal, we will continue to look for opportunities both in synergy capture and in operational excellence.\" For the nine months ended September 30, 2002, Norske Skog Canada Limited recorded a net loss of $86.0 million on sales of $1,076.7 million and EBITDA of $46.3 million. This compares to net earnings of $56.5 million on sales of $975.9 million and EBITDA of $156.8 million for the same period in 2001. The net loss for the current period included an after-tax write-off of deferred financing costs of $10.3 million, an after-tax foreign exchange gain of $8.7 million, and a release of future income taxes of $9.7 million. (The results for the third quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2001 exclude the earnings of Pacifica, acquired on August 27, 2001, and the impact of changes in the company's capital structure during the last year, and include the earnings from the former Mackenzie pulp operations up to its sale on June 15, 2001. Further related information is available in the attached management's discussion and analysis.) Management's Discussion and Analysis The following management's discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with the unaudited interim consolidated financial statements for the three and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2002 and 2001 and the three-month period ended June 30, 2002. The consolidated statements of earnings and retained earnings and cash flows for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2001 include the results of our former Mackenzie pulp operations prior to its sale on June 15, 2001. The consolidated statements of earnings and retained earnings and cash flows for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2001 exclude the earnings of Pacifica Papers Inc. prior to acquisition on August 27, 2001, the full impact on earnings of the change in the Company's capital structure arising from the Acquisition and the payment of a special distribution to shareholders in August 2001, and the impact of the Company's equity offering of $217.7 million in May 2002. These events affect comparisons with historical results. Pulp and paper producers continued to experience challenging market conditions during the third quarter of 2002. A stuttering U.S. economic recovery and flagging consumer confidence, due in part to the recent stock market downturn and rising unemployment rates, dispelled any hopes of a significant upturn in consumer demand outside the normal fall seasonal increase. On the pricing front, a US$50 per tonne price increase for North American newsprint customers partially took effect during the quarter. Prices for specialty paper grades appear to have stabilized after some further slippage early in the current quarter. Pulp prices, after several price hikes earlier this year, started to come under downward pressure towards the end of the current quarter, due to a combination of higher industry operating rates and softer demand. Containerboard pricing remained firm during the quarter. Despite the difficult climate, we recorded an improved financial performance for the third quarter of 2002, generating EBITDA of $42.4 million. We also achieved our upgraded Acquisition synergy target of $100 million, well ahead of the accelerated timeline. Moreover, as of September 30, 2002, we had captured a further $10 million of synergies, taking our total synergies, on an annualized run-rate basis, to $110 million. Results of Operations For the three months ended September 30, 2002, we incurred a net loss of $20.1 million on sales of $392.6 million. Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization and before other non-operating income and expenses were $42.4 million. Our net loss included an after-tax foreign exchange loss of $4.7 million arising from the translation of U.S. dollar denominated debt. This compares to the second quarter of 2002 when we recorded a net loss of $24.4 million and EBITDA of $6.0 million on sales of $359.8 million. Included in the net loss for the preceding quarter was an after-tax foreign exchange gain of $13.2 million arising from the translation of U.S. dollar denominated debt, an after-tax write-off of deferred financing costs of $10.3 million associated with repaid term and operating credit facilities, and a release of future income taxes of $9.7 million. For the quarter ended September 30, 2001, we reported net earnings of $18.8 million and EBITDA of $45.0 million on sales of $322.1 million. Earnings for the third quarter of 2001 reflected an income tax recovery of $22.8 million following a reduction in provincial corporate income tax rates and an after-tax foreign exchange loss of $9.0 million arising from the translation of U.S. dollar denominated debt. For the nine months ended September 30, 2002, our net loss was $86.0 million on sales of $1,076.7 million, compared to net earnings of $56.5 million on sales of $975.9 million for the comparative period in 2001. Our net loss for the current period included an after-tax write-off of deferred financing costs of $10.3 million, an after-tax foreign exchange gain of $8.7 million arising from the translation of U.S. dollar denominated debt, and a release of future income taxes of $9.7 million. Net earnings for the first nine months of 2001 included an after-tax loss of $19.0 million on the sale of Mackenzie, an after-tax foreign exchange loss of $9.0 million arising from the translation of U.S. dollar denominated debt, and income tax recoveries totaling $33.3 million which resulted from the reduction in provincial corporate income tax rates, and the amortization of deferred credits upon utilization of acquired tax losses. EBITDA for the first nine months of 2002 was $46.3 million, compared to $156.8 million, for the same period in 2001. Three Months ended September 30, 2002 compared to Three Months ended September 30, 2001 Consolidated Total EBITDA for the three months ended September 30, 2002 was $42.4 million on total sales of $392.6 million, compared to EBITDA of $6.0 million on sales of $359.8 million for the previous quarter ended June 30, 2002. Our stronger financial performance primarily reflected higher specialty paper sales volumes, a stronger U.S. dollar and improved pulp and paper production costs. Specialties Our specialties paper business generated EBITDA of $25.2 million on sales of $195.1 million for the current quarter, compared to EBITDA of $14.3 million on sales of $170.9 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2002. In the third quarter of 2002, sales volumes were 223,100 tonnes, up 27,400 tonnes, or 14.0%, from the previous quarter, due primarily to seasonally higher demand, which accounted for our improved operating rates in the current quarter. The average sales revenue for the third quarter remained at similar levels to the previous quarter, at $874 per tonne. The positive impact of a stronger U.S. dollar was balanced by lower prices for our LWC and uncoated groundwood specialty papers, and higher freight costs. The average cost of sales for the current quarter was $729 per tonne, an improvement of $34 per tonne, or 4.5%, from the previous quarter. Our improved cost performance was due primarily to higher production volumes, synergy- driven cost savings resulting from the elimination of 60 positions at Port Alberni, and lower maintenance spending. These cost savings were partially offset by costs associated with scheduled annual power boiler maintenance shutdowns at our Crofton and Elk Falls paper operations in the current quarter and higher de-inked pulp (DIP) consumption. Newsprint Our newsprint paper business recorded EBITDA of $0.9 million on sales of $117.1 million for the current quarter, compared to EBITDA of $(8.2) million on sales of $112.0 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2002. Third quarter newsprint sales volumes remained largely unchanged from the previous quarter, at 201,600 tonnes. The average sales revenue for the third quarter of 2002 was $581 per tonne, an increase of $17 per tonne, or 3.0%, from the preceding quarter. The partial implementation of a US$50 per tonne price increase for North American markets during the current quarter, as well as the stronger U.S. dollar, more than offset a decline in period-over-period average transaction prices in offshore markets. The average cost of sales for the current quarter was $551 per tonne, an improvement of $30 per tonne, or 5.2%, from the previous quarter. This was mostly attributable to further synergies, lower maintenance costs, seasonally lower energy costs and reduced DIP consumption. These cost reductions were partially offset by scheduled power boiler shutdown costs at Crofton and Elk Falls. Pulp and Containerboard EBITDA from pulp and containerboard operations for the third quarter of 2002 was $16.3 million on sales of $80.4 million, compared to EBITDA of $(0.1) million on sales of $76.9 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2002. Pulp and containerboard sales volumes for the current quarter were 126,600 tonnes, a decrease of 11,200 tonnes, or 8.1%, from the previous quarter. This was largely due to increased internal use of kraft pulp as our paper production facilities returned to full capacity. The average pulp and containerboard sales revenue for the current quarter was $635 per tonne, an increase of $77 per tonne, or 13.8%, from the previous quarter, reflecting stronger prices in the third quarter and favourable foreign exchange movements. The average cost of sales for pulp and containerboard for the third quarter was $479 per tonne, an improvement of $55 per tonne, or 10.3%, over the preceding quarter. The scheduled kraftmill maintenance shutdown at Elk Falls in the second quarter, improved energy consumption and seasonally lower energy costs in the third quarter were the primary factors accounting for the reduction in costs. Three Months ended September 30, 2002 compared to Three Months ended September 30, 2001 Consolidated Total EBITDA for the three months ended September 30, 2002 was $42.4 million on total sales of $392.6 million, compared to EBITDA of $45.0 million on sales of $322.1 million for the comparative period in 2001. The positive impact on EBITDA of synergies, higher sales volumes and a higher-value product mix arising from the Acquisition, together with lower production costs and improved pulp and containerboard prices, was offset primarily by significantly weaker newsprint and specialty paper prices. Specialties EBITDA from our specialties paper business was $25.2 million on sales of $195.1 million for the third quarter of 2002, compared to $26.8 million on sales of $119.4 million for the same quarter last year. Sales volumes for the third quarter of 2002 were 223,100 tonnes, up 108,500 tonnes, or 94.7%, compared to the same period in 2001, primarily as a result of the Acquisition. The average sales revenue for the third quarter of 2002 was $874 per tonne, a decrease of $168 per tonne, or 16.1%, compared to the corresponding quarter of 2001. Price erosion over the last year, particularly LWC and uncoated groundwood specialty papers, outweighed the positive impact of a higher-value grade mix arising from the Acquisition, and to a lesser extent, a stronger U.S. dollar. The average cost of sales for the third quarter of 2002 was $729 per tonne, an improvement of $37 per tonne, or 4.8%, from the comparative period in 2001. The capture of various fibre, furnish, energy, and other synergies realized in the current quarter, together with lower wood fibre and natural gas prices, were the primary factors accounting for the significant reduction in costs. These cost reductions were partly offset by costs associated with our higher-value grade mix arising from the Acquisition. Newsprint Our newsprint paper business recorded EBITDA of $0.9 million on sales of $117.1 million, compared to $15.0 million on sales of $117.5 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2001. Sales volumes for the third quarter of 2002 were 201,600 tonnes, which represented an increase of 52,200 tonnes, or 34.9%, compared to the same period in 2001. The increase was largely due to additional newsprint capacity arising from the Acquisition, which more than offset higher curtailment taken in the third quarter of 2001. For the third quarter of 2002, the average sales revenue was $581 per tonne, a decrease of $206 per tonne, or 26.2%, compared to the same period in 2001. The decrease substantially reflects a sharp drop off in consumer demand over the last year as a result of the ailing U.S. economy. The average cost of sales for the current quarter was $551 per tonne, an improvement of $92 per tonne, or 14.3%, compared to the same quarter a year earlier. This primarily reflected the capture of various synergies as well as favourable movements in fibre and energy prices. Pulp and Containerboard EBITDA from pulp and containerboard was $16.3 million on sales of $80.4 million for the current quarter of 2002, compared to EBITDA of $3.2 million on sales of $85.2 million for the same period in 2001. Pulp and containerboard sales volumes for the third quarter of 2002 were 126,600 tonnes, a decrease of 28,000 tonnes, or 18.1%, from the comparable period in 2001. Additional internal pulp requirements in the current quarter following the closure of the Powell River kraft pulp mill in late 2001 more than offset the impact of 35,000 tonnes curtailment in the third quarter of 2001. The average pulp and containerboard sales revenue for the third quarter of 2002 was $635 per tonne, an increase of $84 per tonne, or 15.2%, from the same quarter in 2001. The positive variance was primarily due to improved transaction prices for both pulp and containerboard products and favourable foreign exchange movements. The average pulp and containerboard cost of sales for the third quarter was $479 per tonne, an improvement of $21 per tonne, or 4.2%, over the same quarter in 2001. Lower unit fixed costs resulting from higher operating rates and lower fibre costs more than offset the impact of improving net realizable values on inventory volumes and values in the third quarter of 2001. Nine Months ended September 30, 2002 compared to Nine Months ended September 30, 2001 Consolidated Total EBITDA for the nine months ended September 30, 2002 was $46.3 million on total sales of $1,076.7 million, compared to EBITDA of $156.8 million on sales of $975.9 million for the comparative period in 2001. Improvements to EBITDA resulting primarily from Acquisition-related synergies, higher sales volumes and a higher-value product mix, lower production costs and stronger pulp and containerboard prices were more than offset by a sharp deterioration in paper prices as well as additional curtailment in 2002. Specialties Our specialties paper business generated EBITDA of $65.8 million on sales of $536.4 million for the first nine months of 2002, compared to EBITDA of $57.9 million on sales of $258.3 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2001. For the first nine months of 2002, sales volumes were 600,300 tonnes, up 350,900 tonnes, or 140.7%, from the same period last year, due primarily to increased production capacity across all product lines as a result of the Acquisition. The average sales revenue for the nine months ended September 30, 2002 was $893 per tonne, a decrease of $143 per tonne, or 13.8%, from the same period last year. Falling prices across all product lines, as a result of prolonged weak consumer demand, more than offset the positive contribution made by the increased proportion of higher-value grades following the Acquisition. The average cost of sales for the first nine months of 2002 was $748 per tonne, a decrease of $5 per tonne, or 0.7%, from the same period in 2001. Synergy-driven production cost improvements as well as lower prices for fibre and natural gas more than offset additional costs associated with our higher- value sales mix arising from the Acquisition, lower operating rates and higher DIP consumption in the current period. Newsprint Our newsprint paper business recorded EBITDA of $(19.6) million on sales of $320.1 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2002, compared to EBITDA of $74.3 million on sales of $371.9 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2001. Sales volumes in the first nine months of the year were 550,700 tonnes, an increase of 113,600 tonnes, or 26.0%, compared to the same period in 2001. Increased capacity following the Acquisition was partly offset by higher curtailment in 2002 versus 2001. The average sales revenue for the nine months ended September 30, 2002 was $581 per tonne, a decrease of $270 per tonne, or 31.7%, from the same period in 2001. The depressed market conditions led to a sharp fall in transaction prices from the last quarter of 2001 through the first half of 2002. The average cost of sales for the first nine months ended September 30, 2002 was $589 per tonne, an improvement of $42 per tonne, or 6.8%, from the corresponding period in 2001. Savings arising from synergies, combined with lower fibre and energy costs and less DIP consumption, more than offset the impact of higher curtailment through the first nine months of 2002. Pulp and Containerboard EBITDA from pulp and containerboard operations in the first nine months of 2002 was $0.1 million, on sales of $220.2 million, compared to EBITDA of $24.6 million on sales of $345.7 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2001. Pulp and containerboard sales volumes for the first nine months of 2002 were 375,300 tonnes. This represented a decrease of 165,400 tonnes, or 30.6%. This was primarily due to the reduction in available capacity in the first nine months of 2001, following the June 2001 sale of Mackenzie and the shutdown of the Powell River pulp mill, which required the diversion of market pulp for internal consumption at Powell River and Port Alberni. Lower curtailment in the nine months of 2002, compared to the same period in 2001, partly offset this decrease. The average pulp and containerboard sales revenue for the nine months ended September 30, 2002 was $587 per tonne, a decrease of $52 per tonne, or 8.1%, from the same period last year. The impact of reduced prices across all products for 2002 was partly offset by a greater proportion of higher-value containerboard in our 2002 sales mix following the sale of Mackenzie. The average cost of sales for pulp and containerboard for the first nine months of 2002 was $559 per tonne, down $11 per tonne, or 1.9%, over the same period last year. The additional costs associated with our higher-value pulp and containerboard sales mix, following the disposal of Mackenzie and the shutdown of the Powell River kraft pulp mill, were more than offset by lower fixed unit and fibre costs. Cash Provided by Operations Cash flow provided (used) by operating activities, after changes in non- cash working capital, for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 was $(47.1) million, compared to $60.2 million for the third quarter of 2001 and $(5.6) million for the previous quarter ended June 30, 2002. Compared to the previous quarter of 2002, improved cash flow from operations ($48.5 million) was more than offset by additional working capital requirements ($90.0 million) resulting primarily from higher sales volumes, the seasonal build-up of specialty paper inventories, and property taxes paid during the period. Cash flow provided (used) by operating activities, after changes in non-cash working capital, for the nine months ended September 30, 2002, was $(59.2) million, compared to $215.3 million for the same period in 2001, primarily due to the weaker market conditions. Investing and Financing Activities We continued to keep a tight control on our capital expenditures in the third quarter of 2002. Capital spending for the current quarter was $13.6 million, compared to $21.5 million for the same quarter in 2001, and $17.5 million for the second quarter of 2002. Capital spending for the first nine months of 2002 was $40.5 million, significantly lower than $62.1 million for the comparable period in 2001. In July 2002, we replaced our revolving operating loan with a new $350 million revolving operating loan. As of September 30, 2002, the unused operating credit facility available to the Company was $192 million. In July 2002, Powell River Energy Inc., refinanced its debt from an issue of $75.0 million of First Mortgage Bonds due July 2009, of which our proportionate share is $37.6 million. As part of the refinancing, NorskeCanada and the other shareholder of PREI each advanced $7.5 million to PREI. As at September 30, 2002 the Company was in compliance with the covenants under both its credit facilities and bond indentures. However, the Company's Consolidated Fixed Charge Ratio is below the 2.0:1 threshold of the bond indentures. While this does not constitute non-compliance or default, the indentures place some restrictions on the Company while its Consolidated Fixed Charge Ratio remains below this threshold. The restrictions prohibit the payment of dividends and limit the amount of additional debt that can be incurred outside of the existing credit facilities. Update on Synergies As previously mentioned, we achieved our upgraded Acquisition synergy target of $100 million during the third quarter of 2002. On an annualized run- rate basis, assuming operations are at full capacity, we have now captured synergies totalling $110 million, of which $104 million relates to EBITDA. Based on actual operating rates (i.e. adjusted for the negative impact of curtailment), the results for the current quarter reflect EBITDA-improving synergies of approximately $24 million ($94 million per year). We continue to look for opportunities to capture any remaining synergies from the Pacifica acquisition. In the third quarter of 2002, the Company exceeded synergy targets set out in an incentive plan developed in September 2001 when the Company merged with Pacifica. Payments authorized under this plan include the granting of 2.1 million share options. Other Developments In September 2002, we reached tentative settlements with the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada and the Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada, on new five-year collective agreements, ten months before the existing agreements expire. These two unions represent substantially all of the members at the Company's four operations. The terms of the settlement provide a competitive wage increase and ensure operational stability for the next five years. Outlook Given the current market conditions, we anticipate newsprint and specialty paper prices will remain essentially flat for the balance of 2002. Containerboard prices are expected to show a modest improvement over the same period; however, pulp prices appear to be heading down in the short term as a result of the current imbalance of global supply and demand. Looking further ahead to 2003, the outlook is somewhat unclear. It is anticipated that the combination of increased disposable income, following recent tax rate reductions in the U.S., and low interest rates, will act as a stimulus to generate a sustainable upturn in economic activity as the year progresses. We expect groundwood paper prices to improve steadily as the U.S. economy strengthens. As we have indicated in previous quarters, we will continue to position ourselves conservatively in the event that the awaited recoveries in paper, pulp and containerboard markets take longer than anticipated. * * *As previously reported, Moody's Investors Service took several rating actions on Norske Skog Canada. Rating Actions: Assigned Norske Skog Canada Finance Limited Proposed $C300 million Revolving credit facility; Ba1 Downgraded Norske Skog Canada Finance Limited Existing Bank Debt; to Ba1 from Baa3 Norske Skog Canada Limited Senior Implied Rating; to Ba2 from Ba1 Confirmed Norske Skog Canada Limited Global Senior Unsecured Notes; Ba2 Guaranteed Global Bonds (formerly Paper Papers Inc.); Ba2 Issuer Rating; Ba2The ratings slide reflects the weak near term outlook for the company's core business of newsprint, pulp and coated papers, and low expected cash flow until the end of 2002. The ratings also reflect the company's narrow product focus in a commodity industry with volatile pricing; its moderate size in relation to its competitors; and its lack of geographic diversification.NQL: ViewCast Unit Acquires Assets of Delta Computec Subsidiary ---------------------------------------------------------------NQL, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Delta Computec Inc., disposed of substantially all of Delta's assets, including operating assets, vendor and customer contracts, property and customer lists on October 11, 2002 pursuant to the terms of an Asset Purchase Agreement between NQL, Delta and ViewCast.com, Inc. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey in NQL's bankruptcy case previously authorized NQL to cause Delta to sell its assets to ViewCast. NQL has previously reported the signing of the Asset Purchase Agreement in a prior report which was filed with the SEC on July 3, 2002. At the closing, the Delta assets were transferred or assigned to, and certain of Delta's liabilities were assumed by, a subsidiary of ViewCast. In consideration for the acquisition of the Delta assets and the assumption of Delta's liabilities, an aggregate of $500,000 was paid in cash at the October 11, 2002 closing. In addition, subject to adjustment as set forth in the Asset Purchase Agreement, an additional $250,000 is payable six months after the closing and a final $250,000 is payable twelve months after closing. The ViewCast subsidiary also agreed to assume Delta liabilities in the approximate aggregate amount of $2,562,000. ViewCast has guaranteed the obligations of the ViewCast subsidiary. By the Asset Purchase Agreement, ViewCast also agreed to issue to Delta up to 150,000 shares of ViewCast's Class D Preferred Stock, of which 95,500 shares were issued at the closing. Subject to adjustment as set forth in the Asset Purchase Agreement, the remaining 54,500 shares are issuable in the future. For the purposes of the acquisition, the Asset Purchase Agreement valued the 150,000 shares of ViewCast Class D Preferred Stock at $10.00 per share, or $1,500,000. The 150,000 shares of the Class D Preferred Stock are convertible into 1,000,000 common shares of ViewCast at $1.50 per share. The ViewCast common stock to be issued upon conversion is subject to a Registration Rights Agreement whereby ViewCast has agreed to register that ViewCast common stock in certain circumstances. The shares of common stock of ViewCast are traded on the OTC Bulletin Board under the symbol VCST. The Class D Preferred Stock is also required to be redeemed at the stated value of $1,500,000, at the option of the holders of that stock, at any time after the second anniversary of the closing. ViewCast also has the right to redeem the 150,000 shares of Class D Preferred Stock at the stated value of$1,500,000 at any time from and after the third anniversary date of the closing, or prior to the third anniversary date of the closing if the ViewCast common stock has traded at $3.75 per share for a period of ten consecutive trading days. The principle followed in determining the amount of consideration paid for the Delta assets was an arms-length negotiation between NQL, Delta and ViewCast. There was no prior material relationship between ViewCast and either NQL or Delta or any of their affiliates, directors or officers or any associates of any such director or officer. Following the closing, the former president of Delta became an employee of, and President of, the ViewCast subsidiary.OHIO CASULATY: S&P Changes Outlook on BB Rating to Negative ----------------------------------------------------------- Standard & Poor's Ratings Services revised its outlook on Ohio Casualty Corp., which has a double-'B' counterparty credit rating, and related operating companies to negative from stable following Ohio Casualty's recent announcement of its third quarter 2002 earnings, in which the group posted a net loss of $69.9 million.The main factors driving this loss were pretax reserve charges of $62.2 million for construction-defect claims as well as a pretax impairment write-down of its agent intangible asset of $54 million. As a result, Ohio Casualty's operating results fell substantially below Standard & Poor's expectations for the first nine months of the year, with the group posting a $30 million net loss and 114.6% statutory combined ratio for the period. In addition, the group's operating capital adequacy is expected to fall below Standard & Poor's initial expectation of 125%-135% at year-end 2002 given the fall in the group's statutory surplus as of Sept. 30, 2002.\"Over the last two years, Ohio Casualty has undergone significant restructuring to address its poor operating performance,\" said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Laline Carvalho. \"Although Standard & Poor's believes the group's strategic focus has improved significantly since the entrance of a new management team in early 2001, Standard & Poor's believes over the medium-term, the group will remain challenged by its high expense structure, lingering (though decreasing) exposure to the New Jersey personal lines market, and the potential for further adverse reserve development.\"Ohio Casualty's financial flexibility has also declined, with the group's stock price trading significantly below its book value following its third-quarter announcement. Partially offsetting these factors are Ohio Casualty's good regional business position, improved investment strategy, and improving accident year loss ratios, as the group continues not to renew unprofitable business and agents.OM GROUP: Low Liquidity Spurs S&P to Lower Credit Rating to BB---------------------------------------------------------------- Standard & Poor's Ratings Services has lowered its corporate credit rating on metal-based specialty chemical and refined metal products producer OM Group Inc., to double-'B'-minus from double-'B' based on liquidity concerns and challenging market conditions.Standard & Poor's said that it has also placed its ratings on the company on CreditWatch with negative implications. Cleveland, Ohio-based OM Group has about $1.2 billion of debt outstanding.\"The downgrade is the result of the company's liquidity coming under stress because of probable financial covenant violations, unexpected dismal earnings performance, and the likelihood for a continuation of a weak economy well into 2003\", said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Wesley E. Chinn. The company has $170 million of availability under its credit agreement, but there is the potential for noncompliance with debt covenants at Dec. 31, 2002, because of expected further deterioration of operating results in the fourth quarter. Moreover, the price of cobalt is expected to remain low through 2003, reflecting the tough market environment and the lack of any foreseeable improvement in the demand for super alloys.Standard & Poor's said that the CreditWatch listing reflects considerable uncertainties regarding the company's near-to intermediate-term liquidity and the strength of its cash flow generation and business activity. Standard & Poor's said it will resolve the CreditWatch listing following the outcome of the company's discussions with its banks to amend its credit agreement and after meeting with OM's management.OWENS-BROCKWAY: S&P Rates Proposed $300M Sr. Secured Notes at BB ----------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services has assigned its double-'B' rating to Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc.'s proposed $300 million senior secured notes due 2012. Owens-Brockway is wholly owned subsidiary of Toledo, Ohio-based Owens-Illinois Inc. Total debt outstanding was about $5.4 billion as at Sept. 30, 2002.Standard & Poor's said that it has affirmed all of its ratings, including its double-'B' corporate credit rating, on Owens-Illinois Inc. and its related entities. The outlook remains negative. Proceeds of the proposed note offering will be used to repay a portion of the outstanding bank debt.\"The affirmation incorporates expectations that the company's asbestos liability will remain manageable and that management's efforts to improve cash flow protection measures will be realized in the near to intermediate term\", said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Paul Vastola. Standard & Poor's said that its ratings on Owens-Illinois Inc. and its related entities reflect the company's aggressive financial profile and meaningful concerns regarding its asbestos liability, offset by an above-average business position and strong EBITDA generation. Owens-Illinois is the largest manufacturer of glass containers in North America, South America, Australia, and New Zealand, and the second largest in Europe. In addition, the company is a leading plastics packaging manufacturer.PACIFIC GAS: Wants to Pay $1.3M for SEC Filing & Printer Fees-------------------------------------------------------------The Chapter 11 Plan proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Companyprovides for the creation of three new companies, ETrans LLC, Gtrans LLC and Electric Generation LLC. According to Janet A. Nexon, Esq., at Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin, P.C., in San Francisco California, PG&E will split its operations according to its four historical lines of business and functions: (a) The Reorganized Debtor will continue to operate the retail gas and electric distribution business; (b) ETrans LLC will operate the electric transmission business; (c) GTrans LLC will operate the gas transmission business; and (d) Electric Generation LLC will operate the electric generation business.A significant component of the Plan involves the issuance ofvarious types of debt securities by: -- the New Entities as part of the distributions to be made to holders of Allowed Claims; and -- PG&E and the New Entities as a means of raising the cash to pay Allowed Claims and otherwise implement the Plan.To this end, Ms. Nexon relates that the Debtor has utilized itsunderwriters in connection with the securities offerings. Theunderwriters helped prepare the registration statements andrelated prospectuses that PG&E and the New Entities will filewith the Securities and Exchange Commission for the offerings ofNew Money Notes to the public and the potential resale of Long-Term Notes by the holders of Allowed Claims to the public.However, as conditions precedent to the effectiveness of thePlan: (i) the registration statements for the New Money Notes and the Long-Term Notes must be declared effective by the SEC; and (ii) PG&E must have consummated the sale of its New Money Notes and the New Money Notes of each of the New Entities will have been priced and their trade dates will have occurred.Additionally, once the registration statements are filed, theremay be a lengthy SEC review process for the securities offeringsbefore the registration statements are declared effective.Ms. Nexon maintains that, at the time the registration statements are filed, PG&E will be required to pay filing fees to the SEC. PG&E estimates that the total filing fees will be $500,000, based on a total principal amount of $5,360,000,000 in debt to be offered. The current SEC filing fee is $92 for each $1,000,000 of debt offered.The Debtor anticipates it will need a professional printer toprepare and file the registration statements in the electronicfiling format. The printer's costs for these services depend on: * the size of the filings; * the number of amendments required by the SEC staff; and * the number of individual revisions made in preparing the filings and amendments.As a result, the printer fees are difficult to estimate inadvance. PG&E, however, calculates that the printer's costs forthese services will not exceed $800,000 before the confirmationof the Plan. After confirmation, additional amendments may alsobe expected.By this motion, PG&E seeks the Court's authority to pay for theSEC filing fees and printer fees. Ms. Nexon tells Judge Montalithat the Debtors need to pay for these fees \"in order to file the registration statements with the SEC and to proceed with theprocess of obtaining SEC clearance for the debt securitiesofferings that are necessary to implement the Plan.\"Besides, Ms. Nexon says,, PG&E is solvent and has sufficient cash to pay these expenses without causing any detriment to itscreditors. (Pacific Gas Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 47; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900) PERLE SYSTEMS: Net Capital Deficiency Widens to $3 Million----------------------------------------------------------Perle Systems Limited (OTCBB:PERL)(TSE:PL), a leading provider of networking products for Internet Protocol and e-business access, reported unaudited financial results for the first quarter fiscal 2003 ended August 31, 2002. At August 31, 2002, Perle Systems' balance sheets show a total shareholders' equity deficit of about $3 million, up from about $2 million as recorded at May 31, 2002. Financial Highlights Based on US GAAP, the Company's revenue for the first quarter of fiscal 2003 totaled US$5.3 million, compared to revenue of US$7.7 million for the first quarter of fiscal 2002. This reduction in sales was due to poor economic conditions in our largest European markets, including the United Kingdom, France and Germany, combined with the traditional European summer slowdown. In North America, we reorganized our entire distribution channel to lay the groundwork for sales growth in the coming quarters. This reorganization had the result of inhibiting sales during the quarter. Sales in the Asia-Pacific region, especially China, were maintained. In addition to these factors, we experienced some production backlogs, which prevented meeting all of the demand during the quarter. We anticipate clearing this backlog during the second quarter. Disciplined cost controls and stable gross margins offset the lower sales revenue to some extent and the cash loss or net operating loss for the quarter was approximately US$478,000 compared to a net cash loss or operating loss of approximately US$172,000 in the same period last year. Cash loss per share was US$0.05 for the quarter compared to a cash loss per share of US$0.02 in the same period last year. Net cash loss or net operating loss and cash loss per share figures exclude acquisition-related amortization, depreciation of capital assets and intangibles and one time costs. There were no one-time costs in the first quarter of this year or last year. Chief Executive Officer's comments: \"Our goal in fiscal 2003 is to continue to deliver operating profitability and sales growth.\" \"During the first quarter we continued with research and development programs to concentrate on our higher growth product lines with the intention of bringing leading technology at value prices to the market\", stated Joe Perle, President and Chief Executive Officer. \"Our marketing campaigns have taken a more aggressive approach and we have restructured our distribution channel, in particular in North America, to better service our VAR's and in so doing, to help drive demand for our products. We are already seeing some of the benefits in the second quarter and I remain confident of the long term outlook for Perle.\" Chief Financial Officer's comments: \"Having restored the Company to operating profitability in fiscal 2002, we are taking steps to further strengthen the Company in fiscal 2003. We continue to focus on the fundamentals of building sales, improving margins and operating efficiencies while containing costs,\" stated Derrick Barnett, Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer. \"We are particularly encouraged by the terms of the new credit agreement with our bankers, which we recently announced and believe that this will provide Perle with the working capital needed to continue on its path to attain full profitability and further growth.\" Perle Systems is a leading developer, manufacturer and vendor of award-winning networking products. These products are used to connect remote users reliably and securely to central servers for a wide variety of e-business and general business applications. Perle specializes in Internet Protocol (IP) connectivity applications, with an increasing focus on mid-size IP routing solutions. Product lines include routers, remote access servers, serial/console servers, emulation adapters, multi-port serial cards, multi-modem cards, print servers and network controllers. Perle distinguishes itself by its ownership of extensive networking technology, depth of experience in major network connectivity environments and long-term channel relationships in major world markets. Perle Systems has offices and representative offices in 12 countries in North America, The United Kingdom, Europe and Asia and sells its products through distribution channels worldwide. Its stock is traded on the OTCBB (symbol PERL) and the Toronto Stock Exchange (symbol PL). For more information about Perle and its products, access the Company's Web site at http://www.perle.com PHOTOCHANNEL: Raising $750K with Proposed LP Unit Financing -----------------------------------------------------------PhotoChannel Networks Inc., reports that the PhotoChannel Limited Partnership intends to sell up to 750 additional Limited Partnership Units for proceeds of up to $750,000. Each investor will enter into an agreement with PhotoChannel, pursuant to which PhotoChannel has the right to acquire, provided that certain market capitalization and working capital tests are met, all of the investors' LP Units, at any time after March 1, 2003 and, provided that certain market capitalization and working capital tests are met, on or before June 30, 2004, in exchange for 10,000 units of PhotoChannel per LP Unit, each unit of PhotoChannel being comprised of one common share and one common share purchase warrant, each of which, and the shares underlying the warrants, will be subject to a four month hold period from the date of issuance of the units. Each common share purchase warrant so issued will entitle the holder to purchase one common share of PhotoChannel at a price of $0.10, at any time on or before June 30, 2004.PhotoChannel will seek the approval of the TSX Venture Exchange for the Option Agreements to be entered into with new or existing limited partners of PhotoChannel LP. The terms of the new Option Agreement(s) will be identical terms to those entered into with the existing limited partners.PhotoChannel also reports that upon opening of the TSX Venture Exchange on October 29, 2002, certain insiders and friendly shareholders sold 2,962,100 shares for gross proceeds of $207,347. The sellers were Peter Scarth for 1,442,100 common shares and Quantus Capital Corp., for 1,520,000 common shares.The net proceeds from the sale will be loaned to the Company, as a bridge financing.Founded in 1995, PhotoChannel is a leading digital imaging technology provider for a wide variety of businesses including photofinishing retailers, professional/commercial photo processing labs, image content owners and targeted portal services. PhotoChannel has created and manages the PhotoChannel Network environment whose focus is delivering digital image orders from capture to fulfillment under the control of the originating PhotoChannel Network partner. For more information visit http://www.photochannel.comFormed in 2002, with the exclusive licensing rights to the PhotoChannel Network for Canadian distribution. Investors, to date, in the PhotoChannel Limited Partnership are TELUS Corporation, Discovery Capital Corporation and Peter Scarth.PhotoChannel filed for Chapter 7 Liquidation on November 1, 2001, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut in Bridgeport.POPE & TALBOT: Harmac Pulp Mill Resumes Operations After Outage --------------------------------------------------------------- Pope & Talbot (NYSE: POP) announced that its Harmac pulp mill inNanaimo, British Columbia resumed full operation after one of its recovery boilers was shut down for repairs. The boiler shut down caused the mill to lose approximately 8,000 metric tons of production, and is estimated to result in a $1.0 - $1.5 million reduction in operating income for the fourth quarter of 2002. All repairs have been successfully and safely completed and the mill is back in full operation. Pope & Talbot is dedicated to the pulp and wood products businesses. The Company is based in Portland, Oregon and traded on the New York and Pacific stock exchanges under the symbol POP. Pope & Talbot was founded in 1849 and produces market pulp and softwood lumber at mills in the U.S. and Canada. Markets for the Company's products include the U.S., Europe, Canada, SouthAmerica, Japan and the other Pacific Rim countries. For more information on Pope & Talbot, Inc., please check the Web site: http://www.poptal.com * * *As reported in the July 18, 2002 edition of Troubled Company Reporter, Standard & Poor's assigned its double-'B' rating to pulp and lumber producer Pope & Talbot Inc.'s $50 million senior unsecured notes due 2013. Standard & Poor's also affirmed its existing ratings on the company, including its double-'B' corporate credit rating. The outlook remains stable. Debt outstanding at the company at March 31, 2002, totaled $230 million.REVLON CONSUMER: S&P Puts B-/CCC- Credit Ratings on Watch Neg. -------------------------------------------------------------- Standard & Poor's Ratings Services placed its single-'B'-minus corporate credit rating on Revlon Consumer Products Corp. and its triple-'C'-minus corporate credit rating on REV Holdings Inc., on CreditWatch with negative implications.Revlon is a New York-based manufacturer and marketer of cosmetics, skin care, fragrance, and personal care products. REV Holdings conducts business exclusively through its indirect subsidiary, Revlon, which had $1.74 billion in debt at September 30, 2002. Debt held directly at REV Holdings totaled $80.5 million.\"The CreditWatch placement reflects Revlon's reduced liquidity position, which has continued to weaken because of negative operating cash flow. Furthermore, Revlon has announced it may not be in compliance with its bank financial covenant of minimum EBITDA of $210 million for the quarter ending December 31, 2002, due to the company's weaker-than-expected operating performance and anticipated soft 2002 holiday selling season,\" stated Standard & Poor's credit analyst Lori Harris.Standard & Poor's remains very concerned that Revlon's liquidity position may be severely stressed over the near term given the pace at which the company's cash balances are depleting and credit facility availability is reducing. Revlon's financial flexibility has declined substantially in 2002; availability under the $132.1 million revolving credit facility declined to $32 million at September 30, 2002, from $104 million at December 31, 2001. Furthermore, cash balances have dropped to $59 million at September 30, 2002, from $103 million at December 31, 2001.Standard & Poor's will meet with Revlon management to review 2002 earnings and cash flow expectations, discussions with senior lenders, operating strategies, and prospects for recovery in 2003.ROYAL CARIBBEAN: S&P Affirms BB+ Rating on Two Related Deals ------------------------------------------------------------ Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its double-'B'-plus ratings on class A-1 of two synthetic transactions linked to Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., and removed them from CreditWatch with positive implications.The rating actions follow the affirmation of Royal Caribbean Ltd.'s corporate credit and senior unsecured debt ratings on Oct. 25, 2002.Both synthetic issues are swap-independent synthetic transactions that are weak-linked to the underlying collateral, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.'s debt. The rating actions reflect the credit quality of the underlying securities issued by Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.A copy of the Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.-related press release, dated October 25, 2002, can be found on RatingsDirect, Standard & Poor's Web-based credit analysis system. Ratings Affirmed And Removed From Creditwatch Positive Corporate Backed Trust Certificates Series 2001-27 Trust $38.028 million corporate-backed certs Rating Class To From A-1 BB+ BB+/Watch Pos Corporate Backed Trust Certificates Royal Caribbean Debenture-Backed Series 2001-30 $21.293 million debenture-backed certs Rating Class To From A-1 BB+ BB+/Watch PosSATX INC: Court Approves First Amended Disclosure Statement-----------------------------------------------------------On March 22, 2002, SATX, Inc., (OTCBB:SATX) filed a chapter 11 petition for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code. On October 28, 2002 the Bankruptcy Court signed an order approving SATX's First Amended Disclosure Statement. The hearing date for approval of SATX's Plan of Reorganization was set for November 25, 2002. The deadline for submitting objections to the Plan is November 18, 2002. The deadline for all ballots to be timely submitted is November 18, 2002. The ballots must be received no later than the close of business November 18, 2002 at the following address. Jesse Blanco, P.O. Box 680875 San Antonio, Texas 78268. If, and only if, the First Amended Plan of Reorganization as proposed by SATX is approved, SATX proposes to enter into the following transactions. Intelligent Medicine, Inc. SATX proposes to purchase 100% of all the outstanding and issued capital stock of Intelligent Medicine, Inc. IMED is a Houston, Texas based company dedicated to becoming the world's leading provider of Medical Informatics Services. Since their original principals founded the Company in 1993, they have firmly believed that Telemedicine is dependent upon systems integration of hardware, software, devices, and communications networking. IMED's solution is a Telemedicine Service offering combining hardware, software, communications, and management. They deliver turnkey systems and networks combined with their clients' ability to offer clinical diagnosis and treatment through their existing professional service networks. Their systems are an efficiently integrated healthcare suite of robust, proprietary, open architecture, networked systems combined with a complete line of video teleconferencing, still image, voice, data, and digitized medical peripheral devices. This enables their clients to leverage their service facilities to deliver live and/or virtual caregiver to patient, or caregiver-to-caregiver, medical consultations and/or treatment at the point-of-need or in a store and forward environment. IMED, in partnership with First Genesis, has established relationships with the US Army for medical informatics. The First Genesis software, Global Application Framework, GAF, is currently in process for evaluation as a standard for all military medical informatics. GAF is an architecture that enhances the critical needs of security, transaction processing and data throughput. If the evaluations prove successful, IMED will move quickly to implement this networking software across all applications areas. IMED has recently been involved in the discussions for the development of a USA Bio-Terrorist Health Alert Network. IMED was invited to represent industry on a panel including the DOD, CDC, NLM, Dept. of Commerce, VA and ATA. IMED has recognized expertise in networks and will position GAF as the solution for this Health Alert Network. IMED's marketing focus is in Military Applications, Prison Healthcare and Telemedicine Networking. IMED has become recognized for its leadership and this gives IMED a first mover advantage in these application areas. It has established relationships with the leading TeleHealth research facility for a constant flow of innovative technologies. In addition, they have assisted their clients in implementing telemedicine solutions by partnering with hardware, software, and network providers thereby creating unique designs that are the result of the integration of these technologies. IMED is managed by an experienced group of professionals. Their senior management team brings many years of complementary medical practice, software, technology, and project experience to bear in designing and implementing telemedicine client solutions. They consistently bring together software engineering staff with internal and external medical professionals and high-quality systems integrators to continue to develop and produce systems and further product integration enhancements for their clients applications. IMED services encompass designing, implementing, and managing telemedicine and healthcare technology networked solutions. They assess their client's particular tele-healthcare system needs, design and install the required telemedical information systems and network solution, provide systems training, and manage the clients' system-wide solution. Their implementation team complete with medical specialists, telemedically experienced clinical personnel information systems analysts, software and hardware engineers, and telecommunications experts work together with the client to completely provide a turnkey telemedicine service to the client's satisfaction. IMED has designed and produced the first mobile telemedicine clinic. This mobile telemedicine unit comes in an array of sizes and capabilities suited to their clients' particular mobile needs. The mobile telemedicine unit is capable of the following: -- Complete Telemedicine over T-1, FT-1, ISDN, Frame Relay, IP addressing, Satellite -- Complete ECG, EKG, Vital Signs including pulse rate, blood pressure, SpO2 and digital stethoscope -- Ultrasound system with full range of attachments. -- Communicates through direct connect to services, or through RF, Cellular and or Satellite communication protocolsComes complete with Wheel chair lift, 2 roof (interior) mounted pan, tilt, zoom cameras with 12 x zoom, On-board generator supplies power or external weather proofed connections for AC, and communication links available on the exterior of the vehicle. The following is a list of top management of the Company, including each manager's resume and area of responsibility or oversight. -- Dr. R. J. Bono - Chairman and CEO. Dr. Bono's experience includes a 29 year private Dental Practice and entrepreneurial activities resulting in the successful establishment of investment groups for 18 start-up companies. During the course of spearheading efforts toward development of capital, business organization, corporate planning and new market analysis he has gained a wealth of business knowledge. In particular, he has over ten years of experience in telecommunications. -- Joe Chirco - President. An accomplished systems, sales, and business management professional with over twenty five years experience generating revenues and profits in the highly competitive telecommunications and telemedicine industry. Mr. Chirco is recognized as a leader in delivering innovative telemedicine solutions. In two years the IMED has progressed from a \"member of the pack\" to a recognized leader in the telemedicine market. His experience includes start-up and turnaround situations, international market development, major account management and new business development. Mr. Chirco graduated in 1968 with a BSEE from Rutgers College of Engineering, in 1972 with an MS Degree in Management Sciences and Operations Research from Stevens Institute of Technology and in 1979 a MBA Degree in Executive Sales Management from Columbia University. -- Dr. Paul K. Keller, Ph. D. - Vice President of R&D/Engineering. Dr. Keller is a recognized creative scientist. He has completed specialized training and graduated from the following: Chemistry, University of Oklahoma; Nuclear Energy, LSU; Environmental Law, University of Washington; Nuclear Physics, MIT; Certified Telemedicine System Integrator for NEC, V-Tel and CLI. Dr. Keller has been an educator in the fields of physics, chemistry, nuclear science, and engineering. He was the Director of Special Projects for the United States Atomic Energy Commission and a technology advisor to Presidents Carter and Reagan. He currently also serves as President of Paul Keller and Executive Assistant to the Governor of Louisiana for State technology programs. Dr. Keller developed the State Telecommunication and Telemedicine plan. The board of directors consists of Dr. R. J. Bono, Chairman, Joe Chirco, President and Director, Paul Keller, Vice President and Director, Maurice Stone Vice President and Director, Wyntress Ware, Director, Theodis Ware, Director, Dr. David DiLoretto, Director, Eddie Austin, Legal Counsel and Director, and Dr. Darshan Wadhwa, Chief Financial Officer and Director. First Genesis, Inc. SATX proposes to purchase 100% of all the outstanding and issued capital stock of First Genesis, Inc., 100% of all the outstanding and issued capital stock of First Genesis Professional Services, Inc., a Texas wholly owned subsidiary which has a licensing agreement with another company called ATRADE Investment Technologies, Inc. First Genesis, Inc., is a Texas corporation that has authorized and issued 1000 shares of common stock with a one-dollar par value. The members of the board of directors are Ron Watty, Pascal Watty, Harold Woolfolk and Maurice Stone. For the past four years the company has been involved in the Information Technology Consulting business primarily in the Energy and Financial Industry. The company has developed an intellectual property called Global Application Framework, or GAFr, which is a technology used in the health \"Informatics\" industry for managing patients' medical records. The health Informatics business has developed into First Genesis' primary business focus. First Genesis, Inc., is a holding company with one wholly owned subsidiary named First Genesis Professional Services, Inc., a Texas corporation. First Genesis Professional Services, Inc., holds a license resale agreement from ATRADE Investment Technologies, Inc., for technical analysis software called Gr8Alert. It is a trading application for technical analysis of the stock market. First Genesis Professional Services, Inc. owns the intellectual property known as GAF(R) or Global Application Framework that is used by First Genesis, Inc., in the health Informatics business. The following is a list of top management of the Company, including each manager's resume and area of responsibility or oversight: -- Ronald Watty, President / CEO. Ronald S. Watty brings over 15 years of entrepreneurial and creative experience in information technology, consulting, sales, business development, product management, and product development. He has extensive experience in operations management, product and service marketing, and new market development. Mr. Watty's background allows him to have a clear vision for the emerging technology industry, which will lead and direct the goals and objectives of FIRST GENESIS. Mr. Watty earned his B.S. in Computer Engineering from the University of Houston and certifications in Finance, Marketing, and Data Management. He joined American Express as a Sr. software developer in 1989. There he designed and developed a travel management system (i.e., TripPower, CardPower, and PurchasePower) for American Express corporate clients. This system helps manage corporate travel managers who were handling up 20M in travel volume. In 1994, Mr. Watty join Virtual Shopping as Product Development Manager. He design and developed one of the first Video Conferencing call management system and received training in Project Management, Product Management, and Marketing and Sales. In 1995, Mr. Watty formed his own company, First Genesis Medical Group, where he managed and developed new markets for rehabilitation services for the Home Health Care and Rehabilitation Industry. The company was later changed into First Genesis, Inc. and spun out its technology group First Genesis Professional Services, Inc. As President of the corporation, Mr. Watty perform consulting services on several major projects for Berger & Co. as a Sr. Consultant. In addition, Mr. Watty designed, developed, and managed data warehousing products (TotalVision) for the financial market for Bisys, Inc. -- Pascal Watty, VP Operations. Mr. Watty is one of the founders of the Company and is responsible for the direction of the day-to-day operations of the Company. Mr. Watty received his baccalaureate degree in Political Science from The University of Texas at Austin in 1993. He has extensive experience in business, including over 5 years in sales and marketing, product development, and senior management. As Vice President, Mr. Watty is First Genesis' accountable executive for the administration of all policies and procedures relating to full-time, part- time, and contractor labor. This responsibility includes developing and implementing a Continuous Quality Improvement program to ensure continued organizational quality. Today, he also acts as a principal in First Genesis Holdings, LLC, an investment holding company. The members of the First Genesis Professional Services, Inc. board of directors are Ron Watty, Pascal Watty, Harold Woolfolk and Maurice Stone. Iceberg Oil and Gas, Inc. SATX proposes to form a wholly owned Delaware subsidiary, Iceberg Oil and Gas, Inc. The Company will purchase certain oil and natural gas platforms with existing proved reserves. The Company will target acquisitions from owners that are currently in a distressed situation. The Company, where possible, will acquire developed properties, aggressively manage and exploit all properties, and use technological expertise to develop reserves. The President will be Garry McHenry and the Secretary & Treasurer will be Celso B. Suarez, Jr. High Yield Financial, Inc. SATX proposes to form a wholly owned Delaware subsidiary, High Yield Financial, Inc. The Company will be in the business of purchasing high yield, low grade defunct credit risks of mortgages, more commonly known as \"non performing bond pools.\" The Company will buy the bond pools at an average approximate price of between 33 to 65 cents on the dollar, but at times may pay prices from lower than 33 cents and/or higher than 65 cents, depending on the pool that is purchased. The Company intends to buy the pools, repackage the performing bonds and sell them. The Company will take the non-performing bonds and sell the assets that were used to securitize each bond. The President will be Garry McHenry, and the Secretary & Treasurer will be Celso B. Suarez, Jr. Effective as of October 6, 2002, SATX, Inc., as a result of the recent merger of several of the Partners of Grassi & Co., CPA's P.C., into Marcum & Kliegman, LLP, dismissed Grassi & Co., CPA's P.C., and engaged Marcum & Kliegman, LLP as its independent accountant. The decision to change accountants was approved by the Board of Directors of the Company.S-C NEWCO: S&P Junks Corp. Credit Ratings over Market Pressures--------------------------------------------------------------- Standard & Poor's Rating Services lowered its corporate credit ratings on co-borrowers S-C Newco LLC and P-G Newco LLC to triple-'C'-plus from single-'B'-minus. In addition, senior secured bank loan ratings on the companies were lowered to single-'B'-minus from single-'B'-plus. The ratings remain on CreditWatch with negative implications, where they were placed July 22, 2002. The rating actions reflect the adverse impact that recent aviation industry pressures have had on collateral values and cash flow streams. The bank facility is secured by a first-priority interest in the assets of the borrowers and their subsidiaries, which consists of a portfolio of medium-size widebody freighter aircraft. The facility is jointly and severally guaranteed by S-C Aircraft Holdings LLC and P-G Aircraft Holdings LLC, which own 100% of S-C Newco and P-G Newco. S-C Aircraft Holdings is owned by George Soros investment interests, the Winston Fund, and the Quantum Fund; P-G Aircraft Holdings is owned by George Soros investment interests and the Winston Fund. S-C Newco and P-G Newco are aircraft lessors, based in New York, New York.\"The downgrades reflect the adverse impact that the aviation downturn has had on lease revenues and collateral values,\" said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Lisa Jenkins. \"Ratings remain on CreditWatch due to concerns over near term liquidity and covenant compliance,\" the analyst added. The companies are currently negotiating with lenders to amend the existing credit facility. S-C Newco and P-G Newco took on significant debt to acquire a modest-size, specialized portfolio of medium-capacity Airbus A300B4-200 widebody aircraft and convert them to freighters. To meet their debt service requirements, the companies rely on leasing revenues and proceeds from the sale of aircraft. Equity infusions from the companies' owners are the only other material source of liquidity for the companies`.Ratings were initially assigned based on a loan to value of around 50%. As a result of industry pressures over the past year, the value of the collateral has declined and asset protection levels have deteriorated even though a significant amount of principal has been amortized over the past two years. Industry pressures have also had an adverse impact on lease payment streams and have made it more difficult to complete required aircraft sales. Standard & Poor's expects industry conditions to remain challenging over at least the near term.The one notch rating differential on the credit facility, though less than the previous two notch rating differential, still reflects Standard & Poor's belief that there is a strong likelihood of full recovery of principal in the event of a default or bankruptcy. However, all ratings could be lowered if it appears that liquidity will remain constrained for an extended period or if the companies are unsuccessful in renegotiating the terms of the credit facility to provide more room to weather the industry downturn. Standard & Poor's will continue to monitor the companies' near-term operating outlook and access to bank funding and will take further rating actions as appropriate.SLI INC: Committee Signs-Up KPMG LLP as Financial Advisor---------------------------------------------------------The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors appointed to the chapter 11 cases SLI, Inc., and its debtor-affiliates, asks permission from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to hire KPMG LLP as its financial advisor.The Committee anticipates that KPMG may render: a) assistance in the review of reports or filings as required by the Bankruptcy Court or the Office of the United States Trustee, including the schedules of assets and liabilities, statement of financial affairs, and monthly operating reports; b) review of the Debtors' financial information, including analyses of cash receipts and disbursements, financial statement items and proposed transactions for which Bankruptcy Court approval is sought; c) review and analysis of the reporting regarding cash collateral and any debtor-in-possession financing arrangements and budgets; d) evaluation of potential employee retention and severance plans; e) assistance with identifying and implementing potential cost containment opportunities; f) assistance with identifying and implementing asset redeployment opportunities; g) analysis of assumption and rejection issues regarding executory contracts and leases; h) review and analysis of the Debtors' proposed business plans and the business and financial condition of the Debtor generally; i) assistance in evaluating reorganization strategy and alternatives available to the creditors; j) review and critique of the Debtor's financial projections and assumptions; k) preparation of enterprise, asset and liquidation valuations; l) assistance in preparing documents necessary for confirmation; m) advice and assistance to the Committee in negotiations and meetings with the Debtor and the bank lenders; n) advice and assistance on the tax consequences of proposed plans of reorganization; o) assistance with the claims resolution procedures, including analyses of creditors' claims by type and entity and maintenance of a claims database; p) litigation consulting services and expert witness testimony regarding confirmation issues, avoidance actions or other matters; and q) other function s as requested by the Committee or its counsel to assist the Committee in this Chapter 11 case.The customary hourly rates for financial advisory services to be rendered by KPMG LLP are: Partners $540 - $600 per hour Managing Directors/Directors $450 - $510 per hour Senior Directors/Directors $360 - $420 per hour Senior/Staff Consultants $270 - $330 per hour Paraprofessionals $120 per hourSLI, Inc., and its affiliates operate in multi-business segments as a vertically integrated manufacturer and supplier of lighting systems, which includes lamps, fixtures and ballasts. The Company filed for chapter 11 protection on September 9, 2002 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Gregg M. Galardi, Esq., at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher represents the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. When the Company filed for protection from its creditors, it listed $830,684,000 in total assets and $721,199,000 in total debts.SMARTDISK CORP: Posts Better Financial Results for Third Quarter----------------------------------------------------------------SmartDisk Corporation (Nasdaq:SMDK), a company that develops and markets products that enable people to capture, organize, use and preserve digital content in easy and enjoyable ways, released its financial results for the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2002. Third Quarter Results For the quarter ended September 30, 2002 the Company's net loss was $0.67 million, compared to a net loss of $51.26 million for the corresponding quarter in 2001. The Company reported revenue of $10.36 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, compared to revenue of $17.32 million for the corresponding quarter in 2001. First Nine Months Results For the nine-month period to September 30, 2002 the Company's net loss was $15.74 million, compared to a net loss of $67.83 million for the corresponding period in 2001. The Company reported revenue of $31.07 million for the nine-month period to September 30, 2002, compared to revenue of $55.26 million for the corresponding period in 2001. Recent Highlights \"During the past quarter and throughout 2002, we have successfully expanded our product line with exciting new digital lifestyle products. In addition, we have significantly broadened our distribution network of world-class retailers and distributors. As a result, our revenue increased 8% from the prior quarter, despite global market weakness. At the same time, given the challenging and prolonged economic environment that has persisted, we have continued to aggressively reduce operating expenses and lower unit costs of our products,\" said Michael S. Battaglia, President and CEO. Specifically, SmartDisk has recently: - Introduced a unique Digital Camera Accessory Pack at Wal- Mart retail stores nationwide. - Commenced shipping SmartScan film and slide scanners to retailers and distributors. - Launched a new line of high-capacity, portable external hard drives. - Extended its distribution network nationally and in Europe. SmartDisk is a leading developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of advanced consumer electronic products and exciting software solutions that are enabling the digital age and simplifying the digital lifestyle. The company's innovative products help users transfer, store, manage and share digital music, video, pictures and data. Headquartered in the U.S., with operations in Europe and Asia, SmartDisk sells and supports its products worldwide. For more information, go to http://www.smartdisk.com * * *SmartDisk, in its Form 10-Q filed on August 14, 2002, reported: \"Cash and cash equivalents decreased to $4.409 million at June 30, 2002 from $14.517 million at December 31, 2001. Cash and cash equivalents have decreased over each of the last several quarters. The Company has minimal financial resources and cash flow from operating activities continues to be insufficient to meet operating needs and other payment obligations. \"The decrease in cash and cash equivalents of $10.108 million reflected (i) net cash used in operating activities of $8.423 million, (ii) net cash used in investing and financing activities of $1.900 million and (iii) the positive effect of exchange rate fluctuation on cash of $0.215 million. \"Net cash used in operating activities was $8.423 million for the six months ended June 30, 2002 compared to $1.757 million for the six months ended June 30, 2001. \"Net cash used in operating activities of $8.423 million in the six months ended June 30, 2002 was comprised of (i) the net cash loss, or net loss adjusted for non-cash charges and credits, of $2.243 million and (ii) investment in working capital of $6.180 million. The investment in working capital was predominantly comprised of (i) increased accounts receivable of $2.089 million, resulting from sales in the latter part of the reporting period, (ii) increased inventory of $2.518 million, resulting from the reduction in sales activity of certain personal storage and software products and the purchases of initial stock levels of Universal Readers and USB versions of Firelite hard disk drives, (iii) increases in prepaid expenses and other current assets of $0.740 million, (iv) decreases in accounts payable of $0.337 million and (v) decreases in other accrued liabilities of $0.459 million. \"Net cash used in investing activities was $1.839 million for the six months ended June 30, 2002 compared to net cash provided by investing activities of $0.199 million for the six months ended March 31, 2001. \"The Company believes that its cash and cash equivalents and working capital may not be sufficient to meet its operating requirements through the end of fiscal 2002. The Company's operating losses and working capital requirements continue to adversely affect cash flow. In the event of a continued decrease in revenue generation and cash flow from accounts receivable is reduced further or interrupted by slow collections, the Company will likely be unable to meet its operating requirements through the end of fiscal 2002. These liquidity problems raise substantial doubt about whether the Company can continue as a going concern without raising additional capital. Such additional capital, if required, may not be available to the Company or may be available on terms which may be unacceptable to the Company.\"STANDARD MEMS: US Trustee Appoints 3-Member Creditors Committee ---------------------------------------------------------------Donald F. Walton, the United States Trustee appoints a three-member Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in the chapter 11 case of Standard MEMS. The appointees are: 1. MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. Attn: Larry J. Rock 501 Pearl Drive, P.O. Box 8 St. Peters, Missouri, 63376 Phone: (636) 474-5675, Fax: (636) 474-5154; 2. Rite Track Equipment Services, Inc. Attn: Thomas Hayden 8655 Rite Track Way, West Chester, OH, 45069 Phone: (513) 881-7820, Fax: (513) 881-7828; and 3. Surface Technology Systems Attn: Andrew Duncan McQuarrie 611 Veterans Blvd., Suite 107 Redwood City, CA Phone: (650) 569-3655, Fax: (650) 569-3663.Standard MEMS, Inc., a fully integrated micro electro mechanical systems company providing product design, MEMS semiconductor fabrication, end product packaging and system integration to the general marketplace, filed for chapter 11 protection on September 16, 2002 at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Mark E. Felger, Esq., at Cozen O'Connor represent the Debtor in its restructuring efforts. When the Company filed for protection from its creditors, it listed estimated debts and assets of over $10 million.TEXAS PETROCHEMICALS: Pursuing Options to Refinance Secured Debt----------------------------------------------------------------Texas Petrochemicals LP, whose corporate credit rating has been affirmed by Standard & Poor's at BB, announced a net loss of $4.2 million on $157.1 million in sales revenue in the first quarter ended September 30, 2002, compared to a net loss of $9.3 million on $154.9 million in sales revenue for the corresponding quarter in the prior year. Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization for the first quarter were $6.2 million compared to a loss of $0.8 million for the corresponding quarter in the prior year. The current quarter EBITDA was substantially below the normal historical level for TPC's first quarter. The prior year comparable quarter included a negative impact of approximately $13 million from non-recurring events related to the fire and flood in the summer of 2001. The decline in the current quarter performance compared to historical levels is due primarily to lower production volumes of MTBE and lower unit margins on MTBE sales during the quarter. MTBE production volume during the quarter was reduced by two operational outages. In July 2002 one of TPC's two dehydro units was shut down for unplanned maintenance for three weeks, and in September 2002 the other dehydro unit was shut down for three weeks for planned maintenance and catalyst change. These two operating outages limited MTBE production to less than 40 percent of normal operating rates during the quarter. MTBE variable margin contribution increased over $6 million compared to the prior year comparable quarter. Prior year performance was materially impacted by lower production and higher costs associated with operational issues. Partly offsetting the improvement compared to the prior year, MTBE unit margins were negatively impacted by a significant increase in raw material costs compared to the prior year, particularly the price of methanol. Butadiene variable margin contribution increased 56 percent in the current quarter compared to the prior year quarter due to higher sales prices and slightly higher sales volumes. The majority of the increase in contribution was due to higher butadiene sales prices, which increased three cents per pound during the current quarter. Sales volumes increased over seven percent in the current quarter as compared to the prior year quarter. While butadiene demand continues to remain relatively stable, sales prices have increased due to a global shortage of available raw material. Crude butadiene is produced as a by-product to the ethylene manufacturing process. Ethylene plants have been operating at rates lower than historical levels and with lighter feedstocks, which produce less crude butadiene by-product. The shortage in available crude butadiene has limited TPC's ability to take advantage of additional butadiene production capacity announced last year. TPC's butadiene production capacity was increased from 900 million pounds per year to 1.2 billion pounds per year. In response to the shortage of feedstock supply, TPC began operations of its on-purpose butadiene plant during the quarter. This operating plant has the capability of producing between 5-10 million pounds per month of additional butadiene without the need to acquire crude butadiene. Specialty products variable margin contribution increased seven percent during the current quarter compared to the prior year quarter. Sales volume was 99 percent of the prior year as a decline in sales of our traditional specialty products was largely offset by growth of the polyisobutylene business. Increased variable margin contribution from polyisobutylene sales contributed to the majority of the increase in the specialty products business profitability. TPC has been pursuing several options to refinance its existing secured debt under the Bank Credit Agreement. The Revolving Credit Facility under the Agreement is currently set to expire on December 31, 2002. As of September 30, 2002 TPC had $21.5 million outstanding on the Revolver and $34.3 million in outstanding term loans. TPC has obtained waivers of the Total Debt to EBITDA ratio covenant in order to stay in compliance with the Agreement. On September 26, 2002 TPC obtained a one-month waiver that allowed borrowings of up to $33 million under the Revolver through October 31, 2002. On October 30, 2002 TPC obtained a second waiver which granted another one-month extension that allows borrowing of up to $26 million under the Revolver through November 29, 2002. The Company is in negotiations to replace the existing Agreement with a new revolving credit facility and a new term loan. Based on preliminary negotiations, TPC believes this financing will include a revolving credit facility of up to $60 million and a term loan of at least $25 million and anticipates closing will occur in November. TPC is a producer of quality C4 chemical products widely used as chemical building blocks for synthetic rubber, nylon carpets, adhesives, catalysts and additives used in high-performance polymers. TPC also manufactures fuel products used in the formulation of cleaner burning gasoline. The company has manufacturing facilities in the industrial corridor adjacent to the Houston Ship Channel and operates product terminals in Baytown, TX and Lake Charles, Louisiana. TPC is a Responsible Care(R) company dedicated to supporting the continuing effort to improve the industry's responsible management of chemicals. For more information about TPC products and services visit the company online at http://www.txpetrochem.com THOMAS GROUP: Sept. 30 Balance Sheet Upside-Down by $1.7 Million----------------------------------------------------------------Thomas Group, Inc., (OTCBB:TGIS) announced that third quarter 2002 results from core business operations continued to show substantial improvements. Throughout the third quarter both revenue and profit performance improved, and for the first time in over one year, the Company showed a profit from core operations in September. Core earnings excludes expenses related to the Company's re-financing activities and restructuring charges. Overall core operating results for the third quarter of 2002 also improved compared to the second quarter of 2002. In the third quarter of 2002 there was an overall core net loss of $0.6 million, compared to a net loss from core business operations of $1.3 million in the second quarter of 2002. This marks the third consecutive quarter the Company has improved core operating results. The following table shows the Company's improvements in core operations. Consolidated operations of the Company had a net loss in the third quarter of 2002 of $1.8 million on revenue before reimbursements of $6.8 million. These results compare favorably to the second quarter of 2002 net loss of $2.3 million on revenue before reimbursements of $8.0 million. At September 30, 2002, the Company's balance sheets show a working capital deficit of about $3 million, and a total shareholders' equity deficit of about $1.7 million.Improving Financial Performance: It is significant that the Company was able to improve core business bottom line results by $0.7 million and consolidated operations by $0.5 million, when comparing the third quarter of 2002 with the second quarter of 2002, despite revenue decreasing $1.2 million during this period. This result reflects the Company's successful efforts to attain nearly 100% utilization of its professional workforce, as well as improved control of its selling, general and administrative costs, which decreased by $0.8 million when comparing the third quarter of 2002 with the second quarter of 2002. Commenting on the Company's third quarter 2002 performance, John Hamann, Thomas Group's President and CEO said, \"Q3 was very encouraging on a number of dimensions. First, our cost control actions continued to deliver results. Second, the difficult actions we needed to take in Europe and Asia were completed, allowing a basis for future profitability in both regions. Finally, and most importantly, we saw business conditions and our financial performance improve throughout the quarter.\" Restructuring Charge: Included in the operating results for the third quarter of 2002 is $0.8 million of non-cash restructuring charges related to write-down costs expected from the closure and liquidation of the Company's German subsidiary. Quarterly cost savings from this action are expected to be approximately $0.7 million per quarter. No other charges related to the German subsidiary are anticipated. Business Development: During the third quarter of 2002, the Company continued to win new business in North America and Asia. These contract wins confirm the success the Company has had in winning business in its selected target markets, despite the tight market for consulting services. In North America, the Company continued to expand its relationship with the United States military by reaching agreement with the United States Navy's Submarine Forces to improve the efficiency of the Torpedo Enterprise Process. This program will be a one-year initial program with multi-year follow-on potential. Also, the Company began a new program in September with the United States Army's Aviation and Missile Command to conduct an analysis of the Helicopter Training Fleet. This program is an initial four-month program with potential for a multi-year follow-on program. The Company also began an assessment of the US Navy's Surface fleet refurbishment process. In Asia the Company reached agreement with a major product distribution company, JDH Philippines, a member of the Li and Fung Group of Companies, to evaluate distribution operations and to deliver increased marketing effectiveness and faster customer service. In addition, agreement was reached with a major garment manufacturer, MAST Lanka and the Phoenix Group of Companies to focus process improvements on order fulfillment, supply chain, sales and merchandising, as well as change management. Commenting on the recent business wins and the future potential of business under development, John Hamann said, \"Thomas Group won $4.1million of important new programs in the third quarter, in Asia and North America, in commercial as well as military sectors. Many of these new programs were assessments, which are expected to turn in to multi-year, multi-million dollar agreements in Q4. These conversions, if completed as expected, will provide significantly improved revenue stability for the Company over the next two to three years. We are very pleased by the two new programs in Asia. These programs were won in a significantly shorter cycle time than is typical for Thomas Group. We believe this reflects many positive factors, including a better marketing and selling process, the positive guidance of new Thomas Group leadership in Asia, and market acceptance of Thomas Group's new Rapid Deployment Methodology. We continue to believe that Asia is an area of significant potential for Thomas Group, and we believe we will continue to win more business there in the near-term.\" Backlog: As of September 30, 2002, the Company had backlog of $28.3 million compared to backlog of $26.5 million at June 30, 2002. The increase in backlog reflects the contract wins in North America and Asia quarter-over-quarter. Financing Activities: As previously reported the Company reached agreements on September 20, 2002 and October 17, 2002 to receive, in the aggregate, $2.0 million in subordinated convertible promissory notes from the Company's Chairman of the Board and one of the Company's stockholders. These agreements bring the total amount of debt or convertible debt raised by the Company to $3.5 million since March of 2002. Founded in 1978, Thomas Group, Inc., is an international, publicly traded professional services firm (OTCBB:TGIS). Thomas Group focuses on improving enterprise wide operations, competitiveness, and financial performance of major corporate clients through proprietary methodology known as Process Value Management(TM), process improvement, and by strategically aligning operations and technology to improve bottom line results. Recognized as a leading specialist in operations consulting, Thomas Group creates and implements customized improvement strategies for sustained performance improvement. Thomas Group, known as The Results Company(SM), has offices in Dallas, Detroit, Zug, Singapore and Hong Kong. For additional information on Thomas Group, Inc., please visit the Company on the World Wide Web at http://www.thomasgroup.com UNIFAB INT'L: Shareholders' Meeting to Convene on Dec. 13, 2002---------------------------------------------------------------The annual meeting of shareholders of UNIFAB International, Inc., will be held December 13, 2002, at 10:00 A.M., Central Time, at 5007 Port Road, New Iberia, Louisiana. The purposes of the meeting are to consider and vote upon the following proposals and to transact such other business as may properly come before the annual meeting: 1. To amend the Articles of Incorporation to declassify the Board of Directors and require the annual election of all directors, and to adopt certain related amendments to the Articles of Incorporation; 2. To elect eight directors to serve until the 2003 annual meeting or until their respective successors are duly elected and qualified, in the event Proposal One is approved at the annual meeting; 3. Alternatively, to elect two Class II directors to serve until the 2005 annual meeting or until their respective successors are duly elected and qualified, in the event Proposal One is not approved at the annual meeting; 4. To ratify the appointment of _______________ as independent auditors to audit UNIFAB's financial statements for 2002; 5. To amend the Articles of Incorporation to increase the number of authorized shares of Company common stock to 150,000,000; 6. To amend the Articles of Incorporation to effect a one-for-five reverse stock split pursuant to which every five shares of common stock would be converted into one share of common stock; and 7. To amend the Company's long-term incentive plan. Holders of record as of the close of business on November 11, 2002 are eligible to attend and vote at the meeting. * * *As previously reported, Ernst & Young LLP, the accounting firm that has been the independent auditor of UNIFAB International, Inc., since its initial public offering in 1997, resigned from its engagement with the Company, effective August 15, 2002. E&Y notified the Company of its resignation on August 13, 2002.In its report on the Company's audited financial statements forthe year ended December 31, 2001, E&Y modified its audit opinionby noting that there was substantial doubt about the Company'sability to continue as a going concern through the 2002 fiscalyear. This modification was the only qualification ormodification expressed by E&Y in their audit opinions during itsfive-year engagement as the Company's independent auditor.UNION ACCEPTANCE: Files for Chapter 11 Reorganization in Indiana----------------------------------------------------------------Union Acceptance Corporation (Nasdaq:UACA) has filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code to facilitate a financial restructuring. The objective of the reorganization proceeding is to protect the enterprise and restructure obligations so that the Company will be able to continue as a going concern. Management believes that assets and future cash flows will be sufficient to pay all obligations, but has determined that the special remedies available through a bankruptcy proceeding are necessary to achieve that objective and maintain operations. The proceeding is in the U. S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. \"We obviously regret that this measure has become necessary. We have been working to acquire additional long-term capital and to supplement our receivable acquisition funding. While our lenders have been working with us to meet our needs it has become apparent that supplemental arrangements will not be in place in time for us to continue as we have. We are suspending receivable acquisitions for the time being until new funding arrangements can be put in place,\" said Lee Ervin, president and chief executive officer. \"We currently expect debtor-in-possession financing to be implemented in the next few days to permit us to continue receivable acquisitions. Our objective is to protect our enterprise, to position ourselves to fund all of our obligations, to preserve value for our shareholders, and to rebuild for the future.\" Post-petition financing, which is subject to bankruptcy court approval, will be necessary for the company to continue to fund receivable acquisitions and the company is seeking approval by the Court to continue to fund payroll, pay key vendors and take other measures to maintain operations. \"We believe the Chapter 11 process will enable us to address our liquidity issues with minimal disruption of operations,\" said Ervin. UAC's current surety provider has not indicated a willingness to support future term securitizations in the present environment. Accordingly, management is exploring other arrangements for disposition of the held for sale portfolio. The Chapter 11 proceeding does not include UAC's warehouse funding and securitization subsidiaries. Discussion of Quarterly Results The Company also reported a third quarter net loss of $35.5 million. This compares with a loss of $23.8 million for the same period last year and a loss of $3.3 million in the second quarter of 2002. The net loss for the nine months ended September 30, 2002 was $45.7 million compared with a net loss of $26.4 million on a fully diluted basis, in the comparable year-ago nine-month period. Results for the quarter ended September 30 in both 2002 and 2001 include charges for the revaluation of retained interest in securitized assets. In the third quarter 2002, the charge was $29.7 million after-tax and $27.9 million after-tax in the year-ago quarter. Excluding the charges in both quarters, comparable net loss would have totaled $5.8 million in the most recent quarter and earnings of $4.1 million for the year-ago quarter. \"The third quarter was important on a number of strategic fronts,\" said Ervin. \"UAC continued to focus on disciplined pricing to achieve its 1.50% return on managed assets target for new receivable acquisitions, total dollars in delinquency are down 25% since December 2001, and we had been able to regain momentum in receivable acquisitions. Despite the many improvements that have occurred in our operations, the recessionary trends in the economy continue to negatively impact our earnings and challenged our financing relationships. Improved collection techniques have, however, greatly improved our effectiveness in this important aspect of our business. These efforts will continue, despite our reorganization filing, and our expense reduction plans will be accelerated.\" \"We believe the adjustment of credit loss assumptions we took during the most recent quarter reflects our best estimate of the impact that an extended recession will have on our retained interest in securitized assets,\" continued Ervin. \"While the adjustment and its negative effect on short-term earnings were disappointing, we believe it is in the best long-term interest of the company to be proactive with these issues, and this action will provide shareholders with the most accurate financial picture possible. These results are presented based on the assumption that we will continue to service our securitized portfolio.\" \"Lastly, I believe we have a management team capable of rebuilding Union Acceptance. The risk adjusted spreads on recent new business cause us to believe the intense price competition that has so long been a problem for this industry has changed in a very positive way. We believe the primary driver of this change has been the capital markets' insistence on stronger capital ratios and investors' demand for higher returns. Our goal is to be positioned to meet the market's expectations when we emerge from Chapter 11 in the very near future.\" Receivable Acquisitions The quarterly volume of receivable acquisitions increased to $223.3 million, up 16% from the prior quarter and 24% from the December 2001 quarter, but down 14% from $258.4 million from the year-ago quarter. The average monthly FICO score was 703 during 2002; approximately 66% of accounts originated have a credit score of 675 or better, and less than one % of the accounts have a FICO score below 625. The average servicing portfolio was $2.6 billion for the September 30, 2002 quarter, down from $3.2 billion for the comparable year-ago quarter. Receivables held for sale increased to $488.0 million at September 30, 2002 compared with $38.3 million at September 30, 2001. Revenues As previously mentioned, UAC recorded a charge in the third quarter of 2002 of $29.7 million after-tax for the revaluation of the retained interest in its securitized assets. The majority of the revaluation is related to higher credit losses indicated by recent portfolio performance and an estimate of the impact of continued sluggish economic conditions, and to a lesser extent, an adjustment of the discount rates used in the valuation of the retained interest. The weighted average discount rate increased to 12.03% for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, up from 9.67% in the previous quarter, reflecting current market conditions. The net interest margin after provision for estimated credit losses of $7.9 million for the quarter was negatively impacted by a higher provision, but still up from $4.6 million in the prior quarter and $6.1 million in the year-ago quarter. Before the provision, the net interest margin was $10.1 million, compared with $5.7 million in the prior quarter and $6.7 million for the same three-month period last year. The increase in the net interest margin, combined with servicing fee income of $5.8 million and other fee income of $2.5 million, offset the $10.8 million loss for the quarter on the interest rate derivatives on held for sale receivables. Operating Expenses and Efficiency Expenses for the third quarter 2002 were $12.8 million, or 1.93% of the servicing portfolio, compared with $13.3 million, or 1.68%, in the year-ago quarter. Operating expenses for the past three quarters have been at lower levels than the $13.6 million for the quarter ended December 2001, although expenses as a percentage of the servicing portfolio have not experienced a corresponding decline because of the reduced servicing portfolio. Operating expenses do not include the expenses related to the company's Circle City Car Company automobile dealership, which was classified as a discontinued operation in the third quarter and sold in October. Delinquency and Credit Loss In the third quarter, the company continued to experience increases in delinquency and credit losses, resulting primarily from the continued effects of the ongoing recession, continuing trends in bankruptcy filings and lower automobile auction values. Delinquency was 4.22% at September 30, 2002, compared with 3.79% in the prior quarter and 3.73% a year ago. Total dollars delinquent for the quarter were $110.0 million, up $7.2 million from the prior quarter, but down from $116.6 million in the same period a year ago and down from $146.0 million at December 2001. UAC typically experiences higher delinquencies in the fourth quarter as a result of normal seasonal trends. Annualized net credit losses totaled 4.50% for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, compared with 4.08% in the second quarter and 3.67% in the quarter ended September 30, 2001. The company's allowance for estimated credit losses on securitized receivables was 6.66% at September 30, 2002 compared with 5.26% in the second quarter and 5.87% in the same period a year ago. Compared with the prior quarter, gross credit losses in the third quarter remained at a comparable level. The increase in net credit losses is primarily the result of lower recoveries on repossessed vehicles sold at auction, which can be attributed largely to lower prices for used vehicles created by the 0% financing and rebates offered by new vehicle manufacturers. Liquidity At September 30, 2002, $445.5 million of warehouse capacity was utilized out of a total capacity of $550 million, and an additional $22.1 million was available to borrow based on the outstanding principal balance of eligible receivables. The company maintained cash on hand of $14.5 million at September 30, 2002. At present there is no additional funding available under the company's warehouse facilities. The company will be dependent on debtor-in-possession financing to continue funding receivable acquisitions, as described above. Earnings Before the Impact of Derivative Instruments In the normal course of business, the value of the company's assets held for sale changes as interest rates change. To mitigate the economic impact of changing interest rates, the company uses interest rate derivatives to hedge the held for sale assets. According to generally accepted accounting principles, UAC is required to mark these instruments to market and recognize corresponding gains and losses in the income statement during the period in which the changes in the market values occur. At the time of the securitization of the underlying assets, the interest rate derivative contracts are settled, and any resulting gains or losses are included on the income statement with the corresponding gains or losses on the receivables sold. Pro Forma Portfolio-Based Financial Statements Following are pro forma portfolio-based statements of operations, which account for securitization transactions as secured financings rather than sales of receivables. In its consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP, the company records a gain for the sale of receivables in securitization transactions primarily representing the discounted estimated future servicing cash flows to be received by the company related to the receivables sold. Future servicing cash flows are the projected cash flows resulting from the difference between the weighted average coupon rate of the receivables sold and the weighted average note rate paid to investors in the securitized trusts, less an allowance for estimated credit losses, the company's contractual servicing fee of 1.00% and ongoing trust and credit enhancement fees. The pro forma portfolio-based statements of earnings set forth below (following the presentation of the company's historical selected financial data), present the company's operating results under the assumption that securitization transactions are secured financings and no gain on sale, retained interest income, or servicing fee income is recognized. Instead, interest income, fee income, interest expense and other costs related to the asset-backed securities are recognized over the life of the securitized receivables. There is no provision or allowance for credit losses. Credit losses are recorded as incurred. The pro forma portfolio-based statements of operations and related data do not present the company's operating results in accordance with GAAP. The pro forma portfolio-based data is presented solely for illustrative purposes to assist readers in their understanding of the company's business and its financial performance. Such data is not intended to be an indication of any future results of operations of the company and such data does not provide all information that would be provided with financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP if the company had accounted for its securitizations as secured financings. UAC is an independent, indirect provider of automobile financing and servicing. The company's primary business is purchasing and servicing prime automobile retail installment sales contracts. These contracts are originated by dealerships affiliated with major domestic and foreign manufacturers, nationally recognized rental car outlets and used car superstores. UAC focuses on acquiring receivables related to late model used and, to a lesser extent, new automobiles purchased by customers who exhibit favorable credit profiles. Union Acceptance Corporation commenced business in 1986 and currently acquires receivables from more than 5,900 manufacturer-franchised dealerships in 39 states. By using state-of-the-art technology in a highly centralized underwriting and servicing environment, Union Acceptance Corporation enjoys one of the lowest cost operating structures in the independent prime automobile finance industry.UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Win Nod to Hire White & Case LLP--------------------------------------------------------------The Honorable Peter J. Walsh denied Uniroyal Technology Corporation's application to employ White & Case LLP as their attorneys. The application was opposed by the United States Trustee and, based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the Court denied the Debtors' application for employment.The Debtors' Consolidated List of Equity Security Holders lists Emcore Corporation as an Equity Security Holder. The Parties' Counsel advised the Office of the United States Trustee that Emcore or its Chairperson are collectively the holders of approximately 20% of the Debtor's equity. Both parties indicate that there is a likelihood that various issues between them may be disputed. Accordingly, White & Case is not a \"disinterested person\" as that phrase is defined in the Bankruptcy Code, the Court found. The evidence shows that White & Case acts regularly as counsel for Emcore, a major creditor and equity security holder of Uniroyal. Emcore has been a regular client of White & Case for five years and will presumably remain so. Uniroyal Technology Corporation and its subsidiaries are engaged in the development, manufacture and sale of a broad range of materials employing compound semiconductor technologies, plastic vinyl coated fabrics and specialty chemicals used in the production of consumer, commercial and industrial products. The Company filed for chapter 11 protection on August 25, 2002 Eric Michael Sutty, Esq., and Jeffrey M. Schlerf, Esq., at The Bayard Firm represent the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. When the Debtors filed for protection from its creditors, it listed $85,842,000 in assets and $68,676,000 in debts.US AIRWAYS: Wants Court Okay to Assume & Ratify Charge Card Pact----------------------------------------------------------------US Airways Group Inc., is a party to a Charge Card Processing and Security Agreement with National Processing Company and National Bank of Kentucky.The Debtors seek the Court's authority to assume and ratify the Charge Card Contract.John Wm. Butler, Jr., Esq., at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &Flom, assures Judge Mitchell that other than the continuation ofordinary course payments, there are no immediate costs associated with the assumption and ratification of the Agreement. Additionally, Mr. Butler relates, NPC and NCK have agreed to extend the term of the Agreement for a minimum of three months beyond the current termination date of December 31, 2002.Mr. Butler explains that the assumption of the Agreement willenhance the Debtors' liquidity position and avoid disruption tothe most significant tender choice for payment by the Debtors'customers. Given the benefits and NPC and NCK's agreement toextend their processing obligations pending the Debtors'reorganization efforts, Mr. Butler asserts that the relief is inthe best interests of the estates.Mr. Butler reminds the Court that, in previous credit card-related motions, the Debtors have outlined the extent that charge cards are important to their operations. Pursuant to this Credit Card Agreement, the Debtors accept both VISA and Mastercard. Approximately 47% of the Debtors' credit card sales are paid for with VISA and Mastercard cards.The Debtors are obligated to submit to NPC sales recordsevidencing all purchases that have been made within a certainperiod of time. NCK pays the Debtors for all sales evidenced bythe VISA and Mastercard sales records, less fees and charges.Prior to the Petition Date, NPC notified the Debtors that itintended to exercise its right to terminate the Charge CardAgreement on its expiration date of December 31, 2002. TheDebtors attempted to negotiate with NPC for an extension of theAgreement's terms. A review, led the Debtors, concluded thatassuming the Agreement was in the best interests of the estatebecause reaching a new agreement with an alternate processorwould be extremely difficult except in connection with anemergence from Chapter 11.Mr. Butler reports that the Debtors and NPC were able tosuccessfully negotiate an amendment to the Agreement. NPC willextend its term by three months. The Debtors agree to allow NPCto increase the reserve against future refunds to VISA andMastercard cardholders from approximately 10% of exposure to 35%. The Debtors also agreed to provide NPC with other protections: (a) The reserve will be $125,000,000, including at least $60,000,000 already held by NPC; (b) NPC agrees to use reasonable efforts to transfer the existing processing function to a new processor on expiration of the Agreement; (c) The term is extended through March 31, 2003. If a reorganization plan is confirmed by then and there is a contract with a new processor, then the date is extended until April 15, 2003. If the plan is consummated by April 15, then the date is further extended until May 15, 2003; (d) The Debtors will provide similar reports to NPC as provided to postpetition lenders under the DIP Agreement; (e) NPC has a one-time right to request additional collateral if the Debtors fail to meet certain financial performance covenants; (f) NPC may terminate the Agreement if: 1) the Chapter 11 case is dismissed or converted; 2) failure to achieve minimum liquidity levels; 3) cancellation of a percentage of flight departures; (g) If these defaults occur, NPC and NCK agree to process transactions for an additional 45 days; (h) The Agreement provides for the complete return of collateral over a period of 270 days following the Agreement's termination. (US Airways Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 12; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)DebtTRaders reports that US Airways Inc.'s 9.820% bonds due 2013 (U13USR1) are trading between 10 and 20. See http://www.debttraders.com/price.cfm?dt_sec_ticker=U13USR1for real-time bond pricing.USI HOLDINGS: S&P Affirms B+ Rating & Removes it from Watch ----------------------------------------------------------- Standard & Poor's Ratings Services removed from CreditWatch and affirmed its single-'B'-plus ratings on USI Holdings Corp., after the company successfully completed its IPO, selling 9 million shares for total gross proceeds of $90 million.Standard & Poor's also said that the outlook on USI is positive.\"The net proceeds of about $78.4 million will be used to pay down debt, substantially reducing total-debt-to capital to 45.3% from the pre-IPO level of 68.5%,\" explained Standard & Poor's credit analyst Donovan Fraser.The offering had been repeatedly delayed and ultimately reduced in size from initial price targets. However, the decreased leverage, pro forma equity in excess of $160 million, and the first quarter of positive net income in the company's history in the second quarter of 2002 place the company on a surer footing than its pre-IPO capitalization and operating levels. Through June 30, 2002, the company has a year-to-date pretax loss from continuing operations of $10.3 million, consisting of a first-quarter pretax loss of $13.2 million and second-quarter pretax income of $2.9 million.Standard & Poor's believes that the company should be better positioned to continue to further penetrate its target niche market of businesses with 20-999 employees and grow both organically and through measured acquisitions. Standard & Poor's also considers the company's strategy of focusing on growing the specialized benefits segment to be a prudent strategy of earnings diversification given the cyclicality of the property/casualty sector.U.S. STEEL: Will Pay Q3 Common Stock Dividend on Dec. 10, 2002-------------------------------------------------------------- United States Steel Corporation announced that the Board of Directors declared a dividend of 5 cents per share on U. S. Steel (NYSE: X) Common Stock. The dividend is payable December 10, 2002, to stockholders of record at the close of businessNovember 20, 2002.For more information on U. S. Steel, visit its Web site athttp://www.ussteel.com * * *As reported in the August 12, 2002 edition of the Troubled Company Reporter, Fitch Ratings affirmed the senior unsecured long-term ratings of U.S. Steel at 'BB' and assigned a 'BB+' rating to the company's senior secured revolver. The Rating Outlook is Stable.VERITAS DGC: S&P Rates $275-Million Senior Secured Notes at BB+ --------------------------------------------------------------- Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its double-'B'-plus rating to Veritas DGC Inc.'s proposed $275 million senior secured credit facility. Houston, Texas-based Veritas provides seismic services to the petroleum industry and has about $200 million of outstanding debt pro forma for the proposed financing transaction. The outlook is stable.\"The $275 million senior secured credit facility consists of a $200 million term loan maturing in 2007 and a $75 million revolving facility maturing in 2005,\" noted Standard & Poor's credit analyst Daniel Volpi. The proceeds from the proposed term loan will be used to retire the company's $130 million outstanding 9-3/4% senior unsecured notes due in 2003 and to repay all amounts outstanding on its current secured bank line. The proposed $75 million revolving secured credit facility will replace the existing bank facility and will be undrawn at closing.The ratings on Veritas reflect its participation in the highly competitive, cyclical, capital-intensive seismic services segment of the petroleum industry, and moderate financial leverage. Over the past few years, the seismic services industry has been plagued by excess capacity. A shift toward multiclient services has increased the industry's capital requirements, essentially forcing seismic operators to shoulder a greater degree of financial risk.Veritas compensates for its participation in a difficult industry by maintaining moderate financial leverage, with total debt-to-total capital expected to remain around 25% and total debt to EBITDA likely to remain below 1.0 times (x). While the company historically has outspent its operating cash flow due to hefty investment in its multiclient library, management has publicly stated that it is targeting free operating cash flow in 2003. EBITDA interest coverage is expected to remain above 10.0x in the near-to-medium-term, or about 4.0x adjusting EBITDA for multiclient expenditures.Although the book value of Veritas' assets is high relative to the loan amount, Standard & Poor's has rated the proposed $275 million senior secured credit facility at the same level as its corporate credit rating. Standard & Poor's believes that the nature of the secured assets (i.e., high specificity, above-average obsolescence risk), the small pool of likely buyers, and historical liquidation values of oilfield services assets precludes an enhancement above the corporate credit rating. In addition, the lack of a debt cushion (i.e., no debt ranked below the secured facilities) further reduces the likelihood of an enhanced recovery.VINTAGE CAPITAL: Fitch Slashes Class C Note Rating to Junk Level----------------------------------------------------------------Fitch Ratings has downgraded Vintage Capital SA's floating-rate notes as follows -- Class B to 'BBB-' from 'A+'; -- Class C to 'CCC' from 'BBB-'. The classes A1 and A2 are affirmed at 'AAA'. In February 2001, Vintage Capital SA, a special purpose vehicle with limited liability incorporated under the laws of Luxembourg, acquired a bond portfolio originated by Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena and CDS portfolio originated by Bank of America. At closing these acquisitions were financed by issuing EUR$198 million floating-rate notes and a EUR$162 million senior swap. The bond portfolio contains asset-backed securities, corporate, financial institution and sovereign debt. The combined weighted average Fitch factor for both portfolios has decreased from 'BBB+' to 'BBB-' due to the downgrade of some of the underlying ABS and corporate assets. Fitch has reviewed the performance of the portfolio in detail. To date there have been no defaults in the bond portfolio, though there are three ABS assets rated below 'CCC+', one of which carries a default rating. The notional of these assets comprise 5.5% of the portfolio. There have been no credits events in the reference portfolio though it does contain Lucent Technologies (rated 'CCC+' by Fitch), TXU Europe (rated 'C') and British Energy (rated 'B-'). The transaction has a semi-annual payment date in June and December. The transaction has a final maturity date in December 2010. V-ONE CORP: Net Capital Deficiency Tops $629K at September 30-------------------------------------------------------------V-ONE Corporation (OTCBB:VONE) reported revenue of $1.2 million for the third quarter and $2.9 million for the first nine months of fiscal 2002. Revenue for the comparable three and nine month periods that ended September 30, 2001, was $1.1 million and $2.8 million, respectively. The loss attributable to holders of common stock for the third quarter of 2002 was $1.3 million, compared with a loss attributable to holders of common stock of $2.4 million based on the weighted average number of common shares outstanding of 26.0 million and 22.9 million, respectively, for the third quarter of 2002 and 2001. The loss attributable to holders of common stock for the first nine months of 2002 was $5.0 million, compared with a net loss of $8.9 million based on the weighted average number of common shares outstanding of 24.8 million and 22.4 million, respectively, for the first nine months of 2002 and 2001. During the quarter ended September 30, 2002, V-ONE Corporation solidified significant elements of the Company's long- term strategy and market positioning. Important strategic initiatives in financing, product development programs enabling expansion of existing customer networks and new market penetration programs for V-ONE's satellite products were successfully completed. In V-ONE's September 30, 2002 balance sheets, the Company recorded a working capital deficit of about $1 million, and a total shareholders' equity deficit of close to $630 million.In July, the Company closed on approximately $1.2 million in a private placement of 8% Secured Convertible Notes with warrants. The Company's ability to raise additional capital at this time has been hampered by poor market conditions and delays in funding of national security programs. The amount raised was not sufficient to capitalize the Company at a level necessary to maintain its listing on the Nasdaq Small Cap Market and effective October 18, 2002 the Company's securities began trading on the Nasdaq OTC Bulletin Board. This action does not impact the Company's day-to-day operations as V-ONE continues to focus its resources on building the Company by providing superior security products and technology solutions to existing government and commercial customers. \"We believe that the strategy and plan implemented last year is providing the foundations to increase shareholder value in the long term and we are staying closely focused on achieving operational results\" said Margaret Grayson, CEO of V-ONE Corporation. Cost reduction measures implemented during 2002 and expansion of our existing customer programs have provided cash flow from operations that extends the Company's ability to continue operating beyond October 31, 2002. At September 30, 2002, the Company's cash position was $163,000 and $915,000 at October 30, 2002. The Company's ability to continue operating beyond October 31, 2002 will be substantially dependent upon timely receipt of orders underlying requirements from its government customers that can provide sustaining revenue if these programs are implemented as planned. V-ONE product development announcements include: -- V-ONE Announces High Performance VPN Solution for VSAT & Satellite Date Networks; Application Layer VPN Technology Overcomes IPSec Performance Problems -- Mentat and V-ONE Partner to Provide High Performance Satellite Security Solutions -- V-ONE Corporation Announces Availability of Mac OS X VPN Client Software; Security Solution Meets Needs of Mac Users including Mac OS 10.2 -- V-ONE's SmartGuard VPN Appliance Awarded ICSA Firewall Certification V-ONE customer relationship announcements include: -- V-ONE expands security for FBI's LEO Information Sharing Network -- V-ONE Secures Backbone for LEO/RISS Super Information Sharing Network -- V-ONE secures information sharing for National White Collar Crime Center -- V-ONE CEO Named to President's National Infrastructure Advisory Council; Council to Advise President on Security of Critical Information Systems Infrastructures \"The Company continues to perform in a manner that is meeting customer expectations. With operating costs under tight control and government and commercial customers now expanding their use of V-ONE's security products, we remain focused on meeting the challenges of continued slowness in the funding and implementation schedules of some of the Company's programs,\" added Margaret Grayson. Providing enterprise-level network security protection since 1993, V-ONE Corporation's flagship product is SmartGate(R), a client/server Virtual Private Network technology. Fortune 1000 corporations, health care organizations and sensitive government agencies worldwide use SmartGate for their integrated authentication, encryption and access control. With its patented client deployment and management capabilities, SmartGate is a compelling solution for remote access intranets and secure extranets for electronic business between trading partners, for both conventional and wireless networks. V-ONE is headquartered in Germantown, MD. Product and network security information, white papers and the company's latest news releases may be accessed via http://www.v-one.com WINSTAR: Trustee Seeks Approval of $1.5M Settlement with Savvis---------------------------------------------------------------Prior to the conversion of Winstar Communications, Inc., and its debtor-affiliates' cases from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7, the Debtors and SAVVIS Communications Corporation were parties to a series of commercial agreements pursuant to which each party bought and sold goods and services from one another.A Master Agreement was entered into on June 30, 2000, wherebySAVVIS was obligated to purchase telecommunications equipmentfrom the Debtors. The aggregate sales price for the equipmentunder the Master Agreement was $29,435,000. The Debtors allegethat SAVVIS only paid a portion of the purchase price, leaving aconsiderable net balance owed to the Debtors.In addition to the Master Agreement, the Debtors and SAVVIS alsoentered into a professional services agreement pursuant to whichSAVVIS was obligated to pay Winstar $10,000,000 for professionalservices. The Debtors again allege that SAVVIS only paid aportion of its obligation.SAVVIS was also obligated to pay the Debtors' installation feesin connection with the installation of telecommunicationsequipment. A portion of the fees is still outstanding.Sheldon K. Rennie, Esq., at Fox Rothschild O'Brien & Frankel LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware, relates that Chapter 7 Trustee Christine Shubert has been negotiating with SAVVIS' counsel to settle the disputes. After extensive negotiations, the Chapter 7 Trustee and SAVVIS have agreed to resolve their disputes, embodied in a settlement agreement.The settlement agreement provides, in pertinent part, that:A. The Chapter 7 Trustee agrees to accept $1,500,000 as the Settlement Amount in consideration for the amounts owed to the Debtors' estates under the SAVVIS Agreements and in exchange to release any and all claims of whatsoever nature the estates have or may have against SAVVIS;B. SAVVIS agrees to pay the Settlement Amount to the Chapter 7 Trustee; andC. SAVVIS is in possession of 106 radio units previously delivered to it in connection with the agreements. Pursuant to this settlement agreement, the Debtors will relinquish to SAVVIS any right, title or interest it has or may have with respect to the radio units.Absent the agreement, the Chapter 7 Trustee would be forced toproceed with arbitration that would unnecessarily burden theDebtors' estates. Based on the high cost of the potentialarbitration in relation to the value of the settlement amount,the settlement agreement represents a fair and reasonableconsensual resolution of the issues and is in the best interestsof all creditors.Mr. Rennie assures the Court that the settlement agreement is aproduct of a significant arm's-length bargaining among theparties. (Winstar Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 35; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900) DebtTraders reports that Winstar Communications' 12.500% bonds due 2008 (WCII08USR1) are trading between 0.125 and 0.250 . See http://www.debttraders.com/price.cfm?dt_sec_ticker=WCII08USR1for real-time bond pricing.WORKGROUP TECHNOLOGY: Nasdaq Delists Shares Effective October 31----------------------------------------------------------------Workgroup Technology Corporation (NASDAQ: WKGP), a leading provider of Web-enabled, extended enterprise collaborative product data management software solutions, announced that the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel had rejected the Company's request for continued listing on The Nasdaq SmallCap Market, and that the Panel determined to delist the Company's securities from The Nasdaq Stock Market effective with the open of business on October 31, 2002. The Panel further informed the Company that the Company's securities may be immediately eligible to trade on the OTC Bulletin Board. WTC develops, markets and supports WTC ProductCenter(TM), a web-enabled, extended enterprise collaborative Product Data Management solution that provides document management, design integration, configuration control, change management, and enterprise integration for optimizing product development. Based in Burlington, Massachusetts, the Company differentiates itself on the basis of its controlled and secure accessibility, enterprise integration, and quick adaptability of its software. Thousands of users at mid-sized and global companies are in production and benefit from WTC products, including ABB Flexible Automation; Baker Oil Tools; Eaton Corporation; General Electric Company; Goodrich Turbine Fuel Technologies; Honeywell; Millipore Corporation; Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc.; U.S. Army; and Whirlpool Corporation. The Company's Web site is located at http://www.workgroup.com * * *The Company has generated continued losses from operations which has reduced its cash balances. At September 30, 2002, theCompany had cash and cash equivalent balances totaling$2,301,000 and working capital of $552,000, each of which represent significantly lower liquidity than in the prior year.The Company intends to continue to take appropriate action to manage its expenses commensurate with the level of sales expected. Among other things, these actions may include a restructuring of its operations. Management believes that cash and cash equivalent balances at September 30, 2002 are sufficient, combined with management's intent and ability to reduce expenditures, to meet its operating and capital expenditure requirements and maintain positive liquidity at least through March 31, 2003.At September 30, 2002, Workgroup's balance sheets show that theCompany's total shareholders' equity has dwindled to about$715,000 from about $1.7 million recorded at March 31, 2002.W.R. GRACE: Court Stretches Lease Decision Time to April 1, 2003----------------------------------------------------------------W.R. Grace & Co., and its debtor-affiliates sought and obtained Judge Fitzgerald's approval to extend the deadline to decide whether to assume, assume and assign, or reject unexpired non-residential real property leases until April 1, 2003.The Debtors made it clear the request is without prejudice tothe Company's right to request a further extension of thedeadline, and without prejudice to any lessor's right to requestto shorten the lease decision period on a particular lease.The Debtors reminded Judge Fitzgerald that they are parties toseveral hundred unexpired leases that fall into two majorcategories: (a) real property leases for offices and plants throughout the United States and Puerto Rico; and (b) leases where the Debtors are lessees of commercial real estate, often retail stores, restaurants, and other similar facilities most of which have been sub-leased to other tenants.These leases are important assets of the estate, such that thedecision to assume or reject is central to any plan ofreorganization. Furthermore, these cases are large and complex,and involve many leases. Since the first extension orderwas entered, the Debtors' management and professionals have beenconsumed with the operation of the Debtors' businesses and theresolution of a number of complex business decisions.Furthermore, the Debtors have focused on defining the mountingasbestos-related litigation liabilities that they contendprecipitated these Chapter 11 cases. Resolution of these issueswill involve significant litigation that will take time. TheDebtors have not yet intelligently appraised each lease's valueto its plan, and until the asbestos issues are resolved, littleprogress can be made toward developing a viable plan ofreorganization.The Debtors assured Judge Fitzgerald that they are current in all of their postpetition rent payments and other contractualobligations with respect to the unexpired leases. The Debtorsintend to continue to timely pay all rent obligations on leasesuntil they are either rejected or assumed, and will continue totimely perform their contractual obligations with respect to theassumed leases. As a result, the Debtors' continued occupationof the relevant real property (whether directly or as sublessees) will not prejudice the lessors of the real property or cause the lessors to incur damages that cannot be recompensed under the Bankruptcy Code.(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue Nos. 29 & 31; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)W.R. GRACE: Sealed Air Turns to Third Cir. to Get Lawsuit Tossed----------------------------------------------------------------Sealed Air Corporation (NYSE:SEE) has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to hear its appeal of trial court orders refusing to apply the Third Circuit's ruling in the unrelated Cybergenics case and denying Sealed Air's motion to dismiss the fraudulent transfer case against the Company. The trial court overseeing Grace's bankruptcy had ordered the case to proceed with all the parties as originally configured, that is, with the claims asserted against Sealed Air by creditors committees in the W. R. Grace bankruptcy proceeding. The trial court had earlier postponed the original September 30 trial date in order to review how the case should proceed in light of the Third Circuit ruling in the Cybergenics case. The Third Circuit had held in that case that a creditor or creditors committee may not assert a fraudulent transfer claim in a bankruptcy proceeding and that only a debtor-in-possession or an appointed trustee may bring such an action. The 1998 transaction that combined Sealed Air with the Cryovac packaging business of W. R. Grace was designed to create a world-leading packaging company. Sealed Air believes that Grace was solvent at the time of the transaction even if claims arising after 1998 are taken into account. The Company remains confident in the integrity of the deal. Sealed Air Corporation is a leading global manufacturer of a wide range of food, protective and specialty packaging materials and systems, including such widely recognized brands as Bubble-Wrap(R) air cellular cushioning, Jiffy(R) protective mailers and Cryovac(R) food packaging products. For more information about Sealed Air Corporation, please visit the Company's Web site at http://www.sealedair.com * BOND PRICING: For the week of November 4 - November 8, 2002-------------------------------------------------------------Issuer Coupon Maturity Price------ ------ -------- -----AES Corporation 4.500% 08/15/05 21AES Corporation 9.375% 09/15/10 41AES Corporation 9.500% 06/01/09 43Adaptec Inc. 3.000% 03/05/07 70Adelphia Communications 3.250% 05/01/21 7Adelphia Communications 6.000% 02/15/06 7Adelphia Communications 9.875% 03/01/05 35Adelphia Communications 9.875% 03/01/07 33Adelphia Communications 10.875% 10/01/10 33Advanced Energy 5.000% 09/01/06 68Advanced Micro Devices Inc. 4.750% 02/01/22 47Advanstar Communications 12.000% 02/15/11 66Aether Systems 6.000% 03/22/05 72Agere Systems 6.500% 12/15/09 53Akamai Technologies 5.500% 07/01/07 31Alternative Living Services (Alterra) 5.250% 12/15/02 3Alkermes Inc. 3.750% 02/15/07 47Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. 5.750% 03/15/07 62Amazon.com Inc. 4.750% 02/01/09 71American Tower Corp. 6.250% 10/15/09 43American Tower Corp. 9.375% 02/01/09 52American & Foreign Power 5.000% 03/01/30 55Americredit Corp. 9.875% 04/15/06 75Amkor Technology Inc. 5.000% 03/15/07 26Amkor Technology Inc. 9.250% 05/01/06 70Amkor Technology Inc. 9.250% 02/15/08 66Amkor Technology Inc. 10.500% 05/01/09 47AnnTaylor Stores 0.550% 06/18/19 62ANR Pipeline 9.625% 11/01/21 72Arco Chemical Company 9.800% 02/01/20 73Armstrong World Industries 9.750% 04/15/08 42AMR Corporation 9.000% 09/15/16 74AMR Corporation 9.750% 08/15/21 75AMR Corporation 9.800% 10/01/21 75Asarco Inc. 8.500% 05/01/25 35Aspen Technology 5.250% 06/15/05 37Atlas Air Inc. 9.250% 04/15/08 51AT&T Corp. 6.500% 03/15/29 75AT&T Wireless 8.750% 03/01/31 71Aurora Foods 9.875% 02/15/07 61Avaya Inc. 11.125% 04/01/09 61Axcelis Technologies 4.250% 01/15/07 62Best Buy Co. Inc. 0.684% 06?27/21 66Bethlehem Steel 8.450% 03/01/05 14Borden Inc. 7.875% 02/15/23 56Borden Inc. 8.375% 04/15/16 61Borden Inc. 9.250% 06/15/19 65Borden Inc. 9.200% 03/15/21 62Boston Celtics 6.000% 06/30/38 65Brocade Communication Systems 2.000% 01/01/07 66Brooks Automatic 4.750% 06/01/08 71Browning-Ferris Industries Inc. 7.400% 09/15/35 73Budget Group Inc. 9.125% 04/01/06 17Burlington Northern 3.200% 01/01/45 50Burlington Northern 3.800% 01/01/20 71CSC Holdings Inc. 7.625% 07/15/18 73Calpine Corp. 4.000% 12/26/06 41Calpine Corp. 4.000% 12/26/06 41Calpine Corp. 8.500% 02/15/11 38Capital One Financial 7.125% 08/01/08 68Case Credit 6.750% 10/21/07 74 Case Corp. 7.250% 01/15/16 69Cell Therapeutic 5.750% 06/15/08 42Centennial Cell 10.750% 12/15/08 57Century Communications 8.875% 01/15/07 34Champion Enterprises 7.625% 05/15/09 31Charter Communications, Inc. 4.750% 06/01/06 29Charter Communications, Inc. 5.750% 10/15/05 33Charter Communications Holdings 8.250% 04/01/07 54Charter Communications Holdings 8.625% 04/01/09 53Charter Communications Holdings 9.625% 11/15/09 53Charter Communications Holdings 10.000% 04/01/09 54Charter Communications Holdings 10.000% 05/15/11 52Charter Communications Holdings 10.250% 01/15/10 54Charter Communications Holdings 10.750% 10/01/09 55Charter Communications Holdings 11.125% 01/15/11 54Ciena Corporation 3.750% 02/01/08 59Cincinnati Bell Telephone (Broadwing) 6.300% 12/01/28 71Cincinnati Bell Inc. (Broadwing) 7.250% 06/15/23 70CIT Group Holdings 5.875% 10/15/08 74CNET Inc. 5.000% 03/01/06 55Coastal Corp. 6.375% 02/01/09 74Coastal Corp. 6.500% 05/15/06 69Coastal Corp. 6.500% 06/01/08 73Coastal Corp. 6.950% 06/01/28 45Coastal Corp. 7.420% 02/15/37 55Coastal Corp. 7.500% 08/15/06 73Coastal Corp. 7.750% 10/15/35 53Coeur D'Alene 6.375% 01/31/05 73Coeur D'Alene 7.250% 10/31/05 70Cogentrix Energy 8.750% 10/15/08 73Comcast Corp. 2.000% 10/15/29 18Comforce Operating 12.000% 12/01/07 57Commscope Inc. 4.000% 12/15/06 74Computer Associates 5.000% 03/15/07 72Computer Network 3.000% 02/15/07 64Conexant Systems 4.000% 02/01/07 26Conexant Systems 4.250% 05/01/06 34Conseco Inc. 8.750% 02/09/04 7Conseco Inc. 10.750% 06/15/09 23Continental Airlines 4.500% 02/01/07 31Corning Inc. 3.500% 11/01/08 51Corning Inc. 6.300% 03/01/09 62Corning Inc. 6.750% 09/15/13 51Corning Inc. 6.850% 03/01/29 42Corning Inc. 7.000% 03/15/07 73Corning Inc. 8.875% 08/15/21 54Corning Glass 7.000% 03/15/07 73Corning Glass 8.875% 03/15/16 58Cox Communications Inc. 3.000% 03/14/30 35Cox Communications Inc. 0.348% 02/23/21 70Cox Communications Inc. 0.348% 02/23/21 70Cox Communications Inc. 0.426% 04/19/20 42Cox Communications Inc. 7.750% 11/15/29 25Critical Path 5.750% 04/01/05 63Critical Path 5.750% 04/01/05 63Crown Castle International 9.000% 05/15/11 65Crown Castle International 9.375% 08/01/11 65Crown Castle International 9.500% 08/01/11 66Crown Castle International 10.750% 08/01/11 70 Crown Cork & Seal 8.375% 01/15/05 68Cubist Pharmacy 5.500% 11/01/08 42Cummins Engine 5.650% 03/01/98 58Cypress Semiconductor 4.000% 02/01/05 73 Dana Corp. 7.000% 03/01/29 66Dana Corp. 7.000% 03/15/28 66Delhaize America 9.000% 04/15/31 72Dillard Department Store 7.000% 12/01/28 70Dobson Communications Corp. 10.875% 07/01/10 70Dobson/Sygnet 12.250% 12/15/08 74Documentum Inc. 4.500% 04/01/07 74 Dresser Industries 7.600% 08/15/96 60DVI Inc. 9.875% 02/01/04 73Dynegy Holdings Inc. 6.875% 04/01/11 41EOTT Energy Partner 11.000% 10/01/09 67Echostar Communications 4.875% 01/01/07 74Echostar Communications 5.750% 05/15/08 73Edison Mission 7.330% 09/15/08 71El Paso Corp. 7.000% 05/15/11 58El Paso Corp. 7.750% 01/15/32 57El Paso Natural Gas 7.500% 11/15/26 56El Paso Natural Gas 8.625% 01/15/22 65 Emulex Corp. 1.750% 02/01/07 72Enron Corp. 9.875% 06/15/03 16Enzon Inc. 4.500% 07/01/08 68Equistar Chemicals 7.550% 02/15/26 63E*Trade Group 6.000% 02/01/07 62E*Trade Group 6.750% 05/15/08 71Extreme Networks 3.500% 12/01/06 75FEI Company 5.500% 08/15/08 71Finisar Corp. 5.250% 10/15/08 55Finova Group 7.500% 11/15/09 30Fleming Companies Inc. 5.250% 03/15/09 35Fleming Companies Inc. 10.625% 07/31/07 47Food Lion Inc. 8.050% 04/15/27 64Ford Motor Co. 6.500% 08/01/18 72Ford Motor Co. 6.625% 02/15/28 66Ford Motor Co. 7.125% 11/15/25 72Ford Motor Co. 7.500% 08/01/26 75 Fort James Corp. 7.750% 11/15/23 68Foster Wheeler 6.750% 11/15/05 58GCI Inc. 9.750% 08/01/07 60General Physics 6.000% 06/30/04 51Geo Specialty 10.125% 08/01/08 71Georgia-Pacific 7.375% 12/01/25 65Georgia-Pacific 7.750% 11/15/29 74Georgia-Pacific 8.125% 06/15/23 71Georgia-Pacific 8.250% 03/01/23 73Globespan Inc. 5.250% 05/15/06 74Goodyear Tire 7.000% 03/15/28 63Gulf Mobile Ohio 5.000% 12/01/56 63Hanover Compress 4.750% 03/15/08 68Hasbro Inc. 6.600% 07/15/28 74Health Management Associates Inc. 0.250% 08/16/20 72Health Management Associates Inc. 0.250% 08/16/20 72HealthSouth Corp. 7.000% 06/15/08 61HealthSouth Corp. 8.375% 10/01/11 64HealthSouth Corp. 8.500% 02/01/08 74HealthSouth Corp. 10.750% 10/01/08 67Hertz Corp. 7.000% 01/15/28 66Human Genome 3.750% 03/15/07 65Human Genome 5.000% 02/01/07 73Huntsman Polymer 11.750% 12/01/04 67I2 Technologies 5.250% 12/15/06 57ICN Pharmaceuticals Inc. 6.500% 07/15/08 62IMC Global Inc. 7.300% 01/15/28 70IMC Global Inc. 7.375% 08/01/18 73 Ikon Office 6.750% 12/01/25 67Ikon Office 7.300% 11/01/27 72Imcera Group 7.000% 12/15/13 67Imclone Systems 5.500% 03/01/05 57Inhale Therapeutic Systems Inc. 3.500% 10/17/07 42Inland Steel Co. 7.900% 01/15/07 57International Rectifier 4.250% 07/15/07 75 Interpublic Group 1.870% 06/01/06 71JL French Auto 11.500% 06/01/09 54Juniper Networks 4.750% 03/15/07 68Kaiser Aluminum & Chemicals Corp. 9.875% 02/15/49 62Kmart Corporation 8.125% 12/01/06 16Kmart Corporation 8.250% 01/01/22 22Kmart Corporation 8.375% 07/01/22 22 Kmart Corporation 9.375% 02/01/06 16Kulicke & Soffa Industries Inc. 5.250% 08/15/06 42LSI Logic 4.000% 11/01/06 75LSP Energy LP 8.160% 07/15/25 74LTX Corporation 4.250% 08/15/06 60Lehman Brothers Holding 8.000% 11/13/03 63Level 3 Communications 6.000% 09/15/09 30Level 3 Communications 6.000% 03/15/09 33Level 3 Communications 9.125% 05/01/08 54Liberty Media 3.500% 01/15/31 62Liberty Media 3.500% 01/15/31 62Liberty Media 3.750% 02/15/30 47Liberty Media 4.000% 11/15/29 50 LSI Logic 4.000% 11/01/06 72LSI Logic 4.000% 11/01/06 72Lucent Technologies 5.500% 11/15/08 70Lucent Technologies 6.450% 03/15/29 32Lucent Technologies 6.500% 01/15/28 46Lucent Technologies 7.250% 07/15/06 41Magellan Health 9.000% 02/15/08 18Mail-Well I Corp. 8.750% 12/15/08 47Mail-Well I Corp. 9.625% 03/15/12 66Mastec Inc. 7.750% 02/01/08 72MCI Communications Corp. 7.500% 08/20/04 29MCI Communications Corp. 7.750% 03/15/24 30Medarex Inc. 4.500% 07/01/06 57Mediacom Communications 5.250% 07/01/06 61Mediacom LLC 7.875% 02/15/11 66Mediacom LLC 8.500% 04/15/08 75Mediacom LLC 9.500% 01/15/13 75Metris Companies 10.000% 11/01/04 75Metris Companies 10.125% 07/15/06 75Mikohn Gaming 11.875% 08/15/08 63Mirant Corp. 5.750% 07/15/07 30Mirant Americas 7.200% 10/01/08 47Mirant Americas 7.625% 05/01/06 63Mirant Americas 8.300% 05/01/11 42Mirant Americas 8.500% 10/01/21 35Mirant Americas 9.125% 05/01/31 59Mission Energy 13.500% 07/15/08 43Missouri Pacific Railroad 4.750% 01/01/20 71Missouri Pacific Railroad 4.750% 01/01/30 68Missouri Pacific Railroad 5.000% 01/01/45 54Motorola Inc. 5.220% 10/01/21 53Motorola Inc. 6.500% 11/15/28 74MSX International 11.375% 01/15/08 63NTL (Delaware) 5.750% 12/15/09 14NTL Communications Corp 6.750% 05/15/08 16National Vision 12.000% 03/30/09 60Natural Microsystems 5.000% 10/15/05 58Navistar Financial 4.750% 04/01/09 69Nextel Communications 5.250% 01/15/10 68Nextel Communications 6.000% 06/01/11 71Nextel Partners 11.000% 03/15/10 67NGC Corp. 7.625% 10/15/26 54Noram Energy 6.000% 03/15/12 68Northern Pacific Railway 3.000% 01/01/47 50Northern Pacific Railway 3.000% 01/01/47 50Nvidia Corp. 4.750% 10/15/07 75ON Semiconductor 12.000% 05/15/08 73ONI Systems Corporation 5.000% 10/15/05 74OSI Pharmaceuticals 4.000% 02/01/09 63Owens-Illinois Inc. 7.800% 05/15/18 68PG&E National Energy 10.375% 05/16/11 36Panamsat Corp. 6.875% 01/15/28 71Paxson Communications 10.750% 07/15/08 75Pegasus Satellite 12.375% 08/01/06 49Photronics Inc. 4.750% 12/15/06 68 PMC-Sierra Inc. 3.750% 08/15/06 65Polaroid Corp. 11.500% 02/15/06 5 Primedia Inc. 7.625% 04/01/08 65Primedia Inc. 8.875% 05/15/11 73Providian Financial 3.250% 08/15/05 64PSEG Energy Holdings 8.500% 06/15/11 71Public Service Electric & Gas 5.000% 07/01/37 72Photronics Inc. 4.750% 12/15/06 72Quanta Services 4.000% 07/01/07 49Qwest Capital Funding 7.000% 08/03/09 44Qwest Capital Funding 7.250% 02/15/11 44Qwest Capital Funding 7.625% 08/03/21 47Qwest Capital Funding 7.750% 08/15/06 62Qwest Capital Funding 7.900% 08/15/10 44Qwest Communications Int'l 7.250% 11/01/06 48RF Micro Devices 3.750% 08/15/05 74RF Micro Devices 3.750% 08/15/05 74Redback Networks 5.000% 04/01/07 32Rite Aid Corp. 4.750% 12/01/06 67Rite Aid Corp. 7.125% 01/15/07 65Rite Aid Corp. 7.125% 01/15/07 69Rockwell Int'l 5.200% 01/15/98 72Royster-Clark 10.250% 04/01/09 67Rural Cellular 9.625% 05/15/08 49Ryder System Inc. 5.000% 02/25/21 73SBA Communications 10.250% 02/01/09 41SCI Systems Inc. 3.000% 03/15/07 57Saks Inc. 7.375% 02/15/19 72Sepracor Inc. 5.000% 02/15/07 50Sepracor Inc. 7.000% 12/15/05 62Service Corp. Int'l 6.750% 06/22/08 74 Silicon Graphics 5.250% 09/01/04 54Simula Inc. 8.000% 05/01/04 73Skechers USA, Inc. 4.500% 04/15/07 65Solutia Inc. 7.375% 10/15/27 69Sonat Inc. 6.625% 02/01/08 61Sonat Inc. 6.750% 10/01/07 63Sonat Inc. 7.625% 07/15/11 53Sonic Automotive 5.250% 05/07/09 74Sotheby's Holdings 6.875% 02/01/09 73Sprint Capital Corp. 6.000% 01/15/07 74Sprint Capital Corp. 6.875% 11/15/28 60Sprint Capital Corp. 6.900% 05/01/19 63Sprint Capital Corp. 8.375% 03/15/28 66Sprint Capital Corp. 8.750% 03/15/32 72TCI Communications Inc. 7.125% 02/15/28 74TECO Energy Inc. 7.000% 05/01/12 73Tenneco Inc. 10.000% 03/15/08 74Tenneco Inc. 11.625% 10/15/09 73Tennessee Gas PL 7.000% 10/15/28 52Tennessee Gas PL 7.500% 04/01/17 60Tennessee Gas PL 7.625% 04/01/37 56 Teradyne Inc. 3.750% 10/15/06 72Tesoro Pete Corp. 9.000% 07/01/08 52Tesoro Pete Corp. 9.625% 11/01/08 53TIG Holdings Inc. 8.125% 04/15/05 74Time Warner Inc. 6.625% 05/15/29 74Transwitch Corp. 4.500% 09/12/05 59Trenwick Capital I 8.820% 02/01/37 72Tribune Company 2.000% 05/15/29 68Triton PCS Inc. 8.750% 11/15/11 67Triton PCS Inc. 9.375% 02/01/11 63Trump Atlantic 11.250% 05/01/06 74Turner Broadcasting 8.375% 07/01/13 74TXU Corp. 6.375% 06/15/06 75US Airways Passenger 6.820% 01/30/14 68US Airways Passenger 9.010% 01/20/19 49US Airways Inc. 7.960% 01/20/18 72Ugly Duckling 11.000% 04/15/07 60United Air Lines 10.670% 05/01/04 20United Air Lines 11.210% 05/01/14 28Universal Health Services 0.426% 06/23/20 71US Timberlands 9.625% 11/15/07 54US West Capital Funding 6.250% 07/15/05 63US West Capital Funding 6.375% 07/15/08 45US West Capital Funding 6.875% 07/15/28 67US West Communications 7.250% 10/15/35 66US West Communications 7.500% 06/15/23 71Utilicorp United 7.625% 11/15/09 69Utilicorp United 7.950% 02/01/11 71Utilicorp United 8.000% 03/01/23 57Utilicorp United 8.270% 11/15/21 59Veeco Instrument 4.125% 12/21/08 66Vertex Pharmaceuticals 5.000% 09/19/07 73Vesta Insurance Group 8.750% 07/15/25 74Viropharma Inc. 6.000% 03/01/07 35Vitesse Semiconductor 4.000% 03/15/05 72Weirton Steel 10.750% 06/01/05 66Westpoint Stevens 7.875% 06/15/08 27Williams Companies 6.625% 11/15/04 65 Williams Companies 7.125% 09/01/11 73Williams Companies 7.875% 09/01/21 65Williams Holding (Delaware) 6.250% 02/01/06 70Williams Holding (Delaware) 6.500% 12/01/08 56Wind River System 3.750% 12/15/06 69Witco Corp. 6.875% 02/01/26 68Witco Corp. 7.750% 04/01/23 75 Worldcom Inc. 6.400% 08/15/05 12XM Satellite Radio 7.750% 03/01/06 34Xerox Corp. 0.570% 04/21/18 56Xerox Credit 7.200% 08/05/12 57 *********Monday's edition of the TCR delivers a list of indicative pricesfor bond issues that reportedly trade well below par. Pricesare obtained by TCR editors from a variety of outside sourcesduring the prior week we think are reliable. Those sources maynot, however, be complete or accurate. The Monday Bond Pricingtable is compiled on the Friday prior to publication. Pricesreported are not intended to reflect actual trades. Prices foractual trades are probably different. Our objective is to shareinformation, not make markets in publicly traded securities.Nothing in the TCR constitutes an offer or solicitation to buyor sell any security of any kind. It is likely that some entityaffiliated with a TCR editor holds some position in the issuers'public debt and equity securities about which we report.A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the TCR. Submissions about insolvency-related conferences are encouraged. Send announcements to [email protected] . Bond pricing, appearing in each Thursday's edition of the TCR, is provided by DebtTraders in New York. DebtTraders is a specialist in global high yield securities, providing clients unparalleled services in the identification, assessment, and sourcing of attractive high yield debt investments. For more information on institutional services, contact Scott Johnson at 1-212-247-5300. To view our research and find out about private client accounts, contact Peter Fitzpatrick at 1-212-247-3800. Real-time pricing available at http://www.debttraders.com/Each Friday's edition of the TCR includes a review about a book of interest to troubled company professionals. All titles are available at your local bookstore or through Amazon.com. Go to http://www.bankrupt.com/books/to order any title today. For copies of court documents filed in the District of Delaware, please contact Vito at Parcels, Inc., at 302-658-9911. For bankruptcy documents filed in cases pending outside the District of Delaware, contact Ken Troubh at Nationwide Research & Consulting at 207/791-2852. *********S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O NTroubled Company Reporter is a daily newsletter co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, NJ USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, DC USA. Yvonne L. Metzler, Bernadette C. de Roda, Donnabel C. Salcedo, Ronald P. Villavelez and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2002. All rights reserved. ISSN: 1520-9474.This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.The TCR subscription rate is $625 for 6 months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. *** End of Transmission *** ",
"URL": "http://bankrupt.com/TCR_Public/021104.mbx"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Aug 15, 2012, 7:25 AM Here Are The Facebook Insiders Who Might Dump Millions Of Shares Of Stock On Thursday Morning ... How many Facebook shares are there up there? There has been a lot of noise about the massive number of Facebook shares that are going to be released from lock-ups in the next four months.No one knows exactly how many of these shares will be sold. But given the humongous number of them— 2+ billion shares, or about 70% of Facebook’s shares outstanding —it’s a bit like standing at the base of Hoover Dam wondering if the floodgates are about to be opened. The potential deluge will begin Thursday morning, when 268 million shares (10% of the shares outstanding) will be released. These shares are currently worth $5.5 billion, and most of the folks who own them are very much in the money (meaning they bought them when they were worth much, much less). On the one hand, these folks may be reluctant to sell, on account of the fact that Facebook stock is worth about half of what it was worth three months ago. On the other hand, having seen what has happened to Zynga, Groupon, and other erstwhile Web 2.0 stars (utter devastation)—and having waited years and years to get liquidity in Facebook—these folks may rush for the exits the instant the doors open. To get a better sense of how much stock might hit the market, it helps to look at the specific folks who will be able to sell and then think about their motivations. The Wall Street Journal’s Telis Demos has put together a handy and comprehensive list of these folk s and also added some thoughts about what they’re likely to do. Using this list as a starting point, I’ve added my own thoughts below. Here are the Facebook insiders who will be able to start unloading stock on Thursday morning. The names are in black. Their likely motivations and actions (my opinion) are in italics. THE POTENTIAL SELLERS Peter Thiel — 27.9 million shares . Peter Thiel was Facebook’s earliest institutional investor. He sold $638 million-worth of stock on the IPO , so he has probably satisfied his immediate liquidity needs. He has also, however, gotten a return on his investment that was likely beyond his wildest dreams. There’s no sense in being piggish and over-concentrated, so Thiel will likely continue to reduce his Facebook stake over time. My prediction, therefore, is that he’ll sell some between now and the next lock-up release, and then move out of a lot of the stock over the next year. Accel Partners — Class A: 135.7 million; Class B: 7.9 million. Accel was Facebook’s first big institutional investor, and it has made an absolute killing. Accel sold $2.1 billion-worth of stock on the IPO , so it has also satisfied its immediate liquidity needs and locked in an astounding return for its limited partners. That said, Accel has been invested in Facebook for a long time, so it will likely continue to scale down its position over the next 18 months. My prediction, therefore, is the same as for Peter Thiel: Accel will sell some stock between now and the next lock-up release and then scale out over the next year. DST Global Limited — Class A: 5 million; Class B: 80.6 million. DST, the big Russian investment fund, also made an early bet on Facebook, along with a huge later one. The later bet, at a valuation of $50 billion, is barely in the money. DST sold $1.7 billion of stock on the IPO , so it’s in great shape, having locked in humongous gains. DST will probably sell the rest of its early Facebook bet and keep the later one—unless it thinks that Facebook’s prospects are headed down the drain. Goldman Sachs — Class A: 41.6 million. Goldman made a huge bet on behalf of itself ($450 million) and its clients (nearly $2 billion) at $20.85 a share two years ago. Goldman dumped $923 million worth of stock on the IPO , so, as always, the firm and its clients are doing just fine. But with Facebook’s stock now having fallen to the value at which Goldman made the investment, the firm has a tough decision to make. If it dumps stock at this level, it will look like a chump. My prediction is that, having already banked nearly $1 billion of profit for itself and its clients, Goldman will probably let the rest of the investment ride. (Unless, again, it thinks Facebook is headed down the tubes). Elevation Partners — Class B: 35.5 million. Elevation is a Valley investment firm that has struggled of late, with the exception of the Facebook investment. Elevation took $175 million off the table on the IPO, but it will likely want to dump the rest of its stake quickly, to lock in the gains. So Elevation may distribute its remaining stock to its Limiteds on Thursday morning. Greylock Partners — Class B: 29 million. Greylock has also made a killing on Facebook, and it sold $289 million worth of stock on the IPO. Like the other VC firms, Greylock will likely continue to gradually scale out. It probably won’t sell Thursday morning, but it also likely won’t hang around for the next lock-up release deluge. Mail.ru Group Limited — Class B: 36.8 million. Another Russian company that got in early. Mail.ru cashed in to the tune of $745 million on the IPO, and it will likely dump the rest of its stake very soon. Mark Pincus — Class B: 4.3 million. Pincus, the CEO of Zynga and an early Facebook investor, cashed out big from both Zynga and Facebook in recent months. He’s clearly getting liquid. So he’ll be rushing for the doors. Meritech Capital Partners — Class B: 33.4 million. I don’t know much about these folks . They’ll probably dump. Microsoft Corporation — Class B: 26.2 million. Microsoft will likely hold on. This is a strategic investment for the company, and it doesn’t need the cash. Reid Hoffman — Class B: 3.8 million. A legendary Silicon Valley VC and entrepreneur, Reid doesn’t need the cash, and he’s a big Valley and Facebook bull. He’ll probably ease out over time. Tiger Global Management: Class A: 1.96 million; Class B: 32.8 million. An aggressive hedge fund. Despite having already banked $722 million on the IPO, they’ll almost certainly dump . Bottom line, some of these Facebook shareholders are almost certain to dump some stock in the next few months. Maybe not Thursday morning, but soon. And with ~1.7 billion more shares set to hit the market by December, they probably won’t dilly-dally too long. SEE ALSO: Facebook’s Stock Crash Has Created A Bunch Of New Problems For The Company Business Insider Emails & Alerts Site highlights each day to your inbox. Email Address Join Follow Business Insider Australia on Facebook , Twitter , LinkedIn , and Instagram .",
"URL": "https://www.businessinsider.com.au/facebook-lockup-release-shares-2012-8"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Man accused of cyber attacks on organisations including Microsoft has case sent to Crown Court | NorthernIrelandWorld × search Custom Search Sort by: Relevance Relevance Date Register Sign in Welcome back Edit Account - Sign Out My Account Sign Out NationalWorldTV The pictures that show how much Larne FC fans really want the Gibson Cup Cookstown man made his neighbour afraid to go out of her house, court told News Traffic and Travel Crime Weather Politics Ukraine Crisis Health Coronavirus Business Education People Environment Read This Cost of living Football Irish League Football Sport Motorcycling Ice Hockey Other Sport What's On Arts and Entertainment Things To Do Submit Your Story Lifestyle Food and Drink Travel Homes and Gardens Cars Family Your NI Retro Opinion Advertise My Business BREAKING 1 hour ago Eurovision Grand Final performances announced including Sam Ryder 42 minutes ago Sunak under investigation over alleged failure to declare interest 53 minutes ago Police officer charged with rape while on duty 1 hour ago King Charles and Prince Harry hold ‘peace talks’ ahead of coronation 1 hour ago Phillip Schofield returns to This Morning after brother’s conviction 1 hour ago Birds Eye recalls item after ‘manufacturing error’ health concerns Crime Man accused of cyber attacks on organisations including Microsoft has case sent to Crown Court A man accused of a role in cyber attacks on organisations including Microsoft has had his case sent to Antrim Crown Court. By Ballymena Court Reporter Published 12th Apr 2023, 09:51 BST Aaron Sterritt (23), formerly with an address at Fairway in Larne but now at Brookfield Gardens in Ahoghill, faces eight charges relating to the period from 2016 to 2020. The case was mentioned at Ballymena Magistrates' Court on Thursday (April 6) where the defendant was in the dock. Advertisement Advertisement He faces five charges of conspiring to 'commit unauthorised acts, namely a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack...with intent to impair the operation of a computer' on Microsoft Corporation (XBox Live); 'Flowplay Incorporated'; 'Rockstar Games Incorporated'; 'Tumblr' and 'Ottawa Catholic School Board'. Most Popular Portadown road tragedy: teenage pedestrian passes away after... News Road closed in Richhill following serious traffic collision... News Sponsored Links Recommended by Ballymena courthouse. He faces two charges of failing to comply with a notice to disclose 'passwords or decryption keys' for a laptop, pen drives, a hard disk drive and a mobile phone. Advertisement Advertisement The eighth charge is that he obtained a 'malicious code' from the 'Blazingfast' server, intending to use it to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence. At a Preliminary Enquiry - the legal step send a case to a Crown Court - the accused confirmed he had received the papers in the case. He did not object to the holding of a Preliminary Enquiry. Advertisement Advertisement A prosecutor submitted there was a case to answer and a defence lawyer had no contrary submissions. The accused said he did not wish to say anything in answer to the charges. The court heard there are \"voluminous papers\" in the case. Advertisement Advertisement The case was sent to Antrim Crown Court for arraignment on May 5. Read More Two handsome rescue dogs are ready and waiting for their forever homes The accused was given bail in the sum of £500 with a condition to reside at the Ahoghill address and no other address unless approved by police. More Stories Recommended by Skip Ad ▶ Skip Ads by Sign up to our daily NorthernIrelandWorld Today newsletter Sign up This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Notice and Terms of Service apply. This website and its associated newspaper are members of Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) Follow us on Explore News Sport What's On Lifestyle Your Northern Ireland Recommended More from Northern Ireland World Announcements Jobs Public Notices Must Read Photo Sales Newspaper Archive Useful Links Contact Us Advertise My Business Archive Subscribe Events Place your Ad Readers Charter ©National World Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved. Cookie Settings Terms and Conditions Privacy notice Modern Slavery Statement Register Sign in Welcome back Edit Account - Sign Out My Account Sign Out × search Custom Search Sort by: Relevance Relevance Date NationalWorldTV News News Coronavirus Traffic and Travel Crime Weather Politics Ukraine Crisis Health Business Education Environment People Read This Cost of living Football Football Irish League Football Sport Sport Motorcycling Ice Hockey Other Sport What's On What's On Arts and Entertainment Things To Do Submit Your Story Lifestyle Lifestyle Food and Drink Travel Homes and Gardens Cars Family Retro Opinion Your NI Your NI Antrim and Newtownabbey Armagh Banbridge and Craigavon Belfast Causeway Coast and Glens Londonderry Derry City and Strabane Lisburn and Castlereagh Mid and East Antrim Mid Ulster Fermanagh and Omagh Newry Mourne and Down Ards and North Down Must Read Contact us Advertise My Business Follow us Sign up to our daily NorthernIrelandWorld Today newsletter Sign up This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Notice and Terms of Service apply. Close the sidebar",
"URL": "https://www.northernirelandworld.com/news/crime/man-accused-of-cyber-attacks-on-organisations-including-microsoft-has-case-sent-to-crown-court-4100698"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Microsoft OneDrive app updates on iOS and Android devices with UI design improvements » OnMSFT.com Home Windows 10 Ignite 2019 Surface How-To Office 365 Edge Windows Insider Microsoft OneDrive app updates on iOS and Android devices with UI design improvements Brad Stephenson Email @shuttlecock Nov 7th, 2019 in News Comments The official OneDrive app updated for both Android and iOS users today with a variety of changes to each version’s appearance and functionality. These updates also squashed several bugs, most notably the one in the iOS app that was hiding days within the Expiring Links date picker. Here’s the full release notes for the iOS update: Our files icon in the tab bar was a bit blurry. This has been fixed and we are now seeing 20-20. For business users, the Discover view has a new home in the left drawer between Offline Files and Recycle Bin. We fixed an issue with the Expiring Links date picker where you couldn’t actually see the days. Even though the days of the week can sometimes blur together, we think picking a date is still important. Our premium users can once again select a custom expiration date for their sharing links. Here’s the full release notes for the OneDrive app update on Android : We’re improving the layout of file list and tile views so your content looks more gorgeous & consistent across all your devices. Searching for files in business and school accounts just got faster and better (sorry if that made it easier to find all your homework assignments!). And as always, we’ve squashed minor bugs, and made performance & reliability improvements across the entire app. If you run into any issues, please shake your device and tap “Report a Problem”. Do you use OneDrive on your mobile devices or do you prefer to use it only on your PC? Share your thoughts with the community in the comments below and then follow us on Pinterest , Twitter , and Facebook for more Microsoft app news . Download QR-Code Microsoft OneDrive Developer: Microsoft Corporation Price: Free + Download QR-Code Microsoft OneDrive Developer: Microsoft Corporation Price: Free + Share This Further reading: Android , Apps , iOS , Microsoft , OneDrive Trending OnMSFT Recent Posts It’s now easier to see which Microsoft Store apps and games won’t work with Windows 10 on ARM devices Nov 9th, 2019 Windows 10 news recap: Chromium-based Microsoft Edge to ship by default on Windows 10 in future, Skip Ahead ring comes to an end, and more Nov 9th, 2019 Microsoft news recap: HoloLens 2 starts shipping, Minecraft Earth AR arrives in the United Kingdom, and more Nov 8th, 2019 Get a brand new Surface Pro 7 with Type Cover for just $600 at BestBuy and Microsoft today Nov 8th, 2019 Microsoft sends more Project xCloud preview and teases “big” news at X019 next week Nov 8th, 2019 Microsoft rumored to pull Cortana from Android launcher for international markets Nov 8th, 2019 Twitter 21255 Followers Facebook 18,100 Fans Youtube 61700 Subscriber Home About Us Privacy Policy Contact OnMSFT Copyright 2010-19 OnMSFT.com LLC Powered by Azure Office 365 WordPress Social Media icons by Michael Gillett × Site Theme Default (light) Dark",
"URL": "https://www.onmsft.com/news/microsoft-onedrive-app-updates-on-ios-and-android-devices-with-ui-design-improvements"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, September 29, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 194 HeadlinesAKB LC: \"Ensignia\" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime WagesALICO INC: Stein and Dimon Lawsuits ConsolidatedALPHABET HOLDING: Class Suits Over Herbal Supplements PendingALPHABET HOLDING: Cases Over Glucosamine Supplements Still OpenALPHABET HOLDING: TCPA Lawsuit v. NBTY Still PendingAMGEN INC: 9th Circuit Granted Motion to StayARAMEX INTERNATIONAL: Faces \"Lozanon\" Suit Over Failure to Pay OTAVX CORPORATION: Class Action Appeal Still PendingAVX CORPORATION: Defending Cases Filed in CanadaBENONS LLC: Faces \"Nicholson\" Suit Over Failure to Pay OvertimeBEST WESTERN: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, \"Lopez\" Suit ClaimsBIG CITY YONKERS: \"Alcantara\" Suit Seeks to Recover OT & WagesBLUE CROSS: Faces DCS Suit Over Plan Asset MisappropriationBLYTH INC: Faces \"Raftery Suit Over Proposed Carlyle TakeoverBOEING COMPANY: Limits RSURTS Benefit Plan Coverage, Suit ClaimsBUMBLE BEE: Faces \"Burr\" Suit Over Seafood Product-Price FixingCALIFORNIA: Bill to Limit Juvenile Solitary Confinement FailsCAMERON INT'L: Faces \"Artzt\" Suit Over Schlumberger Merger PlansCARLO LIZZA: Faces \"Little\" Suit Over Failure to Pay OvertimeCHA CHA: Faces \"Landa\" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime WagesCLEAN HARBORS: Exact Settlement Cost Not Yet DeterminableCLEAN HARBORS: 24 Product Liability Claims Settled or DismissedDELCATH SYSTEMS: Oct. 19 Final Settlement Approval HearingDELUXE SHARED: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Meal BreaksEINSTEIN NOAH: Faces \"Stout\" Suit Over Inaccurate Wage StatementsEMPIRE STATE: No Oral Argument Yet in Class Action AppealEXCELLUS HEALTH: Faces \"Gilbert\" Suit Over Alleged Data BreachFIDELITY & GUARANTY: Court Entered Scheduling and Trial OrderFOODINK CATERING: Faces \"Warren\" Suit Over Failure to Pay OTFIRST HORIZON: Defending Hawkins Class SuitFUEL SYSTEMS: Faces \"Nehamen\" Suit Over Prop. Westport TakeoverHCA HOLDINGS: January 2016 Trial in Securities Class ActionHYUNDAI MOTOR: \"Bowen\" Class Suit Removed to N.J. Dist. CourtINTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Briefing to Occur Later in 2015INTERNAP CORPORATION: Faces Suit for Breach of Fiduciary DutiesIPC HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Proposed TeamHealth TakeoverJDB CONSULTANTS: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime WagesJOSPEH V. O'DONELL: Sued Over Improper Disposal of CorpsesKNOWLES CORP: Jan. 2016 Trial Set in Audience IPO LitigationKNOWLES CORP: MOU Reached in Suit Over Audience AcquisitionLENNY & LARRY'S: Falsely Marketed Cookie Products, Suit ClaimsLEGGETT & PLATT: Expects to Make Final Payment of $35.8 MillionLEGGETT & PLATT: Final Fairness Hearing Scheduled for December 15LEGGETT & PLATT: Reached Tentative Settlement in Canadian CasesLEGGETT & PLATT: Case Management Conference HeldLEO JAMES: Faces \"Alexander\" Suit in Cal. Over Automated CallsLIBERTY LIFE: Faces \"Chirino\" Suit Over Disability Benefit ClaimsLIBERTY MEDIA: SIRIUS XM Continues to Defend Several Class SuitsLIBERTY MEDIA: SIRIUS XM Filed Appeal in Flo & Eddie Calif. CaseLIBERTY MEDIA: 2nd Cir. Granted Review in Flo & Eddie NY CaseLIBERTY MEDIA: Flo & Eddie Filed Appeal in Florida CaseLIBERTY MEDIA: Continues to Defend Capitol Records CaseLIBERTY MEDIA: TCPA Suits Against SIRIUS XM Still OpenLIQUID HOLDINGS: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Financial ReportsM&T BANK: Faces \"Hirst\" Suit Over Failure to Pay OvertimeM&T BANK: Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation in DiscoveryMANHATTAN BEER: Fails to Pay Employees OT, \"Swanson\" Suit ClaimsMEATS ON THE BEACH: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime WagesMTS TAXES: \"Murat\" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime WagesNBTY INC: Initial Conference Held in Herbal Supplements CaseNBTY INC: Preliminary Approval Conference HeldNBTY INC: Appeal from Case Dismissal Order Still PendingONEWEST RESOURCES: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit ClaimsORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: SEPTA Bid to File 2nd Amended Suit PendingPALOS COMMUNITY: Sued in Ill. Over Unlawful Billing PracticesPANASONIC CORP: Inflates Price of Resistors, \"Brooks\" Suit SaysPANASONIC CORP: Inflates Resistor Prices, Nebraska Dynamics SaysPARKING CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Disability DiscriminationPHILIA 5: Faces \"Hernandez\" Suit Over Failure to Pay OvertimePRIME CONSULTING: \"James\" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT WagesPRIVATE PROTECTIVE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime WagesPRO OILFIELD: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, \"Aragon\" Suit SaysRICHLAND, OH: Sued Over Failure to Pay Court Workers OT WagesROADRUNNER INTERMODAL: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay WorkersSALLY BEAUTY: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit ClaimsSAND BUILDING: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, \"Salazar\" Suit SaysSANTA ROSA: Faces \"Castellanos\" Suit Over Failure to Pay OvertimeSILICON VALLEY: Faces \"Fletcher\" Suit Over Failure to Pay OTSJK INC: Faces \"Antuna\" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum WagesST. LOUIS, MO: MTC Illegally Prohibits Ridesharing OperationsST. JUDE MEDICAL: Received Insurance Recoveries of $40 MillionST. JUDE MEDICAL: Fact Discovery to Close December 18SUNTRUST BANKS: Individual Suits, Smaller Class Actions PendingSUNTRUST BANKS: Court Finally Approved Deal in Colonial CaseSUNTRUST BANKS: Petition for Certiorari Filed in \"Bickerstaff\"SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Stock Class Action Granted in PartSUNTRUST BANKS: Appeal in Mutual Funds Class Actions PendingSUNTRUST BANKS: Brown et al. v. SunTrust Banks Case Still PendingSUNTRUST BANKS: \"Morales\" Class Action Settled in Q2 2015SUNTRUST BANKS: \"Thurmond\" Reinsurance Class Action StayedSTERICYCLE INC: MDL Action in Discovery StageSTERICYCLE INC: To Make Settlement Payment in Junk Fax SuitSWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Court Granted Motion to DecertifySWIFT TRANSPORTATION: 9th Cir. Owner-Operator Case Still PendingSWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Defending Calif. Wage, Meal and Rest SuitSWIFT TRANSPORTATION: \"Peck\" Action Currently StayedSWIFT TRANSPORTATION: \"Mares\" Case Remains at Pleading StageSWIFT TRANSPORTATION: \"McKinsty\" Case Removed to Federal CourtSWIFT TRANSPORTATION: To Mediate National Customer Service CaseSWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Wash. OT Suit to Move Into DiscoverySWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Central Refrigerated Suit in DiscoverySYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Filed Motion to Dismiss TelexFree LitigationTALBOTS INC: \"Lopez\" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & WagesTALON AIR: \"Amaya\" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime WagesTECO ENERGY: Appeals from Class Action Dismissal PendingTHORATEC CORPORATION: Parties Await Ruling on Motion to DismissTHORATEC CORPORATION: Solak v. Grossman Class Action FiledTORNIER NV: Consolidated Delaware Action Still PendingTOTAL MAINTENANCE: Faces \"Paganas\" Suit Over Failure to Pay OTTOTAL THRU: Faces \"Clinkingbeard\" Suit over Failure to Pay OTTRUJILLO & TRUJILLO: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Action ClaimsUCT CLEARVIEW: Faces \"Lan\" Suit Over Failure to Pay OvertimeUNION PACIFIC: Faces \"Jaramillo\" Trespassing Suit in NevadaUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Regents Face Suit Over Data BreachUS MILITARY: Veterans Used In Secret Experiments Files Class SuitUS SECURITY: Sued Over Failure to Reimburse Job-Related ExpensesVOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces \"Karcsay\" Suit Over Defeat DevicesVOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces \"Benipayo\" Suit Over Defeat DevicesVOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces \"Johnson\" Suit Over Defeat DevicesVOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces \"Bennett\" Suit Over Defeat DevicesVOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces \"Bricker\" Suit Over Defeat DevicesVOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces \"D'Angelo\" Suit Over Defeat DevicesVOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces \"Redmond\" Suit Over Defeat DevicesVOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces \"Dorn\" Suit in Ill. Over Defeat DevicesVOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces \"Dell'Aquila\" Suit Over Defeat DevicesVOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces \"Lau\" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat DevicesVOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces \"Levin\" Suit in N.Y. Over Defeat DevicesVOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces \"Lowrance\" Suit Over Defeat DevicesVOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces \"McCabe\" Suit Over Defeat DevicesVOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces \"Mitsuda\" Suit Over Defeat DevicesVOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces \"Netkin\" Suit Over Defeat DevicesVOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces \"Walker\" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat DevicesVOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Warren Suit in Ala. Over Defeat DevicesVOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Illegally Installs Defeat Device, Suit ClaimsWASHINGTON GROUP: Faces \"Paparella\" Suit Over Failure to Pay OTWATTS WATER: Plaintiffs in \"Ponzo\" Case Filed Consolidated SuitWATTS WATER: Plaintiffs in \"Klug\" Case Filed Amended ComplaintWEC ENERGY: Preliminary Settlement Approval Hearing HeldWELCH FOODS: Faces \"Atik\" Suit Over Alleged Product MisbrandingWP GLIMCHER: Paid Plaintiffs' Fee Award and ExpensesZILLOW GROUP: 2 Class Actions Filed Against DirectorsZULILY INC: \"Mao\" Suit Says Liberty Deal Undervalues Stock *********AKB LC: \"Ensignia\" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages--------------------------------------------------------------Sebastian Ensignia, an individual, on behalf of himself and otherssimilarly situated v. AKB, LC, Balans Brickell, LLC, and JaneChoi, Case No. 1:15-cv-23527-CMA (S.D. Fla., September 18, 2015),seeks to recover unpaid overtime wage compensation, liquidateddamages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.The Defendants own and operate the Balans Restaurant in Miami,Florida.The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Brock II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN 17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-6800 Facsimile: (305) 358-6808 E-mails: [email protected] INC: Stein and Dimon Lawsuits Consolidated------------------------------------------------Alico, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterlyperiod ended June 30, 2015, that the Stein and Dimon lawsuits havebeen consolidated.On March 11, 2015, a putative shareholder class action lawsuitcaptioned Shiva Y. Stein v. Alico, Inc., et al., No. 15-CA-000645(the \"Stein lawsuit\"), was filed in the Circuit Court of theTwentieth Judicial District in and for Lee County, Florida,against Alico, Inc. (\"Alico\"), its current and certain formerdirectors, 734 Citrus Holdings, LLC d/b/a Silver Nip Citrus(\"Silver Nip\"), 734 Investors, LLC (\"734 Investors\"), 734Agriculture, LLC (\"734 Agriculture\") and 734 Sub, LLC (\"734 Sub\")in connection with the acquisition of Silver Nip by Alico (the\"Acquisition\"). The complaint alleges that Alico's directors atthe time of the Acquisition, 734 Investors and 734 Agriculturebreached fiduciary duties to Alico stockholders in connection withthe Acquisition and that Silver Nip and 734 Sub aided and abettedsuch breaches. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, monetary andequitable relief, costs, fees (including attorneys' fees) andexpenses.On May 6, 2015, a putative stockholder class action and derivativelawsuit captioned Ruth S. Dimon Trust v. George R. Brokaw, et al.,No. 15-CA-001162 (the \"Dimon lawsuit\"), was filed in the CircuitCourt of the Twentieth Judicial District in and for Lee County,Florida, against Alico, its current directors, Silver Nip, 734Investors and 734 Agriculture in connection with the Acquisitionof Silver Nip by Alico. The complaint alleges claims for breach offiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets andtortious interference with contract against Alico's directors,unjust enrichment against three of the directors and aiding andabetting breach of fiduciary duty against Silver Nip, 734investors and 734 Agriculture. The lawsuit seeks, among otherthings, rescission of the Acquisition, an injunction prohibitingcertain payments to Silver Nip shareholders, unspecified damages,disgorgement of profits, costs, fees (including attorneys' fees)and expenses.On July 17, 2015, the plaintiffs in the Stein and Dimon lawsuitsfiled a stipulation and proposed order consolidating their casesfor all purposes and seeking the appointment of a lead plaintiffand lead and liaison counsel. The court entered that proposedorder on July 21, 2015.ALPHABET HOLDING: Class Suits Over Herbal Supplements Pending-------------------------------------------------------------Alphabet Holding Company, Inc. continues to defend class actionlawsuits related to herbal dietary supplements, the Company saidin its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June30, 2015.In February 2015, the New York State Office of the AttorneyGeneral (\"NY AG\") began an investigation concerning theauthenticity and purity of herbal supplements and associatedmarketing. As part of this investigation, the NY AG is reviewingthe sufficiency of the measures that several manufacturers andretailers, including NBTY, are taking to independently assess thevalidity of their representations and advertising in connectionwith the sale of herbal supplements. NBTY has fully cooperatedwith the NY AG; however until this investigation is concluded, nofinal determination can be made as to its ultimate outcome or theamount of liability, if any, on the part of NBTY. However, we donot believe the ultimate outcome will have a material adverseeffect on our consolidated financial statements.Following the NY AG investigation, starting in February 2015,numerous putative class actions were filed in variousjurisdictions against NBTY, certain of its customers and/or othercompanies as to which there may be a duty to defend and indemnify,challenging the authenticity and purity of herbal supplements andassociated marketing, under various states' consumer protectionstatutes. Motions for transfer and consolidation of all of thefederal actions as multidistrict litigation into a single districtbefore a single judge were granted on June 9, 2015, and the casesare consolidated before Judge John W. Darrah of the United StatesDistrict Court, North District of Illinois -- Eastern Division(the \"MDL Case\"). An initial conference is scheduled for August20, 2015. Three class actions against one of our customers towhich we may have a duty to indemnify have not been transferredand consolidated with the MDL Case, and are at the initial stagesof litigation.At this time, no determination can be made as to the ultimateoutcome of the litigation or the amount of liability, if any, onthe part of NBTY; however, we do not believe the ultimate outcomewill have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financialstatements.ALPHABET HOLDING: Cases Over Glucosamine Supplements Still Open---------------------------------------------------------------Alphabet Holding Company, Inc. continues to defend class actionlawsuits related to glucosamine-based dietary supplements, theCompany said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly periodended June 30, 2015.Beginning in June 2011, certain putative class actions have beenfiled in various jurisdictions against NBTY, its subsidiary RexallSundown, Inc. (\"Rexall\"), and/or other companies as to which theremay be a duty to defend and indemnify, challenging the marketingof glucosamine-based dietary supplements, under various states'consumer protection statutes. The lawsuits against NBTY and itssubsidiaries are: Cardenas v. NBTY, Inc. and Rexall Sundown, Inc.(filed June 14, 2011) in the United States District Court for theEastern District of California, on behalf of a putative class ofCalifornia consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damagesbased on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus punitivedamages and injunctive relief; Jennings v. Rexall Sundown, Inc.(filed August 22, 2011) in the United States District Court forthe District of Massachusetts, on behalf of a putative class ofMassachusetts consumers seeking unspecified trebled compensatorydamages; and Nunez v. NBTY, Inc. et al. (filed March 1, 2013) inthe United States District Court for the Southern District ofCalifornia (the \"Nunez Case\"), on behalf of a putative class ofCalifornia consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damagesbased on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus injunctiverelief, as well as other cases in California and Illinois againstcertain Consumer Products Group customers as to which we may havecertain indemnification obligations.ALPHABET HOLDING: TCPA Lawsuit v. NBTY Still Pending----------------------------------------------------Alphabet Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that NBTY, and certainof its subsidiaries, are defendants in a class-action lawsuit,captioned John H. Lary Jr. v. Rexall Sundown, Inc.; Rexall Sundown3001, LLC; Rexall, Inc.; NBTY, Inc.; Corporate Mailings, Inc.d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions (\"CCG\") and John Does 1-10(originally filed October 22, 2013), brought in the United StatesDistrict Court, Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffalleges that the defendants faxed advertisements to plaintiff andothers without invitation or permission, in violation of theTelephone Consumer Protection Act (\"TCPA\").On May 2, 2014, NBTY and its named subsidiary defendants cross-claimed against CCG, who was a third party vendor engaged by NBTY,and CCG cross-claimed against NBTY and named subsidiary defendantson June 13, 2014. CCG brought a third party complaint against anunrelated entity, Healthcare Data Experts, LLC, on June 27, 2014.On July 21, 2014, CCG filed a motion to dismiss the amendedcomplaint and on February 11, 2015 the court issued an Order andOpinion dismissing the class-action. On February 27, 2015,Plaintiff filed an appeal to the court's dismissal of the actionand that appeal is pending.AMGEN INC: 9th Circuit Granted Motion to Stay---------------------------------------------Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterlyperiod ended June 30, 2015, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for theNinth Circuit denied on May 26, 2015, Amgen's petition forrehearing en banc in this Employee Retirement Income Security Act(ERISA) class action case, and on June 9, 2015 that court grantedAmgen's motion to stay the issuance of the court's mandate pendingAmgen's filing of a petition for certiorari with the U.S. SupremeCourt, such petition due on August 24, 2015.ARAMEX INTERNATIONAL: Faces \"Lozanon\" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT-----------------------------------------------------------------Edgar Lozanon v. Aramex International Courier, Ltd., Case No.707869 (N.Y. Super., September 18, 2015), is brought against theDefendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of theNew York Labor Law.Aramex International Courier, Ltd. is a a courier service acrossthe United States, internationally, and within New York State.The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul Karim Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740-1000 Facsimile: (718) 740-2000 E-mail: [email protected] CORPORATION: Class Action Appeal Still Pending--------------------------------------------------AVX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that an appeal of one aspectof a class action lawsuit is still pending before the SouthCarolina Supreme Court.On November 27, 2007, a suit was filed in South Carolina StateCourt by individuals as a class action with respect to propertyadjacent to our Myrtle Beach, South Carolina factory claimingproperty values were negatively impacted by alleged migration ofcertain pollutants from our property. The parties agreed to asettlement of the action, which was approved by the Court onDecember 15, 2014 and paid in January 2015. An appeal of oneaspect of that class action is still pending before the SouthCarolina Supreme Court; if resolved against AVX, it may result inadditional cost.AVX CORPORATION: Defending Cases Filed in Canada------------------------------------------------AVX Corporation continues to defend a series of cases filed inCanada, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015.During the quarter ended September 30, 2014, AVX was named as aco-defendant in a series of cases filed in the United States andin the Canadian provinces of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbiaalleging violations of United States, Canadian, and stateantitrust laws asserting that AVX and numerous other companies areparticipants in alleged price-fixing in the capacitor market. Thecases in the United States were consolidated into the NorthernDistrict of California on October 2, 2014. During the quarterended December 31, 2014, additional Canadian cases were filed inthe provinces of Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, Saskatchewanand Manitoba. These cases are at the initial stages. AVX believesit has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend thecases.BENONS LLC: Faces \"Nicholson\" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime---------------------------------------------------------------Craig Nicholson, on behalf of himself and others similarlysituated v. Benons, LLC d/b/a Falcon Transport and Leroy LindenBenons, Case No. 8:15-cv-02816-PWG (D. Md., September 18, 2015),is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtimewages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.The Defendants own and operate a transportation business, with aprincipal place of business at 11106 Superior Landing, Bowie,Prince Georges County, Maryland 20720.The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew E. Kiely, Esq. MATTHEW E. KIELY, LLC 201 North Charles Street, Suite 1200 Baltimore, Maryland 21201 Telephone: (410) 625-9330 Facsimile: (410) 625-9309 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Robert W. Cowan, Esq. BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY PLLC 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 425-7100 Facsimile: (713) 425-7101 E-mail: [email protected] WESTERN: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, \"Lopez\" Suit Claims-----------------------------------------------------------------Jose J. Lopez v. Best Western International, Inc., d/b/a BestWestern Plus Hollywood Hills Hotel, and Does 1 through 100, CaseNo. BC595012, (D. Cal., September 17, 2015), is brought againstthe Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages inviolation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.Best Western International, Inc. is an Arizona Corporation thatoperates a hotel chain under brand names such as Best Western(R)and Best Western Plus(R).The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack D. Josephson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JACK D. JOSEPHSON, APC 3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213)738-5225BIG CITY YONKERS: \"Alcantara\" Suit Seeks to Recover OT & Wages--------------------------------------------------------------Henrry Alcantara, Jose Peralta, and Maximino Rosa on behalf ofthemselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BigCity Yonkers, Inc. d/b/a Big City Automotive Warehouses,Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-07288 (S.D.N.Y., September, 15, 2015),is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay for overtimewages and minimum compensation in violation of the Fair LaborStandards Act of 1938.Big City Yonkers, Inc. operates a business enterprise consistingof 15 auto parts stores throughout the State of New York and theState of New Jersey. Its employees are regularly engaged incommerce or in the production of goods for commerce or inhandling, selling or otherwise working on goods and materialswhich have moved in or been produced for commerce.The Plaintiffs are represented by: SHULMAN KESSLER LLP Troy L. Kessler, Esq. Marijana Matura, Esq. Garrett Kaske, Esq. 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100BLUE CROSS: Faces DCS Suit Over Plan Asset Misappropriation-----------------------------------------------------------DCS Industries, Inc. f/k/a Lyle Industries, Inc. and LyleIndustries Welfare Benefit Plan v. Blue Cross Blue Shield OfMichigan, Case No. 1:15-cv-13324-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich., September21, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's alleged misappropriationof self-insured employee benefit plan assets.Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is a Michigan non-profit healthcare corporation organized under the Nonprofit Health CareCorporation Reform Act.The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron M. Phelps, Esq. VARNUM LLP Bridgewater Place, PO Box 352 Grand Rapids, MI, 49501-0352 Telephone: (616) 336-6000 Facsimile: (616) 336-7000 E-mail: [email protected] INC: Faces \"Raftery Suit Over Proposed Carlyle Takeover-------------------------------------------------------------Michael Raftery, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. Blyth Inc., et al., Case No. 11520 (Del.Ch., September 18, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the publicstockholders of Blyth Inc. to enjoin the proposed acquisition ofBlyth by The Carlyle Group L.P. through an unfair process andinadequate consideration.Blyth Inc. is a Delaware corporation that makes and sellsdecorative and functional household products such as candles,accessories, seasonal decorations, household convenience items andpersonalized gifts, as well as health, wellness and beauty relatedproducts.The Carlyle Group L.P. with its numerous subsidiary and affiliatedentities is a global alternative asset manager with $193 billionof assets under management across 128 funds and 159 fund of fundsvehicles as of June 30, 2015.The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. The Brandywine Building 1000 West St., 10th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3800 E-mail: [email protected] - and - W. Scott Holleman, Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP 99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 602-1592 E-mail: [email protected] COMPANY: Limits RSURTS Benefit Plan Coverage, Suit Claims----------------------------------------------------------------Jane Doe, individually, on behalf of similarly situatedindividuals v. The Boeing Company Master Welfare Plan, and TheBoeing Company Employee Benefit Plans Committee, Case No. 2:15-cv-1493 (D. Wash., September 18, 2015), seeks to end Boeing'sdiscriminatory practice of severely limiting coverage under thewelfare benefit plan for Residential Substance Use RehabilitationTreatment Services (RSURTS).The Boeing Company Master Welfare Plan is an employee welfarebenefit plan that provides health benefits for Boeing employeesand their dependents.The Boeing Company Employee Benefit Plans Committee is the \"PlanAdministrator\" and is a named fiduciary under the EmployeeRetirement Income Security Act.The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael S. Wampold, Esq. Leonard J. Feldman, Esq. Felix G. Luna, Esq. PETERSON | WAMPOLD | ROSATO | LUNA | KNOPP 1501 4th Avenue, Suite 2800 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 624-6800 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] - and - Stephen R. Parkinson, Esq. Barry G. Ziker, Esq. JOYCE ZIKER PARKINSON PLLC 1601 5th Avenue, Suite 2040 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 957-5960 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] BEE: Faces \"Burr\" Suit Over Seafood Product-Price Fixing---------------------------------------------------------------Lisa Burr, Larry Demonaco, Michael Buff, Ellen Pinto, Robby Reed,Blair Hysni, Dennis Yelvington, and all others similarly situatedv. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, King Oscar, Inc., Starkist Company, andTri-Union Seafoods, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-02095-LAB-BGS (S.D.Cal., September 18, 2015), arises from the Defendants' allegedunlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise,maintain, and stabilize prices for packaged seafood productswithin the United States.The Defendants are the three largest producers of packaged seafoodproducts in the United States.The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex M. Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] - and - Kirk Hulett, Esq. Dennis Stewart, Esq. HULETT HARPER STEWART, LLP 550 West C Street, Ste. 1500 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1133 Facsimile: (619) 338-1139 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] : Bill to Limit Juvenile Solitary Confinement Fails-------------------------------------------------------------Sam Levin, writing for East Bay Express, reported that Californiareceived national attention with news that the state Department ofCorrections and Rehabilitation has agreed to drastically reducethe use of solitary confinement in its prisons. The decision waspart of a settlement with inmates who filed a class-action lawsuitin 2012 challenging the state's long-standing practice ofisolating prisoners in cells for years on end -- often confiningthem to windowless rooms simply due to their alleged gangaffiliations. As a result of the landmark settlement, roughly1,800 inmates will move out of solitary confinement and into thegeneral population.While human rights advocates celebrated the settlement as animportant step in the fight against isolating prisoners in the US,few have paid attention to another action at the state level thatconstitutes a significant setback in the campaign to curb solitaryconfinement. Days before the class-action suit decision becamepublic, California lawmakers quietly dealt a major blow to acritical legislative reform effort that has been in the works foryears. The Assembly appropriations committee decided to officiallyput on hold Senate Bill 124, a proposal to substantially limit theuse of solitary confinement in juvenile correctional facilities.That means the bill will not be moving forward this legislativecycle, which ends September 11.And now activists are lamenting that while adult inmates inCalifornia are finally seeing major reforms, kids in jails andprisons will continue to have to wait.Proponents of SB 124 -- co-sponsored by state Senator Mark Leno,D-San Francisco, and the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, anOakland nonprofit -- have argued that the bill could go a long wayin protecting youth inmates in county and state facilities fromthe inhumane and unjustified practice of isolation. The documentedpsychological deterioration associated with solitary confinement -- which was a key argument in the state class-action suit -- canbe especially damaging for vulnerable youth inmates who have oftenalready experienced a wide range of trauma in their lives. WithCalifornia now agreeing to dramatically curb the use of isolationfor adults and with officials increasingly acknowledging the harmsof solitary, the failure of SB 124 was particularly painful foradvocates who have been pushing versions of the bill for severalyears.\"We're talking about the health and lives of young people who areendangered by this practice,\" Jennifer Kim, Ella Baker Center'sdirector of programs, said. Kim helped write the legislation andhas repeatedly amended the bill in response to criticisms ofcorrection officials, who have continued to argue that isolationof juveniles is an important tool to control \"dangerous\" kids. Inreference to the state lawsuit and settlement, which will have noimpact on juvenile facilities or inmates, Kim added, \"Thousands ofadults are going to be ordered out of solitary confinement . . .[because] the courts have had to intervene. . . . And yet thelegislature has been largely not leading in the way they couldbe.\"SB 124, which successfully passed the Senate in June, would banthe use of solitary confinement in juvenile facilities for longerthan four hours at a time. The legislation would also prohibitcorrectional officers from using solitary as a form of punishmentand would only allow isolation when youth pose an immediate,substantial risk to themselves or others. Facilities would also bebarred from isolating inmates who pose a threat as a result of amental disorder. Additionally, the legislation requires jails todocument all instances of solitary through a statewide reportingsystem. Correction and probation officials across the state haveconsistently opposed the measure, arguing that facilities do notuse the kind of inhumane solitary confinement tactics thatadvocates describe. The opponents have also contended that therestrictions of SB 124 would put staff and youth at risk by makingit harder for officers to isolate violent youth.With the bill formally \"held in committee and under submission,\"the legislation is effectively dead, but can start where it leftoff (since the legislature is currently in the middle of a two-year cycle). Representatives from the office of AssemblymemberJimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles), who chairs the appropriationscommittee, have told supporters of SB 124 that the decision tohold back the bill had to do with the committee's analysis of thecost of the legislation. The committee's analysis said it wouldcost the state's Division of Juvenile Justice (which is part ofthe corrections department) $2.7 million in the first year toimplement SB 124 -- and then $2.3 million in subsequent years. Thefunding is needed for training and additional staffing, accordingto the analysis.Aaron Keshishian, Gomez spokesperson, said that the committee heldSB 124 solely because of the price tag. \"Our committee's job is tolook at the fiscal and that's what they looked at,\" he said.Kim, however, argued that the high fiscal estimates do not seemjustified, especially since facilities already have to reducestaff-to-youth ratios under federal rules. \"This shouldn't beincluded as an added cost for the bill,\" she said, referring tothe staffing estimates in the committee analysis. (Keshishian saidhe could not comment on the specifics of the financial report).What's more, Kim argued, even if lawmakers could reasonably arguethat it would cost millions to implement SB 124, it would still befiscally responsible to pass the legislation. That's because, inthe absence of the kinds of protections written into SB 124, therehave been drawn-out legal battles over the use of juvenilesolitary confinement that have resulted in significant and costlycourt settlements. If SB 124 became law, families and advocateswould not have to keep suing to protect children from harmfulisolation, and the state could actually save money in the longrun, Kim said.For example, in a recent settlement agreement ending the use ofsolitary confinement in Contra Costa Juvenile Hall, the countyresolved litigation by agreeing to pay more than $2 million.\"[SB 124] is aimed at protecting young people and saving the statemillions and millions of dollars in further litigation,\" Kim said.And regarding the claims of Gomez's office that the bill is tocostly, she added, \"That is a really unacceptable responseconsidering what is at stake.\"CAMERON INT'L: Faces \"Artzt\" Suit Over Schlumberger Merger Plans----------------------------------------------------------------Bernard Artzt, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. Cameron International Corporation, et al., Case No.11514 (Del. Ch., September 17, 2017), is brought on behalf of allthe public shareholders of Cameron International Corporation toenjoin the proposed merger transaction, pursuant to which Cameronwill be acquired by Schlumberger N.V., through its affiliates,Schlumberger Holdings Corporation and Rain Merger Sub LLC througha flawed process and inadequate consideration.Cameron International Corporation is a Delaware corporation thatprovides flow equipment products, systems, and services toworldwide oil and gas industries.Schlumberger N.V. is a supplier of technology, integrated projectmanagement, and information solutions to the international oil andgas exploration and production industry.The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] - and - Lynda J. Grant, Esq. THE GRANT LAW FIRM, PLLC 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 292-4441 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. Kevin G. Cooper, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] LIZZA: Faces \"Little\" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime-------------------------------------------------------------Donald Little and Terrence Johnson, individually and on behalf ofall others similarly situated v. Carlo Lizza & Sons Paving, Inc.,Ships Point Industries Ltd., A&B Contractors LLC and Elia AlyLizza, Case No. 1:15-cv-07423-PAE (S.D.N.Y., September 18, 2015),is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtimewages for hours worked in excess of 40 per week.The Defendants own and operate a construction company in New York.The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] CHA: Faces \"Landa\" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages--------------------------------------------------------------Candida Landa, Obet Hernandez, Jose Manuel Chuc-Carillo, FilimonTorrero-Chica, and Adan Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves andsimilarly situated employees v. Cha Cha Cha Taqueria, Inc. andFrancisco Javier Diaz-Hurtado, Case No. 3:15-CV-1778 (D. Oreg.,September 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failureto pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.The Defendants own and operate a Mexican restaurant in Portland,Oregon.The Plaintiff is represented by: Quinn E. Kuranz, Esq. THE OFFICE OF Q.E. KURANZ, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC 815 SW 2nd Ave., Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 757-4749 Facsimile: (503) 200-1289 E-mail: [email protected] HARBORS: Exact Settlement Cost Not Yet Determinable---------------------------------------------------------Clean Harbors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the exact settlementcost is not yet determinable, but it is not expected to bematerial, in the Fee Class Action.In October 2010, two customers filed a complaint, individually andon behalf of all similarly situated customers in the State ofAlabama, alleging that Safety-Kleen improperly assessed fuelsurcharges and extended area service fees. In 2012, similarlawsuits were filed by the same law firm in California andMissouri.On January 15, 2015, the Company reached a tentative settlement ofthe pending class action lawsuits, which were broadened to includesimilar claims on behalf of customers in Florida, West Virginiaand Arkansas. The final settlement was approved by the court in afairness hearing in June 2015. The exact settlement cost is notyet determinable, but it is not expected to be material.CLEAN HARBORS: 24 Product Liability Claims Settled or Dismissed---------------------------------------------------------------Clean Harbors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that from January 1, 2015 toJune 30, 2015, 24 product liability claims were settled ordismissed.Safety-Kleen is named as a defendant in various lawsuits that arecurrently pending in various courts and jurisdictions throughoutthe United States, including approximately 52 proceedings(excluding cases which have been settled but not formallydismissed) as of June 30, 2015, wherein persons claim personalinjury resulting from the use of Safety-Kleen's parts cleaningequipment or cleaning products. These proceedings typicallyinvolve allegations that the solvent used in Safety-Kleen's partscleaning equipment contains contaminants and/or that Safety-Kleen's recycling process does not effectively remove thecontaminants that become entrained in the solvent during theiruse. In addition, certain claimants assert that Safety-Kleenfailed to warn adequately the product user of potential risks,including an historic failure to warn that solvent contains traceamounts of toxic or hazardous substances such as benzene.Safety-Kleen maintains insurance that it believes will providecoverage for these claims (over amounts accrued for self-insuredretentions and deductibles in certain limited cases), except forpunitive damages to the extent not insurable under state law orexcluded from insurance coverage. Safety-Kleen believes that theseclaims lack merit and has historically vigorously defended, andintends to continue to vigorously defend, itself and the safety ofits products against all of these claims. Such matters are subjectto many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable withassurance. Consequently, Safety-Kleen is unable to ascertain theultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability or financialimpact with respect to these matters as of June 30, 2015.From January 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015, 24 product liability claimswere settled or dismissed. Due to the nature of these claims andthe related insurance, the Company did not incur any expense asSafety-Kleen's insurance provided coverage in full for all suchclaims. Safety-Kleen may be named in similar, additional lawsuitsin the future, including claims for which insurance coverage maynot be available.DELCATH SYSTEMS: Oct. 19 Final Settlement Approval Hearing----------------------------------------------------------Delcath Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Court set a FinalApproval Hearing for October 19, 2015, in the In re DelcathSystems, Inc. Securities Litigation, United States District Courtfor the Southern District of New York (Case No. 13-cv-3116).On May 8, 2013, a purported stockholder of the Company filed aputative class action complaint in the United States DistrictCourt for the Southern District of New York, captioned BryanGreen, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated,v. Delcath Systems, Inc., et al. (\"Green\"), Case No. 1:13-cv-03116-LGS. On June 14, 2013, a substantially similar complaint wasfiled in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York, captioned Joseph Connico, individually andon behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Delcath Systems,Inc., et al. (\"Connico\"), Case No. 1:13-cv-04131-LGS.At a hearing on August 2, 2013, the Court consolidated the Greenand Connico actions under the caption In re Delcath Systems, Inc.Securities Litigation, No. 13-cv-3116, appointed Lead Plaintiff,Delcath Investor Group, and approved Pomerantz Grossman HuffordDahlstrom & Gross LLP as Lead Plaintiff's choice of counsel.On September 18, 2013, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amendedcomplaint, naming the Company and Eamonn P. Hobbs as defendants(the \"Defendants\"). The consolidated amended complaint assertsthat Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making false andmisleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's NewDrug Application for its Melblez Kit (Melblez (melphalan) forInjection for use with the Delcath Hepatic Delivery System), forthe treatment of patients with unresectable metastatic ocularmelanoma in the liver. The putative class period alleged in theamended complaint is April 21, 2010 through and including May 2,2013. Lead Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief,and reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs.The parties have reached a settlement in principle that, ifapproved by the Court, will fully and finally resolve the claimsbrought by Lead Plaintiff on behalf of the class it seeks torepresent. The proposed settlement establishes a settlement fundof $8,500,000 in return for a release of all claims in thislitigation, which is expected to be covered by its insurance andis not expected to result in any additional expense in theCompany's financial statements.On June 24, 2015, the Court granted Lead Plaintiff filed a Motionfor Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and set aFinal Approval Hearing for October 19, 2015. Pursuant to theCourt's Preliminary Approval Order, notice and claim forms will bemailed to class members and class members will have an opportunityto submit claims, to opt-out of the settlement, and/or to objectto the settlement. At the Final Approval Hearing the Court willconsider the notice process and results, any objections, and otherrelevant information. The Court will then decide whether tofinally approve the class settlement. If the settlement is finallyapproved, the settlement funds will be disbursed as provided inthe settlement agreement and the Court's orders.DELUXE SHARED: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Meal Breaks---------------------------------------------------------------Lucas E. Hull, an individual, on behalf of himself and otherssimilarly situated v. Deluxe Shared Services Inc., Deluxe 3D LLC,and Does 1 to 50, Inclusive, Case No. BC595144 (Cal. Super.,September 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failureto provide meal breaks in violation of the California Labor Code.The Defendants own and operate a financial service companyoperating within the State of California.The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric B. Kingsley, Esq. Darren M.Cohen, Esq., KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 990-8300 Facsimile: (818) 990-2903 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] NOAH: Faces \"Stout\" Suit Over Inaccurate Wage Statements-----------------------------------------------------------------Nancy Stout, on behalf of herself and all others similarlysituated v. Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc. and Does 1through 10, inclusive, Case No. RG15786192 (D. Cal., September 17,2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provideaccurate itemized wage statements showing the start date of thepay period to which each respective wage statement corresponds.Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc. operates a bagel and coffeerestaurant chain with locations in California and throughout theUnited States.The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Craig Clark, Esq. James M. Treglio, Esq. CLARK & TREGLIO 205 West Date Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-1321 Facsimile: (888) 273-4554 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (562) 256-1047 Facsimile: (562) 256-1006 E-mail: [email protected] STATE: No Oral Argument Yet in Class Action Appeal---------------------------------------------------------Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that an appeal in aclass action lawsuit is fully submitted and the court has not yetscheduled oral argument.In March 2012, five putative class actions, or the \"Original ClassActions,\" were filed in New York State Supreme Court, New YorkCounty by investors in certain of the existing entities(constituting the predecessor and the non-controlled entities)(the \"existing entities\") on March 1, 2012, March 7, 2012, March12, 2012, March 14, 2012 and March 19, 2012. The plaintiffsasserted claims against our predecessor's management companies,Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin, the estate of Leona M.Helmsley, our operating partnership and us for breach of fiduciaryduty, unjust enrichment and/or aiding and abetting breach offiduciary duty. They alleged, among other things, that the termsof the consolidation and the process by which it was structured(including the valuation that was employed) are unfair to theinvestors in the existing entities, the consolidation providesexcessive benefits to Malkin Holdings LLC (now our subsidiary) andits affiliates and the then-draft prospectus/consent solicitationwith respect to the consolidation filed with the SEC failed tomake adequate disclosure to permit a fully-informed decision aboutthe consolidation. The complaints sought money damages andinjunctive relief preventing the consolidation. The Original ClassActions were consolidated and co-lead plaintiffs' counsel wereappointed by the New York State Supreme Court by order dated June26, 2012. Further, an underlying premise of the Original ClassActions, as noted in discussions among plaintiffs' counsel anddefendants' counsel, was that the consolidation had beenstructured in such a manner that would cause investors in EmpireState Building Associates L.L.C., 60 East 42nd St. AssociatesL.L.C. and 250 West 57th St. Associates L.L.C. (the \"subjectLLCs\") immediately to incur substantial tax liabilities.The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement datedSeptember 28, 2012, resolving the Original Class Actions. TheStipulation of Settlement recites that the consolidation wasapproved by overwhelming consent of the investors in the existingentities. The Stipulation of Settlement states that counsel forthe plaintiff class satisfied themselves that they have receivedadequate access to relevant information, including the independentvaluer's valuation process and methodology, that the disclosuresin the Registration Statement on Form S-4, as amended, areappropriate, that the consolidation presents potential benefits,including the opportunity for liquidity and capital appreciation,that merit the investors' serious consideration and that each ofthe named class representatives intends to support theconsolidation as modified. The Stipulation of Settlement furtherstates that counsel for the plaintiff class are satisfied that theclaims regarding tax implications, enhanced disclosures,appraisals and exchange values of the properties that would beconsolidated into our company, and the interests of the investorsin the existing entities, have been addressed adequately, and theyhave concluded that the settlement pursuant to the Stipulation ofSettlement and opportunity to consider the proposed consolidationon the basis of revised consent solicitations are fair,reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the plaintiffclass.The defendants in the Stipulation of Settlement denied that theycommitted any violation of law or breached any of their duties anddid not admit that they had any liability to the plaintiffs.The terms of the settlement include, among other things (i) apayment of $55.0 million, with a minimum of 80% in cash andmaximum of 20% in freely-tradable shares of common stock and/orfreely-tradable operating partnership units to be distributed,after reimbursement of plaintiffs' counsel's court-approvedexpenses and payment of plaintiffs' counsel's court-approvedattorneys' fees (which are included within the $55.0 millionsettlement payment) and, in the case of shares of common stockand/or operating partnership units, after the termination ofspecified lock-up periods, to investors in the existing entitiespursuant to a plan of allocation to be prepared by counsel forplaintiffs; (ii) defendants' agreement that (a) the Offering wouldbe on the basis of a firm commitment underwriting; (b) if, duringthe solicitation period, any of the three subject LLCs' percentageof total exchange value is lower than what was stated in the finalprospectus/consent solicitation with respect to the consolidationby 10% or more, such decrease would be promptly disclosed bydefendants to investors in the subject LLCs; and (c) unless totalgross proceeds of $600.0 million are raised in the Offering,defendants will not proceed with the consolidation without furtherapproval of the subject LLCs; and (iii) defendants' agreement tomake additional disclosures in the prospectus/consent solicitationwith respect to the consolidation regarding certain matters (whichare included therein). Investors in the existing entities will notbe required to bear any portion of the settlement payment. Thepayment in settlement of the Original Class Actions will be madeby the estate of Leona M. Helmsley and affiliates of MalkinHoldings LLC (provided that none of Malkin Holdings LLC'saffiliates that would become our direct or indirect subsidiary inthe consolidation will have any liability for such payment) andcertain investors in the existing entities who agree tocontribute. We will not bear any of the settlement payment.The settlement further provides for the certification of a classof investors in the existing entities, other than defendants andother related persons and entities, and a release of any claims ofthe members of the class against the defendants and relatedpersons and entities, as well as underwriters and other advisors.The release in the settlement excludes certain claims, includingbut not limited to, claims arising from or related to anysupplement to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 that isdeclared effective to which the plaintiffs' counsel objects inwriting, which objection will not be unreasonably made or delayed,so long as plaintiffs' counsel has had adequate opportunity toreview such supplement. There was no such supplement thatplaintiff's counsel objected to in writing. The settlement wassubject to court approval. It was not effective until such courtapproval is final, including the resolution of any appeal.Defendants continue to deny any wrongdoing or liability inconnection with the allegations in the Original Class Actions.On January 18, 2013, the parties jointly moved for preliminaryapproval of the settlement, for permission to send notice of thesettlement to the class, and for the scheduling of a finalsettlement hearing. On January 28, 2013, six of the investors inEmpire State Building Associates L.L.C. filed an objection topreliminary approval, and cross-moved to intervene in the OriginalClass Actions and for permission to file a separate complaint onbehalf of the investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C.On February 21, 2013, the court denied the cross motion of suchobjecting investors, and the court denied permission for suchobjecting investors to file a separate complaint as part of theOriginal Class Actions, but permitted them to file a brief solelyto support their allegation that the buyout would deprive non-consenting investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. of\"fair value\" in violation of the New York Limited LiabilityCompany Law. The court rejected the objecting investors' assertionthat preliminary approval be denied and granted preliminaryapproval of the settlement.Pursuant to a decision issued on April 30, 2013, the courtrejected the allegation regarding the New York Limited LiabilityCompany Law and ruled in Malkin Holdings LLC's favor, holding thatsuch buyout provisions are legally binding and enforceable andthat investors do not have the rights they claimed under the NewYork Limited Liability Company Law.On May 2, 2013, the court held a hearing regarding final approvalof the Original Class Actions settlement, at the conclusion ofwhich the court stated that it intended to approve the settlement.On May 17, 2013, the court issued its Opinion and Order. The courtrejected the objections by all objectors and upheld the settlementin its entirety. Of the approximately 4,500 class members who areinvestors in all of the existing entities included in theconsolidation, 12 opted out of the settlement. Those who opted outwill not receive any share of the settlement proceeds, but canpursue separate claims for monetary damages.Also on May 17, 2013, the court issued its Opinion and Order onattorneys' fees. Class counsel applied for an award of $15.0million in fees and $295,895 in expenses, which the court reducedto $11.59 million in fees and $265,282 in expenses (which areincluded within the $55.0 million settlement payment).The investors who challenged the buyout provision filed a noticeof appeal of the court's April 30, 2013 decision and moved beforethe appellate court for a stay of all proceedings relating to thesettlement, including such a stay as immediate interim relief. OnMay 1, 2013, their request for immediate interim relief wasdenied. On May 13, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its brief inopposition to the motion for the stay. On June 18, 2013, theappellate court denied the motion for the stay. On July 16, 2013,these investors filed their brief and other supporting papers ontheir appeal of the April 30, 2013 decision, which are required toperfect the appeal. On September 4, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLCfiled its brief on the appeal, and also moved to dismiss theappeal on the grounds that these investors lack standing to pursueit. Malkin Holdings LLC contended that these investors were notentitled to appraisal under the New York Limited Liability CompanyLaw because, among other reasons (i) they are not members ofEmpire State Building Associates L.L.C., and only members havesuch rights; (ii) the transaction in question is not a merger orconsolidation as defined by statute, and appraisal only applies inthose transactions; and (iii) when Empire State BuildingAssociates L.L.C. was converted into a limited liability company,the parties agreed that no appraisal would apply.Moreover, Malkin Holdings LLC contended that only the 12 investorswho opted out of the class action settlement could pursueappraisal, because that settlement contains a broad release of(and there is an associated bar order from the court preventing)any such claims. Malkin Holdings LLC further noted that of the sixinvestors attempting to pursue the appeal, only two had in factopted out of the class action settlement. On September 13, 2013,these investors filed their reply brief on the appeal, and opposedthe motion to dismiss.On September 19, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its reply briefon the motion to dismiss. On October 3, 2013, the appeals courtdenied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to address thematter directly on the appeal, effectively referring the issuesraised in the motion to the panel that was to hear the appealitself. The appeals court heard argument on November 21, 2013, andin a Decision and Order dated February 25, 2014, it affirmed thetrial court's ruling.In addition, on June 20, 2013, these same investors, and oneadditional investor who also opposed the settlement of theOriginal Class Action, filed additional notices of appeal from thetrial court's rulings in the Original Class Actions. These noticesof appeal related to (i) the order entered February 22, 2013granting preliminary approval of the Original Class Actionsettlement and setting a hearing for final approval; (ii) theorder entered February 26, 2013, refusing to sign a proposed orderto show cause for a preliminary injunction regarding theconsolidation; (iii) an order entered April 2, 2013, denying themotion to intervene and to file a separate class action on behalfof Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. investors; (iv) theorder entered April 10, 2013, refusing to sign the order to showcause seeking to extend the deadline for class members to opt outof the Original Class Action settlement; (v) the Final Judgmentand Order entered May 17, 2013; (vi) the order entered May 17,2013 approving the Original Class Action settlement; and (vii) theorder entered May 17, 2013 awarding class counsel attorneys' feesand costs. On January 6, 2014, Class counsel moved to dismissthese additional appeals on the grounds that they were not timelyperfected by filing an appellate brief and record. On February 6,2014, the appeals court granted the motion unless the appeals wereperfected by March 17, 2014.On March 27, 2014, the investors who challenged the buyoutprovision moved in the appellate court for reargument or in thealternative for leave to appeal the appeals court's ruling to theNew York Court of Appeals. Opposition to the motion was filed onApril 7, 2014. The appellate court denied the motion on May 22,2014. The investors moved in the New York Court of Appeals forleave to appeal on June 26, 2014. Opposition to this motion wasfiled on July 11, 2014 and the court dismissed the motion by orderdated September 18, 2014. On October 20, 2014, the investors movedto re-argue that dismissal. That motion was denied on December 17,2014, and counsel for these investors has represented that theinvestors do not intend to pursue further appellate review of thecourt's April 30, 2013 ruling rejecting the challenge to thebuyout provision.On March 3, 2015, plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion with thecourt for its approval of distribution of the net settlement fund.In that motion plaintiffs' counsel also asked for additional feesand expenses to be paid out of the fund. On March 20, 2015, MalkinHoldings LLC filed a response to that motion in which it supporteddistribution of the fund and took no position on additional feesand expenses. No opposition to the motion was filed and the courtgranted the motion. The parties are preparing to distribute thenet settlement fund to the class.On March 14, 2014, one of the investors who had filed a notice ofappeal from the trial court's rulings in the Original ClassActions perfected an appeal from the court's May 17, 2013 FinalJudgment and Order and orders approving the Original Class ActionSettlement and awarding class counsel attorneys' fees and costs.By stipulation of all counsel to the appeal dated September 12,2014, the appeal was dismissed with prejudice. No other appealswere filed by the March 17, 2014 deadline set by the appeals courtin its February 6, 2014 order. The Original Class ActionsSettlement is final and non-appealable.In addition, commencing December 24, 2013, four putative classactions, or the \"Second Class Actions,\" were filed in New YorkState Supreme Court, New York County, against Malkin Holdings LLC,Peter L. Malkin, Anthony E. Malkin and Thomas N. Keltner, Jr. onbehalf of former investors in Empire State Building AssociatesL.L.C. Generally, the Second Class Actions alleged that thedefendants breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustlyenriched. One of the Second Class Actions named us and ouroperating partnership as defendants, alleging that they aided andabetted the breaches of fiduciary duty. The Second Class Actionswere consolidated on consent, and co-lead class counsel wasappointed by order dated February 11, 2014. A Consolidated AmendedComplaint was filed February 7, 2014, which did not name us or ouroperating partnership as defendants. It seeks monetary damages. OnMarch 7, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the SecondClass Actions, which the plaintiffs opposed and was fullysubmitted to the court on April 28, 2014. The court heard oralarguments on the motion on July 7, 2014, and the motion to dismisswas granted in a ruling entered July 21, 2014. The plaintiffsfiled a notice of appeal on August 8, 2014. On January 12, 2015,the plaintiffs filed a motion to supplement the record on appealto include additional materials from the Original Class Action,which the defendants opposed. The motion was denied on March 5,2015. The plaintiffs perfected this appeal by filing their briefand the appellate record with the court on March 23, 2015. Theappeal is fully submitted and the court has not yet scheduled oralargument.\"We will incur costs in connection with this litigation. If anappeal were successful and the court were ultimately to ruleagainst the defendants there is a risk that it could have amaterial adverse effect on us, which could take the form ofmonetary damages or other equitable relief.\"EXCELLUS HEALTH: Faces \"Gilbert\" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach--------------------------------------------------------------Nicholas Gilbert, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. Excellus Health Plan, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-06570 (W.D.N.Y., September 18, 2015), is brought against theDefendant for failure to protect the confidential information ofmillions of consumers -- including their names, dates of birth,mailing addresses, telephone numbers, Social Security numbers,medical information, financial information, and other protectedhealth information.Excellus Health Plan, Inc. is a healthcare insurance company inthe State of New York and is also a participant in the nationalBlue Cross Blue Shield Association.The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas R. Monks, Esq. THOMAS R.MONKS, ESQ. 183 East Main Street, Suite 1400 Rochester, NY 14604 Telephone: (585) 232-3900 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Ari J. Scharg, Esq. Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] & GUARANTY: Court Entered Scheduling and Trial Order-------------------------------------------------------------Fidelity & Guaranty Life said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a U.S. court hasentered its scheduling and trial order in the case, Dale R.Ludwick, on behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v.Harbinger Group Inc., Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company,Raven Reinsurance Company, and Front Street Re (Cayman) Ltd.On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed inthe United States District Court, Western District of Missouri,captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of Herself and All OthersSimilarly Situated v. Harbinger Group Inc., Fidelity & GuarantyLife Insurance Company, Raven Reinsurance Company, and FrontStreet Re (Cayman) Ltd. and docketed at 4:15-CV-0001-DGK. Thecomplaint alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced andCorrupt Organizations Act (\"RICO\") requests injunctive anddeclaratory relief seeks unspecified compensatory damages for theputative class in an amount not presently determinable, trebledamages, and other relief, and claims the plaintiff overpaid atleast $0 for her annuity. The Company believes it has meritoriousdefenses and intends to vigorously defend the litigation.On April 13, 2015, the Company joined in the filing of a jointmotion to dismiss the complaint that was filed by all of thedefendants. The motion has been fully briefed and is pendingbefore the Court. As of June 30, 2015, the Company did not havesufficient information to determine whether the Company is exposedto any losses that would be either probable or reasonablyestimable beyond an expense contingency estimate of $1 million,which was accrued during the three months ended June 30, 2015.On April 2, 2015, the Court entered a Scheduling Order, whichrequired the parties to: (i) hold a discovery conference by June1, 2015; (ii) submit a discovery plan by June 15, 2015, withPlaintiff's counsel taking the lead \"in preparing the proposedplan\"; (iii) designate a mediator by June 15, 2015 (unless thediscovery conference is held earlier, and then the designation isfourteen days after the conference); (iv) hold a mediation within75 days after June 1, 2015, which would be approximately August15, 2015. As ordered by the Court, the parties held theirdiscovery conference and, on June 15, 2015, filed their discoveryplan with the Court. The parties intend to hold the orderedmediation. On July 13, 2015 the Court entered its Scheduling andTrial Order, which provides that \"[t]he trial will be scheduled byfurther order of the Court.\"FOODINK CATERING: Faces \"Warren\" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT------------------------------------------------------------Andrew Warren, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated v. Foodink Catering, Inc., Kate Paul, and Does 1-50,inclusive, Case No. BC594417 (Cal. Super., September 17, 2015), isbrought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wagesin violation of the California Labor Code.The Defendants own and operate a catering business in Los Angeles,California.The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Benowitz, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS BENOWITZ 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310)844-5141 Facsimile: (310)492-4056 E-mail: [email protected] - and - David Pourati, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID POURATI, APC 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 494-7900, Extension 160 Facsimile: (310)494-7901 E-mail: [email protected] HORIZON: Defending Hawkins Class Suit-------------------------------------------First Horizon National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Reportfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that FirstTennessee Bank National Association (\"FTBNA\") is a defendant in aputative class action lawsuit concerning overdraft fees charged inconnection with debit card transactions. A key claim is that themethod used to order or sequence the transactions posted each daywas improper. The case is styled as Hawkins v. First TennesseeBank National Association, before the Circuit Court for ShelbyCounty, Tennessee, Case No. CT-004085-11. The plaintiff seeksactual damages of at least $5 million, unspecified restitution offees charged, and unspecified punitive damages, among otherthings.FHN's estimate of reasonable possible loss (\"RPL\") for this matteris subject to significant uncertainties regarding: whether a classwill be certified and, if so, the definition of the class; claimsas to which no dollar amount is specified; the potential remediesthat might be available or awarded; the ultimate outcome ofpotentially significant motions such as motions to dismiss, or forsummary judgment; and the incomplete status of the discoveryprocess.FUEL SYSTEMS: Faces \"Nehamen\" Suit Over Prop. Westport Takeover---------------------------------------------------------------Craig Nehamen, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated v. Fuel Systems Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 11517(Del. Ch., September 17, 2015), is brought on behalf of all thepublic stockholders of Fuel Systems Solutions, Inc. to enjoin theproposed acquisition of Fuel by Westport Innovations Inc. andWhitehorse Merger Sub Inc., through a flawed process andinadequate consideration.Fuel Systems is a designer, manufacturer, and supplier of proven,cost-effective alternative fuel components and systems for use intransportation and industrial applications.Westport Innovations Inc. provides low-emission engine and fuelsystem technologies utilizing gaseous fuels.The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] - and - Evan J. Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 667-6200 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] HOLDINGS: January 2016 Trial in Securities Class Action-----------------------------------------------------------HCA Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that trial is set forJanuary 2016 in the Securities Class Action Litigation.On October 28, 2011, a shareholder action, Schuh v. HCA Holdings,Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for theMiddle District of Tennessee seeking monetary relief. The casesought to include as a class all persons who acquired theCompany's stock pursuant or traceable to the Company'sRegistration Statement issued in connection with the March 9, 2011initial public offering. The lawsuit asserted a claim underSection 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company,certain members of the board of directors, and certainunderwriters in the offering. It further asserted a claim underSection 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the same membersof the board of directors. The action alleged various deficienciesin the Company's disclosures in the Registration Statement.Subsequently, two additional class action complaints, Kishtah v.HCA Holdings, Inc. et al. and Daniels v. HCA Holdings, Inc. etal., setting forth substantially similar claims againstsubstantially the same defendants were filed in the same federalcourt on November 16, 2011 and December 12, 2011, respectively.All three of the cases were consolidated.On May 3, 2012, the court appointed New England Teamsters &Trucking Industry Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff for theconsolidated action. On July 13, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed anamended complaint asserting claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2)of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, certain membersof the board of directors, and certain underwriters in theoffering. It further asserts a claim under Section 15 of theSecurities Act of 1933 against the same members of the board ofdirectors and Hercules Holding II, LLC, a majority shareholder ofthe Company at the time of the initial public offering. Theconsolidated complaint alleges deficiencies in the Company'sdisclosures in the Registration Statement and Prospectus relatingto: (1) the accounting for the Company's 2006 recapitalization and2010 reorganization; (2) the Company's failure to maintaineffective internal controls relating to its accounting for suchtransactions; and (3) the Company's Medicare and Medicaid revenuegrowth rates.The Company and other defendants moved to dismiss the amendedcomplaint on September 11, 2012. The court granted the motion inpart on May 28, 2013. The action proceeded to discovery on theremaining claims. The plaintiffs' motion for class certificationwas granted on September 22, 2014. The court certified a classconsisting of all persons that acquired HCA stock on or beforeOctober 28, 2011 (the date of the lawsuit) pursuant to theRegistration Statement issued in connection with the March 9, 2011initial public offering. A request to the court of appeals to hearan immediate appeal of this ruling was denied. Trial is currentlyset for January 2016.HYUNDAI MOTOR: \"Bowen\" Class Suit Removed to N.J. Dist. Court-------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit captioned Deedra L. Bowen, individuallyand for all persons similarly situated v. Hyundai Motor Americaand John Doe Individuals And Businesses 1-10, Case No. ATL-L-1750-15 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, LawDivision, Atlantic County to the United States District Court forthe District of New Jersey. The District Court Clerk assigned CaseNo. 1:15-cv-06942-RBK-AMD to the proceeding.The Plaintiff asserts that HMA's service agreements containmultiple statements which violate the New Jersey Truth in ConsumerContract, Warranty, and Notice Act.The Defendant is represented by: Christopher J. Dalton, Esq. Jacqueline M. Weyand, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC Incorporated in Pennsylvania 550 Broad Street, Suite 810 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 273-9800 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] EXCHANGE: Briefing to Occur Later in 2015----------------------------------------------------------Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that briefing in a classaction appeal is scheduled to occur during the remainder of 2015.In May 2014, three purported class action lawsuits were filed inthe Southern District by Harold Lanier against the securitiesexchanges that are participants in each of the three nationalmarket system data distribution plans -- the Consolidated TapeAssociation/Consolidated Quotation Plan, the Nasdaq UTP Plan, andthe Options Price Reporting Authority, or the Plans, -- which areestablished under the Exchange Act and regulated by the SEC. OnAugust 15, 2014, Lanier filed amended complaints in each of thethree lawsuits but did not alter the named defendants. New YorkStock Exchange LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc. and NYSE MKT LLC, which areour subsidiaries, are among the defendants named in one or more ofthe suits. Lanier is claiming to sue on behalf of him and allother similarly situated subscribers to the market datadisseminated by the Plans. Lanier's allegations include that theexchange participants in the Plans breached agreements withsubscribers by disseminating market data in a discriminatorymanner in that other \"preferred\" customers allegedly receivedtheir data faster than the proposed class. The complaints seek,among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, restitutionof the putative class's subscription fees paid to the defendants,disgorgement of the fees paid by the so-called preferredcustomers, and injunctive and declaratory relief.On September 29, 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the amendedcomplaint. On April 28, 2015, the court issued an opinion andorder granting the motion and dismissing the three lawsuits withprejudice. The court determined that the claims were preempted bya \"comprehensive federal regulatory scheme\", and that in any eventLanier had failed to state a claim for breach of contract. On May20, 2015, Lanier filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal of thelawsuits. Briefing in the appeals is scheduled to occur during theremainder of 2015. Update on High Frequency Trading SuitIn April 2014, the first of four purported class action lawsuitswas filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District ofNew York, or the Southern District, by the City of Providence,Rhode Island, against more than 40 defendants, including \"ExchangeDefendants\", \"Brokerage Defendants\" and \"HFT (High FrequencyTrading) Defendants\", which we refer to as the City of Providencelawsuit. New York Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc., two ofthe Company's subsidiaries, were among the named ExchangeDefendants.On July 2, 2014, the court ordered the cases consolidated for allpurposes, and appointed lead plaintiffs. On September 3, 2014, thelead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claimsagainst only a subset of the original Exchange Defendants,including New York Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc., andalso asserting claims against Barclays PLC, or Barclays, asubsidiary of which operates an alternative trading system knownas Barclays LX. The lead plaintiffs are suing on behalf of a classof \"all public investors\" who bought or sold stock from April 18,2009 to the present on the U.S.-based equity exchanges operated bythe remaining Exchange Defendants or on Barclays LX. The amendedcomplaint asserts violations by all remaining Exchange Defendantsof Sections 10(b) and 6(b) of the Exchange Act, and seeksunspecified compensatory damages against all defendants, jointlyand severally, as well as various forms of equitable relief. Thedefendants filed a motion on November 3, 2014 to dismiss theamended complaint. On November 24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed asecond amended complaint asserting the same legal claims andsubstantially the same factual allegations. On January 23, 2015,the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amendedcomplaint.On October 2, 2014, Barclays filed a motion before the U.S.Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, or the MDL Panel,requesting that a separate lawsuit filed against Barclays in theU.S. District Court for the Central District of California betransferred to the Southern District judge handling the City ofProvidence lawsuit for consolidated or coordinated pre-trialproceedings.On December 12, 2014, the MDL Panel entered an order grantingBarclays' motion and transferring the matter to the SouthernDistrict. Depending on the outcome of further pre-trialproceedings to occur in the Southern District, the scope of thislitigation could be expanded.INTERNAP CORPORATION: Faces Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duties---------------------------------------------------------------Gary A. Grisolia, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated v. Internap Corporation, Charles B. Coe, Patricia L.Higgins, Gary M. Pfeiffer, Michael A. Ruffolo, Daniel C.Stanzione, Debora J. Wilson, and Jefferies Finance LLC, Case No.15-cv-265926 (Ga. Super., September 18, 2015), arises from theDefendant's alleged breach of their fiduciary duties, specificallyby agreeing to provisions in the Company's credit agreement withJefferies Finance LLC that trigger the lender's right toaccelerate the debt if there is an election of a majority ofdirectors whose initial nomination arose from an actual orthreatened proxy contest.Internap Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principalplace of business located at One Ravinia Drive, Suite 1300,Atlanta, Georgia 30346. Internap is an Internet infrastructureprovider that offers cloud hosting, colocation, Internet Protocolservices, data center and Content Delivery Network services.Jefferies Finance LLC is a commercial finance company thatprovides senior secured debt to middle market and growth companiesin the form of term and revolving loans.The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael I. Fistel, Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP 40 Powder Springs Street Marietta, GA 30064 Telephone: (770)200-3104 Facsimile: (770)200-3101 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Kessler Topaz, Esq. Eric L. Zagar MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610)667-7706 Facsimile: (267)948-2512 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Proposed TeamHealth Takeover------------------------------------------------------------Jack Spencer, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. IPC Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 11516 (Del.Ch., September 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants forfailure to maximize stockholder value in connection with the saleof the Company to Team Health Holdings, Inc. and Intrepid MergerSub, Inc.IPC Healthcare, Inc. provides acute hospitalist and post-acutecare services in the United States.TeamHealth Holdings is a Delaware corporation and physicianstaffing company with its headquarters located at 265 BrookviewCentre Way, Suite 400, Knoxville, TN 37919.The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290JDB CONSULTANTS: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages----------------------------------------------------------------Chuck Deranleau v. JDB Consultants, Inc., Jonathan D. Brown, andDoes 1 through 25, Case No. BC594957 (Cal. Super., September 17,2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to payovertime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.The Defendants are in the business of providing IT consulting andrelated technology services.The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin G. Schmidt, Esq. SCHMIDT LAW 17011 Beach Blvd., Ste. 900 Huntington Beach, CA92647 Telephone: (714) 596-7944 Facsimile: (714)492-8241JOSPEH V. O'DONELL: Sued Over Improper Disposal of Corpses----------------------------------------------------------Neal Simpson, writing for WCVB.com, reported that a Florida lawfirm says it is preparing a class-action lawsuit against a formerfuneral director accused of defrauding customers and dumping adozen bodies in a Weymouth storage unit, the Patriot Ledgerreported.Joseph V. O'Donnell, the former director of the now-defunctO'Donnell and Mulry Funeral Home in Dorchester, is already facing278 criminal charges, including multiple counts of improperdisposal of human remains, embezzlement and acting as a funeraldirector without a valid license.Now, David H. Charlip, an attorney whose firm specializes infuneral law and death care, says he is preparing to bring civilaction against O'Donnell on behalf of the unknown number of peoplewhose loved ones' remains may have been misplaced or mishandled byhim.Charlip says his firm has been retained by Gina Hinckley, aMassachusetts woman who has been trying to figure out whathappened to the remains of her father, Edward Hinckley, after theywere turned over to O'Donnell to be cremated.Hinckley's family had buried what they believed were his remainsin the National Cemetery in Bourne after his death in 2012, butinvestigators later found evidence suggesting that Hinckley'sashes may have been given to the family of a Dorchester woman whodied around the same time.\"The family is obviously suffering through severe emotional stressin that the remains they thought were Mr. Hinckley's they are nowtold were not and they don't know where the remains are,\" Charlipsaid.O'Donnell was initially arrested on a larceny charge in April 2014after police say he took $12,000 in pre-payments from an elderlycouple, then closed up shop and was unable to refund their money.But when investigators went to search his storage unit in Weymouththree months later, they say they found a dozen bodies, somedecomposing, stashed in boxes and caskets.Prosecutors have since accused O'Donnell of defrauding dozens ofpeople, including many who came to him in grief after losing aloved one, while illegally working as a funeral director after hislicense expired in 2008. In some cases, prosecutors say O'Donnellnever bothered to cremate the remains entrusted to him and latergave families ashes that had come from someone else.Investigators have spent more than a year trying to determinewhere those ashes came from, a task made nearly impossible becausethe cremation process destroys DNA evidence, and O'Donnell'srecord-keeping is considered unreliable. It's not known how manyremains he may have misplaced, but prosecutors say O'Donnell hadhandled 201 bodies after his funeral director license expired.Charlip said the number of potential plaintiffs for his lawsuitcould be in the thousands because each person whose remains weremishandled by O'Donnell could have several family members who areaffected. He said these kinds of cases are particularly painfulfor loved ones of the deceased because they violate their sense ofhaving provided a \"final resting place.\"\"There is a terrible sense of loss -- above and beyond the loss oflosing a loved one -- when you feel, number one, you've failed tofulfill their last wishes and, number two, you don't know wherethey are,\" he said.Charlip said the defendants in the lawsuit could include anonprofit organization that he says may have arranged to send thepeople it served to O'Donnell; a Boston funeral home where hebelieves O'Donnell was allowed to work; and the state's Divisionof Professional Licensure, which is responsible for licensingfuneral home directors.Charlip said his firm is still working to identify potentialplaintiffs and build a case against O'Donnell. He said his firm ispreparing a complaint that would be filed in Suffolk SuperiorCourt, the same court where O'Donnell is facing criminal charges.\"We're trying to move quickly, but we never like to shoot from thehip,\" he said. \"We're trying to gather as much information from asmany of the affected individuals as possible.\"KNOWLES CORP: Jan. 2016 Trial Set in Audience IPO Litigation------------------------------------------------------------Knowles Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a trial has beenscheduled for January 25, 2016, in the Audience IPO-RelatedLitigation.On September 13, 2012, a purported shareholder filed a classaction complaint in the Superior Court of the State of Californiafor Santa Clara County against Audience, Inc., the members of itsboard of directors, two of its executive officers and theunderwriters of Audience's initial public offering (\"IPO\"). Anamended complaint was filed on February 25, 2013, which purportedto be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of Audience'scommon stock issued in or traceable to the IPO.On April 3, 2013, the outside members of the board of directors ofAudience and the underwriters were dismissed without prejudice.The amended complaint added additional shareholder plaintiffs andcontains claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages,rescission and attorney's fees and costs.On March 1, 2013, defendants responded to the amended complaint byfiling a demurrer moving to dismiss the amended complaint on thegrounds that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Thecourt overruled that demurrer. On March 27, 2013, defendants fileda demurrer moving to dismiss the amended complaint on othergrounds. The court denied the demurrer on September 4, 2013. OnJanuary 16, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's motion to certifya class. A trial has been scheduled for January 25, 2016.On July 23, 2015, an agreement in principle to settle the actionwas reached, subject to approval of the court. The parties are inthe process of negotiating formal settlement documents. Anysettlement is subject to approval by the court and members of theclass may opt out of, or object to, the settlement. There can beno assurance that the court will approve the settlement and classmembers may opt out of the settlement and file individual actions.KNOWLES CORP: MOU Reached in Suit Over Audience Acquisition-----------------------------------------------------------Knowles Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the AudienceAcquisition-Related Litigation, an agreement-in-principle has beenreached providing for the settlement of the litigation on theterms and conditions set forth in a memorandum of understanding(the \"MOU\").Between May 15 and May 29, 2015, five substantially similarputative class action lawsuits challenging the proposedacquisition of Audience, Inc. were filed in the Superior Court ofCalifornia, Santa Clara County, against the members of Audience'sboard of directors and the Company, among others. The lawsuitswere subsequently consolidated into a single action. Thecomplaints allege that the members of Audience's board ofdirectors breached their fiduciary duties to Audience shareholdersin connection with the proposed acquisition and that the Companyaided and abetted these alleged violations. The plaintiffs seek toenjoin the acquisition, as well as, among other things,compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs.On June 10, 2015, the parties reached an agreement-in-principleproviding for the settlement of the litigation on the terms andconditions set forth in a memorandum of understanding (the \"MOU\").Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, without agreeing that any of theclaims in the litigation have merit or that any supplementaldisclosure was required under any applicable statute, rule,regulation or law, Audience agreed to make certain supplementaland amended disclosures in its statement in support of theacquisition filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. TheMOU further provides that, following the successful completion ofconfirmatory discovery, among other things: (a) the parties to theMOU will enter into a definitive stipulation of settlement (the\"Stipulation\") and will submit the Stipulation to the court forreview and approval; (b) the Stipulation will provide fordismissal of the litigation; (c) the Stipulation will include ageneral release of defendants to the litigation and certain otherpersons or entities acting for or on behalf of any of them andeach of them of claims relating to the transaction; and (d) theproposed settlement is conditioned on final approval by the courtafter notice to Audience shareholders. There can be no assurancethat the settlement will be finalized or that the court willapprove the settlement.LENNY & LARRY'S: Falsely Marketed Cookie Products, Suit Claims--------------------------------------------------------------John Schott, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. Lenny & Larry's, Inc., Case No. 32179380 (11th Cir.Fla., September 17, 2015), is brought on behalf of all theconsumers who purchased Lenny & Larry's baked cookie products,that were falsely marketed by the Defendants as \"vegan\" and \"allnatural\".The products at issue are not \"vegan\" or \"all natural\" becausethey contain various artificial and synthetic ingredientsincluding thiamine mononitrate and riboflavinLenny & Larry's, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes, andsells a variety of vegan \"all natural\" cookies and other similarbaked good products throughout the State of Florida.The Plaintiff is represented by: Jared H. Beck, Esq. Elizabeth Lee Beck, Esq. BECK & LEE TRIAL LAWYERS Corporate Park at Kendall 12485 SW 137th Ave., Suite 205 Miami, FL 33186 Telephone: (305) 234-2060 Facsimile: (786) 664-3334 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] - and - Antonino G. Hernandez, Esq. ANTONINO G HERNANDEZ PA 4SE 1st Street, 2nd Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 282-3698 Facsimile: (786) 513-7748 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Cullin O'Brien, Esq. CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, PA 6541 NE 21st Way Fort Lauderdale, FL 33108 Telephone: (561) 676-6370 Facsimile: (561) 320-0285 E-mail: [email protected] & PLATT: Expects to Make Final Payment of $35.8 Million---------------------------------------------------------------Leggett & Platt, Incorporated expects to make the final payment of$35.8 million in the next 12 months to resolve the U.S. directpurchaser class action cases, the Company said in its Form 10-QReport filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.The Company said, \"We were named as a defendant in three pendingdirect purchaser class action cases (the first on November 15,2010) on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers ofpolyurethane foam products. The direct purchaser class actioncases were all filed in or were transferred to the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re:Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. Theplaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of directpurchasers, seek three times the amount of damages allegedlysuffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price ofpolyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. Eachplaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgmentinterest, court costs, and injunctive relief against futureviolations.\"We filed motions to dismiss the U.S. direct purchaser classactions, for failure to state a legally valid claim, which weredenied by the Ohio Court. A motion for class certification wasfiled on behalf of the direct purchasers.\"A hearing on the motion was held and the Court certified thedirect purchaser class. We filed a Petition for Permission toAppeal from Class Certification Order to the United States Courtof Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which was denied. The Courtordered all parties to attend non-binding mediation with amediator of their choosing.\"We reached a tentative settlement of the U.S. direct purchaserclass action cases on August 14, 2014, by agreeing to pay anaggregate amount of $39.8 million, inclusive of plaintiffattorneys' fees and costs. We continue to deny all allegations inthe cases, but settled the direct purchaser class cases to avoidthe risk, uncertainty, expense and distraction of litigation. Thesettlement was subject to Court approval. We recorded a $39.8million (pre-tax) accrual for the settlement in the third quarter2014.\"In the fourth quarter of 2014, we paid $4 million to the Courtrelated to the settlement. The deadline for direct purchasers toexclude themselves from the litigation and settlement classes wasJanuary 26, 2015. A final fairness hearing was held on February 3,2015, and on February 26, 2015, the Court entered a memorandumopinion and order granting the motion for final approval of theclass settlement. Subsequently, final judgments of dismissal withprejudice were entered on March 13, 2015.\"On March 20, 2015, an objector filed a notice of appeal of theorder approving the class settlement to the Federal Circuit Courtof Appeals. On March 27, 2015, the direct purchaser classplaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative,transfer the appeal. On May 1, 2015, the Federal Circuit Court ofAppeals denied the motion to dismiss and transferred the appeal tothe United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Weexpect to make the final payment of $35.8 million to resolve thismatter in the next twelve months.LEGGETT & PLATT: Final Fairness Hearing Scheduled for December 15-----------------------------------------------------------------Leggett & Platt, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a final fairnesshearing is scheduled for December 15, 2015, on the settlementreached in the U.S. indirect purchaser class action cases.The Company said, \"We were named as a defendant in an indirectpurchaser class consolidated amended complaint filed on March 21,2011 and were subsequently sued in an indirect purchaser classaction case filed on May 23, 2011, in the U.S. District Court forthe Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: PolyurethaneFoam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. The plaintiffs,on behalf of themselves and/or a class of indirect purchasers,bring damages claims under various states' antitrust and consumerprotection statutes, and are seeking three times an amount ofdamages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges inthe price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to thepresent. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment andpost-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief againstfuture violations.\"We filed motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser class action,for failure to state a legally valid claim. The Ohio Court deniedthe motions to dismiss. Discovery is substantially complete inthis case. A motion for class certification was filed on behalf ofthe indirect purchasers. A hearing on the motion was held and theCourt certified the indirect purchaser class. The deadline forindirect purchasers to exclude themselves from the litigation wasMarch 13, 2015.\"We filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal from ClassCertification Order to the United States Court of Appeals for theSixth Circuit, which was denied. On November 18, 2014, we filed aPetition for a Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, whichwas denied on March 2, 2015. The Ohio Court ordered all parties toattend non-binding mediation with a mediator of their choosing.\"We reached a tentative settlement in the U.S. Indirect ClassAction cases on May 18, 2015, by agreeing to pay an amount notmaterially different from the amount previously accrued for thisclaim. We continue to deny all allegations in the cases, butsettled the indirect purchaser class cases to avoid the risk,uncertainty, expense and distraction of litigation. The settlementis subject to Court approval. The Court preliminarily approved theclass settlement on July 31, 2015. A final fairness hearing isscheduled for December 15, 2015. We expect to make payment of thesettlement amount into escrow in the third quarter of 2015.\"LEGGETT & PLATT: Reached Tentative Settlement in Canadian Cases---------------------------------------------------------------Leggett & Platt, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company hasreached a tentative settlement in all Canadian class action cases.The Company said, \"We were named in two Canadian class actioncases (for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foamproducts), both under the name Hi Neighbor Floor Covering Co.Limited and Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et.al. in theOntario Superior Court of Justice (Windsor), Court File Nos. CV-10-15164 (amended November 2, 2011) and CV-11-17279 (issuedDecember 30, 2011). In each of these Canadian cases, theplaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers,seek from over 13 defendants restitution of the amount allegedlyovercharged, general and special damages in the amount of $100million, punitive damages of $10 million, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and the costs of the investigation and theaction. The first issued class action is on behalf of a class ofpurchasers of polyurethane foam. The second issued class action ison behalf of purchasers of carpet underlay.\"We are not yet required to file our defenses in these or anyother Canadian actions.\"In addition, on July 10, 2012, plaintiff in a class action case(for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products)styled Option Consommateurs and Karine Robillard v. ProduitsVitafoam Canada Limitee, et al. in the Quebec Superior Court ofJustice (Montreal), Court File No. 500-6-524-104, filed an amendedmotion for authorization seeking to add us and other manufacturersof polyurethane foam products as defendants in this case, whichwas granted. This action has a pending motion for certification,which has been postponed indefinitely.\"\"We also were notified in June 2014 of two motions to add us asparties to two class proceedings in British Columbia. Thoseproceedings are similar to the Ontario proceedings in that oneproposes a class of purchasers of polyurethane foam (MajesticMattress Mfg. Ltd. v. Vitafoam Products et al., No. VLC-S-S-106362Vancouver Registry) and one proposes a class of purchasers ofcarpet underlay (Trillium Project Management Ltd. v. HickorySprings Manufacturing Company et al., No.S106213 VancouverRegistry). The motion to add us as parties to these actions washeard on April 7, 2015 and the British Columbia Supreme Courtordered our addition as parties to the two actions in BritishColumbia. The British Columbia actions involve British Columbiapurchasers only whereas the Ontario actions propose classes ofCanadian purchasers.\"\"We reached a tentative settlement in all Canadian Class Actioncases on June 12, 2015 by agreeing to pay an amount not materiallydifferent than the amount previously accrued for these claims. Wecontinue to deny all allegations in the cases, but settled thedirect and indirect purchaser class cases to avoid the risk,uncertainty, expense and distraction of litigation. The settlementis subject to Court approval. We made payment of the settlementamount into escrow.\"LEGGETT & PLATT: Case Management Conference Held------------------------------------------------Leggett & Platt, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in a Missouri classaction lawsuit, a case management conference was scheduled forSeptember 14, 2015, during which the Court and parties were todiscuss remaining pre-trial and trial deadlines.The Company said, \"On June 22, 2012, we were made a party to alawsuit brought in the 16th Judicial Circuit Court, JacksonCounty, Missouri, Case Number 1216-CV15179 under the caption\"Dennis Baker, on Behalf of Himself and all Others SimilarlySituated vs. Leggett & Platt, Incorporated.\" The plaintiff, onbehalf of himself and/or a class of indirect purchasers ofpolyurethane foam products in the State of Missouri, alleged thatwe violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act based uponour alleged illegal price inflation of flexible polyurethane foamproducts. The plaintiff seeks unspecified actual damages, punitivedamages and the recovery of reasonable attorney fees.\"We filed a motion to dismiss this action, which was denied.Discovery has commenced and plaintiff has filed a motion for classcertification. A hearing on the motion was held, and the Courtsubsequently entered an order denying plaintiff's motion for classcertification on March 18, 2015. Plaintiff filed a motion forreconsideration of that order on March 30, 2015, which was alsodenied. Plaintiff did not timely appeal this ruling. Plaintiffintends to pursue the claims individually. A case managementconference is scheduled for September 14, 2015, during which theCourt and parties will discuss remaining pre-trial and trialdeadlines.\"LEO JAMES: Faces \"Alexander\" Suit in Cal. Over Automated Calls--------------------------------------------------------------Jed Alexander, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. Leo, James Mae & Associates Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07326 (C.D. Cal., September 18, 2015), seeks to stop theDefendant's practice of using an automatic telephone dialingsystem to contact consumers in their cellular telephone, in anattempt to collect an alleged outstanding debt owed by a thirdparty.Leo, James Mae & Associates Inc. is in the business of purchasingconsumer debts and collecting thereon from debtors.The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] LIFE: Faces \"Chirino\" Suit Over Disability Benefit Claims-----------------------------------------------------------------Angelica Chirino v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, CaseNo. 0:15-cv-61966-JIC (S.D. Fla., September 17, 2015), arises outof the Defendant's unlawful denial and refusal to provide Planmembers with long-term disability benefits, in violation ofEmployee Retirement Income Security Act.Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston is a Colorado corporationthat administers and issues Comcast employee benefit plan.The Plaintiff is represented by: Alicia Paulino-Grisham, Esq. DI LAW GROUP 4151 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, FlL 33021 Telephone: (954) 989-9000 Facsimile: (954) 989-9999 E-mail: [email protected] MEDIA: SIRIUS XM Continues to Defend Several Class Suits----------------------------------------------------------------Liberty Media Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that SIRIUS XM is adefendant in several purported class action suits, which werecommenced in February 2012, January 2013, January 2015, April 2015and July 2015, in the United States District Court for the EasternDistrict of Virginia, Newport News Division, the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of California, the UnitedStates District Court for the Northern District of Illinois andthe United States District Court for the Middle District ofFlorida that allege that SIRIUS XM, or certain call center vendorsacting on its behalf, made numerous calls which violate provisionsof the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the \"TCPA\"). Theplaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, thatSIRIUS XM called mobile phones using an automatic telephonedialing system without the consumer's prior consent or,alternatively, after the consumer revoked their prior consent and,in one of the actions, that SIRIUS XM violated the TCPA's calltime restrictions. The plaintiffs in these suits are seekingvarious forms of relief, including statutory damages of $500 foreach violation of the TCPA or, in the alternative, treble damagesof up to $1,500 for each knowing and willful violation of theTCPA, as well as payment of interest, attorneys' fees and costs,and certain injunctive relief prohibiting violations of the TCPAin the future. Plaintiffs in certain of these suits have filed amotion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation totransfer these purported class actions, and other allegedlyrelated cases, to the United States District Court for theNorthern District of Illinois for consolidated or coordinatedpretrial proceedings. SIRIUS XM believes it has substantialdefenses to the claims asserted in these actions and intends todefend them vigorously.SIRIUS XM has notified certain of its call center vendors of theseactions and requested that they defend and indemnify it againstthese claims pursuant to the provisions of their existing orformer agreements with SIRIUS XM. SIRIUS XM believes it has validcontractual claims against certain call center vendors inconnection with these claims and intends to preserve and pursueits rights to recover from these entities.With respect to the SIRIUS XM matters described above, it wasdetermined, based on current knowledge, that the amount of loss orrange of loss that is reasonably possible is not reasonablyestimable. However, these matters are inherently unpredictableand subject to significant uncertainties, many of which are beyondSIRIUS XM's control. As such, there can be no assurance that thefinal outcome of these matters will not materially and adverselyaffect the business, financial condition, results of operations,or cash flows.LIBERTY MEDIA: SIRIUS XM Filed Appeal in Flo & Eddie Calif. Case----------------------------------------------------------------Liberty Media Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the Flo & EddieCalifornia Case, SIRIUS XM filed a motion with the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seeking interlocutoryreview of that class certification decision.In August and September 2013, SIRIUS XM was named as a defendantin three class action suits and one additional suit, whichchallenge SIRIUS XM's use and public performance via satelliteradio and the Internet of sound recordings fixed prior to February15, 1972 under California, New York and/or Florida law. Theplaintiffs in each of these cases seek compensatory and punitivedamages and injunctive relief.These cases are titled Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. etal., No. 2:13-cv-5693-PSG-RZ (C.D. Cal.), Flo & Eddie, Inc. v.Sirius XM Radio Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-23182-DPG (S.D. Fla.),Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. et al., No. 1:13-cv-5784-CM (S.D.N.Y.), and Capitol Records LLC et al. v. Sirius XMRadio Inc., No. BC-520981 (Super. Ct. L.A. County). Additionalinformation concerning each of these actions is publicly availablein court filings under their docket numbers.In September 2014, the United States District Court for theCentral District of California ruled that California Civil CodeSection 980(a), which provides that the owner of a pre-1972recording has \"exclusive ownership\" therein, includes theexclusive right to control public performances of that recording.The Court granted Flo & Eddie's motion for summary judgment onliability, holding that SIRIUS XM was liable for unfaircompetition, misappropriation, and conversion under California lawfor publicly performing Flo & Eddie's pre-1972 recordings withoutauthorization. SIRIUS XM intends to appeal that decision. In May2015, the Court granted Flo & Eddie's motion for classcertification and certified a class of owners of pre-1972recordings that have been performed and used by SIRIUS XM inCalifornia without authorization. In June 2015, SIRIUS XM filed amotion with the United States Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit seeking interlocutory review of that class certificationdecision.LIBERTY MEDIA: 2nd Cir. Granted Review in Flo & Eddie NY Case-------------------------------------------------------------Liberty Media Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the Flo & Eddie NewYork Case, in November 2014, the United States District Court forthe Southern District of New York ruled that New York common lawgrants a public performance right to owners of pre-1972recordings. The Court denied SIRIUS XM's motion for summaryjudgment on liability. In April 2015, the United States Court ofAppeals for the Second Circuit granted SIRIUS XM's petition forinterlocutory review of that decision.LIBERTY MEDIA: Flo & Eddie Filed Appeal in Florida Case-------------------------------------------------------Liberty Media Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the Flo & EddieFlorida Case, in June 2015, the United States District Court forthe Southern District of Florida ruled that Florida common lawdoes not grant a public performance right to owners of pre-1972recordings. In July 2015, Flo & Eddie filed a notice of appeal ofthat decision.LIBERTY MEDIA: Continues to Defend Capitol Records Case-------------------------------------------------------Liberty Media Corporation continues to defend a class actionlawsuit involving Capitol Records, the Company said in its Form10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onAugust 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.In October 2014, the Superior Court of the State of California forthe County of Los Angeles adopted the Flo & Eddie Californiacourt's interpretation of California law and granted plaintiffs'motion for a jury instruction providing, in relevant part: \"Theowner of a sound recording 'fixed' (i.e., recorded) prior toFebruary 15, 1972, possesses a property interest and exclusiveownership rights in that sound recording . . . [that] include[s]the exclusive right to publicly perform, or authorize others topublicly perform, the sound recording by means of digitaltransmission.\" The Court did not make any finding of liability.In June 2015, SIRIUS XM entered into a settlement agreement withthe plaintiffs, Capitol Records LLC, Sony Music Entertainment, UMGRecordings, Inc., Warner Music Group Corp. and ABKCO Music &Records, Inc., to settle that case in its entirety.Pursuant to the settlement agreement, SIRIUS XM agreed to pay theplaintiffs, in the aggregate, $210 million on or before July 31,2015 and the plaintiffs will dismiss the Capitol Records case withprejudice. The settlement resolves all past claims as to SIRIUSXM's use of pre-1972 recordings owned or controlled by theplaintiffs and enables SIRIUS XM, without any additional payment,to reproduce, perform and broadcast such recordings in the UnitedStates through December 31, 2017. As part of the settlement,SIRIUS XM has the right, to be exercised before December 31, 2017,to enter into a license with each plaintiff to reproduce, performand broadcast pre-1972 recordings owned or controlled by theplaintiffs from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2022. Theroyalty rate for each such license will be determined bynegotiation or, if the parties are unable to agree, bindingarbitration. The plaintiffs have represented and warranted toSIIRIUS XM that in the United States they own, control orotherwise have the right to settle with respect to approximately80% of the pre-1972 recordings SIRIUS XM has historically played.In addition, in August 2013, SoundExchange, Inc. filed a complaintin the United States District Court for the District of Columbiaalleging that SIRIUS XM underpaid royalties for statutory licensesduring the 2007-2012 rate period in violation of the regulationsestablished by the Copyright Royalty Board (\"CRB\") for thatperiod. SoundExchange principally alleges that SIRIUS XMimproperly reduced its calculation of gross revenues, on which theroyalty payments are based, by deducting non-recognized revenueattributable to pre-1972 recordings and Premier package revenuethat is not \"separately charged\" as required by the regulations.SoundExchange is seeking compensatory damages, payment of latefees and interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.In August 2014, the United States District Court for the Districtof Columbia granted SIRIUS XM's motion to dismiss the complaintwithout prejudice on the grounds that the case properly should bepursued before the CRB rather than the district court. In December2014, SoundExchange filed a petition with the CRB requesting anorder interpreting the applicable regulations. SIRIUS XM believesit has substantial defenses to the claims asserted in this actionand intends to defend this action vigorously.This matter is titled SoundExchange, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio,Inc., No.13-cv-1290-RJL (D.D.C.), and Determination of Rates andTerms for Preexisting Subscription Services and Satellite DigitalAudio Radio Services, United States Copyright Royalty Board, No.2006-1 CRB DSTRA. Additional information concerning each of theseactions is publicly available in filings under their docketnumbers.LIBERTY MEDIA: TCPA Suits Against SIRIUS XM Still Open------------------------------------------------------Liberty Media Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that SIRIUS XM is adefendant in several purported class action suits, which werecommenced in February 2012, January 2013, January 2015, April 2015and July 2015, in the United States District Court for the EasternDistrict of Virginia, Newport News Division, the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of California, the UnitedStates District Court for the Northern District of Illinois andthe United States District Court for the Middle District ofFlorida that allege that SIRIUS XM, or certain call center vendorsacting on their behalf, made numerous calls which violateprovisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the\"TCPA\"). The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among otherthings, that SIRIUS XM called mobile phones using an automatictelephone dialing system without the consumer's prior consent or,alternatively, after the consumer revoked their prior consent and,in one of the actions, that SIRIUS XM violated the TCPA's calltime restrictions. The plaintiffs in these suits are seekingvarious forms of relief, including statutory damages or, in thealternative, treble damages for each knowing and willful violationof the TCPA, as well as payment of interest, attorneys' fees andcosts, and certain injunctive relief prohibiting violations of theTCPA in the future. SIRIUS XM believes it has substantial defensesto the claims asserted in these actions and intends to defend themvigorously.SIRIUS XM has notified certain of its call center vendors of theseactions and requested that they defend and indemnify SIRIUS XMagainst these claims pursuant to the provisions of their existingor former agreements with SIRIUS XM. SIRIUS XM believes it hasvalid contractual claims against certain call center vendors inconnection with these claims and intends to preserve and pursueits rights to recover from these entities.These cases are titled Erik Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No.12-cv-0418-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal.), Francis W. Hooker v. Sirius XMRadio, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-3 (E.D. Va.) and Brian Trenz v. Sirius XMHoldings, Inc. and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 15-cv-0044LBLM (S.D. Cal), Yefim Elikman v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. andCareer Horizons, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-02093 (N.D. Ill.) and AnthonyParker v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 8:15-cv-01710-JSM-EAJ (M.D.Fla). Additional information concerning each of these actions ispublicly available in court filings under their docket numbers.LIQUID HOLDINGS: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Financial Reports---------------------------------------------------------------Robert De Vito, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. Liquid Holdings Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-06969-KM-JBC (D.N.J., September 21, 2015), alleges that theDefendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failedto disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,operations, and prospects, issued in connection with the Company'sinitial public offering.Liquid Holdings Group, Inc. is a cloud-based technology andmanaged services provider to the global hedge fund and activetrading markets.The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Donald A. Ecklund, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Casey E. Sadler, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] &T BANK: Faces \"Hirst\" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime---------------------------------------------------------Stefanie Hirst and Modupe Beckley, on behalf of themselves and allother similarly situated v. M & T Bank and M & T Bank Corp., CaseNo. 511428 (N.Y. Super., September 17, 2015), is brought againstthe Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation ofthe Fair Labor Standard Act.The Defendants operate a commercial bank holding company, withcurrent assets of $83.2 billion and over 725 branches.The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Swartz, Esq. Melissa L. Stewart, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Paolo C. Meireles, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] - and - Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 300-0375M&T BANK: Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation in Discovery-------------------------------------------------------------M&T Bank Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the parties arecurrently engaged in the discovery phase of the lawsuit, In ReWilmington Trust Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court,District of Delaware, Case No. 10-CV-0990-SLR).Beginning on November 18, 2010, a series of parties, purporting tobe class representatives, commenced a putative class actionlawsuit against Wilmington Trust, alleging that Wilmington Trust'sfinancial reporting and securities filings were in violation ofsecurities laws. The cases were consolidated and Wilmington Trustmoved to dismiss. The Court issued an order denying WilmingtonTrust's motion to dismiss on March 20, 2014. The parties arecurrently engaged in the discovery phase of the lawsuit.MANHATTAN BEER: Fails to Pay Employees OT, \"Swanson\" Suit Claims----------------------------------------------------------------Larry Swanson, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. Manhattan Beer Distributors, LLC, Manhattan BeerDistributors, Inc. and Simon Bergson, Case No. 1:15-cv-05383-ENV-RLM (E.D.N.Y., September 18, 2015), is brought against theDefendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of40 hours per week.The Defendants own and operate a beverage distribution companyheadquartered in the Bronx, New York.The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven L. Wittels, Esq. J. Burkett McInturff, Esq. Tiasha Palikovic, Esq. WITTELS LAW, P.C. 18 Half Mile Road Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 319-9945 Facsimile: (914) 273-2563 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ON THE BEACH: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages-----------------------------------------------------------Victoria Bedard and Zakiya Lawrie Newton, on behalf of themselvesand all others similarly situated v. Meats on the Beach, LLC d/b/aQuality Meats Miami Beach, Case No. 1:15-cv-23510-MGC (S.D. Fla.,September 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failureto pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.Meats on the Beach, LLC owns and operates a restaurant in Miami-Dade County, Florida.The Plaintiff is represented by: David Markel, Esq. THE MARKEL LAW FIRM 777 Brickell Avenue Suite 500 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 458-1282 Facsimile: (800)-407-1718 E-mail: [email protected] TAXES: \"Murat\" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages--------------------------------------------------------------Jean Murat, and other similarly situated individuals v. MTS Taxes& More, LLC d/b/a Tax USA, Mitchlin Delivrance, and FinderDelivrance, Case No. 1:15-cv-23528-UU (S.D. Fla., September 18,2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuantto the Fair Labor Standard Act.MTS Taxes & More, LLC is a Florida limited liability company thatis engaged interstate commerce.The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georgers-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGERS-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: [email protected] INC: Initial Conference Held in Herbal Supplements Case------------------------------------------------------------NBTY, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterlyperiod ended June 30, 2015, that an initial conference wasscheduled for August 20, 2015, in the class action lawsuits overherbal dietary supplements.The Company said, \"In February 2015, the New York State Office ofthe Attorney General (\"NY AG\") began an investigation concerningthe authenticity and purity of herbal supplements and associatedmarketing. As part of this investigation, the NY AG is reviewingthe sufficiency of the measures that several manufacturers andretailers, including NBTY, are taking to independently assess thevalidity of their representations and advertising in connectionwith the sale of herbal supplements. NBTY has fully cooperatedwith the NY AG; however until this investigation is concluded, nofinal determination can be made as to its ultimate outcome or theamount of liability, if any, on the part of NBTY. However, we donot believe the ultimate outcome will have a material adverseeffect on our consolidated financial statements.\"\"Following the NY AG investigation, starting in February 2015,numerous putative class actions were filed in variousjurisdictions against NBTY, certain of its customers and/or othercompanies as to which there may be a duty to defend and indemnify,challenging the authenticity and purity of herbal supplements andassociated marketing, under various states' consumer protectionstatutes. Motions for transfer and consolidation of all of thefederal actions as multidistrict litigation into a single districtbefore a single judge were granted on June 9, 2015, and the casesare consolidated before Judge John W. Darrah of the United StatesDistrict Court, North District of Illinois -- Eastern Division(the \"MDL Case:\"). An initial conference was scheduled for August20, 2015. Three class actions against one of our customers towhich we may have a duty to indemnify have not been transferredand consolidated with the MDL Case, and are at the initial stagesof litigation.\"At this time, no determination can be made as to the ultimateoutcome of the litigation or the amount of liability, if any, onthe part of NBTY; however, we do not believe the ultimate outcomewill have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financialstatements.\"NBTY INC: Preliminary Approval Conference Held----------------------------------------------NBTY, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterlyperiod ended June 30, 2015, that the settlement in the classactions related to Glucosamine-Based Dietary Supplements have beensubmitted to the court for preliminary approval and a preliminaryconference was held before the court on July 22, 2015.The Company said, \"Beginning in June 2011, certain putative classactions have been filed in various jurisdictions against NBTY, itssubsidiary Rexall Sundown, Inc. (\"Rexall\"), and/or other companiesas to which there may be a duty to defend and indemnify,challenging the marketing of glucosamine- based dietarysupplements, under various states' consumer protection statutes.The lawsuits against NBTY and its subsidiaries are: Cardenas v.NBTY, Inc. and Rexall Sundown, Inc. (filed June 14, 2011) in theUnited States District Court for the Eastern District ofCalifornia, on behalf of a putative class of California consumersseeking unspecified compensatory damages based on theories ofrestitution and disgorgement, plus punitive damages and injunctiverelief; Jennings v. Rexall Sundown, Inc. (filed August 22, 2011)in the United States District Court for the District ofMassachusetts, on behalf of a putative class of Massachusettsconsumers seeking unspecified trebled compensatory damages; andNunez v. NBTY, Inc. et al. (filed March 1, 2013) in the UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of California (the\"Nunez Case\"), on behalf of a putative class of Californiaconsumers seeking unspecified compensatory damages based ontheories of restitution and disgorgement, plus injunctive relief,as well as other cases in California and Illinois against certainConsumer Products Group customers as to which we may have certainindemnification obligations.\"In March 2013, NBTY agreed upon a proposed settlement withplaintiffs, which included all cases and resolved all pendingclaims without any admission of or concession of liability byNBTY, and which provided for a release of all claims in return forpayments to the class, together with attorneys' fees, and noticeand administrative costs. Fairness Hearings took place on October4, 2013 and November 20, 2013. On January 3, 2014, the courtissued an opinion and order approving the settlement as modified(the \"Order\"). The final judgment was issued on January 22, 2014(the \"Judgment\").\"Certain objectors filed a notice of appeal of the Order and theJudgment on January 29, 2014 and the plaintiffs filed a notice ofappeal on February 3, 2014. In fiscal 2013, NBTY recorded aprovision of $12,000,000 reflecting its best estimate of exposurefor payments to the class together with attorney's fees and noticeand administrative costs in connection with this class actionsettlement. As a result of the court's approval of the settlementand the closure of the claims period, NBTY reduced its estimate ofexposure to $6,100,000. This reduction in the estimated exposurewas reflected in the Company's first quarter results for fiscal2014.\"On November 19, 2014, the appellate court issued a decisiongranting the objectors' appeal. The appellate court reversed andremanded the matter to the district court for further proceedingsconsistent with the appellate court's decision. In April 2015,NBTY agreed upon a revised proposed settlement with certainplaintiffs which includes all cases and resolves all pendingclaims without any admission of or concession of liability byNBTY. The parties have signed settlement documentation providingfor a release of all claims in return for payments to the class,together with attorneys' fees, and notice and administrative costsestimated to be in the amount of $9,000,000, which resulted in anadditional charge of $4,300,000 in the second quarter results forfiscal 2015.\"On May 14, 2015, the settlement was submitted to the court forpreliminary approval and a preliminary conference was held beforethe court on July 22, 2015. Until the cases are resolved, no finaldetermination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of thelitigation or the amount of liability on the part of NBTY.\"NBTY INC: Appeal from Case Dismissal Order Still Pending--------------------------------------------------------NBTY, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterlyperiod ended June 30, 2015, that Plaintiff's appeal to the court'sdismissal of the action, Telephone Consumer Protection Act Claim,is pending.NBTY, and certain of its subsidiaries, are defendants in a class-action lawsuit, captioned John H. Lary Jr. v. Rexall Sundown,Inc.; Rexall Sundown 3001, LLC; Rexall, Inc.; NBTY, Inc.;Corporate Mailings, Inc. d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions (\"CCG\") andJohn Does 1-10 (originally filed October 22, 2013), brought in theUnited States District Court, Eastern District of New York. Theplaintiff alleges that the defendants faxed advertisements toplaintiff and others without invitation or permission, inviolation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (\"TCPA\").On May 2, 2014, NBTY and its named subsidiary defendants cross-claimed against CCG, who was a third party vendor engaged by NBTY,and CCG cross-claimed against NBTY and named subsidiary defendantson June 13, 2014. CCG brought a third party complaint against anunrelated entity, Healthcare Data Experts, LLC, on June 27, 2014.On July 21, 2014, CCG filed a motion to dismiss the amendedcomplaint and on February 11, 2015 the court issued an Order andOpinion dismissing the class-action. On February 27, 2015,Plaintiff filed an appeal to the court's dismissal of the actionand that appeal is pending.ONEWEST RESOURCES: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims--------------------------------------------------------------Tina Patel, in her representative capacity v. OneWest Resources,LLC and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. BC595038 (Cal. Super.,September 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failureto pay regular and overtime wages in violation of the CaliforniaLabor Code.OneWest Resources, LLC owns and operates a financial servicecompany with its principal place of business located at 888E.7 Walnut Street, Pasadena, California 91101.The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Baker, Esq. Mike Curtis, Esq. BAKER & SCHWARTZ, P.C. 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3520 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-1064 Facsimile: (415)520-0446 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] FINANCIAL: SEPTA Bid to File 2nd Amended Suit Pending--------------------------------------------------------------Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Reportfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Courthas not yet granted SEPTA permission to file its proposed secondamended complaint.The Company, the Bank and certain current and former directors andexecutive officers (collectively, \"Orrstown Defendants\") aredefendants in a putative class action filed by SoutheasternPennsylvania Transportation Authority (\"SEPTA\") on May 25, 2012,in the United States District Court for the Middle District ofPennsylvania. In a later amended complaint, the list of defendantswas expanded to include the Company's independent registeredpublic accounting firm and the underwriters of the Company's March2010 public offering of common stock. The complaint, as amended,alleges among other things that (i) in connection with theCompany's Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated February 23,2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23, 2010, and (ii)during the purported class period of March 15, 2010 through April5, 2012, the Company issued materially false and misleadingstatements regarding the Company's lending practices and financialresults, including misleading statements concerning the stringentnature of the Bank's credit practices and underwriting standards,the quality of its loan portfolio, and the intended use of theproceeds from the Company's March 2010 public offering of commonstock. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgatedthereunder, and seeks class certification, unspecified moneydamages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief.On June 22, 2015, the Court dismissed without prejudice SEPTA'samended complaint against all defendants, finding that SEPTAfailed to state a claim under either the Securities Act of 1933,as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.The Court ordered that, within 30 days, SEPTA either seek leave toamend its amended complaint, accompanied by the proposedamendment, or file a notice of its intention to stand on theamended complaint.On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend underLocal Rule 15.1, as allowed by the Court's ruling on June 22,2015. Many of the allegations of the proposed second amendedcomplaint are essentially the same or similar to the allegationsof the dismissed amended complaint. The proposed second amendedcomplaint also alleges that the Orrstown Defendants did notpublicly disclose certain alleged failures of internal controlsover loan underwriting, risk management, and financial reportingduring the period 2009 to 2012, in violation of the federalsecurities laws.The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA's proposedsecond amended complaint are without merit and intends tovigorously defend itself against those claims.Given that the Court has not yet granted SEPTA permission to fileits proposed second amended complaint, and that defendants havenot yet filed their opposition to SEPTA's motion to amend or hadthe opportunity to challenge the legal sufficiency of the proposedsecond amended complaint by motion to dismiss, it is not possibleat this time to estimate reasonably possible losses, or even arange of reasonably possible losses, in connection with SEPTA'sproposed second amended complaint.PALOS COMMUNITY: Sued in Ill. Over Unlawful Billing Practices-------------------------------------------------------------Terri Nanfeldt, on behalf of herself and all others similarlysituated v. Palos Community Hospital, filed in Illinois CircuitCourt on September 18, 2015, arises out of the Defendant's allegedunreasonable, unconscionable and unlawful pricing, billing andcollection practices for emergency care with respect to self-paypatients.Palos Community Hospital owns and operates a number of healthcarefacilities in the State of Illinois.The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Lynch, Esq. James L. Thompson, Esq. LYNCH STERN THOMPSON, LLC 150 S. Wacker Drive #2600 Chicago IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 346-1600 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Oren S. Giskan, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTOROFF ANDERSON & STEWART LLP 11 Broadway #2150 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Barry L. Kramer, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BARRY KRAMER 9550 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. 253 Las Vegas, NV 89123 Telephone: (702) 778-6090 E-mail: [email protected] CORP: Inflates Price of Resistors, \"Brooks\" Suit Says---------------------------------------------------------------Michael Brooks, and all others similarly-situated v. PanasonicCorporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, PanasonicIndustrial Devices Sales Company of America, Koa Corporation, KoaSpeer Electronics, Inc.,Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd., MurataElectronics North America, inc., Rohm Co. Ltd., Rohm SemiconductorU.S.A., LLC, Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., Yageo Corporation, andYageo America Corporation, Case 5:15-cv-04206 (N.D. Cal.,September 15, 2015), to recover damages and injunctive reliefunder Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, California'sUnfair Competition Law, and the Federal Antitrust Laws.The antitrust class action arises out of an alleged conspiracyamong the world's leading manufacturers of resistors, engaged in acollusion to fix, raise, stabilize, and maintain the price ofresistors throughout the United States.Panasonic Industrial Devices Sales Company of America (\"PIDS\"), awholly owned subsidiary of Panasonic, a Delaware corporation withits principal place of business located at Two Riverfront Plaza,Newark, New Jersey 07102. PIDS is one of the world's leadingmanufacturers of resistors. PIDS -- directly and/or through itssubsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled --manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that were purchasedthroughout the United States, including in this District.KOA Corporation (\"KOA\") is a Japanese corporation with itsprincipal place of business located at 2-17-2 Midori-Cho, Fuchu-Shi, Tokyo 183-0006, Japan. KOA is one of the world's leadingmanufacturers of resistors. KOA -- directly and/or through itssubsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled --manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that were purchasedthroughout the United States.Southwest Airlines Co. is a Texas corporation with its principalplace of business located in Dallas, Texas. Southwest operatesmore than 3,600 flights per day to 94 locations in the UnitedStates and six additional countries.KOA Speer Electronics, Inc. (\"KOA Speer\") is a Delawarecorporation with its principal place of business located at 199Bolivar Drive, Bradford, Pennsylvania 16701. KOA Speer is one ofthe world's leading manufacturers of resistors and is a whollyowned subsidiary of KOA. KOA Speer -- directly and/or through itssubsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled --manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that were purchasedthroughout the United States.Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (\"Murata\") is a Japanesecorporation with its principal place of business located at 10-1,Higashikotari 1-chome, Nagaokakyo-shi, Kyoto 617-8555, Japan.Murata is one of the world's leading manufacturers of resistors.Murata -- directly and/or through its subsidiaries, which itwholly owned and/or controlled -- manufactured, marketed, and/orsold resistors that were purchased throughout the United States,including in this District.Murata Electronics North America, Inc. (\"MNA\") is a wholly ownedsubsidiary of Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd., a Texas corporationwith its principal place of business located at 2200 Lake ParkDrive SE, Smyrna, Georgia 30080-7604. MNA is one of the world'sleading manufacturers of resistors. MNA -- directly and/or throughits subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled --manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that were purchasedthroughout the United States, including in this District, duringthe Class Period. Indeed, MNA maintains teams of Technical SalesManagers in several major hubs across the United States.ROHM Co., Ltd. (\"ROHM\") is a Japanese corporation with itsprincipal place of business located at 21 Saiin Mizosaki-cho,Ukyo-Ku, Kyoto 615-8585, Japan. ROHM is one of the world's leadingmanufacturers of resistors. ROHM -- directly and/or through itssubsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled --manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that were purchasedthroughout the United States.ROHM Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC (\"ROHM USA\") is a Delaware limitedliability corporation with its principal place of business locatedat 2323 Owen Street, Suite 150, Santa Clara, California 95054.ROHM USA is one of the world's leading manufacturers of resistors,and is a wholly owned subsidiary of ROHM. ROHM USA -- directlyand/or through its subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/orcontrolled -- manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors thatwere purchased throughout the United States.Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. (\"Vishay\") is a Delaware corporationwith its principal place of business located at 63 LancasterAvenue, Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355. Vishay is one of the world'sleading manufacturers of resistors. Vishay -- directly and/orthrough its subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled-- manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that werepurchased throughout the United States.Yageo Corporation (\"Yageo\") is a Taiwanese corporation with itsprincipal place of business located at 3F, 233-1, Baoqiao Rd.Xindian Dist., New Taipei City 23145, Taiwan. Yageo is one of theworld's leading manufacturers of resistors. Yageo -- directlyand/or through its subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/orcontrolled -- manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors thatwere purchased throughout the United States.Yageo America Corporation is a Delaware corporation with itsprincipal place of business located at 2550 North First St., Suite480, San Jose, CA 95131. Yageo America Corporation is one of theworld's leading manufacturers of resistors. Yageo AmericaCorporation -- directly and/or through its subsidiaries, which itwholly owned and/or controlled -- manufactured, marketed, and/orsold resistors that were purchased throughout the United States.The Plaintiff is represented by: Guido Saveri, Esq. R. Alexander Saveri, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. 706 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 217-6810 Facsimile: (415) 217-6813 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] - and - Krishna B. Narine, Esq. Joel C. Meredith, Esq. MEREDITH & NARINE 100 S. Broad Street, Suite 905 Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: 215-564-5182 Facsimile: 267-687-1628 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] CORP: Inflates Resistor Prices, Nebraska Dynamics Says----------------------------------------------------------------Nebraska Dynamics, Inc., and all others similarly-situated v.Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America,Panasonic Industrial Devices Sales Company of America, KOACorporation, KOA Speer Electronics, Inc., Murata Manufacturing Co.Ltd., Murata Electronics North America, Inc., ROHM Co. Ltd., ROHMSemiconductor U.S.A., LLC, Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., YageoCorporation, and Yageo America Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-04201(N.D. Cal., September 15, 2015), to recover damages and injunctiverelief under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, andthe Federal Antitrust Laws.The antitrust class action arises out of an alleged conspiracyamong the largest the worlds' largest manufacturers of linearresistors, along with other presently unknown co-conspiratorsagreed, combined, and conspired to inflate, fix, raise, maintainor artificially stabilize prices of linear resistors sold in theUnited Sates. The suspected conspiracy targeted variousindividuals and entities that purchased linear resistors fromdistributors. The conspiracy succeeded, requiring purchasers,including the Plaintiffs and all other purchasers, to payartificially inflated prices for linear resistors throughout theUnited States.Panasonic Corporation (\"Panasonic\") is a Japanese corporation withits principal place of business located at 1006 Oaza Kadoma,Kadoma-shi, Osaka 571-8501, Japan. Panasonic is one of the world'sleading manufacturers of resistors. Panasonic -- directly and/orthrough its subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled-- manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that werepurchased throughout the United States, including in thisDistrict.Panasonic Corporation of North America (\"PNA\"), a wholly ownedsubsidiary of Panasonic, is a Delaware corporation with itsprincipal place of business located at Two Riverfront Plaza,Newark, New Jersey 07102. PNA is one of the world's leadingmanufacturers of resistors. PNA -- directly and/or through itssubsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled --manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that were purchasedthroughout the United States.Panasonic Industrial Devices Sales Company of America (\"PIDS\"), awholly owned subsidiary of Panasonic, a Delaware corporation withits principal place of business located at Two Riverfront Plaza,Newark, New Jersey 07102. (Panasonic, PNA and PIDS arecollectively referred to as the \"Panasonic Defendants\".) PIDS isone of the world's leading manufacturers of resistors. PIDS --directly and/or through its subsidiaries, which it wholly ownedand/or controlled -- manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistorsthat were purchased throughout the United States.KOA Corporation (\"KOA\") is a Japanese corporation with itsprincipal place of business located at 2-17-2 Midori-Cho, Fuchu-Shi, Tokyo 183-0006, Japan. KOA is one of the world's leadingmanufacturers of resistors. KOA -- directly and/or through itssubsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled --manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that were purchasedthroughout the United States.KOA Speer Electronics, Inc. (\"KOA Speer\") is a Delawarecorporation with its principal place of business located at 199Bolivar Drive, Bradford, Pennsylvania 16701. KOA Speer is one ofthe world's leading manufacturers of resistors and is a whollyowned subsidiary of KOA (collectively, the \"KOA Defendants\"). KOASpeer -- directly and/or through its subsidiaries, which it whollyowned and/or controlled -- manufactured, marketed, and/or soldresistors that were purchased throughout the United States.Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (\"Murata\") is a Japanesecorporation with its principal place of business located at 10-1,Higashikotari 1-chome, Nagaokakyo-shi, Kyoto 617-8555, Japan.Murata is one of the world's leading manufacturers of resistors.Murata -- directly and/or through its subsidiaries, which itwholly owned and/or controlled -- manufactured, marketed, and/orsold resistors that were purchased throughout the United States.Murata Electronics North America, Inc. (\"MNA\") is a wholly ownedsubsidiary of Murata (collectively, the \"Murata Defendants\"), aTexas corporation with its principal place of business located at2200 Lake Park Drive SE, Smyrna, Georgia 30080-7604. MNA is one ofthe world's leading manufacturers of resistors. MNA -- directlyand/or through its subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/orcontrolled -- manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors thatwere purchased throughout the United States.ROHM Co., Ltd. (\"ROHM\") is a Japanese corporation with itsprincipal place of business located at 21 Saiin Mizosaki-cho,Ukyo-Ku, Kyoto 615-8585, Japan. ROHM is one of the world's leadingmanufacturers of resistors. ROHM -- directly and/or through itssubsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled --manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that were purchasedthroughout the United States.ROHM Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC (\"ROHM USA\") is a Delaware limitedliability corporation with its principal place of business locatedat 2323 Owen Street, Suite 150, Santa Clara, California 95054.ROHM USA is one of the world's leading manufacturers of resistors,and is a wholly owned subsidiary of ROHM (collectively, the \"ROHMDefendants\"). ROHM USA -- directly and/or through itssubsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled --manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that were purchasedthroughout the United States.Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. (\"Vishay\") is a Delaware corporationwith its principal place of business located at 63 LancasterAvenue, Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355. Vishay is one of the world'sleading manufacturers of resistors. Vishay -- directly and/orthrough its subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled-- manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that werepurchased throughout the United States.Yageo Corporation (\"Yageo\") is a Taiwanese corporation with itsprincipal place of business located at 3F, 233-1, Baoqiao Rd.Xindian Dist., New Taipei City 23145, Taiwan. Yageo is one of theworld's leading manufacturers of resistors. Yageo -- directlyand/or through its subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/orcontrolled -- manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors thatwere purchased throughout the United States.Yageo America Corporation is a Delaware corporation with itsprincipal place of business located at 2550 North First St., Suite480, San Jose, CA 95131. Yageo America Corporation is one of theworld's leading manufacturers of resistors, and is a wholly ownedsubsidiary of Yageo (collectively, the \"Yageo Defendants\"). YageoAmerica Corporation -- directly and/or through its subsidiaries,which it wholly owned and/or controlled -- manufactured, marketed,and/or sold resistors that were purchased throughout the UnitedStates.The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Steven N. Williams, Esq. Demetrius X. Lambrinos, Esq. Elizabeth T. Tran, Esq. Joyce Chang, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: 650-697-6000 Facsimile: 650-697-0577 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Disability Discrimination----------------------------------------------------------------Ruben Barrera v. Parking Corporation and Does 1- 25, inclusive,Case No. BC594870 (Cal. Super., September 17, 2015), arises out ofthe Defendant's alleged employment discriminatory practices on thebasis of disability or perceived disability.Parking Corporation owns and operates a carwash business in LosAngeles County, California.The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Perko, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JACK PERKO 26895 Aliso Creek Road, Suite B66 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Telephone: (949) 390-4442 Facsimile: (949) 916-1039 E-mail: [email protected] 5: Faces \"Hernandez\" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime-------------------------------------------------------------Martin Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. Philia 5 GROUP, LLC and Does 1 through 50,inclusive, Case No. BC595207 (Cal. Super., September 18, 2015), isbrought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wagesin violation of the California Labor Code.Philia 5 GROUP, LLC owns and operates Abigail Restaurant locatedat 130L Manhattan Ave., Hermosa Beach, Los Angeles County,California 90254.The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel V. Santiago, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL V. SANTIAGO, P.C. KPMG Tower 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (760) 652-9801 Facsimile: (760) 652-9802 E-mail: [email protected] CONSULTING: \"James\" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages---------------------------------------------------------------Cicely James, and Ken Rice, individually and on behalf of allothers similarly situated v. Prime Consulting Group, Inc., KeithBruce, and Chihuahtha Compton, Case No. 4:15-cv-02745 (S.D. Tex.,September 21, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.Prime Consulting Group, Inc. is a Tennessee corporation, whichprovides claims management services to insurance companies througha work force of claims adjusters, and maintains a presence andcorporate address in Stafford, Fort Bend County, Texas 77477.The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Starzyk, Esq. April L. Walter, Esq. Megan M. Mitchell, Esq. STARZYK & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 10200 Grogan's Mill Rd, Suite 300 The Woodlands, TX 77380 Telephone: (281) 364-7261 Facsimile: (281) 364-7533 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] PROTECTIVE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages-----------------------------------------------------------Richard Ramirez v. Private Protective Services, Inc., and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. BC595021 (Cal. Super., September 17,2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to payovertime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael B. Eisenberg, Esq. Daniel Nomanim, Esq. EISENBERG & ASSOCIATES 3580 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 201-9331 Facsimile: (213) 382-4083 - and - Adam Goldfarb, Esq. GOLDFARB LAW 3580 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (310) 477-4653 Facsimile: (213) 536-2015PRO OILFIELD: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, \"Aragon\" Suit Says-----------------------------------------------------------------Jason Aragon, individually and on behalf of all persons similarlysituated v. Pro Oilfield Services, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-02734(S.D. Tex., September 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendantfor failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hoursper week.Pro Oilfield Services, LLC is a corporation providing third partyservices, including multi-service line, multi-basin provider ofdrilling and completion services throughout the United States.The Plaintiff is represented by: Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] , OH: Sued Over Failure to Pay Court Workers OT Wages-------------------------------------------------------------Cheryl Downey, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. The County Of Richland, Ohio, Marilyn John, CountyCommissioner, in her official capacity, Gary Utt, CountyCommissioner, in his official capacity, and Tim Wert, CountyCommissioner, in his official capacity, Case No. 1:15-cv-1934(N.D. Ohio, September 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendantsfor failure to pay personnel at the Richland County Common PleasCourts overtime compensation in violation of the Fair LaborStandard Act.The County of Richland, Ohio was established in 1813 and employspersonnel at the Richland County Common Pleas Courts, which arelocated in the County Administrative Building at 50 Park AvenueEast, Mansfield, Ohio 44902.The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 10th Floor, 250 East Broad Street Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] - and - Matthew L. Turner, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] INTERMODAL: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers----------------------------------------------------------------Nicholas E. Rich, an individual, on behalf of himself and allothers similarly situated v. Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC,Central Cal Transportation, LLC., Morgan Southern, Inc., and Does1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-07330 (C.D. Cal.,September 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failureto pay minimum wages and provide meal and rest breaks to itsemployee drivers.The Defendants provide various shipping services throughoutCalifornia.The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP 644 S. Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 217-5000 Facsimile: (213) 217-5010 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] BEAUTY: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims-------------------------------------------------------------Paul Daniels, on his own behalf and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc. and BeautySystems Group LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-13326-GCS-MKM (E.D. Mich.,September 21, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant'spractice of sending unauthorized automated text messages toconsumer's cellular phone in violation of the Telephone ConsumerProtection Act.The Defendants own and operate CosmoProf store, a full-servicedistributor offering exclusive salon products and equipment tolicensed professionals in the salon and spa industry.The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 1100 Summer Street, 3rd Floor Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424SAND BUILDING: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, \"Salazar\" Suit Says----------------------------------------------------------------Leobardo Salazar, an individual v. Sand Building Materials Inc.and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC595011 (Cal. Super.,September 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failureto pay all wages, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failureto pay overtime wages, failure to pay a minimum wage for all hoursworked, and for violation of California Labor Code.The Defendants own and operate a construction materials companyproviding masonry, landscaping and building materials.The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack D. Josephson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JACK D. JOSEPHSON, APC 3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 738-5225SANTA ROSA: Faces \"Castellanos\" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime-----------------------------------------------------------------Ramon A. Castellanos, and all others similarly situated v. SantaRosa Insulation & Fireproofing, LLC, Rafael Puig, Raul Puig, CaseNo. 1:15-cv-23543-MGC (S.D. Fla., September 21, 2015), is broughtagainst the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages inviolation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.Santa Rosa Insulation & Fireproofing, LLC is an insulationcontractor that regularly transacts business within Miami-DadeCounty.The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: [email protected] VALLEY: Faces \"Fletcher\" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT------------------------------------------------------------Kevin Fletcher, individually, and on behalf of other members ofthe general public similarly situated v. Silicon Valley Bank andDoes 1 through 100, Case No. 115-cv-285790 (Cal. Super., September17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to payovertime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.Silicon Valley Bank owns and operates a commercial bank inCalifornia.The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden A venue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: [email protected] INC: Faces \"Antuna\" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages--------------------------------------------------------------Moises Antuna, on behalf of himself all others similarly situatedv. SJK, Inc. d/b/a Fremont Ford, and Does 1 through 50, Case No.RG15786390 (Cal. Super., September 18, 2015), is brought againstthe Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages inviolation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.SJK, Inc. owns and operates the Fremont Ford dealership in Newark,California.The Plaintiff is represented by: Glenn C. Nunes, Esq. Anthony J. Nunes, Esq. NUNES LAW GROUP, APC 2425 Olympic Blvd, Suite 4000-W Santa Monica, CA 90404 Telephone: (424) 252-4240 Facsimile: (424) 252-4301 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] . LOUIS, MO: MTC Illegally Prohibits Ridesharing Operations-------------------------------------------------------------Marsha Robyn Wallen, Patrick Andert, Patrick Fox, KneesheParkinson, Uber USA, LLC, and Rasier LLC v. St. Louis MetropolitanTaxicab Commission, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-01432 (E.D. Mo.,September 18, 2015), is an action for damages as a result of theDefendants' failure to permit ridesharing companies to operateeven though these companies are operating safely and efficientlyin every State of the Union (except South Dakota) and in over 60countries across six continents.St. Louis Metropolitan Taxicab Commission regulates vehicles forhire, their drivers, and vehicle for-hire companies operating inthe City of St. Louis and St. Louis County.The Plaintiff is represented by: James F. Bennett, Esq. John C. Danforth, Esq. John D. Comerford, Esq. Sheena R. Hamilton, Esq. DOWD BENNETT LLP 7733 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1900 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 889-7300 Facsimile: (314) 863-2111 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] - and - Douglas R. Cole, Esq. Erik J. Clark, Esq. ORGAN COLE LLP 1330 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 481-0900 Facsimile: (614) 481-0904 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] . JUDE MEDICAL: Received Insurance Recoveries of $40 Million--------------------------------------------------------------St. Jude Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that the Company receivedinsurance recoveries of $40 million related to the March 2010Securities Class Action Litigation. The Company said it continuesto pursue collection of the remaining insurance recovery,including interest and attorneys' fees and costs.In March 2010, a securities lawsuit seeking class action statuswas filed in federal district court in Minnesota against theCompany and certain officers (collectively, the defendants) onbehalf of purchasers of St. Jude Medical common stock betweenApril 22, 2009 and October 6, 2009. The lawsuit related to theCompany's earnings announcements for the first, second and thirdquarters of 2009, as well as a preliminary earnings release datedOctober 6, 2009. The complaint, which sought unspecified damagesand other relief as well as attorneys' fees, alleged that thedefendants failed to disclose that the Company was experiencing aslowdown in demand for its products and was not receivinganticipated orders for cardiac rhythm management devices. Classmembers alleged that the defendant's failure to disclose the aboveinformation resulted in the class purchasing St. Jude Medicalstock at an artificially inflated price.In December 2011, the Court issued a decision denying a motion todismiss filed by the defendants in October 2010. In October 2012,the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as aclass action and the discovery phase of the case closed inSeptember 2013.In October 2013, the defendants filed a motion for summaryjudgment. In November 2014, the defendants filed a motion forleave to proceed with a motion to decertify the class, which theCourt denied in December 2014.On February 18, 2015, the parties entered into a writtensettlement agreement resolving the case, pending notification toclass members and subject to court approval. Under the settlement,the Company agreed to make a payment of $50 million to resolve allof the class claims and recorded a charge of that amount duringthe fourth quarter of 2014.The Company had estimated its damages exposure on the claimsalleged to be approximately $475 million. A preliminary orderapproving the settlement was entered by the District Court onMarch 9, 2015 with the final settlement order and judgment closingthe case entered on June 12, 2015.During the first quarter of 2015, the Company received insurancerecoveries of $40 million and continues to pursue collection ofthe remaining insurance recovery, including interest andattorneys' fees and costs.ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Fact Discovery to Close December 18-----------------------------------------------------St. Jude Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that fact discovery closesDecember 18, 2015 in a securities litigation.On December 7, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuitwas filed in federal district court in Minnesota against theCompany and an officer (collectively, the defendants) for allegedviolations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of allpurchasers of the publicly traded securities of the defendantsbetween October 17, 2012 and November 20, 2012. The complaint,which sought unspecified damages and other relief as well asattorneys' fees, challenges the Company's disclosures concerningits high voltage cardiac rhythm lead products during the purportedclass period.On December 10, 2012, a second putative securities class actionlawsuit was filed in federal district court in Minnesota againstthe Company and certain officers for alleged violations of thefederal securities laws, on behalf of all purchasers of thepublicly traded securities of the Company between October 19, 2011and November 20, 2012. The second complaint alleged similar claimsand sought similar relief.In March 2013, the Court consolidated the two cases and appointeda lead counsel and lead plaintiff. A consolidated amendedcomplaint was served and filed in June 2013, alleging false ormisleading representations made during the class period extendingfrom February 5, 2010 through November 7, 2012.In September 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss theconsolidated amended complaint. On March 10, 2014, the Court ruledon the motion to dismiss, denying the motion in part and grantingthe motion in part. On October 7, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed asecond amended complaint. Like the original consolidated amendedcomplaint, the plaintiffs did not assert any specific amount ofcompensation in the second amended complaint.The plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification onJanuary 15, 2015. The Company will file a response by September16, 2015, plaintiffs will file a reply by November 16, 2015, and ahearing before the Court on the plaintiffs' class certificationwill be scheduled at some point in the future. Fact discoverycloses December 18, 2015 and the case is expected to be ready fortrial in February 2017. The Company intends to continue tovigorously defend against the claims asserted in this matter.SUNTRUST BANKS: Individual Suits, Smaller Class Actions Pending---------------------------------------------------------------SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a number of individuallawsuits and smaller putative class actions remained following theclass settlement in the Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. Litigation.Beginning in October 2008, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. orSTRH, along with other underwriters and individuals, were named asdefendants in several individual and putative class actioncomplaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York and state and federal courts in Arkansas,California, Texas, and Washington. Plaintiffs alleged violationsof Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or statelaw for allegedly false and misleading disclosures in connectionwith various debt and preferred stock offerings of Lehman BrothersHoldings, Inc. (\"Lehman Brothers\") and sought unspecified damages.All cases were transferred for coordination to the multi-districtlitigation captioned In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt SecuritiesLitigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss allclaims asserted in the class action.On July 27, 2011, the District Court granted in part and denied inpart the motion to dismiss the claims against STRH and the otherunderwriter defendants in the class action. A settlement with theclass plaintiffs was approved by the Court and the classsettlement approval process was completed.A number of individual lawsuits and smaller putative class actionsremained following the class settlement. STRH settled two suchindividual actions. The other individual lawsuits were dismissed.In two of such dismissed individual actions, the plaintiffs wereunable to appeal the dismissals of their claims until their claimsagainst a third party were resolved. In one of these individualactions, the plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to theSecond Circuit Court of Appeals. In the other remaining action, itis unclear whether the plaintiffs will file a notice of appeal.SUNTRUST BANKS: Court Finally Approved Deal in Colonial Case------------------------------------------------------------SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the ColonialBancGroup Securities Litigation, a settlement has been finallyapproved by the court.Beginning in July 2009, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. or STRH,certain other underwriters, the Colonial BancGroup, Inc.(\"Colonial BancGroup\") and certain officers and directors ofColonial BancGroup were named as defendants in a putative classaction filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District ofAlabama entitled In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc. SecuritiesLitigation. The complaint was brought by purchasers of certaindebt and equity securities of Colonial BancGroup and seeksunspecified damages. Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false andmisleading disclosures in the relevant registration statement andprospectus relating to Colonial BancGroup's goodwill impairment,mortgage underwriting standards, and credit quality.On February 3, 2015, the parties agreed to a settlement of thismatter which was preliminarily approved by the Court on March 13,2015 and finally approved on June 19, 2015.SUNTRUST BANKS: Petition for Certiorari Filed in \"Bickerstaff\"--------------------------------------------------------------SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Plaintiff in the case,Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank, filed a petition for certiorari withthe Georgia Supreme Court.This case was filed in the Fulton County State Court on July 12,2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9, 2010.Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his accountwhich related to debit card and ATM transactions are actuallyinterest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws ofGeorgia. Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil andcriminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and received, andpurports to bring the action on behalf of all Georgia citizens whoincurred such overdraft fees within the four years before thecomplaint was filed where the overdraft fee resulted in aninterest rate being charged in excess of the usury rate.SunTrust filed a motion to compel arbitration and on March 16,2012, the Court entered an order holding that SunTrust'sarbitration provision is enforceable but that the named plaintiffin the case had opted out of that provision pursuant to its terms.The Court explicitly stated that it was not ruling at that time onthe question of whether the named plaintiff could have opted outfor the putative class members. SunTrust filed an appeal of thisdecision, but this appeal was dismissed based on a finding thatthe appeal was prematurely granted.On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for classcertification and that motion was denied on February 19, 2014.Plaintiff appealed the denial of class certification on February26, 2014. On March 30, 2015, this appeal was denied by the GeorgiaCourt of Appeals. Plaintiff filed a petition for certiorari withthe Georgia Supreme Court on May 4, 2015.SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Stock Class Action Granted in Part-----------------------------------------------------------------SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court has entered anorder granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion todismiss the Company Stock Class Action.Beginning in July 2008, the Company and certain officers,directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putativeclass action alleging that they breached their fiduciary dutiesunder ERISA by offering the Company's common stock as aninvestment option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the\"Plan\"). The plaintiffs purport to represent all current andformer Plan participants who held the Company stock in their Planaccounts from May 2007 to the present and seek to recover allegedlosses these participants supposedly incurred as a result of theirinvestment in Company stock.The Company Stock Class Action was originally filed in the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of Florida but wastransferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern Districtof Georgia, Atlanta Division, (the \"District Court\") in November2008. On October 26, 2009, an amended complaint was filed. OnDecember 9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amendedcomplaint. On October 25, 2010, the District Court granted in partand denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amendedcomplaint.On April 14, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the EleventhCircuit (\"the Circuit Court\") granted defendants and plaintiffspermission to pursue interlocutory review in separate appeals. TheCircuit Court subsequently stayed these appeals pending decisionof a separate appeal involving The Home Depot in whichsubstantially similar issues are presented. On May 8, 2012, theCircuit Court decided this appeal in favor of The Home Depot. OnMarch 5, 2013, the Circuit Court issued an order remanding thecase to the District Court for further proceedings in light of itsdecision in The Home Depot case. On September 26, 2013, theDistrict Court granted the defendants' motion to dismissplaintiffs' claims.Plaintiffs filed an appeal of this decision in the Circuit Court.Subsequent to the filing of this appeal, the U.S. Supreme Courtdecided Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, which held thatemployee stock ownership plan fiduciaries receive no presumptionof prudence with respect to employer stock plans. The EleventhCircuit remanded the case back to the District Court for furtherproceedings in light of Dudenhoeffer.On June 18, 2015, the Court entered an order granting in part anddenying in part the Company's motion to dismiss.SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeal in Mutual Funds Class Actions Pending------------------------------------------------------------SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company continuesto defend the Mutual Funds Class Actions.On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors,and employees of the Company were named in a putative class actionalleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA byoffering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options inthe Plan. The plaintiffs purport to represent all current andformer Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds intheir Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seekto recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedlyincurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic MutualFunds. This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the \"DistrictCourt\").On June 6, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and, onJune 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amendedcomplaint. On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part and deniedin part the motion to dismiss. The Company filed a subsequentmotion to dismiss the remainder of the case on the ground that theCourt lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the remainingclaims.On October 30, 2012, the Court dismissed all claims in thisaction. Immediately thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel initiated asubstantially similar lawsuit against the Company naming two newplaintiffs and also filed an appeal of the dismissal with the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. SunTrust filed a motionto dismiss in the new action and this motion was granted.On February 26, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the EleventhCircuit upheld the District Court's dismissal. On March 18, 2014,the plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for reconsideration withthe Eleventh Circuit. On August 26, 2014, plaintiffs in theoriginal action filed a Motion for Consolidation of Appealsrequesting that the Court consider this appeal jointly with theappeal in the second action. This motion was granted on October 9,2014 and plaintiffs filed their consolidated appeal on December16, 2014.No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-QReport.SUNTRUST BANKS: Brown et al. v. SunTrust Banks Case Still Pending-----------------------------------------------------------------SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company and certaincurrent and former officers, directors, and employees of theCompany were named on June 27, 2014, in another putative classaction alleging breach of fiduciary duties associated with theinclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in thePlan. This case, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al.,was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.On September 3, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District ofColumbia issued an order transferring the case to the U.S.District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On November12, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to stay this caseuntil the U.S. Supreme Court issues a decision in Tibble v. EidsonInternational. On May 18, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decidedTibble and held that plan fiduciaries have a duty, separate andapart from investment selection, to monitor and remove imprudentinvestments. After Tibble, the cases pending on appeal wereremanded to the District Court.No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-QReport.SUNTRUST BANKS: \"Morales\" Class Action Settled in Q2 2015---------------------------------------------------------SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the \"Morales\" SunTrustMortgage Lender Placed Insurance Class Action was settled in thesecond quarter of 2015.SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. or STM was named in four putative classactions similar to those that other financial institutions arefacing which allege that STM violated various duties by failing toproperly negotiate pricing for force placed insurance and byreceiving kickbacks or other improper benefits from the providersof such insurance. Three of the cases involve activity relating toSTM's relationship with QBE First Specialty as STM's lender placedinsurance vendor.The first case, Timothy Smith v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al.,was pending in the United States District Court for the CentralDistrict of California.The second case, Carina Hamilton v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. etal., is pending in the U.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict of Florida.The third case, Yaghoub Mahdavieh et al. v. SunTrust Mortgage,Inc. et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Georgia.STM has entered into an agreement to settle these cases in thecontext of a nationwide settlement class, which was approved bythe Court on October 24, 2014. The plaintiffs in Mahdavieh optedout of the class action settlement and settled separately from theHamilton settlement.The fourth case, Douglas Morales v. SunTrust Mortgage, et al,involved activity relating to STM's relationship with Assurant asits lender placed insurance vendor. Morales was settled in thesecond quarter of 2015.SUNTRUST BANKS: \"Thurmond\" Reinsurance Class Action Stayed----------------------------------------------------------SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the \"Thurmond\" SunTrustMortgage Reinsurance Class Action has been stayed pending a rulingin a similar case currently before the Third Circuit.SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. of STM and Twin Rivers Insurance Company(\"Twin Rivers\") have been named as defendants in two putativeclass actions alleging that the companies entered into illegal\"captive reinsurance\" arrangements with private mortgage insurers.More specifically, plaintiffs allege that SunTrust's selection ofprivate mortgage insurers who agree to reinsure with Twin Riverscertain loans referred to them by SunTrust results in illegal\"kickbacks\" in the form of the insurance premiums paid to TwinRivers. Plaintiffs contend that this arrangement violates the RealEstate Settlement Procedures Act (\"RESPA\") and results in unjustenrichment to the detriment of borrowers.The first of these cases, Thurmond, Christopher, et al. v.SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al., was filed in February 2011 in theU.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Thiscase was stayed by the Court pending the outcome of Edwards v.First American Financial Corporation, a captive reinsurance casethat was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court at the time. Thesecond of these cases, Acosta, Lemuel & Maria Ventrella et al. v.SunTrust Bank, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., et al., was filed in theU.S. District Court for the Central District of California inDecember 2011. This case was stayed pending a decision in theEdwards case also.In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court withdrew its grant ofcertiorari in Edwards and, as a result, the stays in these caseswere lifted. SunTrust has filed a motion to dismiss the Thurmondcase which was granted in part and denied in part, allowinglimited discovery surrounding the argument that the statute oflimitations for certain claims should be equitably tolled.Thurmond has been stayed pending a ruling in a similar casecurrently before the Third Circuit. The Acosta plaintiffs havevoluntarily dismissed their case.No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-QReport.STERICYCLE INC: MDL Action in Discovery Stage---------------------------------------------Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the MDL action is inthe discovery stage.The Company said, \"we were served on March 12, 2013 with a classaction complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the WesternDistrict of Pennsylvania by an individual plaintiff for itself andon behalf of all other \"similarly situated\" customers of ours. Thecomplaint alleges, among other things, that we imposedunauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on ourcustomers in breach of our contracts and in violation of theIllinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Thecomplaint sought certification of the lawsuit as a class actionand the award to class members of appropriate damages andinjunctive relief.\"\"The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake ofa settlement with the State of New York of an investigation underthe New York False Claims Act (which the class action complaintdescribes at some length). The New York investigation arose out ofa qui tam (or \"whistle blower\") complaint under the federal FalseClaims Act and comparable state statutes which was filed underseal in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofIllinois in April 2008 by a former employee of ours. The qui tamcomplaint was filed on behalf of the United States and 14 statesand the District of Columbia. On September 4, 2013, we filed ouranswer to Plaintiff-Relator's Second Amended Complaint, generallydenying the allegations therein. Also, as previously disclosed,Tennessee, Massachusetts, Virginia and North Carolina have issuedcivil investigative demands to explore the allegations made ontheir behalf in the qui tam complaint but have not yet decidedwhether to join the Illinois action. The qui tam case is in thediscovery stage.\"Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint,we were served with class action complaints filed in federal courtin California, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi and Utah and instate court in California. These complaints asserted claims andallegations substantially similar to those made in thePennsylvania class action complaint. All of these cases appear tobe follow-on litigation to our settlement with the State of NewYork. On August 9, 2013, the Judicial Panel on MultidistrictLitigation (MDL) granted our Motion to Transfer these relatedactions to the Northern District of Illinois for centralizedpretrial proceedings. On December 10, 2013, we filed our answer tothe Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the MDL action,generally denying the allegations therein. The MDL action is inthe discovery stage.\"STERICYCLE INC: To Make Settlement Payment in Junk Fax Suit-----------------------------------------------------------Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company anticipatesmaking payments from the settlement fund in the Junk Fax lawsuitsometime during the fourth quarter of 2015.The Company said, \"on May 20, 2015, we entered into a settlementagreement to resolve all claims made against us and certain of oursubsidiaries in Sawyer v. Stericycle, et al., Case No. 2015 CH07190 (the \"TCPA Action\"), a class action complaint pending in theCircuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (the \"Court\"). The TCPAAction is the successor lawsuit to the class action complaintfiled in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofIllinois (Case 1:14-cv-02070) that we have previously disclosedand that was dismissed pursuant to the parties' joint stipulationof dismissal. The TCPA Action alleges that from 2010 to 2014 weviolated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amendedby the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, by sending facsimileadvertisements to plaintiffs or putative class members that eitherwere unsolicited and/or did not contain a valid opt-out notice. Wehave denied all liability for the claims made in the TCPA Actionbut have agreed to settle to avoid the expense, burden andinherent risk and uncertainty of litigation.\"\"Under the terms of the settlement agreement entered into with thetwo class representatives, we agreed to make available a fund of$45.0 million (the \"Settlement Fund\") to pay class members whosubmit a valid claim form within a 90-day period, to pay anincentive award to each of the class representatives, to pay feesand expenses to plaintiffs' attorneys, and to pay fees and costsof a third-party settlement administrator (the \"TCPA Settlement\").The plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking fees of one-third of theSettlement Fund, plus out-of-pocket expenses, to be paid from theSettlement Fund. As part of the TCPA Settlement, we do not admitto any of the allegations in the TCPA Action and will becompletely released from any claims related to faxes sent by us oron our behalf from March 25, 2010 through April 30, 2015.\"The Settlement has been preliminarily approved by the Court andis awaiting final approval. In view of the TCPA Settlement, wehave recorded an accrual of $45.0 million in accrued liabilitieson our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet and a pre-tax chargeof $45.0 million in \"Selling, general and administrative expenses\"on our Condensed Consolidated Statement of Income for the three-and six-months ending June 30, 2015. We anticipate making paymentsfrom the Settlement Fund sometime during the fourth quarter of2015.\"SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Court Granted Motion to Decertify-------------------------------------------------------Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a U.S. districtcourt has granted Swift's motion to decertify the entire class inthe Arizona Owner-operator Class Action Litigation.On January 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by LeonelGarza on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated personsagainst Swift Transportation: Garza v. Swift Transportation Co.,Inc., Case No. CV7-472 (\"the Garza Complaint\"). The putative classoriginally involved certain owner-operators who contracted withthe Company under a 2001 Contractor Agreement that was in placefor one year. The putative class is alleging that the Companyshould have reimbursed owner-operators for actual miles drivenrather than the contracted and industry standard remunerationbased upon dispatched miles. The trial court denied plaintiff'spetition for class certification. The plaintiff appealed and onAugust 6, 2008, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued an unpublishedMemorandum Decision reversing the trial court's denial of classcertification and remanding the case back to the trial court. OnNovember 14, 2008, the Company filed a petition for review to theArizona Supreme Court regarding the issue of class certificationas a consequence of the denial of the Motion for Reconsiderationby the Court of Appeals.On March 17, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court granted the Company'spetition for review, and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona SupremeCourt vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals, opining thatthe Court of Appeals lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction toreverse the trial court's original denial of class certificationand remanded the matter back to the trial court for furtherevaluation and determination. Thereafter, the plaintiff renewedthe motion for class certification and expanded it to include allpersons who were employed by Swift as employee drivers or whocontracted with Swift as owner-operators on or after January 30,1998, in each case who were compensated by reference to milesdriven.On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial court entered anorder certifying a class of owner-operators and expanding theclass to include employees. Upon certification, the Company fileda motion to compel arbitration, as well as filing numerous motionsin the trial court urging dismissal on several other groundsincluding, but not limited to the lack of an employee as a classrepresentative, and because the named owner-operator classrepresentative only contracted with the Company for a three-monthperiod under a one-year contract that no longer exists.In addition to these trial court motions, the Company also filed apetition for special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals,arguing that the trial court erred in certifying the class becausethe trial court relied upon the Court of Appeals ruling that waspreviously overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court.On April 7, 2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals declinedjurisdiction to hear this petition for special action and theCompany filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court.On August 31, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to reviewthe decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals.In April 2012, the trial court issued the following rulings withrespect to certain motions filed by Swift: (1) denied Swift'smotion to compel arbitration; (2) denied Swift's request todecertify the class; (3) granted Swift's motion that there is nobreach of contract; and (4) granted Swift's motion to limit classsize based on statute of limitations. On November 13, 2014, thecourt denied plaintiff's motion to add new class representativesfor the employee class and therefore the employee class remainswithout a plaintiff class representative.On March 18, 2015, the court denied Swift's two motions forsummary judgment (1) to dismiss any claims related to the employeeclass since there is no class representative; and (2) to dismissplaintiff's claim of breach of a duty of good faith and fairdealing.On July 14, 2015, the court granted Swift's motion to decertifythe entire class. The Company intends to defend any appeal pursuedby the plaintiff.SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: 9th Cir. Owner-Operator Case Still Pending----------------------------------------------------------------Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the so-called NinthCircuit Owner-Operator Misclassification Class Action Litigationremains pending in district court and is currently in discovery.On December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed againstSwift Transportation and IEL: Virginia VanDusen, John Doe 1 andJoseph Sheer, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated persons v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., InterstateEquipment Leasing, Inc., Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No.9-CIV-10376 filed in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of New York (\"the Sheer Complaint\"). Theputative class involves owner-operators alleging that SwiftTransportation misclassified owner-operators as independentcontractors in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act(\"FLSA\"), and various New York and California state laws and thatsuch owner-operators should be considered employees. The lawsuitalso raises certain related issues with respect to the leaseagreements that certain owner-operators have entered into withIEL. At present, in addition to the named plaintiffs,approximately 450 other current or former owner-operators havejoined this lawsuit. Upon Swift's motion, the matter wastransferred from the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York to the United States District Court inArizona.On May 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionallycertify an FLSA collective action and authorize notice to thepotential class members. On September 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed amotion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Swift andIEL from collecting payments from plaintiffs who are in defaultunder their lease agreements and related relief. On September 30,2010, the district court granted Swift's motion to compelarbitration and ordered that the class action be stayed, pendingthe outcome of arbitration. The district court further deniedplaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and motion forconditional class certification.The district court also denied plaintiff's request to arbitratethe matter as a class.The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to the NinthCircuit Court of Appeals asking that the district court'sSeptember 30, 2010 order be vacated. On July 27, 2011, the NinthCircuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiff's petition for writof mandamus and thereafter the district court denied plaintiff'smotion for reconsideration and certified its September 30, 2010order. The plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal to the NinthCircuit Court of Appeals to overturn the district court'sSeptember 30, 2010 order to compel arbitration, alleging that theagreement to arbitrate is exempt from arbitration under Section 1of the Federal Arbitration Act (\"FAA\") because the class ofplaintiffs allegedly consists of employees exempt from arbitrationagreements.On November 6, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversedand remanded, stating its prior published decision, \"expresslyheld that a district court must determine whether an agreement forarbitration is exempt from arbitration under Section 1 of the FAAas a threshold matter.\" As a consequence of this determination bythe Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals being different from a decisionof the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on a similar issue, onFebruary 4, 2014, the Company filed a petition for writ ofcertiorari to the United States Supreme Court to address whetherthe district court or arbitrator should determine whether thecontract is an employment contract exempt from Section 1 of theFederal Arbitration Act.On June 16, 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied theCompany's petition for writ of certiorari. The matter remainspending in the district court and is currently in discovery.The Company has filed a writ of mandamus and appeal from thedistrict court's order that effectively denies the Company'smotion to compel arbitration. The writ and appeal were accepted bythe Ninth Circuit and are proceeding simultaneously with discoveryin the district court. The Company intends to vigorously defendagainst any proceedings. The final disposition of this case andthe impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at thistime.SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Defending Calif. Wage, Meal and Rest Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Swift Transportation Company continues to defend wage, meal andrest employee class actions in California, the Company disclosedin its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June30, 2015.On March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by JohnBurnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated persons against Swift Transportation: John Burnell andall others similarly-situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.,Case No. CIVDS 1004377 filed in the Superior Court of the State ofCalifornia, for the County of San Bernardino (\"the BurnellComplaint\"). On September 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, thematter was removed to the United States District Court for theCentral District of California, Case No. EDCV10-809-VAP. Theputative class includes drivers who worked for Swift during thefour years preceding the date of filing alleging that Swift failedto pay the California minimum wage, failed to provide proper mealand rest periods and failed to timely pay wages upon separationfrom employment.On April 9, 2013, the Company filed a motion for judgment on thepleadings, requesting dismissal of plaintiff's claims related toalleged meal and rest break violations under the California LaborCode alleging that such claims are preempted by the FederalAviation Administration Authorization Act. On May 29, 2013, theUnited States District Court for the Central District ofCalifornia granted the Company's motion for judgment on thepleadings and dismissed plaintiff's claims that are based onalleged violations of meal and rest periods set forth in theCalifornia Labor Code.Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court.Based on the Circuit Court's holding in a different case, itremanded the plaintiff's meal and rest break claims to thedistrict court. The district court has not yet addressed themerits of those claims. Minimum wage claims (specifically thatpay-per-mile fails to compensate drivers for non-driving-relatedservices), timeliness of such pay and the issue of classcertification remain pending.SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: \"Peck\" Action Currently Stayed----------------------------------------------------Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Peck action iscurrently stayed, pending a resolution in the Burnell and Rudsellcases, based on the similarity of the Peck claims to the claims inthose earlier filed cases.On April 5, 2012, the Company was served with an additional classaction complaint, alleging facts similar to those as set forth inthe Burnell Complaint: James R. Rudsell, on behalf of himself andall others similarly-situated v. Swift Transportation Co. ofArizona, LLC and Swift Transportation Company, Case No. CIVDS1200255, in the Superior Court of California for the County of SanBernardino (the \"Rudsell Complaint\"). The Rudsell Complaint wasstayed, pending a resolution in the Burnell Complaint.On September 25, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed byLawrence Peck on behalf of himself and all other similarly-situated persons against Swift Transportation: Peck v. SwiftTransportation Co. of Arizona, LLC in the Superior Court ofCalifornia, County of Riverside (\"the Peck Complaint\"). Theputative class includes current and former non-exempt employeetruck drivers who performed services in California within thefour-year statutory period, alleging that Swift failed to pay forall hours worked (specifically that pay-per-mile fails tocompensate drivers for non-driving related services), failed topay overtime, failed to properly reimburse work-related expenses,failed to timely pay wages and failed to provide accurate wagestatements.Peck is currently stayed, pending a resolution in the Burnell andRudsell cases, based on the similarity of the Peck claims to theclaims in those earlier filed cases.SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: \"Mares\" Case Remains at Pleading Stage------------------------------------------------------------Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Sadashiv Maresfiled on February 27, 2015, a complaint in the California SuperiorCourt for the County of Alameda alleging five Causes of Actionarising under California state law on behalf of himself and aputative class against Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC(the \"Mares Complaint\"). On June 19, 2015, Swift filed a demurrerbecause plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim under Cal.Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 430.10(e) and was uncertain, ambiguous andunintelligible under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 430.10(f). On July13, 2015, the case was removed to federal court under the ClassAction Fairness Act. The case remains at the pleading stage.Management believes the case involves similar claims to thosealleged in the Burnell, Rudsell and Peck Complaints.SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: \"McKinsty\" Case Removed to Federal Court--------------------------------------------------------------Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a complaint wasfiled on or about April 15, 2015, in the Superior Court of theState of California in and for the County of San Bernardino:Rafael McKinsty et al. v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona,LLC, et al., Case No. CIVDS 1505599 (the \"McKinsty Complaint\").The McKinsty Complaint, a purported class action, allegesviolation of California rest break laws and is similar to theBurnell, Rudsell, Peck and Mares Complaints. The case was removedto federal court and was related to the Burnell, Rudsell and Peckactions.The issue of class certification must first be resolved before thecourt will address the merits of these cases, and the Companyretains all of its defenses against liability and damages, pendinga determination of class certification. The Company intends tovigorously defend certification of the class in all of thesematters, as well as the merits of these matters, should theclasses be certified. The final disposition of these cases and theimpact of such final dispositions of these cases cannot bedetermined at this time.SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: To Mediate National Customer Service Case---------------------------------------------------------------Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company intendsto mediate the National Customer Service Misclassification ClassAction Litigation.On April 15, 2014, a collective and class action was filed by aformer Swift Customer Service Representative level four (\"CSRIV\"), Lorraine Flores, individually and on behalf of herself andall similarly-situated persons against Swift Transportation Co. ofArizona, LLC in the United States District Court for the CentralDistrict of California, Case No. CV 14-2900-AB(Ex) (the \"FloresComplaint\"). The operative complaint alleges failure to payovertime under the FLSA, as well as California state law claimsincluding failure to pay timely final wages, failure to providemeal and rest periods, failure to pay overtime, and violation ofthe unfair competition law (four-year statute of limitations).On October 3, 2014, the California District Court compelled, toindividual arbitration, CSR IVs who signed Arbitration Agreements.On October 30, 2014, Flores' overtime claim under the FLSA wasconditionally certified and notice was issued to all CSR IVs.Thirty-three CSR IVs who signed valid Arbitration Agreements filedindividual arbitrations with the American Arbitration Association(\"AAA\"). Approximately thirty-two CSR IVs who did not signArbitration Agreements opted into the collective action.The parties have agreed to mediate this matter.On July 1, 2015, an Order was entered which stayed the matter sothat the parties may participate in mediation. The derivativearbitrations are also stayed while the parties pursue mediation.Swift intends to mediate this case within the next two months.The final disposition of this case and the impact of such finaldisposition of this case cannot be determined at this time.SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Wash. OT Suit to Move Into Discovery----------------------------------------------------------Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the WashingtonOvertime Class Action is now anticipated to move into discovery.On September 9, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by TroySlack and several other drivers on behalf of themselves, and allsimilarly-situated persons, against Swift Transportation: TroySlack, et al v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and SwiftTransportation Corporation in the State Court of Washington,Pierce County (\"the Slack Complaint\"). The Slack Complaint wasremoved to federal court on October 12, 2011, case number 11-2-114380. The putative class includes all current and formerWashington state-based employee drivers during the three-yearstatutory period prior to the filing of the lawsuit, and throughthe present, and alleges that they were not paid minimum wage andovertime in accordance with Washington state law and that theysuffered unlawful deductions from wages.On November 23, 2013, the court entered an order on plaintiffs'motion to certify the class. The court only certified the class asit pertains to \"dedicated\" drivers and did not certify any otherclass, including any class related to over-the-road drivers. Theparties dispute the definition of \"dedicated\" as used by the courtand a class notice has not yet been issued. The matter is nowanticipated to move into discovery.The Company retains all of its defenses against liability anddamages. The Company intends to vigorously defend the merits ofthese claims and to challenge certification. The final dispositionof this case and the impact of such final disposition of this casecannot be determined at this time.SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Central Refrigerated Suit in Discovery------------------------------------------------------------Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that parties arecurrently conducting discovery in a class and collective actioninvolving Central Refrigerated Services, Inc.On June 1, 2012, Gabriel Cilluffo, Kevin Shire and Bryan Ratterreefiled a putative class and collective action lawsuit againstCentral Refrigerated Services, Inc., Central Leasing, Inc., JonIsaacson, and Jerry Moyes (collectively referred to herein as\"Central\"), Case No. ED CV 12-00886 in the United States DistrictCourt for the Central District of California. Through this action,the plaintiffs alleged that Central misclassified owner-operatordrivers as independent contractors and were therefore liable tothese drivers for minimum wages and other employee benefits underthe FLSA. The complaint also alleged a federal forced labor claimunder 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1589 and 1595.Pursuant to the plaintiffs' owner-operator agreements, thedistrict court issued an Order compelling arbitration and directedthat the plaintiffs' causes of action under the FLSA shouldproceed to collective arbitration, while their forced labor claimswould proceed as separate individual arbitrations. A collectivearbitration was subsequently initiated with the AAA. Notice of thecollective arbitration was sent to more than 3,000 owner-operatorswho worked for Central Refrigerated Services, Inc. and leased avehicle from Central Leasing, Inc. on or after June 1, 2009. Theparties are currently conducting discovery. No trial date has beenset by the arbitrator.In addition to the collective arbitration that is pending beforethe AAA, the three named plaintiffs, along with more than 310other owner-operators, have initiated a series of individual,bilateral proceedings against Central with the AAA.Central intends to vigorously defend against the merits ofplaintiffs' claims in both the collective and individualarbitration proceedings. The final disposition of this case andthe impact cannot be determined at this time.SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Filed Motion to Dismiss TelexFree Litigation---------------------------------------------------------------Synovus Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has filed amotion to dismiss the TelexFree Litigation.On October 22, 2014, several pending lawsuits were consolidatedinto a multi-district putative class action case captioned In re:TelexFree Securities Litigation, MDL Number 4:14-md2566-TSH,United States District Court District of Massachusetts. SynovusFinancial Corp. and Synovus Bank were named as defendants withnumerous other defendants in the purported class action lawsuit.An Amended Complaint was filed on March 31, 2015 whichconsolidated and amended the claims previously asserted. Theclaims against Synovus Financial Corp. were dismissed byPlaintiffs on April 10, 2015 so now, as to Synovus-relatedentities, only claims against Synovus Bank remain pending.TelexFree was a merchant customer of Base Commerce, LLC \"BaseCommerce\", an independent sales organization/member serviceprovider sponsored by Synovus Bank. The purported class actionlawsuit generally alleges that TelexFree engaged in an impropermulti-tier marketing scheme involving voice-over Internet protocoltelephone services and that the various defendants, includingSynovus Bank, provided financial services to TelexFree thatallowed TelexFree to conduct its business operations. Synovus Bankfiled a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on June 1, 2015.Synovus Bank believes it has substantial defenses related to thesepurported claims and intends to vigorously defend the claimsasserted. Synovus currently cannot reasonably estimate lossesattributable to this matter.TALBOTS INC: \"Lopez\" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Wages--------------------------------------------------------------Ricardo Lopez, and others similarly situated v. The Talbots, Inc.,Case No. RG 15785672 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda County, September14, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay forovertime wages, unpaid overtime, untimely payment of wages, andminimum compensation in violation of the California Labor Code.The proposed class is defined as: \"all current and former hourlypaid or non-exempt employees who worked for any of the Defendantswithin the State of California at any time during the period fromfour years preceding the filing of this Complaint to finaljudgment.\"The Plaintiff reserves the right to establish subclasses asappropriate.According to the complaint, The Talbots, Inc. is an unknownbusiness entity whose employees are engaged throughout the Stateof California, including the County of Alameda.The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Tel: ((818) 265-1020 Fax: (818) 265-1021TALON AIR: \"Amaya\" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages--------------------------------------------------------------Luis Amaya, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. Talon Air Inc. and Adam Katz, Case No. 2:15-cv-05403(N.D.N.Y., September 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtimewages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.The Defendants are in the business of providing charter flights,and aircraft management and maintenance.The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740-1000 Facsimile: (718) 740-2000 E-mail: [email protected] ENERGY: Appeals from Class Action Dismissal Pending--------------------------------------------------------Teco Energy, Inc. and Tampa Electric Company said in their Form10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onAugust 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, thatappeals from the dismissal of class action lawsuits are pending.In February 2011, New Mexico Gas Company experienced gas shortagesdue to weather-related interruptions of electric service, weather-related problems on the systems of various interstate pipelinesand in gas fields that are the sources of gas supplied to NMGC,and high weather-driven usage. This gas supply disruption and highusage resulted in the declaration of system emergencies by NMGCcausing involuntary curtailments of gas utility service toapproximately 28,700 customers (residential and business).In March 2011, a customer purporting to represent a classconsisting of all \"32,000 [sic] customers\" who had their gasutility service curtailed during the early-February systememergencies filed a putative class action lawsuit against NMGC. InMarch 2011, the Town of Bernalillo, New Mexico, purporting torepresent a class consisting of all \"New Mexico municipalities andgovernmental entities who have suffered damages as a result of thenatural gas utility shut off\" also filed a putative class actionlawsuit against NMGC, four of its officers, and John and Jane Doesat NMGC. In July 2011, the plaintiff in the Bernalillo classaction filed an amended complaint to add an additional plaintiffpurporting to represent a class of all \"similarly situated NewMexico private businesses and enterprises.\"The two purported class action suits (three purported classes)were consolidated. The court dismissed the class actions in theirentirety with prejudice in October 2014 and appeals from thedismissal were taken by the plaintiffs in November 2014 and arepending.THORATEC CORPORATION: Parties Await Ruling on Motion to Dismiss---------------------------------------------------------------Thoratec Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended July 4, 2015, the parties in a class actionlawsuit are awaiting a ruling by the Court on Defendants' motionto dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.The Company said, \"On January 24, 2014, we and three of ourpresent and former officers were named as defendants in a putativeshareholder class action entitled Cooper v. Thoratec Corp., CaseNo. 4:14-cv-00360, filed in the United States District Court forthe Northern District of California. The action asserts violationsof Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the\"Exchange Act\"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well asSection 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On April 21, 2014, the Courtappointed Bradley Cooper as Lead Plaintiff.\"On June 20, 2014, Mr. Cooper filed an amended class actioncomplaint (\"Amended Complaint\"), adding a former officer of theCompany as a defendant. The Amended Complaint alleged that duringproposed class period (April 29, 2010 to November 27, 2013,inclusive), Defendants made false or misleading statements invarious SEC filings, press releases, earnings calls, andhealthcare conferences regarding the Company's business andoutlook, focusing primarily on Defendants' alleged failure todisclose that there was a purported, known increase in the rate ofpump thrombosis for patients using the HeartMate II LeftVentricular Assist Device during the proposed class period.Plaintiff sought unspecified damages, among other relief.\"Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint forfailure to state a claim on August 19, 2014, which the Courtgranted in its entirety with leave to amend on November 26, 2014.Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January 20, 2015(the \"Second Amended Complaint\").\"In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff amended the classperiod from May 11, 2011 to August 6, 2014, inclusive, dropped aformer officer of the Company as a defendant, and added PlaintiffTodd Labak, who is intended to replace Mr. Cooper as the LeadPlaintiff because Mr. Cooper no longer has Thoratec stockpurchases within the proposed class period, among other changes.\"On March 23, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss theSecond Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. The motionto dismiss is now fully briefed and the parties are awaiting aruling by the Court.\"THORATEC CORPORATION: Solak v. Grossman Class Action Filed----------------------------------------------------------Thoratec Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that the Company and itsdirectors were named on July 23, 2015, as defendants in apurported class action shareholder lawsuit entitled Solak v.Grossman, which was filed in the Superior Court of California,County of Alameda in connection with the Company's entry into amerger agreement with St. Jude Medical, Inc. and certain otherparties named therein.The Company said, \"The lawsuit generally alleges that the membersof our Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties innegotiating and approving the Merger Agreement, that the MergerAgreement undervalues the Company, that our stockholders will notreceive adequate or fair value for their common stock in theMerger, and that the terms of the Merger Agreement impose improperdeal protection terms that preclude competing offers.\"\"Plaintiffs seek, among other things, to declare that the actionis properly maintainable as a class action and to enjoin theCompany from consummating the proposed Merger in the mannerprovided for by the Merger Agreement. Plaintiffs further seekunspecified money damages, costs and attorneys' and experts' fees.\"Although the results of litigation are inherently uncertain,based on the information currently available, we do not believethe ultimate resolution of the above named actions will have amaterial effect on our financial position, liquidity or results ofoperations.\"TORNIER NV: Consolidated Delaware Action Still Pending------------------------------------------------------Tornier N.V. continues to defend a consolidated class actionlawsuit filed in Delaware district court, the Company disclosed inits Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June28, 2015.On November 25, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in theCourt of Chancery of the state of Delaware (Delaware ChanceryCourt), by a purported shareholder of Wright under the captionPaul Parshall v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No.10400-CB. An amended complaint in the action was filed on February6, 2015. The amended complaint names as defendants Wright, theCompany, Trooper Holdings Inc. (Holdco), Trooper Merger Sub Inc.(Merger Sub) and the members of the Wright board of directors. Theamended complaint asserts various causes of action, including,among other things, that the members of the Wright board ofdirectors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Wrightshareholders in connection with entering into the mergeragreement, approving the merger, and causing Wright to issue apreliminary Form S-4 that allegedly fails to disclose materialinformation about the merger. The amended complaint furtheralleges that Wright, the Company, Holdco and Merger Sub aided andabetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Wrightboard of directors. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things,injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the merger and an awardof attorneys' fees and costs.Also on November 25, 2014, a second class action complaint wasfiled in the Chancery Court of Shelby County Tennessee, for theThirtieth Judicial District, at Memphis (Tennessee ChanceryCourt), by a purported shareholder of Wright under the captionAnthony Marks as Trustee for Marks Clan Super v. Wright MedicalGroup, Inc., et al., CH-14-1721-1. An amended complaint in theaction was filed on January 7, 2015. On February 23, 2015, theplaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action, as pending in theTennessee Chancery Court, without prejudice. Later on February 23,2015, the plaintiff refiled the action in the Delaware ChanceryCourt under the caption Anthony Marks as Trustee for Marks ClanSuper v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10706-CB.The complaint names as defendants Wright, the Company, Holdco,Merger Sub and the members of the Wright board of directors. Thecomplaint asserts various causes of action, including, among otherthings, that the members of the Wright board of directors breachedtheir fiduciary duties owed to the Wright shareholders inconnection with entering into the merger agreement, approving themerger, and causing Wright to issue a preliminary Form S-4 thatallegedly fails to disclose material information about the merger.The complaint further alleges that Wright, the Company, Holdco andMerger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciaryduties by the Wright board of directors. The plaintiff is seeking,among other things, injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding themerger and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.On March 2, 2015, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated PaulParshall v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10400-CB,and Anthony Marks as Trustee for Marks Clan Super v. WrightMedical Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10706-CB, under the captionIn re Wright Medical Group, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No.10400-CB (Consolidated Delaware Action).On November 26, 2014, a third class action complaint was filed inthe Circuit Court of Tennessee, for the Thirtieth JudicialDistrict, at Memphis (the \"Tennessee Circuit Court\"), by apurported shareholder of Wright under the caption City of WarwickRetirement System v. Gary D. Blackford et al., CT-005015-14. Anamended complaint in the action was filed on January 5, 2015. Theamended complaint names as defendants Wright, the Company, Holdco,Merger Sub and the members of the Wright board of directors. Theamended complaint asserts various causes of action, including,among other things, that the members of the Wright board ofdirectors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Wrightshareholders in connection with entering into the mergeragreement, approving the merger, and causing Wright to issue apreliminary Form S-4 that allegedly fails to disclose materialinformation about the merger. The amended complaint furtheralleges that the Company, Holdco and Merger Sub aided and abettedthe alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Wright board ofdirectors. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things,injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the merger and an awardof attorneys' fees and costs.On December 2, 2014, a fourth class action complaint was filed inthe Tennessee Chancery Court by a purported shareholder of Wrightunder the caption Paulette Jacques v. Wright Medical Group, Inc.,et al., CH-14-1736-1. An amended complaint in the action was filedon January 27, 2015. The amended complaint names as defendantsWright, the Company, Holdco, Merger Sub, Warburg Pincus LLC andthe members of the Wright board of directors. The amendedcomplaint asserts various causes of action, including, among otherthings, that the members of the Wright board of directors breachedtheir fiduciary duties owed to the Wright shareholders inconnection with entering into the merger agreement, approving themerger, and causing Wright to issue a preliminary Form S-4 thatallegedly fails to disclose material information about the merger.The amended complaint further alleges that Wright, the Company,Warburg Pincus, Holdco and Merger Sub aided and abetted thealleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Wright board ofdirectors. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things,injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the merger and an awardof attorneys' fees and costs.On March 24, 2015, a fifth class action complaint was filed in theDelaware Chancery Court, by a purported shareholder of Wrightunder the caption Michael Prince v. Robert J. Palmisano, et al.,C.A. No. 10829-CB. The complaint asserts various causes of action,including, among other things, that the members of the Wrightboard of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to theWright shareholders in connection with entering into the mergeragreement, approving the merger, and causing Wright to issue apreliminary Form S-4 that allegedly fails to disclose materialinformation about the merger. The complaint further alleges thatWright, the Company, Holdco and Merger Sub aided and abetted thealleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Wright board ofdirectors. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things,injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the merger and an awardof attorneys' fees and costs. In an order dated May 22, 2015, theDelaware Chancery Court consolidated the Prince action into theConsolidated Delaware Action.In an order dated March 31, 2015, the Tennessee Circuit Courttransferred City of Warwick Retirement System v. Gary D. Blackfordet al., CT-005015-14 to the Tennessee Chancery Court forconsolidation with Paulette Jacques v. Wright Medical Group, Inc.,et al., CH-14-1736-1 (Consolidated Tennessee Action). In an orderdated April 9, 2015, the Tennessee Chancery Court stayed theConsolidated Tennessee Action pending completion of the merger.On May 28, 2015, the parties to the Consolidated Delaware Actionreached an agreement-in-principle to settle the cases, which hasbeen memorialized in a memorandum of understanding. In connectionwith the contemplated settlement, Wright and the Company agreed tomake certain supplemental disclosures in the Company's publicly-filed Securities and Exchange Commission Form S-4 registrationstatement, which were sought by the plaintiffs in connection withthe Consolidated Delaware Action. The parties to the ConsolidatedDelaware Action also expect that, in connection with thecontemplated settlement, counsel for plaintiffs will make anapplication for an award of attorneys' fees. The contemplatedsettlement will be subject to customary conditions, includingcompletion of appropriate settlement documentation, approval bythe court, notice to the class and a hearing, and consummation ofthe merger. There can be no assurance that the contemplatedsettlement will be finalized or that court approval will begranted.None of the lawsuits has formally specified an amount of allegeddamages. As a result, the Company is unable to reasonably estimatethe possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from thelawsuits. If any injunctive relief sought in these lawsuits wereto be granted, it could delay or prohibit the closing of themerger. The Company believes that these lawsuits are withoutmerit.In the opinion of management, as of June 28, 2015, the amount ofliability, if any, with respect to these matters, individually orin the aggregate, will not materially affect the Company'sconsolidated results of operations or financial position.TOTAL MAINTENANCE: Faces \"Paganas\" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT--------------------------------------------------------------Anthony Paganas v. Total Maintenance Solution, LLC, Aron Weber andReggie Tartagglione, Case No. 1:15-cv-05424(E.D.N.Y., September21, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to payovertime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.Total Maintenance Solution, LLC is a domestic limited liabilitycompany duly organized and existing under and by virtue of thelaws of the State of New York.The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Powers, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT S. POWERS 1540 August Road North Babylon, NY 11703 Telephone: (613) 940-7121TOTAL THRU: Faces \"Clinkingbeard\" Suit over Failure to Pay OT-------------------------------------------------------------Ehren Clinkingbeard, on behalf of himself and on behalf of allothers similarly situated v. Total Thru Tubing Services, LLC, CaseNo. 5:15-cv-00823 (W.D. Tex., September 18, 2015), is broughtagainst the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for workin excess of 40 hours per week.Total Thru Tubing Services, LLC is an oilfield services companythat provides fishing services, through tubing, and milling.The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 711 W. Alabama St. Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: [email protected] & TRUJILLO: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Action Claims-------------------------------------------------------------Alejandro Maldonado, on behalf of himself and all other similarlysituated persons, known and unknown, v. Trujillo & Trujillo Corp.,d/b/a Tacos & Burritos Rancho Grande, and Jorge A. Trujillo, CaseNo. 1:15-cv-08236 (N.D. Ill., September 20, 2015), is broughtagainst the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage rate andovertime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 3444 RidgeRoad, Lansing, Illinois.The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 800-1017 E-mail: [email protected] CLEARVIEW: Faces \"Lan\" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime------------------------------------------------------------Doun Fuh Lan, individually and on behalf all other employeessimilarly situated v. UCT Clearview Restaurant Corp. d/b/a PekingHouse, Lung Gang Chen, Annie Wang, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10,Case No. 1:15-cv-05456 (E.D.N.Y., September 21, 2015), is broughtagainst the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage rate andovertime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.The Defendants own and operate Peking House restaurant located at185-23 Union Turnpike, Flushing, New York 11366 from April 2008 toApril 2014.The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC. 136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 E-mail: [email protected] PACIFIC: Faces \"Jaramillo\" Trespassing Suit in Nevada-----------------------------------------------------------Sergio M. Jaramillo, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, SFPP, L.P. f/k/a SantaFe Pacific Pipelines, Inc., Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. \"D\", andKinder Morgan G.P., Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00478-HDM-VPC (D. Nev.,September 18, 2015), is a class action that seeks to recover tothe class of Nevada property owners unpaid rents, damages, andinterest, as a result of the Defendant's trespass upon the class'sreal property and wrongful occupation with the railroad to use thesubsurface of the railroad right-of-way.The Defendants operate a subterranean petroleum pipeline that runsbeneath the right-of-way of the Union Pacific Railroad Companythrough El Paso County, Texas.The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. O'Mara, Esq. THE O'MARA LAW FIRM, P.C. 311 East Liberty Street Reno, Nevada 89501 Telephone: (775) 323-1321 Facsimile: (775) 323-4082 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Francis A. Bottini Jr., Esq. Albert Y. Chang, Esq. Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 914-2001 Facsimile: (858) 914-2002 E-mail: [email protected] OF CALIFORNIA: Regents Face Suit Over Data Breach------------------------------------------------------------Cyrus Jenani and Donna Arnds, on behalf of themselves and allothers similarly situated v. The Regents of the University ofCalifornia and Does 1through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC595049(Cal. Super., September 18, 2015), arises out of the Defendants'negligence and failure to exercise reasonable care in safeguardingand protecting the Plaintiffs' and Class members' personallyidentifiable information and medical records and private healthinformation.The Regents of the University of California administers variousmedical facilities within the University of California includingthe various components of UCLA Health such as Ronald Reagan UCLAMedical Center, UCLA Medical Center, Santa Monica, ResnickNeuropsychiatric Hospital at UCLA, Mattel Children's HospitalUCLA, and the UCLA Medical Group with a wide-reaching system ofprimary-care and specialty-care offices throughout southernCalifornia.The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce A. Broillet, Esq. Scott H. Carr, Esq. GREENE BROILLET & WHEELER, LLP 100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2100, P.O. Box 2131 Santa Monica, CA 90407-2131 Telephone: (310) 576-1200 Facsimile: (310) 570-1220 - and - Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 733 Summer Street, Suite 304 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (866) 367-6510 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] MILITARY: Veterans Used In Secret Experiments Files Class Suit------------------------------------------------------------------Caitli Dickerson, writing for NPR, reportd that American servicemembers used in chemical and biological testing have somequestions: What exactly were they exposed to? And how is itaffecting their health?Tens of thousands of troops were used in testing conducted by theU.S. military between 1922 and 1975. As one Army scientistexplained, the military wanted to learn how to induce symptomssuch as \"fear, panic, hysteria, and hallucinations\" in enemysoldiers. Recruitment was done on a volunteer basis, but thedetails of the testing and associated risks were often withheldfrom those who signed up.Many of the veterans who served as test subjects have since died.But, those who are still alive are part of a class action lawsuitagainst the Army. If they're successful, the Army will have toexplain to anyone who was used in testing exactly what substancesthey were given and any known risks. The Army would also have toprovide those veterans with health care for any illnesses thatresult, in whole or in part, from the testing.The law firm representing the veterans estimates at least 70,000troops were used in the testing, including World War II veteransexposed to mustard gas, whom NPR reported on earlier this summer.Bill Blazinski has chronic lymphocytic leukemia, which he thinksmay have been caused by the military tests. He was 20 years oldwhen he volunteered in 1968.\"There would be a guaranteed three-day pass every weekend unlessyou had a test,\" he says. \"There would be no kitchen policeduties, no guard duties. And it sounded like a pretty good duty.\"What sounded more like a vacation than military duty quicklychanged, he says. In one test, doctors said they would inject himwith an agent and its antidote back to back.\"We were placed in individual padded cells. And you know the nurseleft and I'm looking at this padded wall and I knew it was solidbut all of a sudden started fluttering like a flag does up on aflag pole,\" he recalls.To learn about what substances made him hallucinate, in 2006,Blazinski requested the original test documents under the Freedomof Information Act. \"It showed an experimental antidote for nerveagent poisoning with known side effects, and another drug designedto reverse the effects of the first,\" he says.\"Researchers kept information about which agents they wereadministering from test subjects to avoid influencing the testresults. A lawyer representing the veterans, Ben Patterson of thelaw firm Morrison and Foerster, says that's a problem.\"They don't know what they were exposed to. You know, some ofthese substances were only referred to by code names,\" Pattersonsays.Code names such as CAR 302668. That's one of the agents, recordsshow, that researchers injected into Frank Rochelle in 1968.During one test, Rochelle remembers that the freckles on his armsand legs appeared to be moving. Thinking bugs had crawled underhis skin, he tried using a razor blade from his shaving kit to cutthem out. After that test, he says he hallucinated for 40 hours.\"There were animals coming out of the walls,\" he says. \"I saw ahuge rabbit and he was solid white with red eyes.\"In 1975, the Army's chief of medical research admitted to Congressthat he didn't have the funding to monitor test subjects' healthafter they went through the experiments. Since then, the militarysays it has ended all chemical and biological testing.Test subjects like Rochelle say that's not enough.\"We were assured that everything that went on inside the clinic,we were going to be under 100 percent observation; they were goingto do nothing to harm us,\" he says. \"And also we were sure that wewould be taken care of afterwards if anything happened. Instead wewere left to hang out to dry.\"The Department of Justice is representing the Army in the case anddeclined to comment for this story. In June, an appeals courtruled in favor of the veterans. The Army filed for a rehearing.US SECURITY: Sued Over Failure to Reimburse Job-Related Expenses----------------------------------------------------------------Mohamad Fatchmahamad, individually, and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc., Case No.709766 (N.Y. Super., September 17, 2105), seeks to recoversecurity guards' job-related expenses such as their costs andexpenses for cleaning and maintaining work uniforms, maximumliquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs of theaction, pursuant to New York Labor Law.U.S. Security, Inc. is engaged in the business of providingsecurity services within New York State, throughout the UnitedStates and internationally.The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740-1000 Facsimile: (718) 740-2000- E-mail: [email protected] GROUP: Faces \"Karcsay\" Suit Over Defeat Devices----------------------------------------------------------Paul Karcsay, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarlysituated individuals v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., CaseNo. 3:15-cv-02110-BAS-MDD (S.D. Cal., September 21, 2015), isbrought on behalf of all persons in California who purchased orleased any Volkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with 2.0 liter TDIdiesel engines, known as \"defeat devices\", which illegallymanipulate the emissions control systems and misrepresent theClass Vehicles' emissions during emissions testing.Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business ofdesigning, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and sellingautomobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle componentsthroughout the United States of America.The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. Robert K. Friedl, Esq. Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Capstone Law APC 1840 Century Park East, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] GROUP: Faces \"Benipayo\" Suit Over Defeat Devices-----------------------------------------------------------Nicholas Benipayo, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,Case No. 4:15-cv-04314-DMR (N.D. Cal., September 21, 2015), isbrought on behalf of all persons in California who purchased orleased any Volkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with 2.0 liter TDIdiesel engines, known as \"defeat devices\", which illegallymanipulate the emissions control systems and misrepresent theClass Vehicles' emissions during emissions testing.Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business ofdesigning, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and sellingautomobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle componentsthroughout the United States of America.The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] - and - Peter B. Fredman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER FREDMAN 125 University Avenue, Suite 102 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 868-2626 Facsimile: (510) 868-2627 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: [email protected] GROUP: Faces \"Johnson\" Suit Over Defeat Devices----------------------------------------------------------Michael E. Johnson Sr. and Michael E. Johnson Jr. on behalf ofthemselves and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Groupof America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07394 (C.D. Cal., September 21,2015), is brought on behalf of all persons in California whopurchased or leased any Volkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with2.0 liter TDI diesel engines, known as \"defeat devices\", whichillegally manipulate the emissions control systems andmisrepresent the Class Vehicles' emissions during emissionstesting.Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business ofdesigning, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and sellingautomobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle componentsthroughout the United States of America.The Plaintiff is represented by: Eli R. Greenstein, Esq. Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 400-3000 Facsimile: (415) 400-3001 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] - and - Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Darren J. Check, Esq. Peter A. Muhic, Esq. Naumon A. Amjed, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] GROUP: Faces \"Bennett\" Suit Over Defeat Devices----------------------------------------------------------David A. Bennett, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.3:15-cv-02106-LAB-JMA (N.D. Cal., September 21, 2015), is broughton behalf of all persons in California who purchased or leased anyVolkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with 2.0 liter TDI dieselengines, known as \"defeat devices\", which illegally manipulate theemissions control systems and misrepresent the Class Vehicles'emissions during emissions testing.Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business ofdesigning, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and sellingautomobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle componentsthroughout the United States of America.The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander M. Schack, Esq. Natasha A. Naraghi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER M. SHACK 16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 485-6535 Facsimile: (858) 485-0608 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] GROUP: Faces \"Bricker\" Suit Over Defeat Devices----------------------------------------------------------Christopher Bricker, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.3:15-cv-01785-PK (D. Oreg., September 20, 2015), is brought onbehalf of all persons in Oregano who purchased or leased anyVolkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with 2.0 liter TDI dieselengines, known as \"defeat devices\", which illegally manipulate theemissions control systems and misrepresent the Class Vehicles'emissions during emissions testing.Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business ofdesigning, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and sellingautomobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle componentsthroughout the United States of America.The Plaintiff is represented by: David F. Sugerman, Esq. DAVID F. SUGERMAN ATTORNEY, PC 707 SW Washington Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: (503) 228-6474 Facsimile: (503) 228-2556 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Tim Alan Quenelle, Esq. TIM QUENELLE, PC 4248 Galewood St Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone (503) 675-4330 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. Gabe A. Hawkins, Esq. Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] GROUP: Faces \"D'Angelo\" Suit Over Defeat Devices-----------------------------------------------------------Christopher J. D'Angelo, an individual on behalf of himself andall others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America,Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07390 (C.D. Cal., September 21, 2015), isbrought on behalf of all persons in California who purchased orleased any Volkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with 2.0 liter TDIdiesel engines, known as \"defeat devices\", which illegallymanipulate the emissions control systems and misrepresent theClass Vehicles' emissions during emissions testing.Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business ofdesigning, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and sellingautomobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle componentsthroughout the United States of America.The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Vendler, Esq. Kevin M. Pollack, Esq. MORRIS POLICH & PURDY LLP 1055 West Seventh Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 417-5100 Facsimile: (213) 488-1178 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] GROUP: Faces \"Redmond\" Suit Over Defeat Devices----------------------------------------------------------Michelle Davis Redmond, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.5:15-cv-01648-MHH (N.D. Ala., September 21, 2015), is brought onbehalf of all persons in Alabama who purchased or leased anyVolkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with 2.0 liter TDI dieselengines, known as \"defeat devices\", which illegally manipulate theemissions control systems and misrepresent the Class Vehicles'emissions during emissions testing.Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business ofdesigning, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and sellingautomobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle componentsthroughout the United States of America.The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Anthony Mastando, Esq. Eric J. Artrip, Esq. MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC 301 Washington St., Suite 302 Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 532-2222 Facsimile: (256) 513-7489 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] GROUP: Faces \"Dorn\" Suit in Ill. Over Defeat Devices---------------------------------------------------------------Micah Dorn and Peter Haralovich, individually and asrepresentatives of all similarly situated persons v. VolkswagenGroup of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-08286 (N.D. Ill.,September 21, 2015), is brought on behalf of all persons inIllinois who purchased or leased any Volkswagen or Audi vehiclesequipped with 2.0 liter TDI diesel engines, known as \"defeatdevices\", which illegally manipulate the emissions control systemsand misrepresent the Class Vehicles' emissions during emissionstesting.Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business ofdesigning, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and sellingautomobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle componentsthroughout the United States of America.The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Clifford, Esq. Shannon M. McNulty, Esq. Edward R. Moor, Esq. CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C. 120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 899-9090 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] GROUP: Faces \"Dell'Aquila\" Suit Over Defeat Devices--------------------------------------------------------------Jorge Dell'Aquila and Carrie Ullmer, individually and on behalf ofall others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America,Inc., et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01525 (C.D. Cal., September 21,2015), is brought on behalf of all persons in California whopurchased or leased any Volkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with2.0 liter TDI diesel engines, known as \"defeat devices\", whichillegally manipulate the emissions control systems andmisrepresent the Class Vehicles' emissions during emissionstesting.Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business ofdesigning, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and sellingautomobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle componentsthroughout the United States of America.The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Donahoo, Esq. Sarah L. Kokonas, Esq. Judith L. Camilleri, Esq. DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES 440 West First Street, Suite 101 Tustin, CA 92780 Telephone: (714) 953-1010 Facsimile: (714) 953-1777 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] GROUP: Faces \"Lau\" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices--------------------------------------------------------------Warren Lau and Elaine Herman, on behalf of themselves and allothers similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. andVolkswagen AG, Case No. 5:15-cv-04302-HRL (N.D. Cal., September21, 2015), et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01525 (C.D. Cal., September21, 2015), is brought on behalf of all persons in California whopurchased or leased any Volkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with2.0 liter TDI diesel engines, known as \"defeat devices\", whichillegally manipulate the emissions control systems andmisrepresent the Class Vehicles' emissions during emissionstesting.Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business ofdesigning, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and sellingautomobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle componentsthroughout the United States of America.Volkswagen AG is a German corporation and the parent company ofVolkswagen Group of America, Inc.The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Andre M. Mura, Esq. Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq. Steve Lopez, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1125 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] - and - Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq. Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. Shiho Yamamoto, Esq. PRITZKER LEVINE LLP 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 692-0772 Facsimile: (415) 366-6110 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] GROUP: Faces \"Levin\" Suit in N.Y. Over Defeat Devices----------------------------------------------------------------Ari Levin, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situatedv. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-06985-JLL-JAD (D.N.Y., September 21, 2015), is brought on behalf of allpersons in New York who purchased or leased any Volkswagen or Audivehicles equipped with 2.0 liter TDI diesel engines, known as\"defeat devices\", which illegally manipulate the emissions controlsystems and misrepresent the Class Vehicles' emissions duringemissions testing.Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business ofdesigning, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and sellingautomobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle componentsthroughout the United States of America.The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay J. Rice, Esq. Bruce H. Nagel, Esq. Diane E. Sammons, Esq. Randee Matloff, Esq. NAGEL RICE, LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 618-0400 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] GROUP: Faces \"Lowrance\" Suit Over Defeat Devices-----------------------------------------------------------Lisa K. Lowrance, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc.,Volkswagen AG, Autonation V. Imports of Delray Beach, LLC, CaseNo. 0:15-cv-61993-UU (S.D. Fla., September 21, 2015), is broughton behalf of all persons in Florida who purchased or leased anyVolkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with 2.0 liter TDI dieselengines, known as \"defeat devices\", which illegally manipulate theemissions control systems and misrepresent the Class Vehicles'emissions during emissions testing.Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business ofdesigning, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and sellingautomobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle componentsthroughout the United States of America.Volkswagen AG is a German corporation and the parent company ofVolkswagen Group of America, Inc.The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq. Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq. Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq. SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A. 1212 SE Third Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 320-9507 Facsimile: (954) 320-9509 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] GROUP: Faces \"McCabe\" Suit Over Defeat Devices---------------------------------------------------------Michael McCabe, Madelyne McCabe, Peter Armon, Regina Armon, ScottWetzel, Kristin Green, & Christopher Woods, individually and onbehalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group ofAmerica, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01930 (C.D. Cal., September 20,2015), is brought on behalf of all persons in California whopurchased or leased any Volkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with2.0 liter TDI diesel engines, known as \"defeat devices\", whichillegally manipulate the emissions control systems andmisrepresent the Class Vehicles' emissions during emissionstesting.Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business ofdesigning, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and sellingautomobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle componentsthroughout the United States of America.The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Preusch, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1129 State Street, Suite 8 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 Facsimile: (805) 456-1497 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Daniel P. Mensher, Esq. Ryan McDevitt, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] GROUP: Faces \"Mitsuda\" Suit Over Defeat Devices----------------------------------------------------------Todd Mitsuda, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen ofAmerica, Inc., Volkswagen AG, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,Case No. 2:15-cv-07375 (C.D. Cal., September 21, 2015), is broughton behalf of all persons in California who purchased or leased anyVolkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with 2.0 liter TDI dieselengines, known as \"defeat devices\", which illegally manipulate theemissions control systems and misrepresent the Class Vehicles'emissions during emissions testing.Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen of America, Inc.are engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing,marketing, distributing, and selling automobiles and other motorvehicles and motor vehicle components throughout the United Statesof America.Volkswagen AG is the parent corporation of Volkswagen Group ofAmerica, Inc.The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard D. McCune, Esq. David C. Wright, Esq. Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, Esq. MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP 2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216 Redlands, CA 92374 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] - and - Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Facsimile: (610) 649-3633 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] GROUP: Faces \"Netkin\" Suit Over Defeat Devices---------------------------------------------------------Gerald Netkin, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarlysituated individuals v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., and Does 1 to10, Case No. 2:15-cv-07367 (C.D. Cal., September 21, 2015), isbrought on behalf of all persons in California who purchased orleased any Volkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with 2.0 liter TDIdiesel engines, known as \"defeat devices\", which illegallymanipulate the emissions control systems and misrepresent theClass Vehicles' emissions during emissions testing.Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen of America, Inc.are engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing,marketing, distributing, and selling automobiles and other motorvehicles and motor vehicle components throughout the United Statesof America.The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Starr, Esq. Adam Rose, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR, APC 23277 Ventura Boulevard Woodland Hills, CA 91364-1002 Telephone: (818) 225-9040 Facsimile: (818) 225-9042 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] - and - Stephen M. Harris, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN M. HARRIS, APC 6320 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1500 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 924-3103 Facsimile: (818) 924-3079 E-mail: [email protected] GROUP: Faces \"Walker\" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices-----------------------------------------------------------------Keith Walker, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG,Case No. 2:15-cv-07395 (C.D. Cal., September 21, 2015), is broughton behalf of all persons in California who purchased or leased anyVolkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with 2.0 liter TDI dieselengines, known as \"defeat devices\", which illegally manipulate theemissions control systems and misrepresent the Class Vehicles'emissions during emissions testing.Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen of America, Inc.are engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing,marketing, distributing, and selling automobiles and other motorvehicles and motor vehicle components throughout the United Statesof America.Volkswagen AG is the parent corporation of Volkswagen Group ofAmerica, Inc.The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Andre M. Mura, Esq. Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq. Steve Lopez, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1125 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] - and - Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq. Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. Shiho Yamamoto, Esq. PRITZKER LEVINE LLP 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 692-0772 Facsimile: (415) 366-6110 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] GROUP: Faces Warren Suit in Ala. Over Defeat Devices---------------------------------------------------------------Warren Manufacturing Incorporated, Warren Truck and TrailerIncorporated, Warren Incorporated, Warren Truck and Trailer LLC,individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01655-JHE(N.D. Ala., September 21, 2015), is brought on behalf of allpersons in Alabama who purchased or leased any Volkswagen or Audivehicles equipped with 2.0 liter TDI diesel engines, known as\"defeat devices\", which illegally manipulate the emissions controlsystems and misrepresent the Class Vehicles' emissions duringemissions testing.Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen of America, Inc.are engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing,marketing, distributing, and selling automobiles and other motorvehicles and motor vehicle components throughout the United Statesof America.The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq. Christopher Hood, Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 2224 First Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 326-3336 Facsimile: (205) 326-3332 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] - and - James F. McDonough III, Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 996-0869 Facsimile: (205) 326-3332 E-mail: [email protected] GROUP: Illegally Installs Defeat Device, Suit Claims---------------------------------------------------------------David Fiol, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situatedv. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-04278 (N.D.Cal., September 18, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's allegedillegal installation of defeat device in the MY 2009-2015 VWJetta, MY 2009-2015 VW Beetle, MY 2009-2015 VW Golf, MY 2014-2015VW Passat, and MY 2009-2015 Audi A3 vehicles.The defeat device reduces the effectiveness of emissions controlsystem during normal driving conditions.Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. manufactures, distributes, sell,leases, and warrants vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brandnames throughout the United States.The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Peter B. Fredman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER FREDMAN 125 University Ave, Suite 102 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 868-2626 Facsimile: (510) 868-2627 E-mail: [email protected] GROUP: Faces \"Paparella\" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT---------------------------------------------------------------Vittorio Paparella, individually, and on behalf of other membersof the general public similarly situated v. The Washington Group,LLC and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC594871 (Del.Super., September 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants forfailure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California LaborCode.The Washington Group, LLC is a California limited liabilitycompany doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State ofCalifornia.The Plaintiff is represented by: Christian S. Molnar, Esq. Ruzan Stepanyan, Esq. CHRISTIAN S. MOLNAR LAW CORPORATION 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1180 Los Angeles, CA 9025 Telephone: (310) 820-9900 Facsimile: (310) 820-9926 E-mail: [email protected] WATER: Plaintiffs in \"Ponzo\" Case Filed Consolidated Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Watts Water Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, forthe quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that plaintiffs in thethree actions have filed a consolidated amended complaint, Ponzov. Watts Regulator Co., in the United States District Court forthe District of Massachusetts.In November and December 2014, Watts Water Technologies, Inc. andWatts Regulator Co. were named as defendants in three separateputative nationwide class action complaints (Meyers v. Watts WaterTechnologies, Inc., United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of Ohio; Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co., United StatesDistrict Court for the District of Massachusetts; Sharp v. WattsRegulator Co., United States District Court for the District ofMassachusetts) seeking to recover damages and other relief basedon the alleged failure of water heater connectors.On June 26, 2015, plaintiffs in the three actions filed aconsolidated amended complaint, Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co., inthe United States District Court for the District ofMassachusetts. The complaint seeks among other items, damages inan unspecified amount, replacement costs, injunctive relief,declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.WATTS WATER: Plaintiffs in \"Klug\" Case Filed Amended Complaint--------------------------------------------------------------Watts Water Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, forthe quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, plaintiffs in Klug v.Watts Water Technologies, Inc., et al., have filed an amendedcomplaint.In February 2015, Watts Water Technologies, Inc. and WattsRegulator Co. were named as defendants in a putative nationwideclass action complaint (Klug v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc., etal., United States District Court for the District of Nebraska)seeking to recover damages and other relief based on the allegedfailure of the Company's Floodsafe connectors. On June 26, 2015,the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss the complaint. Inresponse, on July 17, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint,Klug v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc., et al., United StatesDistrict Court for the District of Nebraska. The complaint seeksamong other items, damages in an unspecified amount, injunctiverelief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.WEC ENERGY: Preliminary Settlement Approval Hearing Held--------------------------------------------------------WEC Energy Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the litigationrelating to the acquisition of Integrys, a court was slated tohold a hearing for September 8, 2015 for preliminary approval ofthe settlement.Since the announcement of the acquisition, Integrys and its boardof directors, along with WEC Energy Group, have been named asdefendants in ten separate purported class action lawsuits filedin Brown County, Wisconsin (three of the cases -- Rubin v.Integrys, et al., Blachor v. Integrys, et al., and Albera v.Integrys, et al.), Milwaukee County, Wisconsin (two of the cases -- Amo v. Integrys, et al. and Inman v. Integrys, et al.), CookCounty, Illinois (two of the cases - Taxman v. Integrys, et al.and Curley v. Integrys, et al.), and the federal court for theNorthern District of Illinois (three of the cases - Steiner v.Integrys, et al., Tri-State Joint Fund v. Integrys, et al., andCollison v. Integrys, et al.).In the Tri-State Joint Fund case, WEC Energy Group's CEO was alsonamed as a defendant. The cases were brought on behalf of proposedclasses consisting of shareholders of Integrys. The complaintsallege, among other things, that the Integrys board membersbreached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize the valueto be received by Integrys' shareholders, that WEC Energy Groupaided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty, and that thejoint proxy statement/prospectus contains material misstatementsand omissions.The Brown County and Cook County cases have been dismissed infavor of the Milwaukee County actions.On November 12, 2014, the parties entered into a Memorandum ofUnderstanding which provides the basis for a complete settlementof these actions. A Stipulation of Settlement was presented to theCourt in late July 2015.The Court has scheduled a hearing for September 8, 2015 forpreliminary approval of the settlement.WELCH FOODS: Faces \"Atik\" Suit Over Alleged Product Misbranding---------------------------------------------------------------Aliza Atik and Winnie Lau, on behalf of themselves and all otherssimilarly situated v. Welch Foods, Inc. and The Promotion inMotion Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-05405 (E.D.N.Y.,September 18, 2015), seeks redress for the Defendants' deceptivepractices in misrepresenting the fruit content and the nutritionaland health qualities of Welch's fruit snacks.Welch Foods, Inc. is a Michigan corporation that manufacturesgrape juices, jams and jellies.The Promotion in Motion Companies, Inc. is a maker of fruitsnacks, fruit rolls, and private label confections and foodproducts.The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim E. Richman, Esq. THE RICHMAN LAW GROUP 195 Plymouth Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (212) 687-8291 Facsimile: (212) 687-8292 E-mail: [email protected] - and - Stephen Gardner, Esq. Amanda Howell, Esq. STANLEY LAW GROUP 6116 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 443-4300 Facsimile: (214) 443-0358 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] GLIMCHER: Paid Plaintiffs' Fee Award and Expenses----------------------------------------------------WP Glimcher Inc. has paid the plaintiffs' fee award and expensesin the aggregate amount of $443,000 in a class action lawsuit, theCompany said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly periodended June 30, 2015.Two shareholder lawsuits challenging the Merger-relatedtransactions have been filed in Maryland state court, respectivelycaptioned Zucker v. Glimcher Realty Trust et al., 24-C-14-005675(Circ. Ct. Baltimore City), filed on October 2, 2014, and Motschv. Glimcher Realty Trust et al., 24-C-14-006011 (Circ. Ct.Baltimore City), filed on October 23, 2014. The actions wereconsolidated, and on November 12, 2014 plaintiffs filed aconsolidated shareholder class action and derivative complaint,captioned In re Glimcher Realty Trust Shareholder Litigation, 24-C-14-005675 (Circ. Ct. Baltimore City) (the \"ConsolidatedAction\"). The Consolidated Action names as defendants the thenmembers of the Glimcher Board of Trustees (the \"trustees\"), andalleges these defendants breached fiduciary duties. Specifically,plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action allege that the trustees ofGlimcher agreed to sell Glimcher for inadequate consideration andagreed to improper deal protection provisions that precluded otherbidders from making successful offers. Plaintiffs further allegethat the sales process was flawed and conflicted in severalrespects, including the allegation that the trustees failed tocanvas the market for potential buyers, failed to secure a \"go-shop\" provision in the merger agreement allowing Glimcher to seekalternative bids after signing the merger agreement, and wereimproperly influenced by WPG's early suggestion that the survivingentity would remain headquartered in Ohio and would retain asignificant portion of Glimcher management, including theretention of Michael Glimcher as CEO of the surviving entity andpositions for Michael Glimcher and another trustee of Glimcher onthe board of the surviving entity. Plaintiffs in the ConsolidatedAction additionally allege that the Preliminary RegistrationStatement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the\"SEC\") on October 28, 2014, failed to disclose materialinformation concerning, among other things, (i) the processleading up to the consummation of the Merger Agreement; (ii) thefinancial analyses performed by Glimcher's financial advisors; and(iii) certain financial projections prepared by Glimcher and WPGmanagement allegedly relied on by Glimcher's financial advisors.The Consolidated Action also names as defendants Glimcher, WPG andcertain of their affiliates, and alleges that these defendantsaided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty.Plaintiffs sought, among other things, an order enjoining orrescinding the transaction, damages, and an award of attorney'sfees and costs.On December 22, 2014, defendants, including the Company, in theConsolidated Action, by and through counsel, entered into amemorandum of understanding (the \"MOU\") with plaintiffs in theConsolidated Action providing for the settlement of theConsolidated Action. Under the terms of the MOU, and to avoid theburden and expense of further litigation, the Company and Glimcheragreed to make certain supplemental disclosures related to thethen-proposed Merger, all of which were set forth in a CurrentReport on Form 8-K filed by Glimcher with the SEC on December 23,2014. On January 12, 2015, at the Special Meeting of Glimchershareholders, the shareholders voted to approve the Merger, and onJanuary 15, 2015 the Merger closed.The MOU contemplated that the parties would enter into astipulation of settlement. The parties entered into such astipulation on March 30, 2015. The stipulation of settlement wassubject to customary conditions, including court approvalfollowing notice to Glimcher's common shareholders. Additionally,in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate thatplaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the Circuit Court forBaltimore City for an award of attorneys' fees in an amount not toexceed $425,000 and reasonable, documented expenses in an amountnot to exceed $20,000, to be paid by the Company. Accordingly, theCompany accrued $445,000 related to this matter, which expense isincluded in merger and transaction costs for the six months endedJune 30, 2015 in the accompanying consolidated and combinedstatements of operations and comprehensive income.On June 17, 2015, plaintiffs' counsel requested a fee award of$425,000 plus expenses of $18,000, which amounts are covered byour accrual. A hearing was held on July 17, 2015 at which theCircuit Court for Baltimore City considered the fairness,reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. Following thehearing, the court issued an Order and Final Judgment approvingthe settlement and dismissing the Consolidated Action. The Orderand Final Judgment approved plaintiffs' fee award and expenses inthe aggregate amount of $443,000, which the Company paid on July23, 2015.ZILLOW GROUP: 2 Class Actions Filed Against Directors-----------------------------------------------------Zillow Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, that in July2015, two purported class action lawsuits were filed againstZillow Group, Inc. and each of our directors in the Superior Courtof the State of Washington in King County, alleging, among otherthings, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties inconnection with the approval of the issuance of non-voting Class Ccapital stock as a dividend, previously announced on July 21, 2015(the \"Class C Dividend\"). The complaints seek, among other things,injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages.A hearing was held on August 5, 2015 regarding the plaintiffs'motion seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin the issuance ofthe Class C Dividend. On August 5, 2015, the court deniedplaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. As a result andas previously announced, holders of Zillow Group Class A commonstock and Class B common stock as of the close of business on July31, 2015, the record date for the dividend, will receive on August14, 2015 a dividend of two shares of Class C capital stock foreach share of Class A and Class B common stock held by them as ofthe record date.\"On the first trading day following the issuance date of thedividend, we expect our Class C capital stock will trade,beginning on August 17, 2015, on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(\"NASDAQ\") under the symbol \"Z\" and our Class A common stock willtrade on the NASDAQ under the symbol \"ZG\",\" the Company said.ZULILY INC: \"Mao\" Suit Says Liberty Deal Undervalues Stock----------------------------------------------------------Scott Mao, and all others similarly-situated v. zulily, Inc.,Darrell Cavens, Mark Vadon, W. Eric Carlborg, John Geschke, MikeGupta, Youngme Moon, Michael Potter, Spencer Rascoff, LibertyInteractive Corporation, Mocha Merger Sub, Inc., and Ziggy MergerSub, LLC, Case No 2:15-cv-01479 (W.D. Wash., September 15, 2015),seeks to recover damages and injunctive relief under Sections14(d)4 , 14(e) and 20(a) of the securities Exchange Act of 1934.The stockholder class action arises out of an alleged conspiracyamong Zulily's co-founders and Board Members, who willcollectively make more than $1 billion should the materiallyincomplete and misleading Proposed Transaction that undervaluesZulily shares, is consummated.On August 17, 2015, zulily and Liberty jointly announced that theyhad reached a definitive Agreement and Plan of Reorganizationpursuant to which Liberty will commence an exchange offer toacquire all of zulily's outstanding common stock for considerationcomprised of: (i) $9.375 per share of zulily common stock in cash, and (ii) 0.3098 of a share of Liberty's Series A QVC Group CommonStock, plus cash in lieu of any fractional shares.The Complaint points out that while the Company's stock wentpublic at $22 per share in November 2013 and skyrocketed to $73.50in February 2014, the Company's stockholders now stand to receiveconsideration valued at only $18.75 a share.zulily is a Delaware corporation that maintains its principalexecutive offices in Seattle, Washington. The Company is an onlineretailer that focuses on selling merchandise to moms purchasingfor their children, themselves, and their homes. The Companyoffers its products through a flash sales model using its desktopand mobile websites and mobile applications.Defendant Darrell Cavens is one of zulily's co-founders, and hasserved as the Company's President, Chief Executive Officer and amember of the Board since October 2009. From July 2008 to October2009, Cavens served as a director at Microsoft Corporation. From1999 to 2008, Cavens held various positions at Blue Nile, anonline jewelry retailer. From 1996 to 1999, Cavens served as astaff engineer at Starwave Corp., a software and website companythat merged with InfoSeek Corporation, an internet search andnavigation company, and was later acquired by The Walt DisneyCompany. Cavens is a citizen of Washington.Defendant Mark Vadon is one of zulily's co-founders, has served asChairman of the Board since October 2009, and has been an employeeof the Company since July 2013. From 1999 to February 2008, Vadonwas Chief Executive Officer of Blue Nile, which he founded in1999. Vadon also served as Chairman of the board of directors ofBlue Nile from 1999 to December 2013. From 1992 to 1999, Vadon wasa consultant for Bain & Company, a management consulting firm.Vadon is also on the board of directors of The Home Depot Inc.Vadon is a citizen of Washington.Defendant W. Eric Carlborg has served as a member of the Boardsince October 2011. Since June 2010, Carlborg has served as apartner at August Capital, a venture capital firm. From April 2006to June 2010, Carlborg served as a partner at ContinentalInvestors LLC, an investment company. From 2005 to 2006, Carlborgserved as Chief Financial Officer of Provide Commerce, Inc., an e-commerce company. From 2001 to 2004, Carlborg was a managingdirector of investment banking with Merrill Lynch & Co. Carlborgpreviously served on the board of directors of Big Lots, Inc., adiscount chain of retail stores, and Blue Nile, Inc. Carlborg iscurrently on the board of directors of various privately heldcompanies. Carlborg is a citizen of California.Defendant John Geschke has served as a member of the Board sinceFebruary 2014. Since July 2012, Geschke has served as Senior VicePresident, General Counsel and Secretary of Zendesk, Inc., asoftware development company. From April 2010 to June 2012,Geschke served as General Counsel of Norwest Venture Partners, aventure capital firm. From March 1996 to April 1998 and from May1999 to March 2010, Geschke practiced law at Cooley LLP. Geschkeis a citizen of California.Defendant Mike Gupta has served as a member of the Board sinceJanuary 2015. Since September 2014, Gupta has served as SeniorVice President of Strategic Investments at Twitter, Inc. Prior tothat, Gupta served as Chief Financial Officer of Twitter fromDecember 2012 to August 2014 and as Vice President of CorporateFinance and Treasurer from November 2012 to December 2012. FromMay 2011 to November 2012, Gupta served in two roles at ZyngaInc., an online provider of social game services, including asSenior Vice President and Treasurer. From February 2003 to May2011, Gupta served in several roles at Yahoo! Inc. Gupta is acitizen of California.Defendant Youngme Moon has served as a member of the Board sinceJuly 2013. Moon is currently a dean and professor at HarvardBusiness School, where he joined the faculty in June 1998. From1997 to 1998, Moon was a professor at the Massachusetts Instituteof Technology. Moon is a citizen of Massachusetts.Defendant Michael Potter has served as a member of the Board sinceMarch 2011. From October 2011 to March 2012, Potter served aszulily's Chief Operating Officer. From 1991 to 2005, Potter heldvarious positions with Big Lots, most recently serving asChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer. Potter previouslyserved on the board of directors of Newegg Inc., an onlineretailer, Coldwater Creek Inc., a retailer of clothing andhousehold goods, and Big Lots. Potter also currently serves on theboard of directors of Blue Nile. Potter is a citizen of Oregon.Defendant Spencer Rascoff has served as a member of the Boardsince June 2013. Since September 2010, Rascoff has been the ChiefExecutive Officer of Zillow, Inc., a provider of real estate andhome-related information marketplaces. From 2003 to 2005, Rascoffserved as Vice President of Lodging for Expedia, Inc., an onlinetravel company. In 1999, Rascoff co-founded Hotwire, Inc., anonline travel company, and managed several of Hotwire's productlines before Hotwire was acquired in 2003 by IAC/InterActiveCorp,Expedia's parent company at the time. Rascoff is also on the boardof directors of Zillow, Julep Beauty Incorporated, an onlinebeauty brand company, and TripAdvisor Incorporated, a travelservices company. Rascoff faced conflicts of interest as a resultof his various board positions, and was thus purportedly requiredto recuse himself from discussions and deliberations of the Boardregarding the Proposed Transaction. Rascoff is a citizen ofWashington.Ziggy Merger Sub, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company anda direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Liberty, and was created forpurposes of effectuating the Proposed Transaction.Mocha Merger Sub, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and a direct,wholly owned subsidiary of Ziggy Merger Sub, LLC, and was createdfor purposes of effectuating the Proposed Transaction.QVC, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Liberty InteractiveCorporation, and is the world's leading video and ecommerceretailer. QVC sells its customers thousands of the most innovativeand contemporary beauty, fashion, jewelry and home products. Itsprogramming is distributed to approximately 340 million homesworldwide through operations in the U.S., Japan, Germany, UnitedKingdom, Italy, France and a joint venture in China. Based in WestChester, Pennsylvania and founded in 1986, QVC has evolved from aTV shopping company to a leading ecommerce and mobile commerceretailer.The Plaintiff is represented by: BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC Roger Townsend, Esq. 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206) 652-8660 Fax: (206) 652-8290 E-mail: [email protected] - and - POMERANTZ LLP Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq. Samuel J. Adams, Esq. 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] *********S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O NClass Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published byBankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. MarionAlcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552. * * * End of Transmission * * * ",
"URL": "http://bankrupt.com/CAR_Public/150929.mbx"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Dec 20, 2013, 7:15 AM SEC Charges Microsoft Exec With Insider Trading LinkedIn The SEC has brought insider trading charges against a senior manager at Microsoft, and a friend. The feds claim the pair made $US393,125 in 2012 by betting that Microsoft stock would go up after its fiscal Q1 2014 earnings, which were more than 14 per cent higher than estimates. Read the full complaint here . The pair are also accused of buying Barnes & Noble stock prior to an investment by Microsoft in B&N’s e-reader, the Nook. The Seattle Times has a great account of how the feds made their arrest : Former Microsoft senior manager Brian Jorgenson was home with his wife and four kids one day last month when the FBI showed up. “The doorbell rang and I went and opened it and there they were, about a dozen of them,” he said. They showed him a search warrant. Not wanting to frighten his children, ages 8, 5, 3 and an infant, Jorgensen led the entourage of agents into the family’s Lynnwood home. “I told my wife to gather up the kids,” he said. “The agents were nice enough to let them leave for a few hours.” Basically, as a finance manager inside Microsoft, Jorgenson, 32, would tip his friend, Sean T. Stokke to events at Microsoft and Stokke would trade on the information in advance of the news, prosecutors say. Jorgenson worked at Microsoft for three years and had a salary of $US130,000, the Seattle Times reported. He was a senior manager in the Treasury Group. The scheme was uncovered last month, and he was fired. The Times has this astonishing quote regarding his motive: He knew it was wrong, but he found reasons to look past that. “I lied to myself,” he said. He saw news stories about how members of Congress were allowed to pass on the sort of insider information that he couldn’t. “I told myself, ‘Members of Congress can do it.’ ” We’re updating this post as we go along. Here is the SEC’s press release: SEC CHARGES MICROSOFT SENIOR MANAGER AND FRIEND WITH INSIDER TRADING IN ADVANCE OF COMPANY NEWS Washington D.C., Dec. 19, 2013 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a senior portfolio manager at Microsoft Corporation and his friend and business partner with insider trading ahead of company announcements. The SEC alleges that Brian D. Jorgenson, who lives in Lynwood, Wash., obtained confidential information about upcoming company news through his work in Microsoft’s corporate finance and investments division. Jorgenson tipped Sean T. Stokke of Seattle in advance of the Microsoft announcements, the most recent occurring in October. After Stokke traded on the inside information that Jorgenson provided, the two equally split the illicit profits in their shared brokerage accounts. They made joint trading decisions with the goal of generating enough profits to create their own hedge fund. In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington today announced criminal charges against Jorgenson and Stokke. “Abusing access to Microsoft’s confidential information and generating unlawful trading profits is not a wise or legal business model for starting a hedge fund,” said Daniel M. Hawke, chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Market Abuse Unit and director of the SEC’s Philadelphia Regional Office. “We thwarted the misguided plans of Jorgenson and Stokke as they sought to illegally profit at others’ expense.” According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Jorgenson and Stokke made a combined $US393,125 in illicit profits in their scheme, which began in April 2012. The SEC alleges that Stokke first traded in advance of a public announcement that Microsoft intended to invest $US300 million in Barnes & Noble’s e-reader business. Jorgenson learned of the impending transaction after his department became involved in the financing aspects of the deal. Jorgenson tipped Stokke so he could purchase approximately $US14,000 worth of call options on Barnes & Noble common stock. Following a joint public announcement on April 30, Barnes & Noble’s stock price closed at $US20.75 per share, a 51.68 per cent increase from the previous day. Jorgenson and Stokke made nearly $US185,000 in ill-gotten trading profits. The SEC alleges that Stokke later traded in advance of Microsoft’s fourth-quarter earnings announcement in July 2013. As part of his duties at Microsoft, Jorgenson prepared a written analysis of how the market would react to the negative news that Microsoft’s fourth quarter earnings were more than 11 per cent below consensus estimates. He estimated that Microsoft’s stock price would decline by at least six per cent. Jorgenson tipped this confidential information to Stokke, who purchased almost $US50,000 worth of Microsoft options. After Microsoft’s announcement on July 18, its stock price declined more than 11 per cent the next day from $US35.44 to $US31.40 per share. Jorgenson and Stokke realised more than $US195,000 in illicit profits. According to the SEC’s complaint, Stokke traded in advance of another Microsoft announcement on Oct. 24, 2013. Jorgenson was aware that the company would be announcing first quarter 2014 earnings that were more than 14 per cent higher than consensus estimates. Rather than purchase Microsoft securities directly, Jorgenson and Stokke purchased more than $US45,000 worth of call options on an exchange-traded fund in which Microsoft comprised more than eight per cent of the fund’s holdings. Following the announcement, Microsoft’s share price increased nearly six per cent and the price of the ETF increased 0.51 per cent. Jorgenson and Stokke made approximately $US13,000 in illegal trading profits. Jorgenson and Stokke are charged with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, both directly and pursuant to 20(d) of the Exchange Act. The SEC seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, and financial penalties against Jorgenson and Stokke as well as an officer-and-director bar against Jorgenson. The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Brendan P. McGlynn, Patricia A. Paw, John S. Rymas, and Daniel L. Koster of the Philadelphia Regional Office. The SEC’s litigation will be led by John V. Donnelly and G. Jeffery Boujoukos. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Options Regulatory Surveillance Authority, and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Business Insider Emails & Alerts Site highlights each day to your inbox. Email Address Join Follow Business Insider Australia on Facebook , Twitter , LinkedIn , and Instagram .",
"URL": "https://www.businessinsider.com.au/sec-alleges-insider-trading-at-microsoft-2013-12"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": " Last Updated: August 16 2019 Article by Charles E. Duross, James M. Koukios, Julie A. Nicholson, Tola Adeseye and Vanshika VijMorrison & Foerster LLP Your LinkedIn Connections at Firm In order to provide an overview for busy in-house counsel and compliance professionals, we summarize below some of the most important international anti-corruption developments from the past month, with links to primary resources. This month we ask: What leadership changes were made in the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Unit? What made July such a busy month for news from the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO)? What did the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Working Group on Bribery have to say about Japan's foreign bribery enforcement record? The answers to these questions and more are here in our July 2019 Top 10 list. 1. Leadership Changes in DOJ's FCPA Unit. On July 29, 2019, DOJ FCPA Unit Chief Dan Kahn was promoted to Senior Deputy Chief of the Fraud Section, while FCPA Unit Assistant Chief Chris Cestaro was made acting FCPA Unit Chief. Kahn had been FCPA Unit Chief for just over three years, having been named Acting Unit Chief in March 2016 and permanent Unit Chief in June 2016. Cestaro was promoted to Assistant Chief in 2017, after serving as a trial attorney in the Fraud Section's Health Care Fraud and FCPA Units. Kahn is expected to stay involved with the FCPA Unit both in a supervisory capacity—as Senior Deputy Chief, Kahn will assist Fraud Section Chief Robert Zink in supervising the Unit—and in a more direct role—Kahn continues to serve as lead counsel in the prosecution of former Alstom executive Lawrence Hoskins, which is set for trial in September 2019 following the Second Circuit's August 2018 decision allowing DOJ to pursue an FCPA agency theory against Hoskins. 2. U.S. Technology Company and Its Hungarian Subsidiary Resolve FCPA Allegations in Hungary, Thailand, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. On July 22, 2019, SEC announced that Microsoft Corporation had agreed to pay approximately $16.6 million in disgorgement and pretrial interest to resolve FCPA accounting provision allegations in relation to its operations in Hungary, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, and Turkey. On the same day, DOJ announced that the company's Hungarian subsidiary had agreed to pay approximately $8.8 million in criminal penalties as part of a three-year non-prosecution agreement (NPA). The resolution documents allege a number of third-party issues, including allegations of sham or excessive discounts to third parties in Hungary, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. The SEC cease-and-desist order also includes an allegation of commercial bribery in Thailand, demonstrating again SEC's willingness to use the FCPA's accounting provisions to pursue more than suspected violations of the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions. The company neither admitted nor denied the allegations in the SEC order. 3. Two Colombians Charged in the United States in Connection with Venezuela Bribery Scheme. On July 25, 2019, DOJ announced an indictment in the Southern District of Florida charging Alex Nain Saab Moran (Saab) and Alvaro Pulido Vargas (Pulido) with conspiring to launder and laundering the proceeds of a bribery scheme in Venezuela. According to the announcement, the two Colombian citizens submitted false and fraudulent import documents for goods and materials that were purportedly to be used in connection with a November 2011 contract with the Venezuelan government to build low-income housing. Saab and Pulido allegedly bribed Venezuelan officials to approve the documents, allowing them to obtain U.S. dollars at a favorable rate through the Venezuelan government-controlled exchange rate. In addition to the money laundering charges, the indictment seeks forfeiture of the approximately $350 million in funds that the defendants allegedly transferred out of Venezuela, through the United States, to overseas accounts that they owned or controlled. 4. Update on Mozambique and Micronesia Bribery Prosecutions. Former Bank Managing Director Pleads Guilty in Connection with Mozambique Bribery Scheme. On July 19, 2019, Andrew Pearse pleaded guilty in the Eastern District of New York to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in connection with his role in an alleged bribery and investor fraud scheme involving $2 billion in loans to state-backed companies in Mozambique.1 Pearse also pleaded not guilty to other charges, including conspiracy to violate the anti-bribery and internal-controls provisions of the FCPA, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and securities fraud. Although the filings related to his plea are under seal, Pearse, who waived extradition from the United Kingdom to face U.S. charges, reportedly admitted to helping arrange bank loans to three companies owned and controlled by the Mozambican government and receiving millions of dollars in kickbacks in return. Pearse was indicted in January 2019, along with fellow Credit Suisse executives Detelina Subeva (who pleaded guilty in May 2019) and Surjan Singh. Micronesian Government Official Sentenced to Prison for Role in Laundering Bribe Payments. On July 30, 2019, DOJ announced that Master Halbert was sentenced to 18 months in prison, with three years of supervised release, for his role in laundering bribe payments he received from a Hawaii-based engineering and consulting company. Halbert, an official in the Federated States of Micronesia's Department of Transportation, Communications, and Infrastructure, previously pleaded guilty to a money laundering charge in April 2019, admitting that from 2006 to 2016, he and other Micronesian government officials were paid bribes by the Hawaiian company in order to obtain or retain government contracts valued at nearly $8 million. 5. UK Court Rejects Transportation Company's Request to Appeal Bribery Conviction. On July 23, 2019, the UK Court of Appeal upheld the 2018 conviction of Alstom Network UK Ltd. of one count of conspiracy to corrupt for making a €2.4 million bribe payment to a Canadian shell company to help secure an infrastructure and trams contract in Tunisia. Alstom argued that the trial judge gave insufficient directions to the jury on how to convict a corporate defendant when its \"directing minds\"—executives who can testify about their own knowledge and actions—are unable to attend the trial. The Court found that the SFO's decision not to charge the \"directing minds\" of the bribery scheme did not violate Alstom's right to a fair trial. According to the court, while the presence of a directing mind may be relevant to a case, the absence of a directing mind at trial by itself does not constitute an abuse of process. 6. UK Defendants Acquitted by Jury of Foreign Bribery Scheme, Depsite Corporate DPA Between Metals Company and SFO Regarding the Same Conduct. On July 16, 2019, the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) announced that a jury found Michael Sorby, Adrian Leek, and David Justice not guilty of conspiring with various agents to agree to bribes in relation to 27 separate overseas contracts for their employer, Sarclad Ltd., from 2004 to 2011. In its press release, the SFO confirmed that it had entered into a DPA with the company in July 2016. As part of the DPA, the company agreed to charges of corruption and failure to prevent bribery from 2004 to 2012, in connection with contracts valued at over £17 million. The DPA also required the company to fully cooperate with the SFO and fulfill certain reporting requirements for one year. 7.Former Oil Company Executive Pleads Guilty in the UK to Bribery Conspiracy. On July 19, 2019, the SFO announced that Basil Al Jarah, a former partner at Unaoil, had pleaded guilty to five charges of conspiracy to make corrupt payments. According to the SFO, the payments related to contracts to supply and install single-point moorings and oil pipelines in southern Iraq. The SFO announced charges against Al Jarah and others in November 2017 and May 2018. Three others charged alongside Al Jarah—Ziad Akle, Paul Bond, and Stephen Whiteley—are scheduled to face trial in January 2020. 8. Greece Convicts Three UK Nationals in Bribery Case Against Medical Device Company. On July 29, 2019, the Athens criminal court in Greece convicted 13 individuals of offenses, including fraud and money laundering, in connection with alleged corruption in state hospital purchases from DePuy, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson (J&J). The charges stem from state hospital procurements between 2000 and 2006, during which time the Greek government was allegedly overcharged by approximately €11.5 million. The convicted individuals included several Greek hospital doctors, who allegedly accepted bribes to prescribe orthopedic products, as well as three UK nationals, all former DePuy executives, who received sentences of seven years in prison, which are suspended pending appeal. The court also acquitted seven people in the same case. In 2011, J&J resolved related FCPA allegations with DOJ and SEC, demonstrating the potentially long lag time between FCPA resolutions in the United States and related proceedings in other countries. 9. OECD Urges Japan to Increase Foreign Bribery Enforcement. On July 3, 2019, the OECD Working Group on Bribery announced that it had completed its Phase 4 evaluation of Japan's implementation of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (the \"Anti-Bribery Convention\"). The Working Group concluded that \"Japan's enforcement rate is not commensurate with the size and export-oriented nature of its economy or the high-risk regions and sectors in which its companies operate.\" Accordingly, the Working Group stated, \"Japan must step up enforcement of its foreign bribery laws and strengthen the capacities of its law enforcement agencies to proactively detect, investigate and prosecute the foreign bribery offence.\" The Working Group recommended a number of measures that Japan should take, including increasing the sanctions and limitation period for foreign bribery, broadening the framework for establishing national jurisdiction over companies, and implementing various measures designed to increase the efficiency of foreign bribery investigators and prosecutors. On a more positive note, the Working Group found that Japan had improved its asset forfeiture and money laundering laws and had developed, and is enforcing, a \"rigorous debarment policy for companies implicated in foreign bribery offenses.\" 10. Malaysia Announces New Corporate Anti-Corruption Requirements. On July 22, 2019, the Securities Commission Malaysia (the \"Securities Commission\") announced that it would implement an action plan to strengthen standards of corporate governance to prevent corruption, misconduct, and fraud in Malaysia. The Securities Commission's recommendations, which were approved by the Cabinet Special Committee on Anti‑Corruption, include a requirement that companies listed in Malaysia put in place anti‑corruption measures. These recommendations build on and dovetail with new corporate liability provisions (and the associated \"adequate procedures\" defense) of the amended Malaysian Anti‑Corruption Commission Act (the \"MACC Act\"), the amendments to which will come into effect in June 2020. For more on the MACC Act and the new provisions, please see our client alert. Footnote 1 United States v. Boustani, et al., 1:18-cr-00681-WFK-6, ECF No. 117 (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 17, 2019). Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations. © Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com. Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article. Do you have a Question or Comment?Click here to email the AuthorInterested in the next Webinar on this Topic?Click here to register your Interest ContributorCharles E. DurossMorrison & Foerster LLP Email FirmView Website Events from this Firm More from this Firm More from this Author News About this Firm Authors Charles E. DurossJames M. KoukiosJulie A. NicholsonTola AdeseyeVanshika Vij More Popular Related Articles on Criminal Law from USA Supreme Court Limits Tax Obstruction Charge Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP The defendant's conduct is more colorfully described in Justice Thomas's dissent than in Justice Breyer's majority opinion. WOW! $2.9 Million Lost To Cybercrime Every Minute Last Year (Think $1.5 Trillion For The Year)! Foley & Lardner RiskIQ reported that it \"tapped proprietary global intelligence and third-party research to analyze the volume of malicious activity on the internet, revealing that cybercriminals cost the global economy Global Anti-Corruption Insights: Summer 2019 Arnold & Porter The US Department of Justice and US Securities and Exchange Commission have announced over $1 billion in corporate settlements of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act matters so far this year. Top 10 International Anti-Corruption Developments For June 2019 Morrison & Foerster LLP In order to provide an overview for busy in-house counsel and compliance professionals, we summarize below some of the most important international anti-corruption developments Discretionary Bonuses: Per Se Fraudulent Conveyances? McLane Middleton, Professional Association The Bankruptcy Code does not treat all unsecured creditors equally; public policy concerns dictate otherwise. Workers, for example, benefit from a priority given to payment of certain wages. In association with Mondaq Advice Centers (MACs) Advertising and Marketing Telemarketing Investment Immigration More Advice CentersRelated Topics Criminal Law White Collar Crime, Anti-Corruption & Fraud Government, Public Sector Money Laundering Related Articles When It Comes To Opioids, DOJ's Gloves Are Off Squire Patton Boggs LLP France's National Financial Prosecutor And Anti-Corruption Agency Issue Joint Guidelines On Corporate Settlement Mechanisms Ropes & Gray LLP Second Circuit: McDonnell \"Official Act\" Requirement Doesn't Apply To FCPA Violations DLA Piper Malaysia Announces Intention To Require Listed Companies To Implement Anti-Corruption Measures Morrison & Foerster LLP Lawmakers Introduce Bill To Prohibit Foreign Officials From Demanding Bribes Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP Related Video Fraudulent Conveyance: \"Show Me The (Hidden) Money\" (Video) Berman Fink Van Horn P.C. IWPA Primer On The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (Video) Arnold & Porter Behavioral Sciences Approach to Risk Management Ropes & Gray LLP View More Videos Up-coming Events Search Region / Country...WorldwideEuropeAsia PacificAustralasiaAsiaEuropean UnionAustraliaCanadaIrelandSouth KoreaNew ZealandSwedenSwitzerlandUKUnited StatesTopic...Corporate/Commercial LawEmployment and HR- Discrimination, Disability & Sexual Harassment- Employee Benefits & Compensation- WhistleblowingEnergy and Natural Resources- Energy Law- Oil, Gas & Electricity- RenewablesFinance and Banking- Financial ServicesFood, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences- Food and Drugs Law- HealthcareImmigration- General ImmigrationInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-structuring- Financial Restructuring- Insolvency/BankruptcyMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment- Advertising, Marketing & Branding- Social MediaReal Estate and ConstructionTaxWealth Management- Wealth & Asset ManagementShow More FiltersTimeframe...This WeekNext Two WeeksNext MonthNext QuarterEvent Type...BriefingBusiness BreakfastConferenceOtherPodcastRoundtableSeminarSpeaking EngagementSymposiumVideo/ AudioWebinarWorkshopLocation...Australia- Melbourne- PerthCanada- Ontario- Toronto- VancouverIreland- DublinNew Zealand- AucklandSouth Korea- SeoulSweden- StockholmSwitzerland- LausanneUK- Birmingham- LondonUnited States- California- Dallas- Florida- Los Angeles- New York- San Francisco- Unknown- Washington, DCGO Tools Print Font Size:Translation ChannelsMondaq on Twitter Free News Alert Custom RSS Feed Contact Us | Your Privacy | Feedback © Mondaq® Ltd 1994 - 2019 All Rights Reserved Login / Register Free News Alert Privacy/ Cookies Terms & Conditions About Mondaq Unsubscribe TOPICS| REGIONS| COMPARATIVE GUIDES| ADVICE CENTRE| ABOUT ",
"URL": "http://mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/837358/White Collar Crime Fraud/Top 10 International AntiCorruption Developments for July 2019"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Currently over 200 defective appeals are pending in the HC since 2013 and if the I-T department re-files them, the court would deal with them on a case-to-case basis to decide whether to condone delay in those case. ALL AT ONCE, the Income-Tax department has lost around 300 cases with tax effect worth hundreds of crores. The cases have been buried forever with the I-T department opting not to put up a fight just because it failed to do the least — file cases without defects such as missing pages, illegible script, wrong font, lack of stamps, proper handing over of case records and similar errors. At a time when the government is pushing for a stricter tax enforcement regime with an objective to broaden its taxpayer base, the I-T department’s failure to ensure proper filing of 272 appeals — mostly with tax liability exceeding Rs 20 lakh — has resulted into their permanent closure and loss of possible revenue for the public exchequer. According to the documents accessed by The Indian Express , cases against the Airports Authority of India and Microsoft Regional Sales Corporation, the department claimed, alone had tax effects of Rs 297 crore and Rs 392 crore, respectively. Further, a total of 595 defective appeals, including 272 pending adjudication in the Delhi High Court, account for a liability of around Rs 4,471 crore. [related-post] Watch Video: What’s making news In a recent order, the Delhi High Court has dismissed 272 appeals waiting since 2012 for the I-T department to cure their defects and re-file so that the cases could come up for hearing. The High Court declined to condone what is called as “the extraordinary delay” in appropriately filing the cases. The court further directed its registry to make sure these appeals are not listed for hearing ever again. For other defective appeals pending post 2012, the court has set a deadline for the I-T department to re-file them if the latter is interested in fighting those cases. The documents show that the I-T department had filed appeals against public and private entities like Microsoft Regional Sales Corporation, Airports Authority of India (AAI), Bharti Cellular Ltd, Vodafone Essar Mobile, Birlasoft India, Nokia India, HCL Corporation, DSL Software, Casio India, Ambience Projects & Infra, Steel Authority of India, Mesco Pharma, Indian Railways Financial Corporation, Nestle India, Pepsico India Holding and Sahara Airlines. The appeals claimed tax effect of Rs 297 crore against the AAI while a batch of 10 appeals moved against the Microsoft Corporation’s arm had a total tax effect of Rs 392 crore. Although in many cases, the I-T department did not bother to mention the tax effect, which is mandatory for getting the cases listed for hearing, several cases, at least 20 more had tax effects of over Rs 1 crore. According to the tax department, other cases with high stakes included Nokia India with tax effect of more than Rs 23 crore, National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India with over Rs 14.6 crore and City Financial Consumer Finance having tax effect of Rs 18.4 crore. Irked over the “standard reasons” offered by the I-T department in all the 272 cases to explain for delay in suitably filing the appeals, a bench led by Justice S Muralidhar trashed all the appeals in a recent order. “Although the counsel for the Revenue urges that they would like to persuade the Court to consider these appeals by condoning the delay, the Court is of the view that a delay of more than three years in re-filing of the appeal cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be accepted particularly in view of the standard reasons offered for the delay in such re-filing,” said the bench. It added that “the Registry will ensure that there is no re-filing of the said appeals.” The issue had come up during a hearing last year when the HC noted that a large number of appeals by the I-T department since 2012 had been lying in a heap of defective cases and nobody cared to re-file them after correcting the errors. Further, there were several cases that had not been handed over to the counsel representing the department although a dedicated judicial cell, managed by a deputy commissioner of Income Tax and supervised by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) was in place. Subsequently, an explanation was sought from the secretary (revenue) in the Union finance ministry, following which the ministry apprised the court of formulating a new standard operating procedure (SOP) to ensure cases are handled properly. The I-T department assured the bench that henceforth rules and practice directions concerning filing of cases in the HC shall be followed. Even as it directed the I-T department to follow a strict timeline for filing the cases after curing all the defects, the bench also sought to know the exact number of faulty appeals pending in the HC. At this, the court was informed there were more than 1,000 defective appeals, out of which 149 cases had tax effect of less than Rs 20 lakh. In accordance with a circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), the department agreed to give a quietus to 149 cases by not pressing for their adjudication. Taking on record the circular, the court dismissed these appeals straightaway. Currently over 200 defective appeals are pending in the HC since 2013 and if the I-T department re-files them, the court would deal with them on a case-to-case basis to decide whether to condone delay in those case.",
"URL": "https://indianexpress.com/article/business/business-others/failing-to-ensure-proper-filing-income-tax-dept-loses-272-appeals-2880095/"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "January 20 2016 3:57 PM Apple, Sony, Microsoft under fire for child labour exploitation Amnesty International and Afrewatch (Africa Resources Watch) have come forward with accusations of child labour exploitation by multinational tech companies, including Sony, Samsung and Apple. In a report published today, titled “This is what we die for: Human rights abuses in the Democratic Republic of the Congo power the global trade in cobalt”, 16 global brands are identified as failing to conduct basic checks on where their source of Cobalt comes from. The chemical Cobalt is used to create the lithium-ion batteries used in smartphones and other electronic devices. Amnesty International traced the sale of Cobalt used by the identified companies back to mines employing children as young as seven working in dangerous conditions. The report revealed that traders would buy cobalt from these mines and sell it to Congo Dongfang Mining (CDM), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Chinese mineral giant Zhejiang Huayou Cobalt Ltd (Huayou Cobalt). After processing the cobalt, Huayou Cobalt and CDM sell it to battery component manufacturers in China and South Korea, who in turn, market it to battery makers supplying companies such as Daimler and Volkswagen. Of the 16 multinational companies that Amnesty International named and contacted - including Apple Inc., Dell, HP Inc. (formerly Hewlett-Packard Company), Huawei, Lenovo (Motorola), LG, Microsoft Corporation, Samsung, Sony and Vodafone, as well as vehicle manufacturers like Daimler AG, Volkswagen and Chinese firm BYD - only one company admitted to using the Cobalt supplier. Four were unable to admit the connection for certain, six companies said they were investigating the claims and five companies outright denied the claims. “Many companies denied sourcing cobalt from the DRC and/or Huayou Cobalt – though they are listed as customers in documents of other companies who are listed as buying from Huayou Cobalt – but did not explain whom they sourced cobalt from,” the report notes. “Considering the predominance of cobalt from the DRC in the global market, it is unlikely that all these large companies are not sourcing any cobalt from the DRC.” Over fifty percent of the world’s supply of cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). While many Multinational companies claim to have a “zero tolerance policy” for exploiting child labour, “this promise is not worth the paper it is written on when the companies are not investigating their suppliers,” says Amnesty International human rights researcher, Mark Dummett. Researchers from Amnesty International were told that many workers in these mines faced 12 hour working days without the most basic of equipment, such as gloves, face masks, or work clothes, leaving them susceptible to injuries and diseases. At least 80 artisanal miners died underground in southern DRC between September 2014 and December 2015 alone. The true figure is unknown as many accidents go unrecorded and bodies are left buried in the rubble. Amnesty International also reported that the children working in the Huayou Cobalt mines often work up to 24 hours a day, but make only between one to two dollars for their labour. This paints a stark contrast to the billions the alleged multinational companies make by using the resources these underage children are mining. Amnesty International and Afrewatch are now urging the multinational companies to conduct their due diligence and take responsibility for their supply chain, saying their lack of background checks undermines child labour laws and effectively reduces modern technology as a byproduct of illegal labour. “They (MNCs) must take remedial action on the harm suffered by people whose human rights were abused,” says Dummett. The report also concluded that CDM and Huayou Cobalt, as the smelter, are expected to know how the cobalt they buy is extracted, handled, transported and traded.",
"URL": "https://www.ibtimes.com.au/apple-sony-microsoft-under-fire-child-labour-exploitation-1501384"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Peppermint Technology further strengthens its unique position in the legal sector with Microsoft - Legal Futures This site uses cookies to make it more useful and reliable. See our Cookies Policy for more details. Do not use this site if you do not consent to our use of cookies. × I Consent See Cookie Policy Market Intelligence for Law Firms of the Future Search Home News News Features Associate News News Archive Blog Events Legal Futures Events Associate Events Sponsor/Exhibit Reports Regulation Regulation Solicitors Legal Executives Barristers Other lawyers Legal Services Act Legal Services Act Market monitor Alternative business structures Legal Services Board Legal Ombudsman Consumer panel Practice Management Practice Management Client care Competence Indemnity insurance Marketing/PR Technology Outsourcing Finance HR/Training Services Directory About us About us Associates Advertise Contact Us Newsletter Peppermint Technology further strengthens its unique position in the legal sector with Microsoft 20 January 2020 Unleashing the full potential of Microsoft Dynamics 365 and Power Apps for the UK legal sector Peppermint Technology is pleased to announce that it has joined the Microsoft Business Application ISV Connect Programme, further strengthening its commitment to delivering cost-effective and fast-paced digital transformation for the UK legal sector. Peppermint’s flagship CX365 platform integrates Microsoft Dynamics 365 and Power Apps to enable law firms to quickly implement efficient, automated digital business processes with minimum disruption and deliver innovative new services to clients – improving the internal and external customer experience while increasing profitability. With the familiar Microsoft look and feel, CX365 is easily adopted by new users who can access it entirely from within Microsoft Outlook or a web browser and facilitate agile working practices with secure mobile access from any device, anywhere. Whether seeking to support existing talent or to attract and retain the brightest new talent, Peppermint CX365 enables legal professionals to do their best work with data and insights surfaced when and where they need it. “Through the Microsoft platform we are able to unlock the power of AI and help firms realise the value of democratised computing.” commented Mike Walker, CTO, Peppermint Technology. “Our deep and longstanding relationship with Microsoft is pivotal to our mission to help firms modernise, transform and grow,” said Tony Cox, CSO, Peppermint Technology. “With Microsoft at our side, we are able to deliver client-centric legal software to firms that want to make the most of their data and maximise the lifetime value of client relationships to outperform their competition.” “As a clear leader in the provision of cloud software for the UK legal market, I’m delighted that Peppermint Technology have joined the ISV Connect program.” commented Steven Guggenheimer, Corporate Vice President, AI & ISV Engagement, Microsoft Corporation. “We look forward to building on the strong momentum that Peppermint is achieving in the market and continuing to work together to deliver transformational business outcomes for our mutual customers.” Associate News is provided by Legal Futures Associates. Find out about becoming an Associate Tags: Peppermint Technology Sign up to our free e-newsletter Related content Peppermint Technology announce strategic delivery partnership with Wilson Allen Blake Morgan leverage Peppermint Technology to consolidate working practices and achieve a single source of data across the firm Microsoft leader Matt O’Callaghan to join Peppermint Technology Carey Olsen achieve impressive results through Peppermint’s Business Development CRM solution Lockton Companies LLP LexisNexis®InterAction® Lawyer Checker Insight Legal CTS Retain International The CS Partnership Exterro Inc Bar Marketing Visualfiles Legmark ARAG Perfect Portal Hayes Connor Solicitors Eclipse Legal Systems Tikit Future Climate Info LAWFUSION by Select Legal Systems Limited First4Lawyers OneSearch Direct The Coal Authority poweredbypie Groundsure SearchFlow Lexis®Legal Intelligence Hudgell Solicitors Solicitors Own Software Thames Water Property Searches DPS Software DocsCorp Landmark Information Group Land Data Peppermint Technology Finders International Moneypenny LEAP Legal Software The Legal Training Consultancy Search Acumen Quill Miller Insurance Services LLP National Accident Helpline DG Legal Willis Towers Watson Teal Compliance Moore Legal Technology Title Research The Access Group Share Data Limited Certainty The National Will Register – Will Search SpeechWrite InfoTrack Redbrick Solutions CILEx Regulation Limited Bath Publishing Amazing Support LawNet DAS UK Group Solve Legal Marketing Terrafirma The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx) Temple Legal Protection Allianz Legal Protection BARBRI Altior iManage O'Connors Legal Services Limited Linetime Advanced Services Directory Advertise Become an Associate Sign-up for our e‑newsletter Get our news roundup every Friday. Email * Sign-up here Home Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions Site Map Advertise Contact Us TEL: 020 3567 1207 Legal Futures Publishing Limited, Registered in England No. 7135808. Registered office: Handel House, 95 High Street, Edgware, Middlesex, HA8 7DB © Legal Futures - 2020 Website by Pixel Pixel loading",
"URL": "https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/associate-news/peppermint-technology-further-strengthens-its-unique-position-in-the-legal-sector-with-microsoft"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Microsoft Affected by a Cyberattack After Nvidia and Samsung | Raleigh News & Observer This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more Allow cookies SECTIONS Skip to Content Microsoft Affected by a Cyberattack After Nvidia and Samsung | Raleigh News & Observer Subscribe Sign In Subscribe SUBMIT SECTIONS Search Customer Service Customer Service Support Contact Us About Us FAQ Sponsorship Stay connected Mobile & Apps Facebook Instagram Twitter Social Media Directory Databases Newsletters eEdition Triangle Now Raleigh's Best News Blogs Columnists Crime Education Health Local North Carolina Nation/World Technology Thumbs Up Traffic Weather Weird News All News Counties Durham County Johnston County Orange County Wake County Sports All Sports Baseball Canes College Columns & Blogs Golf High Schools NASCAR & Auto Racing NBA NFL NHL Olympics Outdoors Panthers Soccer Schools Duke East Carolina NC State North Carolina Payback Politics All Politics The North Carolina Influencer Series State Politics Blogs Columnists Rob Christensen Under the Dome Business All Business Blogs Columnists Health Care Real Estate Shop Talk Stocks Center Technology Product Recalls Living All Living Video Now Best-Kept Secrets Blogs Celebrations Comics Family Fashion Fitness Food Games and Puzzles Home and Garden Horoscopes Mouthful Past Times Pets Religion Travel Entertainment Video Now Arts News ArtsNow Books Dining Entertainment Games Movies Music Nightlife Television On the Beat Happiness is a Warm TV Opinion All Opinion Columnists Editorial Cartoons Editorials Influencers Opinion Letters Opinion Shop Blog Other Views Submit a Letter Submit an Op-ed Obituaries View Obituaries Place an Obituary Video All videos News Video Sports Video Politics Video Business Video Living Video Entertainment Video Opinion video Crime video Weather video Sports Betting Partner Content Product Reviews Health and Wellness Software and Business Shopping Advertise Advertise with us Place Ad Jobs Legals Obits/In Memoriams Shopping Rewards Classifieds Sponsored Content Paid Content by BrandPoint Jobs Legals Mobile & Apps Archives Business Microsoft Affected by a Cyberattack After Nvidia and Samsung By Rob Lenihan TheStreet Updated March 23, 2022 8:53 PM ORDER REPRINT → The software giant has admitted to having been the victim of a cyberattack. Microsoft ( MSFT ) - Get Microsoft Corporation Report confirmed that it has become the latest victim of the data extortion group Lapsus$, which claimed it had obtained source code for the Bing search engine and Cortana voice assistant. 'Limited Access' TOP VIDEOS PLAY Top Videos Video Settings Auto Full Screen About Connatix V156025 Watch More Watch More Watch More Watch More Watch More Watch More UNC battles UCLA in NCAA Sweet 16 basketball action 1/1 Skip Ad Continue watching after the ad Visit Advertiser website GO TO PAGE × UNC battles UCLA in NCAA Sweet 16 basketball action The software giant said in a blog post that a single account had been compromised, “granting limited access.” Lapsus$, which Microsoft tracks as DEV-0537, posted a partial file that the group said contained partial source code for Bing and Cortana. The group claimed on its Telegram channel that it had breached Microsoft and Okta ( OKTA ) - Get Okta, Inc. Class A Report and employee accounts of LG Electronics. Okta said in a blog post that its service “is fully operational, and there are no corrective actions our customers need to take.” “After a thorough analysis of these claims, we have concluded that a small percentage of customers – approximately 2.5% – have potentially been impacted and whose data may have been viewed or acted upon,” the post said. “We have identified those customers and are contacting them directly.” The Telegram post described a “leak of some Bing, Bing Maps and Cortana source code—Bing maps is 90% complete dump, Bing and Cortana around 45%. “Dump pf LG’s infrastructure confluence will be released soon,” the Telegram post said. “Might be a good idea to consider a new CSIRT team!” Lapsus$ has also targeted such companies as Samsung ( SSNLF ) and Nvidia ( NVDA ) - Get NVIDIA Corporation Report 'Pure Extortion' “Unlike most activity groups that stay under the radar, DEV-0537 doesn’t seem to cover its tracks,” Microsoft said. “They go as far as announcing their attacks on social media or advertising their intent to buy credentials from employees of target organizations.” The group, the post said, “is known for using a pure extortion and destruction model without deploying ransomware payloads.” “DEV-0537 is also known to take over individual user accounts at cryptocurrency exchanges to drain cryptocurrency holdings,” Microsoft said. Lapsus$ started targeting organizations in the United Kingdom and South America, Microsoft said, but expanded to global targets, including organizations in government, technology, telecom, media, retail, and healthcare sectors. Last December, Brazil’s health ministry said its website was hacked by the group, and Impresa, Portugal’s largest media conglomerate, said in early January that the websites of its Expresso newspaper and SIC TV station had been hit. Their tactics, Microsoft said, “include phone-based social engineering; SIM-swapping to facilitate account takeover; accessing personal email accounts of employees at target organizations; paying employees, suppliers, or business partners of target organizations for access to credentials and multifactor authentication (MFA) approval; and intruding in the ongoing crisis-communication calls of their targets.” “The actors behind DEV-0537 focused their social engineering efforts to gather knowledge about their target’s business operations,” the post said. “Such information includes intimate knowledge about employees, team structures, help desks, crisis response workflows, and supply chain relationships.” Russian Cyber Threat The breach comes shortly after a warning by President Joe Biden that the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, and the resulting sanctions on aggressor Russia, may lead to a rash of cybersecurity breaches unleashed by the Kremlin and other quasi-official sources in Russia. Cyber criminals are targeting the energy infrastructure in the U.S, including pipelines, refineries and power grids to attack their operations and supply chain systems, experts said. Hackers have targeted oil and gas producers in the past, such as the attack of the Colonial Pipeline, the largest U.S. fuel pipeline that resulted in shortages along the East Coast in April 2021. The cost of a data breach was $4.24 million, according to a report by IBM ( IBM ) - Get International Business Machines Corporation Report and the Ponemon Institute, up 10% from 2019 and the highest in the report’s 17-year history. Lost business represented 38% of the overall average, the report said, and this included increased customer turnover, lost revenue due to system downtime and the increasing cost of acquiring new business due to diminished reputation. Business email compromise was responsible for only 4% of breaches, but had the highest average total cost at $5.01 million. The second costliest breach was phishing at $4.65 million, followed by malicious insiders at $4.61 million, social engineering at $4.47 million and compromised credentials at $4.37 million. TheStreet, Inc. All rights reserved. Action Alerts PLUS is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc. This story was originally published March 23, 2022 8:44 PM. Read Next Business Live updates: New phase of Ukraine war? Russia shifts focus By The Associated Press The Associated Press March 26, 2022 12:36 AM ORDER REPRINT → Russian forces in Ukraine appear to have shifted their focus from a ground offensive aimed at Kyiv to instead prioritizing what Moscow calls liberation of the contested Donbas region. KEEP READING Trending Stories Raleigh neighborhood cuts tie with slave-owning namesake. Here’s its new name. Updated March 25, 2022 1:04 PM ‘Nobody came to my rescue.’ NC teacher says student groping her was a breaking point. Updated March 25, 2022 4:00 PM NC town missing $430,000 after hiring finance director with prior bankruptcy, tax liens Updated March 25, 2022 4:04 PM Will key UCLA forward play in Sweet 16 game against UNC? Latest on Jaime Jaquez injury March 24, 2022 6:57 PM Housing market tightens: Raleigh saw nation’s biggest drop in inventory since 2020 Updated March 24, 2022 1:44 PM $2 for 2 months #ReadLocal Subscribe for unlimited access to our website, app, eEdition and more CLAIM OFFER Business Yemen rebels strike oil depot in Saudi city hosting F1 race March 26, 2022 12:27 AM Business Former Black-owned restaurant in NC seeks landmark status March 26, 2022 12:18 AM Business Revolutionary War general medal could fetch $500K at auction March 26, 2022 12:18 AM News US will give airlines a break on takeoff rights in NYC, DC March 26, 2022 12:16 AM Business Idaho Legislature fails to adjourn over budget bill impasse March 26, 2022 12:16 AM Business Rudy Giuliani associate pleads guilty in fraud scheme March 26, 2022 12:16 AM Take Us With You Real-time updates and all local stories you want right in the palm of your hand. Raleigh News & Observer App View Newsletters Subscriptions Start a Subscription Customer Service eEdition Triangle Now Vacation Hold Pay Your Bill Learn More About Us Contact Us Newsletters Legal Notices Archives Sports Betting Advertising Advertise With Us About Our Ads Place a Classified Copyright Commenting Policy Report News Privacy Policy Terms of Use bx Microsoft Affected by a Cyberattack After Nvidia and Samsung | Raleigh News & Observer aacid mi_gfc ml aac Facebook Pixel ggaw kwpx LiveConnect Pixel Nielsen Pixel StackAdapt Pixel quant mi_ga_q X ",
"URL": "https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article259711500.html"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Following the success of previous issues, HSBC Bank Malta plc has launched the 29th issue of the equity linked deposit account or ELDA. 100% security and potential of higher returns This account allows Maltese and international depositors 100 per cent capital security and the potential of higher annual returns. Denominated in euro, the performance of the ELDA Large Cap US Stocks is linked to the growth of an underlying stock basket composed of the 10 largest US stocks (by weighting) in the S&P 500 index, namely: Apple Inc, Chevron Corporation, General Electric Company, IBM Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, The Coca-Cola Company, Microsoft Corporation, The Procter & Gamble Company, AT&T Inc, and Exxon Mobil Corporation. The account requires a minimum deposit of €2,500 and has to be held until maturity for five years. This issue of ELDA guarantees a minimum return of five per cent over this period (0.98 per cent annualised) and offers a potential maximum return of 40 per cent (6.96 per cent annualised) on the amount deposited. The sales closing date for this limited issue is December 17, with strike date on December 23. HSBC may withdraw the offer earlier in case of over-subscription. More information is available from customer service on 2380 2380, at www.hsbc.com.mt, or in branches.",
"URL": "https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/HSBC-launches-capital-secured-equity-linked-deposit-account.394324"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Microsoft Shows Its Power Against Russia | San Luis Obispo Tribune This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more Allow cookies LOG IN SUBSCRIBE Microsoft Shows Its Power Against Russia | San Luis Obispo Tribune Wednesday, July 6, 2022 Today's eEdition 61°F 78° 60° Local News Opinion Food & Drink Sports The Cambrian • Education Oceano Dunes California Obituaries Personal Finance Close navigation panel SECTIONS Search Home Customer Service Customer Service Contact Us Mobile & Apps FAQ Archives Subscribe eEdition My Subscription Activate Digital Subscription Manage Account Newsletters Kristin Smart Case Noticias en Español News News Local Crime Education Environment Investigations California Cannabis Nation & World Lottery Weather Weird News Submit a News Tip Columns Photos from the Vault Weather Watch Joetopia That's SLO Weird Sports Sports Outdoors High School Cal Poly MLB MLB Scores & Stats NBA NBA Scores & Stats NFL NFL Scores & Stats Politics Politics The California Influencer Series Business Business Personal Finance Living Living Food & Drink Wine & Beer Home & Garden Travel Columns Linda Lewis Griffith Pet Tales Entertainment Entertainment Arts & Culture Comics Puzzles & Games Horoscopes Restaurants Events Calendar Movies Music TV Opinion Opinion Editorials Viewpoints Influencers Opinion Editorial Cartoons Letters to the Editor Submit a Letter Columnists Tom Fulks Obituaries View Obituaries Place an Obituary The Cambrian Video All videos News Video California Weed Video Sports Video Cal Poly Video Politics Video Business Video Entertainment Video Living Video Partner Content Product Reviews Health and Wellness Software and Business Shopping Classifieds Sponsored Content Paid Content by BrandPoint Jobs Real Estate Weekly Place An Ad About Us Mobile & Apps Archives Business Microsoft Shows Its Power Against Russia By Ellen Chang TheStreet July 05, 2022 4:42 PM ORDER REPRINT → The software giant helps Ukraine ward off cyber attacks from Russia. Tech giant Microsoft ( MSFT ) - Get Microsoft Corporation Report provided tech and monetary assistance to Ukraine as it fought against cyber attacks from Russia. The company made both financial and technological commitments to Ukraine as it was invaded by Russia in February. Microsoft promised a total of $239 million in assistance, including $107 million to \"literally move the government and much of the country of Ukraine from on-premises servers to the cloud,\" Microsoft President Brad Smith said in an interview with GeekWire last week at his office in Redmond, Washington. TOP ARTICLES PLAY Top Articles Video Settings Full Screen About Connatix V169009 Read More Read More Read More Read More Read More Read More Cambria canceled Fourth of July fireworks show at the last minute. This is why 1/1 Skip Ad Continue watching after the ad Visit Advertiser website GO TO PAGE The Russian government has engaged in malicious cyber activities to suppress various political and social activity, according to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). The Russian state-sponsored cyber actors have the ability to \"compromise IT networks; develop mechanisms to maintain long-term, persistent access to IT networks; exfiltrate sensitive data from IT and operational technology (OT) networks; and disrupt critical industrial control systems (ICS)/OT functions by deploying destructive malware,\" CISA said in May. Spread Malware Russia remains \"one of the world’s major cyber powers,\" Smith said. Microsoft moved Ukraine's services and data to the cloud and also in European data centers. Other tech companies also provided the country with cyber security assistance, including Amazon ( ( AMZN ) - Get Amazon.com Inc. Report ) and Google ( ( GOOGL ) - Get Alphabet Inc. Report ). \"I think this has been a rallying cry and a unifying opportunity for our industry to really add not just value but extraordinary protection to more than 40 million people who need it,\" he said. By providing defensive protection against cyber attacks and dispersing data into the cloud, Microsoft helped Ukraine avoid attacks on threat intelligence and endpoint protection. Russia's global influence via cyber attacks has been immense - its network attempted to penetrate 128 organizations in 42 countries in an effort to \"promote Russia’s war aims,\" Smith said. Microsoft does have its own security issues due to flaws in its software. But Smith said the cyber attacks in Ukraine were not able to take advantage of vulnerabilties in Microsoft's software. \"These were classic cases of people trying to enter a network, often through phishing and other efforts,\" he said. \"They were efforts to then penetrate a network and spread malware, once one had access to a network domain.\" Stay Ahead Microsoft needs to stay ahead of the game when it comes thwarting cyber criminals from penetrating its software, services and products, Smith said. \"And I think it’s fair to say, it’s even right to say, that the world keeps changing. And we need to keep changing with it, to properly protect the security of people using Microsoft products and services,\" he said. One solution that Microsoft turned to quickly in May was allowing multi-factor authentication and changing some default settings. \"One of the concerns, even criticisms, that some people had was that we were not doing everything we could to protect people using our products, because we didn’t turn on so much by default,\" Smith said. \"And we listened to that, and we made a change.\" Placing more data in the cloud and less on-premises is \"likely to better serve customers and better protect security,\" he said. When a company's services are in the cloud, there is more visibility to potential or on-going attacks than ones ocurring in a server or on-premises. \"And a lot of what we were able to do to help defend customers in Ukraine or say, you know, in outside Ukraine with these most recent Russian network penetration efforts is find things in the cloud,\" Smith said. TheStreet, Inc. All rights reserved. Action Alerts PLUS is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc. Read Next Business OPEC secretary-general has died, Nigerian officials say By CHINEDU ASADU and AYA BATRAWY Associated Press July 06, 2022 2:12 AM ORDER REPRINT → Nigerian authorities have announced that the Secretary-General of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries has died. KEEP READING Trending Stories Here’s where to see Fourth of July fireworks in SLO County Updated July 04, 2022 12:12 PM Cowboys Trade for DK Metcalf ‘A Jerry Jones Move,’ Says Rich Eisen - But WR Calls Seattle ‘Family’ Updated July 05, 2022 7:33 AM SLO County house fire displaces family of 8 on Fourth of July. Here’s how you can help Updated July 05, 2022 6:30 PM Man whose SUV careened off Highway 101 during chase died by suicide, CHP says Updated July 05, 2022 6:17 PM Update: Thousands without power and dozens evacuated as California wildfire explodes Updated July 05, 2022 6:56 PM Get unlimited digital access #ReadLocal Subscribe now for just $2 for 2 months. CLAIM OFFER Business 5 killed as Russia pounds eastern Ukraine region of Donetsk July 06, 2022 1:21 AM Business Interstate 65 section in Kentucky closed for bridge repairs July 06, 2022 1:01 AM Business The next frontier for drones: letting them fly out of sight July 06, 2022 12:55 AM Business UK’s Johnson vows to stay in office after top ministers quit July 06, 2022 12:50 AM Business Asian benchmarks mostly lower after tepid Wall St session July 05, 2022 11:34 PM Business 9-year-old injured in Northern California train crash dies July 05, 2022 11:09 PM Take Us With You Real-time updates and all local stories you want right in the palm of your hand. San Luis Obispo Tribune App View Newsletters Subscriptions Start a Subscription Customer Service eEdition Vacation Hold Pay Your Bill Learn More About Us Contact Us Newsletters Archives Personal Finance Advertising Place a Classified Ad Advertise with Us Copyright Privacy Policy Terms of Service bx Microsoft Shows Its Power Against Russia | San Luis Obispo Tribune aacid ml aac fbp bmb ggaw lcpx nlspx sapx quant mi_ga_q Click here to subscribe. close dialog Essential. Dependable. Local. Subscribe for just $3 for 3 months Claim Offer close dialog Click here to subscribe. close dialog Essential. Dependable. Local. Subscribe for just $3 for 3 months Claim Offer close dialog ggaw ",
"URL": "https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/business/article263199173.html"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Microsoft Corporation announced that it will change the reporting of its financial results to reflect the company's strategy and ambitions to build platforms and productivity services for a mobile-first, cloud-first world. Beginning in fiscal year 2016, the company will report revenue and operating income based on three operating segments: Productivity and Business Processes, Intelligent Cloud, and More Personal Computing. Reuters The Productivity and Business Processes segment includes results from Office and Office 365 for commercial and consumer customers, as well as Dynamics and Dynamics CRM Online. The Intelligent Cloud segment includes results from public, private and hybrid server products and services such as Windows Server, SQL Server, System Center, Azure, and Enterprise Services. The More Personal Computing segment includes results from licensing of the Windows operating system, devices such as Surface and phones, gaming including Xbox consoles, and search. The company will announce its financial results for the first quarter on October 22, 2015, and will report financial performance based on these three operating segments. To aid investors with the transition, for the first quarter results only, revenue and gross margin will also be provided for the operating segments that Microsoft reported during fiscal year 2015.",
"URL": "https://www.firstpost.com/business/microsoft-reorganizes-its-financial-reporting-structure-2449308.html"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Amazon CEO becomes world's richest man SAN FRANCISCO, June 18 (Xinhua) -- Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos has become the richest man in the world with a net wealth of 141.9 billion U.S. dollars, the Forbes World's Billionaires list showed Monday. Bezos' wealth has grown more than 5 billion dollars since June 1 to beat Bill Gates, the principal founder of Microsoft Corporation, who is the second richest man in the world with 92.9 billion dollars. Warren Buffet, one of the most successful investors in the world, trailed in the third place with a total of wealth of 82.2 billion dollars. Bezos officially became the richest person in the world earlier this year, and his business behemoth of online retailing, Amazon, grew into the second most valuable company in the world after Apple. Fortune's last list release showed that Amazon ranked eighth on the 2018 list of America's largest companies, with revenues of 177.87 billion dollars.",
"URL": "http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-06/19/c_137263624.htm"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": " Last Updated: September 23 2019 Article by Christiaan A. JordaanTheall Group LLP The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Pioneer Corporation v Godfrey, 2019 SCC 42, was a victory for the plaintiff, but it may prove advantageous for class action defendants in other cases. In an 8 to 1 decision released on September 20, 2019, the court accepted a lowered standard for certification of price-fixing claims. But it disconnected that standard from required elements for success at trial, and affirmed a higher standard at the liability stage than other recent case law suggested. Confusion over the \"indirect purchaser level\" Price-fixing claims by indirect purchasers have vexed courts for more than 40 years. The difficulty is that even if a price-fixing conspiracy succeeds in increasing prices to direct purchasers of the products, many other considerations come into play at subsequent links of the distribution chain. For example, some market intermediaries may not react to small changes in input prices, and others may choose to maintain or change prices for unconnected reasons. Untangling all of the different causal factors at play for the many intermediaries and products that may be involved has proved to be extremely difficult. For example, in the Pioneer case there were originally 42 different defendants, and the alleged conspiracy involved a wide variety of optical disc drives (or ODDs) that were incorporated into hundreds of different electronic products. The Supreme Court first considered indirect purchaser claims in a 2013 trilogy of cases headlined by Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd v Microsoft Corporation. The court decided the difficulty of proof should not prevent indirect purchaser plaintiffs from making an attempt. However, its discussion of the expert evidence required to demonstrate sufficient commonality to certify harm-related issues included phrasing that caused much subsequent controversy. In a concluding sentence, the court stated that \"in indirect purchaser actions, ... the [expert methodology at certification] must be able to establish that the overcharges have been passed on to the indirect-purchaser level in the distribution chain\" (emphasis added). Lower courts across Canada took the Supreme Court at its literal words, which set a surprisingly low bar. Indirect purchaser claims have since been certified based on preliminary expert evidence at certification suggesting that some amount of harm reached the indirect purchaser level, regardless of where those purchasers are located or whether they can be separated from others not harmed. The follow-on difficulty then had to be faced: since Pro-Sys had intended for the certification methodology to be a preview of the evidence to be led at the common issues trial, a standard for certification based on a less-than-class-wide effect suggested liability could established on a similar basis. Indeed, lower courts used the aggregate damages provisions of class proceedings legislation to bridge that gap. The certification decision on appeal in Pioneer held that proof of harm suffered by some indirect purchasers would be sufficient because the aggregate damages provisions of the Class Proceedings Act, \"clearly contemplate that the defendants' liability may be established even where some of the class members have suffered no financial harm\". Back from the brink in Pioneer The Supreme Court majority in Pioneer appreciated the conceptual problem raised by the \"indirect purchaser level\" standard. But rather than reinterpret those words, the court found a creative way to avoid the issue – albeit one that undermines the significance of certification. The court's solution was to diminish the import of the common issue. It noted the plaintiff's proposed common issues relating to harm could be understood to ask whether all or any class members were harmed. By implication, the latter could be addressed for indirect purchasers based on proof of harm at the \"indirect purchaser level\". However, the court also accepted a determination that any class member at the indirect purchaser level was harmed would not resolve liability for claims with harm as a required element (such as the civil cause of action in section 36 of the Competition Act, or the common law tort of conspiracy). On this point, the majority disagreed with the reasoning of the motion judge that aggregate damages could fill the gap. Rather, to participate in a damages award, which is ultimately the point of the proceeding, the trial judge must be satisfied that each [individual class member] actually suffered a loss .... [T]he trial judge must be satisfied, following the common issues trial either that all class members suffered loss, or that he or she can distinguish those who have not suffered loss from those who have. Despite harm to any class member being insufficient for success, the majority considered certification would still be warranted, because a negative finding would have significance. If the plaintiff fails to prove that some class members at the indirect purchaser level were harmed, then the defendant would obtain a dismissal for all indirect purchaser claims. Conclusion In addition to the foregoing, the Pioneer decision also addressed two other issues of significance: whether the principle of discoverability applies to the statutory limitation period for claims under section 36, and whether \"umbrella purchasers\" who bought similar products from non-defendants can assert claims against price-fixers on the theory that an antitrust conspiracy has market-wide effects. The limitation period issue is addressed in a separate post, while the Supreme Court's decision on umbrella purchasers merely affirmed existing law from the Ontario and British Columbia Courts of Appeal (although the Supreme Court did acknowledge that liability under section 36 is otherwise limited by remoteness considerations). On each issue, the majority of the Supreme Court appeared motivated not to deny class members a hearing on the merits. Regarding claims by indirect purchasers, however, the peculiar means of salvaging an awkward interpretation of Pro-Sys to permit certification of their claims may have significant effects for other areas of the law. As Justice Côté stated in dissent, \"it would be a gross waste of private and public resources to litigate if the only prospective 'benefit' was to show that there was no point bringing the case in the first place.\" Only time will tell if similarly odd principles are to be applied elsewhere. *Christiaan acted as counsel to one of the defendants on the Pioneer appeal. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com. Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article. Do you have a Question or Comment?Click here to email the AuthorInterested in the next Webinar on this Topic?Click here to register your Interest ContributorChristiaan A. JordaanTheall Group LLP Email FirmView Website Events from this Firm More from this Firm More from this Author Authors Christiaan A. Jordaan More Popular Related Articles on Anti-trust/Competition Law from Canada A Refresher On \"Six Resident Applications\" Fasken Under the Competition Act (the \"Act\"), any six persons who are resident in Canada, at least 18 years of age and of the opinion that (a) an offence has been or is about to be committed Canadian Competition Bureau Calls On Businesses To Provide Information On Anti-Competitive Conduct In The Digital Economy Dentons Like regulatory agencies everywhere, Canada's Competition Bureau (the \"Bureau\") is grappling with the fast-changing digital economy and its implications for competition and innovation. Competition Bureau Seeks Intel On Anti-Competitive Conduct In The Digital Economy Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP All information provided to the Bureau will be kept confidential and interested parties have until November 30, 2019 to provide input to the Bureau. Playing By The Rules: Legal Considerations Concerning Promotional Contests In Canada Alexander Holburn Beaudin + Lang LLP Contests (i.e. a game of skill, chance, or mixed skill and chance) are useful marketing tools that individuals and organizations often employ to promote their goods, services, or other commercial interests. Ticketmaster devra payer une amende sévère en raison de pratiques de tarification trompeuses Bereskin & Parr LLP Le 27 juin 2019, le Bureau de la concurrence a conclu une entente avec Ticketmaster et ses entreprises affiliées. En vertu de l'entente, In association with Mondaq Advice Centres (MACs) Competition and Antitrust International Trade and Anti-Corruption Business Valuation and Financial Loss More Advice CentersRelated Topics Anti-trust/Competition Law Trade Regulation & Practices Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration Class Actions Related Articles Supreme Court Of Canada: Substance-Over-Form Dictates Whether Discoverability Applies To Statutory Limitations Theall Group LLP Canadian Competition Bureau Calls On Businesses To Provide Information On Anti-Competitive Conduct In The Digital Economy Dentons Competition Bureau Seeks Intel On Anti-Competitive Conduct In The Digital Economy Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP A Refresher On \"Six Resident Applications\" Fasken Ticketmaster devra payer une amende sévère en raison de pratiques de tarification trompeuses Bereskin & Parr LLP Up-coming Events Search Region / Country...WorldwideLatin AmericaEuropeAsia PacificMiddle EastCaribbeanAsiaEuropean UnionBrazilCanadaCayman IslandsIrelandSouth KoreaNetherlandsSwitzerlandUnited Arab EmiratesUKUnited StatesTopic...Corporate/Commercial Law- Corporate and Company Law- Corporate Governance- Directors and OfficersEmployment and HR- Employee Benefits & CompensationEnergy and Natural Resources- Energy Law- Oil, Gas & Electricity- RenewablesFamily and Matrimonial- Wills/ Intestacy/ Estate PlanningFinance and Banking- Financial Services- Fund Management/ REITsFood, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences- Food and Drugs Law- HealthcareGovernment, Public Sector- Money LaunderingInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-structuring- Financial Restructuring- Insolvency/BankruptcyMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment- Advertising, Marketing & BrandingTax- Income TaxTechnology- Fin TechWealth Management- Wealth & Asset ManagementShow More FiltersTimeframe...This WeekNext Two WeeksNext MonthNext QuarterEvent Type...BriefingBusiness BreakfastConferenceOtherPodcastRoundtableSeminarSpeaking EngagementSymposiumVideo/ AudioWebinarWorkshopLocation...Brazil- Rio de Janeiro- Sao PauloCanada- Ontario- Toronto- VancouverCayman Islands- Grand CaymanIreland- DublinNetherlands- RotterdamSouth Korea- SeoulSwitzerland- LausanneUK- Birmingham- LondonUnited Arab Emirates- DubaiUnited States- Dallas- Los Angeles- New York- San Francisco- Unknown- Washington, DCGO Tools Print Font Size:Translation ChannelsMondaq on Twitter Free News Alert Custom RSS Feed Contact Us | Your Privacy | Feedback © Mondaq® Ltd 1994 - 2019 All Rights Reserved Login / Register Free News Alert Privacy/ Cookies Terms & Conditions About Mondaq Unsubscribe TOPICS| REGIONS| COMPARATIVE GUIDES| ADVICE CENTRE| ABOUT ",
"URL": "http://mondaq.com/canada/x/847636/Trade Regulation Practices/In ODD Decision Supreme Court Severs Link Between Certification And Common Issues Trial For PriceFixing Cases"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Microsoft set to nix password expiration policies for Windows 10 18 hours ago News by Bradley Barth Users forget new passwords too easily, creating further security problems Tweet Microsoft Corporation announced this week that it plans to eliminate password expiration policies from its forthcoming new security configuration baseline settings for Windows 10 version 1903 (19H1) and Windows Server version 1903. Essentially, organisations who adopt these recommended settings will no longer require their users or employees to update their credentials on a recurring basis, as a defence mechanism against hackers. The move might sound like antithetical to sensible security practices, but Microsoft’s reasoning is that people who are forced to regularly change passwords often make trivial and easily predictable changes to their credentials or they end up forgetting their newest version. Aaron Margosis, principal consultant with Microsoft Public Sector Services, called periodic password expiration an \"ancient and obsolete mitigation of very low value\" in an April 24 company blog post revealing a draft release of the new settings, which are slated to go live in a May 2019 update. On the other hand, Microsoft’s settings will continue to incorporate factors such as a password’s length, complexity and history (i.e. it’s been previously compromised or blacklisted). \"Periodic password expiration is a defence only against the probability that a password (or hash) will be stolen during its validity interval and will be used by an unauthorised entity. If a password is never stolen, there’s no need to expire it,\" continued Margosis. \"And if you have evidence that a password has been stolen, you would presumably act immediately rather than wait for expiration to fix the problem.\" Similarly, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) recently issued its own set of guidelines recommending the elimination of periodic password changes. \"Recent scientific research calls into question the value of many long-standing password-security practices such as password expiration policies, and points instead to better alternatives such as enforcing banned-password lists… and multi-factor authentication,\" said Margosis. However, Microsoft’s baselines do not express or enforce such practices, so companies must pursue this independently. Organisations whose systems run on Windows can also continue to practice password expiration if they so choose. Additionally, Microsoft has proposed dropping the enforced disabling of built-in Administrator and Guest accounts. This article was originally published on SC Media US. Topics: Security Id/ access control/authentication MORE FROM SC MAGAZINE Credential stuffing: Bigger and badder than ever Biometrics: the key to unifying technology and forming a chain of trust Irish privacy regulator to investigate Facebook over passwords More on this Topic Gateway used in IoT networks could enable hackers to remotely execute code Irish privacy regulator to investigate Facebook over passwords NCSC launches cyber security tool for UK businesses and authorities DNSpionage actors adjust tactics, debut new remote administration tool Huawei to be given limited access to UK 5G network ",
"URL": "https://www.scmagazineuk.com/microsoft-set-nix-password-expiration-policies-windows-10/article/1583147"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "T R O U B L E D C O M P A N Y R E P O R T E R Friday, January 20, 2006, Vol. 10, No. 17 HeadlinesAAIPHARMA INC: Court Denies Dr. Sancilio's Equity Panel MotionALLEGHENY ENERGY: S&P Upgrades Corporate Credit Ratings to BB+ALLIED HOLDINGS: Has Until June 15 to Remove ActionsALLIED HOLDINGS: Aspen & Sopris Support Equity Panel AppointmentAMERICAN MEDIA: Moody's Rates Proposed $510 Mil. Facilities at B1ANDREW B_____: Case Summary & 6 Largest Unsecured CreditorsAOL LATIN: Has Until March 21 to Remove Civil ActionsARLINGTON HOSPITALITY: Completes Sale of Assets to Sunburst & SJBASARCO LLC: 12 Debtors Will Meet Creditors on February 14ASARCO LLC: Can Pay Pension Plan for Hourly & Salaried EmployeesASTORIA GENERATING: S&P Rates Proposed $950 Mil. Debts at Low-BAURA SYSTEMS: Court Confirms Amended Reorganization PlanBEAZER HOMES: Mortgage Unit Gets Access to $350MM Credit FacilityBETHLEHEM STEEL: Trust Hires Montage to Find Uncollected AccountsBICC LIMITED: Case Summary & 40 Largest Unsecured CreditorsBIOVEST INTERNATIONAL: Aidman Piser Raises Going Concern DoubtBOYDS COLLECTION: Wants Plan-Filing Period Stretched to May 15BUFFETS HOLDINGS: S&P Places B- Corporate Credit Rating on WatchCHRISTOPHER ALDARELLI: Case Summary & 17 Largest Unsec. CreditorsCLFX CORP: Moody's Rates New EUR27 Million Term Loan C at Ba3COLLINS & AIKMAN: Considers Option to Remain a Stand-Alone EntityCORRECTIONS CORP: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to $150 Million NotesCORRECTIONS CORP: S&P Rates Proposed $150 Mil. Sr. Notes at BB-EARLE M. JORGENSEN: Reliance Merger Cues Moody's Ratings' ReviewENER1 INC: Dismisses Kevin Fitzgerald as Board Chairman & CEOENXNET INC: Gets 7% Stake in Gift Card Biz under Partnership PactEPICUS COMMS: Nov. 30 Balance Sheet Upside-Down by $18.4 MillionEXOPACK HOLDING: S&P Rates Proposed $235 Million Sr. Notes at B-FORMICA BERMUDA: S&P Rates Proposed $270 Mil. Bank Facility at BGENERAL DATACOMM: Eisner LLP Raises Going Concern DoubtGEORGIA-PACIFIC: S&P Rates $8.5 Billion Credit Facilities at BB-GITTO GLOBAL: Ch. 7 Trustee Collects $160,000 from Nancy GittoGRAND EAGLE: Liquidating Agent Wants Claims Objection SustainedGRANITE BROADCASTING: Inks Pact to Buy CBS Unit for $45 MillionHASTINGS MANUFACTURING: Wants Van Dyke Gardner as Special CounselIMPAC FUNDING: Fitch Holds Junk Rating on Class M-3 CertificatesINTELSAT LTD: SES Global Plans to Buy Assets After PanAmSat MergerINTELSAT LTD: Names Executives for Post-PanAmSat Merger CompanyINZON CORP: George Brenner Raises Going Concern DoubtISTAR FINANCIAL: Fitch Lifts Preferred Stock Rating to BB+KAISER ALUMINUM: Panel Asks Court to Overrule Sherwin's ObjectionsKAISER ALUMINUM: Looking for Replacement for One New DirectorMAGNATRAX CORP: Wants Until May 12 to Object to Proofs of ClaimMANCHESTER ACQUISITION: List of 20 Largest Unsecured CreditorsMUSCLETECH RESEARCH: Chapter 15 Petition SummaryNATIONWIDE HEALTH: S&P Affirms Preferred Stock Rating at BB+NATURADE INC: Laurus Increases Term Loan to $1.65M & Extends TermNESCO INDUSTRIES: Chief Financial Officer Karen Nazzareno ResignsNOMURA ASSET: Fitch Lifts $34 Mil. Class B-2 Certs. Rating to AOPTINREALBIG.COM: Places $7 Million Microsoft Settlement in EscrowO'SULLIVAN INDUSTRIES: Committee Objects to Disclosure StatementO'SULLIVAN IND: Disclosure Statement Hearing Continued to Jan. 25OVERLOOK FARMS: Case Summary & 7 Largest Unsecured CreditorsPHOTOCIRCUITS CORP: Will Auction All Assets on February 6PHOTOWORKS INC: Equity Deficit Narrows to $189,000 at Sept. 30PIXIUS COMMS: Court Confirms Second Amended Plan of ReorganizationPORTOLA PACKAGING: Balance Sheet Upside Down by $61MM at Nov. 30QUINTUS CORP: Liquidation Plan Confirmation Hearing Set on March 2SEQUOIA MORTGAGE: Fitch Lifts Two Cert. Classes' Ratings to B+SPORTS CLUB: Sale of 5 Clubs Cues Moody's to Withdraw Junk RatingsSPORTS CLUB: $100MM Notes Repayment Cues S&P to Withdraw RatingsSUPERB SOUNDS: William J. Tucker Hired as Bankruptcy CounselSUPERB SOUNDS: Creditors Panel Hires Ice Miller as Bankr. CounselTHREE-FIVE: U.S. Trustee Names Equity Security Holders PanelTITANIUM METALS: Board Approves Two-for-One Common Stock SplitTITANIUM METALS: Sets Aside $3.4 Million to Remediate Nevada PlantULTIMATE ELECTRONICS: Wants Until March 7 to Remove Civil ActionsVISTEON CORP: Moody's Affirms Low-B Ratings With Negative OutlookWHITE BIRCH: Moody's Affirms New $130 MM Term Loans' Low-B RatingsXENONICS HOLDINGS: Posts $5 Mil. Net Loss in Fiscal Year 2005YBM MAGNEX: Ernst & Young to File Plan of Distribution in February* BOOK REVIEW: Business and Capitalism: An Introduction to Business History *********AAIPHARMA INC: Court Denies Dr. Sancilio's Equity Panel Motion--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denied the request of Dr. Frederick D. Sancilio to direct the U.S. Trustee for Region 3 to appoint an official committee of equity security holders to serve in aaiPharma Inc., and its debtor-affiliates' jointly administered chapter 11 cases. The Court entered its decision on Jan. 12, 2006. Dr. Sancilio is one of the Debtors' largest shareholders and the founder of aiiPharma. As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Dec. 12, 2005, Dr. Sancilio says that the interests represented by Unsecured Creditors' Committee are in conflict with the old equity's interests, thus, the Creditors' Committee cannot be counted on to represent the interests of the Debtors' public shareholders. In light of these conflicts, Dr. Sancilio adds, the appointment of an equity committee is necessary to protect the interests of the company's public shareholders.The Court's decision to deny Dr. Sancilio's motion is based on the responses and objections against the motion filed by the Debtors, the Ad Hoc Committee of Senior Secured Noteholders, the Unsecured Creditors Committee and the U.S. Trustee. The Court agrees with the position taken by the Unsecured Creditors Committees' objection to Dr. Sancilio's motion that appointing an equity panel in the Debtors' case is unrealistic and very costly. The Committee's independent valuation of the Debtors show that their enterprise value is only sufficient to pay their secured creditors in full and provide a partial recovery for the unsecured creditors. The Committee was sure in its valuation that the Debtors lack value to provide any recovery for old equity. The Debtors, the Ad Hoc Committee and the U.S. Trustee also supported the Committee's position. Headquartered in Wilmington, North Carolina, aaiPharma Inc. -- http://aaipharma.com/-- provides product development services to the pharmaceutical industry and sells pharmaceutical products thatprimarily target pain management. AAI operates two divisions:AAI Development Services and Pharmaceuticals Division.The Company and eight of its debtor-affiliates filed for chapter11 protection on May 10, 2005 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 05-11341).Karen McKinley, Esq., and Mark D. Collins, Esq., at Richards,Layton & Finger, P.A.; Jenn Hanson, Esq., and Gary L. Kaplan,Esq., at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP; and thefirm of Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., represent the Debtorsin their restructuring efforts. When the Debtors filed forbankruptcy, they reported consolidated assets amounting to$323,323,000 and consolidated debts totaling $446,693,000.ALLEGHENY ENERGY: S&P Upgrades Corporate Credit Ratings to BB+--------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its corporate credit ratings on diversified energy company Allegheny Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries to 'BB+' from 'BB-'. The outlook is positive. Allegheny, headquartered in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, owns about 10,850 MW of generation capacity and serves about 1.6 million electric customers. \"The upgrade reflects the high likelihood that Allegheny's credit measures will improve substantially in 2006 and 2007 due to debt reduction and the repricing of its energy production toward market rates,\" said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Tobias Hsieh. The positive outlook reflects the expectation that Allegheny will continue to execute its plan to improve its operations and reduce interest expense.ALLIED HOLDINGS: Has Until June 15 to Remove Actions ----------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia gave Allied Holdings, Inc., and its debtor-affiliates until June 15, 2006, to remove civil actions under Section 1452 of the Judiciary Code.As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Dec 26, 2005, the Debtors are parties to numerous civil lawsuits in courts throughout the United States and Canada. Majority of the causes of action are for automobile and products liability claims.Harris B. Winsberg, Esq., at Troutman Sanders, LLP, in Atlanta,Georgia, tells the Bankruptcy Court that the extension will provide the Debtors an opportunity to make informed decisions concerning the removal of the causes of action and will assure that the Debtors do not forfeit any of their rights under Section 1452. It will also permit them to continue focusing their time and energy on reorganizing, Mr. Winsberg adds.Headquartered in Decatur, Georgia, Allied Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.alliedholdings.com/-- and its affiliates provide short-haul services for original equipment manufacturers andprovide logistical services. The Company and 22 of its affiliatesfiled for chapter 11 protection on July 31, 2005 (Bankr. N.D. Ga.Case No. 05-12515). Jeffrey W. Kelley, Esq., at Troutman Sanders,LLP, represents the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. Whenthe Debtors filed for protection from their creditors, theyestimated more than $100 million in assets and debts. ALLIED HOLDINGS: Aspen & Sopris Support Equity Panel Appointment----------------------------------------------------------------Aspen Advisors LLC and Sopris Capital Advisors, LLC, support Guy W. Rutland III, Guy W. Rutland IV and Robert J. Rutland's request for the appointment of an official committee of equity security holders in Allied Holdings, Inc., and its debtor-affiliates chapter 11 cases.Aspen Advisors owns 244,800 shares or 2.73% of Allied Holding, Inc.'s outstanding common stock. Sopris Capital Advisors owns 244,800 shares, representing 2.73% of Allied's outstanding common stock.As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Sept. 6, 2005, the Rutlands stated that there are a sufficient number of shares and shareholders to warrant the appointment of an official committee of equity security holders. The equity security holders in the Debtors' case have legitimate interests that need to be, and were intended to be, adequately represented under Section 1102 of the Bankruptcy Code.As of March 5, 2005, the Rutlands are holders of about 30% of Allied Holdings, Inc.'s outstanding common stock: Holder Beneficial Ownership ------ -------------------- Robert J. Rutland 12.6% Guy W. Rutland, III 9.5% Guy W. Rutland, IV 7.3%Headquartered in Decatur, Georgia, Allied Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.alliedholdings.com/-- and its affiliates provide short-haul services for original equipment manufacturers and provide logistical services. The Company and 22 of its affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on July 31, 2005 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Case Nos. 05-12515 through 05-12537). Jeffrey W. Kelley, Esq., at Troutman Sanders, LLP, represents the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. When the Debtors filed for protection from their creditors, they estimated more than $100 million in assets and debts. (Allied Holdings Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 15; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000) AMERICAN MEDIA: Moody's Rates Proposed $510 Mil. Facilities at B1-----------------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service assigned a B1 rating to American Media Operations, Inc.'s proposed $510 million senior secured credit facilities and affirmed other ratings. The rating actions are:Ratings Assigned: * $60 million senior secured revolving credit facility, due 2012 -- B1 * $450 million senior secured term loan, due 2013 -- B1Ratings Affirmed: * Corporate Family rating -- B2 * $150 million 8.875% senior subordinated notes, due 2011 -- Caa1 * $400 million 10.25% senior subordinated notes, due 2009 -- Caa1Ratings Affirmed, subject to withdrawal at closing: * $60 million senior secured revolving credit facility, due 2006 -- B1 * $3 million senior secured term loan tranche A, due 2006 -- B1 * $304 million (remaining amount) senior secured term loan tranche C, due 2007 -- B1 * $133 million senior secured term loan tranche C-1, due 2007 -- B1The rating outlook is stable.The ratings reflect America Media's high leverage and relatively weak financial performance, which continue to fall short of Moody's expectations. The ratings also recognize the challenges which face management as it attempts to offset revenues lost from eroding circulation of tabloid titles, by repositioning its product offerings and increasing cover prices. American Media faces: * event risk, * competitive pressure, and * the limited prospects of circulation vitality as a result of the demographics of its tabloid titles.The stable rating outlook contemplates that growth in advertising revenues, especially at Star, will lead to normalization in financial performance. However the outlook could be changed to negative if the company is unable to improve its top line and reverse recent free cash flow losses.Largely through the 2003 Weider acquisition, the 2004 re-launch of Star, and title launches and re-launches during 2005, American Media has succeeded in improving the contribution of advertising revenues. However, these initiatives have been costly and have failed to produce any meaningful improvement in consolidated top line results.At the end of September 2005, American Media reported its third successive quarter of year-over-year revenue declines as well as a modest increase in its debt burden. At the same time, the company's reported LTM EBITDA of $118 million represented a 24% decline over fiscal 2004 results. Its cash from operations was insufficient to cover capital expenses, resulting in an LTM free cash flow loss of $10 million at the end of September 2005.Although American Media recorded $45 million undrawn under its $60 million revolver at the end of September 2005, the company could have drawn only $14.5 million without breaching its senior secured loan covenants. The existing revolving credit facility matures in April 2006.If successfully concluded, the new facility will address the company's near-term liquidity pressure and alleviate amortization pressure. Following the refinancing, the company will have no significant debt maturities prior to 2009 (or 2008 if the early prepayment clause is triggered under the proposed senior secured facility). Accordingly, Moody's considers that payment default is unlikely over the ratings horizon.Although market circulation of celebrity news magazines continues to enjoy solid growth, American Media competes with major rivals, including: * People, * Entertainment Weekly (Time Warner), * In Touch (Wenner), * US Weekly (Bauer), and * OK magazine (Northern & Shell) for similar content and readership.Management continues to move American Media away from a pure-play group of tabloid titles (valued at closer to the 8 times multiple of EBITDA paid by Evercore in 1999) and more towards a diversified portfolio of celebrity and health related titles (with individual titles valued closer to the 13 times EBITDA multiple which the company paid for the Weider acquisition in 2003). Assuming a blended valuation of 10 times EBITDA, the currently reported leverage of approximately 8.5 times debt to EBITDA already presents equity-like risks to junior debt holders. According to Moody's standard adjustments, debt stood at 7.4 times LTM EBITDA at the end of September 2005.Since ratings are near the floor of the ratings band, a rebound in financial performance is unlikely to result in any immediate ratings lift. On the contrary, the current ratings can tolerate only a modest degree of additional financial strain. Ratings downgrade is likely if leverage is not on track to reduce below 7 times debt to EBITDA (using Moody's standard adjustments) by the end of December 2006.Headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida, American Media Operations is a leading publisher of consumer magazines. The company recorded sales of $517 million for the fiscal year ending March 2004.ANDREW B_____: Case Summary & 6 Largest Unsecured Creditors-----------------------------------------------------------Debtor: Andrew B_____ 14 Sommerset Drive Yaphank, New York 11980Bankruptcy Case No.: 06-70096Chapter 11 Petition Date: January 19, 2006Court: Eastern District of New York (Central Islip)Debtor's Counsel: Kenneth A. Reynolds, Esq. Pryor & Mandelup, LLP 675 Old Country Road Westbury, New York 11590 Tel: (516) 997-0999 Fax: (516) 333 7333Estimated Assets: Less than $50,000Estimated Debts: $1 Million to $10 MillionDebtor's 6 Largest Unsecured Creditors: Entity Nature of Claim Claim Amount ------ --------------- ------------Harbans LAL Gera $2,819,3558 Orchard LaneOld Westbury, NY 11568R.I. Inc. dba Seating Solutions $450,00063 Oser AvenueHauppauge, NY 11788Ash Imports Inc. $210,00096A West 49th StreetBayonne, NJ 07002Josephine Chiarelli Personal loan $72,00014 Somerset DriveYaphank, NY 11980Suffolk Federal Credit Union Car loan $9,000P.O. Box 9005Medford, NY 11763John Petrocelli Unknown100 Comac StreetRonkonkoma, NY 11779-6930 [*** Debtor's name redacted on Oct. 10, 2008]AOL LATIN: Has Until March 21 to Remove Civil Actions-----------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware extended, until Mar. 21, 2006, the period within which AOL Latin America Inc. aka America Online Latin America Inc. and its debtor-affiliates may remove civil actions.The Debtors tell the Court that the extension will protect their right to remove prepetition civil actions which they deem appropriate and afford them additional time to make fully informed decisions concerning the removal of each pending prepetition civil action.Headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, America Online LatinAmerica, Inc. -- http://www.aola.com/-- offers AOL-branded Internet service in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and Puerto Rico, aswell as localized content and online shopping over its proprietarynetwork. Principal shareholders in AOLA are Cisneros Group, oneof Latin America's largest media firms, Brazil's Banco Itau, andTime Warner, through America Online. The Company and its debtor-affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on June 24, 2005(Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 05-11778). Pauline K. Morgan, Esq., andEdmon L. Morton, Esq., at Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP andDouglas P. Bartner, Esq., at Shearman & Sterling LLP represent theDebtors in their restructuring efforts. When the Debtors filedfor protection from their creditors, they listed total assets of$28,500,000 and total debts of $181,774,000.ARLINGTON HOSPITALITY: Completes Sale of Assets to Sunburst & SJB-----------------------------------------------------------------Arlington Hospitality, Inc., and subsidiaries (Pink Sheets: HOST) reported that, on Jan. 12, 2006, the company successfully completed the sale of substantially all of the company's assets. Sunburst Hotel Holdings, Inc., and its affiliates, and SJB Equities, Inc., and its affiliates, both of which are unaffiliated with one another and with Arlington Hospitality, Inc., purchased substantially all of the company's assets, pursuant to separate asset purchase agreements.In addition, Cendant Corporation (NYSE: CD) consented to Sunburst's assignment and assumption of the development agreement, royalty-sharing agreement, and individual hotel franchise agreements between Arlington and affiliates of Cendant.The total consideration for the sale of the assets, and the assumption of the Cendant Agreements, was approximately $28.1 million, comprised of $9.5 million in cash and the assumption of mortgage debt of approximately $18.6 million on the purchased hotel assets.Chanin Capital Partners served as Arlington's exclusive financial advisor in connection with the sale of substantially all of Arlington's assets.Sunburst purchased substantially all the assets of the company, and assumed certain contracts and agreements, except for two wholly owned hotels, the company's corporate headquarters office building, and those assets purchased and contracts assumed by SJB. Sunburst declined to purchase the two hotel assets as permitted under the purchase agreement, and as a result, both hotels where immediately turned over by the company to the mortgage lender, PMC Commercial Trust. SJB purchased ownership interests in four hotel joint ventures, and assumed certain contracts and agreements, including the construction contracts for an AmeriHost Inn hotel being built in Columbus, Ohio.Upon the closing of the purchase transactions, Arlington rejected its 12 remaining hotel leases with PMC and is in the process of relinquishing possession of these hotels.Arlington is currently in the process of evaluating claims, and attempting to divest its corporate headquarters office building, and assign certain land purchase contracts where possible, so that it may propose a liquidation plan to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois as soon as practicable. It is unlikely that shareholders of Arlington will receive a cash distribution pursuant to any liquidation plan since any remaining cash will be used to settle creditors' claims and pay administrative costs of the bankruptcy proceeding.Arlington's corporate office building continues to be marketed for sale by Cohen Financial, as approved by the Court. Parties interested in purchasing the office building should contact the managing directors for Cohen: Richard Tannenbaum Telephone (312) 803-5689 Email Address: [email protected] Jon Simon Telephone: (312) 803-5107 Email Address: [email protected] About Sunburst HospitalitySunburst Hospitality, based in Silver Spring, Maryland, is a diversified real estate owner and operator, with interests in hotels, golf course and residential developments, multi-family communities and self-storage properties. Currently, Sunburst Hospitality's hotel portfolio includes 47 hotels across the United States. About Arlington Hospitality, Inc.Headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois, ArlingtonHospitality, Inc., and its affiliates develop and constructlimited service hotels and own, operate, manage and sell thosehotels. The Debtors operate 15 AmeriHost Inn Hotels under leasesfrom PMC Commercial Trust. Arlington Hospitality, Inc., serves asa guarantor under these leases. Arlington Inns Inc., anaffiliate, filed for bankruptcy protection on June 22, 2005(Bankr. N.D. Ill. Case No. 05-24749), the Honorable A. BenjaminGoldgar presiding. Arlington Hospitality and additional debtor-affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on Aug. 31, 2005(Bankr. N.D. Ill. Lead Case No. 05-34885). Catherine L. Steege,Esq., at Jenner & Block LLP, provides the Debtors with legaladvice and Chanin Capital LLC serves as the company's investmentbanker. As of March 31, 2005, Arlington Hospitality reported $99 million in total assets and $94 million in total debts.ASARCO LLC: 12 Debtors Will Meet Creditors on February 14---------------------------------------------------------The United States Trustee for Region 7, Richard W. Simmons, willconvene a meeting of creditors with respect to 12 Debtors on Feb. 14, 2006, at 10:00 a.m., at 606 North Caranchua, Suite 1107, in Corpus Christi, Texas.The 12 Debtors are: * ALC, Inc., * American Smelting and Refining Company. * AR Mexican Explorations, Inc., * AR Sacaton, LLC, * Asarco Consulting, Inc., * ASARCO Master, Inc., * Asarco Oil and Gas Company, Inc., * Bridgeview Management Company, Inc., * Covington Land Company, * Encycle, Inc., * Government Gulch Mining Company, Limited, and * Salero Ranch, Unit III, Community Association, Inc.This is the first meeting of the 12 Debtors' creditors under Section 341(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.All creditors are invited, but not required, to attend. ThisMeeting of Creditors offers the one opportunity in a bankruptcyproceeding for creditors to question a responsible officer ofthe Debtor under oath about the company's financial affairs andoperations that would be of interest to the general body ofcreditors.Headquartered in Tucson, Arizona, ASARCO LLC -- http://www.asarco.com/-- is an integrated copper mining, smelting and refining company. Grupo Mexico S.A. de C.V. isASARCO's ultimate parent. The Company filed for chapter 11protection on Aug. 9, 2005 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 05-21207).James R. Prince, Esq., Jack L. Kinzie, Esq., and Eric A.Soderlund, Esq., at Baker Botts L.L.P., and Nathaniel PeterHolzer, Esq., Shelby A. Jordan, Esq., and Harlin C. Womble, Esq.,at Jordan, Hyden, Womble & Culbreth, P.C., represent the Debtor inits restructuring efforts. When the Debtor filed for protectionfrom its creditors,it listed $600 million in total assets and $1billion in total debts.The Debtor has five affiliates that filed for chapter 11protection on April 11, 2005 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case Nos. 05-20521through 05-20525). They are Lac d'Amiante Du Quebec Ltee, CAPCOPipe Company, Inc., Cement Asbestos Products Company, LakeAsbestos of Quebec, Ltd., and LAQ Canada, Ltd. Details abouttheir asbestos-driven chapter 11 filings have appeared in theTroubled Company Reporter since Apr. 18, 2005.Encycle/Texas, Inc. (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 05-21304), Encycle,Inc., and ASARCO Consulting, Inc. (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 05-21346) also filed for chapter 11 protection, and ASARCO has asked that the three subsidiary cases be jointly administered with its chapter 11 case. On Oct. 24, 2005, Encycle/Texas' case wasconverted to a Chapter 7 liquidation. (ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 14; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000).ASARCO LLC: Can Pay Pension Plan for Hourly & Salaried Employees----------------------------------------------------------------The Internal Revenue Code and the Employee Retirement IncomeSecurity Act of 1974 govern the operation of defined benefitretirement plans. Section 412(a) of the IRC and Section 302(a)of the ERISA require that for a plan to meet the minimum fundingstandards, it must not have an accumulated funding deficiency asof the end of each plan year. The IRC and the ERISA also imposea quarterly contribution requirement.ASARCO LLC maintains defined benefit pension plans for both its hourly and salaried employees. The pension funding obligations of ASARCO and its controlled group continue absent a plan termination. ASARCO's bankruptcy filing did not cause the termination of the plans.Under the plans, a quarterly payment is due last Jan. 15, 2006, Eric A. Soderlund, Esq., at Baker Botts LLP, in Dallas, Texas, relates.The Court has authorized ASARCO to make the quarterly pension payments for \"hourly\" employees pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement with the Unions that settled the strike. The Memorandum of Agreement, however, did not address ASARCO's plans for salaried employees.Accordingly, ASARCO sought and obtained the Court's permission to make a $351,503 quarterly pension plan payments on account of salaried employees due on Jan. 15, 2006. A portion of the payment is on account of prepetition obligations.Headquartered in Tucson, Arizona, ASARCO LLC -- http://www.asarco.com/-- is an integrated copper mining, smelting and refining company. Grupo Mexico S.A. de C.V. isASARCO's ultimate parent. The Company filed for chapter 11protection on Aug. 9, 2005 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 05-21207).James R. Prince, Esq., Jack L. Kinzie, Esq., and Eric A.Soderlund, Esq., at Baker Botts L.L.P., and Nathaniel PeterHolzer, Esq., Shelby A. Jordan, Esq., and Harlin C. Womble, Esq.,at Jordan, Hyden, Womble & Culbreth, P.C., represent the Debtor inits restructuring efforts. When the Debtor filed for protectionfrom its creditors,it listed $600 million in total assets and $1billion in total debts.The Debtor has five affiliates that filed for chapter 11protection on April 11, 2005 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case Nos. 05-20521through 05-20525). They are Lac d'Amiante Du Quebec Ltee, CAPCOPipe Company, Inc., Cement Asbestos Products Company, LakeAsbestos of Quebec, Ltd., and LAQ Canada, Ltd. Details abouttheir asbestos-driven chapter 11 filings have appeared in theTroubled Company Reporter since Apr. 18, 2005.Encycle/Texas, Inc. (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 05-21304), Encycle,Inc., and ASARCO Consulting, Inc. (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 05-21346) also filed for chapter 11 protection, and ASARCO has asked that the three subsidiary cases be jointly administered with its chapter 11 case. On Oct. 24, 2005, Encycle/Texas' case wasconverted to a Chapter 7 liquidation. (ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 14; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000).ASTORIA GENERATING: S&P Rates Proposed $950 Mil. Debts at Low-B--------------------------------------------------------------- Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned a preliminary 'BB-' rating and '1' recovery rating to Astoria Generating Company Acquisitions LLC's proposed $430 million first-lien term loan B due in 2013 on the seventh anniversary of the closing. In addition, a 'BB-' preliminary rating and '1' preliminary recovery rating were assigned to Astoria Gen's first-lien $100 million working-capital facility and its $120 million synthetic LOC facility. A 'B' preliminary rating and '3' preliminary recovery rating have been assigned to the issuer's proposed second-lien $300 million term loan C, due seven and a half years from closing. The outlook is stable. The 'BB-' rating and '1' recovery rating on the term loan B, working-capital facility, and synthetic LC facility indicate an expectation of the full recovery of principal in the event of a payment default. The 'B' rating and '3' recovery rating on the term loan C indicate an expectation of (50% to 80%) recovery of principal post default. The stable outlook reflects the near-term predictable net revenues (through 2008) provided by the Morgan Stanley hedges. Post 2008, the company is exposed to the merchant power markets in New York City. \"A downgrade or a change in the outlook to negative could occur if there are significant changes to the capacity market in New York City that result in capacity pricing less than forecast,\" said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Arleen Spangler. \"Rating upgrades are unlikely, due to the project's sizable refinancing risk and the relatively high capacity prices the company would need to break even under Standard & Poor's power and gas price assumptions scenario,\" she continued.AURA SYSTEMS: Court Confirms Amended Reorganization Plan--------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California confirmed the First Amended Plan of Reorganization of Aura Systems, Inc. The effective date of the plan is expected to be on Jan. 31, 2006.The reorganized Company will have approximately 23,000,000 issued and outstanding common shares and the total debt will be approximately $2.5 million dollars payable over five years, including 7% simple interest with no payments scheduled for the first year.The reorganized Company's bylaws prohibit the Company from issuing any preferred stock or any convertible instruments without the prior approval of the shareholders.The Company shall have an initial five-member board consisting of: * Melvin Gagerman as Chairman of the Board, * Marc Hoffman as President and Chief Operating Officer, * Richard Armbrust, * Dr. Arthur Schwartz and * Sheldon Appel.\"The Company has gone through some difficult times, including a Chapter 11 reorganization,\" Mr. Gagerman said. \"We now have a new Company with a clean balance sheet and a capital structure that includes the participation of both old and new investors coupled with an incredible worldwide-patented technology and commercialized and proven products. One of my first tasks will be to establish continuously accurate information flow from the Company to all of our shareholders and investors, in order to keep everyone aware of material developments as we proceed to build a world class Company.\"\"I have been involved in motors and generators for a significant portion of my career, but I have never before seen such an incredible opportunity,\" Mr. Marc Hoffman said. \"We design, assemble and sell the AuraGen(R), our patented integrated mobile power generator that installs in any motor vehicle and delivers on-location, plug-in electricity for any end use, including industrial, commercial, recreational and military applications. Compared to the traditional solutions addressing the $8 billion on-site power market, the AuraGen(R) uniquely and conveniently provides cleaner electricity with more reliability and more flexibility at a lower cost. The traditional mobile power solution has not changed in over 50 years and is a very mature technology where the economics are based on the cost of copper, steel, aluminum and the cost of a small gasoline or diesel engine. Our approach uses a fraction of the same materials with simple manufacturing techniques to provide clean electrical power suitable for brute force applications such as compressors and tools and simultaneously is also suitable for digital devices and instruments such as computers and modern communication devices and sensors. This is a paradigm shift that should allow our Company to be very successful in one of the world's largest industries.\" Summary of First Amended PlanThe Reorganized Debtor will continue to be a publicly tradedcompany under the Plan, with approximately 23 million shares ofcommon stock to be issued and 5,230,000 warrants reserved forissuance. The group of people and entities known as the New MoneyInvestors will contribute $3,045,000 to the Reorganized Debtor onthe effective date of the Plan.On the effective date of the Plan, a total of 3,807,319 ofwarrants will be issued to the New Money Investors, the AriesGroup, the DIP Lenders, General Unsecured Claims, Series BInterests and Series A Interests. The purpose of the warrants ifto create a greater vested interest by the entities thatcontributed to the Reorganized Debtor and to provide an additionalvehicle for the Reorganized Debtor to obtain additional workingcapital.In exchange for the new money contribution, the New MoneyInvestors will receive 3,349,000 shares of the ReorganizedDebtor's Common Stock, plus approximately 669,000 warrants. Treatment of ClaimsAll allowed administrative claims, totaling approximately$1,086,600 and all allowed priority claims, totaling approximately$54,482 will be paid in full, in cash on the effective date fromthe new money contribution.The secured claims of the Koyah Entities, totaling approximately$5.5 million will receive 1,134,000 shares of the ReorganizedDebtor Common Stock and 259,900 of the Koyah Entities warrants.The secured claims of Ezra Meyer, totaling approximately $105,000will be paid in full.All allowed unsecured claims, totaling approximately $8.3 millionwill receive on a pro rata basis 4,729,499 shares of theReorganized Debtor Common Stock and up to 945,000 of the warrants.Holders of allowed unsecured claims also have the right to electto receive a cash distribution equal to 5% of the amount of theirallowed claims in lieu of receiving any Reorganized Debtor CommonStock.Headquartered in El Segundo, California, Aura Systems, Inc.-- http://www.aurasystems.com/-- develops and sells AuraGen(R) mobile induction power systems to the industrial, commercial anddefense mobile power generation markets. The Company filed forchapter 11 protection on June 24, 2005 (Bankr. C.D. Calif. CaseNo. 05-24550). Ron Bender, Esq., at Levene Neale Bender Rankin &Brill LLP, represent the Debtor in its restructuring efforts. When the Debtor filed for bankruptcy, it reported $18,036,502 inassets and $28,919,987 in debts.BEAZER HOMES: Mortgage Unit Gets Access to $350MM Credit Facility-----------------------------------------------------------------Beazer Mortgage Corporation, a subsidiary of Beazer Homes USA, Inc., entered into a 364-day credit agreement to fund the origination of residential mortgage loans. The Company inked the agreement with: * Guaranty Bank as agent; * JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as syndication agent; * U.S. Bank National Association as documentation agent; and these other lenders: * Bank of America, N.A.; * Washington Mutual Bank; * National City Bank of Kentucky; * Comerica Bank; * Colonial Bank, N.A., Calyon New York Branch; and * BNP Paribas The Credit Agreement provides for a maximum available borrowing capacity of $250 million to $350 million. The borrowing capacity is: -- based on commitment periods; and -- subject to compliance with the mortgage loan eligibility requirements. The Credit Agreement is secured by certain mortgage loans held for sale and related property and is not guaranteed by Beazer Homes USA, Inc., or any of its subsidiaries that are guarantors of other indebtedness of Beazer Homes USA, Inc. Beazer Mortgage pays interest on the outstanding balance at a fluctuating per annum rate equal to one month LIBOR plus a margin of 1%.The lenders may terminate their commitments under the Credit Agreement and demand the immediate full payment of the outstanding amounts including all accrued interest and unpaid fees, in the event of a default. A full-text copy of the Credit Agreement is available for free at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?466 Indenture Amendments Beazer Mortgage was declared an unrestricted subsidiary and was released from its subsidiary guarantees under the Company's indentures governing: * 8-5/8% Senior Notes due 2011; * 8-3/8% Senior Notes due 2012; * 6-1/2% Senior Notes due 2013; and * 6-7/8% Senior Notes due 2015. A full-text copy of the 8-5/8% Senior Notes Indenture is available for free at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?467 A full-text copy of the Indenture for the: * 8-3/8% Senior Notes, * 6-1/2% Senior Notes, and * 6-7/8% Senior Notes is available for free at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?468 Headquartered in Atlanta, Beazer Homes USA, Inc. --http://www.beazer.com/-- is one of the country's ten largest single-family homebuilders with operations in Arizona, California,Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland,Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, NorthCarolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,Virginia and West Virginia and also provides mortgage originationand title services to its homebuyers. Beazer Homes, a Fortune 500company, is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the tickersymbol \"BZH.\" * * *As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Nov. 30, 2005, Fitch Ratings has affirmed the issuer default rating and seniorunsecured debt, including revolving credit facility, rating of'BB+' for Beazer Homes USA, Inc. (NYSE:BZH). The rating appliesto: * $1.1 billion in outstanding senior notes, * $180 million of senior convertible notes, and * $750 million revolving credit agreement.Fitch said the Rating Outlook is Stable.BETHLEHEM STEEL: Trust Hires Montage to Find Uncollected Accounts-----------------------------------------------------------------As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Oct. 7, 2005, the Liquidating Trust sought approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District for the Contingent Fee Engagement Agreement with Montage Partners, LLC.Montage Partners, a Nevada limited liability company, has proposed to locate otherwise uncollected assets which previously constituted Bethlehem Steel Corporation and its debtor-affiliates' assets for which the Bethlehem Steel Corporation Liquidating Trust has not collected. Thus, pursuant to a Contingent Fee Engagement Agreement, the Liquidating Trust will engage Montage as an independent contractor to locate the Specified Assets and realize on and collect those assets through commercial, legal or judicial process for the benefit of the Trust. Montage will furnish to the Liquidating Trust a detailed description of the Specified Assets.Montage will bear all collection costs, finders' or other fees, charges, commissions, or expenses attendant to the location, realization or collection of the Specified Assets. Montage will also shoulder all counsel fees and litigation expenses, if any, attendant to the location, realization or collection of the Specified Assets. However, if the Commission under the Agreement minus all Litigation Costs incurred by Montage will result in Montage recovering less than 40% of the gross recovery, then the Liquidating Trust and Montage will each bear one-half of any additional Litigation Costs incurred once the Minimum Commission Recovery is obtained. * * *Judge Burton Lifland approved the Debtors' motion.Headquartered in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Bethlehem Steel Corporation -- http://www.bethlehemsteel.com/-- was the second- largest integrated steelmaker in the United States, manufacturing and selling a wide variety of steel mill products including hot- rolled, cold-rolled and coated sheets, tin mill products, carbon and alloy plates, rail, specialty blooms, carbon and alloy bars and large diameter pipe. The Company filed for chapter 11 protection on October 15, 2001 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 01- 15288). Jeffrey L. Tanenbaum, Esq., and George A. Davis, Esq., at WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP, represent the Debtors in their restructuring, the centerpiece of which was a sale of substantially all of the steelmaker's assets to International Steel Group. When the Debtors filed for protection from their creditors, they listed $4,266,200,000 in total assets and $4,420,000,000 in liabilities. Bethlehem obtained confirmation of a chapter 11 plan on October 22, 2003, which took effect on Dec. 31, 2003. (Bethlehem Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 60; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)BICC LIMITED: Case Summary & 40 Largest Unsecured Creditors-----------------------------------------------------------Lead Debtor: BICC Limited Partnership dba Brandermill Inn dba Brandermill Inn & Conference Center dba Brandermill Resort & Marina 13550 Harbour Pointe Parkway Midlothian, Virginia 23112Bankruptcy Case No.: 06-30101Debtor affiliate filing separate chapter 11 petition: Entity Case No. ------ -------- The Lexington Group, Inc. 06-30104Type of Business: The Debtors operate a conference center, a hotel, and a resort. See http://www.brandermillinn.com/ James Edward Moyler, III, Lexington Group's president, filed for chapter 11 protection on Jan. 17, 2006 (Bankr. E.D. Va. Case No. 06-30087).Chapter 11 Petition Date: January 18, 2006Court: Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond)Debtors' Counsel: Lynn L. Tavenner, Esq. Tavenner & Beran, PLC 20 North Eighth Street, Second Floor Richmond, Virginia 23219 Tel: (804) 783-8300 Fax: (804) 783-0178 Estimated Assets Estimated Debts ---------------- ---------------BICC Limited Partnership $1 Million to $1 Million to $10 Million $10 Million Total Assets Total Debts ------------ -----------The Lexington Group, Inc. Unknown $5,266,377A. BICC Limited Partnership's 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors: Entity Claim Amount ------ ------------Dominic J. Garcia $165,000P.O. Box 1155Virginia Beach, VA 23451John Malone Trust $138,5006012 Moss Creek RoadMidlothia, VA 23112Yancy Jones $106,50011311 Dairy LaneAshland, VA 23005Sunset Commercial Group, LLC $74,236Marita Hagegard $68,750IRS $42,650Charles J. McCall $39,750Patricia T. Howland $36,750Accelerated Assets $30,000Mrs. J.J. McCarthy, M.D. $30,000Stanley Holcomb $28,500Commissioner Revenue $26,400Baybridge Builders $24,000Britt & Peak $18,675Interval International $17,500Jimmy Antich $17,475MBNA-cc $13,525Chesterfield County $13,413GE Capital $12,858VEC $12,308B. The Lexington Group, Inc.'s 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors: Entity Claim Amount ------ ------------Dominic J. Garcia $165,000P.O. Box 1155Virginia Beach, VA 23451John Malone Trust $138,5006012 Moss Creek RoadMidlothia, VA 23112Yancy Jones $106,50011311 Dairy LaneAshland, VA 23005Sunset Commercial Group, LLC $74,236Marita Hagegard $68,750IRS $42,650Charles J. McCall $39,750Virginia Dominion Power $39,750Patricia T. Howland $36,750Accelerated Assets $30,000Stanley Holcomb $28,500Commissioner Revenue $26,400Baybridge Builders $24,000Britt & Peak $18,675Interval International $17,500Jimmy Antich $17,475MBNA-cc $13,525Chesterfield County $13,413GE Capital $12,858VEC $12,308BIOVEST INTERNATIONAL: Aidman Piser Raises Going Concern Doubt--------------------------------------------------------------Aidman Piser & Co., PA, expressed substantial doubt about Biovest International, Inc.'s ability to continue as a going concern after it audited the Company's financial statements for the fiscal years ended Sept. 30, 2005, and 2004. The auditing firm pointed to the Company's significant losses and working capital deficit at Sept. 30, 2005. Fiscal Year 2005 Results Biovest International incurred a $11,479,000 net loss on $5,077,000 of revenue for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2005, versus a $8,996,000 net loss on $2,145,000 of revenue in the prior year.Total sales for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2005, in the core business of contract cell culture manufacturing, instrumentation and cultureware sales, were approximately $5.1 million. This represents an 11% decrease in revenue from the year ended Sept. 30, 2004. The most significant area of change was in the contract services cell culture segment where revenues declined by approximately $1 million, or 47% from 2004 to 2005. This decline was due partially to a shifting in emphasis by our personnel away from revenue-producing contract services work to non-revenue producing research and development related to the BiovaxID vaccine project. The Company's balance sheet showed $4,164,000 in total assets and liabilities of $9,326,000, resulting in a stockholders' deficit of approximately $5,162,000. At Sept. 30, 2005, the Company had a deficit in working capital of $7.2 million compared to a deficit in working capital of $3.1 million a year earlier.BioVest International, Inc. -- http://www.biovest.com/-- is a biotechnology company that provides cell culture services to research institutions and the biopharmaceutical industry. BioVest also develops, manufactures and markets cell culture systems. For over 10 years the company has been designated, by the National Institutes of Health, as the National Cell Culture Center. Through its proprietary technology, BioVest provides cell culture services to research institutions, biotechnology companies and the pharmaceutical industry. The company is the holder of a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with the National Cancer Institute for the commercialization of a personalized biologic therapeutic cancer vaccine for the treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma currently in its phase III pivotal trial. BOYDS COLLECTION: Wants Plan-Filing Period Stretched to May 15--------------------------------------------------------------The Boyds Collection, Ltd., and its debtor-affiliates ask the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland to extend until May 15, 2006, its exclusive period to file a chapter 11 plan. The Debtor also wants until July 13, 2006, to solicit acceptances of that plan. The Debtors cite three reasons why an extension is warranted: 1. The Debtors' cases are large and complex; 2. The Debtors are progressing in their good faith attempt to formulate a viable plan; and 3. The Debtors are making the required postpetition payments.Headquartered in McSherrystown, Pennsylvania, The BoydsCollection, Ltd. -- http://www.boydsstuff.com/-- designs and manufactures unique, whimsical and \"Folksy with Attitude(SM)\"gifts and collectibles, known for their high quality andaffordable pricing. The Company and its debtor-affiliates filedfor chapter 11 protection on Oct. 16, 2005 (Bankr. Md. Lead CaseNo. 05-43793). Matthew A. Cantor, Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis LLPrepresents the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. As ofJune 30, 2005, Boyds reported $66.9 million in total assets and$101.7 million in total debts.BUFFETS HOLDINGS: S&P Places B- Corporate Credit Rating on Watch----------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services placed its ratings on Eagan, Minnesota-based Buffets Holdings Inc., including its 'B-' corporate credit rating, on CreditWatch with developing implications. The rating action follows the company's announcement that it has engaged financial advisors to assist in exploring strategic alternatives to maximize shareholder value. \"Ratings could be raised, lowered, or affirmed,\" said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Robert Lichtenstein, \"depending on the company's chosen strategic alternative and its impact on the company's financial profile.\"CHRISTOPHER ALDARELLI: Case Summary & 17 Largest Unsec. Creditors-----------------------------------------------------------------Debtor: Christopher M. Aldarelli P.O. Box 2092 Asbury Park, New Jersey 07712-2092Bankruptcy Case No.: 06-10368Chapter 11 Petition Date: January 17, 2006Court: District of New Jersey (Trenton)Judge: Raymond T. Lyons Jr.Debtor's Counsel: Timothy P. Neumann, Esq. Broege, Neumann, Fischer & Shaver 25 Abe Voorhees Drive Manasquan, New Jersey 08736 Tel: (732) 223-8484Total Assets: $925,784Total Debts: $3,300,541Debtor's 17 Largest Unsecured Creditors: Entity Claim Amount ------ ------------ Crown Bank, NA $582,335 715 Route 70 P.O. Box 130 Brick, NJ 08723-0130 Attn: Harry S. McEhane Tel: (732) 451-9000 RLI Insurance Company $69,100 9025 North Lindbergh Drive Peoria, IL 61615-1431 c/o Steven Katz Wolf & Samson One Boland Drive West Orange, NJ 07052 Tel: (973) 530-2057 Steve Kreiger $27,052 21 Dwight Drive Ocean, NJ 07712-3624 Lincoln General Insurance Company $21,135 4902 Eisenhower Boulevard, Suite 190 Tampa, FL 33634 c/o Paul Algoni, Esq. Algoni & Associate 119 Littleton Road Parsippany, NJ 07054-1849 Tel: (973) 331-0630 Ford Motor Credit $11,912 P.O. Box 220564 Pittsburgh, PA 15257-2564 c/o Morgan Bernstein 1236 Brace Road Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-3229 Tel: (856) 795-2200 General Motor Acceptance Corporation $8,365 2740 Arthur Street Saint Paul, MN 55113-1303 Carol Amrany and Daniel Amrany $5,900 Waretown, NJ 08758 c/o Nelson Fromer & Crocco 2300 State Route 66 Neptune, NJ 07753-4069 Tel: (732) 774-6443 Charles Surmonte, P.E. $5,440 1500 Allaire Avenue Ocean, NJ 07712-7603 Tel: (732) 660-0606 MBNA $5,263 P.O. Box 15137 Wilmington, DE 19886-5137 G E Money Bank $5,179 P.O. Box 960061 Orlando, FL 32896-0061 c/o Arrow Financial Ser P.O. Box 1206 Oaks, PA 19456-1206 Truxs & Equipment Parts Company Inc. $4,000 Long Branch, NJ 07740 c/o James E. Berube Jr., Esq. Twelve Reckless Place Red Bank, NJ 07701 MBNA $3,696 P.O. Box 15026 Wilmington, DE 19850-5026 Chalres Patore $3,596 Kerderson Zelishi P.O. Box 616 Asbury Park, NJ 07712-0616 Kenderian Zilinski Associates PA $3,423 1955 State Route 34, Suite 1A Belmar, NJ 07719-9703 Sears Gold Mastercard $3,082 P.O. Box 182156 Columbus, OH 43202-0156 Brett Riel Spudic $2,390 58 West Main Street Freehold, NJ 07728-2131 Liberty Line Striping, Inc. $580 244 Broad Street Red Bank, NJ 07701-2003CLFX CORP: Moody's Rates New EUR27 Million Term Loan C at Ba3-------------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service assigned a Ba3 rating to CLFX Corporation's new EUR27 million Term Loan C. Colfax, a global manufacturer of flow control products, is the parent company of Allweiler Group GmBH, the primary obligor of the loan. Additionally, Moody's has affirmed Colfax's existing Ba3 corporate family rating as well as the Ba3 ratings on the existing senior secured credit facilities. The ratings reflect the company's overall financial leverage, which increases as a result of the Transaction and the projected cash costs associated with on-going asbestos litigation and with future pension funding requirements offset by Colfax's niche market positions and good free cash flow generation.New ratings assigned: * EUR27 million Term Loan C, due 2011 (issued at Allweiler subsidiary), rated Ba3.Ratings affirmed: * Corporate Family Rating Ba3; * $125 million Term Loan B (up-sized from $113.8 million), due 2011, rated Ba3; and * $50 million Revolving Credit Facility, due 2008, rated Ba3.The ratings outlook remains stable.At the end of 2005, Colfax borrowed EUR27 million at Allweiler in order to take advantage of the American Jobs Creation Act. Proceeds from the loan were used to finance the repatriation of approximately EUR20 million from Allweiler to its U.S. based parent as well as to term out existing Euro-denominated revolver borrowings. Colfax used this dividend, together with an increase in the existing Term Loan B commitment from $113.8 to $125 million, to pre-fund a portion of its pension obligations and to term out existing USD-denominated revolver borrowings. The Transaction created a natural currency hedge for Colfax's Euro-denominated cash flows and provided a tax-efficient means of financing near-term pension obligation funding requirements, essentially exchanging one form of liability for another.The ratings are supported by Colfax's: * strong brand names and defensible; * niche market positions in the global pump market; * modest financial leverage; and * solid interest coverage. On the other hand, the ratings are constrained by: * the company's exposure to cyclical end-markets; * its acquisitive growth strategy; * its associated integration risks; and * sizable asbestos and pension liabilities.The new Term Loan C is secured by a perfected lien on substantially all of Allweiler's assets and by a perfected security interest in all capital stock and inter-company notes. In addition, the Term Loan C shares, on a pari passu basis, in the collateral that secures the domestic facilities. The Term Loan C enjoys senior secured upstream guarantees from Colfax's European operating subsidiaries as well as downstream guarantees from its parent companies. In assigning the Ba3 rating to the Term Loan C, Moody's considered the Term Loan C's structural seniority relative to the Allweiler assets but viewed it as neutral to the existing Corporate Family Rating in light of the increased financial leverage resulting from the Transaction.Pro forma for the Transaction as if it occurred on Dec. 31, 2005, Colfax had on-balance debt of approximately $159 million, or 2.7 times pro forma 2005 estimated EBITDA. Adjusting for the under-funding of the U.S. pension obligations (approximately $46 million) and operating leases, adjusted debt would be approximately $226 million, or 3.9 times EBITDA. 2005 estimated EBITDA covered pro forma interest expense over 8 times. Given high margins and fairly modest capital expenditure requirements (approximately $9 million a year going forward), Colfax should generate relatively good cash flow over the next twelve months. Pension cash contributions and asbestos settlements, however, remain a significant offset to Colfax's cash flow generation.The stable rating outlook reflects Moody's expectation of a favorable sales and order trends in many of Colfax's sector and geographic (particularly Asian) end markets as well as the potential for further operational improvements. These favorable trends are offset by the company's substantial asbestos liabilities and the risks associated with its debt-financed acquisitive growth strategy. Factors that could cause Moody's to consider a negative rating action include: * an unexpected deterioration in the company's major end- markets; * a higher-than-expected increase in its asbestos liabilities; and * settlement costs and/or material acquisitions that result in a substantially more aggressive financial profile. Factors that could cause Moody's to consider a positive rating action include: * a demonstrated commitment to financial de-leveraging reflected in a more conservative capital structure with total debt to book capitalization below 60%; and * a material decrease in asbestos liabilities.Moody's notes that Colfax has substantial asbestos liabilities although they are partially mitigated by insurance coverage and reserves. As of Sept. 30, 2005, there were 47,588 pending claims, up 5% from year-end 2004. Colfax maintains substantial primary and secondary insurance coverage and has also recorded a sizable accrued asbestos liability based on estimated claim costs to be paid over the next 15 years. Actual cash payment for 2005 are estimated to have been approximately $7 million, compared to payments of approximately $6 million in 2004.In addition, Colfax has substantial under-funded U.S. pension liabilities of approximately $46 million at the end of 2005 after taking into account the $19 million in 2006 pre-funding financed with the proceeds of the Transactions. Colfax estimates required contributions between $8 and $12 million in 2007.CLFX Corporation, based in Richmond, Virginia, is a global manufacturer of flow control products, with estimated, pro forma revenues in excess of $335 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.COLLINS & AIKMAN: Considers Option to Remain a Stand-Alone Entity-----------------------------------------------------------------Frank Macher, President and Chief Executive Officer of Collins & Aikman Corporation confirmed that the company remains on its previously stated dual-track route to emergence from bankruptcy protection that includes the distinct possibility of remaining a stand-alone entity. Additionally, through its advisors, the company has also begun the process of marketing portions or all of the company's assets to determine their market value for a potential sale, merger or equity infusion from investors.\"We are in the midst of developing a comprehensive business plan that includes detailed, three-year projections to determine our base value,\" said Mr. Macher. \"From there, we will evaluate the benefits of structuring the Company as a stand-alone entity or explore the possible sale or merger of our assets to a third party. Ultimately, we will choose the path that creates the most value for our stakeholders.\"The company noted that they remain in the preliminary stages of developing a Plan of Reorganization.Headquartered in Troy, Michigan, Collins & Aikman Corporation-- http://www.collinsaikman.com/-- is a global leader in cockpit modules and automotive floor and acoustic systems and is a leadingsupplier of instrument panels, automotive fabric, plastic-basedtrim, and convertible top systems. The Company has a workforce ofapproximately 23,000 and a network of more than 100 technicalcenters, sales offices and manufacturing sites in 17 countriesthroughout the world. The Company and its debtor-affiliates filedfor chapter 11 protection on May 17, 2005 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. CaseNo. 05-55927). When the Debtors filed for protection from theircreditors, they listed $3,196,700,000 in total assets and$2,856,600,000 in total debts.CORRECTIONS CORP: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating to $150 Million Notes------------------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service assigned a Ba3 rating to Correction Corporations of America's $150 million new senior unsecured notes due 2014. The outlook for all of the firm's ratings was revised to positive, from stable. According to Moody's, this outlook revision reflects a substantially reduced secured debt burden as well as improving leverage and coverage statistics. CCA maintains its industry leadership position as the USA's largest owner and operator of private correctional facilities.The new notes are retiring a similar amount of secured term loan debt, and CCA's new credit facility will consist of a $150 million revolver secured by receivables, which will be undrawn initially. As such, this would nearly eliminate the firm's secured debt burden. In addition, as a result of this financing, the next significant debt maturity becomes 2011. This maturity laddering, combined with balance sheet cash and ample revolver capacity, provide CCA with good liquidity. CCA is more profitable and has better coverage ratios than its peers, primarily due to its higher margin owned-and-managed facility business model (versus managed-only). The firm has maintained operating margins in the mid-20% range, improving to 26.3% in 3Q05 from 24.8% in 3Q04.CCA's average compensated occupancy decreased to 90.8% 9M05, from 95.6% during the same period in 2004 due to the firm increasing capacity at a number of facilities in anticipation of future demand, while the 3Q05 figure improved over 2Q05, 92.7% versus 90.1%. CCA had a 69,236 average bed capacity at 3Q05 versus 64,933 at 3Q04. The rating agency noted that there are approximately 6,200 available beds in various facilities for which the company has either identified prospective contractors or secured contracts. Importantly, CCA has had a 95% contract retention rate over the last 18 months. During 2H05 several states, as well as the Bureau of Prisons and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, extended existing contracts and provided guarantees for a minimum number of inmates.Moody's would expect to raise CCA's ratings one notch should Debt/EBITDA decline below 4X and interest coverage increase above 4X. Secured debt will also need to be mostly absent from the firm's balance sheet, with modest increases as the revolver is drawn to fund interim cash flow needs. The rating agency would likely return the outlook to stable should CCA fail to accomplish any of these goals above within the next twelve months. In addition, downward ratings pressure would likely result from: * development representing more than 10% of gross assets; * sustained occupancy below 90%; or * a sudden and material loss of contracts.This rating was assigned with a positive outlook: Corrections Corporation of America: * Ba3 $150 million senior unsecured notes due 2014.These ratings were affirmed with a positive outlook: Corrections Corporation of America: * Ba2 senior secured debt rating; * Ba3 senior unsecured debt rating; * (P)Ba2 senior secured debt shelf; * (P)Ba3 senior unsecured debt shelf; * (P)B1 senior subordinate shelf; and * (P)B2 preferred shelf.In its previous rating actions with respect to CCA, Moody's raised the company's senior secured rating to Ba2 and senior unsecured rating to Ba3 (from Ba3 and B1, respectively), and changed the outlook to stable on Sept. 1, 2005.Corrections Corporation of America [NYSE: CXW], headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee, USA, is the nation's largest owner and operator of privatized correctional and detention facilities and one of the largest prison operators in the United States, behind only the federal government and three states. CCA currently operates 63 facilities, including 39 company-owned facilities, with a total design capacity of approximately 71,000 beds in 19 states and the District of Columbia. CCA specializes in: * owning, operating and managing prisons and other correctional facilities; and * providing inmate residential and prisoner transportation services for governmental agencies.CORRECTIONS CORP: S&P Rates Proposed $150 Mil. Sr. Notes at BB----------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its 'BB-' rating Corrections Corp. of America's proposed $150 million senior unsecured notes due 2014. At the same time, Standard & Poor's affirmed its ratings on the prison and corrections services company, including its 'BB-' corporate credit rating. Proceeds of the notes will be used to refinance the remaining balance of the company's senior secured term loan E due in March 2006, and pay related fees and expenses. The company also plans to enter into a new $150 million senior secured revolving credit facility due in 2011 that will replace the existing $125 million revolver due in March 2006. Upon completion of the refinancing, Standard & Poor's will withdraw the 'BB' rating on the company's existing senior secured credit facility. The new facility will not be rated.EARLE M. JORGENSEN: Reliance Merger Cues Moody's Ratings' Review----------------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service placed the ratings for Earle M. Jorgensen Company under review with direction uncertain following the announcement that the company and Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. (Reliance, unrated by Moody's) have entered into a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Reliance will acquire EMJ. Consideration for the acquisition includes Reliance stock valued at approximately $327 million, cash, and the assumption of approximately $291 million of debt at EMJ. Holders of EMJ's $250 million of 9.75% senior secured notes are protected by a change of control put. The Boards of Directors of both companies have unanimously approved the merger, which is subject to: * the approval of EMJ's stockholders; * customary regulatory and lender approvals; and * the registration of the new Reliance common shares.Moody's will leave EMJ's ratings under review with direction uncertain until there is certainty regarding the outcome of the merger and the treatment of the senior notes as a result of the acquisition.These ratings are affected by this action: Earle M. Jorgensen Company: * Ba3 corporate family rating * B1 rating for its $250 million of 9.75% senior secured notes due 2012It has been reported that the cash portion of Reliance's consideration, approximately $384 million, which includes the cash out of certain EMJ options and estimated transactions costs, will be financed under Reliance's $600 million syndicated credit facility. As of Sept. 30, 2005, Reliance had total debt of $414 million. If the acquisition closes as announced, Reliance's debt would rise to approximately $1.1 billion and its debt to total capitalization ratio would be around 45%.Over the 12 months ended Sept. 30, 2005, Reliance reported sales and EBITDA of $3.2 billion and $360 million, respectively, and EMJ reported sales and EBITDA of $1.7 billion and $170 million, respectively.ENER1 INC: Dismisses Kevin Fitzgerald as Board Chairman & CEO -------------------------------------------------------------Ener1, Inc., dismissed its chairman and chief executive officer, Kevin Fitzgerald, effective Jan. 9, 2006. The Company's board of directors has appointed Ronald Stewart -- currently the Company's interim chief financial officer -- to serve as chairman and chief executive officer on an interim basis. Mr. Stewart has served as general counsel of the Company since April 2002 and executive vice president since September 2003.The Company has experienced net operating losses since 1997 andnegative cash flows from operations since 1999, and had anaccumulated deficit of $157 million as of Sept. 30, 2005. Management says that the Company could continue to incur negativecash flows through Sept. 30, 2006.The Company's balance sheet showed $13,957,000 in total assets atSept. 30, 2005, and liabilities of $94,834,000, resulting in astockholders' deficit of $80,877,000. As of Sept. 30, 2005, the Company had a $62 million workingcapital deficit. Working capital included $7 million in cash and$700,000 in prepaid expenses, offset by $1.6 million in accountspayable, accrued expenses and accrued exit costs and $67.5 millionin derivative liabilities on conversion features of securities.Ener1, Inc. (OTCBB: ENEI) -- http://www.ener1.com/-- is an alternative energy technology company. The company's interestsinclude: 80.5% of EnerDel -- http://www.enerdel.com/-- a lithium battery company in which Delphi Corp. owns 19.5%; 49% of Enerstruct, a Japanese lithium battery technology company in which Ener1's strategic investor ITOCHU owns 51%; wholly owned subsidiary EnerFuel, a fuel cell testing and component company -- http://www.enerfuel.com/-- and wholly owned subsidiary NanoEner -- http://www.nanoener.com//-- which develops nanotechnology- based materials and manufacturing processes for batteries and other applications. ENXNET INC: Gets 7% Stake in Gift Card Biz under Partnership Pact-----------------------------------------------------------------EnXnet, Inc. (OTCBB: EXNT - News; German WKN# A0HMDW) entered into a strategic relationship with Interactive Affinities, Inc., and received a 7% equity interest the company.Interactive Affinities, which was founded in 2003 and located in North Richland Hills, Texas, markets gift cards and other stored value media. Under the terms of the acquisition agreement, EXNT was granted 72,000 shares of Interactive Affinities, Inc., common stock, which is equal to a 7% equity interest in the company. The shares of stock, which are subject to certain provisions and restrictions, were provided to EXNT as consideration for the previously announced Marketing and Royalty Agreement entered into between the two companies. Interactive Affinities will market a distinctively designed interactive, multi-media gift card, under the trade name, SurfCard(TM) which will be manufactured by EXNT, incorporating the Company's proprietary ThinDisc(c) technology. Interactive Affinities will target a variety of commercial customers, including the \"closed-loop\" market, where the SurfCard(TM) will be able to be redeemed at virtually all merchants that accept major credit cards. Ryan Corley, the Company's President commented, \"We are extremely pleased to partner with Interactive Affinities, as we continue to consolidate our position and capitalize on opportunities as the industry's leading provider of specialized stored value gift card products and technologies.\"As indicated by the more than $18 billion spent on gifts using stored value cards during several weeks preceding the 2005 holiday season and the 40% growth exhibited during the entire year 2005, stored value cards and similar varieties of media are a major force in the market impacting merchants and consumers alike. The use of stored value cards is projected to increase to more than $250 billion in the U.S. by 2008. EnXnet, Inc., offers video compression services for distribution,downloading, and streaming of video and audio content for use onthe Internet, advertising applications, television and cablebroadcasting companies, and standard content media such as DVDs.At Sept. 30, 2005, the company's balance sheet showed a $786,870stockholders' deficit, compared to a $812,905 deficit at March 31,2005. Going Concern DoubtThe company said in its latest quarterly report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission that its working capitaldeficit and incurred losses since inception raise substantialdoubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.EPICUS COMMS: Nov. 30 Balance Sheet Upside-Down by $18.4 Million----------------------------------------------------------------Epicus Communications Group, Inc. (OTCBB: EPCG) reported that revenues for the second quarter of 2005 were $3,367,000, compared to $3,909,000 in the first quarter of 2005 and $3,593,000 for the second quarter of 2004.Operating costs decreased to $1,167,000, compared to $1,304,000 in the first quarter of 2005 and $3,287,000 in the second quarter 2004.Net loss for the second quarter of 2005 was $1,479,000 as compared to a net loss of $676,000 in the first quarter of 2005 and a net loss of $3,921,000 in the second quarter of 2004.Gross margin remained constant at 19% of net revenues in the second quarter of 2005 from the first quarter of 2005 and increased from no margin or a gross loss in the second quarter of 2004.As of Jan. 12, 2006, Epicus had 10,068,000 common shares outstanding.Epicus in recent months announced it had emerged from its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings as a newly reorganized company, operating as a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier and providing telecommunications services to approximately 21,000 business and residential customers.Epicus also entered into a letter of intent to acquire Freedom Communications USA, a reseller and facilities based CLEC located in Nashville, Tennessee. The acquisition is expected to close in late January 2006 and be accretive to 2006 earnings, adding an estimated $2,500,000 in revenue.In a move designed to increase Epicus' operating cash available to grow the company's customer base, on Jan. 3, 2006, its board of directors unanimously agreed to amend Epicus' revised convertible debenture agreement. This action resulted in the conversion of $3,750,000 in ordinary notes to convertible preferred stock.\"We are encouraged by the organization's progress in key several areas,\" Mark Schaftlein, Epicus' CEO, said. \"Most notably, our groundwork during the second quarter enabled us to emerge from Chapter 11 with the support of our creditors and institutional investors as a promising CLEC.\"Epicus' quarterly report for the period ending Nov. 30, 2005 is available for free at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?465Headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida, Epicus Group is aholding company with a primary goal of investing in its currenttelecommunications assets. Epicus, Inc., it's a wholly-ownedsubsidiary is an integrated communications provider with voice anddata service in the continuous 48 states, international longdistance in 240 countries with local exchange services in 8southeastern states. The Debtors filed for chapter 11 protectionon Oct. 25, 2004 (Bankr. S.D. Fla Case Nos. 04-34915 and04-34916). Alvin S Goldstein, Esq., represents the Debtors intheir restructuring efforts.The Court confirmed Epicus' Plan of Reorganization onSept. 30, 2005. On Dec. 7, 2005, the company emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings as a newly reorganized company.As of Nov. 30, 2005, Epicus Communications Group's balance sheet showed a stockholders' deficit of $18,423,576, compared to $15,252,179 deficit at Nov. 30, 2004.EXOPACK HOLDING: S&P Rates Proposed $235 Million Sr. Notes at B-----------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its 'B-' corporate credit rating to plastic- and paper-packaging producer Exopack Holding Corp. At the same time, Standard & Poor's assigned its 'B-' rating to the company's proposed $235 million senior unsecured notes due 2014. Total debt, pro forma for the transaction, including present value of capitalized leases is $242 million at fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2005. The outlook is stable. \"The ratings reflect a vulnerable business position in a fragmented and highly competitive market, a highly leveraged financial profile, and information, integration, and execution risks associated with the consolidation of three separate businesses into Exopack,\" said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Paul Kurias. Spartanburg, South Carolina-based Exopack is a holding company for three recently acquired packaging businesses that have been consolidated as operating subsidiaries of Exopack. The company produces flexible packaging products serving a range of end markets including: * consumer, * food service, and * industrial applications. Exopack focuses mainly on the North American region through its 16 manufacturing locations, in the U.S. and Canada. Pro forma for the consolidation, adjusted revenues and EBITDA were about $598 million and $53 million, respectively, for the 12 months ended Sept. 30, 2005. Exopack's products reflect some strengths in printing and barrier technologies, but the portfolio includes mainly lower value-added products with commodity-like pricing characteristics. The company has only a small presence in high value-added segments such as meat and cheese packaging. As a result, adjusted EBITDA margins of about 8% for the 12 months ended Sept. 30, 2005, are lower than historical margins achieved by its larger, rated competitors with more established track records and stronger and more diverse product portfolios. Consequently, the company is more vulnerable than most of its rated peers to a potential decline in margins from increasing input costs, or other unexpected operating challenges, such as the loss of a key customer. There is a moderate level of customer concentration with the top 10 customers accounting for about 40% of total revenue.FORMICA BERMUDA: S&P Rates Proposed $270 Mil. Bank Facility at B----------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its 'B' corporate credit rating to Formica Bermuda Holdings Ltd., a manufacturer of high-pressure laminate and other surfacing materials. The outlook is stable. At the same time, Standard & Poor's assigned its 'B' senior secured bank loan rating and '3' recovery rating to the proposed $270 million bank facility of the company's subsidiaries, based on preliminary terms and conditions. The facility is comprised of: * a $60 million revolving credit facility due in 2012; and * a $210 million first-lien term loan due in 2013. The bank loan rating and recovery rating indicate the expectation of meaningful (50%-80%) recovery of principal in the event of a payment default. Proceeds from the new bank facility will be used to: a) refinance existing bank debt incurred when Formica's U.S. subsidiaries emerged from bankruptcy in June 2004; and b) pay a $30 million dividend to its equity holders, primarily Cerberus Capital Management L.P. and Oaktree Capital Management LLC, both unrated. \"Formica's performance should benefit from the continued gradual recovery in commercial construction and improved operating efficiencies,\" said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Kenneth L. Farer. \"Ratings could be lowered if liquidity is tighter than expected because of rising raw material costs or the company's inability to raise prices; or credit metrics deteriorate because of soft sales from a faltering recovery in commercial construction or an economic decline in one or more of the company's major markets. Ratings upside is limited by the company's high debt leverage and very aggressive financial policies, demonstrated by the payment of a dividend to equity sponsors less than two years after emerging from bankruptcy and before the company has returned to profitability. However, the outlook could be revised to positive if management reduces operating costs further, maintains higher margins over a sustained period of time, generates sufficient cash flow to reduce leverage closer to 4x, and adopts a less aggressive financial policy.\" At the closing of the bank financing, Formica will have total debt of $337 million (including about $70 million of unfunded pension obligations, $9 million in other postretirement obligations, and $21 million of capitalized operating leases) and a very aggressive total debt to EBITDA ratio of 4.8x. The company will have little tangible net worth, owing to the planned dividend and about $65 million of intangible assets -- primarily trademarks. Net income is expected to be minimal over the next several years, with somewhat improved cash flow generation because of working capital management. Formica's surfacing materials are used in a variety of applications including: * countertops; * furniture; * store fixtures; and * specialty products such as: -- bowling lane floors, and -- mobile home interiors. Liquidity is limited. At closing, the company will have $9 million in cash and approximately $55 million available under its $60 million revolving credit facility after outstanding letters of credit of about $5 million. Borrowings under the revolving credit facility should peak in the January to May timeframe, coincident with the company's seasonal working-capital buildup. Peak working-capital borrowings are expected to be less than $20 million but will depend in part on raw material price increases and Formica's ability to pass on these costs. The borrowers are indirect, wholly owned operating subsidiaries of Formica Bermuda Holdings: * Formica Corp. in the U.S.; * Formica Ltd. in the United Kingdom; * Formica Canada Inc.; and * Formica Espanola S.A. in Spain.The bank facility consists of: a) a $60 million six-year first-lien revolving credit facility (of which up to $20 million is available to Formica Ltd. in sterling or euros with the remainder available to Formica Corp. in U.S. dollars); and b) a $210 million seven-year first-lien term loan B (with amortization of 1% per year, payable quarterly, until maturity).The term loan B is divided into these tranches: a) US$110 million borrowed by Formica Corp.; b) US$50 million equivalent of British pounds borrowed by Formica Ltd.; c) US$25 million equivalent of Canadian dollars borrowed by Formica Canada Inc.; and d) US$25 million equivalent of euros borrowed by Formica Espanola S.A.GENERAL DATACOMM: Eisner LLP Raises Going Concern Doubt-------------------------------------------------------Eisner LLP expressed substantial doubt about General DataComm Industries, Inc.'s ability to continue as a going concern after it audited the Company's financial statements for the years ended Sept. 30, 2005 and 2004. The auditing firm pointed to the Company's: -- working capital and stockholders' deficits at Sept. 30, 2005; -- limited ability to obtain new financing; and -- probable inability to comply with financial loan covenants related to its restructured secured indebtedness.General DataComm emerged from bankruptcy proceedings pursuant to a Plan of Reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on Sept. 15, 2003. Under the Plan of emergence, the Company intends to pay all creditors 100% of their allowed claims based upon a five-year business plan.The Company voluntarily filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on Nov. 2, 2001, after incurring seven consecutive years of losses and selling three of its four operating divisions in 2001. Fiscal Year 2005 Results For the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2005, General DataComm earned $3,292,000 of net income on $14,429 of revenue, in contrast to a $1,396,000 net loss on $15,381 of revenue in the prior year.The Company's balance sheet showed $10,698,000 in total assets at Sept. 30, 2005, and liabilities of $45,440,000, resulting in a stockholders' deficit of $34,742,000. At Sept. 30, 2005, the Company had a $37,943,000 working capital deficit as compared to a $40,938,000 working capital deficit a year earlier.General DataComm has virtually no current ability to borrow additional funds and must fund operations from cash balances and cash generated from operating activities. The Company also has significant short-term obligations including payment of bankruptcy-related and other professional fees, delinquent property taxes, priority tax claims and monthly payments of principal and interest, currently totaling approximately $290,000 monthly, under its senior loan agreement. Further, the Company has significant outstanding obligations to pay both interest and principal on total long-term debt approximating $45.2 million.Headquartered in Middlebury, Connecticut, General DataComm Industries, Inc. -- http://www.gdc.com/-- is a worldwide provider of wide area networking and telecommunications products andservices, and it designs, assembles, markets, installs, andmaintains products that enable telecommunications common carriers,corporations, and government to build, improve, and more costeffectively manage their global telecommunication networks. TheCompany and its debtor-affiliates filed for chapter 11 protectionon Nov. 2, 2001 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 01-11101-PJW). Curtis J.Crowther, Esq., at Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, representsthe Debtor. When the Debtor filed for chapter 11 protection, itlisted total assets of $64 million and total debts of $94 million. General DataComm Industries, Inc., emerged from bankruptcy on Sept. 15, 2003GEORGIA-PACIFIC: S&P Rates $8.5 Billion Credit Facilities at BB-----------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its 'BB-' senior secured bank loan rating and '2' recovery rating to the $8.5 billion senior secured first-lien credit facilities of forest products producer Georgia-Pacific Corp. (GP) (BB-/Positive/B-2). These ratings reflect an expectation of substantial (80%-100%) recovery of principal in the event of a payment default. Standard & Poor's also assigned its 'B+' senior secured bank loan rating and '3' recovery rating to GP's $2.5 billion senior secured second-lien credit facility, indicating expectations of meaningful recovery (50%-80%) of principal in the event of a payment default. Proceeds from the bank facilities were used to partially finance the acquisition of GP by unrated Koch Industries Inc. At the same time, Standard & Poor's lowered its senior unsecured debt ratings on Atlanta, Georgia-based GP two notches, to 'B' from 'BB-' and removed them from CreditWatch, where they were placed on Nov. 14, 2005, with negative implications. The unsecured debt rating indicates a disadvantaged position relative to bank lenders and other priority liabilities. All other ratings on GP, including its 'BB-' corporate credit rating, and its subsidiaries were affirmed. The outlook is positive. GP's total debt at closing was about $17 billion. The ratings of Koch Cellulose were withdrawn following completion of Koch's acquisition of GP and repayment of Koch Cellulose's debt. The first-lien facilities are comprised of: * a five-year $1.5 billion revolving credit facility; * a $2 billion five-year term loan A; and * a $5 billion seven-year term loan B. Georgia-Pacific Corp. is the borrower under the revolving credit facility, term loan B, and term loan C. The borrowers under term loan A include: * Georgia-Pacific Corp. in the amount of $1.51 billion; * Georgia-Pacific Canada Consumer Products, Inc. at CDN$117 million; * Georgia-Pacific Expansion S.A.S. at EUR198 million; and * Georgia-Pacific S.A.R.L. at EUR131 million. GP Cellulose LLC (formerly Koch Cellulose) and the majority of GP's domestic subsidiaries guarantee all of the first-lien and second-lien facilities. Georgia-Pacific's foreign subsidiaries and certain of GP Cellulose's foreign subsidiaries guarantee only the non-U.S. portion of the first-lien facilities, totaling about $495 million. The first-lien facilities are secured by a first-priority lien and security interest in all assets of the borrowers and the majority of their subsidiaries, including: * accounts receivables, * net of amounts sold under the company's accounts receivable securitization facility, * inventory, * intangibles (primarily brand names and trademarks), * property, * plant, and * equipment to the extent not restricted by the company's existing bond indentures. The first-lien facilities are also secured by a first-priority pledge of 100% of the company's domestic subsidiary stock, to the extent not restricted by the existing bond indentures, and by 65% of the capital stock of the majority of the company's foreign subsidiaries. Although foreign borrowings are secured by additional collateral and have guarantees not available to domestic borrowers, a provision for the purchase and sale of participations ensures the ratable distribution of recovery amounts following a default. The second-lien facility is secured by all of the same assets and subsidiary stock as the first-lien facilities on a second-priority basis. These facilities are subject to an inter-creditor agreement that provides for a 180-day standstill on collateral enforcement. In addition, there is a three-quarters-turn cushion in maximum leverage and a one-quarter-turn cushion on minimum interest coverage. \"Because only a moderate downturn in GP's business could still result in a default in view of its significant leverage, we believe the company would maintain viable prospects for reorganization, reflecting its leading market shares, attractive brand names, broad product diversity, and large-scale manufacturing capabilities,\" said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Pamela Rice. Although GP's consumer products business lends some stability to its financial performance, the company also participates in cyclical and oversupplied paper and wood products markets. \"Fairly favorable near-term market conditions in most segments, as well as expected cost reductions, should facilitate satisfactory cash flow generation to reduce debt,\" Ms. Rice said. \"A one-notch upgrade within the next two years would be predicated on the ability to realize and execute cost savings and proceeds from asset sales in excess of our current expectations. Alternatively, a revision of the outlook to stable would occur if expectations for cost-saving initiatives and asset-sale proceeds are not exceeded and/or are delayed or if there is an unexpected industry downturn in the near term because of an economic recession or a sharp decline in residential construction.\"GITTO GLOBAL: Ch. 7 Trustee Collects $160,000 from Nancy Gitto--------------------------------------------------------------Nancy Gitto-Panagiotes, the sister of former Gitto GlobalCorporation CEO Gary Gitto, will pay $160,000 to the Debtor's estate in full and final satisfaction of all claims asserted by Mark G. DeGiacomo, the chapter 7 Trustee appointed in the Debtor's bankruptcy case. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts, Western Division, approved the stipulation outlining the terms of the settlement on Jan. 12, 2006. The chapter 7 Trustee commenced an adversary proceeding against Ms. Gitto-Panagiotes in order to recover approximately $381,868 in salary allegedly paid to her during the four-year period prior to the Debtor's bankruptcy filing. Mr. DeGiacomo had claimed that Ms. Gitto-Panagiotes did not serve as a full time employee of the Debtor during this period. Ms. Gitto-Panagiotes disputed the chapter 7 Trustee's allegation and stated that she was a full time employee at Gitto Global up until December 2003, when her brother terminated her employment.In exchange for the $160,000 payment, Mr. DeGiacomo discharges Ms. Gitto-Panagiotes from all claims and causes of actions, whether known or unknown, filed against her as of Dec. 14, 2005, the date of the settlement agreement.Mr. DeGiacomo clarifies that the releases afforded to Ms. Gitto-Panagiotes do not extend to claims filed against her husband, Steven Panagiotes. Mr. Panagiotes had served as the Gitto family's lawyer.Headquartered in Lunenburg, Massachusetts, Gitto GlobalCorporation -- http://www.gitto-global.com/-- manufactured polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene, polypropylene and thermoplasticolefinic compounds. The Company filed for chapter 11 protection on September 24, 2004 (Bankr. D. Mass. Case No. 04-45386). Andrew G. Lizotte, Esq., at Hanify & King P.C., represents the Debtor in its restructuring efforts. When the Debtor filed for protection from its creditors, it estimated assets between $10 million to $50 million and debts between $50 million to $100 million. On March 4, 2005, the Court converted the Debtor's chapter 11 case to a chapter 7 proceeding. Mark G. DeGiacomo serves as the Chapter 7 Trustee. GRAND EAGLE: Liquidating Agent Wants Claims Objection Sustained---------------------------------------------------------------Glenn C. Pollack, the liquidating agent for Grand Eagle, Inc., wants the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, to sustain his objection to two claims, totaling $528,931, filed by the Internal Revenue Service, and disallow these claims as priority tax claims, pursuant to Rule 37(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.In the alternative, Mr. Pollack asks the Bankruptcy Court to bar the government agency from using certain documents or proffering testimony at the evidentiary hearing on Feb. 14, 2006, as a sanction for the government's failure to produce documents required by the liquidating agent to assess the validity of the disputed tax claims. Liquidating Agent's ObjectionOn May 17, 2005, the liquidating agent filed his Fifth Omnibus Objection to allowance of administrative claims. In his objection, Mr. Pollack sought to deny priority treatment of two of the IRS's claims and to disallow certain amendments made by the government agency because these claims were purportedly filed after the bar date.The government agency disputed the liquidating agent's claim saying that they filed had properly filed the claims prior to the bar date. Further, the government agency explained that the post bar date amendments to the claims are allowed and necessary to correct an understatement of tax on the original tax returns. The IRS contended that the Debtors' misrepresentation of material matters in their original returns for the affected periods justified theallowance of the amended proofs of claim.To resolve the tax dispute, the Bankruptcy Court set the February 14 evidentiary hearing and directed the IRS to produce, by Dec. 23, 2005, documents supporting the amendments to its proofs of claim.The liquidating agent says that the government has not served responsive documents as ordered by the Bankruptcy Court. Government Wants Objection Dismissed Heather L. Richtarcsik, Esq., of the U.S. Department of Justice's Tax Division, tells the Bankruptcy Court that the liquidating agent's objection should be dismissed because: a) the liquidating agent did not properly serve either the Rule 37(d) motion or the Fifth Omnibus Objection on the government agency; and b) the liquidating agent's most recent submission suggests that the relief he seeks is more appropriate for a section 505 motion to determine tax, and not an objection to claim proceeding.Ms. Richtarcsik says that service should have been made upon the government by mailing copies of the relevant materials to the civil process clerk at the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the action is brought and by mailing copies to the Attorney General of the United States at Washington, District of Columbia. Ms. Richtarcsik maintains that the liquidating agent failed to follow this protocol.Grand Eagle Companies, Inc., a privately held company, used to beNorth America's largest independent motor, switchgear, andtransformer services provider. The Company filed for chapter 11protection on Dec. 7, 2001 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Case No. 01-54821). Subsequently, Grand Eagle sold all of its assets and is no longer an operating business providing any goods or services and no longer operates a business office. Jeffrey Baddeley, Esq.,at Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff, represents the Debtors. GRANITE BROADCASTING: Inks Pact to Buy CBS Unit for $45 Million ---------------------------------------------------------------Granite Broadcasting Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: GBTVK) has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire the assets of WBNG, Channel 12, the CBS-affiliated television station serving Binghamton and Elmira, New York, for $45 million in cash, before closing adjustments. Binghamton is ranked by Nielsen Media Research as the nation's 156th largest market, and Elmira is ranked 173rd.The transaction is subject to FCC approval and other closing conditions and is expected to close during the second quarter of 2006. The Company expects to use a portion of the proceeds from the sales of its two WB affiliates to fund this acquisition. The sales of both WB affiliates are expected to close before the end of January 2006.Commenting on the announcement, W. Don Cornwell, Chief Executive Officer of Granite Broadcasting Corporation, said, \"WBNG is a very strong station with a long history as the market's leading news provider and complements our other upstate New York stations in nearby Syracuse and Buffalo. This acquisition is a terrific fit with our stated strategy of capitalizing on our core strength of operating news-oriented, Big Three network-affiliated stations in the nation's mid-sized markets. We believe it is an excellent use of proceeds to be received from the sales of our two WB affiliates, and is another positive step in the execution of our strategic plan to realign our asset mix and substantially strengthen our capital structure.\"With t[he] announcement, we continue to improve our competitive and financial position. We will continue to seek additional opportunities to prudently invest proceeds from the sales of the WB affiliates, and we look forward to updating you as we execute on these strategic initiatives.\"Granite Broadcasting Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: GBTVK) ownsand operates, or provides programming, sales and other services to13 channels in the following 8 markets: San Francisco, California,Detroit, Michigan, Buffalo, New York, Fresno, California,Syracuse, New York, Fort Wayne, Indiana, Peoria, Illinois, andDuluth, Minnesota-Superior, Wisconsin. The Company's stationgroup includes affiliates of the NBC, CBS, ABC, WB and UPNnetworks, and reaches approximately 6% of all U.S. televisionhouseholds. * * *As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Sept. 13, 2005,Moody's Investors Service affirmed the long-term ratings ofGranite Broadcasting Corporation, including its Caa1 corporatefamily rating and changed the outlook to negative, following thecompany's announcement that it had signed a definitive agreementto sell its two WB affiliate stations (San Francisco, Californiaand Detriot, Michigan) for a total consideration of $180 million,$177.5 million in cash and $2.5 million in equity. Moody'sexpects the company to either reinvest the proceeds from thistransaction in replacement assets over the next 270 days or offerto redeem part of the outstanding 9.75% senior secured notes due2010, per the terms of its bond indenture. Moody's said therating outlook is negative.HASTINGS MANUFACTURING: Wants Van Dyke Gardner as Special Counsel-----------------------------------------------------------------Hastings Manufacturing Company asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan for permission to employ Van Dyke, Gardner, Linn & Burkhart, LLP, as its special counsel.Van Dyke Gardner will: (a) evaluate, procure, maintain, enforce, license and counsel the Debtor with regards to all intellectual proper matters; (b) prepare, file and prosecute U.S. patent and trademark applications before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; (c) oversee the preparation, filing and prosecution of foreign patent and trademark applications through various foreign associates that act before their respective patent and trademark offices; (d) prepare, file and prosecute maintenance fee payments or renewal applications regarding existing patent and trademarks issued or registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; (e) oversee the preparation, filing and prosecution of maintenance fee payments or renewal applications regarding existing patents and trademarks issued or registered by foreign patent and trademark offices through appropriate foreign associates; and (f) advise the Debtor with respect to agreements that include intellectual property provisions.Daniel Van Dyke, Esq., a partner at Van Dyke Gardner, tells the Court that he bills $335 per hour. Mr. Van Dyke discloses that the Firm's other professionals bill: Professional Designation Hourly Rate ------------ ----------- ----------- Terence J. Linn, Esq. Partner $335 Karl Ondersma, Esq. Associate $180 Karla J. Charles Paralegal $125Mr. Van Dyke assures the Court that the Firm is a \"disinterested person\" as that term is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code.Van Dyke, Gardner, Linn & Burkhart, LLP represents clients worldwide and has a wide range of technological backgrounds providing significant litigation experience in the federal and state courts and in the International Trade Commission, along with extensive prosecution experience in the United States and numerous foreign patent and trademark offices. All of the attorneys are licensed to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Offices. The firm can be reached at: Van Dyke, Gardner, Linn, & Burkhart, LLP Suite 207, 2851 Charlevoix Drive Southeast P.O. Box 888695 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49588-8695 Tel: (616) 975-5500 Fax: (616) 975-5505Headquartered in Hastings, Michigan, Hastings ManufacturingCompany -- http://www.hastingsmanufacturing.com/-- makes piston rings for the automotive aftermarket and for OEM's. Through ajoint venture, the Company sells additives for engines,transmissions, and cooling systems under the Casite brand name.Hastings Manufacturing distributes its products throughout the USand Canada. The Company filed for chapter 11 protection onSept. 14, 2005 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. Case No. 05-13047). Stephen B.Grow, Esq., at Warner Norcross & Judd, LLP represents the Debtorin its restructuring efforts. When the Debtor filed forprotection from its creditors, it listed total assets of$26,797,631 and total debts of $28,625,099.IMPAC FUNDING: Fitch Holds Junk Rating on Class M-3 Certificates----------------------------------------------------------------Fitch Ratings took rating actions on these Impac Funding Corp. mortgage pass-through certificates issues:Impac SAC mortgage pass-through certificates, series 1998F-1: * Class A affirmed at 'AAA' * Class B-1 affirmed at 'AAA' * Class B-2 upgraded to 'AA' from 'BB'Impac SAC mortgage pass-through certificates, series 2000-3: * Class A affirmed at 'AAA' * Class M-1 affirmed at 'AAA' * Class M-2 affirmed at 'BBB+' * Class M-3 remains at 'C'Impac SAC mortgage pass-through certificates, series 2001-2: * Class A affirmed at 'AAA' * Class M-1 affirmed at 'AA+' * Class M-2 affirmed at 'A+' * Class B affirmed at 'BBB'Impac SAC mortgage pass-through certificates, series 2001-4: * Class A affirmed at 'AAA' * Class M-1 affirmed at 'AA+' * Class M-2 affirmed at 'A+' * Class B affirmed at 'BB+'Impac SAC mortgage pass-through certificates, series 2001-5: * Class A affirmed at 'AAA' * Class M-1 upgraded to 'AAA' from 'AA+' * Class M-2 affirmed at 'A+' * Class B affirmed at 'BBB'Impac SAC mortgage pass-through certificates, series 2001-6: * Class A affirmed at 'AAA' * Class M-1 affirmed at 'AA+' * Class M-2 affirmed at 'A+' * Class B affirmed at 'B'Impac SAC mortgage pass-through certificates, series 2001-7: * Class A affirmed at 'AAA' * Class M-1 affirmed at 'AA+' * Class M-2 affirmed at 'A+' * Class B affirmed at 'BBB'Impac SAC mortgage pass-through certificates, series 2001-8: * Class A affirmed at 'AAA' * Class M-1 affirmed at 'AAA' * Class M-2 upgraded to 'AA+' from 'AA' * Class M-3 upgraded to 'A' from 'BBB'Impac SAC mortgage pass-through certificates, series 2002-1: * Class A affirmed at 'AAA' * Class M-1 affirmed at 'AA+' * Class M-2 affirmed at 'A+' * Class B affirmed at 'BBB'Impac CMB Trust series 2002-6F: * Class A affirmed at 'AAA' * Class M-1 affirmed at 'AA' * Class M-2 affirmed at 'A'Impac CMB Trust series 2002-8: * Class A affirmed at 'AAA' * Class B affirmed at 'BBB'Impac CMB Trust series 2002-9F: * Class A affirmed at 'AAA' * Class M-1 affirmed at 'AA' * Class M-2 affirmed at 'A' * Class B affirmed at 'BBB'Impac CMB Trust series 2003-2F: * Class A affirmed at 'AAA' * Class M-1 affirmed at 'AA' * Class M-2 affirmed at 'A' * Class B affirmed at 'BBB'Impac CMB Trust series 2003-5: * Class A affirmed at 'AAA' * Class M-1 affirmed at 'AAA' * Class M-2 affirmed at 'AA' * Class B affirmed at 'BBB'The upgrades, affecting $10.85 million of outstanding certificates, are being taken as a result of low delinquencies and losses, as well as significantly increased credit support levels. As of the December 2005 distribution date, the credit enhancement (CE) levels for the upgraded classes have grown at least 3.0 times original CE levels since closing. The affirmations, affecting over $540.50 million of certificates, indicate stable collateral performance and moderate growth in CE. Credit enhancement for series SAC 1998F-1, SAC 2000-3 and SAC 2001-8 are provided by subordinated certificates. CE for all the other deals are provided by: * subordination, * overcollateralization, and * excess interest cashflow.The pools are seasoned from a range of 32 to 91 months. The pool factors (current principal balance as a percentage of original) range from approximately 4% to 45% outstanding.The mortgage loans in the nine SAC transactions were originated under Impac Funding Corp.'s Progressive Series programs or Progressive Express programs. The Progressive Series programs are intended to assess the borrower's ability and willingness to repay the mortgage loan obligation and to assess the adequacy of the mortgaged property as collateral for the mortgage loan. The Progressive Express program underwrites loans with a focus on the borrower's credit score, ability and willingness to repay the mortgage loan obligation, and assesses the adequacy of the mortgage property as collateral for the mortgage loan. The pools consist primarily of fixed-rate first-lien mortgages. Weighted-average credit scores at issuance ranged from 673 (2001-2) to 687 (2002-1). WAVG loan-to-values ranged at issuance ranged from 78.60% (2001-8) to 82.9% (2001-2). Loans with LTVs greater than 80% typically have mortgage insurance. Average loan balances at issuance ranged from $79,959 (1998F-1) to $192,077 (2002-1).The mortgage loan performance of the SAC transactions has generally been consistent with expectations. The percentage of loans over 60 days delinquent ranges from 9.54% to 14.9%. The cumulative loss as a percentage of the initial pool balance ranges from 0.24% to 1.64%.The mortgage loans in the five CMB transactions were originated or acquired by Impac Mortgage Holdings and subsequently sold to the parent company, Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., a real estate investment trust. The pools consist primarily of adjustable-rate mortgages, unless the series name is denoted with an 'F' (fixed-rated). WAVG credit scores at issuance ranged from 682 (2002-6F) to 715 (2003-2F). WAVG LTVs ranged at issuance ranged from 68.85% (2003-2F) to 81.72% (2002-6F). Loans with LTVs greater than 80% typically have mortgage insurance. Average loan balances at issuance ranged from $184,975 (2002-6F) to $261,988 (2002-8).The mortgage loan performance of the CMB transactions has generally been consistent with expectations. The percentage of loans over 60 days delinquent ranges from 1.0% to 6.8%. The cumulative loss as a percentage of the initial pool balance ranges from 0% to 0.23%.The SAC transactions are failing their delinquency trigger tests, which have prevented the subordinate bonds from receiving principal and is allowing CE to grow as a percentage of the outstanding balance. The CMB transactions pay pro rata and generally do not have performance trigger tests.The loans are currently master serviced, by Impac Funding Corporation, which does not have a servicer rating by Fitch.INTELSAT LTD: SES Global Plans to Buy Assets After PanAmSat Merger-----------------------------------------------------------------SES Global SA, the world's biggest satellite operator, is interested in buying the assets that rival Intelsat, Ltd., may put up for sale after it takes over Holding Corp.In August 2005, Intelsat and PanAmSat signed a definitive mergeragreement under which Intelsat will acquire PanAmSat for $25 per share in cash or $3.2 billion.SES Chief Financial Officer Mark Rigolle said he expectedIntelsat's private equity owners to sell off pieces to de-leverage the combined company once the deal had gainedregulatory approval. About PanAmSatThrough its owned and operated fleet of 25 satellites, PanAmSat Holding Corp. (NYSE: PA) -- http://www.panamsat.com/-- is a leading global provider of video, broadcasting and network distribution and delivery services. It transmits 1,991 television channels worldwide and, as such, is the leading carrier of standard and high-definition signals. In total, the Company's in-orbit fleet is capable of reaching over 98 percent of the world's population through cable television systems, broadcast affiliates, direct-to-home operators, Internet service providers and telecommunications companies. In addition, PanAmSat supports satellite-based business networks in the U.S., as well as specialized communications services in remote areas throughout the world. About Intelsat, Ltd.Intelsat, Ltd., offers telephony, corporate network, video andInternet solutions around the globe via capacity on 25geosynchronous satellites in prime orbital locations. Customersin approximately 200 countries rely on Intelsat's globalsatellite, teleport and fiber network for high-qualityconnections, global reach and reliability. * * *As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Nov. 16, 2005,Intelsat, Ltd.'s announcement of its results for the third quarterended Sept. 30, 2005, does not affect the ratings of Intelsat,wholly owned subsidiary Intelsat (Bermuda), Ltd., and operatingsubsidiary Intelsat Subsidiary Holding Company Ltd. The companyremains on Rating Watch Negative.As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Sept. 1, 2005,Moody's Investors Service has affirmed Intelsat, Ltd.'s ratingsand changed the outlook for all ratings to developing fromnegative following the company's announcement that it is acquiringPanAmSat for $3.2 billion plus the assumption of PanAmSat's debt($3.2 billion). The transaction, which Moody's expects to belargely, if not entirely, financed with new debt, wouldsignificantly increase Intelsat's pro forma leverage therebyincreasing credit risk for Intelsat debt holders and pressuringthe rating downwards. Therefore, Moody's anticipates placing allratings on review for possible downgrade or lowering the ratingsonce the timing and structure of the transaction and resolution ofregulatory review becomes more certain.Moody's has affirmed these ratings: Intelsat: * Corporate family rating -- B2 * $400 Million 5.25% Global notes due in 2008 -- Caa1 * $600 Million 7.625% Sr. Notes due in 2012 -- Caa1 * $700 Million 6.5% Global Notes due in 2013 -- Caa1 Intelsat Subsidiary Holding Company Ltd.: * $300 Million Sr. Secured Revolver due in 2011 -- B1 * $350 Million Sr. Secured T/L B due in 2011 -- B1 * $1 Billion Sr. Floating Rate Notes due in 2012 -- B2 * $875 Million Sr. 8.25% Notes due in 2013 -- B2 * $675 Million Sr. 8.625% Notes due in 2015 -- B2 Intelsat (Bermuda) Ltd.: * $478.7 Million Sr. Unsecured Discount Notes due 2015 -- B3Moody's has changed the outlook to developing from negative.INTELSAT LTD: Names Executives for Post-PanAmSat Merger Company---------------------------------------------------------------Intelsat, Ltd., disclosed its key executive appointments that will be effective following the closing of Intelsat's planned acquisition of PanAmSat Holding Corporation. At the time that the acquisition was announced, in August 2005, the companies stated that David McGlade, Intelsat's current Chief Executive Officer, would be the CEO of the company, and that Joe Wright, PanAmSat's current CEO, would be Chairman of Intelsat's board, after the transaction closes. Mr. McGlade intends to appoint James Frownfelter, currently Chief Operating Officer of PanAmSat, as Chief Operating Officer of Intelsat upon the closing. Mr. Frownfelter will replace current Intelsat Chief Operating Officer Ramu Potarazu and Intelsat Global Service Corporation President Kevin Mulloy, who have submitted their resignations from Intelsat, effective February 9 and Jan. 27, 2006, respectively. As Chief Operating Officer of Intelsat, Mr. Frownfelter will have responsibility for sales and marketing functions, engineering and operations, and major program procurement. During his tenure at PanAmSat, he directed 16 successful satellite launches and instituted a renewed focus on core competencies, resulting in significant improvement in PanAmSat's network reliability. Since becoming an officer of the company in 2001, Mr. Frownfelter has led the transformation of PanAmSat from a satellite operator to a well-managed, higher quality, and more profitable communications company with expanded services for global distribution applications. Mr. McGlade also announced that Phillip Spector will continue in his current role as General Counsel of Intelsat following the closing of the PanAmSat acquisition. He will retain responsibility for all legal and regulatory matters, as well as human resources, facilities, and security. Mr. Spector joined Intelsat in February 2005 from the international law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, where he was managing partner of the Washington office and Chairman of the firm's Communications & Technology Group. He has over 20 years of legal experience in the satellite and telecommunications industries, and earlier in his career clerked at the Supreme Court and served in the White House. In disclosing these appointments, Mr. McGlade said, \"The combination of Intelsat and PanAmSat will result in a premier satellite company that will be a leader in the delivery of video content, the transmission of corporate data and the provisioning of government communications solutions. Jim Frownfelter and Phil Spector have between them many decades of experience in the satellite sector, and they both have strong records of success. These appointments are the first phase in assembling a new team and signal our clear intention to take the company to the next level in terms of customer service and operational excellence. \"At the same time, I would like to thank Ramu Potarazu for his significant contributions to Intelsat and the satellite industry over the past two decades, including his leadership roles in Intelsat's 2001 privatization, the acquisitions of Comsat General and Intelsat Americas assets, the sale of Intelsat to our current owners in 2005, and most recently the PanAmSat transaction. Kevin Mulloy also contributed greatly to Intelsat's success, including the development of Intelsat's post-privatization strategy and the technical integration of the Intelsat Americas fleet. We wish them every success in their future endeavors.\" Acting Intelsat Chief Financial Officer Robert Medlin will continue in that role at Intelsat until a permanent CFO is named. Current PanAmSat General Counsel James Cuminale and Chief Financial Officer Michael Inglese will stay with PanAmSat until the transaction closes. \"I would like to congratulate Jim Frownfelter on his future role at Intelsat and feel very confident that he will have the same level of success in transforming and integrating the new company as he did at PanAmSat. While we will miss Jim Cuminale and Mike Inglese, we greatly appreciate the extraordinary roles they have played in building PanAmSat into the company it is today. Jim Cuminale was here from the creation of PanAmSat and has been a key architect of almost every major event that has occurred at this company. Mike Inglese oversaw internal and external financial transactions that were, in many cases, firsts for our industry,\" PanAmSat CEO Joe Wright said.On Aug. 29, 2005, Intelsat and PanAmSat disclosed that the two companies signed a definitive merger agreement under which Intelsat will acquire PanAmSat for $25 per share in cash, or $3.2 billion. The transaction is currently expected to close in the second or third quarter of 2006. About PanAmSatThrough its owned and operated fleet of 25 satellites, PanAmSat Holding Corp. (NYSE: PA) -- http://www.panamsat.com/-- is a leading global provider of video, broadcasting and network distribution and delivery services. It transmits 1,991 television channels worldwide and, as such, is the leading carrier of standard and high-definition signals. In total, the Company's in-orbit fleet is capable of reaching over 98 percent of the world's population through cable television systems, broadcast affiliates, direct-to-home operators, Internet service providers and telecommunications companies. In addition, PanAmSat supports satellite-based business networks in the U.S., as well as specialized communications services in remote areas throughout the world. About Intelsat, Ltd.Intelsat, Ltd., offers telephony, corporate network, video andInternet solutions around the globe via capacity on 25geosynchronous satellites in prime orbital locations. Customersin approximately 200 countries rely on Intelsat's globalsatellite, teleport and fiber network for high-qualityconnections, global reach and reliability. * * *As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Nov. 16, 2005,Intelsat, Ltd.'s announcement of its results for the third quarterended Sept. 30, 2005, does not affect the ratings of Intelsat,wholly owned subsidiary Intelsat (Bermuda), Ltd., and operatingsubsidiary Intelsat Subsidiary Holding Company Ltd. The companyremains on Rating Watch Negative.As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Sept. 1, 2005,Moody's Investors Service has affirmed Intelsat, Ltd.'s ratingsand changed the outlook for all ratings to developing fromnegative following the company's announcement that it is acquiringPanAmSat for $3.2 billion plus the assumption of PanAmSat's debt($3.2 billion). The transaction, which Moody's expects to belargely, if not entirely, financed with new debt, wouldsignificantly increase Intelsat's pro forma leverage therebyincreasing credit risk for Intelsat debt holders and pressuringthe rating downwards. Therefore, Moody's anticipates placing allratings on review for possible downgrade or lowering the ratingsonce the timing and structure of the transaction and resolution ofregulatory review becomes more certain.Moody's has affirmed these ratings: Intelsat: * Corporate family rating -- B2 * $400 Million 5.25% Global notes due in 2008 -- Caa1 * $600 Million 7.625% Sr. Notes due in 2012 -- Caa1 * $700 Million 6.5% Global Notes due in 2013 -- Caa1 Intelsat Subsidiary Holding Company Ltd.: * $300 Million Sr. Secured Revolver due in 2011 -- B1 * $350 Million Sr. Secured T/L B due in 2011 -- B1 * $1 Billion Sr. Floating Rate Notes due in 2012 -- B2 * $875 Million Sr. 8.25% Notes due in 2013 -- B2 * $675 Million Sr. 8.625% Notes due in 2015 -- B2 Intelsat (Bermuda) Ltd.: * $478.7 Million Sr. Unsecured Discount Notes due 2015 -- B3Moody's has changed the outlook to developing from negative.INZON CORP: George Brenner Raises Going Concern Doubt-----------------------------------------------------George Brenner, CPA, expressed substantial doubt about InZon Corporation's ability to continue as a going concern after he audited the Company's financial statements for the year ended Sept. 30, 2005, and the period May 14, 2004 (inception) through Sept. 30, 2004. Mr. Brenner pointed to the Company's losses from start-up operations, substantial need for working capital and accumulated deficit of $1,394,670 at Sept. 30, 2005. The Company's auditor can be reached at: George Brenner, CPA 10680 W. Pico Boulevard, Suite 260 Los Angeles, California 90064 Phone: 310/202-6445 Fax: 310/202-6494 Fiscal Year 2005 ResultsInZon recorded a $1,182,340 net loss from continued operations for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2005, as compared to a $212,330 net loss for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2004. Management attributes the increase loss to the start up of operations after the merger with W-J International, Inc.For the years ended Sept. 30, 2005, and 2004, the Company reported total operating revenues of $556,344 and zero respectively. The Company was dormant until the merger on Oct. 1, 2004, and did not initiate sales until August 2005.InZon's balance sheet showed $1,457,137 in total assets and liabilities of $1,682,632 at Sept. 30, 2005, resulting in a stockholders' deficit of $225,495.Based in Delray Beach, Florida, InZon Corporation provides telecommunication services in the United States. The company offers voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) services to tier 1 and tier 2 carriers. Its VoIP technology provides voice, fax, data, conference call, and Internet services over a private Internet protocol network to international carriers and other communication service providers. ISTAR FINANCIAL: Fitch Lifts Preferred Stock Rating to BB+----------------------------------------------------------Fitch Ratings upgraded iStar Financial Inc.'s senior unsecured debt rating to 'BBB' from 'BBB-'. Fitch also raised iStar's preferred stock rating to 'BB+' from 'BB'. The Rating Outlook is Stable. This action affects $4.2 billion of securities.The rating action was based in part on iStar's success at migrating toward an unsecured capital structure over the past several years and, more recently, through the repayment of its on balance sheet securitizations (STARS transactions) in late 2005.This was achieved during a period in which the company maintained solid operating performance and leverage metrics. As of Sept. 30, 2005, just 8.3% of the company's capital base was secured, while over 94% of its asset base was unencumbered. In Fitch's view, this profile provides a foundation for strong operating and financial flexibility. Fitch expects that management will operate the company at between 8% and 16% secured capital to total capital over the long term.Fitch has also evaluated the impact of iStar's Oak Hill and Falcon Financial transactions, which were made in early 2005. The investment in Oak Hill appears to be yielding some contribution to iStar's credit evaluation efforts, while it has not, and is not expected to, resulted in the company making alternative investments such as investments in subordinated CDO tranches. iStar also continues to make loans to automobile dealerships under its Autostar platform, which expanded following the Falcon Financial acquisition. Over the initial term of the Autostar program, the loan-to-real estate value ratios of these assets have been lower than Fitch had originally expected.iStar's core credit strengths center on its ability to maintain strong asset quality despite a highly competitive commercial real estate market. For the credit tenant lease (CTL) portfolio, the weighted average lease term increased to 11.4 years at Sept. 30, 2005, while over 46% of lessees bear investment-grade credit profiles. For the loan portfolio, the loan-to-value ratio of the company's mortgage and real estate-backed corporate loan assets declined to 65% as of Sept. 30, 2005 from the 66% to 68% range in prior years. While Fitch believes that the strength of some of these asset quality metrics has come at the expense of asset growth and profit margin, they demonstrate significant management discipline and are a benefit for unsecured debt investors. However, Fitch does not believe that iStar has changed its risk-return equation.Fitch continues to believe that iStar's leverage and capitalization are solid for the rating category. The company's ratio of debt to undepreciated book equity was 1.82 times (x) at Sept. 30, 2005, which is up from 1.69x and 1.57x at the end of fiscal 2004 and 2003, respectively. Management has targeted higher leverage over the next several years, which Fitch expects will also be acceptable for the current rating. However, this will be carefully monitored. Fitch analyzes iStar using a dynamic risk-adjusted capital model that risk weights each asset class based on expected loss. Despite higher traditional leverage metrics, the model continues to show that iStar is well capitalized from a risk-adjusted standpoint.Operating performance also remains solid for the rating category. Adjusted recurring fixed-charge coverage declined to 1.96x for the first nine months of 2005 from 2.10x for the same period of 2004. This ratio subtracts CTL capital expenditures and deferred rent income from EBITDA and also excludes the impact of nonrecurring income and expenses such as debt prepayment expenses and gains on the sale of assets. The ratio declined in 2005 mainly as a function of excess liquidity in the commercial real estate market and higher leverage on the company's balance sheet. This may improve modestly in the future as iStar repays more expensive debt issued when the company had a 'BB+' senior unsecured debt rating as well as to the extent that some liquidity exits the commercial real estate market, which may make pricing conditions more favorable.Fitch's concerns about the company center on the complex nature of many of its investments. While many loans have low loan-to-value ratios in the 60% to 70% range, they are typically more complex than standard loans originated by insurance companies or commercial mortgage backed securities market participants. For example, under certain circumstances, iStar's position in an investment involves a certain degree of calculated property repositioning risk. Management believes this risk is mitigated by a loan basis that is below replacement cost, as well as other structural features, such as prefunded reserves or limited recourse guarantees from the property's equity sponsor.The company also provides capital under conditions where there are few other market participants. Should market conditions abruptly weaken, iStar would likely find these investments to be less liquid than most traditional mortgage assets. This risk is mitigated by the company's strong track record and substantial real estate and structuring acumen. The company's lack of any significant charge-offs also helps to support this conclusion.Fitch also remains concerned that substantial liquidity in the commercial real estate market has led to very high market valuations across geographical sectors and property types. During this time period iStar has generated substantial new business volume, and it is likely that some assets are on the company's books at or near peak market valuations. To the extent that some liquidity begins to leave the market, loan default and loss recovery trends may weaken, and refinancing or asset sales activity may be more difficult to execute. iStar is somewhat protected from this risk due to many of the structural characteristics of its loans, which often include letter of credit or cash reserve requirements for weaker borrowers. The company is also insulated by virtue of the long lease terms and strong tenant quality in its CTL portfolio.Headquartered in New York City, iStar provides structured financing and corporate leasing of commercial real estate nationwide. iStar leverages its expertise in real estate, capital markets, and corporate finance to serve corporations with sophisticated financing requirements. As of Sept. 30, 2005, iStar had $8.3 billion of undepreciated real estate assets and $2.8 billion of undepreciated book equity.KAISER ALUMINUM: Panel Asks Court to Overrule Sherwin's Objections------------------------------------------------------------------ As previously reported, Sherwin Alumina, LP, reserved its right to object to the confirmation of Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and its debtor-affiliates' Second Amended Plan of Reorganization and to seek continuation of the hearing to confirm the Plan.On behalf of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, William P. Bowden, Esq., at Ashby & Geddes, in Wilmington, Delaware, asserts that Sherwin lacks standing to object to confirmation of the Plan. Sherwin has neither filed, nor asserted, claims against any of the Reorganizing Debtors. It only filed a proof of claim against Kaiser Bauxite Company, which is not one of the Reorganizing Debtors.Mr. Bowden asserts that Sherwin's allegations that the Debtors' intercompany claims settlement agreement was approved without proper notice to it, rendered KBC penniless and was tainted by conflicts of interest, are meritless and irrelevant to whether the Plan was proposed in good faith under Section 1129 (a)(3). Mr. Bowden notes that Sherwin was provided with ample notice of the ISA and did not object. Hence, Sherwin's arguments surrounding the ISA have been waived.Sherwin misunderstands the factual and legal bases surrounding the ISA, Mr. Bowden argues. Contrary to Sherwin's allegation that no creditor represented KBC during the ISA negotiations, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation was actively involved in those negotiations. PBGC is KBC's biggest creditor, Mr. Bowden points out.In response to Sherwin's allegations that the ISA stripped KBC of over $880,000,000 in assets without meaningful consideration, Mr. Bowden points out that the ISA represented an equitable balancing of a multitude of issues affecting each of the Debtors' estates. According to Mr. Bowden, the parties to the ISA negotiations have agreed that all of the prepetition intercompany claims should be treated identically, including KBC's prepetition Intercompany Claim against KACC. With regard to the other KBC assets, Mr. Bowden relates that the assets were sold at arm's-length negotiations with third parties.Moreover, Sherwin's substantive consolidation arguments are also meritless because, among other things: * KBC is not one of the reorganizing Debtors and has not filed a plan of reorganization or plan of liquidation; * substantive consolidation will not have a negative impact on Sherwin; * Sherwin had more than adequate notice that the Debtors' estates will be substantively consolidated; and * substantive consolidation is proper under the recent test articulated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in In re Owens Corning, 419 F.3d 195 (3d Cir. 2005).The Debtors agree with the Creditors' Committee.\"It is simply too late to attack the ISA,\" Kimberly Newmarch, Esq., at Richards, Layton & Finger, in Wilmington, Delaware, tells the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Sherwin had ample opportunity to object to the ISA and to take discovery before the Court approved it, but failed to do so, Ms. Newmarch says.The ISA, which has the support of all of the Debtors' major creditor constituencies, became effective on February 28, 2005, and has been substantially consummated.Sherwin should not now be allowed to delay the confirmation hearing and seek to unwind the ISA that was approved long ago simply because Sherwin failed to object to the ISA when it had the opportunity. Any attempt by Sherwin to delay confirmation of the Plan should be denied.The Debtors and the Creditors Committee ask the Court to overrule Sherwin's Objection. Insurers Insist They Have StandingCertain insurers contend that they have a \"practical stake\" in the confirmation proceeding, and should be afforded broad standing to object to confirmation of the Debtors' Plan of Reorganization: * AIU Insurance Company; * American Re-Insurance Company; * Columbia Casualty Insurance Company; * Continental Insurance Company; * Executive Risk Indemnity Company, as successor-in-interest to American Excess Insurance Company; * Granite State Insurance Company; * Harbor Insurance Company; * Hudson Insurance Company; * Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania; * Landmark Insurance Company; * Lexington Insurance Company; * National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa.; * New Hampshire Insurance Company; * Republic Indemnity Co. and Transport Co.; * TIG Insurance Company, successor by merger with International Insurance Company; and * Transcontinental Insurance Company.The Insurers point out that the Debtors admitted that the insurance proceeds will be \"the vast majority of the ultimate value of the PI Trust Assets\" and are \"critical to the recoveries of the tort claimants.\" Hence, it is indisputable that the Debtors' Plan of Reorganization: (1) affects the policy rights and liabilities of the insurers, particularly because the Debtors seek to assign the insurers' policies without their consent; and (2) cuts off the insurers' rights to assert contribution claims against settling insurers pursuant to the proposed Section 524(g) injunction.The Insurers also assert that the contribution of 94% of reorganized Kaiser Trading's Common Stock to the Trust does not comply with Section 524(g)(2)(B)(i)(III) of the Bankruptcy Code. Under Section 524(g)(2)(B)(i)(III), the Asbestos PI Trust must own or be entitled to own 51% of the stock of: (1) \"each such debtor\"; (2) \"the parent corporation of each such debtor\"; or (3) \"a subsidiary of each such debtor that is also a debtor.\"The Plan Proponents, however, contend that \"each such debtor\" in Section 524(g)(2)(B)(i)(III) refers to debtors whose securities are provided to the Trust.\"Each such debtor\" refers to each Reorganized Debtor seeking Section 524(g) relief, the Insurers tell the Court.The Insurers maintain that the Plan Proponents' interpretation: -- does not comport with Section 524(g)'s legislative history and Congressional intent in enacting the statute; -- is not supported by the Third Circuit's opinion in Combustion Engineering, 391 F.3d. 190 (3rd Cir. 2004); -- renders portions of Section 524(g)(2)(B)(i)(III) unnecessary and superfluous in violation of Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedent. Additionally, the Insurers also contend that \"[n]othing in section 524(g) authorizes, let alone compels, the Insurers to pay claims on terms other than those provided in the Policies, nor does the 1994 addition to the [Bankruptcy] Code otherwise purport to alter pre-existing contract rights.\"The Plan Proponents' interpretation of Section 524(g) is also contrary to the Supreme Court's proscription against compulsory settlements in Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815, 864 (1999); and Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 627 (1997).Republic Indemnity also argues that Section 541 does not operate to allow assignment of the PI Insurance Assets. The PI Insurance Assets are not defined in the Plan to include the insurance policies, but only certain rights and proceeds accruing to the Debtors under the policies. However, the Debtors have identified no assignable property interests or contractual rights, contingent or otherwise, which arise under the policies and have actually accrued. Republic Indemnity's attorney Christopher M. Winter, Esq., at Duane Morris LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware, says Section 1123(a)(5) does not have wide preemptive scope. Section 1123(a)(5) is simply \"a directive to a plan proponent about what must go into a plan.\" Mr. Winter points out that the Plan Proponents and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors have pointed to no provision that would provide the substantive authority to assign the PI Insurance Assets to the Trust. While Section 363(1) provides that substantive authority, its specific and more limited preemption provision would not preempt the state laws barring the assignment of insurance rights.For these reasons, the Insurers ask Judge Judith Fitzgerald to find that preemption does not apply to an assignment of the insurance policies and thus those rights should be considered by a non-bankruptcy court.Headquartered in Foothill Ranch, California, Kaiser Aluminum Corporation -- http://www.kaiseraluminum.com/-- is a leading producer of fabricated aluminum products for aerospace and high-strength, general engineering, automotive, and custom industrial applications. The Company filed for chapter 11 protection on February 12, 2002 (Bankr. Del. Case No. 02-10429), and has sold off a number of its commodity businesses during course of its cases. Corinne Ball, Esq., at Jones Day, represents the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. On June 30, 2004, the Debtors listed $1.619 billion in assets and $3.396 billion in debts.(Kaiser Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 88; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)KAISER ALUMINUM: Looking for Replacement for One New Director-------------------------------------------------------------As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Nov. 8, 2005, Kaiser Aluminum has selected the individuals who will serve as directors of the company after it emerges from Chapter 11 in early 2006. The new board -- which consists of labor leaders; finance, accounting and governance professionals; and leaders with experience in metals, energy, aerospace, engineering and manufacturing industries -- was selected by a committee of advisors including management and representatives of principal creditor interests in the Chapter 11 case.Upon emergence from Chapter 11, members of the Kaiser Aluminum board will include: * George Becker, * Carl Frankel, * Teresa Hopp, * Bill Murdy, * Al Osborne, * Georganne Proctor, * Jack Quinn, * Tom Van Leeuwen, and * Brett Wilcox. George Becker Seeks ReplacementKaiser issued a statement attributed to Jack Hockema, president and chief executive officer:\"For health reasons, George Becker has asked the USW to designate another person to replace him as one of the four USW nominees on Kaiser Aluminum's post-emergence board of directors. George is an outstanding individual with a tremendous breadth and depth of experience that will be difficult to replace. However, we intend to work closely with USW representatives to select George's replacement as quickly as possible and are pleased that George has confirmed his commitment to serve on the post-emergence board of directors until a replacement is identified.\"Headquartered in Foothill Ranch, California, Kaiser Aluminum Corporation -- http://www.kaiseraluminum.com/-- is a leading producer of fabricated aluminum products for aerospace and high-strength, general engineering, automotive, and custom industrial applications. The Company filed for chapter 11 protection on February 12, 2002 (Bankr. Del. Case No. 02-10429), and has sold off a number of its commodity businesses during course of its cases. Corinne Ball, Esq., at Jones Day, represents the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. On June 30, 2004, the Debtors listed $1.619 billion in assets and $3.396 billion in debts.(Kaiser Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 88; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)MAGNATRAX CORP: Wants Until May 12 to Object to Proofs of Claim---------------------------------------------------------------Magnatrax Corporation and its debtor-affiliates ask the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to extend, until May 12, 2006, the deadline by which they can file objections to proofs of claim filed against their estates. Since the effective date of their confirmed chapter 11 Plan, the Reorganized Debtors have made significant progress in analyzing all claims filed against their estates and to date, they have filed 11 omnibus objections. The Reorganized Debtors says the extension is necessary because there are still numerous remaining claims that they need to properly analyze and carefully evaluate to ensure that the claims analysis process is accurate and comprehensive. The Reorganized Debtors says the extension is in the best interests of the Debtors' estates to ensure that the correct amount will be paid to their creditors. Headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia, Magnatrax Corporation is a diversified North American manufacturer and marketer of engineeredbuilding products and services for non-residential and residential construction markets. The Debtor and its affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on May 12, 2003 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 03-11402). Joel A. Waite, Esq., at Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP represents the Debtors. When the Debtor filed for protection from its creditors, it listed total assets of $207,000,000 and total debts of $326,000,000. The Court confirmed the Debtors' chapter 11 Plan on Nov. 17, 2003, and the Plan took effect on Jan. 20, 2004.MANCHESTER ACQUISITION: List of 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors--------------------------------------------------------------Manchester Acquisition Partners, L.P., submitted a list of its 20 largest unsecured creditors to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, disclosing: Entity Claim Amount ------ ------------ Jackson County Manager of Finance $49,933 P.O. Box 219747 Kansas City, MO 64121-9747 Zerjav & Co., PC $5,446 1830 Craig Park Court St. Louis, MO 63146 The Home Depot $4,604 P.O. Box 9903 Macon, GA 31297 Metropolitan Patrol, LLC $3,150 Techni-Serve, Inc. $2,811 Crown Termite & Pest Control $2,293 Marcone Appliance Center $1,835 Deffenbaugh Disposal Service $1,354 Cooper Craft Plumbing $1,311 Charley D. Jones $1,304 ICU Deluxe Paint Center $1,290 Loews Company $996 UPS $991 Office Depot $872 For Rent Magazine $704 AT&T $609 Reisner Lawn Care $600 Gish Pettyjohn $600 Classic Roofing Co. $520 Home Service Unlimited $515Manchester Acquisition Partners, LP, owns and operates an apartment in Kansas City, Missouri. The Debtor and its debtor-affiliate filed for Chapter 11 protection on Dec. 1, 2005 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. Case No. 05-62040 & 05-62041). Peter D. Kerth, Esq., at Gallop, Johnson & Neuman, LC, represents the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. When the Debtors filed for bankruptcy, they reported estimated assets and debts at $1 million to $10 million.MUSCLETECH RESEARCH: Chapter 15 Petition Summary------------------------------------------------Petitioner: RSM Richter Inc. Canadian Court-Appointed Monitor and Foreign RepresentativeLead Debtor: MuscleTech Research and Development Inc. 5100 Spectrum Way Mississauga, Ontario L4W 5S2 CanadaCase No.: 06-10092Debtor-affiliates filing separate chapter 15 petitions: Entity Case No. ------ -------- 1619005 Ontario Ltd. 06-10093 ACE Formulations Ltd. 06-10094 ACE US Trademark Ltd. 06-10096 Cell Formulations Ltd. 06-10097 GENERAL Formulations Ltd. 06-10098 HC Canadian Trademark Ltd. 06-10100 Comida Inc. d/b/a Ideya 06-10101 HC Foreign Trademark Ltd. 06-10102 HC Formulations Ltd. 06-10103 HC Trademark Holdings Ltd. 06-10104 HC US Trademark Ltd. 06-10105 MESO Formulations Ltd. 06-10106 MISC Formulations Ltd. 06-10107 MT Canadian Supplement Trademark Ltd. 06-10108 MT Foreign Supplement Trademark Ltd. 06-10109 NITRO Formulations Ltd. 06-10110Type of Business: MuscleTech Research and Development Inc. was incorporated under the laws of the Province of Ontario, Canada, on Dec. 5, 1997. MDI is a privately held Canadian company and is the parent company of the other Debtors. The other Debtors can be divided into: (a) Formulation Companies that own or owned certain product formulations, trade secrets, know-how and patents associated with some health supplement, weight-loss and sports nutrition products formerly sold by MDI, and (b) Trademark Companies that own or owned the trademarks associated with some products formerly sold by MDI and some other miscellaneous trademarks, some of which are Canadian, U.S. or foreign trademarks. The Debtors are in bankruptcy because of the product liability lawsuits pending throughout the United States against some of the Debtors. MDI already ceased production and sale of products containing ephedra and prohormones in December 2002.Chapter 15 Petition Date: January 18, 2006Canadian Court: Ontario Superior Court of JusticeU.S. Court: Southern District of New York (Manhattan)U.S. Judge: James M. PeckPetitioner's Counsel: Kenneth P. Coleman, Esq. Daniel Guyder, Esq. Kelle Gagne, Esq. Allen & Overy LLP 1221 Avenue of Americas New York, New York 10022 Tel: (212) 610-6300 Fax: (212) 610-6399Financial Condition as of December 26, 2005: Total Assets: $7,108,204 Total Debts: $29,000,000NATIONWIDE HEALTH: S&P Affirms Preferred Stock Rating at BB+------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its: * 'BBB-' corporate credit rating; * 'BBB-' senior unsecured debt rating; and * 'BB+' preferred stock rating on Nationwide Health Properties Inc. The affirmations affect approximately $570 million in outstanding senior unsecured notes and $197 million in preferred stock. The outlook is stable. Standard & Poor's credit analyst Tom Taillon explained, \"The affirmed ratings reflect Nationwide's strengthened investment portfolio, which is characterized by improving rent coverage measures, long lease maturities, and good occupancy levels. Furthermore, a higher level of private payments, coupled with the current government reimbursement environment, should provide good near-term visibility for relative stability among Nationwide's operators.\" At the same time, Mr. Taillon noted, \"The company's recently more aggressive growth appetite presents some additional risk, as using debt to acquire assets has resulted in higher leverage ratios. In addition, concentration among tenants will continue to expose the company to credit risks, which can be amplified by potential shifts in government policy.\" The stable outlook is supported by a good operator base with improving rent coverage measures, along with a relatively supportive environment for health care reimbursement. The company's rapid investment growth could place downward pressure on the ratings should debt leverage climb or cash flow coverage measures weaken significantly from current levels. Conversely, a prudent pursuit of acquisitions that improves tenant diversity, efforts to craft a more conservative financial profile, and continued operator stability would drive ratings improvement.NATURADE INC: Laurus Increases Term Loan to $1.65M & Extends Term -----------------------------------------------------------------Naturade, Inc., and Laurus Master Fund, Ltd., amended their July 26, 2005, Security and Purchase Agreement.The amendments: -- increased the Secured Term Loan from $1 million, of which $909,000 was outstanding at January 11, 2006, to $1.65 million. Over advances totaling $650,000 were transferred from the Secured Revolving Note to the Term Loan with the remaining $91,000 utilized as a reduction of the amount outstanding under the Revolver; -- modified the payments on the Term Loan from $30,000 per month beginning November 1, 2005, payable in shares of the Company's common stock or $30,900 per month if paid in cash, to $50,000 per month in cash beginning April 1, 2006; -- eliminated the Minimum Borrowing Note outstanding of $500,000; -- eliminated Laurus' ability to convert the Term Loan, the Revolver, and the Minimum Note into the Company's common shares; -- extended the term of the Agreement from three years ending on July 26, 2008, to three years ended January 6, 2009. -- modified the prepayment provisions of the Revolver and the Term Loan from an early payment fee of 35% of the loan amounts if paid prior to the termination date, to 5% if retired before January 6, 2007, 4% if retired prior to January 6, 2008, and 3% if retired prior to January 6, 2009.A full-text copy of the Amended and Restated Security and Purchase Agreement is available for free at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?469 A full-text copy of the Amended and Restated Secured Term Note is available for free at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?46a A full-text copy of the Amended and Restated Secured Revolving Note is available for free at http://researcharchives.com/t/s?46b In consideration for entering into the Agreement, the Company issued to Laurus, 1.05 million common shares and reimbursed Laurus' expenses (including legal fees) totaling $22,750. Amended and Restated Registration Rights AgreementThe shares are subject to an Amended and Restated Registration Rights Agreement providing Laurus with certain rights to require the Company to register the 1.05 million common shares and additional common shares issuable to them upon the exercise of the warrant or the option, previously granted to Laurus in connection with the original Security and Purchase Agreement.A full-text copy of the Registration Rights Agreement is available for free at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?46c Naturade Inc. is a branded natural products marketing companyfocused on growth through innovative, scientifically supportedproducts designed to nourish the health and well being ofconsumers. The Company primarily competes in the overall marketfor natural, nutritional supplements. Nutrition Business Journal,a San Diego-based research publication that specializes in thisindustry, reports that sales for the overall $58 billion\"Nutrition\" industry were up 7% in 2004 versus 2003. Naturadeprimarily competes in the $19 billion segment defined by NBJ asSupplements, which grew 3.8% in 2004. In addition, the reportpoints out that sales of supplements were growing at similar ratesin both the mass market channel and health food and naturalproduct stores at approximately 3.5%.As of Sept. 30, 2005, Naturade Inc.'s balance sheet reflects a$12,428,842 stockholders' deficit, compared to a $3,031,548deficit at Dec. 31, 2004.NESCO INDUSTRIES: Chief Financial Officer Karen Nazzareno Resigns-----------------------------------------------------------------Nesco Industries, Inc.'s Chief Financial Officer, Karen Nazzareno, resigned from her position. The resignation was disclosed by the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Matthew L. Harriton, in an 8-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.No explanation for the resignation was disclosed. Neither was the name of the replacement reported. Mr. Harriton also informed the SEC through a FORM 12b-25 filing delivered on December 14, 2005, that the Company could not file its financial statements for the quarter ending October 31, 2005, in a timely manner. At July 31, 2005, Nesco's balance sheet showed $1,613,816 in totalassets and liabilities of $7,431,665, resulting in a stockholders'deficit of $5,817,849. The Company had a working capital deficitof approximately $6,986,000 and an accumulated deficit ofapproximately $19,771,000, at July 31, 2005. Going Concern DoubtRothstein, Kass & Company, PC, expressed substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern after it audited the Company's financial statements for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2005. The auditing firm pointed to the Company's cumulative losses and working capital and stockholders' deficit.Nesco Industries, Inc., develops, manufactures and markets highwater content, electron beam cross-linked, aqueous polymerhydrogels used for wound care, medical diagnostics, transdermaldrug delivery and cosmetics.NOMURA ASSET: Fitch Lifts $34 Mil. Class B-2 Certs. Rating to A--------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings upgrades Nomura Asset Securities Corp.'s commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, series 1996-MDV as: * $33.7 million class B-2 to 'A' from 'BB+'In addition, Fitch affirms these classes' ratings: * $11.2 million class A-1A at 'AAA' * $352.0 million class A-1B at 'AAA' * $7.5 million class A-1C at 'AAA' * Interest-only classes CS-1 and CS-2 at 'AAA' * $45.0 million class A-2 at 'AAA' * $52.4 million class A-3 at 'AAA' * $48.7 million class A-4 at 'AAA' * $11.2 million class A-5 at 'AAA' * $48.7 million class B-1 at 'AAA'The class S-1 is paid in full.Fitch does not rate class B-2H.The upgrades are due to the full defeasance of the Horizon loan (9.1%).As of the January 2006 distribution date, the pool's total principal balance has been reduced by 22.0% to $603.2 million from $773.7 million at issuance, due to the repayment of one loan and amortization on eight of the nine remaining fixed-rate loans. The collateral consists of government securities (96.2%) from the full defeasance of eight loans and one crossed pool loan secured by eight geographically diverse properties.The Innkeepers Portfolio loan (3.8%) is collateralized by eight extended stay hotels. Although the Fitch adjusted net cash flow (NCF) for year-end 2004 has declined 26.5% since issuance, the loan exposure is low at $28,000 per room. Due to amortization of the loan, the corresponding debt service coverage ratio remains strong at 2.35 times compared to 2.41x at issuance. Year-to-date September 2005 revenue per available room improved slightly (2%) over YTD September 2004.As part of its review, Fitch analyzed the performance of the loan and the underlying collateral. Fitch compared the loan's stressed DSCR for the year ended December 2004 to the DSCR at issuance. DSCR is based on Fitch adjusted net cash flow and a stressed debt service based on the current loan balance.OPTINREALBIG.COM: Places $7 Million Microsoft Settlement in Escrow------------------------------------------------------------------U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado approved OptinRealBig.com, LLC, and its owner, Scott Allen Richter's request to place settlement funds in escrow.The Debtors tell the Court that during their bankruptcy proceedings, they have reached settlements with Microsoft Corporation and American family Mutual Insurance Company. The Debtors say that the terms of the settlements call for the Debtors to request dismissal of their bankruptcy cases and close the settlements after dismissal. Microsoft SettlementAs previously reported in the Troubled Company Reporter, after several meetings and negotiations, the Debtors and Microsoft agreed that: a) the Debtors will pay Microsoft $7 million within 24 hours after the chapter 11 cases are dismissed; b) the Debtors will consent to a permanent injunction requiring their continued compliance with certain applicable laws; c) the Debtors and Microsoft will issue a press release announcing the terms of the settlement and will refrain from giving any statements which are not in conformity with the prepared statement.The Debtors tell the Court that they are willing to pay the $7 million amount but they cannot transfer funds without Court approval. For tax reasons, the Debtors argue, it would in the best interest of the creditors and the estate to place the settlement funds due to Microsoft in segregated, escrow accounts with the Debtor's counsel or a nationally chartered bank. The Debtors want to place $1.5 million and $5.5 million in escrow and the funds will only be forwarded to Microsoft after the Court either: * dismisses the Debtors' chapter 11 cases, or * approves the transfer of the funds.Headquartered in Westminster, Colorado, OptinRealBig.com, LLC, is an e-mail marketing company. The Company filed for chapter 11 protection on March 25, 2005 (Bankr. D. Colo. Case No. 05-16304).John C. Smiley, Esq., at Lindquist & Vennum P., LLP, representsthe Debtor. When the Debtor filed for protection from itscreditors, it listed estimated assets of $1 million to $10 millionand estimated debts of $50 million to $100 million.O'SULLIVAN INDUSTRIES: Committee Objects to Disclosure Statement----------------------------------------------------------------The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors contends that the Amended Disclosure Statement has not remedied the inadequacies of the Initial Disclosure Statement. The Amended Disclosure Statement fails to: a) provide adequate information regarding the allowed senior secured notes claim; b) identify and value the unencumbered assets of the estates including: * the description of the Avoidance Claims; * information as to the value of the Avoidance Claims; and * how the Avoidance Claims will be prosecuted; c) identify, analyze and value Litigation Claims; d) adequately describe the ongoing transformation of O'Sullivan Industries Holdings, Inc., and its debtor- affiliates' business; e) disclose the detailed assumptions, calculations or analysis supporting the alleged enterprise value of the Debtors; f) provide adequate information regarding the Debtors' net operating losses; g) provide adequate information about critical operative documents; h) provide a liquidation analysis for each Debtor or include the Avoidance Recoveries; and i) identify, value or explain the discriminatory treatment of Intercompany Claims.James R. Sacca, Esq., at Greenberg Traurig LLP, in Atlanta, Georgia, points out that the Amended Disclosure Statement notes certain changes made in response to comments of the Securities and Exchange Commission but fails to describe all matters raised by the SEC or whether any issues remain. The Amended Disclosure Statement has also deleted references to potential restructuring transactions.Mr. Sacca also asserts that the Amended Disclosure Statement should provide more information regarding the 2006 Incentive Program, and describe the prepetition negotiations with certain noteholders.Mr. Sacca says the Debtors' Amended Plan of Reorganization cannot be confirmed as a matter of law. Additionally, the approval of the Amended Disclosure Statement is a waste of judicial resources and an inappropriate burden on the estates, Mr. Sacca insists. Debtors Respond\"Continuing its obfuscatory, 'scorched earth' approach to these cases, the Committee has yet again attempted to derail the Debtors' confirmation process to obtain leverage, with the hope of extracting value from senior creditors,\" James C. Cifelli, Esq., at Lamberth, Cifelli, Stokes & Stout, P.A., in Atlanta, Georgia, argues. Mr. Cifelli contends that the Committee chose not to even recognize that the Debtors filed an amended Disclosure Statement in advance of the objection deadline. Rather, Mr. Cifelli notes, the Committee had the audacity to object to a version of the Disclosure Statement that it knew three days earlier was outdated, including deliberately failing to acknowledge many changes that had already addressed the Committee's objections.It is quite apparent, Mr. Cifelli says, that the Committee does not seek fair and adequate disclosure, but rather seeks to avoid disclosure altogether, and any ensuing plan confirmation, because it does not like the economic outcome.Furthermore, Mr. Cifelli points out that: a) the Committee's Objection fails to suggest specific revisions to the Disclosure Statement; b) many of the Committee's Objections were already addressed and resolved in the Amended Disclosure Statement; c) many of the Committee's Objections are Plan-related and are not appropriate at this stage of the Debtors' Chapter 11 cases; and d) the remaining objections of the Committee must fail as a matter of law and policy.The Debtors ask the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia to overrule the Committee's Objection.Mr. Cifelli assures the Court that the Debtors have provided and will provide more than enough information to meet the required \"adequate information\" standard. Mr. Cifelli notes that the Debtors will try to accommodate the Creditors Committee's demands, to the extent practicable, by adding information either in the Disclosure Statement or in a Plan Supplement.Headquartered in Roswell, Georgia, O'Sullivan Industries Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.osullivan.com/-- designs, manufactures, and distributes ready-to-assemble furniture and related products, including desks, computer work centers, bookcases, filing cabinets, home entertainment centers, commercial furniture, garage storage units, television, audio, and night stands, dressers, and bedroom pieces. O'Sullivan sells its products primarily to large retailers including OfficeMax, Lowe's, Wal-Mart, Staples, and Office Depot. The Company and its subsidiaries filed for chapter 11 protection on October 14, 2005 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Case No. 05-83049). On September 30, 2005, the Debtor listed $161,335,000 in assets and $254,178,000 in debts. (O'Sullivan Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 10; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)O'SULLIVAN IND: Disclosure Statement Hearing Continued to Jan. 25-----------------------------------------------------------------As previously reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Jan. 12, 2006, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors ask the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia to continue the Disclosure Hearing until Feb. 2, 2006, to allow sufficient time to undertake its independent analysis of O'Sullivan Industries Holdings, Inc., and its debtor-affiliates' Amended Plan and Disclosure Statement and to prepare a responsive pleading.James R. Sacca, Esq., at Greenberg Traurig, LLP, in Atlanta, Georgia, pointed out that the Debtors' case is not a case where business exigencies require a truncated timetable. Moreover, there is nothing compelling a \"fast track\" in these cases other than the desire to curtail the rights of interested parties.There is no legitimate reason why the Creditors Committee and theCourt should be held hostage to an artificially created deadline which has no business necessity, especially in a complex case in which the plan and disclosure statement remain moving targets.Furthermore, Mr. Sacca told the Court that by allowing theCreditors Committee time to complete its due diligence review with respect to the Amended Plan and Disclosure Statement, theDebtors' opportunity to confirm a plan of reorganization is not jeopardized, rather, the voices of other parties-in-interest to be heard are merely allowed. * * *In a stipulation approved by the Court, the Debtors, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, and the Ad Hoc Senior Secured Noteholders Committee -- GoldenTree Asset Management L.P., Mast Credit Opportunities I, (Master) Ltd., and Breakwater Fund Management, LLC -- agree to continue the hearing on the adequacy of the Amended Disclosure Statement explaining the Debtors' Plan of Reorganization to Jan. 25, 2006, at 9:30 am.Headquartered in Roswell, Georgia, O'Sullivan Industries Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.osullivan.com/-- designs, manufactures, and distributes ready-to-assemble furniture and related products, including desks, computer work centers, bookcases, filing cabinets, home entertainment centers, commercial furniture, garage storage units, television, audio, and night stands, dressers, and bedroom pieces. O'Sullivan sells its products primarily to large retailers including OfficeMax, Lowe's, Wal-Mart, Staples, and Office Depot. The Company and its subsidiaries filed for chapter 11 protection on Oct. 14, 2005 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Case No. 05-83049). On Sept. 30, 2005, the Debtor listed $161,335,000 in assets and $254,178,000 in debts. (O'Sullivan Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 10; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)OVERLOOK FARMS: Case Summary & 7 Largest Unsecured Creditors------------------------------------------------------------Debtor: Overlook Farms, Inc. 113 Lyons Lane Milton, New York 12547Bankruptcy Case No.: 06-35030Type of Business: The Debtor is a fruit and vegetable farm.Chapter 11 Petition Date: January 19, 2006Court: Southern District of New York (Poughkeepsie)Judge: Cecelia G. MorrisDebtor's Counsel: Lewis D. Wrobel, Esq. 12 Raymond Avenue Poughkeepsie, New York 12603 Tel: (845) 473-5411 Fax: (845) 473-3430Total Assets: $885,000Total Debts: $2,937,132Debtor's 7 Largest Unsecured Creditors: Entity Nature of Claim Claim Amount ------ --------------- ------------Farm Service Agency All real property $2,700,000225 Dolson Avenue, Suite 206 is encumberedMiddletown, NY 10940 by mortgage to Farm Service AgencyInternal Revenue Service Taxes $49,555Attn: Special ProceduresP.O. Box 266, Room 309Buffalo, NY 14201Orange County Commercial Finance Land & School $42,000265 Main Street Taxes for TownGoshen, NY 10924 of Newburgh ParcelsUlster County Treasurer Land & School $20,000P.O. Box 1800 Taxes for ColdKingston, NY 12402-1800 Storage PlantNew York State $16,717Unemployment Insurance/New York State Dep't. of LaborHarriman State Office CampusBuilding 12, Room 244Albany, NY 12240New York State Taxes $1,195Department of Tax & FinanceBankruptcy SectionP.O. Box 5300Albany, NY 12205-0300Household Credit Services Inc. Unknown1421 Kristina WayChesapeake, VA 23320PHOTOCIRCUITS CORP: Will Auction All Assets on February 6---------------------------------------------------------Photocircuits Corporation received approval from U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York to proceed with the auction of substantially all of its assets, including the assumption of certain liabilities to a long-term equity investor. This sale is to be conducted in accordance with Section 363 of Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.The company said that a private equity investor has submitted a bid for the whole of the company's business and has been selected as the lead bidder in the auction process. The private equity firm has stated its intention to operate Photocircuits business with the Company's current management team and employees. It is committed to building on Photocircuits' focus on quick-turn, prototype, and military PCB manufacturing, with high volume production via Photocircuits' relationship with PC Asia, a China based manufacturing venture. The final purchase price for the company's business is subject to higher and better offers at the formal Court auction to be held on Feb. 6, 2005. For details on the auction process, interested parties should contact: Triax Capital Advisors, LLC 620 Fifth Avenue, Second Floor New York, NY 10020 Attn: Joe Sarachek Ken Beiser Tel: (212) 332-4010,Triax is the financial advisor to Photocircuits. Photocircuits said this step brings it nearer to the completion of its reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U. S. Bankruptcy Code, and the Company is gratified that the sale of its business operations will enable it to continue to provide its customers with the same quality of service and delivery that it has provided for over 50 years. It remains committed to developing new products and services, providing exceptional support, and manufacturing products that continue to meet the highest standards of quality and timely delivery. The company will continue to enhance its domestic manufacturing capacity to meet the needs of customers seeking prototype and military production, while furthering its efforts to support customers who are transitioning demand to the Company's China manufacturing partner, PC Asia.Headquartered in Glen Cove, New York, Photocircuits Corporation-- http://www.photocircuits.com/-- was the first independent printed circuit board fabricator in the world. Its worldwidereach comprises facilities in Peachtree City, Georgia; Monterrey,Mexico; Heredia, Costa Rica; and Batangas, Philippines. TheCompany filed for chapter 11 protection on Oct. 14, 2005 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y. Case No. 05-89022). Gerard R Luckman, Esq., at SilvermanPerlstein & Acampora LLP, represents the Debtor in itsrestructuring efforts. When the Debtor filed for protection fromits creditors, it estimated more than $100 million in assets anddebts.PHOTOWORKS INC: Equity Deficit Narrows to $189,000 at Sept. 30--------------------------------------------------------------PhotoWorks, Inc. (OTCBB: PHTW) reported results for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2005 ended Sept. 30, 2005.The Company: -- completed outsourcing of entire production & wrote off all assets related to legacy film processing business; -- significantly reduced operating cost; -- has a new capital structure including elimination of all long term debts; -- has a new sales driven website; -- has a new product range and marketing capabilities; -- completed new leadership team; \"We are pleased with the results of our turnaround effort in 2005,\" said Philippe Sanchez, the Company's Chairman and CEO. \"We successfully changed the company from a legacy mail order film processing business to an internet based digital photo-publishing company. We are excited by the performance of our new photo book products and other digital-photo publishing sales during the holiday season and we believe the Company is well positioned to deliver on our growth objectives for fiscal year 2006.\"Total net revenues decreased 32% to $13,723,000 in fiscal 2005 compared to $20,160,000 in fiscal 2004. The decrease in total net revenues is due to the industry-wide decline in film-based processing volumes, a trend which will continue. However, and more importantly, net revenues from digital-based processing increased in fiscal 2005 by 24% to $3,785,000 compared to $3,054,000 in fiscal 2004. Gross margin as a percentage of net revenues for fiscal 2005 increased to 28.7% compared to 27.6% in fiscal 2004 and 24.8% in fiscal 2003. The Company reported a net loss of $7,370,000, or a loss of $.96 per share, for the fiscal year 2005 compared to a net loss of $1,672,000, or a net loss of $.50 per share for the fiscal year 2004. Net loss for fiscal 2005 is the result of the decrease in total net revenues, unabsorbed overhead costs, non-cash interest expenses related to the capital restructuring in 2005, accruals for reorganization expenses related to the outsourcing of the entire production capacity, the move to new offices and losses on impairment of assets. Significantly Lowered Operating CostsThe Company eliminated all production overhead costs by outsourcing its film processing operations during the 2nd and 3rd quarter 2005 and by outsourcing its digital print operation during the 4th quarter 2005. As of September 24, 2005, the Company employed a staff of 55 consisting primarily of web engineers, marketing professionals, customer service and a small administration department. This is down from 248 employees in October 2003, most of them were in manufacturing capacity. Furthermore, PhotoWorks has successfully terminated its lease of substantial excess manufacturing space and is re-locating to better and more efficient headquarters at lower costs. Costs related to the layoffs, shut down and write off of redundant process equipments as well as costs related to the move are provided for in the 4th quarter of the 2005 accounts. Re-organized Capital Structure In July 2005, PhotoWorks secured shareholders approval for a recapitalization plan negotiated with the holders of the subordinated debt and holders of the preferred shares. This plan resulted in: -- a $4 million cash investment; -- the conversion of the existing $2.5 million subordinated debt to common stock; -- the conversion of $12.5 million of Preferred Stock to common stock; -- 1:5 reverse common stock split in August 2005;As a result, the Company emerged with a strengthened balance sheet, free of long-term debt and a single class common stock capital structure. New Sales Driven Website and New digital Imaging Platform During 2005, PhotoWorks focused its web development efforts on improving the customer experience online and, in October 2005, launched a new service that significantly improves the ease of creating hardbound photo books for both PC and Mac users. Through the course of 2005, the Company also completed the migration of more than 275 million customer images to a cost efficient and highly scalable storage platform. New Product Range and Marketing CapabilitiesIn anticipation of the Holiday season, PhotoWorks unveiled a new line of unique books, industry defining signature cards and Photo Clutch(TM) -- a small hardback photo book encased in a leather wallet. PhotoWorks' products appeared in a variety of media including: The TODAY Show, the Washington Post, Real Simple Magazine, InStyle Magazine, PC Magazine and MacWorld. Completed New Leadership Team PhotoWorks augmented its leadership team with the appointment of Werner Reisacher as Vice President, CFO and COO in June 2005. Mr. Reisacher joined Tom Kelley, VP and CMO and Jerry Barber, VP and CTO who joined the team in 2004. Sixteen key management positions were also filled in 2005 and two directors joined a newly restructured Board. Business Outlook Fiscal year 2005 marks the completion of the restructuring phase, where the Company's focus was on disbanding the legacy film business, streamlining its operations and building its core competencies in the digital photo-publishing business. Looking ahead, management believes PhotoWorks is well positioned to gain share in the rapidly growing digital photography market and will focus its effort on accelerating growth in fiscal year 2006 while continuing to optimize operations for sustained performance. Going Concern DoubtWilliams & Webster, P.S., the Company's auditor, expressed substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern after it audited the financial statements for the year ending September 30, 2005.Williams & Webster points to the Company's net losses and cash flow shortages. A copy of the Company's financial statements for the year ending September 24, 2005, is available for free at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?46d PhotoWorks(R), Inc. (OTCBB:FOTO) -- http://www.photoworks.com/-- is an online photography services company. Every day, photographers send film, memory cards and CDs, or go to http://www.photoworks.com/to upload, organize and email their pictures, order prints, and create Signature Photo Cards and Custom Photo Books. Offering a 100% satisfaction guarantee, PhotoWorks has been awarded an \"Outstanding\" rating by The Enderle Group technology analysis firm.As of Sept. 24, 2005, PhotoWorks' equity deficit narrowed to $189,000 from a $536,000 deficit at Sept. 25, 2004. PIXIUS COMMS: Court Confirms Second Amended Plan of Reorganization------------------------------------------------------------------The Honorable Rubert E. Nugent of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas confirmed Pixius Communications, LLC's Second Amended Plan of Reorganization on Jan. 12, 2006.Judge Nugent determined that the Plan satisfies the 13 standards for confirmation required under Section 1129(a) of the BankruptcyCode. Terms of the PlanThe Debtor's Plan provides for the continuation of its businessunder current management, with restructured debt and equity.Bruce Chapin is replaced by Jay S. Maxwell as chief financial officerThe Debtor may borrow from insiders or otherwise to fund cash dividends to creditors, which may be converted to equity.Additional debt to equity conversions may be approved Claims TreatmentAdministrative and priority claims will be paid in full.General Electric Capital Corp. holds a purchase money securityinterest on the Debtor's telephone system in Junction City,Kansas. It will be paid $16,800 with 6% annual interest over athree-year period. GECC will retain its lien on the telephonesystem pending full payment of its claim.The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service's claim will be paid $1,270,275 in cash on the Plan's effective date, and the balance of $5,087,511 will be discharged.Ellis Davis, asserting a $2,882,114 claim, will be paid a total of$500,000 in cash, over a five-year period. Mr. Davis willalso get a 100,000 membership units in the Reorganized Debtor, andreceive the artwork located in Bumsville, Minnesota.The Debtor's former employees asserting wage claims will be paidat most $4,925 each, on the effective date.Unsecured creditors will receive periodic dividends (projected to total 17%) without interest over a five-year period.Existing equity securities will be cancelled, and new equityownership in the Reorganized Debtor will be issued.Headquartered in Wichita, Kansas, Pixius Communications, LLC --http://www.pixiuscorp.com/-- provides broadband internet service at speeds from 364 Kbps to 45 Mbps. The Company filed forchapter 11 protection on Dec. 14, 2004 (Bankr. D. Kans. Case No.04-16825). William B. Sorensen, Jr., Esq., at Morris Laing EvansBrock & Kennedy, represents the Debtor in its restructuringefforts. When the Debtor filed for protection from its creditors,it estimated between $100,000 to $500,000 in total assets andbetween $10 million to $50 million in total debts.PORTOLA PACKAGING: Balance Sheet Upside Down by $61MM at Nov. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------Portola Packaging, Inc., reported results for its first quarter of fiscal year 2006, ended Nov. 30, 2005.Portola reported sales of $65.9 million for the first quarter of fiscal year 2006 compared to $62.8 million for the first quarter of fiscal year 2005, an increase of 4.9%. Portola reported operating income of $2.1 million for the first quarter of fiscal year 2006, compared to operating income of $1.6 million for the first quarter of fiscal year 2005, an increase of 31.3%. Portola reported a net loss of $3.3 million for the first quarter of fiscal year 2006 compared to a net loss of $1.7 million for the first quarter of fiscal year 2005. EBITDA decreased $1.6 million to $6 million in the first quarter of fiscal year 2006 compared to $7.6 million in the first quarter of fiscal year 2005. Adjusted EBITDA, which excludes the effect of restructuring charges, (gains) or losses on the sale of assets, one-time relocation costs and costs relating to the dissolution of our Management Deferred Compensation Plan, decreased $1.1 million or 14.3% to $6.6 million in the first quarter of fiscal year 2006 compared to $7.7 million in the first quarter of fiscal year 2005. Improvements in operations of $0.8 million were before a charge of $0.3 million was recorded relating to the dissolution of the Company's Management Deferred Compensation Plan, which occurred in December 2005. In addition, earnings were negatively impacted by the difference of $2.2 million in foreign exchange versus the same quarter last year. The Company reported a foreign exchange loss of $0.2 million for the first quarter of fiscal year 2006 as compared to a $2 million gain reported in the first quarter of fiscal 2005. The majority of the foreign exchange is non-cash related. Portola Packaging Inc. -- http://www.portpack.com/-- is a leading designer, manufacturer and marketer of tamper evident plasticclosures used in dairy, fruit juice, bottled water, sports drinks,institutional food products and other non-carbonated beverageproducts. The Company also produces a wide variety of plasticbottles for use in the dairy, water and juice industries,including various high density bottles, as well as five-gallonpolycarbonate water bottles. In addition, the Company designs,manufactures and markets capping equipment for use in high speedbottling, filling and packaging production lines. The Company isalso engaged in the manufacture and sale of tooling and molds usedin the blow molding industry.As of Nov. 30, 2005, Portola Packaging's equity deficit widened to $61 million from a $57.7 million deficit at Aug. 31, 2005. QUINTUS CORP: Liquidation Plan Confirmation Hearing Set on March 2------------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware will convene a confirmation hearing at 9:30 a.m., on March 2, 2006, for the Joint Plan of Liquidation filed by Kurt F. Gwynne, Esq., and the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders in Quintus Corporation and its debtor-affiliates' chapter 11 cases. Mr. Gwynne is the chapter 11 Trustee for the Debtors' estates. Summary of Joint PlanOn or after the effective date of the Plan, the chapter 11 Trustee or the Plan Trustee will continue to liquidate the Debtors' remaining assets and continue to prosecute the Underwriter Litigation and the Avaya Litigation. All net proceeds of that liquidation will be added to the available cash and used for distribution to creditors and expenses for the Plan's implementation.On the effective date, Mustang.com, Inc. and Acuity Corp. will be merged into Quintus Corp. pursuant to the applicable laws of the State of Delaware. All allowed claims against Mustang.com or Acuity Corp. will become the allowed claims against the estate of Quintus, the surviving entity after the effective date. Treatment of Claims and InterestsA) Priority claims will be paid with interest on the later of the effective date or on another date as agreed upon by the holders of those claims and the chapter 11 Trustee or the Plan Trustee.B) All secured claims have been previously paid and will not receive any payments under the Plan. Unsecured claims previously paid in full will also not receive any payments under the Plan.C) Unsecured claims that have not been previously paid will be paid their unpaid balance with interest on the later of the effective date or on another date as agreed upon by holders of those claims and the chapter 11 Trustee or the Plan Trustee.D) Claims of Members of the Settlement Class in the Securities Class Action will be eligible to receive payments of their allocable share of the proceeds from the settlement of the Securities Class Action upon compliance with the requirements of the Notice of the Class Settlement. E) Claims of plaintiffs in the California Securities Action will be paid an aggregate sum of $2,650,000 on the effective date, while the claims of Plaintiffs in the Texas Securities Action will be paid an aggregate sum of $275,000. E) Directors and officers claims will not receive anything under the Plan in view of their participation in the Global Settlement. Subordinated interests will not receive any payments under the Plan. F) Subordinated claims will receive their pro rata share of the Subordinated Claim Distribution Amount up to the maximum amount their claims. Allowed equity interests will receive their pro rata share of the remaining available cash in exchange for their allowed interests. A full-text copy of the Disclosure Statement is available for a fee at: http://www.researcharchives.com/bin/download?id=060119030135Objections to the Joint Plan, if any, must be filed and served by Feb. 13, 2006. Headquartered in Dublin, California, Quintus Corporation,develops and provides comprehensive electronic customerrelationship management (eCRM) software, applications andservices. The Company and its affilicates filed for chapter 11protection on Feb. 22, 2001 (Bankr. D. Del. Case Nos. 01-00501through 01-00503). When the Debtors filed for bankruptcy, theDebtors reported total assets of $72,809,000 and total liabilities of $31,090,000. Quintus previously sold substantially all of itsassets for $30 million to Avaya, Inc., in 2001. Kurt F. Gwynne, Esq., is the chapter 11 Trustee for the Debtors' estates. Kimberly E.C. Lawson, Esq., at Reed Smith LLP represents the chapter 11 Trustee. SEQUOIA MORTGAGE: Fitch Lifts Two Cert. Classes' Ratings to B+-------------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings took rating actions on these Sequoia mortgage trust pass-through certificates:Series 2004-1: * Class A affirmed at 'AAA' * Class B-1 upgraded to 'AA+' from 'AA' * Class B-2 upgraded to 'A+' from 'A' * Class B-3 upgraded to 'BBB+' from 'BBB' * Class B-4 upgraded to 'BB+' from 'BB' * Class B-5 upgraded to 'B+' from 'B'Series 2004-2: * Class A affirmed at 'AAA' * Class B-1 upgraded to 'AA+' from 'AA' * Class B-2 upgraded to 'A+' from 'A' * Class B-3 upgraded to 'BBB+' from 'BBB' * Class B-4 upgraded to 'BB+' from 'BB' * Class B-5 upgraded to 'B+' from 'B'The underlying collateral for the Sequoia Mortgage transactions consists of 30-year traditional and hybrid adjustable-rates mortgages extended to prime borrowers. As of December 2005 distribution date, series 2004-1 is 23 months seasoned and series 2004-2 is 22 months seasoned. The pool factors (current mortgage loan principle outstanding as a percentage of the initial pool) are 46% and 47% for series 2004-1 and 2004-2, respectively. The Sequoia Mortgage Trust loans are acquired from various originators by a subsidiary of Redwood Trust Inc., a mortgage real estate investment trust that invests in residential real estate loans and securities. The master servicer for the deals above is Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, which is currently rated 'RPS1' by Fitch.The affirmations reflect satisfactory collateral performance with general stable credit enhancement and affect approximately $565 billion outstanding certificate. The upgrades reflect an improvement in the relationship of CE to future loss expectations and affect approximately $44.6 million of certificates. The CE levels for all upgraded classes have more than doubled their original enhancement levels since the closing date.SPORTS CLUB: Sale of 5 Clubs Cues Moody's to Withdraw Junk Ratings------------------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service withdrew the ratings of The Sports Club Company, Inc., following the completion of the sale of five of its nine sports and fitness clubs to an affiliate of Millennium Entertainment Partners for $80 million. Concurrent with the asset sale, Sports Club also completed a $60 million financing (not rated by Moody's) of its Sports Club/LA -- Los Angeles property. Proceeds from these transactions were used to retire the $100 million senior secured notes that were due to mature in March 2006.Moody's withdrew these ratings: * $100 million 11.375% Senior Secured Notes due 2006, Caa2 * Corporate family rating, Caa2Headquartered in Los Angeles, California, The Sports Club Company, Inc. operates high-end fitness clubs in the United States.SPORTS CLUB: $100MM Notes Repayment Cues S&P to Withdraw Ratings----------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services withdrew its ratings on The Sports Club Co. Inc. following the repayment of the company's $100 million senior secured notes due March 2006. Sports Club funded the repayment by selling five of its nine fitness clubs for $80 million and borrowing against its Sports Club/LA-Los Angeles property for $60 million.SUPERB SOUNDS: William J. Tucker Hired as Bankruptcy Counsel------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana gave Superb Sounds, Inc., authority to employ William J. Tucker & Associates, LLC, as its bankruptcy counsel.As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Nov. 18, 2005, William J. Tucker will: (a) provide the Debtor counsel and legal advice with respect to its powers and duties as Debtor; (b) prepare on behalf of the Debtor the necessary petitions, pleadings, notices, orders, applications, documents, reports, and other legal documents as may be required throughout these proceedings; (c) perform all other legal services for the Debtor, as Debtor, which may be necessary herein, including the development of a plan for reorganization of the Debtor's business; and (d) prepare, file and prosecute all pleadings necessary to obtain confirmation of a plan of reorganization.The Debtor discloses that the Firm's professionals bill: Professional Designation Hourly Rate ------------ ----------- ----------- William J. Tucker, Esq. Partner $350 Steven K. Dick, Esq. Partner $260 Jeffrey M. Hester, Esq. Partner $250 C. Abraham Murphy, Esq. Attorney $200 Kathy Shamblin Legal Assistant $110 Tracy Wilkerson Legal Assistant $100 Kristine Steiner Paralegal $80Headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, Superb Sound, Inc. -- http://www.ovation-av.com/-- is an audio, video and mobile electronics specialist. The company filed for chapter 11 protection on Oct. 14, 2005 (Bankr. S.D. Ind. Case No. 05-29137).William J. Tucker, Esq., at William J. Tucker & Associates, LLC,represents the Debtor in its restructuring efforts. When theDebtor filed for protection from its creditors, it listed $9,416,642 in assets and $14,546,796 in debts.SUPERB SOUNDS: Creditors Panel Hires Ice Miller as Bankr. Counsel-----------------------------------------------------------------The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Superb Sounds, Inc., sought and obtained permission from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana to employ Ice Miller, LLP, as its bankruptcy counsel.Ice Miller will: a) give the Committee legal advice with respect to its rights, powers and duties under Chapter 11 and keep the Committee apprized of developments in the Debtor's case and of the Debtor's business operations and prospects; b) assist and advise the Committee in its consultations with the Debtors, the Office of the U.S. Trustee, and parties-in- interest in the Debtors' case regarding the administration of this case; c) assist the Committee in the review, analysis, and negotiation of any financing and cash use agreements; d) prepare all necessary motions, applications, answers, orders, reports and papers in support of positions taken by the Committee; e) assist and advise the Committee in the review, analysis, negotiation and preparation of any plan(s) of reorganization that may be filed and to assist the Committee in the review, analysis, negotiation and preparation of the disclosure statement accompanying any chapter 11 plan(s); f) provide expertise with respect to the Debtor's case and provide guidance regarding any procedural rules and local rules applicable to the case; g) perform all others services for the Committee that are necessary for its counsel to perform;Jeffrey A. Hokanson, Esq., a partner at Ice Miller, disclosed the Firm's professionals bill: Professional Hourly Rate ----------- ----------- Partners $260 - $390 Associates $165 - $260 Paralegals $120 - $190To the best of the Committee's knowledge, Ice Miller does not hold or represent any interest adverse to the Debtor or its estate.Founded in 1910, Ice Miller LLP -- http://www.icemiller.com/-- is a full-service law firm.Headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, Superb Sound, Inc. -- http://www.ovation-av.com/-- is an audio, video and mobile electronics specialist. The company filed for chapter 11 protection on Oct. 14, 2005 (Bankr. S.D. Ind. Case No. 05-29137).William J. Tucker, Esq., at William J. Tucker & Associates, LLC,represents the Debtor in its restructuring efforts. When theDebtor filed for protection from its creditors, it listed $9,416,642 in assets and $14,546,796 in debts.THREE-FIVE: U.S. Trustee Names Equity Security Holders Panel------------------------------------------------------------Pursuant to Section 1102 of the Bankruptcy Court, the UnitedStates Trustee for Region 14 appointed four shareholders to serve on an Equity Security Holders Committee in Three-Five Systems Inc.'s Chapter 11 case: 1. David Buchanan 6301 East Huntress Drive Paradise Valley, Arizona 85253 Tel: (480) 998-8063 Fax: (480) 596-3487 2. Robert Nahom 8141 East Del Plomo Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Tel: (602) 224-0603 Fax: (602) 224-0323 3. Dan Schott 5342 East Lafayette Boulevard Phoenix, Arizona 85018 Tel: (602) 840-4668 4. Fred Silverman 18 Twin Ponds Drive Bedford Hills, New York 10507 Tel: (914) 241-3077 Fax: (914) 244-3707 The Equity Security Holders Committee represents the interests ofshareholders in this bankruptcy proceeding.Headquartered in Tempe, Arizona, Three-Five Systems, Inc. --http://tfsc.com/-- provides specialized electronics manufacturing services to original equipment manufacturers. TFS offers a broadrange of engineering and manufacturing capabilities. The Companyfiled for chapter 11 protection on Sept. 8, 2005 (Bankr. D. Ariz.Case No. 05-17104). Thomas J. Salerno, Esq., at Squire, Sander &Dempsey, LLP, represents the Debtor in its restructuring efforts.When the Debtor filed for protection from its creditors, it listed$11,694,467 in total assets and $2,880,377 in total debts. TITANIUM METALS: Board Approves Two-for-One Common Stock Split--------------------------------------------------------------Titanium Metals Corporation's (NYSE: TIE) Board of Directors has approved a two-for-one split of TIMET's common stock, $0.01 par value per share. The stock split will be effected in the form of a stock dividend. The Record Date for the stock split has been set as the close of business on February 6, 2006. Holders of record on the Record Date will receive one additional share for each share held on the Record Date. The additional shares will be distributed by the Company's transfer agent, American Stock Transfer and Trust Company, and the distribution date will be February 16, 2006, provided certain regulatory requirements are satisfied. As a result of the stock split, the conversion rate of the Company's 6-3/4% Series A Preferred Stock will be changed to six and two-third shares of common stock for each share of Series A Preferred Stock, and the conversion rate of the of 6-5/8% Convertible Preferred Securities, Beneficial Unsecured Convertible Securities (BUCS) issued by TIMET Capital Trust I will be changed to 2.678 shares of common stock for each BUCS. The Board of Directors and the Company's stockholders holding more than a majority of the outstanding shares of common stock have approved an amendment to the Company's Certificate of Incorporation increasing the Company's authorized common stock to 200 million. The Company intends to distribute to its stockholders an information statement describing the amendment at least 20 days prior to its filing of the amendment. Headquartered in Denver, Colorado, Titanium Metals Corporation --http://www.timet.com/-- is a worldwide producer of titanium metal products. * * *As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Mar. 18, 2005,Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its corporate creditrating on Denver, Colorado-based Titanium Metals Corp., to 'B+'from 'B'. Standard & Poor's also raised its preferred stockrating to 'CCC+' from 'CCC'. S&P says the outlook is stable.TITANIUM METALS: Sets Aside $3.4 Million to Remediate Nevada Plant------------------------------------------------------------------Titanium Metals Corporation expects to pay $3.4 million in accrued expenses based on undiscounted cost estimates of the probable costs for remediation of its active plant site in Henderson, Nevada, over a period of up to 30 years, while continuing assessment work on the site.In November 2004, the Company and Basic Management, Inc., entered into several agreements pursuant to which the Titanium conveyed certain of its land adjacent to the Henderson plant site on which the Company operated settling ponds to BMI.Subsequent to the conveyance, the Company, pursuant to a lease with BMI, continued to use some of the TIMET Pond Property until May 2005, at which time all usage ceased. Based on the terms of the conveyance agreement, BMI assumed the Company's obligation for certain potential environmental issues related to the TIMET Pond Property.At Sept. 30, 2005, the Company had accrued an aggregate of about $3.6 million for environmental matters. The Company estimates the upper end of the range of reasonably possible costs to remediate these matters to be $6 million. Headquartered in Denver, Colorado, Titanium Metals Corporation --http://www.timet.com/-- is a worldwide producer of titanium metal products. * * *As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Mar. 18, 2005,Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its corporate creditrating on Denver, Colorado-based Titanium Metals Corp., to 'B+'from 'B'. Standard & Poor's also raised its preferred stockrating to 'CCC+' from 'CCC'. S&P says the outlook is stable.ULTIMATE ELECTRONICS: Wants Until March 7 to Remove Civil Actions-----------------------------------------------------------------Ultimate Electronics, Inc., and its debtor-affiliates ask the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to extend, until March 7, 2006, their time to file notices of removal with respect to prepetition civil actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. and Rules 9006 and 9027 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The Debtors are parties to numerous judicial and administrative proceedings currently pending in various state and federal courts and administrative agencies throughout the country. The civil actions include securities, discrimination, employment, contract and personal injury claims. The Debtors give the Court three reasons supporting the extension: 1) the Debtors' time and resources in recent months were focused in obtaining confirmation of their chapter 11 plan, completing the sale of most of their assets to Ultimate Acquisition Partners, L.P., and conducting other going out of business sales; 2) it will give the Debtors more opportunity to make fully informed decisions concerning the civil actions and protect their valuable right to adjudicate lawsuits pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1452; and 3) it will not prejudice the rights of the Debtor's adversaries in the civil actions because any party to a civil action that is removed may seek to have it remanded to the appropriate court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1452(b).The Court will convene a hearing at 1:30 p.m., on Jan. 30, 2006, to consider the Debtors' request. Headquartered in Thornton, Colorado, Ultimate Electronics, Inc. -- http://www.ultimateelectronics.com/-- is a specialty retailer of consumer electronics and home entertainment products located in the Rocky Mountain, Midwest and Southwest regions of the United States. The Company operates 65 stores and focuses on mid-to high-end audio, video, television and mobile electronics products. The Company and its debtor-affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on January 11, 2005 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 05-10104). J. Eric Ivester, Esq., at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, represents the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. When the Debtor filed for protection from its creditors, it listed total assets of $329,106,000 and total debts of $160,590,000. The Court confirmed the Debtors' chapter 11 Plan on Dec. 9, 2005, and the Plan took effect on Jan. 11, 2006.VISTEON CORP: Moody's Affirms Low-B Ratings With Negative Outlook-----------------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service affirmed the long-term ratings of Visteon Corporation (Corporate Family, B2; Senior Unsecured, B3), but changed the ratings outlook to negative. The outlook change results from: * ongoing structural uncertainties in the automotive industry in North America; * the impact of anticipated cash expenditures of its restructuring program on the company's free cash flow generation; and * lowered expectations of near-term profitability. Despite these intermediate challenges, the company's near term liquidity profile has improved as a result of: * several recent actions designed to support the company through its restructuring efforts; and * Visteon's Speculative Grade Liquidity Rating has been raised to SGL-3 from SGL-4. These actions include: * Visteon sourcing of a new $350 million term loan; * becoming current in its financial reporting requirements; and * obtaining amendments to financial covenants in its bank credit facilities which improve its prospective compliance headroom as well as increase effective availability under the revolving credit.In 2006, the company's operating performance and debt protection measures may weaken from prior expectations. These changes in part are based on lower forecasts of North American production by Visteon's principal customer, Ford Motor Company. Elevated leverage may persist for a longer period of time until significant savings are realized from revitalizing the company's profitability and free cash flow.Ratings affirmed: Visteon Corporation: * Corporate Family, B2 * Senior Unsecured Notes, B3 * Shelf ratings for senior unsecured, subordinated and preferred (P)B3, (P)Caa2, and (P)Caa3 respectively Short Term rating, not prime. Visteon Capital Trust I: * Shelf rating for trust preferred, (P)Caa2Ratings changed: Visteon Corporation: * Speculative Grade Liquidity to SGL-3 from SGL-4 Outlook, negative.Visteon's secured bank credit facilities are not rated.Lower volumes and continued margin pressure arising from raw material costs and agreed price-downs are anticipated to reduce Visteon's profitability and operating cash flow generation in 2006 below previous expectations. At the same time, expenditures for headcount reductions and facility closings associated with the restructuring initiatives (the majority of which will effectively be reimbursed under both a Ford funded escrow account, covering the bulk of the near-term actions, and a sharing provision with Ford for certain other actions) could create additional calls on cash. Consequently, it is expected that leverage will remain elevated for a protracted period of time. The combination of these factors will both constrain Visteon's operating profitability and free cash flow in 2006 below levels previously anticipated by Moody's and result in the revised rating outlook.Moody's ratings for Visteon continue to recognize the company's substantial scale and market position, as well as the competitive advantages provided by its continued research and development spending and global manufacturing footprint. These aspects of Visteon's credit are viewed similarly to those of higher rated credits under Moody's rating methodology for auto parts suppliers. Visteon's historic concentration of business with Ford and its weak credit metrics have been viewed as relative weaknesses as part of the rating process. The restructuring initiatives being undertaken by the company should help to improve Visteon's customer and geographic distribution of revenues during the near term. While these restructuring initiatives should also help to improve margins, the magnitude of improvement in credit metrics will be constrained during the near term as a result of continued weakness in automotive demand and cash outlays for restructuring costs. Consequently, Moody's anticipates that Visteon's coverage ratios, leverage ratios and return on assets (key credit metrics utilized in Moody's rating methodology) may persist at weak levels that are consistent with a Corporate Family rating of no greater than a B2.Developments that could lead to a ratings downgrade include further deterioration in expected financial performance or any evidence that the expected improvements in the company's cost structure under the restructuring initiatives will be delayed or unachievable. Moreover, persistent negative free cash flow, leverage deteriorating beyond 6 times EBITDA, or any diminishment of the company's liquidity profile would likely adversely affect the rating. Developments that could lead to stronger ratings include achieving: * sustained FCF/debt of 5% or higher; * EBIT/Interest greater than 1 time; and * debt/EBITDA consistently below 4.5 times.Visteon's Speculative Grade Liquidity Rating has been raised to SGL-3 from SGL-4. The company recently closed on a $350 million eighteen month term loan. The improved liquidity also follows the company concluding its accounting investigation, becoming current in its reporting obligations through filing restated financials with the SEC and creditors, and obtaining covenant relief under its bank credit facilities. Use of proceeds from the term loan includes repayment of borrowings under its term revolving credit facility, effectively freeing up additional external availability. In the amendment to the bank credit facilities, the company's net debt/EBITDA covenant was adjusted to provide greater headroom. The SGL-3 rating represents adequate liquidity over the next 12 months. The rating considers Visteon's: * substantial balance sheet cash; * improved availability under its revolving credit agreements; * extended debt maturity profile; and * additional cushion under its financial covenants. The rating also incorporates expectations of close to break-even cash flow, and limited scope to develop alternative liquidity arrangements given the secured nature of the bank credit agreements. The company's bank credit facilities mature in June 2007. Borrowings under those facilities will be reported as current obligations at the end of the second quarter in 2006.Visteon Corporation is a leading full-service supplier that delivers consumer-driven technology solutions to automotive manufacturers worldwide and through multiple channels within the global automotive aftermarket. On a pro forma basis, Visteon is expected to have revenues of $11.3 billion and has operations located in 24 countries.WHITE BIRCH: Moody's Affirms New $130 MM Term Loans' Low-B Ratings------------------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service affirmed the B2 rating for White Birch Paper Company's proposed US$89 million tack-on to the guaranteed 1st lien senior secured term loan B and the B3 rating for the company's proposed US$41 million tack-on to the guaranteed 2nd lien senior secured term loan C. Proceeds from the tack-on term loans will be used to acquire Papier Masson Ltee. The tack-on financing increases the face amount of the term loans first issued in April 2005 to US$364 million and US$166 million, respectively. The tack-on loans will be governed by the same credit agreement as the existing term loans. Moody's also affirmed the B1 rating to the company's proposed US$90 million guaranteed senior secured bank revolver, and the B2 corporate family rating. At the same time, however, Moody's upgraded the company's speculative grade liquidity rating to SGL-2. The ratings assume that the transaction will close in the amounts and along the terms as presented. White Birch's rating outlook was changed to stable from developing.The B2 corporate family rating reflects the company's: * high leverage; * reliance on newsprint as its single commodity product; and * the challenges continuing to impact the paper sector such as: -- over capacity, -- relatively weak demand, -- elevated costs for energy and transportation, -- significant competitive pressures, and -- a challenging foreign exchange environment for Canadian producers. However, the ratings also reflect: * the improved price environment for newsprint at this time; * good liquidity; * a relatively low cost position; and * the expectation that operating costs should improve as various cost initiatives are completed over the near term at all four of White Birch's mills.The ratings incorporate the uncertainty of operating cash flows that result from the pricing volatility associated with a commodity product. Despite improved newsprint prices over the past several quarters, due in part to the idling or conversion of newsprint capacity by the larger newsprint producers and a slight improvement in demand, pricing remains below historic peak levels. Moreover, Moody's believes further price increases over the near term will be a challenge as significant excess capacity still exists and continued supply side management will be necessary to support and maintain prices over the long term. As a result, sustainable margin expansion could be limited even after cost initiatives and synergies with PML are completed.Although White Birch will be the third largest newsprint producer in North America after this transaction, competitive pressures from market leaders, Abitibi and Bowater, which have substantially greater resources than White Birch, still exist. Although these market leaders are impacted by the same industry fundamentals, including foreign exchange issues, Moody's believes they may have greater flexibility in meeting challenges due to the scale and diversity of their operations and greater access to sources of financing, including public equity.However, with the current market price of newsprint at approximately US$635 per tonne, White Birch should be able to generate reasonable operating cash flow given the relatively favorable cost position of its mills. White Birch benefits from a relatively low cash cost position when compared to its North American peers with all four of its mills estimated to be in the lower half of the industry cost curve. Although the Stadacona and the PML mill are not at the same efficiency level as the Bear Island or Soucy mills, the company has ongoing cost saving initiatives that should narrow this variance over time.The company can also mitigate the negative newsprint industry issues with the production of directory paper. Two of Stadacona's four machines can produce up to approximately 175,000 tonnes of either newsprint or directory paper depending on market demand.The stable outlook reflects Moody's expectation that: * White Birch's operating performance will improve as current cost initiatives are realized; * newsprint prices will at least remain stable at current levels over the near term; and * good liquidity will be maintained. The ratings or outlook would be negatively impacted by a sustained deterioration in newsprint prices or increases in energy costs, which would result in a decline in operating performance and/or liquidity. Also, a material debt-financed acquisition or a shift in newsprint strategy within the industry may negatively impact the rating or outlook.As of Dec. 31, 2005, pro forma for the PML acquisition, White Birch's consolidated leverage on a gross debt to EBITDA basis was approximately 5.4x with coverage on an EBITDA to gross interest basis of about 2.2x. However, if the pricing environment for newsprint remains at current levels or strengthens further, White Birch should be able to improve its credit metrics on a sustainable basis by reducing current debt levels. If the company improves its credit metrics on a sustainable basis, with leverage migrating towards the 4.5x level, coverage of over 2.0x, and retained cash flow to gross debt exceeding 10%, while maintaining good liquidity the ratings would likely improve.The upgrade of the speculative liquidity rating to SGL-2 reflects Moody's improved outlook for the company's cash flow over the next 12 months and the resulting cushion this provides for White Birch's interest coverage covenant. Moody's believes that the company will generate positive free cash flow over the next year and will maintain reasonable availability under its US$90 million revolver (increased from $70 million). Although Moody's believes covenant compliance is likely, the cushion is modest and could tighten if newsprint pricing slips or margins deteriorate due to increased input costs. In addition, Moody's believes that balance sheet cash will remain modest over the next 12 months and that the company does not currently own significant assets that can be monetized in the near term to satisfy liquidity needs.The B2 rating on the 1st lien term loan B recognizes its majority position in the capital structure resulting in the risk to these bank lenders being not materially different from that of the corporate entity as a whole. As a result, the 1st lien term loan B is rated at the corporate family level. The notes also benefit from senior unsecured guarantees from several operating subsidiaries with the exception of the Soucy operations. The 1st lien term loan B will be secured by a perfected first priority pledge in all property plant and equipment and capital stock of the borrowers and guarantors and the US$125 million Soucy intercompany note.The B3 rating on the 2nd lien term loan C reflects its subordination to both the US$364 million 1st lien term loan B and US$90 million asset based revolver. The 2nd lien term loan C will be secured by a perfected second priority pledge in all property plant and equipment and capital stock of the borrowers and guarantors and the US$125 million Soucy intercompany note.The B1 rating on the guaranteed senior secured revolving credit facility reflects the benefit derived from a security interest in all accounts receivables and inventories of the borrowers and guarantors. Neither the 1st lien term loan B nor 2nd lien term loan C will have a secured interest in the accounts receivables or inventories of the company.White Birch Paper Company, headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut, is a producer of newsprint and directory paper in North America.XENONICS HOLDINGS: Posts $5 Mil. Net Loss in Fiscal Year 2005-------------------------------------------------------------Eisner LLP expressed substantial doubt about Xenonics Holdings, Inc.'s ability to continue as a going concern after it audited the Company's financial statements for the years ended Sept. 30, 2005 and 2004. The auditing firm pointed to the Company's net loss and accumulated deficit at Sept. 30, 2005. Fiscal Year 2005 ResultsXenonics reported a $5,004,000 net loss for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2005, as compared to $1,476,000 of net income in the prior year. For the 2005 fiscal year, the Company posted $4,434,000 of revenue, versus $11,927,000 of revenue for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2004.Net income was impacted by non-recurring items such as an adjustment to finished goods inventory of $1,953,000 and $1,052,000 of compensation and consulting expense related to the issuance of common stock and warrants and options granted during the year. Xenonics' balance sheet at Sept. 30, 2005, showed $2,466,00 in total assets and $700,000 of liabilities. At Sept. 30, 2005, the Company had an accumulated deficit of $12,485,000.Management says the Company will continue to focus on providing products for the Army, Navy, Coast Guard and Marine Corps as a near term strategic imperative. \"New opportunities in 2006 will be focused on international sales and an expansion into new business areas to provide security solutions as the prime contractor or a key hardware integrator,\" stated Richard J. Naughton, CEO. Xenonics Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiary, Xenonics, Inc. -- http://www.xenonics.com/-- develops and produces advanced, lightweight and compact ultra-high intensity illumination products for military, law enforcement, public safety, and commercial and private sector applications. Currently, NightHunters are in use by every branch of the U.S. Armed Forces as well as a wide variety of law enforcement and security agencies.YBM MAGNEX: Ernst & Young to File Plan of Distribution in February------------------------------------------------------------------Ernst & Young YBM Inc. discloses that the proof of claims process approved by the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta in Canada has been completed. Ernst & Young is the Court approved Receiver and Manager of the assets, property and undertaking of YBM Magnex International, Inc.Ernst & Young reports that it has prepared a plan of distribution for approval by the Court. Under the plan, net receipts in the possession of Ernst & Young, less a holdback for anticipated fees and disbursements relating to administering the plan, will be distributed to: (a) shareholders and former shareholders with proven claims who have provided Ernst & Young with a current mailing address; (b) Sumitomo Special Metals Co., Ltd., in connection with a settlement; and (c) the U.S. Department of Justice in connection with an outstanding $1 million fine.Ernst & Young says that the U.S. DOJ will share pro rata with the eligible claimants.Ernst & Young reports that given the state of financial reporting by YBM, it is unable to reconstruct YBM's books and records. Ernst & Young says that the plan provides that distributions be made without deduction for any taxes that might be owing in respect of YBM or any of its subsidiaries.If the plan is approved, Ernst & Young reports, all claims, including, without limitation, potential claims of taxing authorities, against YBM and Ernst & Young, will be permanently stayed.Ernst & Young will file a motion for approval of the plan and other relief before the Court in February 2006 or such later date as the Court requires. Parties interested to be heard on the said motion must: (1) serve Ernst & Young with a Notice of Appearance by Jan. 27, 2006 and (2) file with the Court in Court File No. 9801-16691 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.Parties who have proven claims and wish to receive a distribution must have their current address in Ernst & Young's records. Parties who wish to confirm if they are eligible to receive a distribution or update their address may contact: Ernst & Young YBM Inc. Ernst & Young Tower, Toronto-Dominion Centre, P.O. Box 251, 222 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5K 1J7 Attention: Ms. Francea Mazzulla Tel: (416) 943-3132 Fax: (416) 943-3300 E-mail: [email protected] address changes should be registered at a Web site at http://www.ybmclassaction.com/ Parties who wish to receive a copy of the Plan of Distribution, a copy of the Receiver's Motion Record, or to serve the Receiver with a Notice of Appearance may contact the same address.YBM Magnex International Inc. was a magnet and bicycle maker. YBM had been a top performer on the Toronto Stock Exchange until earlier in 1998 when allegations of management links to the Russian mafia surfaced. Ernst & Young YBM Inc. is the company's court-approved Receiver.* BOOK REVIEW: Business and Capitalism: An Introduction to Business History-----------------------------------------------------------Author: N.S.B GrasPublisher: Beard BooksPaperback: 428 pagesList Price: $34.95Order your personal copy athttp://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587981939/internetbankruptGras' book is as relevant and enlightening to the fundamentals, practices and trends of today's business world as it was when it was first published in 1939. This was a time when the value and resiliency of capitalism were being challenged from without by communism and other ideologies and also from within by the depression. But such is the breadth and soundness of Gras's history, that he is able to put these threats into perspective even in his own day. Obviously, capitalism survived; whereas the threats to it of Gras's day, as he saw them did not much affect the basics of business and capitalism.From Gras' point of view, business and capitalism cannot be put aside by revolution or political change or superseded by utopian societies because they are inextricably rooted in history, human nature and society, particularly social needs and aspirations. Rudiments of business can be found in primitive and ancient societies. Gras focuses of these much as anthropologists focus on the religious rituals and family structures of early societies. He sees in some of these a cultural nomadic economy, and in others, a pastoral nomadic economy. Herds of animals, for example, were the capital in the cultural nomadic economy; in the pastoral nomadic economy, the capital was field of crops.The \"business man\" is differentiated from the primitive shepherd in that the shepherd raises his sheep mainly to feed himself and a small number of others, only occasionally trading them outside this small circle. By contrast, the business man is not directly involved in production; he administers labor and resources to produce something that can be exchanged, i.e., sold. Gras stresses that \"business is administration that looks toward exchange.\" \"Petty capitalism,\" is the first stage of the intertwined business and capitalism that takes up most of Gras's lengthy history and analysis, formed in early towns on all continents. The names of many of these towns are well known: Babylon, Athens, Rome, London, Paris, Amsterdam. That they were centers of petty capitalism of their bourgeoisie is a principal reason they had significant roles in history.Peddlers, shopkeepers, and tradesmen represented this petty capitalism. This first stage of capitalist business became more highly organized in the course of history, and more multifaceted. The petty capitalism was succeeded by mercantile capitalism, represented by merchants who entered into partnerships with other merchants, issued stock in their businesses and developed sophisticated bookkeeping practices. Later came industrial capitalism with its large factories, complex production processes, and widespread, and in some cases, international markets. Industrial capitalism spawned financial capitalism involving diversified practices and services of stock markets and banks to meet the big and sometimes unexpected financial requirements to sustain it and allow it to grow.Today's diversified, vibrant, and global US economy can be seen as the high point of Gras's industrial capitalism mixed with his financial capitalism. He ends his economic history with a chapter on the national capitalism practiced by Nazism and Fascism which, at the time, challenged the centuries of business progress based on private capitalism. But these challenges were turned back in World War II.Economic historian N.S.B Gras was a professor of business history at Harvard's Graduate School of Business. In 1926, he founded the Business History Society along with its \"Journal of Business History.\" *********Monday's edition of the TCR delivers a list of indicative prices for bond issues that reportedly trade well below par. Prices are obtained by TCR editors from a variety of outside sources during the prior week we think are reliable. Those sources may not, however, be complete or accurate. The Monday Bond Pricing table is compiled on the Friday prior to publication. Prices reported are not intended to reflect actual trades. Prices for actual trades are probably different. Our objective is to share information, not make markets in publicly traded securities.Nothing in the TCR constitutes an offer or solicitation to buy or sell any security of any kind. It is likely that some entity affiliated with a TCR editor holds some position in the issuers' public debt and equity securities about which we report.Each Tuesday edition of the TCR contains a list of companies with insolvent balance sheets whose shares trade higher than $3 per share in public markets. At first glance, this list may look like the definitive compilation of stocks that are ideal to sell short. Don't be fooled. Assets, for example, reported at historical cost net of depreciation may understate the true value of a firm's assets. A company may establish reserves on its balance sheet for liabilities that may never materialize. The prices at which equity securities trade in public market are determined by more than a balance sheet solvency test.A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the TCR. Submissions about insolvency- related conferences are encouraged. Send announcements to [email protected] / Each Friday's edition of the TCR includes a review about a book of interest to troubled company professionals. All titles are available at your local bookstore or through Amazon.com. Go to http://www.bankrupt.com/books/to order any title today. Monthly Operating Reports are summarized in every Saturday edition of the TCR. For copies of court documents filed in the District of Delaware, please contact Vito at Parcels, Inc., at 302-658-9911. For bankruptcy documents filed in cases pending outside the District of Delaware, contact Ken Troubh at Nationwide Research & Consulting at 207/791-2852. *********S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O NTroubled Company Reporter is a daily newsletter co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland, USA. Yvonne L. Metzler, Emi Rose S.R. Parcon, Rizande B. Delos Santos, Jazel P. Laureno, Cherry A. Soriano-Baaclo, Marjorie C. Sabijon, Terence Patrick F. Casquejo, Christian Q. Salta, Jason A. Nieva, Lucilo Junior M. Pinili, Tara Marie A. Martin and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. ISSN: 1520-9474.This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.The TCR subscription rate is $725 for 6 months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. *** End of Transmission *** ",
"URL": "http://bankrupt.com/TCR_Public/060120.mbx"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "T R O U B L E D C O M P A N Y R E P O R T E R Friday, June 26, 2009, Vol. 13, No. 175 HeadlinesALPHA NATURAL: S&P Retains Positive Watch on 'BB-' Corp. RatingALSET OWNERS: Court OKs BMC Group as Claims & Notice AgentALSET OWNERS: Proposes August 11 Auction for Rally's StoresALSET OWNERS: Seeks to Employ Blank Rome as Bankr. CounselAMBAC ASSURANCE: S&P Cuts Preferred Stock Rating to 'B'AMERICAN INT'L: Extends $7.2-Bil. Notes Exchange Offer to July 2AMERICAN INT'L: Fees Represent 3% of Weil's Last 12 Mos. RevenuesAMERICAN INT'L: Gov't Gets $25-Bil. Stake in Life Insurance UnitsAMF BOWLING: Moody's Changes Probability of Default Rating to 'B3'AMR CORP: American Increases Boeing Orders to 31 Jets From 29AMR CORP: Expects to End Q2 With $3.3 Billion CashARMANA HOLDINGS: Voluntary Chapter 11 Case SummaryARVINMERITOR INC: Sells Stake in LVS Chassis BusinessesASARCO LLC: Disclosure Statement Hearing Adjourned to June 30ASARCO LLC: Parent Offers $3.1 Billion for Operating AssetsASPEN PEAK: Case Summary & 20 Largest Unsecured CreditorsAURORA OIL & GAS: Lenders Extend Forbearance Until July 15AURORA OIL & GAS: Taps Huron's Edlein as Restructuring OfficerAVIZA TECHNOLOGY: U.S. Trustee Names 3 Members to Creditors PanelBANK OF AMERICA: Fed Tried to Hide Involvement in Merrill BuyBILL BARRETT: Moody's Assigns 'Ba3' Corporate Family RatingBILL BARRETT: S&P Assigns 'BB-' Long-Term Corporate Credit RatingBNYCP: S&P Cuts Ratings on $307 Mil. Tax-Exempt Bonds to 'BB'BOEGER LAND: Proposes Paul Jamond as Chapter 11 CounselBROWN STEEL: Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy ProtectionBUCKSHIRE LLC: Involuntary Chapter 11 Case SummaryBUTLER SERVICES: Gets Interim Approval to Access GECC LoansBUTLER SERVICES: Proposes Bayard P.A. as Co-CounselBUTLER SERVICES: Proposes Moses & Singer as CounselBUTLER SERVICES: Pursues Prompt Going-Concern Sale; Bids Due TodayCAL-RIO LLC: Case Summary & 7 Largest Unsecured CreditorsCARITAS HEALTH: Can Sell Equipment Assets for $3,125,000CARITAS HEALTH: Plan Filing Period Extended to October 4CARAUSTAR INDUSTRIES: Wins Permission to Use Lenders' CollateralCASELLA WASTE: Moody's Assigns 'Ba2' Rating on Restated FacilityCATHOLIC CHURCH: Court Issues Final Decree Closing Tucson CaseCATHOLIC CHURCH: Davenport Reports Progress on UndertakingsCEDAR PROFESSIONAL: Case Summary & 5 Largest Unsecured CreditorsCHEMTURA CORP: AFC, et al., Seek Shareholders' CommitteeCHEMTURA CORP: Committee Seeks to Retain FTI as AccountantCHEMTURA CORP: Court Allows Set-Off of Dow, Croda ObligationsCHEMTURA CORP: Great Lakes Sues VanDeMark to Perform Under DealCHEMTURA CORP: Has Deal with Entergy on Deposits; Docs Under SealCHEMTURA CORP: Seeks to Settle U.S. & Canada Anti-Trust FinesCHEMTURA CORP: Taps Biggins Lacy to Evaluate Headquarter LeaseCITIGROUP INC: Raising Salaries of Many Workers by As Much as 50%CITIZENS REPUBLIC: \"Exploring\" Substantial Debt-to-Equity SwapCITY OF MINNEAPOLIS: Moody's Cuts Rating on Revenue Bonds to 'Ba2'CONSECO INC: Enters Into Reinsurance Transaction to Build CapitalCONSOLIDATED RESORTS: Files for Bankruptcy ProtectionCROWN COURT PARTNERSHIP: Case Summary & 5 Largest Unsec. CreditorsCRUSADER ENERGY: Creditors Committee Has 7 MembersCRUSADER ENERGY: Can Use Lenders' Cash Collateral Until July 21CRUSADER ENERGY: Wants Incentive Program for ManagementDEBT RELIEF: Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy ProtectionDECRANE AEROSPACE: Moody's Confirms 'Caa1' Corporate Family RatingDISCOVER FINANCIAL: Fitch Affirms 'BB+' Preferred Stock RatingE*TRADE FINANCIAL: To Meet With Shareholders re Exchange OffersEASTWIND MARITIME: Voluntary Chapter 7 Case SummaryEDDIE BAUER: Section 341(a) Meeting Scheduled for July 15EDDIE BAUER: Wants to Sell Assets to CCMP Affiliate for $202MMENTERGY GULF: Moody's Upgrades Preferred Stock Rating to 'Ba2'EXTENDED STAY: Allowed to Maintain Insurance ProgramsEXTENDED STAY: Asks Court to Approve Weil Gotshal EngagementEXTENDED STAY: Court Extends Schedules Deadline to July 30EXTENDED STAY: Court OKs Payment of Prepetition Sales & Use TaxesEXTENDED STAY: May Employ Kurtzman Carson as Claims AgentEXTENDED STAY: May Maintain Prepetition Customer ProgramsFLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: May Sell Motor Home to AIP for $53,000,000G & S METAL: Case Summary & 20 Largest Unsecured CreditorsGENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL: CVC Discloses 48% Equity StakeGENERAL MARITIME: S&P Assigns 'B' Senior Unsecured Debt RatingGENERAL MOTORS: Retirees Turn to Congress to Protect BenefitsGHOST TOWN: Wants to Borrow $250,000 from Alaska PressleyGOODY'S LLC: Landlords Wants Federal Court to Determine Stub RentGOTTSCHALKS INC: Court Establishes August 24 General Bar DateGRANT FOREST: S&P Withdraws 'CCC+' Corporate Credit RatingGRANT FOREST: Seeks Bankruptcy Protection in OntarioHAIGHTS CROSS: Inks Pact With Lenders on Debt RestructuringHARTMARX CORP: Sale to Emerisque Okayed Amid Committee ObjectionsHAWAII SUPERFERRY: Seeks to Abandon Two CatamaransHAWAIIAN TELCOM: Considered, But Rejected, Sandwich PlanHAWAIIAN TELCOM: Hawaii State Retains Chanin as Fin'l AdvisorsHAWAIIAN TELCOM: May Use Cash Collateral Through August 31HAYES LEMMERZ: Committee Taps Bifferato as Delaware CounselHAYES LEMMERZ: Committee Taps Chanin Capital as Financial AdvisorHAYES LEMMERZ: Committee Taps Lowenstein Sandler as CounselHOLLYWOOD THEATERS: Moody's Assigns 'B3' Rating on Senior NotesHUNTSMAN CORP: Lawsuit Settlement Cues S&P to Keep Negative WatchIED PINNACLE/MILLER: Lender Wants Case Converted to Chapter 7IMF INVESTMENT: Case Summary & 3 Largest Unsecured CreditorsINC. CATHEXIS: Case Summary & 20 Largest Unsecured CreditorsJOURNAL REGISTER: Court Defers Ruling on Chapter 11 PlanKABUTO ARIZONA: U.S. Trustee Unable to Appoint Creditors CommitteeKIRBY PETERSON: Involuntary Chapter 11 Case SummaryLAKE LAS VEGAS: Will Abandon Reflection Bay GolfLAKE AT LAS VEGAS: Use of Cash Collateral Extended until June 30LAKE AT LAS VEGAS: Seeks to Extend Plan Filing Deadline to June 30LEAR CORP: May Seek Bankruptcy Protection By July 1LENOX HILL: Moody's Affirms 'Ba1'; Changes Outlook to NegativeLYNDON CREAGER: Case Summary & 10 Largest Unsecured CreditorsMAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: U.S. Trustee Appoints Creditors CommitteeMAHALO ENERGY: Can Hire Kline Kline as General Bankruptcy CounselMAHALO ENERGY: U.S. Trustee Appoints 6-Member Creditors CommitteeMARK IV: Court Sets Disclosure Statement Hearing on July 28MAXXAM INC: Sells Stake in RMCAL Joint Venture for Nominal AmountMERCER INT'L: Refinancing Risks Cue Moody's to Junk RatingsMETALDYNE CORP: Receives Final Approval to Borrow $20 MillionMIDWAY GAMES: Threshold Sues to Block Mortal Kombat SaleMILACRON INC: To Pursue Avenue Capital Deal; No Rival Bids FiledMODERN CONTINENTAL: Files Liquidating Plan; Jalbert as TrusteeMOOG INC: S&P Downgrades Corporate Credit Rating to 'BB'MXENERGY INC: Societe Generale Directs Exchange Offer for NotesPROTEIN SCIENCES: To Contest Involuntary Ch. 7 PetitionQUIGLEY CO: Reaches $16.5-Mil. Settlement with OneBeaconRADIO ONE: S&P Junks Corporate Credit Rating From 'B-'ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Case Summary & 20 Largest Unsecured CreditorsSARA DELUCIO: Case Summary & 5 Largest Unsecured CreditorsSEA LAUNCH: Boeing Co. Takes $35-Million ChargeSEALY CORP: Expects to Post $30MM Q2 2009 Income from OperationsSENSUS METERING: Refinancing Plans Won't Move Moody's 'B2' RatingSIX FLAGS: Gets Court Allows Firm to Tap Cash CollateralSPECTRUM BRANDS: Court Confirms Plan; to Emerge in AugustSPEEDEMISSIONS INC: Stockholders Re-elect 5 Members to BoardSPRINGBROOK HILL: Case Summary & 11 Largest Unsecured CreditorsSTUDIO THEATRE: U.S. Trustee Wants Case Converted to Chapter 7SUNRISE SENIOR: To Receive $9.8MM in Settlement of Trinity SuitSYNCORA GUARANTEE: BCP Offer for RMBS Classes Moved Until FridaySYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Fitch Cuts Issuer Default Rating to 'BB-'TERRA CONVERSIONS: Case Summary & 19 Largest Unsecured CreditorsTEUFEL NURSERY: Voluntary Chapter 11 Case SummaryTICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: S&P Keeps Negative Watch on BB RatingTITAN ENERGY: Closes Acquisition of RBG's Industrial DivisionTPF II: S&P Changes Outlook to Negative; Affirms 'BB-' RatingTRONOX INC: Court Sets August 12 as Claims Bar DateTRONOX INC: Seeks to Employ ATL as Tax ConsultantsTRONOX INC: To Execute Stalking Horse Deal by July 31TVI CORPORATION: Nasdaq to Delist Common Stock on July 6UNI-MARTS LLC: Wants Plan Filing Deadline Moved to July 22UNITED SUBCONTRACTORS: Plan Confirmed; Expects to Emerge June 30UNIVISION COMMUNICATIONS: Fitch Assigns 'B+/RR3' Rating on NotesUNIVISION COMMUNICATIONS: Moody's Puts 'B2' Rating on $500MM NotesUNIVISION COMMUNICATIONS: S&P Give Negative Outlook on 'B-' RatingVIGO SNACK: Involuntary Chapter 11 Case SummaryVONAGE HOLDINGS: Settles Shareholder Litigation Over 2006 IPOWHITE ENERGY: Gets Final Approval to Use Cash CollateralYRC WORLDWIDE: Obtains Amendment to JPMorgan Credit AgreementYRC WORLDWIDE: Units Defer $83MM in Pension Contributions* Business Credit Less Available Than Last Year, TMA Says* Citizens Advice Bureau Says Jersey's Bankruptcy Laws Need Change* Hughes Watters Paralegal Turea Simpson Forms Peer Group* Lehman, AIG, Citi Fees Comprise 10.7% of Weil's Revenues* Leonard Goldberger Appointed to INSOL Committee* NasTrac Says Tool Repossessions Rising Dramatically in Q1 2009* New Home Sales Unexpectedly Decline 0.6% in May* Paying Preference Settlement Revives Released Guarantee* BOOK REVIEW: Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War *********ALPHA NATURAL: S&P Retains Positive Watch on 'BB-' Corp. Rating---------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services said its ratings on AlphaNatural Resources Inc. and Foundation Coal Corp., including the'BB-' corporate credit ratings, remain on CreditWatch withpositive implications, where they were placed on May 12, 2009.The continued CreditWatch listing reflects the pending mergerbetween Alpha and Foundation under which they will merge in anall-stock transaction valued at approximately $2 billion. Underthe terms of the transaction, Foundation will be the survivingcorporation and be renamed Alpha Natural Resources Inc.Foundation's shareholders will receive 1.084 shares of the newcompany, for each share of Foundation, and each share of Alphawill automatically become one share of the combined company.Based on S&P's initial analysis, S&P has determined that if themerger is completed as currently proposed, and market conditionsremain in line with S&P's expectations, S&P would likely assign a'BB' rating to the combined company. S&P would also assign astable outlook.\"The anticipated higher rating on the combined entity reflectsS&P's belief that the merger between Alpha Natural and FoundationCoal would modestly strengthen Alpha's business risk profile,\"said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Maurice Austin. As aresult, the company will be the third-largest U.S. coal producerand should benefit from expanded geographic and product diversity.The combination of the two companies would create an entity withimproved operating diversity and the fourth-largest reserve basein the U.S., concentrated in three major operating basins, CentralAppalachia, the Powder River Basin, and Northern Appalachia.Pro forma for the merger, the company will have 2008 pro formarevenues of $4 billion and EBITDA of nearly $740 million, adjustedfor postretirement obligations, asset retirement obligations, andoperating leases. S&P estimate 2008 pro forma adjusted total debtto EBITDA to be about 2.4x.The companies expect to complete the merger by the third quarterof 2009, subject to shareholder approvals. Upon closing, Alphashareholders will own about 59% of the combined entity andFoundation about 41%.In resolving the CreditWatch, S&P will monitor the progress theparties make toward closing the transaction and assess anypotential changes to the proposed capital structure and operatingenvironment that could affect the ratings.ALSET OWNERS: Court OKs BMC Group as Claims & Notice Agent----------------------------------------------------------Alset Owners, LLC, and its affiliates obtained approval from theU.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to hire BMCGroup Inc. as their claims, noticing and solicitation agent.The Debtors have identified 900 creditors, potential creditors andother parties-in-interest to whom certain notices. The Debtorswish to engage BMC to sent out certain designated notices, receiveand maintain claims and prepare the claims register, and act asvoting agent in the Chapter 11 caes.BMC's consulting service hourly rates per person include: Data Entry/ Administrative Support $25 to $45 Analysts $80 to $110 Consultants $110 to $140 Project Managers $175 to $225 Principal /Director $250BMC will also seek reimbursement for reasonable direct expenses.The Debtors are authorized to indemnify BMC for any claim arisingfrom, related to, or in connection with BMC's performance ofservices.The Debtors paid BMC an initial advance payment of $5,000.BMC and its employees are \"disinterested persons\" as that term isdefined in 11 U.S.C. Sec. 101(14). About Alset OwnersAlset Owners LLC is a franchisee of Rally's and Checkers'Restaurants. The Company and certain affiliates filed forChapter 11 on June 5, 2009 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 09-11960).The Company, in its petition, listed assets of $19.7 million anddebt totaling $17.4 million. Attorneys at Blank Rome LLPrepresent the Debtor. BMC Group is the claims and noticing agent.ALSET OWNERS: Proposes August 11 Auction for Rally's Stores-----------------------------------------------------------Alset Owners, LLC, and its affiliates seek approval from the U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware of proposed auctionprocedures under which an affiliate of the franchisor of itsRally's and Checkers' restaurants will be the stalking horsebidder.The Debtors are the largest franchisee of Checkers Drive-InRestaurants, Inc., the national franchisor of the Rally's andCheckers' restaurant chains. Alset's wholly owned subsidiaryAltes LLC, a franchisee of the Rally's restaurant chain, operatesseveral restaurants in various states, while another unit Setla,LLC, also a franchisee of the Rally's restaurant chain, operatesseveral restaurants in Ohio. The Rally's/Checkers brand is thenation's largest chain of double drive-thru restaurants in theUnited States.At their peak, in 2007, the Debtors collectively operatedapproximately 120 restaurants with the Rally's or Checkers brandin six states, and had over 2,500 employees. The competitiveatmosphere, as well as the rise in food and labor costs, amongother things, led the Debtors to restructure their operationsstarting in late 2007. As of the Petition Date, the Debtorsoperated 77 restaurants, down from their peak of about 120restaurants in 2007. An additional restaurant is still owned bythe Debtors but is currently being operated by Alan Balan.After failing to obtain financing, the Debtors engaged indiscussions with Checkers Drive-In in which the Franchisorinitially was to assist the Debtors in restructuring theoperations at the various restaurants in which the Debtors werefranchisees.Several months later, after extensive negotiations, Checkerco,Inc., an affiliate of the Franchisor, entered into the PurchaseAgreement to purchase substantially all of the Debtors' assets.The Purchase Agreement contemplates the sale of substantially allof the Debtors' assets, subject to higher or better bids, on termsthat include: * Assets to be Sold. The assets being sold under the Purchase Agreement include substantially all of the Debtors' assets and restaurants, including (a) all owned restaurant equipment, supplies, and certain leased equipment,; (b) all of the Debtors' rights in contracts in which the Debtors are party relating to the Acquired Assets or Restaurants that Buyer elects to have assumed and assigned to it; (c) merchandise inventory; (d) real property leases; and (e) franchise agreements with the Franchisor. * Excluded assets. Assets not included in the sale include any rights, claims, or causes of action of the Debtors against third parties and any avoidance actions under the Bankruptcy Code, including preference actions, fraudulent conveyance actions and merchandise credits. * Purchase Price. The Purchase Price for the Acquired Assets comprises: (a) $300,000 for certain assets subject to liens in favor of Textron Financial Corporation, (b) $1,200,000 for all of the other acquired assets, (c) $3,800,000 payable to the Franchisor for outstanding royalties and other payment obligations under the Franchise Agreements that are to be assumed and assigned to the Buyer, (d) up to $500,000 for restructuring costs of estate professionals payable by the Buyer. * Break-Up Fee. $200,000, which is equal to approximately 3% of the estimated Purchase Price (exclusive of the Cure Amounts) to be received under the Purchase Agreement. * Optional Restaurants. The Buyer will have until June 30, 2009, to determine whether to purchase certain of the other Restaurants not included in the APA. * Employees. The Buyer intends to hire substantially all of the Debtors' employees at the Restaurants that will be acquired.A full-text copy of the APA, which includes a list of the storesincluded or excluded from the sale, is available for free at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/Alset_Checkers_APA.pdf Competing BidsThe Debtors propose that the Checkers APA be further \"tested' inthe market place to make sure that they will realize the maximumvalue for their assets.The Debtors continue to market their assets for sale as a goingconcern. An electronic data room will soon be established andmade available to potential buyers who have executedconfidentiality agreements. The Debtors have retained PraetorianGroup, Inc., as sales advisor. Praetorian will utilize theirextensive resources to contact strategic and financial entities todetermine potential interest in the Debtors' assets.The Debtors request that interested parties be required to submitbids by August 7, 2009 at 4:00 p.m. (EDT). Competing bids mustexceed Checkerco's offer by $250,000.If bids are received, an auction will be held August 11, 2009, at12:00 p.m. (EDT). The Debtors will seek approval of the resultsof the auction at the sale hearing on August 13, 2009, at or about12:00 p.m. (EDT).The Court is scheduled to convene a hearing on the proposedauction procedures on July 7, 2009. Objections are due June 30,2009.Checkerco is represented by: Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6064 Attn: Kelley A. Cornish, Esq. Seven J. Williams, Esq. Tel: (212) 373-3000 Fax: (212) 757-3900 About Alset OwnersAlset Owners LLC is a franchisee of Rally's and Checkers'Restaurants. The Company and certain affiliates filed forChapter 11 on June 5, 2009 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 09-11960).The Company, in its petition, listed assets of $19.7 million anddebt totaling $17.4 million. Attorneys at Blank Rome LLPrepresent the Debtor. BMC Group is the claims and noticing agent.ALSET OWNERS: Seeks to Employ Blank Rome as Bankr. Counsel----------------------------------------------------------Alset Owners, LLC, and its affiliates seek permission from theU.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to hire BlankRome LLP as general bankruptcy counsel.Blank Rome will, among other things, (i) advise the Debtors asdebtors and debtors-in-possession in the continued management oftheir business and properties, (ii) assist the Debtors regardingthe administration and prosecution of their Chapter 11 cases, and(iii) prepare and prosecute all pleadings or papers to be filedwith the Bankruptcy Court, and (iv) appear before the BankruptcyCourt or any other courts to represent and protect the interestsof the Debtors and their estates.The attorneys and paraprofessionals presently designated torepresent the Debtors and their current standard hourly rates are: Michael Z. Brownstein $700 per hour George N. Abrahams $650 per hour Bonnie Glantz Fatell $650 per hour David W. Carickhoff $430 per hour Rocco A. Cavalerie $470 per hourOther professionals may render work for the Debtors. Theircustomary hourly rates are $425 to $785 for partners, $245 to $485for associates and counsel, and $105 to $280 forparaprofessionals.Blank Rome attests that it represents no interest adverse to theDebtors or their estates in the matters upon which the firm is tobe engaged.Blank Rome received an aggregate of $450,000 in retainer paymentsfrom the Debtors prepetition, for services to be rendered incontemplation of and during the Debtors' Chapter 11 cases.About $248,919 remains in the retainer as of the Petition Date.The asset purchase agreement reached by the Debtors regarding thesale of their assets to Checkero Inc. and Checkers Drive-In-Restaurants Inc. require Checkero to satisfy certain of theDebtors' restructuring costs up to $500,000 under certaincircumstances.Blank Rome may be contacted at: Bonnie Glantz Fatell (No. 3809) David W. Carickhoff (No.3715) 1201 North Market Street, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 425-6400 Facsimile: (302) 425-6464 About Alset OwnersAlset Owners LLC is a franchisee of Rally's and Checkers'Restaurants. The Company and certain affiliates filed forChapter 11 on June 5, 2009 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 09-11960).The Company, in its petition, listed assets of $19.7 million anddebt totaling $17.4 million. Attorneys at Blank Rome LLPrepresent the Debtor. BMC Group is the claims and noticing agent.AMBAC ASSURANCE: S&P Cuts Preferred Stock Rating to 'B'-------------------------------------------------------On June 24, 2009, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered itscounterparty credit, financial strength, and financial enhancementratings on Ambac Assurance Corp. to 'BBB' from 'A'. At the sametime, Standard & Poor's also lowered the ratings on relatedentities and placed all of the ratings on CreditWatch withnegative implications.The downgrade stems from S&P's view that Ambac is effectively inrunoff. S&P also lowered the ratings because of S&P's belief thatthe likelihood of the company continuing as an operating entitycapable of writing new business has decreased significantly.As the company's book of business runs off, it could becomeconcentrated and lack sufficient sector diversity. In addition,the company's 2005-2007 vintage direct RMBS and CDO of ABSexposures are subject to continued adverse loss development thatcould erode capital adequacy. Supporting the holding company'sdebt-service needs might also place pressure on capital adequacy.As a runoff company, the ratings on Ambac would be no higher thanin the 'BBB' category. S&P could lower the ratings again if, uponreview of the insured portfolio, S&P determine that Ambac'scapital position has weakened.Downgraded; CreditWatch/Outlook Action To FromAmbac Assurance Corp.Connie Lee Insurance Co.Ambac Assurance U.K. Ltd. Counterparty Credit Rating Local Currency BBB/Watch Neg/--A/Negative/-- Financial Strength Rating Local Currency BBB/Watch Neg/--A/Negative/--Ambac Assurance Corp.Ambac Assurance U.K. Ltd. Financial Enhancement Rating Local Currency BBB/Watch Neg/-- A/--/--Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Counterparty Credit Rating Local Currency BB/Watch Neg/--BBB/Negative/--Ambac Assurance Corp. Preferred Stock B/Watch Neg BBBAmbac Financial Group, Inc. Senior Unsecured BB/Watch Neg BBB Subordinated B/Watch Neg BB+AMERICAN INT'L: Extends $7.2-Bil. Notes Exchange Offer to July 2----------------------------------------------------------------American International Group, Inc., has extended until July 2,2009: -- its offer to exchange up to $4.0 billion principal amount of its 8.175% Series A-6 Junior Subordinated Debentures which have been registered under the Securities Act of 1933 for all of its outstanding unregistered 8.175% Series A-6 Junior Subordinated Debentures, and -- its offer to exchange up to $3.25 billion principal amount of its 8.250% Notes Due 2018 which have been registered under the Securities Act of 1933 for all of its outstanding unregistered 8.250% Notes Due 2018.Both of the exchange offers, which were previously scheduled toexpire at 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on June 24, 2009, willnow expire at 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on July 2, 2009,unless further extended.AIG has filed registration statements to register the New JuniorSubordinated Debentures and the New Notes under the Securities Actof 1933. AIG will not accept for exchange any Old JuniorSubordinated Debentures or Old Notes until the registrationstatements have become effective under the Securities Act of 1933.Each exchange offer is being made upon the terms and subject tothe conditions set forth in a prospectus dated May 19, 2009, forthat exchange offer.As of 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on June 23, 2009,$2,605,503,000 principal amount of Old Junior SubordinatedDebentures and $2,936,997,000 principal amount of Old Notes hadbeen tendered and not withdrawn.The Exchange Agent for the exchange offers is The Bank of New YorkMellon. About AIGBased in New York, American International Group, Inc., is theleading international insurance organization with operation inmore than 130 countries and jurisdictions. AIG companies servecommercial, institutional and individual customers through themost extensive worldwide property-casualty and life insurancenetworks of any insurer. In addition, AIG companies are leadingproviders of retirement services, financial services and assetmanagement around the world. AIG's common stock is listed on theNew York Stock Exchange, as well as the stock exchanges in Irelandand Tokyo.In September 2008, AIG experienced a liquidity crunch when itscredit ratings were downgraded below \"AA\" levels by Standard &Poor's, Moody's Investors Service and Fitch Ratings. OnSeptember 16, 2008, the Federal Reserve Bank created an$85 billion credit facility to enable AIG to meet increasedcollateral obligations consequent to the ratings downgrade, inexchange for the issuance of a stock warrant to the Fed for 79.9%of the equity of AIG. The credit facility was eventuallyincreased to as much as $182.5 billion. AIG has sold a number ofits subsidiaries and other assets to pay down loans received, andcontinues to seek buyers of its assets.At March 31, 2009, AIG had $819.75 billion in total assets and$765.53 billion in total liabilities. At September 30, 2008, AIGhad $1.022 trillion in total assets and $950.9 billion in totaldebts.The Troubled Company Reporter reported on March 4, 2009, thatMoody's Investors Service confirmed the A3 senior unsecured debtand Prime-1 short-term debt ratings of American InternationalGroup, Inc. AIG's subordinated debt rating has been downgraded toBa2 from Baa1. The rating outlook for AIG is negative. Thisrating action follows AIG's announcement of net losses of$62 billion for the fourth quarter and $99 billion for the fullyear of 2008, along with a revised restructuring plan supported bythe U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve. This concludes areview for possible downgrade that was initiated on September 15,2008.AMERICAN INT'L: Fees Represent 3% of Weil's Last 12 Mos. Revenues-----------------------------------------------------------------Stephen Karotkin, Esq., a member of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP,said fees for services to Lehman Brothers, American InternationalGroup and Citigroup represent a combined 10.7% of the firm'sannual gross revenues for the last 12 months (LTM).Mr. Karotkin made the disclosure in a Supplemental Affidavit andDisclosure Statement filed on his firm's behalf in the bankruptcycases of General Motors Corporation, pending before the U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. GeneralMotors is seeking Court approval to hire Weil as its generalcounsel.According to the signed affidavit, Weil's major clients are: Percentage of Revenues for LTM ---------------- Lehman Brothers 6.6% General Electric 3.2% Thomas H. Lee Partners 2.7% AIG 3.0% Microsoft Corporation 0.9% Citigroup 1.1%Nate Raymond at The American Lawyer says Weil may collect morethan $25,000,000 in fees from AIG. Weil is representing AIG inconnection with the company's global divestiture and restructuringprogram. Since early 2008, Weil has worked with AIG to developlegal strategies addressing litigation, financial auditing,reporting, and regulatory compliance issues concerning thecompany's write-downs of hard-to-value, illiquid credit defaultswaps of mortgage- and asset-backed securities.\"Exactly what dollar amount that equals is unclear. But back-of-the-envelope math suggests the fees are at least $25 million to$36 million, if not more,\" Mr. Raymond says.\"Weil's filing says Lehman Brothers made up 6.6 percent of itsrevenue in the last year. Weil has already submitted a$55 million bill for its work on the Lehman case betweenSeptember 15 to January 31. A little cross multiplication, then,would put its AIG fees easily in excess of $25 million.\"And that's erring on the low side since our calculation doesn'tfactor in what Weil earned in the months before Lehman melted downor its work since February.\"It also ignores Weil's 2008 revenues. Last year, it earned$1.23 billion, up 4.75 percent. Quick multiplication puts AIGfees at more than $36 million.\"But again, that too likely undervalues the bill, since Weil'sbankruptcy work is booming and the firm will probably close theyear with higher revenue. In a March memo obtained by TheAmerican Lawyer, Weil said its \"overall level of business hasremained strong and is expected to remain strong when the economy'normalizes.'\"AIG in its quarterly report filed in May 2009 disclosed incurring$274,000,000 in exit expenses which include consulting and otherprofessional fees related to (i) asset disposition activities,(ii) AIG's debt and capital restructuring program with the FederalReserve Bank of New York and the U.S. Department of the Treasuryand (iii) unwinding most of AIGFP's businesses and portfolios.AIG expects exit costs to total $700,000,000.Senior members of the Weil Gotshal team include partners MichaelAiello, Matthew Gilroy, Marcia Goldstein, Joseph Allerhand, RobertCarangelo and Jason Smith.Mr. Raymond says AIG also has engaged Sullivan & Cromwell, SimpsonThacher & Bartlett and Sidley Austin, among others. None of theirfees are known, he adds.Weil earned $54,000,000 from GM before the bankruptcy filing.Mr. Karotkin filed the affidavit to disclose potential conflictsof interest in connection with the GM engagement, as requiredpursuant to Sections 327, 328(A), 329 and 504 of the BankruptcyCode, and Rules 2014(A) and 2016(b) of the Federal Rules ofBankruptcy Procedure. About AIGBased in New York, American International Group, Inc., is theleading international insurance organization with operation inmore than 130 countries and jurisdictions. AIG companies servecommercial, institutional and individual customers through themost extensive worldwide property-casualty and life insurancenetworks of any insurer. In addition, AIG companies are leadingproviders of retirement services, financial services and assetmanagement around the world. AIG's common stock is listed on theNew York Stock Exchange, as well as the stock exchanges in Irelandand Tokyo.In September 2008, AIG experienced a liquidity crunch when itscredit ratings were downgraded below \"AA\" levels by Standard &Poor's, Moody's Investors Service and Fitch Ratings. OnSeptember 16, 2008, the Federal Reserve Bank created an $85billion credit facility to enable AIG to meet increased collateralobligations consequent to the ratings downgrade, in exchange forthe issuance of a stock warrant to the Fed for 79.9% of the equityof AIG. The credit facility was eventually increased to as muchas $182.5 billion. AIG has sold a number of its subsidiaries andother assets to pay down loans received, and continues to seekbuyers of its assets.At March 31, 2009, AIG had $819.75 billion in total assets and$765.53 billion in total liabilities. At September 30, 2008, AIGhad $1.022 trillion in total assets and $950.9 billion in totaldebts.The Troubled Company Reporter reported on March 4, 2009, thatMoody's Investors Service confirmed the A3 senior unsecured debtand Prime-1 short-term debt ratings of American InternationalGroup, Inc. AIG's subordinated debt rating has been downgraded toBa2 from Baa1. The rating outlook for AIG is negative. Thisrating action follows AIG's announcement of net losses of$62 billion for the fourth quarter and $99 billion for the fullyear of 2008, along with a revised restructuring plan supported bythe U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve. This concludes areview for possible downgrade that was initiated on September 15,2008.AMERICAN INT'L: Gov't Gets $25-Bil. Stake in Life Insurance Units-----------------------------------------------------------------Liam Pleven and Joann S. Lublin at The Wall Street Journal reportthat American International Group reached a deal on Thursday togive the Federal Reserve Bank of New York stakes valued at$25 billion in two of AIG's foreign life-insurance units, wipingabout $18 billion of the Company's government debt.WSJ relates that the deal involves foreign life-insurance unitsthat are moving toward public offerings beginning 2010, and theFed will get the first dollars from those sales, although it couldtake months or years of selling off shares on the open marketbefore the Fed gets fully paid for its investment.WSJ states that another deal is pending to hand over to the Fedbonds valued at up to $8.5 billion backed by life-insurancepolicies, which could cut the government debt further to $9 to$10 billion, if AIG's Fed borrowing doesn't rise or decrease.According to WSJ, AIG will hold its annual meeting on Tuesday, theCompany's first with the U.S. government as the controllingshareholder. WSJ relates that three trustees who supervise thealmost 80% government ownership of AIG will be at the meeting, andsix handpicked director candidates, who will form the majority onthe new 11-member board, will be elected. WSJ, citing peoplefamiliar with the mater, states that some of the six have joinedwith some current board members on an informal CEO searchcommittee that is identifying possible candidates. The reportsays that AIG Chairman and CEO Edward Liddy has indicated that hewants to leave. A source said that directors would like to seenew leadership in place as soon as possible, according to thereport. The report states that before finding a CEO, the newboard may pick an independent chairman. AIG Names Alain Karaoglan Sr. VP-DivestitureAIG has named Alain Karaoglan Senior Vice President-Divestiture.As head of the Divestiture Office team, Mr. Karaoglan will beresponsible for bringing to market AIG's divesting assets andmanaging the resulting complex transactions around the world. Hewill report to Paula Rosput Reynolds, AIG Vice Chairman and ChiefRestructuring Officer, and will assume his new duties on June 29,2009.Mr. Karaoglan succeeds Philip Jacobs, formerly AIG's Global TaxDirector before becoming Senior Vice President-Divestiture. Mr.Jacobs has accepted a senior tax-related position with anothercompany.\"Alain Karaoglan has distinguished himself in both investmentbanking and equity research covering the insurance industry,\" Ms.Reynolds said. \"His equity research coverage of the property-casualty business is widely respected as first-rate. Skilled incorporate finance, Alain has broad experience in both publicmarket and private market transactions across all asset classes.He is joining AIG's restructuring team at a critical time, and weare confident that his leadership and experience will benefit ourcompany's multiple stakeholders, including American taxpayers.\"Prior to joining AIG, Mr. Karaoglan served as Managing Director-Equity Research at Banc of America Securities LLC, leading thefinancial services equity research team that covered insurance,banks, investment banks, asset managers, consumer finance,exchanges, and REITs. Prior to that, he served as ManagingDirector-North American Equity Research for Deutsche BankSecurities Inc., covering the Property-Casualty InsuranceIndustry. His 20-year Wall Street career also included positionsof increasing responsibility at Donaldson, Lufkin, and JenretteSecurities Inc., Bear Stearns; and The First Boston Corporation.Mr. Karaoglan earned his master's degree in BusinessAdministration at the Amos Tuck School at Dartmouth College andboth a bachelor's degree in Economics and a bachelor's degree inBusiness Administration from Pepperdine University. AIG Moving Forward with Accelerated Separation of ALICOAIG has entered into an agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank ofNew York positioning the American Life Insurance Company (ALICO),a leading international life insurance franchise, for an initialpublic offering, depending on market conditions.Under the agreement, AIG will contribute the equity of ALICO to aspecial purpose vehicle (SPV) in exchange for preferred and commoninterests in the SPV. The FRBNY will receive preferred interestsin the ALICO SPV of $9 billion, which will reduce the debt owed byAIG to the FRBNY under the FRBNY credit facility by an equivalentamount. The face value of the preferred interests represents apercentage of the estimated fair market value of ALICO. AIG willhold the common interests in the ALICO SPV and will benefit fromthe fair market value of ALICO in excess of the preferredinterests as the SPV monetizes its stake in the company in thefuture.AIG expects this transaction to close in the second half of 2009subject to customary closing conditions, including regulatoryapprovals.\"This action accelerates the move of ALICO toward greaterindependence and helps maintain the value of the franchise,\" saidRodney O. Martin, Jr., ALICO Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.\"Securing the value of this well-capitalized global insurer is inthe best interests of policyholders, distribution partners, andthe American taxpayer. We are very excited to begin this newchapter in the life of one of the world's leading internationallife insurance companies.\"FRBNY said, \"The agreements further the goals of enabling AIG tofully repay the assistance that it has received from U.S.taxpayers and advancing the company's global restructuringprocess. The exchange of senior secured debt for preferred equityinterests reduces AIG's financial leverage and facilitates theindependence of key subsidiaries.\" AIG Extends Exchange Offers for Notes Until July 2AIG has extended until July 2, 2009: -- its offer to exchange up to $4.0 billion principal amount of its 8.175% Series A-6 Junior Subordinated Debentures which have been registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (New Junior Subordinated Debentures) for all of its outstanding unregistered 8.175% Series A-6 Junior Subordinated Debentures (Old Junior Subordinated Debentures), and -- its offer to exchange up to $3.250 billion principal amount of its 8.250% Notes Due 2018 which have been registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (New Notes) for all of its outstanding unregistered 8.250% Notes Due 2018 (Old Notes).Both of the exchange offers, which were previously scheduled toexpire at 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on June 24, 2009, willnow expire at 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on July 2, 2009unless further extended.AIG has filed registration statements to register the New JuniorSubordinated Debentures and the New Notes under the Securities Actof 1933. AIG will not accept for exchange any Old JuniorSubordinated Debentures or Old Notes until the registrationstatements have become effective under the Securities Act of 1933.Each exchange offer is being made upon the terms and subject tothe conditions set forth in a prospectus dated May 19, 2009 forthat exchange offer.As of 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on June 23, 2009,$2,605,503,000 principal amount of Old Junior SubordinatedDebentures and $2,936,997 000 principal amount of Old Notes hadbeen tendered and not withdrawn.The Exchange Agent for the exchange offers is The Bank of New YorkMellon. AIG to Sell Consumer Finance Operations in MexicoAIG has entered into an agreement to sell 100 percent of itsshares in its consumer finance operations in Mexico, consisting ofAIG Universal, S.A. de C.V. SOFOM E.N.R., and Markcenter Services,S. de R.L. de C.V, to Desarrollo de Negocios Integrados, S.A. deC.V., and Inversiones DNI, S.A. de C.V., companies related toAfirme Grupo Financiero and Consorcio Villacero. The transactionis subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, includingapproval by the Mexican Federal Competition Commission.Terms of the transaction were not disclosed.Launched in 2005, AIG Universal has a network of 50 branchesserving approximately 50,000 clients in twelve states in thecentral and northern regions of Mexico, and offers its clientspersonal loans and third party insurance.UBS Investment Bank acted as financial advisor and Kramer LevinNaftalis & Frankel served as legal counsel to AIG on thistransaction. About AIGBased in New York, American International Group, Inc., is theleading international insurance organization with operation inmore than 130 countries and jurisdictions. AIG companies servecommercial, institutional and individual customers through themost extensive worldwide property-casualty and life insurancenetworks of any insurer. In addition, AIG companies are leadingproviders of retirement services, financial services and assetmanagement around the world. AIG's common stock is listed on theNew York Stock Exchange, as well as the stock exchanges in Irelandand Tokyo.During the third quarter of 2008, requirements to post collateralin connection with AIG Financial Products Corp.'s credit defaultswap portfolio and other AIGFP transactions and to fund returns ofsecurities lending collateral placed stress on AIG's liquidity.AIG's stock price declined from $22.76 on September 8, 2008, to$4.76 on September 15, 2008. On that date, AIG's long-term debtratings were downgraded by Standard & Poor's, a division of TheMcGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., Moody's Investors Service and FitchRatings, which triggered additional requirements for liquidity.These factors and other events severely limited AIG's access todebt and equity markets.On September 22, 2008, AIG entered into an $85 billion revolvingcredit agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York andpursuant to the Fed Credit Agreement, AIG agreed to issue 100,000shares of Series C Perpetual, Convertible, Participating PreferredStock to a trust for the benefit of the United States Treasury.At September 30, 2008, amounts owed under the facility createdpursuant to the Fed Credit Agreement totaled $63 billion,including accrued fees and interest.Since September 30, 2008, AIG has borrowed additional amountsunder the Fed Facility and has announced plans to sell assets andbusinesses to repay amounts owed in connection with the Fed CreditAgreement. Certain of AIG's domestic life insurance subsidiariessubsequently entered into an agreement with the NY Fed pursuant towhich the NY Fed has borrowed, in return for cash collateral,investment grade fixed maturity securities from the insurancesubsidiaries.On November 10, 2008, the U.S. Treasury agreed to purchase,through its Troubled Asset Relief Program, $40 billion of newlyissued AIG perpetual preferred shares and warrants to purchase anumber of shares of common stock of AIG equal to 2% of the issuedand outstanding shares as of the purchase date. All of theproceeds will be used to pay down a portion of the Federal ReserveBank of New York credit facility. The perpetual preferred shareswill carry a 10% coupon with cumulative dividends.AIG and the Fed also agreed to revise the existing FRBNY creditfacility. The loan terms were extended from two to five years togive AIG more time to complete its planned asset sales in anorderly manner. The equity interest that taxpayers will hold inAIG, coupled with the warrants, will total 79.9%.At September 30, 2008, AIG had $1.022 trillion in totalconsolidated assets and $950.9 billion in total debts.Shareholders' equity was $71.18 billion, including the addition of$23 billion of consideration received for preferred stock not yetissued.The Troubled Company Reporter reported on March 4, 2009, thatMoody's Investors Service confirmed the A3 senior unsecured debtand Prime-1 short-term debt ratings of American InternationalGroup, Inc. AIG's subordinated debt rating has been downgraded toBa2 from Baa1. The rating outlook for AIG is negative. Thisrating action follows AIG's announcement of net losses of$62 billion for the fourth quarter and $99 billion for the fullyear of 2008, along with a revised restructuring plan supported bythe U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve. This concludes areview for possible downgrade that was initiated on September 15,2008.AMF BOWLING: Moody's Changes Probability of Default Rating to 'B3'------------------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service changed the probability-of-defaultrating for AMF Bowling Worldwide, Inc., to B3 from Caa3. Therevision of the PDR reflects the fact that AMF's ability to prepayfirst and second lien bank debt in the open market, pursuant to anamendment, expired unutilized on June 20. The Caa3 PDR hadreflected Moody's view that, if executed, these prepayments wouldhave been a distressed exchange due to expectations of significantloss to lenders relative to the original obligation. However,since the prepayment period expired unutilized, Moody's hasrestored the PDR to B3. In the event that AMF pursues a similartransaction, Moody's will reassess the ratings at that time.The affirmation of the B3 corporate family rating continues toreflect AMF's high financial leverage, but also incorporatesMoody's view that the company's liquidity position is adequate.The negative outlook reflects concerns over the impact of weakconsumer spending on the company's sales and profitability levels.This rating was changed: -- Probability-of-Default Rating to B3 from Caa3.These ratings were affirmed: -- Corporate Family Rating at B3; -- $40 million first lien revolver due 2012 at B1 (LGD3, 31%); -- $245 million first lien term loan due 2013 at B1 (LGD3, 31%); -- $80 million second lien term loan due 2013 at Caa2 (LGD5, 80%).The last rating action was on May 12, 2009, when Moody's affirmedAMF's B3 corporate family rating and lowered the probability-of-default rating to Caa3 from B3. The ratings outlook was revisedto negative from stable.Headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, AMF Bowling Worldwide, Inc.is the largest operator of bowling centers in the world withapproximately 322 centers in operation, including nine centersoutside the U.S. AMF had revenues of $452 million for the twelvemonths ended March 29, 2009.AMR CORP: American Increases Boeing Orders to 31 Jets From 29-------------------------------------------------------------American Airlines, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of AMR, amendedon June 9, 2009, its Purchase Agreement No. 1977 with The BoeingCompany.As of March 31, 2009, American had commitments to purchase a totalof 29 Boeing 737-800 aircraft in 2009, two of which had beendelivered as of that date. Accordingly, American had commitmentsto acquire 27 737-800 aircraft in the remainder of 2009. Also,American had commitments to acquire 39 737-800 aircraft in 2010and eight 737-800 aircraft in 2011.Pursuant to the amendment, American exercised rights to purchasean additional eight 737-800 aircraft and the delivery dates ofcertain aircraft were rescheduled. As a result, American's total737-800 purchase commitments for 2009 -- including six aircraftthat have been delivered to date -- have increased from 29 as ofMarch 31, 2009, to 31 as of this date, and American's 737-800purchase commitments for 2010 have increased from 39 as ofMarch 31, 2009 to 45 as of June 11. American's 737-800 purchasecommitments remain at eight in 2011. In addition to the aircraft,American has firm commitments for 11 737-800 aircraft and sevenBoeing 777 aircraft scheduled to be delivered in 2013-2016.Payments for American's 737-800 and 777 aircraft purchasecommitments will approximate $768 million for the remainder of2009, $1.3 billion in 2010, $354 million in 2011, $217 million in2012, $399 million in 2013, and $556 million for 2014 and beyond.These amounts are net of purchase deposits currently held by themanufacturer.American previously arranged backstop financing which, togetherwith other previously arranged financing, covered a significantportion of its 2009-2011 Boeing 737-800 aircraft deliveries,subject to certain terms and conditions. This backstop financingarrangement was recently amended. Taking into account thatamendment, all of American's 737-800 aircraft purchase commitmentsfor 2009 - 2011 are, subject to certain terms and conditions,covered by the backstop financing arrangement and other committedfinancing arrangements except for approximately $308 million, allof which is due in the fourth quarter of 2010 and beyond. About AMR CorporationHeadquartered in Forth Worth, Texas, AMR Corporation (NYSE:AMR) operates with its principal subsidiary, American AirlinesInc. -- http://www.aa.com/-- a worldwide scheduled passenger airline. At the end of 2006, American provided scheduled jetservice to about 150 destinations throughout North America, theCaribbean, Latin America, including Brazil, Europe and Asia.American is also a scheduled airfreight carrier, providingfreight and mail services to shippers throughout its system.Its wholly owned subsidiary, AMR Eagle Holding Corp., owns tworegional airlines, American Eagle Airlines Inc. and ExecutiveAirlines Inc., and does business as \"American Eagle.\" AmericanBeacon Advisors Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of AMR, isresponsible for the investment and oversight of assets of AMR'sU.S. employee benefit plans, as well as AMR's short-terminvestments.At March 31, 2009, AMR had $24,518,000,000 in total assets;$8,908,000,000 in current liabilities, $8,314,000,000 in long-termdebt, less current maturities, $528,000,000 in obligations undercapital leases, less current obligations, $6,739,000,000 inpension and postretirement benefits, and $3,138,000,000 in otherliabilities, deferred gains and deferred credits; resulting in$3,109,000,000 in stockholders' deficit.AMR CORP: Expects to End Q2 With $3.3 Billion Cash--------------------------------------------------AMR Corporation expects second quarter mainline unit revenue todecrease between 16.0% and 17.0% year-over-year while secondquarter consolidated unit revenue is expected to decrease between16.2% and 17.2%. In total, Cargo and Other Revenue is anticipatedto decrease between 7.8% and 8.8% relative to second quarter 2008.AMR expects to end the second quarter with a cash and short-terminvestment balance of roughly $3.3 billion, including roughly$460 million in restricted cash and short-term investments. TheCompany's expected cash balance includes the impact of nearly$400 million in principal payments on long term debt made duringthe second quarter.AMR expects to end the second quarter with roughly $50 million ofhedge collateral posted with counterparties; this amount is notincluded in its cash balance expectations.A full-text copy of AMR's Eagle Eye communication to investors isavailable at no charge at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3e23The Eagle Eye provides updated guidance for the second quarter andthe full year 2009, and includes (a) actual unit cost, fuel price,capacity and traffic information for April and May and (b)forecasts of unit cost, revenue performance, fuel prices and fuelhedging, capacity and traffic estimates, liquidity expectations,other income/expense estimates and share count.AMR recorded a net loss of $375 million in the first quarter of2009 compared to a net loss of $341 million in the same periodlast year, due primarily to a decrease in passenger revenue. AMRexperienced a significant weakening of demand, especially ininternational markets, due to the worldwide economic recessioncreating a very challenging environment. This factor coupled withthe recent severe disruptions in the capital markets, according toAMR, has negatively impacted the Company and significantlyimpacted its results of operations and cash flows for the threemonths ended March 31, 2009. Consequently, the Company'sliquidity has been negatively affected as unrestricted cash andshort-term investments decreased from $3.1 billion as ofDecember 31, 2008 to $2.9 billion at March 31, 2009. AMR had saidit may not be able to improve its liquidity position for theremainder of 2009 if lower demand for air travel and a weak globaleconomy were to persist and if the Company is unable to obtainfinancing on reasonable terms.AMR said in its quarterly report filed with the Securities andExchange Commission that it remains heavily indebted and hassignificant obligations. However, the Company believes it canaccess sufficient liquidity to fund its operations and obligationsfor the remainder of 2009, including repayment of debt and capitalleases, capital expenditures and other contractual obligations.To date during 2009, the Company secured roughly $148 million offinancing that was previously uncommitted through loans on certainaircraft. The transactions are in addition to previouslyarranged financing and backstop financing which could be used fora significant portion of the Company's remaining 2009 - 2011Boeing 737-800 aircraft deliveries. Exclusive of thesetransactions, the Company estimated that it has at least$3.6 billion in unencumbered assets and other sources of liquidityand the Company continues to evaluate the most cost-effectivealternatives to raise additional capital. AMR had said itspossible financing sources primarily include: (i) a limited amountof additional secured aircraft debt or sale leaseback transactionsinvolving owned aircraft; (ii) leases of or debt secured by newaircraft deliveries; (iii) debt secured by other assets; (iv)securitization of future operating receipts; (v) the sale ormonetization of certain assets; (vi) unsecured debt; and (vii)issuance of equity /or equity-like securities. Besidesunencumbered aircraft, some of the Company's particular assets andother sources of liquidity that could be sold or otherwise used assources of financing include AAdvantage program miles, takeoff andlanding slots, and certain of the Company's business units andsubsidiaries, such as AMR Eagle. About AMR CorporationHeadquartered in Forth Worth, Texas, AMR Corporation (NYSE:AMR) operates with its principal subsidiary, American AirlinesInc. -- http://www.aa.com/-- a worldwide scheduled passenger airline. At the end of 2006, American provided scheduled jetservice to about 150 destinations throughout North America, theCaribbean, Latin America, including Brazil, Europe and Asia.American is also a scheduled airfreight carrier, providingfreight and mail services to shippers throughout its system.Its wholly owned subsidiary, AMR Eagle Holding Corp., owns tworegional airlines, American Eagle Airlines Inc. and ExecutiveAirlines Inc., and does business as \"American Eagle.\" AmericanBeacon Advisors Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of AMR, isresponsible for the investment and oversight of assets of AMR'sU.S. employee benefit plans, as well as AMR's short-terminvestments.At March 31, 2009, AMR had $24,518,000,000 in total assets;$8,908,000,000 in current liabilities, $8,314,000,000 in long-termdebt, less current maturities, $528,000,000 in obligations undercapital leases, less current obligations, $6,739,000,000 inpension and postretirement benefits, and $3,138,000,000 in otherliabilities, deferred gains and deferred credits; resulting in$3,109,000,000 in stockholders' deficit.ARMANA HOLDINGS: Voluntary Chapter 11 Case Summary--------------------------------------------------Debtor: The Armana Holdings Limited Liability Partnership 2021 San Mateo NE Albuquerque, NM 87110Bankruptcy Case No.: 09-14246Chapter 11 Petition Date: June 24, 2009Court: United States Bankruptcy Court District of Arizona (Phoenix)Judge: Charles G. Case IIDebtor's Counsel: Dennis J. Wortman, Esq. 202 East Earll Drive, Ste 490 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Tel: (602) 257-0101 Fax: (602) 279-5650 Email: [email protected] Assets: $1,000,001 to $10,000,000Estimated Debts: $1,000,001 to $10,000,000The Debtor did not file a list of its 20 largest unsecuredcreditors when it filed its petition.The petition was signed by Diana Horner, general partner of theCompany.ARVINMERITOR INC: Sells Stake in LVS Chassis Businesses-------------------------------------------------------ArvinMeritor, Inc. has reached agreements to divest its entireownership stakes in two joint ventures in its light vehicleChassis business. Together, these transactions will result in thedivestiture of 45% of the Chassis Systems business -- as measuredby 2008 sales.The Company entered into a binding letter of intent to sell its57% stake in Meritor Suspension Systems Company, a joint venturethat manufactures and sells automotive coil springs, torsion barsand stabilizer bars in North America, to its joint venturepartner, a subsidiary of Mitsubishi Steel Mfg. Co., LTD. Thetransaction is expected to close in the coming months, afterreceiving necessary regulatory clearances.ArvinMeritor also announced that, earlier this month, it completedthe sale of its 51% stake in Gabriel de Venezuela, whichmanufactures shock absorbers, struts, exhaust systems andsuspension modules for countries including Venezuela, Colombia,Chile, Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador.\"We are pleased to announce these two divestitures, whichrepresent important steps toward achieving our long-term strategicobjective to focus on supplying the commercial vehicle on- andoff-highway markets for both original equipment manufacturers andaftermarket customers,\" said Chip McClure, chairman, CEO andpresident. \"Our joint venture partners are strong companies and Iam confident that they will focus on growing these businesses. Wecontinue to concentrate on divesting the light vehicle Chassisbusiness, and we are pleased with the high level of interest weare continuing to see from potential buyers in the remainingsegments of that business.\" About ArvinMeritorArvinMeritor, Inc. -- http://www.arvinmeritor.com/-- is a premier global supplier of a broad range of integrated systems, modulesand components to the motor vehicle industry. The company marksits centennial anniversary in 2009. ArvinMeritor servescommercial truck, trailer and specialty original equipmentmanufacturers and certain aftermarkets, and light vehiclemanufacturers. ArvinMeritor common stock is traded on the NewYork Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol ARM.ArvinMeritor posted a net loss of $47 million for the three monthsended March 31, 2009, on sales of $1.11 billion. The Company had$2.87 billion in total assets; $1.29 billion in currentliabilities, $1.37 billion in long-term debt, $654 million inretirement benefit obligations, $272 million in other liabilities,and $50 million in minority interests, resulting in $769 millionin shareowners' equity.As reported by the Troubled Company Reporter on May 14, 2009,ArvinMeritor Inc. said in a regulatory filing with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission that it is possible the company may berequired to obtain an amendment to the senior secured creditfacility and its U.S. securitization facility by the end of itsthird fiscal quarter to allow additional flexibility under thesenior secured debt to EBITDA covenant contained therein and, inthe absence of a waiver, to prevent a default under suchfacilities. If amendments or waivers are not necessary before theend of the third quarter, it is increasingly likely that thecompany will require them prior to the end of the fiscal year.As reported by the TCR on June 11, 2009, Fitch Ratings keptArvinMeritor's ratings on Watch Negative (IDR 'CCC'); (Secured'B') and (Senior unsecured 'CC') as a result of Chrysler's andGeneral Motors' bankruptcies.ASARCO LLC: Disclosure Statement Hearing Adjourned to June 30-------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texasfurther reset to June 30, 2009, the hearing to consider theadequacy of the disclosure statements accompanying the threecompeting plans filed in the cases of ASARCO LLC and its debtoraffiliates. The three plans were filed by the Debtors supportingthe offer by Sterlite (USA), Inc.; Americas Mining Corporationand ASARCO Incorporated; and Harbinger Capital Partners MasterFund I, Ltd., and Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.The Disclosure Statement Hearing was previously set for June 23,2009. Judge Richard Schmidt also set a status conference on theDisclosure Statements on June 23. About ASARCO LLCBased in Tucson, Arizona, ASARCO LLC -- http://www.asarco.com/-- is an integrated copper mining, smelting and refining company.Grupo Mexico S.A. de C.V. is ASARCO's ultimate parent.ASARCO LLC filed for Chapter 11 protection on August 9, 2005(Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 05-21207). James R. Prince, Esq., JackL. Kinzie, Esq., and Eric A. Soderlund, Esq., at Baker BottsL.L.P., and Nathaniel Peter Holzer, Esq., Shelby A. Jordan, Esq.,and Harlin C. Womble, Esq., at Jordan, Hyden, Womble & Culbreth,P.C., represent the Debtor in its restructuring efforts. LehmanBrothers Inc. provides the ASARCO with financial advisory servicesand investment banking services. Paul M. Singer, Esq., James C.McCarroll, Esq., and Derek J. Baker, Esq., at Reed Smith LLP givelegal advice to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors andDavid J. Beckman at FTI Consulting, Inc., gives financial advisoryservices to the Committee.When ASARCO LLC filed for protection from its creditors, it listedUS$600 million in total assets and US$1 billion in total debts.ASARCO LLC has five affiliates that filed for Chapter 11protection on April 11, 2005 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case Nos.05-20521 through 05-20525). They are Lac d'Amiante Du QuebecLtee, CAPCO Pipe Company, Inc., Cement Asbestos Products Company,Lake Asbestos of Quebec, Ltd., and LAQ Canada, Ltd. Sander L.Esserman, Esq., at Stutzman, Bromberg, Esserman & Plifka, APC, inDallas, Texas, represents the Official Committee of UnsecuredCreditors for the Asbestos Debtors. Former judge Robert C. Patehas been appointed as the future claims representative. Detailsabout their asbestos-driven Chapter 11 filings have appeared inthe Troubled Company Reporter since April 18, 2005.Encycle/Texas, Inc. (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 05-21304), Encycle,Inc., and ASARCO Consulting, Inc. (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 05-21346) also filed for Chapter 11 protection, and ASARCO has askedthat the three subsidiary cases be jointly administered with itsChapter 11 case. On October 24, 2005, Encycle/Texas' case wasconverted to a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding. The Courtappointed Michael Boudloche as Encycle/Texas, Inc.'s Chapter 7Trustee. Michael B. Schmidt, Esq., and John Vardeman, Esq., atLaw Offices of Michael B. Schmidt represent the Chapter 7 Trustee.ASARCO's affiliates, AR Sacaton LLC, Southern Peru Holdings LLC,and ASARCO Exploration Company Inc., filed for Chapter 11protection on December 12, 2006. (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No.06-20774 to 06-20776).Six of ASARCO's affiliates, Wyoming Mining & Milling Co., AltaMining & Development Co., Tulipan Co., Inc., Blackhawk Mining &Development Co., Ltd., Peru Mining Exploration & Development Co.,and Green Hill Cleveland Mining Co. filed for Chapter 11protection on April 21, 2008. (Bank. S.D. Tex. Case No. 08-20197to 08-20202).ASARCO LLC filed a plan of reorganization on July 31, 2008,premised on the sale of the Debtors' assets to Sterlite USA for$2.6 billion. By October 2008, ASARCO LLC informed the Court thatSterlite refused to close the proposed sale and thus, the OriginalPlan could not be confirmed. The parties has since renewed theirpurchase and sale agreement and ASARCO LLC has obtained Courtapproval of a settlement and release contained in the new PSA forthe sale of the ASARCO assets for $1.1 billion in cash and a $600million note.Americas Mining Corporation, an affiliate of Grupo Mexico SAB deCV, submitted its own plan which allows it to keep its equityinterest in ASARCO LLC by offering full payment to ASARCO'screditors. AMC offered provide up to $2.7 billion in cash and a$440 million guarantee to assure payment of all allowed creditorclaims, including payment of liabilities relating to asbestos andenvironmental claims. AMC's plan is premised on the estimation ofthe approximate allowed amount of the claims against ASARCO.Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes ASARCO BankruptcyNews. The newsletter tracks the Chapter 11 proceeding undertakenby ASARCO LLC and its various affiliates.(http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000) ASARCO LLC: Parent Offers $3.1 Billion for Operating Assets-----------------------------------------------------------Asarco Incorporated and Americas Mining Corporation delivered tothe U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas aFifth Amended Plan of Reorganization and Disclosure Statement forASARCO LLC, Southern Peru Holdings, LLC, AR Sacaton, LLC, andASARCO Master, Inc., on June 23, 2009.ASARCO Inc. and AMC, affiliates of Grupo Mexico SAB de C.V., arethe parent company of ASARCO LLC.The Parent has made further revisions to its Plan that seeks toaddress and resolve certain concerns and informal comments lodgedby various parties and improve the proposed treatment of creditorclaims. Clean and blacklined copies of the Parent 4th AmendedPlan, including the Uniform Glossary of Defined Terms for PlanDocuments, are available for free at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/ASARCOInc_5th_AmendedPlan.pdf http://bankrupt.com/misc/ASARCOInc_5thPlan_Redlined.pdfThe Fifth Amended Plan provides that the cash portion of theParent's contribution has been increased from $1.3031 billion to$1.4625 billion. The ASARCO Asbestos Note has also beenincreased from $250 million to $280 million. In addition, theASARCO Note is now guaranteed by AMC, as well as being supportedby a pledge of 51% of equity of Reorganized ASARCO.In addition to the cash ASARCO currently holds, the Parent'soffer totals approximately $3.1 billion in cash plus otherconsiderations. The Parent previously offered $2.9 billionthrough its Fourth Amended Plan.Together with cash on hand and certain tax refunds, the Parent'sincreased cash contribution will provide a 95% cash recovery tounsecured creditors on or very close to the Plan's effectivedate, using the Debtors' \"preferred\" claims estimates. The TaxRefund refers to the overpayment of $40,479,421 allowed by theNotice of Partial Allowance and Partial Disallowance of theRefund Claim issued by the Internal Revenue Service, togetherwith statutory accrued interest. Treatment of ClaimsPursuant to Section 1122 of the Bankruptcy Code, claims andinterests, other than Administrative Claims and Priority TaxClaims, are designated into these classes under the Fifth AmendedParent Plan: * Class 1 Priority Claims * Class 2 Secured Claims * Class 3 General Unsecured Claims * Class 4 Asbestos Personal Injury Claims * Class 5 Convenience Claims * Class 6 Late-Filed Claims * Class 7 Subordinated Claims * Class 8 Environmental Reinstated Claims * Class 9 Interests in ASARCOUnder the Fifth Amended Plan, holders of Claims in Class 3General Unsecured Claims, including Bondholder Claims, Toxic TortClaims and Environmental Unsecured Claims, will receive a ProRata share of the Available Parent's Plan Funds, plus a Pro Ratashare of 100% of the net proceeds of the Litigation Trust to befunded with, among other things, the Debtors' claims againstSterlite (USA), Inc. Creditor recoveries are capped at 100% ofthe principal Allowed amount of each Claim determined withoutpostpetition interest.The section on Disputed Claim Reserve under the Parent Plan isamended to cater to the changes in the assignment of claims underthe revised Classes. $125 Million DepositUpon confirmation of its Plan, the Parent will post with theCourt a $125 million good faith cash deposit to demonstrate andsupport its intention and ability to fully and timely consummateits Plan. The Deposit is forfeitable if the Parent's Plan failsto be consummated by the earlier of: (i) 30 days after the confirmation order becomes a final order; or (ii) October 31, 2009, as long as the Confirmation Order is not subject to a stay.The Parent tells Judge Schmidt that it continues to work with theDebtors on a joint disclosure statement that, among other things,describes the expected recoveries to creditors under the FifthAmended Plan, and compares and contrasts that recovery toanticipated recoveries under the Debtors' Plan and the HarbingerPlan. Other ProvisionsSolely for tax purposes, the Fifth Amended Parent Plan providesthat it is intended that the Litigation Trust be classified as aliquidating trust under Section 301.7701-4(d) of the TreasuryRegulations, and the Litigation Trust Beneficiaries will betreated as the owners of their proportionate share of the assetsof the Litigation Trust. Accordingly, for federal income taxpurposes, the Parent intends that all parties, including theLitigation Trustee, the Litigation Trust Beneficiaries, and thetransferors, for tax purposes, of any assets transferred to theLitigation Trust, will take the position, subject to definitiveguidance from the IRS or a court, that the transfer of assets tothe Litigation Trust is a deemed transfer to the LitigationTrustee for the benefit of the Litigation Trust Beneficiaries,and all income and gain of the Litigation Trust which is earnedafter the deemed transfer will be taxed to the Litigation TrustBeneficiaries on a current basis.The Environmental Custodial Trusts are intended to be treated asqualified settlement funds within the meaning of Section 1.468B-1of the Treasury Regulation and hence, as taxable entities forfederal income tax purposes. Each Custodial Trustee will be the\"administrator\" of its Environmental Custodial Trust pursuant toSection 1.468B-2(k)(3) of the Treasury Regulation. About ASARCO LLCBased in Tucson, Arizona, ASARCO LLC -- http://www.asarco.com/-- is an integrated copper mining, smelting and refining company.Grupo Mexico S.A. de C.V. is ASARCO's ultimate parent.ASARCO LLC filed for Chapter 11 protection on August 9, 2005(Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 05-21207). James R. Prince, Esq., JackL. Kinzie, Esq., and Eric A. Soderlund, Esq., at Baker BottsL.L.P., and Nathaniel Peter Holzer, Esq., Shelby A. Jordan, Esq.,and Harlin C. Womble, Esq., at Jordan, Hyden, Womble & Culbreth,P.C., represent the Debtor in its restructuring efforts. LehmanBrothers Inc. provides the ASARCO with financial advisory servicesand investment banking services. Paul M. Singer, Esq., James C.McCarroll, Esq., and Derek J. Baker, Esq., at Reed Smith LLP givelegal advice to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors andDavid J. Beckman at FTI Consulting, Inc., gives financial advisoryservices to the Committee.When ASARCO LLC filed for protection from its creditors, it listedUS$600 million in total assets and US$1 billion in total debts.ASARCO LLC has five affiliates that filed for Chapter 11protection on April 11, 2005 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case Nos.05-20521 through 05-20525). They are Lac d'Amiante Du QuebecLtee, CAPCO Pipe Company, Inc., Cement Asbestos Products Company,Lake Asbestos of Quebec, Ltd., and LAQ Canada, Ltd. Sander L.Esserman, Esq., at Stutzman, Bromberg, Esserman & Plifka, APC, inDallas, Texas, represents the Official Committee of UnsecuredCreditors for the Asbestos Debtors. Former judge Robert C. Patehas been appointed as the future claims representative. Detailsabout their asbestos-driven Chapter 11 filings have appeared inthe Troubled Company Reporter since April 18, 2005.Encycle/Texas, Inc. (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 05-21304), Encycle,Inc., and ASARCO Consulting, Inc. (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 05-21346) also filed for Chapter 11 protection, and ASARCO has askedthat the three subsidiary cases be jointly administered with itsChapter 11 case. On October 24, 2005, Encycle/Texas' case wasconverted to a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding. The Courtappointed Michael Boudloche as Encycle/Texas, Inc.'s Chapter 7Trustee. Michael B. Schmidt, Esq., and John Vardeman, Esq., atLaw Offices of Michael B. Schmidt represent the Chapter 7 Trustee.ASARCO's affiliates, AR Sacaton LLC, Southern Peru Holdings LLC,and ASARCO Exploration Company Inc., filed for Chapter 11protection on December 12, 2006. (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No.06-20774 to 06-20776).Six of ASARCO's affiliates, Wyoming Mining & Milling Co., AltaMining & Development Co., Tulipan Co., Inc., Blackhawk Mining &Development Co., Ltd., Peru Mining Exploration & Development Co.,and Green Hill Cleveland Mining Co. filed for Chapter 11protection on April 21, 2008. (Bank. S.D. Tex. Case No. 08-20197to 08-20202).ASARCO LLC filed a plan of reorganization on July 31, 2008,premised on the sale of the Debtors' assets to Sterlite USA for$2.6 billion. By October 2008, ASARCO LLC informed the Court thatSterlite refused to close the proposed sale and thus, the OriginalPlan could not be confirmed. The parties has since renewed theirpurchase and sale agreement and ASARCO LLC has obtained Courtapproval of a settlement and release contained in the new PSA forthe sale of the ASARCO assets for $1.1 billion in cash and a $600million note.Americas Mining Corporation, an affiliate of Grupo Mexico SAB deCV, submitted its own plan which allows it to keep its equityinterest in ASARCO LLC by offering full payment to ASARCO'screditors. AMC offered provide up to $2.7 billion in cash and a$440 million guarantee to assure payment of all allowed creditorclaims, including payment of liabilities relating to asbestos andenvironmental claims. AMC's plan is premised on the estimation ofthe approximate allowed amount of the claims against ASARCO.Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes ASARCO BankruptcyNews. The newsletter tracks the Chapter 11 proceeding undertakenby ASARCO LLC and its various affiliates.(http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000) ASPEN PEAK: Case Summary & 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors---------------------------------------------------------Debtor: Aspen Peak LLC, a Nevada Corporation 313 N Birch St Santa Ana, CA 92701Bankruptcy Case No.: 09-16199Chapter 11 Petition Date: June 23, 2009Court: United States Bankruptcy Court Central District of California (Santa Ana)Judge: Theodor AlbertDebtor's Counsel: T. Edward Malpass, Esq. Law Offices of T. Edward Malpass 4931 Birch St. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: (949) 474-9944Estimated Assets: $1,000,001 to $10,000,000Estimated Debts: $10,000,001 to $50,000,000A full-text copy of the Debtor's petition, including a list of its20 largest unsecured creditors, is available for free at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/cacb09-16199.pdfThe petition was signed by James Meehan.AURORA OIL & GAS: Lenders Extend Forbearance Until July 15----------------------------------------------------------Aurora Oil & Gas Corporation reports that on May 8, 2009 -- but asof May 1, 2009 -- the Company and certain subsidiaries, asguarantors, entered into a forbearance and tolling agreement withBNP Paribas and the lenders under the Senior Secured CreditFacility and D.E. Shaw Laminar Portfolios, LLC and the lendersunder the Second Lien Term Loan. On June 12, 2009, the Companyentered into a First Amendment to the Forbearance and TollingAgreement.In accordance with the First Amendment Agreement, the expirationdate of the Forbearance and Tolling Agreement was extended toJuly 15, 2009 from June 15, 2009. In addition, the FirstAmendment Agreement added an agreement by the Company that thelenders may consult with Opportune LLP subject to certain termsand conditions regarding the timing and scope of suchconsultation. The First Amendment Agreement also granted theCompany the ability to add the second quarter 2009 interestpayment due under the Second Lien Term Loan to the debt balance asopposed to submitting a cash payment.As part of a February 12, 2009 Forbearance Agreement, the Companyexecuted additional mortgages and other security instruments whichgave the lenders liens on 100% of all oil and gas properties,promissory notes, all significant overriding royalties, and allsignificant farmout agreements. The First Amendment Agreementextended the period of time that the Company can assert that theAdditional Collateral Transfers were preferential transfers underSection 547 of the United States Bankruptcy Code until andincluding July 15, 2009.The First Amendment Agreement also added additional events thatwould terminate the Forbearance and Tolling Agreement which are: (i) the failure by the Company to agree to a finalized term sheet with BNP, Laminar and the lenders under the Senior Secured Credit Facility and the Second Lien Term Loan on or before the later of the day that is 13 calendar days after the Company has received the initial draft of the term sheet, and June 30, 2009, wherein the terms and conditions of the proposed restructuring of the Company or the Company's assets are in form and substance satisfactory to BNP, Laminar and at least two-thirds in amount of outstanding principal of each of the Senior Secured Credit Facility lenders and the Second Lien Term Loan lenders, and (ii) the failure by the Company to grant BNP and Laminar access to Opportune LLP subject to certain terms and conditions.The First Lien lending consortium consists of: * BNP Paribas, as First Lien Agent and Lender; * Comerica Bank, as Lender; * KeyBank National Association, as Lender; and * CIT Capital USA Inc., as LenderThe Second Lien lending consortium consists of: * D.E. Shaw Laminar Portfolios, L.L.C., as Second Lien Agent and Lender; * BNP Paribas, as Lender; * CIT Capital USA Inc., as Lender; * Energy Components SPC UP-and Midstream Segregated Portfolio, as Lender About Aurora Oil & GasBased in Traverse City, Michigan, Aurora Oil & Gas Corporation(NYSE Alternext US: AOG) is an independent energy company focusedon unconventional natural gas exploration, acquisition,development and production, with its primary operations in theAntrim Shale of Michigan, the New Albany Shale of Indiana andKentucky.AURORA OIL & GAS: Taps Huron's Edlein as Restructuring Officer--------------------------------------------------------------Aurora Oil & Gas Corporation reports that on June 12, 2009, itentered into an agreement with Huron Consulting Group in Dallas,Texas, appointing Sanford Edlein to serve as the Company's ChiefRestructuring Officer.Mr. Edlein has served as a Managing Director of Huron sinceJanuary 2007. In January 2007 Huron acquired Glass & Associates,Inc., a turnaround and restructuring firm, which Mr. Edlein servedas a Principal since 1999. Mr. Edlein has over 35 years ofrelated experience serving in various capacities for both publicand privately owned companies.The agreement with Huron established an hourly rate of $525 forMr. Edlein. Additional consultants from Huron may be required andwill be charged at various hourly rates depending on their levelof expertise and position within Huron. The Company was requiredto pay Huron a $100,000 retainer as part of the agreement.The Company terminated the employment of Gilbert A. Smith, itsPresident and Vice President of Business Development, on June 8,2009. About Aurora Oil & GasBased in Traverse City, Michigan, Aurora Oil & Gas Corporation(NYSE Alternext US: AOG) is an independent energy company focusedon unconventional natural gas exploration, acquisition,development and production, with its primary operations in theAntrim Shale of Michigan, the New Albany Shale of Indiana andKentucky.AVIZA TECHNOLOGY: U.S. Trustee Names 3 Members to Creditors Panel-----------------------------------------------------------------The United States Trustee for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for theNorthern District of California appointed three parties to theofficial committee of unsecured creditors in the bankruptcy casesof Aviza Technology, Inc. The Committee members are ASML,Armanino McKenna LLP and Genmark Automation.Headquartered in Scotts Valley, California, Aviza Technology Inc.(NASDAQ GM:AVZA) -- http://www.aviza.com/-- designs, manufactures, sells and supports semiconductor capital equipmentand process technologies for the global semiconductor industry andrelated markets. The Company's systems are used in a variety ofsegments of the semiconductor market for advanced silicon formemory devices, 3-D packaging and power integrated circuits forcommunications. The Company's manufacturing, R&D, sales andcustomer support facilities are located in the United Kingdom,Germany, France, Taiwan, China, Japan, Korea, Singapore andMalaysia.The Company and two of its subsidiaries, Aviza Inc. and TrikonTechnologies Inc., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection onJune 9, 2009 (Bankr. N.D. Calif. Case No. 09-54511).Judge Roger L. Efremsky presides over the Chapter 11 case.Attorneys at the Law Offices of Murray and Murray represent theDebtors. At the time of the filing, Aviza Technology estimatedassets and debts of $10 million to $50 million.BANK OF AMERICA: Fed Tried to Hide Involvement in Merrill Buy-------------------------------------------------------------Times Online reports that lawmakers have claimed to have uncoveredevidence on the Federal Reserve's attempt to hide from otherfinancial regulators its involvement in Bank of America's MerrillLynch & Co acquisition.Reuters, citing people familiar with the matter, relates that theFed withheld information on its dealings with BofA from the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission and the Office of theComptroller of the Currency.According to Times Online, lawmakers claimed that the Fed madeinappropriate threats to fire BofA management unless they proceedwith the Merrill deal. \"The [Congressional] committee has alreadylearned that Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve madeinappropriate threats to fire Bank of America management unlessthey went ahead with the shotgun wedding that was the MerrillLynch acquisition . . . The Federal Reserve also engaged in acover-up and deliberately hid concerns and pertinent details aboutthe merger from other federal regulatory agencies,\" Reuters quotedDarrell Issa, the senior Republican on the committee, as saying.Michael R. Crittenden and Dan Fitzpatrick at The Wall StreetJournal report that documents show that federal regulatorsdisagreed strongly over the rescue of BofA. Citing peoplefamiliar with the matter, WSJ relates that in the months after thebailout, regulators tightened their grip on the bank's operations,placing BofA under a supervisory action requiring it to: -- take steps to improve its governance, -- reassess management, and -- improve risk management.WSJ states that documents unearthed by congressional investigatorsshow that Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bairwrote to Mr. Bernanke before the aid was unveiled, saying thatthere was \"strong discomfort with this deal at the FDIC.\"According to the report, Ms. Bair was referring to a plan to havethe FDIC provide guarantees against losses on BofA assets. Thereport states that that the FDIC then decided to help provideprotection from losses on $118 billion of BofA assets, as part ofa $20 billion package designed to help BofA close its deal forMerrill.According to WSJ, the documents also show that top Fed officialswere communicating with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner duringthe Merrill acquisition talks in December 2008. WSJ relates thatthe documents suggest that negotiations weren't discussed with topSEC officials until close to the deal's announcement.Mr. Bernanke will be appearing at a hearing of the House Oversightand Government Reform Committee, Times Online states. Citing acongressional committee spokesperson Hugh Son, Bloomberg Newsreports that former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson will alsoappear before the panel in July. According to the report,Mr. Paulson's appearance was confirmed by Jenny Rosenberg, an aideto Edolphus Towns, a New York Democrat and chairman of the HouseOversight and Government Reform Committee, although a date hasn'tbeen disclosed yet. Common Stock Average Price for Exchange OfferBofA reported the common stock average price of $12.7048 for itsoffers to exchange up to 200 million shares of common stock foroutstanding depositary shares for each series of preferred stock.The exchange offer consists of separate offers for depositaryshares representing each series of the preferred stock.The common stock average price represents the simple arithmeticaverage of the daily per share volume-weighted average price ofBofA common stock for each of the five consecutive trading daysending on and including June 22, 2009 (the second business dayprior to the scheduled expiration date of the exchange offer).The number of shares of common stock issuable for each exchangeddepositary share was determined by dividing the applicableconsideration per depositary share by $12.7048, the common stockaverage price, and rounded to four decimal places.Prio- CUSIP No. Series of Preferred NYSE ConsiderationNumberRity of Stock Represented by Ticker for Deposit- ofLevel Depositary Depositary Shares Symbol ary ShareShares Shares of Common Stock per Depo- sit- ary share1 060505815 Floating Rate BAC PrE $16.25 1.2790 Non- Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series E2 060505583 Floating Rate BML PrL $16.25 1.2790 Non- Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series 53 060505633 Floating Rate BML PrG $15.00 1.1807 Non- Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series 14 060505625 Floating Rate BML PrH $15.00 1.1807 Non- Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series 25 060505617 6.375% Non-Cumulative BML PrI $17.00 1.3381 Preferred Stock, Series 36 060505740 6.625% Non-Cumulative BAC PrI $17.50 1.3774 Preferred Stock, Series I7 060505724 7.25% Non-Cumulative BAC PrJ $18.75 1.4758 Preferred Stock, Series J8 060505765 8.20% Non-Cumulative BAC PrH $20.50 1.6136 Preferred Stock, Series H9 060505559 8.625% Non-Cumulative BML PrQ $21.00 1.6529 Preferred Stock, Series 8The exchange offer will expire at midnight, New York City time, onJune 24, 2009, unless extended or earlier terminated by Bank ofAmerica. Holders of the depositary shares eligible for exchangewill be able to tender their depositary shares, or withdraw theirpreviously tendered depositary shares, at any time prior to theexpiration of the exchange offer.The exchange offer would increase BofA's Tier 1 common capital byan amount equal to the aggregate liquidation preference of thedepositary shares exchanged. The shares issuable in the exchangeoffer are part of Bank of America's previously-announced plan toexchange common stock for non-government perpetual preferredstock. BofA believes that these actions will assist in meetingthe $33.9 billion indicated Supervisory Capital Assessment Program(SCAP) buffer set by the Federal Reserve.The exchange offer is subject to the terms and conditionsdescribed in the Offer to Exchange dated May 28, 2009, as amended,and the related Letter of Transmittal, previously filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission.The terms of the exchange offer and procedures for validlytendering and withdrawing depositary shares are described indetail in the Offer to Exchange and related materials, copies ofwhich may be obtained without charge from the information agentfor the exchange offer, D.F. King & Co., Inc., by calling (800)829-6551 (toll free) or (212) 269-5550 (collect).The exchange offer is being made to holders of depositary sharesin reliance upon the exemption from the registration requirementsof the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, provided by Section3(a)(9) of the Securities Act. This press release is not an offerto purchase or an offer to exchange or a solicitation ofacceptance of an offer to exchange any securities, and theexchange offer is being made only pursuant to the terms of theOffer to Exchange and the related materials. About Bank of AmericaBased in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America --http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is one of the world's largest financial institutions, serving individual consumers, small andmiddle market businesses and large corporations with a full rangeof banking, investing, asset management and other financial andrisk-management products and services. The Company serves morethan 59 million consumer and small business relationships withmore than 6,100 retail banking offices, nearly 18,700 ATMs andonline banking with nearly 29 million active users. Following theacquisition of Merrill Lynch on January 1, 2009, Bank of Americais among the world's leading wealth management companies and is aglobal leader in corporate and investment banking and tradingacross a broad range of asset classes serving corporations,governments, institutions and individuals around the world. Bankof America offers support to more than 4 million small businessowners. The Company serves clients in more than 150 countries.Bank of America Corporation stock is a component of the Dow JonesIndustrial Average and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.The bank needed the government's financial help in completing itsacquisition of Merrill Lynch.Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. -- http://www.ml.com/-- is a wealth management, capital markets and advisory companies with offices in40 countries and territories. As an investment bank, it is aleading global trader and underwriter of securities andderivatives across a broad range of asset classes and serves as astrategic advisor to corporations, governments, institutions andindividuals worldwide. Merrill Lynch owns approximately half ofBlackRock, one of the world's largest publicly traded investmentmanagement companies with more than $1 trillion in assets undermanagement. Merrill Lynch's operations are organized into twobusiness segments: Global Markets and Investment Banking (GMI) andGlobal Wealth Management (GWM).As reported by the Troubled Company Reporter on March 27, 2009,Moody's Investors Service lowered the senior debt rating of Bankof America Corporation to A2 from A1, the senior subordinated debtrating to A3 from A2, and the junior subordinated debt rating toBaa3 from A2. The preferred stock rating was downgraded to B3from Baa1. The holding company's short-term rating was affirmedat Prime-1.BILL BARRETT: Moody's Assigns 'Ba3' Corporate Family Rating-----------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service assigned a Ba3 Corporate Family Ratingand Probability of Default Rating to Bill Barrett Corporation.Moody's also assigned a B1, LGD5 (75%) rating to the company'sproposed $200 million senior notes due 2016 and a SpeculativeGrade Liquidity Rating of SGL-2. The outlook is stable.\"Bill Barrett's Ba3 rating is supported by management's extensiveexperience and successful operational track record in the RockyMountain region, including their previous history with BarrettResources,\" commented Pete Speer, Moody's Vice-President/SeniorAnalyst. \"The rating is restrained by the company's lack ofgeographic diversification and exposure to volatile Rocky Mountainnatural gas price differentials.\"Bill Barrett began active operations in March 2002 and has focusedon acquiring primarily undeveloped acreage in the Rocky Mountainregion. The company has grown its total proved reserves to136 million boe at the end of 2008 and average daily production to40,800 boe in the first quarter of 2009 primarily through organicmeans. These gains in reserves and production were achieved atcompetitive costs while maintaining a conservative leverageprofile relative to Ba3 rated peers. Three year-average findingand development costs were approximately $13/boe through the endof 2008, full-cycle costs were approximately $25/boe in the 1stQuarter of 2009 and leverage as measured against proved developedreserves was under $7/boe pro forma for a recent acreageacquisition.The rating is tempered by Bill Barrett's reserves and productionconcentration, with approximately 86% of reserves and 80% ofproduction concentrated in the Uinta and Piceance Basins in Utahand Colorado. Nearly all the reserves and production are naturalgas, leaving the company exposed to the volatile Rocky Mountainnatural gas pricing differentials. To mitigate this exposure, thecompany hedges a high proportion of its forward twelve monthproduction at regional sales point indices and also uses basisonly swaps to lock in price differentials. Bill Barrett hashedged approximately 72% of remaining 2009 production and 58% of2010 production.Based on the proposed offering of $200 million of senior unsecurednotes, the company's existing senior secured bank revolverborrowing base would be reduced to approximately $550 million.Under Moody's Loss Given Default methodology, the pro forma sizeof the borrowing base relative to the senior unsecured notes andthe company's existing convertible senior notes resulted in anotching down of the proposed notes to B1, one notch below the Ba3CFR.The SGL-2 rating reflects Bill Barrett's good liquidity over thenext twelve months following the bond offering. The companyexpects to largely fund capital expenditures with operating cashflows and will have over $440 million of availability on itssenior secured revolver to fund the modest amount of forecastednegative free cash flow. This provides substantial liquidity forworking capital needs and the potential effects of weakeningcommodity prices on the company's unhedged production, while alsoleaving room for potential reductions in the borrowing base infuture redeterminations. Bill Barrett currently has ample debtcovenant headroom which should continue due to its high proportionof hedged production over the coming year.The stable outlook is based on an expectation that Bill Barrettcontinues to restrain its capital expenditures to levels largelyin line with its operating cash flows while achieving itsproduction targets. The outlook could be changed to negative ifproduction were to fall significantly in response to this reducedpace of capital investment. The outlook could also be pressuredor the ratings downgraded if the company were to significantlyincrease debt through further property acquisitions and/oroutspending its operating cash flows and raise leverage on PDreserves above $8/boe.This is the first rating action on Bill Barrett.Bill Barrett Corporation is an independent exploration andproduction company headquartered in Denver, Colorado.BILL BARRETT: S&P Assigns 'BB-' Long-Term Corporate Credit Rating-----------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its 'BB-' long-termcorporate credit rating to oil and gas exploration and productioncompany Bill Barrett Corp. The outlook is stable.At the same time, S&P assigned a 'B+' to the company's proposed$200 million of senior unsecured notes. The recovery rating onthis debt is '5', indicating expectations for modest (10% to 30%)recovery of payment in a default. S&P also assigned a 'B+' ratingto BBG's $172.5 million 5% convertible senior notes due 2028. Therecovery rating on this debt is '5' indicating expectations formodest (10% to 30%) recovery in the event of a payment default.\"The ratings on BBG reflect the E&P industry's highly capitalintensive and cyclical nature; limited scale with significantconcentration in the Rocky Mountain region, which generallyresults in lower price realizations, and S&P's view that U.S.natural gas prices are likely to remain weak in the near term,\"said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Amy Eddy. The ratings alsoreflect BBG's relatively moderate financial leverage and stronginventory of drilling prospects.As of Dec. 31, 2008, BBG had 818 billion cubic feet equivalent oftotal proved reserves, of which a low 53% were developed. First-quarter 2009 daily production averaged 245 million cubic feetequivalent, 95% of which was natural gas, resulting in a reserveto production ratio of slightly more than nine years on a totalproved basis and about five years on a proved developed basis.Relative to peers in the 'BB' category, BBG's reserve base issmall and among the most levered to natural gas.Given the weak industry fundamentals and the company's limitedscale, any positive ratings action is unlikely. S&P wouldconsider a negative ratings action if credit measures worsenmaterially relative to S&P's current expectations, whether due tothe company incurring debt to finance capital expenditures oracquisitions or due to S&P's lowering S&P's natural gas pricingassumptions. Specifically, S&P would consider a negative ratingsaction if debt to EBITDAX approaches 4x.BNYCP: S&P Cuts Ratings on $307 Mil. Tax-Exempt Bonds to 'BB'-------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Rating Services lowered to 'BB' from 'BB+' itsrating on BNYCP's $307 million 1997 tax-exempt industrialdevelopment bonds due 2022-2036 ($307.0 million outstanding as ofDec. 31, 2008) and $100 million 1997 taxable senior secured bondsdue 2020 ($98.7 million outstanding as of Dec. 31, 2008). At thesame time, S&P placed the rating on CreditWatch with negativeimplications.The downgrade reflects the project's low historic and budgeteddebt service coverage levels, combined with concerns regarding thefinancial effects of a long-term steam turbine outage that beganin mid-January 2009. The rating will remain on CreditWatch untilconcerns regarding the outage have been resolved.S&P left unchanged the '3' recovery rating on the bonds, whichindicates meaningful (50%-70%) recovery in the event of a paymentdefault.BOEGER LAND: Proposes Paul Jamond as Chapter 11 Counsel-------------------------------------------------------Boeger Land Investments LLC seeks permission from the U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California to employPaul M. Jamond, Esq., as its counsel.The Debtor is not sufficiently familiar with the rights and dutiesof chapter 11 as to be able to participate in the bankruptcyproceeding without the aid of experienced counsel.Mr. Jamond will charge the Debtor $250 per hour for chapter 11representation. He has received a $15,000 retainer from theDebtor.Mr. Jamond says he has no connection with the Debtor, itscreditors, or any other party-in-interest, or their attorneys orthe U.S. Trustee's office in this matter.Mr. Jamond may be contacted at: PAUL M. JAMOND, Esq. State Bar: 61613 Attorney at Law 200 Fourth Street #300 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Tel: (707) 526-4550Gridley, California-based Boeger Land Investments LLC filedfor Chapter 11 on June 8, 2009, (Bankr. N.D. Calif. Case No.09-11706). The Law Offices of Paul M. Jamond represents theDebtor in its restructuring efforts. The Debtor listed$10 million to $50 million in assets and $1 million to $10 millionin debts.BROWN STEEL: Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection-------------------------------------------------------Brown Steel, LLC, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection,in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia,and has hired G. Frank Nason IV of Lamberth, Cifelli, Stokes,Ellis & Nason to assist it in its restructuring efforts, JanetConley posted on the Deal Watch blog.According to Deal Watch, Brown Steel listed $1 million to$10 million in assets and debts.Deal Watch relates that Colonial Bank of Alabama, represented byKevin B. Getzendanner of Arnall Golden & Gregory, filed a lawsuitagainst Brown Steel in Coweta Superior Court on June 11, claimingthat the Company defaulted on more than $5.6 million in loans.The lawsuit sought a receiver and injunctive relief, courtdocuments say.The Newnan Times-Herald relates that other lawsuits against BrownSteel include claims that the Company owes: -- $103,000 to AIM Steel Inc.; -- more than $47,000 to Georgia Powder Coating; -- in excess of $27,000 to The Fastenal Company; and -- almost $24,000 to Southland Manufacturing.Deal Watch, citing Mr. Nason, reports that Brown Steel didn'tdispute the debt to Colonial, and that the Company listed Fastenaland Southland among its 20 largest unsecured creditors. Accordingto the report, Mr. Nason said that Brown Steel disputes the AIMSteel and Georgia Power Coating claims, saying, \"We think they owe[Brown Steel] money.\"Mr. Nason said that Colonial was one of the factors that pushedBrown Steel into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Deal Watch relates.Mr. Nason, Deal Watch states, said that Colonial is seeking tohave Brown Steel's receivables assigned to the bank.Newnan, Georgia-based Brown Steel manufactures and fabricatesstructural and plate steel for commercial and industrialcustomers.BUCKSHIRE LLC: Involuntary Chapter 11 Case Summary--------------------------------------------------Alleged Debtor: Buckshire, LLC c/o Richard D. Sparkman, Trustee for Landcraft Management, LLC PO Box 1687 Angier, NC 27501-1687Case Number: 09-04997Involuntary Petition Date: June 17, 2009Court: Eastern District of North Carolina (Wilson)Petitioners' Counsel: John A. Northen, Esq. Northen Blue LLP 1414 Raleigh Road, Suite 435 Chapel Hill, NC 27515-2208 Petitioners Nature of Claim Claim Amount ----------- --------------- ------------Lillian D. Snow note $12,0002406 Market StreetWilmington, NC 28403Louise D. Thompson note $12,0002406 Market StreetWilmington, NC 28403Margaret D. Bryant note $12,0001501 Sterling RoadCharlotte, NC 28209BUTLER SERVICES: Gets Interim Approval to Access GECC Loans-----------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware entered aninterim order authorizing Butler Services International Inc. andits affiliates to (i) obtain debtor-in-possession in the amount ofup to $13 million, inclusive of all letters of credit, and (ii)access cash collateral in accordance with a budget.The Debtors sought permission to obtain DIP financing of up to$30 million from certain prepetition lenders led by GeneralElectric Capital Corp.The Debtors owe $20,155,000, including $1,970,000 under letters ofcredit, to first lien lenders, led by General Electric CapitalCorp. as agent. The Debtors also owe $22 million, inclusive ofinterest, in term loans to second lien lenders, led by MonroeCapital Management Advisors LLC as lender and agent. The Debtors'obligations under the GECC facility are senior to liens on theDebtors' assets securing the Monroe facility.The Debtors say they need postpetition financing from GECC. Theysay that they won't be able to continue to operate their businesswithout the proposed DIP financing. The Debtors have nounencumbered assets and do not have sufficient cash collateral topay all postpetition expenses, including payroll obligation to1,500 employees.The Debtors will use the proceeds of the borrowing under the DIPFinancing to (i) pay its prepetition debt to First Lien Lenders,(ii) fund ongoing working capital and general corporate needsduring the Chapter 11 cases, (iii) pay fees of professionals, (iv)pay other bankruptcy-related costs, and (v) pay fees and expensesowed to GECC.The salient terms of the DIP financing are: Borrowers: Butler Service Group Inc. Guarantors: Butler Services International, Inc., Butler International Inc. and other affiliates Agent and Bank: General Electric Capital Corporation Commitment: $30 million revolving credit facility Interest: Interest on advances to accrue at a rate per annum equal to: (1) Index Rate plus 7.75%; (2) Libor Rate plus 8%; or (3) Commercial Rate plus 8%, computed on the basis of a 360-day year Security The obligations under the DIP Facility will have priority over any and all administrative expenses, and will be deemed immediately secured by valid, binding, continuing, enforceable, fully perfected and unavoidable first priority senior priming security interests and liens in and on all property and assets of the Debtors. Default Rate: Applicable interest rate plus 2% Commitment Fee: $250,000 payable to AgentThe Debtors are authorized to use cash collateral within themeaning of 11 U.S.C. Sec. 363(a). The Debtors will provideadequate protection to Monroe in the form of replacement liens inthe Collateral to the extent there is diminution in value, and anallowed administrative claim against the Debtors' estates underSection 507(b) of the Bankruptcy Code to the extent thereplacement liens are insufficient.The official committee of unsecured creditors to be appointed inthe case will have until the earlier of (i) the hearing toconsider approval of the sale of all assets of the Debtors, (ii)75 days from the Petition Date, to investigate the facility andvalidity of the liens of the first lien lenders.The Court will convene a hearing to consider final approval of thefinancing on June 29.The DIP Agent is represented by: Rick Denhup, Esq. Kristine M. Shryock, Esq. Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker, LLP 75 E. 55th St., New York, NY 10022 -- and -- Mark D. Collins, Esq. Paul N. Heath, Esq. Richards Layton & Finger, P.A. 920 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801Monroe is represented by: Damon DiCastri, Esq. Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois About Butler ServicesButler Services International Inc. has been in the business ofproviding outsourcing, project management and technicalaugmentation services for over 60 years. The Debtors also provide(i) fleet services, primarily to certain key telecommunicationsservices clients, and (ii) ideas, strategies and tactics toexecutive leaders for building more effective organizationsthrough the publication of Chief Executive Magazine. Itsworldwide corporate headquarters are located in Fort Lauderdale,Florida. A non-debtor affiliate maintains an office in Hyderabad,India, from which the Debtors provide offshore service delivery.Butler International Inc. is a publicly owned entity whose commonstock is traded on the Pink Sheets.Butler Services, together with publicly traded unit ButlerInternational Inc. and other affiliates, filed for Chapter 11bankruptcy protection on June 1, 2009 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No.09-11914). The Debtors have tapped Moses & Singer LLP asbankruptcy attorneys and Bayard, P.A., as co-counsel. The Debtorsare also employing RAS Management Advisors, LLC as chiefrestructuring advisor, Venturi & Company LLC, as investmentbanker, J.H. Cohn LLP, as interim accounts, and Donlin Recano &Company Inc. as claims and noticing agent. The CreditorsCommittee is represented by Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP.BUTLER SERVICES: Proposes Bayard P.A. as Co-Counsel---------------------------------------------------Butler Services International Inc. and its affiliates seekpermission from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District ofDelaware to hire Bayard, P.A., as co-counsel.Given that their cases are complex, they require an expeditioussale process to retain value for the estates, the Debtors need anefficient legal services through out their Chapter 11 cases.Bayard will work with co-counsel Moses & Singer to insure thatthere is no duplication of services.Bayard will, among other things, (a) provide legal advice withrespect to the Debtors' powers and duties as debtors-in-possessionin the continued operation of their business and management oftheir properties, (b) prepare the necessary pleadings, and (iii)appear in Court to protect the interests of the Debtors.Bayard will charge the Debtors based on its regular hourly rates: Directors $485 to $765 Associates and Counsel $210 to $485 Legal Assistants $155 to $230Bayard will also seek reimbursement for all costs and expensesincurred, including telephone and telecopier charges, travelexpenses, and expenses for \"working meals.\"Bayard received a $22,000 retainer prepetition.Bayard does not hold or represent any interest materially adverseto the interests of the Debtors' estates or any class of creditorsor equity security holders.Bayard may be contacted at: Charlene D. Davis, Esq. Bayard, P.A. 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Phone: (302) 655-5000 Fax: (302) 658-6395 About Butler ServicesButler Services International Inc. has been in the business ofproviding outsourcing, project management and technicalaugmentation services for over 60 years. The Debtors also provide(i) fleet services, primarily to certain key telecommunicationsservices clients, and (ii) ideas, strategies and tactics toexecutive leaders for building more effective organizationsthrough the publication of Chief Executive Magazine. Itsworldwide corporate headquarters are located in Fort Lauderdale,Florida. A non-debtor affiliate maintains an office in Hyderabad,India, from which the Debtors provide offshore service delivery.Butler International Inc. is a publicly owned entity whose commonstock is traded on the Pink Sheets.Butler Services, together with publicly traded unit ButlerInternational Inc. and other affiliates, filed for Chapter 11bankruptcy protection on June 1, 2009 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 09-11914). The Debtors have tapped Moses & Singer LLP as bankruptcyattorneys and Bayard, P.A., as co-counsel. The Debtors are alsoemploying RAS Management Advisors, LLC as chief restructuringadvisor, Venturi & Company LLC, as investment banker, J.H. CohnLLP, as interim accounts, and Donlin Recano & Company Inc. asclaims and noticing agent. The Creditors Committee is representedby Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP.BUTLER SERVICES: Proposes Moses & Singer as Counsel---------------------------------------------------Butler Services International Inc. and its affiliates seekpermission from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District ofDelaware to hire Moses & Singer LLP as their attorneys in theirChapter 11 cases.Given that their cases are complex, they require an expeditioussale process to retain value for the estates, the Debtors need anefficient legal services through out their Chapter 11 cases.Moses & Singer will work with co-counsel Bayard, P.A., to insurethat there is no duplication of services.M&S will, among other things, (a) provide legal advice withrespect to the Debtors' powers and duties as debtors-in-possessionin the continued operation of their business and management oftheir properties, (b) prepare the necessary pleadings, and (iii)appear in Court to protect the interests of the Debtors.M&S has become familiar with the Debtors' business, financialaffairs, and capital structure after representing the Debtors inconnection with, among other things, potential transactions sinceMarch 11, 2009. M&S received $1,229,776 in payments since itsengagement.M&S intends to charge the Debtors for services rendered at itsnormal hourly rates, which are $455 to $790 for members andcounsel, $225 to $455 for associates, and $220 forparaprofessionals. M&S will also seek reimbursement for all costsand expenses incurred, including toll calls, overtime, cost offood at meetings, and overtime meals.Jeffrey Davis, Esq., a member of M&S, says his firm does not holdor represent any interest materially adverse to the interests ofthe Debtors' estates or any class of creditors or equity securityholders. It is a \"disinterested person\" as that term is definedin 11 Sec. 101(14).Moses & Singer may be contacted at: Alan E. Gamza, Esq. Andrew P. Lederman, Esq. Moses & Singer LLP The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10174 Tel: (212) 554-7800 Fax: (212) 554-7700 About Butler ServicesButler Services International Inc. has been in the business ofproviding outsourcing, project management and technicalaugmentation services for over 60 years. The Debtors also provide(i) fleet services, primarily to certain key telecommunicationsservices clients, and (ii) ideas, strategies and tactics toexecutive leaders for building more effective organizationsthrough the publication of Chief Executive Magazine. Itsworldwide corporate headquarters are located in Fort Lauderdale,Florida. A non-debtor affiliate maintains an office in Hyderabad,India, from which the Debtors provide offshore service delivery.Butler International Inc. is a publicly owned entity whose commonstock is traded on the Pink Sheets.Butler Services, together with publicly traded unit ButlerInternational Inc. and other affiliates, filed for Chapter 11bankruptcy protection on June 1, 2009 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No.09-11914). The Debtors have tapped Moses & Singer LLP asbankruptcy attorneys and Bayard, P.A., as co-counsel. The Debtorsare also employing RAS Management Advisors, LLC as chiefrestructuring advisor, Venturi & Company LLC, as investmentbanker, J.H. Cohn LLP, as interim accounts, and Donlin Recano &Company Inc. as claims and noticing agent. The Creditors Comitteeis represented by Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP.BUTLER SERVICES: Pursues Prompt Going-Concern Sale; Bids Due Today------------------------------------------------------------------Butler Services International Inc. and its affiliates receivedapproval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District ofDelaware for a prompt sale process of their business as a goingconcern.The Debtors have a stalking horse deal with Butler America LLC,which offered $26,875,000 for the assets, subject to adjustment.The Court approved procedures allowed parties to rival ButlerAmerica's offer. Competing bids must have a minimum overbid of$250,000 and are due June 26, 2009.The Debtors will conduct an auction on June 27, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.Easter time. The Debtors will seek approval of the sale to ButlerAmerica or to the winning bidder on June 29.The Court also approved a break-up fee, which will be paid toButler America in the event the Debtors close a sale with otherparties.In 2008, the Debtors restructured their business from a branchfootprint structure to vertical chains by industry. This processresulted in significant internal discontent, which, in turnresulted in the loss of many of the Debtors' valued employees andbusiness with them. The Debtors also entered into a \"not toexceed\" contract with one of their customers that ultimatelyresulted in a significant loss due to performance issues.The combination of these events over the course of the past yearresulted in the Debtors experiencing severe cash shortfalls, whichlead to payroll shortfalls to its employees over a two-monthperiod in the third quarter of 2008.The Debtors have lost major customers, are losing money and are ina substantial over-advance position with their senior lender,General Electric Capital Corporation.Absent a prompt sale, the Debtors expect to be required toliquidate. The Debtors believe that a sale of their assets as agoing concern is the only viable alternative.The Debtors have met with numerous parties over the course of manymonths and recently entered into an asset purchase agreement withButler America. Butler America has required a July 1 entry of anorder approving the sale.The salient terms of the APA are: Purchased Assets. Includes leases, customer contracts, customer information, all of the Debtors' personal property and intangible property, receivables, certain insurance policies, all causes of action relating to intellectual property, and all of the Debtors' ownership rights and equity interest in Butler Technical Services India Private Limited and other non-debtor subsidiaries. Purchased Assets. Includes leases, customer contracts, customer information, all of the Debtors' Break-Up Fee. Butler America is entitled to receive a $838,000 break-up fee, equal to 3% of the purchase price. Closing Date. Closing will be held upon the earlier to occur of (i) the second business day after entry of the sale order, and (ii) July 10, 2009. Termination. Butler America may terminate the APA if an approval order is not entered by the Court on or before July 1, 2009.Despite objections by the Official Committee of Unsecuredcreditors formed in the Chapter 11 cases, the Court approved aquick sale process for the Debtors' business. The CreditorsCommittee had claimed that additional time is necessary in orderto ensure that the rights of all of the Debtors' constituenciesare preserved in the sale process. The Committee is alsocomplained that the abbreviated schedule does not provide anadequate opportunity for interested buyers to participate in thesale process. About Butler ServicesButler Services International Inc. has been in the business ofproviding outsourcing, project management and technicalaugmentation services for over 60 years. The Debtors also provide(i) fleet services, primarily to certain key telecommunicationsservices clients, and (ii) ideas, strategies and tactics toexecutive leaders for building more effective organizationsthrough the publication of Chief Executive Magazine. Itsworldwide corporate headquarters are located in Fort Lauderdale,Florida. A non-debtor affiliate maintains an office in Hyderabad,India, from which the Debtors provide offshore service delivery.Butler International Inc. is a publicly owned entity whose commonstock is traded on the Pink Sheets.Butler Services, together with publicly traded unit ButlerInternational Inc. and other affiliates, filed for Chapter 11bankruptcy protection on June 1, 2009 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No.09-11914). The Debtors have tapped Moses & Singer LLP asbankruptcy attorneys and Bayard, P.A., as co-counsel. The Debtorsare also employing RAS Management Advisors, LLC as chiefrestructuring advisor, Venturi & Company LLC, as investmentbanker, J.H. Cohn LLP, as interim accounts, and Donlin Recano &Company Inc. as claims and noticing agent. The CreditorsCommittee is represented by Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP.CAL-RIO LLC: Case Summary & 7 Largest Unsecured Creditors---------------------------------------------------------Debtor: Cal-Rio, LLC 1845 Chicago Ave. Bldg C Riverside, CA 92507Bankruptcy Case No.: 09-24087Chapter 11 Petition Date: June 24, 2009Court: United States Bankruptcy Court Central District of California (Riverside)Judge: Thomas B. DonovanDebtor's Counsel: Todd L. Turoci, Esq. The Turoci Firm 3237 Twelfth Street Riverside, CA 92501 Tel: (888) 332-8362 Fax: (866) 762-0618 Email: [email protected] Assets: $335,000Total Debts: $1,071,556A full-text copy of the Debtor's petition, including a list of its7 largest unsecured creditors, is available for free at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/cacb09-24087.pdfThe petition was signed by Ivano Stamegna.CARITAS HEALTH: Can Sell Equipment Assets for $3,125,000--------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy court for the Eastern District of New York hasapproved (i) the sale of certain of Caritas Health Care, Inc., etal.'s equipment assets to Centurion Service Group, LLC andPerfection Plan Liquidations, LLC, and (ii) the retention of thepurchasers as liquidation agents regarding sales of the medicalsupplies.The Debtors, in consultation with the official committee ofunsecured creditors, have agreed to an adjusted purchase pricewith respect to the sale of the medical equipment from$3.4 million to $3.125 million.As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on May 28, 2009,the Court approved on May 20, 2009, procedures for the sale of themedical equipment and related assets of Caritas Health Care, Inc.,et al., and the engagement of a disposition agent with respect tothe sale of the medical supplies in an auction process.Centurion and Perfection, which have been designated asstalking horse bidder, offered to pay Caritas $3,400,000 for themedical equipment.As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on May 11, 2009,with respect to the medical supplies, for a period of 90 days fromthe closing date of the sale of the medical equipment, thestalking horse bidder will conduct auctions at the Debtors'facilities and online, charging a buyer's premium of 10% inrespect of sales occurring at the Debtors' facilities and 17% inrespect of sales occurring online, but charging no additionalcommission to the Debtors.The net proceeds, after subtraction of the Buyer's Premium and anysales and similar taxes, will be remitted to Caritas on the nextbusiness day following said sales.A full-text copy of the proposed bid procedures and the agreementwith the Stalking Horse Bidder dated April 30, 2009, is availableat http://bankrupt.com/misc/Caritas.EquipmentProtocol.pdf About Caritas Health Care Inc.Caritas Health Care, Inc., is the owner of Mary ImmaculateHospital and St. John's Queens Hospital. Caritas, created byWyckoff Heights Medical Center, purchased the two hospitals in abankruptcy sale in early 2007 from St. Vincent Catholic MedicalCenters of New York. St. John's has 227 generate acute-care bedswhile Mary Immaculate has 189.Caritas Health Care and eight of its affiliates filed forChapter 11 on February 6, 2009 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 09-40901). Jeffrey W. Levitan, Esq., and Adam T. Berkowitz,Esq., at Proskauer Rose, LLP, represent the Debtors as counsel.JL Consulting LLC, is the Debtors' restructuring consultant.Montclair Partners, LLC, is the financial advisor to the Debtors.Martin G. Bunin, Esq., and Craig E. Freeman, Esq., at Alson & BirdLLP, represent the official committee of unsecuredcreditors as counsel. SilvermanAcampora LLP is the Committee'sconflicts counsel. In its bankruptcy petition, Caritas listedassets of $50 million to $100 million, and debts of $100 millionto $500 million.CARITAS HEALTH: Plan Filing Period Extended to October 4--------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy court for the Eastern District of New York hasextended Caritas Health Care, Inc., et al.'s exclusive period topropose a plan until October 4, 2009, and their exclusive periodto solicit acceptances thereof until December 3, 2009. This isthe first extension of the Debtors' exclusive periods.As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on May 28, 2009, theDebtors said they anticipated completing the sale of theirequipment and medical supplies by the end of August, and haveretained a brokerage firm to assist them with efforts to monetizetheir real estate assets. The Debtors related that until theyhave completed the process of monetizing their main assets, theywould not be able to ascertain whether they will have sufficientfunds to propose and confirm a plan of liquidation. About Caritas Health Care Inc.Caritas Health Care, Inc., is the owner of Mary ImmaculateHospital and St. John's Queens Hospital. Caritas, created byWyckoff Heights Medical Center, purchased the two hospitals in abankruptcy sale in early 2007 from St. Vincent Catholic MedicalCenters of New York. St. John's has 227 generate acute-care bedswhile Mary Immaculate has 189.Caritas Health Care and eight of its affiliates filed forChapter 11 on February 6, 2009 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 09-40901). Jeffrey W. Levitan, Esq., and Adam T. Berkowitz,Esq., at Proskauer Rose, LLP, represent the Debtors as counsel.JL Consulting LLC, is the Debtors' restructuring consultant.Montclair Partners, LLC, is the financial advisor to the Debtors.Martin G. Bunin, Esq., and Craig E. Freeman, Esq., at Alson & BirdLLP, represent the official committee of unsecured creditors ascounsel. SilvermanAcampora LLP is the Committee's conflictscounsel. In its bankruptcy petition, Caritas listed assets of$50 million to $100 million, and debts of $100 million to$500 million.CARAUSTAR INDUSTRIES: Wins Permission to Use Lenders' Collateral----------------------------------------------------------------Caraustar Industries, Inc., and its affiliates won final approvalfrom Judge Mary Grace Diehl of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for theNorthern District of Georgia, in Atlanta, to access cash subjectto the interest of their prepetition lenders.The Debtors owe Bank of America, N.A., as agent to certain securedlenders $16,000,000 on account of outstanding letters of creditand $2,500,000 to Banc of America Leasing & Capital, LLC. BofAand BALC were granted liens and security interests on and insubstantially all of the DEbtors' assets other than real property.As adequate protection for the use of cash collateral, the Debtorswill pay, out of the first advances under the DIP facility, theoutstanding liquidated balance of the Prepetition Indebtedness andwill further provide BofA cash collateral in an amount equal to105% of the outstanding balance. They Debtors may also providereplacement liens.BofA is represented by: Rufus T. Dorsey, Esq. Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs LLP 1500 Marquis Two Tower 285 Peachtree Center Avenue, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 About Caraustar IndustriesHeadquartered in Austell, Georgia, Caraustar Industries, Inc. --http://www.caraustar.com/-- is one of North America's largest integrated manufacturers of 100% recycled paperboard and convertedpaperboard products. The Debtors serve the four principalrecycled boxboard product end-use markets: tubes and cores;folding cartons; gypsum facing paper and specialty paperboardproducts.The Company and its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 on May 31,2009 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Lead Case No. 09-73830). James A. Pardo,Jr., Esq., and Mark M. Maloney, Esq., at King & Spalding,represent the Debtors on their restructuring efforts. The Debtorslisted $50 million to $100 million in assets and $100 million to$500 million in debts.CASELLA WASTE: Moody's Assigns 'Ba2' Rating on Restated Facility----------------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service assigned a Ba2 rating to the plannedrestated credit facility and a B2 rating to the planned new issueof $205 million of senior secured second lien notes due 2014 ofCasella Waste Systems, Inc. Moody's is maintaining the B2Corporate Family and Probability of Default ratings and the Caa1rating of the $195 million senior subordinated notes due February2013. The outlook is negative.Proceeds of the Notes and new credit facility, including a$100 million term loan and a draw on the new $180 millionrevolver, will fund the refinancing of Casella's existing creditfacility (not rated), which matures on April 28, 2010. Therefinancing will resolve the cause of the going concern opinionCasella received from its auditor in the audit opinion forCasella's April 30, 2009 financial statements. \"The successfulcompletion of the planned refinancing will alleviate the downwardsrating pressure related to uncertainty about Casella's liquidityposition, driven by the currency of the existing debt structureand the potential to fall, or remain, out of compliance with oneor more financial covenants of the existing credit facility,\" saidMoody's analyst, Jonathan Root. However, \"it does not address thepotential pressure on earnings and operating cash flow of thecontinuing weak demand environment, which Moody's expects couldlinger well into 2010.\"The negative outlook considers the potential for credit metrics tofurther weaken because of continuing weak demand that wouldoutweigh management's pricing and cost initiatives.Casella's ability to grow margins and cash flow will be importantrating factors, as the anticipated increased debt servicerequirements could pressure funds from operations.The B2 corporate family rating reflects the expectation thatCasella's operations should produce a level of funds fromoperations that covers debt service obligations with modestcushion. Leading positions in many of its markets, the increasedfocus on cost reductions and the intent to enhance yield shouldhelp to mitigate pressure on earnings and cash flows that couldoccur over the near term as solid waste volumes and recyclingearnings remain under pressure. These more disciplined managementpractices should also help to mitigate pressure on the creditprofile that Moody's anticipates will result from the higherinterest burden of the refinanced credit agreement. The B2 ratingalso considers that free cash flow is likely to remain modest,which could limit flexibility to de-lever the capital structure.The ratings could be downgraded, potentially more than one notch,if Casella does not complete the planned refinancing by July 31,2009, the current expiration date of the current covenant waiverfrom the bank group, at pricing levels that allow it to adequatelyservice the cost of the new debt structure. FFO + Interest toInterest that approaches 2.0 times and/or Debt to EBITDA above 6.0times could result in a downgrade of the ratings. The outlookcould be stabilized if FFO + Interest to Interest is sustained atabout 3.0 times or Retained Cash Flow to Net Debt is sustainedabove 12 percent. Sustained free cash flow to debt above 5.0percent could also result in the stabilization of the outlook.The last rating action was on March 9, 2009, when the CFR waschanged to B2 from B1 and the subordinated note rating was loweredto Caa1 from B3.Assignments:Issuer: Casella Waste Systems, Inc. -- Senior Secured Bank Credit Facility, Assigned Ba2, 15 - LGD2 -- Senior Secured Regular Bond/Debenture, Assigned B2, 51 - LGD4Casella Waste Systems, Inc., based in Rutland, Vermont, is avertically-integrated regional solid waste services company thatprovides collection, transfer, disposal and recycling services toresidential, industrial and commercial customers, primarily in theeastern United States.CATHOLIC CHURCH: Court Issues Final Decree Closing Tucson Case--------------------------------------------------------------Judge James M. Marlar of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for theDistrict of Arizona issued a final decree on March 30, 2009,closing the bankruptcy case of the Diocese of Tucson.Tucson's Third Amended Plan of Reorganization was confirmed onJuly 11, 2005, and was declared effective September 20, 2005.The Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Tucson filed forchapter 11 protection (Bankr. D. Ariz. Case No. 04-04721) onSeptember 20, 2004, and delivered a plan of reorganization to theCourt on the same day. Susan G. Boswell, Esq., Kasey C. Nye,Esq., at Quarles & Brady Streich Lang LLP, represent the TucsonDiocese. The Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon filed forchapter 11 protection (Bankr. Ore. Case No. 04-37154) on July 6,2004. Thomas W. Stilley, Esq. and William N. Stiles, Esq. ofSussman Shank LLP represent the Portland Archdiocese in itsrestructuring efforts. Portland's Schedules of Assets andLiabilities filed with the Court on July 30, 2004, the PortlandArchdiocese reports $19,251,558 in assets and $373,015,566 inliabilities. (Catholic Church Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 7;Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)CATHOLIC CHURCH: Davenport Reports Progress on Undertakings-----------------------------------------------------------In compliance with its confirmed Plan of Reorganization, theDiocese of Davenport issued a progress report on its non-monetaryundertakings on June 5, 2009.The Report shows that the Diocese has completed all ongoinginvestigations concerning allegations of abuse and the names ofcredibly accused perpetrators have been released and published onthe diocesan Web site. In a statement dated May 21, 2009, theDiocese announced that it added to its list of credibly accusedclergy three names: Daniel Emrich, William Kerrigan and JamesLawrence.Among other things, the Report states that Bishop Martin Amos (i)had conducted 47 atonement services at parishes where abuseoccurred or where a perpetrator had served, (ii) publicly supportsthe elimination of all criminal statutes of limitation for childsexual abuse committed by clergy or others in positions ofauthority, and (iii) has personally sent two letters of apology totort claimants as requested. No additional letters of apology arecurrently pending.Copies of the report and its supplement are available for free at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/Davenport_NonMonetaryReport_060509.pdf http://bankrupt.com/misc/Davenport_Supp_Report_060509.pdf About Diocese of DavenportThe Diocese of Davenport in Iowa filed for chapter 11 protection(Bankr. S.D. Ia. Case No. 06-02229) on Oct. 10, 2006. Richard A.Davidson, Esq., at Lane & Waterman LLP, represents the DavenportDiocese in its restructuring efforts. Hamid R. Rafatjoo, Esq.,and Gillian M. Brown, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Zhiel Young Jones &Weintraub LLP represent the Official Committee of UnsecuredCreditors. In its schedules of assets and liabilities, theDavenport Diocese reported $4,492,809 in assets and $1,650,439 inliabilities. The Court approved on April 3, 2008, the Diocese ofDavenport's second amended disclosure statement explaining itsjoint plan of reorganization. The Committee is a proponent to theplan, which was confirmed on April 30, 2008. (Catholic ChurchBankruptcy News, Issue No. 129; Bankruptcy Creditors' ServiceInc.; http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000). CEDAR PROFESSIONAL: Case Summary & 5 Largest Unsecured Creditors----------------------------------------------------------------Debtor: Cedar Professional Center LLC dba Cedar Professional Plaza 23413 39th Avenue SE Bothell, WA 98021Bankruptcy Case No.: 09-16158Chapter 11 Petition Date: June 23, 2009Court: United States Bankruptcy Court Western District of Washington (Seattle)Judge: Philip H. BrandtDebtor's Counsel: Dallas W. Jolley Jr., Esq. Attorney at Law 4707 S Junett St., Ste B Tacoma, WA 98409 Tel: (253) 761-8970 Email: [email protected] Assets: $1,000,001 to $10,000,000Estimated Debts: $500,001 to $1,000,000A full-text copy of the Debtor's petition, including a list of its5 largest unsecured creditors, is available for free at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/wawb09-16158.pdfThe petition was signed by Craig Edward Bernhart, member of theCompany.CHEMTURA CORP: AFC, et al., Seek Shareholders' Committee--------------------------------------------------------Allied Financial Corp., William M. Flynn, Larry C. Floyd, Jr.,Michael Flynn, and Venu Ganga, all shareholders of ChemturaCorporation, ask Judge Robert Gerber, in separate letters filedwith the Court, to appoint a stockholders' committee in theDebtors' Chapter 11 cases to protect the interest of all relatedshareholders. The Shareholders assert that they are entitled toreceive a fair price for their holdings of Chemtura stock. About Chemtura CorpBased in Middlebury, Connecticut, Chemtura Corporation (CEM) --http://www.chemtura.com/-- with 2008 sales of $3.5 billion, is a global manufacturer and marketer of specialty chemicals, cropprotection products, and pool, spa and home care products.Chemtura Corporation and 26 of its U.S. affiliates filed voluntarypetitions for relief under Chapter 11 on March 18, 2009 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Case No. 09-11233). M. Natasha Labovitz, Esq., atKirkland & Ellis LLP, in New York, serves as bankruptcy counsel.Wolfblock LLP serves as the Debtors' special counsel. TheDebtors' auditors and accountant are KPMG LLP; their investmentbankers are Lazard Freres & Co.; their strategic communicationsadvisors are Joele Frank, Wilkinson Brimmer Katcher; theirbusiness advisors are Alvarez & Marsal LLC and Ray Dombrowskiserves as their chief restructuring officer; and their claims andnoticing agent is Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC.As of December 31, 2008, the Debtors had total assets of$3.06 billion and total debts of $1.02 billion.Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes ChemturaBankruptcy News. The newsletter tracks the Chapter 11proceedings undertaken by Chemtura Corp. and its affiliates.(http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000) CHEMTURA CORP: Committee Seeks to Retain FTI as Accountant----------------------------------------------------------The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in Chemtura Corp.'sChapter 11 cases seeks authority from the U.S. Bankruptcy Courtfor the Southern District of New York to retain FTI Consulting,Inc., as its forensic accountant, nunc pro tunc to May 5, 2009.As the Committee's forensic accountant, FTI will: (a) assist in the evaluation and analysis of certain causes of actions, including fraudulent conveyances and preferential transfers; (b) assist with the review and analysis of historical and current intercompany relationships between the Debtors and their non-Debtor affiliates and their related claims; (c) assist in the analysis of consolidation considerations, including preparation of substantive consolidation or deconsolidation analysis, as necessary; and (d) render other general business consulting or assistance as the Committee or its counsel may deem necessary that are consistent with the role of a forensic accountant.FTI will be paid for its services based on its customary rates: Professional Hourly Rates ------------- ------------- Senior Managing Directors $710 to $825 Directors, Managing Directors $520 to $685 Associates, Consultants $255 to $480 Paraprofessionals $105 to $210FTI will also be reimbursed for actual and necessary expensesincurred in connection with the engagement.The Committee also asks the Court to approve indemnificationprovisions for the benefit of FTI, whereby the Debtors willindemnify FTI for any claims related to its engagement by theCommittee.Michael Eisenband, a senior managing director at FTI Consulting,Inc., disclosed that his firm has had engagements involving theDebtors and non-Debtor affiliates in matters unrelated to theDebtors' Chapter 11 cases. He assures the Court that his firmdoes not represent any other entity having an adverse interest inconnection with the Debtors' cases. FTI will conduct an ongoingreview of its files to ensure that no conflicts or otherdisqualifying circumstances exist or arise, and will supplementits disclosure in the event any new material facts arediscovered, Mr. Eisenband tells the Court. About Chemtura CorpBased in Middlebury, Connecticut, Chemtura Corporation (CEM) --http://www.chemtura.com/-- with 2008 sales of $3.5 billion, is a global manufacturer and marketer of specialty chemicals, cropprotection products, and pool, spa and home care products.Chemtura Corporation and 26 of its U.S. affiliates filed voluntarypetitions for relief under Chapter 11 on March 18, 2009 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Case No. 09-11233). M. Natasha Labovitz, Esq., atKirkland & Ellis LLP, in New York, serves as bankruptcy counsel.Wolfblock LLP serves as the Debtors' special counsel. TheDebtors' auditors and accountant are KPMG LLP; their investmentbankers are Lazard Freres & Co.; their strategic communicationsadvisors are Joele Frank, Wilkinson Brimmer Katcher; theirbusiness advisors are Alvarez & Marsal LLC and Ray Dombrowskiserves as their chief restructuring officer; and their claims andnoticing agent is Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC.As of December 31, 2008, the Debtors had total assets of$3.06 billion and total debts of $1.02 billion.Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes ChemturaBankruptcy News. The newsletter tracks the Chapter 11proceedings undertaken by Chemtura Corp. and its affiliates.(http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000) CHEMTURA CORP: Court Allows Set-Off of Dow, Croda Obligations-------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New Yorkmodified the automatic stay to allow Dow Chemical Company toexercise set off rights to mutual debts with Debtors ChemturaCorporation and Great Lakes Chemical Corporation pursuant to arevised stipulation.Dow Chemical, Chemtura and Great Lakes revised their stipulationto reflect concerns raised by the Official Committee of UnsecuredCreditors. As part of the Committee's review of Dow Chemical'sbid to set off its mutual debt and of the joint stipulation, theCommittee identified six invoices and a credit memo representingprepetition amounts owed between Dow Chemical and Great Lakes thatwere mistakenly included as prepetition amounts owed between them.After proper allocation of the prepetition amounts, the partiesrevised their stipulation to reflect that: -- the net amount owed by Dow Chemical to Chemtura is $54,580, and -- the net amount owed by Dow Chemical to Great Lakes is $402,310.The parties also agree that the net payment of $456,891 remainsunchanged.The Court also modified the automatic stay pursuant to a consentorder between Chemtura and Croda, Inc., to allow Croda to set offmutual obligations with Chemtura. About Chemtura CorpBased in Middlebury, Connecticut, Chemtura Corporation (CEM) --http://www.chemtura.com/-- with 2008 sales of $3.5 billion, is a global manufacturer and marketer of specialty chemicals, cropprotection products, and pool, spa and home care products.Chemtura Corporation and 26 of its U.S. affiliates filed voluntarypetitions for relief under Chapter 11 on March 18, 2009 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Case No. 09-11233). M. Natasha Labovitz, Esq., atKirkland & Ellis LLP, in New York, serves as bankruptcy counsel.Wolfblock LLP serves as the Debtors' special counsel. TheDebtors' auditors and accountant are KPMG LLP; their investmentbankers are Lazard Freres & Co.; their strategic communicationsadvisors are Joele Frank, Wilkinson Brimmer Katcher; theirbusiness advisors are Alvarez & Marsal LLC and Ray Dombrowskiserves as their chief restructuring officer; and their claims andnoticing agent is Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC.As of December 31, 2008, the Debtors had total assets of$3.06 billion and total debts of $1.02 billion.Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes ChemturaBankruptcy News. The newsletter tracks the Chapter 11proceedings undertaken by Chemtura Corp. and its affiliates.(http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000) CHEMTURA CORP: Great Lakes Sues VanDeMark to Perform Under Deal---------------------------------------------------------------Chemtura Corp. unit Great Lakes Chemical Corporation commenced anadversary complaint against VanDeMark Chemical, Inc., on June 1,2009, seeking declaratory judgment that VanDeMark violated theautomatic stay by attempting to refuse performance of a contractpostpetition.Before the Petition Date, Great Lakes and VanDeMark were partiesto a contract, whereby Great Lakes agreed to purchase fromVanDeMark, and VanDeMark agreed to supply to Great Lakes, all ofGreat Lakes' requirement for phosgene, a certain chemical theDebtors use in their business operations.In May 2009, after it agreed that the Debtors may place an orderfor phosgene, VanDeMark informed the Debtors that it would notperform under the contract unless the Debtors agreed to assumethe contract. VanDeMark thereafter filed a motion to compel theDebtors to assume or reject the contract, and several times hasinformed the Debtors that it would not ship the order unless thecontract is assumed.Great Lakes asks the Court to enjoin VanDeMark from refusing toperform under their contract. Great Lakes also urges the Court toaward it damages on account of VanDemark's breach of the contract. About Chemtura CorpBased in Middlebury, Connecticut, Chemtura Corporation (CEM) --http://www.chemtura.com/-- with 2008 sales of $3.5 billion, is a global manufacturer and marketer of specialty chemicals, cropprotection products, and pool, spa and home care products.Chemtura Corporation and 26 of its U.S. affiliates filed voluntarypetitions for relief under Chapter 11 on March 18, 2009 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Case No. 09-11233). M. Natasha Labovitz, Esq., atKirkland & Ellis LLP, in New York, serves as bankruptcy counsel.Wolfblock LLP serves as the Debtors' special counsel. TheDebtors' auditors and accountant are KPMG LLP; their investmentbankers are Lazard Freres & Co.; their strategic communicationsadvisors are Joele Frank, Wilkinson Brimmer Katcher; theirbusiness advisors are Alvarez & Marsal LLC and Ray Dombrowskiserves as their chief restructuring officer; and their claims andnoticing agent is Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC.As of December 31, 2008, the Debtors had total assets of$3.06 billion and total debts of $1.02 billion.Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes ChemturaBankruptcy News. The newsletter tracks the Chapter 11proceedings undertaken by Chemtura Corp. and its affiliates.(http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000) CHEMTURA CORP: Has Deal with Entergy on Deposits; Docs Under Seal-----------------------------------------------------------------Chemtura Corp. and its affiliates have entered into a stipulationwith the Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C., Entergy Louisiana,LLC, and Entergy Arkansas, Inc., regarding the Debtors' adequateassurance deposit to Entergy. The Debtors have sought andobtained authority from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York to file the stipulation under seal.\"If the terms of the Debtors' agreement with Entergy were tobecome public, it may be detrimental to the Debtors' efforts toresolve disputes with other utility providers as to whatconstitutes adequate assurance,\" says Richard M. Natasha Labovitz,Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, in New York.Entergy, Ms. Labovitz says, has required as part of the terms ofthe agreement that the Debtors keep the agreement confidential, asthe stipulation contains information regarding the monthly amountsthat Entergy charges the Debtors for its utility services. About Chemtura CorpBased in Middlebury, Connecticut, Chemtura Corporation (CEM) --http://www.chemtura.com/-- with 2008 sales of $3.5 billion, is a global manufacturer and marketer of specialty chemicals, cropprotection products, and pool, spa and home care products.Chemtura Corporation and 26 of its U.S. affiliates filed voluntarypetitions for relief under Chapter 11 on March 18, 2009 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Case No. 09-11233). M. Natasha Labovitz, Esq., atKirkland & Ellis LLP, in New York, serves as bankruptcy counsel.Wolfblock LLP serves as the Debtors' special counsel. TheDebtors' auditors and accountant are KPMG LLP; their investmentbankers are Lazard Freres & Co.; their strategic communicationsadvisors are Joele Frank, Wilkinson Brimmer Katcher; theirbusiness advisors are Alvarez & Marsal LLC and Ray Dombrowskiserves as their chief restructuring officer; and their claims andnoticing agent is Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC.As of December 31, 2008, the Debtors had total assets of$3.06 billion and total debts of $1.02 billion.Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes ChemturaBankruptcy News. The newsletter tracks the Chapter 11proceedings undertaken by Chemtura Corp. and its affiliates.(http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000) CHEMTURA CORP: Seeks to Settle U.S. & Canada Anti-Trust Fines-------------------------------------------------------------Chemtura Corporation has certain payables remaining on certainanti-trust fines as of the Petition Date. In March 2004, Chemturaentered into a plea agreement with the United States government,pleading guilty to a one-count information charge of participatingin a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition bymaintaining and increasing the price of certain rubber chemicalssold in the United States and elsewhere from July 1995 to December2001 in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. In May 2004, theUnited States District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia imposed a $50 million fine on Chemtura, payable in sixannual installments beginning in 2004, without interest.As of the Petition Date, Chemtura has paid the first fiveinstallment of the U.S. Antitrust Fine or an aggregate of$34 million. The remaining $16 million on the Fine was dueMay 27, 2009.In May 2004, Chemtura also pleaded guilty to one count ofconspiring to prevent or lessen competition unduly in theproduction, manufacture and supply of certain rubber chemicals inCanada in violation of federal Canadian law. The Canadianfederal court in Ottawa thereafter imposed a sentence requiringChemtura to pay a fine of C$9 million, payable in six annualinstallments, without interest, beginning in 2004.As of the Petition Date, Chemtura has paid the first fiveinstallments of the Canadian Antitrust Fine or an aggregate ofC$6.2 million. The remaining payment of approximatelyC$2.8 million was due and payable on May 28, 2009.In May 2009, Chemtura and the U.S government have reached anagreement to reduce and defer the U.S. Antitrust Fine on thecondition that: (a) Chemtura will pay the Government $10 million in four installments of $2.5 million each, in full satisfaction of the remaining $16 million installment of the U.S. Antitrust Fine. The four installments will be due June 30, 2009, December 31, 2009, June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2010. (b) If Chemtura confirms a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization that becomes effective and provides that general unsecured creditors of Chemtura will receive more than 62.5% of their allowed claims, then Chemtura will pay to the Government an additional payment equal to the amount to which the Government would have been entitled under that Chapter 11 plan, less any payments already made; and (c) If Chemtura's Chapter 11 case converts to a Chapter 7 case, then the United States will be entitled to assert a claim for the original amount of the final installment of $16 million less any payments already made.The District Court for the Northern District of California hasalready approved the U.S. Settlement. The Debtors now seekpermission from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District ofSouthern New York to enter into their settlement with the U.S.Government.Chemtura and Canada have also reached an agreement, providingthat: (a) Chemtura will pay Canada C$1.8 million in four equal installments of C$450,000 in full satisfaction of the final installment of the Canadian Antitrust Fine. The four installment payments will be due June 30, 2009, December 30, 2009, June 30, 2010 and December 30, 2010; and (b) If the unsecured creditors of Chemtura receive a greater proportion of their claims than 62.5% pursuant to a confirmed Chapter 11 plan that becomes effective in Chemtura's Chapter 11 case, then Canada will receive payments proportionally varied to reflect the overall enhanced portion of the original outstanding amount of C$2.88 million.Chemtura also seeks the Bankruptcy Court's permission to enterinto the agreement with Canada.M. Natasha Labovitz, Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, in New York,points out that if Chemtura does not enter the SettlementAgreements, it could be required to pay the full amount of theAntitrust Fines notwithstanding the bankruptcy discharge. \"Entryinto the Settlement Agreements will increase recoveries forcreditors to the extent that the final installments of theAntitrust Fines could have been non-dischargeable and paid duringthe Chapter 11 cases.\" About Chemtura CorpBased in Middlebury, Connecticut, Chemtura Corporation (CEM) --http://www.chemtura.com/-- with 2008 sales of $3.5 billion, is a global manufacturer and marketer of specialty chemicals, cropprotection products, and pool, spa and home care products.Chemtura Corporation and 26 of its U.S. affiliates filed voluntarypetitions for relief under Chapter 11 on March 18, 2009 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Case No. 09-11233). M. Natasha Labovitz, Esq., atKirkland & Ellis LLP, in New York, serves as bankruptcy counsel.Wolfblock LLP serves as the Debtors' special counsel. TheDebtors' auditors and accountant are KPMG LLP; their investmentbankers are Lazard Freres & Co.; their strategic communicationsadvisors are Joele Frank, Wilkinson Brimmer Katcher; theirbusiness advisors are Alvarez & Marsal LLC and Ray Dombrowskiserves as their chief restructuring officer; and their claims andnoticing agent is Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC.As of December 31, 2008, the Debtors had total assets of$3.06 billion and total debts of $1.02 billion.Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes ChemturaBankruptcy News. The newsletter tracks the Chapter 11proceedings undertaken by Chemtura Corp. and its affiliates.(http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000) CHEMTURA CORP: Taps Biggins Lacy to Evaluate Headquarter Lease--------------------------------------------------------------Chemtura Corp. and its affiliates currently hold headquarters inMiddlebury, Connecticut, pursuant to a lease, which runs through2017. The Lease costs the Debtors more than $11 million per yearfor rent, taxes and utilities. Section 365(d)(4) of theBankruptcy Code, provides that absent landlord consent, theDebtors will have at most through October 15, 2009, to decidewhether to assume or reject their leases.The Debtors tell the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York that in connection with their reviewof the Lease, they are examining whether to (i) remain at theheadquarters; (ii) move the headquarters locally, or (iii)relocate the headquarters to one or more different locations.Certain of the redeployment scenarios will require upfrontinvestment and one-time costs, which may be offset significantlyby incentives provided by the candidate jurisdictions.In this light, the Debtors ask the Court, pursuant to Section363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, to approve a consulting agreementthey entered into with Biggins Lacy Shapiro & Company, LLC, tohelp them in the evaluation process with respect to the Lease.Pursuant to the parties' Consulting Agreement, Biggins Lacywill, among others: (a) assist the Debtors by supporting their location decision- making with an accelerated and integrated project management plan; (b) quantify the magnitude of the Debtors' potential costs and savings, including potential economic development incentives, as well as the organizational and operational risks and benefits associated with relocation or redeployment scenarios; and (c) manage a competitive incentives process designed to satisfy state and local statutory requirements, while achieving approvals for the highest values among incentives programs offered by various states.The Debtors will pay Biggins Lacy based on these rates: Professional Hourly Rate ------------ ----------- Engagement Manager $600 Public Sector Financing Specialist $450 Financial Modelling & Decision Analyst $375 Project Analyst $250 Project Administrator $175The Debtors will also reimburse the Firm's necessary andreasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with theengagement. They estimate that total fees for Biggins Lacy underthe Agreement will be $330,000. The Agreement provides for amaximum payment of $500,000 in fees and $50,000 in reimbursedexpenses.The Debtors inform the Court that they may seek similar servicesfrom Biggins Lacy in the future with respect to a smallerrelocation evaluation processes. About Chemtura CorpBased in Middlebury, Connecticut, Chemtura Corporation (CEM) --http://www.chemtura.com/-- with 2008 sales of $3.5 billion, is a global manufacturer and marketer of specialty chemicals, cropprotection products, and pool, spa and home care products.Chemtura Corporation and 26 of its U.S. affiliates filed voluntarypetitions for relief under Chapter 11 on March 18, 2009 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Case No. 09-11233). M. Natasha Labovitz, Esq., atKirkland & Ellis LLP, in New York, serves as bankruptcy counsel.Wolfblock LLP serves as the Debtors' special counsel. TheDebtors' auditors and accountant are KPMG LLP; their investmentbankers are Lazard Freres & Co.; their strategic communicationsadvisors are Joele Frank, Wilkinson Brimmer Katcher; theirbusiness advisors are Alvarez & Marsal LLC and Ray Dombrowskiserves as their chief restructuring officer; and their claims andnoticing agent is Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC.As of December 31, 2008, the Debtors had total assets of$3.06 billion and total debts of $1.02 billion.Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes ChemturaBankruptcy News. The newsletter tracks the Chapter 11proceedings undertaken by Chemtura Corp. and its affiliates.(http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000) CITIGROUP INC: Raising Salaries of Many Workers by As Much as 50%-----------------------------------------------------------------Stephen Bernard at The Associated Press reports that CitigroupInc. is raising the base salaries of many of its employees,reportedly by as much as 50% for some workers.The AP, citing a person familiar with the matter, says that thehigher salaries aren't the equivalent of annual raises becausebonuses are being lowered. The AP notes that the changes couldlet Citigroup pay most workers as much as they received in 2008while adhering to bonus caps.Employees who would get the raise include traders -- who tend tobe compensated more heavily with bonuses -- and middle- and lower-level managers whose compensation is more heavily weighted towardsalaries, The AP relates, citing a person familiar with thematter. According to The AP, those who receive a base salary andbonus could see an adjustment, based on an employee's position andcurrent breakdown of pay between base salary and bonus. The APstates that the 100 highest paid Citigroup employees will beexcluded from the bank's revised compensation program due to thegovernment's additional review over that group's pay.Citigroup said in a statement that it \"continues to examine waysto ensure its employee compensation practices are competitive inthis very challenging market environment. Any salary adjustmentsare not intended to increase total annual compensation, rather toadjust the balance between fixed and variable compensation.\"The AP states that the government has named lawyer KennethFeinberg as \"special master\" to supervise compensation packagesawarded to seven companies that have received the most governmentsupport. Mr. Feinberg, says The AP, can reject pay plans that hedeems excessive and review compensation for the top 100 salariedemployees at those companies.Based in New York, Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) --http://www.citigroup.com/-- is organized into four major segments -- Consumer Banking, Global Cards, Institutional Clients Group,and Global Wealth Management. Citigroup had $2.0 trillion intotal assets on $1.9 trillion in total liabilities as ofSeptember 30, 2008.As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on November 25, 2008,the U.S. government entered into an agreement with Citigroup toprovide a package of guarantees, liquidity access, and capital.As part of the agreement, the U.S. Treasury and the FederalDeposit Insurance Corporation will provide protection against thepossibility of unusually large losses on an asset pool ofapproximately $306 billion of loans and securities backed byresidential and commercial real estate and other such assets,which will remain on Citigroup's balance sheet. As a fee for thisarrangement, Citigroup issued preferred shares to the Treasury andFDIC. The Federal Reserve agreed to backstop residual risk in theasset pool through a non-recourse loan.Citigroup is one of the banks that, according to results of thegovernment's stress test, need more capital.CITIZENS REPUBLIC: \"Exploring\" Substantial Debt-to-Equity Swap--------------------------------------------------------------\"Due to recent and ongoing deteriorating economic conditionsacross the United States in general, and in Michigan and the UpperMidwest specifically,\" Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc., exploringseveral initiatives to bolster capital and strengthen its balancesheet. \"The company's intention is to develop and have readymultiple capital raising alternatives that will ensure Citizenscontinues to exceed the regulatory designation of well-capitalizedas further economic developments and implications dictate,\" thecompany said in a news release distributed this week.Like many financial institutions across the United States,Citizens has been impacted by deteriorating economic conditions.Recent events such as bankruptcy filings by significant automotivemanufacturers and suppliers, as well as announced automotive plantand dealer closings, affect the national economy in general andthe Michigan economy in particular. As a result, Citizensbelieves that additional capital may be necessary to maintain andstrengthen its balance sheet to withstand the effects of increasedeconomic stress and uncertainty over the coming months and years.However, Citizens currently has an insufficient number ofauthorized but unissued shares available to proactively raisecapital, if deemed necessary. Therefore, Citizens believes it isnecessary to take steps now to authorize additional shares inorder to have sufficient shares to meet future well-capitalizedlevels in a further stressed environment.Citizens is considering these capital raising initiatives: (A) An offer to holders of 5.75% subordinated debentures due in 2013 to exchange shares of common stock for such debt. If such an offer is made and it is fully successful, this exchange would convert up to $125 million of outstanding debt to common stock. (B) An offer to exchange shares of common stock for outstanding trust preferred securities that are traded on the New York Stock Exchange (CTZ-PA). There is currently $150 million aggregate liquidation amount of these securities outstanding. Distributions on these securities are payable quarterly in arrears at an annual rate of 7.5%. (C) One or more offerings of common stock or convertible preferred stock for cash. (D) An investment by the U.S. Treasury of up to $190 million pursuant to its Capital Assistance Program and up to an additional $100 million under the Capital Assistance Program that would be used to redeem a portion of the outstanding preferred stock issued to the U.S. Treasury under its Capital Purchase Program in 2008.Citizens has called a special meeting of shareholders to be heldon August 20, 2009, at 8:30 a.m., at the Genesys Conference andBanquet Center located at 805 Health Park Blvd. in Grand Blanc,Michigan, for shareholders of record on June 30, 2009. Thepurposes of this meeting are to: (1) seek approval of an increase in the number of authorized shares of common stock from 150,000,000 to 1,050,000,000 shares, (2) seek approval of a proposal to issue additional shares of common stock in exchange for up to $125 million principal amount of the outstanding subordinated debentures (for which shareholder approval is required by Nasdaq rules), and (3) grant the board of directors authority to adjourn, postpone or continue the special meeting.A copy of the Citizens Republic's Proxy Statement is available athttp://is.gd/1dqYEat no charge. As a result of ongoing volatility in the financial industry, thechallenging economic conditions in Michigan and the Upper Midwest,the impact of continued deterioration in the credit quality ofCitizens' loan portfolios, and the uncertain trickle-down effectof recent bankruptcy filings by several major companies in the U.Sautomotive industry, Citizens determined it was necessary toperform an interim goodwill impairment test. As a result,Citizens performed an interim goodwill impairment test during thesecond quarter of 2009 which included discounted cash flow andportfolio pricing analyses that reflected management's outlook forthe current business environment. Based on these analyses,Citizens believes that the goodwill allocated to its RegionalBanking reporting unit is impaired due to the continueddeterioration in the credit quality of Citizens' loan portfoliosand lower earnings due to the challenging economic conditions.Accordingly, on June 25, 2009, Citizens estimated the non-cashgoodwill impairment charge will be approximately $270 millionduring the second quarter of 2009. The goodwill impairment chargeis not tax deductible, does not impact Citizens' tangible equityor regulatory capital ratios, and does not require future cashexpenditures or adversely affect Citizens' overall liquidityposition.As required under SFAS 142, \"Goodwill and Other IntangibleAssets,\" Citizens is concluding its interim impairment test andexpects to complete this process prior to releasing its secondquarter 2009 results. While the aforementioned goodwillimpairment charge is an estimate, Citizens does not anticipate thefinal analysis to be materially different. This interim goodwillassessment will not change the timing of Citizens' annual goodwillimpairment test.Citizens Republic Bancorp (Nasdaq: CRBC) --http://www.citizensbanking.com/-- is a diversified financial services company providing a wide range of commercial, consumer,mortgage banking, trust and financial planning services to a broadclient base. Citizens serves communities in Michigan, Ohio,Wisconsin, and Indiana as Citizens Bank and in Iowa as F&M Bank,with 231 offices and 267 ATMs. Citizens Republic Bancorp is thelargest bank holding company headquartered in Michigan with rootsdating back to 1871. Citizens Republic Bancorp is the 43rdlargest bank holding company headquartered in the United States.CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS: Moody's Cuts Rating on Revenue Bonds to 'Ba2'------------------------------------------------------------------Moody's has downgraded the rating of Minneapolis (City of)Minnesota, Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds, 1998 A (GNMACollateralized Mortgage Loan \\'97 University Village) to Ba2 fromAaa and removed the bonds from Watchlist for Possible Downgrade.The bonds were placed on Watchlist on September 18, 2008, as aresult of rating actions on American International Group, Inc.,which was subsequently downgraded to A3/P1. AIG had provided theguaranteed investment contract for the revenue account in thetransaction. The downgrade and removal from Watchlist forPossible Downgrade of the bonds is based on the termination of theGIC by the Trustee and the investment of the revenue account inmoney market funds earning substantially less than the GIC, aswell as a review of the probability that money market rates forthe revenue fund of the bonds will go above a rate ofapproximately 4.5% over the near term and the levels of shortfallthat the program would experience in the event that theseinvestment rates are not achieved. The 4.5% rate is theinvestment rate that is necessary to provide the program withsufficient earnings to continue to pay debt service on the bondsin the long run. Security and Basis for the RatingThe bonds are secured by a mortgage-backed security guaranteed asto full and timely payment of principal and interest by theGovernment National Mortgage Association. GNMA guarantees tomaintain payments of principal at the maturity date of andregularly scheduled interest on the MBS regardless of the actualperformance of the underlying mortgage loan. The full faith andcredit of the United States back the GNMA guarantee. A soundlegal structure provides additional security for bondholders.Furthermore, Moody's reviewed various cash flow scenariosdemonstrating that revenue from the MBS, together with interestearnings on funds invested in an AIG GIC, which acted as revenuefund for the bonds, would have been sufficient to guarantysufficiency of debt service payment on the bonds. Recent DevelopmentsThe AIG GIC was an integral support to the bond structure.Mortgage payments were deposited monthly to the GIC and interestearnings on these funds were added to the balance in the revenuefund. The interest earnings were sufficiently high enough toensure that the revenue balance would not fall below the levelnecessary to pay debt service. Prior to AIG's downgrade to A3/P1on September 18, 2008, the Issuer directed the Trustee toliquidate the AIG GIC, the balance of which is being invested atrates significantly lower than the original GIC rate. Currently,the Trustee is investing the revenue account in a money marketfund earning approximately 0.0006% which is substantially belowthe rate that the program was projected to receive from the GICwhen the bonds were structured. At this very low interest rate,cash flow projections show that there will be insufficient fundsavailable to pay debt service on the bonds beginning inapproximately 5 years from now. However, cash flow projectionsalso demonstrate that an effective weighted average interest ratefor the revenue fund of approximately 4.5% needs to be achievedfor sum-sufficiency.The Issuer has been in conversation with HUD concerning a possiblecurrent refinancing this summer. However, at this time Moody'shas not seen any documentation or notice of refinancing. Should arefinancing occur the rating would be revisited AnalysisIn determining the rating, Moody's evaluated three factors: theProbability of Default, which is the risk that interest rates willremain below an effective weighted average interest rate of 4.5%for the life of the transaction; the Loss Given Default, which isthe possible loss to bondholders from rates remaining below 4.5%;and, the Expected Loss Rate, which is the product of the PD andLGD.Moody's believes that the transaction is exposed to high defaultrisk, based on Moody's review of interest rate behavior,specifically the three-month Federal Funds Rate, in bothrecessionary and non-recessionary environments and the likelihoodof interest rates remaining below certain levels for differentperiods of time. Moody's also considered interest rate forecastsfrom a variety of other sources and incorporated these forecastsinto the cash flow projections for the bonds. Moody's alsoconsidered a range of LGDs, with the most extreme scenarioenvisioning interest rates remaining at effectively 0% for theforeseeable future. Under the scenarios studied, the analysissuggests ELs consistent with a Ba-category rating. Moody's willcontinue to monitor interest rate movements for money market fundsand take action as appropriate. OutlookThe Developing outlook is based on Moody's expectation that ifrates do not rise to the required 4.5% level in an appropriatetimeframe, default will occur in five years in combination withthe possibility of a current refinancing with the assistance ofHUD that would change the structure of the deal and require areview of the credit. What could shift the rating -- UP: -- Increase in interest rates to above 4.5% -- Purchase of a GIC that guarantees an investment rate of 4.5% What could shift the rating -- DOWN: -- Rates continue to remain at very low levelsThe last rating action with respect to the bonds was onSeptember 18, 2008, when its ratings were placed under review forpossible downgrade.CONSECO INC: Enters Into Reinsurance Transaction to Build Capital-----------------------------------------------------------------Conseco, Inc., entered into an agreement under which two insurancecompanies in its Conseco Insurance Group unit will co-insure, withan effective date of January 1, 2009, about 104,000 non-core lifeinsurance policies with Wilton Reassurance Company, a Minnesotareinsurance company.\"Completing this step is expected to increase Conseco'sconsolidated risk-based capital ratio by 8 percentage points,along with increasing statutory capital,\" said Conseco CEO JimPrieur. \"In addition, this transaction will further simplify ouradministrative operations as we focus on our core insurancebusinesses.\"In the transaction, Wilton Re will pay a ceding commission ofapproximately $57.5 million and 100% coinsure and administer thesepolicies. The Conseco companies will transfer to Wilton Reapproximately $409 million in cash and policy loans and $466million of statutory policy and other reserves. The transaction,which is subject to the approval of insurance regulators inIllinois and Wisconsin, is expected to be completed in the thirdquarter of 2009.Most of the policies involved in the transaction were issued bycompanies that were later acquired by Conseco. Approximately 70%of the policies being coinsured are from Washington NationalInsurance Company; the remainder is from Conseco InsuranceCompany.As a result of the transaction, Conseco expects to record anincrease to its deferred tax valuation allowance of approximately$18 million in the third quarter of 2009. Conseco also expects torecord a deferred gain of approximately $25 million. Inaccordance with generally accepted accounting principles, thisgain will be recognized over the remaining life of the block. Inthe first quarter of 2009, the block being coinsured generatedGAAP after-tax earnings before overhead of approximately$2.5 million. About Conseco Inc.Headquartered in Carmel, Indiana, Conseco Inc. (NYSE: CNO) --http://www.conseco.com/-- is the holding company for a group of insurance companies operating throughout the United States thatdevelop, market and administer supplemental health insurance,annuity, individual life insurance and other insurance products.The company became the successor to Conseco Inc. (Old Conseco), inconnection with its bankruptcy reorganization. CNO focuses onserving the senior and middle-income markets. The company sellsits products through three distribution channels: career agents,professional independent producers and direct marketing. CNOoperates through its segments, which includes Bankers Life,Conseco Insurance Group, Colonial Penn, other business in run-offand corporate operations. * * *As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on January 6, 2009,Fitch Ratings has downgraded the ratings assigned to Conseco Inc.The rating outlook on Conseco Inc. and its subsidiaries remainsnegative. Fitch downgraded these ratings: (i) issuer defaultrating to 'BB-' from 'BB'; (ii) senior secured bank creditfacility to 'BB-' from 'BB+'; and (iii) senior unsecured debt to'B' from 'BB-'.On March 4, 2009, A.M. Best downgraded the financial strengthratings of Conseco's primary insurance subsidiaries to \"B\" from\"B+\" and such ratings have been placed under review with negativeimplications.Conseco reported a first quarter 2009 net income of $24.5 millioncompared to a net loss of $7.2 million in the year-earlierquarter. Conseco had $28.5 billion in total assets, $26.9 billionin total liabilities, and $1.59 billion in stockholders' equity asof March 31, 2009.Conseco said it has significant indebtedness which will requireover $165 million in cash to service in the next 12 months(including the additional interest expense required after themodification to its Second Amended Credit Facility. Pursuant toConseco's Second Amended Credit Facility, Conseco must maintaincertain financial ratios. The levels of margin between thefinancial covenant requirements and the Company's financialstatus, both at March 31, 2009, and the projected levels for thenext 12 months, are relatively small and a failure to satisfy anyof the financial covenants at the end of a fiscal quarter wouldtrigger a default under the Second Amended Credit Facility.Achievement of the Company's operating plans is a critical factorin having sufficient income and liquidity to meet debt servicerequirements for the next 12 months and other holding companyobligations and failure to do so would have material adverseconsequences for the Company.CONSOLIDATED RESORTS: Files for Bankruptcy Protection-----------------------------------------------------Consolidated Resorts, a vacation ownership company, filed forbankruptcy on Tuesday, Pacific Business News reported.The Wall Street Journal earlier reported that Consolidated Resortssaid it was seeking bankruptcy protection after Goldman SachsGroup's Whitehall real-estate fund abandoned its $372 millioninvestment.Consolidated Resorts operates 14 resorts in Hawaii, Las Vegas andOrlando. Its Hawaii resorts include the Imperial Hawaii inWaikiki and the Kona Islander on the Big Island and seven Mauiresorts: Sands of Kahana Vacation Club, Kahana Beach Resort, HonoKoa, The Gardens at West Maui, Kahana Villa Resort, Maui BeachVacation Club and Maui Banyan Vacation Club, according to its Website.CROWN COURT PARTNERSHIP: Case Summary & 5 Largest Unsec. Creditors------------------------------------------------------------------Debtor: Crown Court Partnership, Debtor 249 N. Peters Road, Suite 101 Knoxville, TN 37923Bankruptcy Case No.: 09-33428Chapter 11 Petition Date: June 24, 2009Court: United States Bankruptcy Court Eastern District of Tennessee (Knoxville)Debtor's Counsel: Thomas Lynn Tarpy, Esq. Hagood, Tarpy & Cox PLLC Suite 2100, Riverview Tower 900 South Gay Street Knoxville, TN 37902-1537 Tel: (865) 525-7313 Email: [email protected] Assets: $1,000,001 to $10,000,000Estimated Debts: $1,000,001 to $10,000,000A list of the Company's 5 largest unsecured creditors is availablefor free at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/tneb09-33428.pdfThe petition was signed by Ray Lacy.CRUSADER ENERGY: Creditors Committee Has 7 Members--------------------------------------------------William T. Neary, the United States Trustee for Region 6, hasappointed seven members to committee of unsecured creditors in theChapter 11 cases of Crusader Energy Group Inc. and its debtor-affiliates.The members of the Committee, as amended, are:1.John Estes [email protected] Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. 10200 Bellaire Blvd. 3NE - 17H Houston, TX 77072 Tel: (281) 575-5609 Fax: (281) 575-4754 2. Steve Abney [email protected] Trinidad Drilling 3728 West Jones Avenue Garden City, KS 67846 Tel: (713) 439-1677 3. Mehgan Merman Global Geophysical Services, Inc. 3535 Briarpark Drive Suite 200 Houston, TX 77042 Tel: (713) 808-7367 4. Mardi de Verges [email protected] Goober Drilling LLC P.O. Box 549 Stillwater, OK 74076 Tel: (405) 743-2132 5. Don J. Guedry Jr. [email protected] Grey Wolf, Inc. 10370 Richmond Avenue, Suite 600 Houston, TX 77042-4136 Tel: (713) 435-6118 6. Ron Hess [email protected] WB Supply Co. P.O. Box 2479 Pampa, TX 79066 Tel: (806) 669-1103 Fax: (806) 669-0369 7. Gregory M. Attrep [email protected] Smith International, Inc. 16740 Hardy Street P.O. Box 60068 Houston, TX 77205-3059 Tel: (832) 601-3059Official creditors' committees have the right to employ legaland accounting professionals and financial advisors, at theDebtors' expense. They may investigate the Debtors' business andfinancial affairs. Importantly, official committees serve asfiduciaries to the general population of creditors they represent.Those committees will also attempt to negotiate the terms of aconsensual Chapter 11 plan -- almost always subject to the termsof strict confidentiality agreements with the Debtors and othercore parties-in-interest. If negotiations break down, theCommittee may ask the Bankruptcy Court to replace management withan independent trustee. If the Committee concludes reorganizationof the Debtor is impossible, the Committee will urge theBankruptcy Court to convert the Chapter 11 cases to a liquidationproceeding.Based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Crusader Energy Group Inc. --http://www.ir.crusaderenergy.com/-- explores, develops and acquires oil and gas properties, primarily in the Anadarko Basin,Williston Basin, Permian Basin, and Fort Worth Basin in the UnitedStates. Crusader Energy and its affiliates filed for Chapter 11protection on March 30, 2009 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Lead Case No. 09-31797). The Debtors' financial condition as of September 30,2008, showed total assets of $749,978,331 and total debts of$325,839,980. Beth Lloyd, Esq., Richard H. London, Esq., andWilliam Louis Wallander, Esq., at Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P.,represent the Debtors as counsel. Holland N. Oneil, Esq., MichaelS. Haynes, Esq., and Richard McCoy Roberson, Esq., at Gardere,Wynne & Sewell, represent the official committee of unsecuredcreditors as counsel.CRUSADER ENERGY: Can Use Lenders' Cash Collateral Until July 21---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas hasgranted Crusader Energy Group Inc., et al., permission to use theprepetition lenders' cash collateral until July 21, 2009, solelyto pay the expenses in accordance and in the amounts as set forthin a budget.The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas willhold a final hearing on the further use of cash collateral onJuly 21, 2009, at 9:15 a.m. prevailing Central Time.The Debtors' authorization to use cash collateral will terminateon July 21, 2009, or the occurrence of certain \"termination\"events.As of the Petition Date, Crusader Energy Group is indebted toUnion Bank of California, N.A., as administrative agent for thelenders, in the principal amount of $30,000,000 plus unpaidinterest, fees, and other charges, secured by first priority lienson the property of Crusader and its subsidiaries. Crusader isalso indebted to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as administrativeagent for certain lenders, in the principal amount of$249,750,000, plus unpaid interest, fees, and other charges,secured by second priority liens on the property of Crusader.As adequate protection for any diminution in the value of theirrespective interests in the prepetition collateral, theprepetition lenders are granted additional and replacement liensin all prepetition collateral and all of the Debtors' now ownedand after-acquired real property, assets and rights, and theproceeds thereof.As additional adequate protection, the prepetition lenders willhave an allowed superpriority administrative claim as provided andto the full extent allowed by section 503(b) and 507(b) of theBankruptcy Code.The Debtors also owe money to creditors holding trade liens. Asadequate protection, each trade lien creditor will have valid andperfected adequate protection liens in (i) all assets in which therespective Trade Lien Creditor has a valid perfected securityinterest as of the petition date or is entitled to perfect a validsecurity interest after the petition date; and (ii) all of theDebtors' now owned and after-acquired real and personal propertyand assets and rights, and the proceeds thereof.Other secured creditors will be granted replacement, same prioritysecurity interests in, and liens upon, all assets of theapplicable Debtors against whom said secured creditor held validlyperfected unavoidable liens as of the Petition Date.Based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Crusader Energy Group Inc. --http://www.ir.crusaderenergy.com/-- explores, develops and acquires oil and gas properties, primarily in the Anadarko Basin,Williston Basin, Permian Basin, and Fort Worth Basin in the UnitedStates. Crusader Energy and its affiliates filed for Chapter 11protection on March 30, 2009 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Lead Case No. 09-31797). The Debtors' financial condition as of September 30,2008, showed total assets of $749,978,331 and total debts of$325,839,980. Beth Lloyd, Esq., Richard H. London, Esq., andWilliam Louis Wallander, Esq., at Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P.,represent the Debtors as counsel. Holland N. Oneil, Esq., MichaelS. Haynes, Esq., and Richard McCoy Roberson, Esq., at Gardere,Wynne & Sewell, represent the official committee of unsecuredcreditors as counsel.CRUSADER ENERGY: Wants Incentive Program for Management-------------------------------------------------------Crusader Energy Group Inc., et al., ask the U.S. Bankruptcy Courtfor the Northern District of Texas for authority to implement anincentive program for the Debtors' management to maximize thevalue of the Debtors' estates and to preserve the Debtors'businesses.The Debtors tell the Court that the Management Incentive Programis necessary to provide appropriate compensation to managementgiven the additional responsibilities associated with the Chapter11 cases, and to ensure that the participants are adequatelymotivated and incentivized to perform important tasks necessary toensure an effective and orderly sale and reorganization of theDebtors' businesses.The principal features of the MIP are: a. Each of the MIP participants will be eligible to participate in a MIP pool, to be funded from the proceeds of any sale of the Debtors' assets, in an amount equal to 1% of (i) the aggregate value of any sales, minus (ii) $150,000,000, whether the sale occurs through a plan of reorganization or otherwise. b. Promptly after the closing of a sale, subject to the value payout levels, each MIP participant will be paid these percentages of the Incentive Payout that has not previously been paid to them: (i) David D. Le Norman -- 40%; (ii) Charles L. Mullens -- 20%; (iii) Roy A. Fletcher -- 20%; and Charles A. Paulson -- 20%. c. Under no circumstances will any MIP Participant be entitled to receive more than 130% of the MIP participant's respective annual salary as of the date of the filing of the motion.A copy of the document illustrating the Management IncentiveProgram is available at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/crusader.MIPillustration.pdfBased in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Crusader Energy Group Inc. --http://www.ir.crusaderenergy.com/-- explores, develops and acquires oil and gas properties, primarily in the Anadarko Basin,Williston Basin, Permian Basin, and Fort Worth Basin in the UnitedStates. Crusader Energy and its affiliates filed for Chapter 11protection on March 30, 2009 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Lead Case No. 09-31797). The Debtors' financial condition as of September 30,2008, showed total assets of $749,978,331 and total debts of$325,839,980. Beth Lloyd, Esq., Richard H. London, Esq., andWilliam Louis Wallander, Esq., at Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P.,represent the Debtors as counsel. Holland N. Oneil, Esq., MichaelS. Haynes, Esq., and Richard McCoy Roberson, Esq., at Gardere,Wynne & Sewell, represent the official committee of unsecuredcreditors as counsel.DEBT RELIEF: Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection-------------------------------------------------------Pamela Yip at The Dallas Morning News reports that Debt Relief USAInc. has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, listing$4.65 million in assets and $5 million in liabilities.According to Morning News, Debt Relief has stopped operations.Debt Relief said in a statement, \"Debt Relief USA anticipatessending written instructions to its customers, most formercustomers, creditors and known potential creditors withinstructions on any steps you need to take to protect yourinterests.\"Debt Relief said in court documents that it is being investigatedby state attorneys general and federal authorities. Debt Relief'slawyer, Gary A. Armstrong, said that the Company won't negotiateindividual settlements and won't remove money from individualaccounts pending the bankruptcy proceedings, Morning News relates.Citing Mr. Armstrong, Morning News states that Debt Relief'sbankruptcy won't affect any debt settlements it has reached with aclient's creditors.Mr. Armstrong said that Debt Relief will refund client deposits asmuch as possible, pending court approval, Morning News reports.Debt Relief USA Inc. -- http://www.drusabankruptcy.com -- is an Addison debt settlement Company.DECRANE AEROSPACE: Moody's Confirms 'Caa1' Corporate Family Rating------------------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service confirmed the debt ratings of DeCraneAerospace, Inc. -- corporate family and probability of defaultratings of Caa1. The rating outlook was changed to negative.This concludes the review opened on March 4, 2009.The ratings confirmation reflects DeCrane's actions to manage thebusiness operations in the face of the sharp decline in demand forbusiness jets. Management has taken specific initiatives tobetter match ongoing variable costs with prospective demand forbusiness jets, as well as to heighten strategic focus on the coreoperations; programs that may enable sustained profitability andcash flow under more normal market conditions. For example,DeCrane is progressing toward the exit of the unprofitable PATSaircraft completions business and has successfully re-negotiated achallenging multi-aircraft project with a large jet producer.Nonetheless, DeCrane's efforts have been challenged by the speedof the decline in business jet demand and outlook. Further,ongoing efforts will remain challenged by DeCrane's high financialleverage in the face of anticipated further declines in businessjet deliveries through 2010. By amending the financial ratiosunder its bank credit agreement to loosen the requirement and withmodest scheduled debt maturities for the near term, DeCrane doeshas some flexibility to continue to manage in the face of aweakening core market. Eliminating unprofitable business lines tofocus on the core Cabin and auxiliary fuel tank business reducesthe company's size and heightens exposure to business jets duringa period of declining deliveries. However, should performancestabilize (especially during a down business jet market) theprospects for negotiating extension of the recently loosenedfinancial ratio covenants could hold promise, and could be thebasis for value over the cycle.The negative outlook reflects the horizon of about another year tostabilize operations before there is a step-up in financialcovenants (the amendment), and the potential that achieving theearnings and cash flow goals could prove challenging unless theoutlook for business jet production stabilizes. The potential foradditional write-offs to reduce operating costs or to prematurelyexit remaining completions work will likely remain elevated, aswell.Ratings stabilization will depend on an adequate liquidityprofile, an expectation of sustained, though not necessarilyrobust, profits and FFO interest coverage of greater than 1.0time. The ratings could be lowered if efforts to stabilize thebusiness prove unsuccessful, or if total leverage approaches themid 6.0 times level (was 5.6 times over last twelve months endedMarch 31, 2009, Moody's adjusted basis), or if the liquidityprofile weakens.These ratings were confirmed: -- Corporate family, probability of default ratings Caa1 -- $30 million guaranteed first lien revolving credit facility due 2013 . . . B2 LGD2, 29% -- $195 million guaranteed first lien term loan due 2013 . . . B2 LGD2, 29% -- $150 million guaranteed second lien term loan due 2014 . . . Caa2 LGD5, to 81% from 82%Moody's last rating action on DeCrane occurred March 4, 2009, whenthe ratings were placed under review for possible downgrade.DeCrane Aerospace, Inc., headquartered in Wichita, Kansas, is aleading provider of aircraft cabin interior systems and components(including cabin interior furnishings, veneer, cabin managementsystems, seating and composite components), mostly for businessjets.DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Fitch Affirms 'BB+' Preferred Stock Rating--------------------------------------------------------------Fitch Ratings has affirmed the long-term Issuer Default Rating ofDiscover Financial Services and Discover Bank at 'BBB'.Concurrently, Fitch has downgraded the entities' Individualratings to 'C' from 'B/C'. The Rating Watch Negative has beenremoved and the Rating Outlook is Negative.Approximately $31.1 billion of deposits, debt, and preferred stockis affected by these actions.The affirmation reflects the sound credit and debit cardfranchises, solid liquidity, and strong capital levels for theassigned ratings, offset by a lack of revenue diversity, limitedfunding flexibility, intense industry competition, and recentlegislative change impacting the credit card industry.The downgrade of the Individual ratings reflect the expectationthat core operating earnings will remain under pressure into 2010as reserve levels continue to build in response to the risingunemployment rate. The Individual rating attempts to assess abank's intrinsic creditworthiness absent any external support.The Negative Outlook reflects Fitch's expectation that creditmetrics will continue to deteriorate from current levels over theremainder of 2009 and into 2010 and that core operating profitswill not be recorded until the latter part of 2010, at theearliest. Fitch recognizes that Discover's asset qualityperformance has performed relatively better than other largecredit card issuers, given its slower growth in 2005 through 2007,its lower exposure to California and Florida, and its longeraverage customer relationships, but current unemploymentexpectations point to continued deterioration in credit cardlosses across the industry into 2010. As a result, Fitch expectsprovision expenses to be elevated for some time, and portfoliocontraction and operating cost reductions may not be enough tooffset a negative impact on capital ratios. Negative ratingaction will result from material reductions in capitalization, adeteriorating liquidity profile, and/or an inability toeconomically tap the ABS markets, given a significant amount ofstructured debt maturities in 2010.Rating stability will be driven by an improvement in creditmetrics, a return to positive and sustainable earningsperformance, an ability to reduce reliance on the brokereddeposits markets, and an ability to access the ABS markets withinand outside the Federal Reserve's Term Asset-Backed SecuritiesLoan Facility.Fitch has affirmed these with a Negative Outlook:Discover Financial Services -- Long-term Issuer Default Rating at 'BBB'; -- Short-term IDR at 'F2'; -- Senior debt at 'BBB'; -- Preferred stock at 'BB+' -- Support at '5'.Discover Bank -- Long-term IDR at 'BBB'; -- Short-term IDR at 'F2'; -- Short-term Deposits at 'F2'; -- Long-term Deposits at 'BBB+'; -- Support at '5'.Fitch has downgraded these with a Negative Outlook:Discover Financial Services -- Individual to 'C' from 'B/C'.Discover Bank -- Individual to 'C' from 'B/C'.Fitch has assigned these:Discover Financial Services -- Support Floor 'NF'.Discover Bank -- Support Floor 'NF'.E*TRADE FINANCIAL: To Meet With Shareholders re Exchange Offers---------------------------------------------------------------E*TRADE FINANCIAL Corporation filed with the Securities andExchange Commission a Schedule 14A to announce that it's going tohold a special meeting of stockholders to vote on a series ofproposals. No date or time has been set for the meeting.E*TRADE is calling the Special Meeting to ask stockholders to voteupon a series of proposals which will permit the Company to: (1) complete a debt exchange for up to approximately $1.7 billion of its outstanding debt securities which is key to its plan to strengthen the Company's capital structure by increasing equity and reducing its debt burden, and (2) engage in additional transactions, as needed, to further strengthen the Company's capital structure in the future.E*TRADE believes that the transactions are not only in the bestinterest of all stockholders, and but also critical to theimmediate future of the Company. The Company has adopted and isimplementing a plan to strengthen its capital structure by raisingcash equity primarily to support E*TRADE Bank and to reduce theCompany's debt burden. E*TRADE completed the first step of theplan on June 24, 2009, when it closed a public offering of itscommon stock and raised nearly $600 million.If the proposals to complete the Debt Exchange are not approvedand the proposed transactions are not completed, E*TRADE said itmay be unable to strengthen the Company's capital structure andcould face negative regulatory consequences, such as a publicsupervisory action by its primary regulator. These consequencescould have a material negative effect on its business andfinancial condition and the value of its common stock.E*TRADE on June 22 commenced the Debt Exchange in which it isoffering to exchange up to approximately $1.7 billion of itsoutstanding debt securities for an equivalent amount of newly-issued zero coupon convertible debentures due 2019. The DebtExchange will significantly reduce its debt burden by materiallyreducing interest costs, lengthening the weighted-averagematurities of its indebtedness and potentially reducing repaymentobligations to the extent that holders of the Debentures convertrather than hold to maturity.Citadel Investment Group L.L.C, E*TRADE's largest stock and bondholder, has agreed to tender at least $800 million, and may tenderup to approximately $1.2 billion aggregate principal amount of thenotes owned by it in the Debt Exchange and to vote in favor ofProposals.On June 22, E*TRADE and Citadel Equity Fund Ltd. entered intoAmendment No. 1 to the parties' Exchange Agreement, dated June 17,2009. The Amendment, among other things, provides that if theCompany has received the requisite consents with respect to aseries of Notes, and the Exchange Offer has not been consummatedon or prior to October 31, 2009, or the Exchange Agreement hasbeen earlier terminated in accordance with its terms, the Companywill nonetheless pay to each holder of validly tendered Notes inthe Exchange Offer, including CEFL, a consent fee. The Amendmentalso provides that the Company will commence its Exchange Offer onJune 22, 2009, that the Early Tender Period will expire atmidnight, New York City time on July 1, 2009, and that the Companywill announce preliminary results of the Early Tender Period atapproximately 6:00 p.m. New York City time on July 1, 2009.As consent fee, the Company will pay to each holder of 2011 Notesor Springing Lien Notes who validly delivers and does not revoke aconsent to the amendments prior to the expiration of the EarlyTender Period, a cash payment equal to $5.00 for each $1,000 inprincipal amount of 2011 Notes or Springing Lien Notes in respectof which the consent has been validly delivered.At the Special Meeting, holders of the Company's common stock willbe asked to consider and vote on proposals to: -- amend E*TRADE's Restated Certificate of Incorporation to increase the number of authorized shares of common stock from 1,200,000,000 to 4,000,000,000; -- approve the issuance of Debentures in the Debt Exchange and the issuance of common stock issuable upon conversion of the Debentures under the applicable provisions of NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 5635; -- approve the potential issuance of common stock, or securities convertible into or exchangeable or exercisable for common stock, in connection with future debt exchange transactions in an amount up to 365 million shares; and -- grant management the authority to adjourn, postpone or continue the Special Meeting.The Board recommends approval of the Proposals.At the Special Meeting, holders of the Company's common stock alsowill be asked to consider and vote on a non-binding resolutionconcerning whether E*TRADE should retain or terminate itsStockholder Rights Plan until its scheduled expiration on July 9,2011. The Board makes no recommendation regarding this proposal. About E*TRADE FINANCIALThe E*TRADE FINANCIAL family of companies provides financialservices including trading, investing and related banking productsand services to retail investors. Securities products andservices are offered by E*TRADE Securities LLC (MemberFINRA/SIPC). Bank products and services are offered by E*TRADEBank, a Federal savings bank, Member FDIC, or its subsidiaries. * * *According to the Troubled Company Reporter on June 23, 2009,Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its long-termcounterparty credit rating on E*TRADE Financial Corp., as well asthe senior debt ratings on the 8.0% notes due 2011 and the 12.5%springing lien notes due 2017, to 'CC' from 'CCC-'. At the sametime, S&P affirmed the 'CCC-' senior debt rating on the 7.375%notes due 2013 and the 7.875% notes due 2015. S&P also affirmedthe 'CCC+' counterparty credit and certificate of deposit ratingson E*TRADE Bank. S&P remove the ratings from CreditWatch-Negative, where they were placed May 21, 2009. The outlook isnegative.As reported by the Troubled Company Reporter on May 18, 2009,Moody's Investors Service downgraded to Caa3 from B2 the ratingson the senior unsecured bonds of E*TRADE. Moody's also lowered toB3 from B2 E*TRADE's long-term issuer rating. All long-termratings including those of E*TRADE's thrift subsidiary, E*TRADEBank (BFSR at D-, Deposit Rating at Ba3), remain on review forpossible downgrade, originally commenced on April 29, 2009.E*TRADE Bank's short-term rating remains Not-Prime.The downgrade of the bond ratings to Caa3 reflects the increasedprobability of material credit losses for E*TRADE's seniorbondholders as a result of the company's stated strategy to employdebt-for-equity exchanges as the primary tool in reducing leverageand improving the company's precarious financial condition.E*TRADE said in a regulatory filing that it \"anticipate[d] thatthe primary method for reducing [its] debt will involve debt-for-equity exchanges.\"EASTWIND MARITIME: Voluntary Chapter 7 Case Summary---------------------------------------------------Debtor: Eastwind Maritime Inc. 444 Madison Avenue, Suite 200 New York, NY 10022Bankruptcy Case No.: 09-14047Debtor-affiliates filing subject to Chapter 7 petitions: Entity Case No. ------ --------Aral Wind Ltd 09-14015Azov Wind Ltd. 09-14016Yucatan Marine Ltd. 09-14017Sibuyan Wind LLC 09-14018Caribbean Wind Ltd. 09-14019Silver Wind LLC 09-14020Tiblisi Property Holdings Ltd. 09-14021Sunriver Investment S.A. 09-14022Georgian Tankers Ltd. 09-14023Yamaska LLC 09-14024Hitorio Shipping S.A. 09-14025Europe Ltd. 09-14026Italian Reefer Ltd. 09-14027Lepton Ltd. 09-14028Yang Ltd. 09-14029Yosemite Marine Ltd. 09-14030Northlake Marine Ltd. 09-14031Adriatic Wind Ltd. 09-14032Quark Ltd. 09-14033Eurus Management LLC 09-14034Amundsen Wind Ltd. 09-14035Asia Ltd. 09-14036Eurus Paris LLC 09-14037Apollo Shipping Properties S.A. 09-14038Arabian Wind Ltd. 09-14039Eurus Oslo LLC 09-14040EW Harting Ltd. 09-14041Arafura Wind Ltd. 09-14042AW Ltd. 09-14043Eurus Stockholm Ltd. 09-14044Calm Shipping Co. S.A. 09-14045EW Jackson LLC 09-14046Eastwind Maritime Inc. 09-14047Kura Shipping Ltd. 09-14048Capewind Corporation 09-14049EW Snowdon LLC 09-14050Eastwind Development S.A. 09-14051Eurus Container Carriers Ltd. 09-14052Eastlake Marine Ltd. 09-14053Eastwind Rubicon Ltd. 09-14054Eastwind Ruhr Ltd. 09-14055Eurus London LLC 09-14056Eastwind Transport Bunkers Ltd. 09-14057Eastwind Rhine Ltd. 09-14058Iberian Ltd. 09-14059Eastwind Transport Ltd. 09-14060Eratira Navigation Company Ltd. 09-14061Indian Reefer Ltd. 09-14062Eurus Lisbon LLC 09-14063Kaon Ltd. 09-14064Eurus Lima LLC 09-14065Northlake Marine (Hong Kong) Limited 09-14066Seram Wind LLC 09-14067Eurus Singapore Ltd. 09-14068Eurus Ottawa LLC 09-14069Ocean Crewing Company Limited 09-14070Type of Business: The Debtors operate a shipping company. See http://www.eastwindgroup.com/Chapter 7 Petition Date: June 24, 2009Court: Southern District of New York (Manhattan)Judge: Allan L. GropperDebtor's Counsel: Richard L. Epling, Esq. [email protected] Robyn J. Schneider, Esq. [email protected] Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 1540 Broadway New York, NY 10036-4039 Tel: (212) 858-1262 Fax: (212) 858-1500Estimated Assets: $500 million to $1 billionEstimated Debts: $500 million to $1 billionThe Debtors did not file a list of 20 largest unsecured creditors.The petition was signed by Donald M. Simmons.EDDIE BAUER: Section 341(a) Meeting Scheduled for July 15---------------------------------------------------------Roberta A. DeAngelis, the United States Trustee for Region 3, willconvene a meeting of creditors of Eddie Bauer Holdings Inc. andits debtor-affiliates on July 15, 2009, J. Caleb Boggs FederalBuilding, 2nd Floor, Room 2112, in Wilmington, Delaware.This is the first meeting of creditors required under Section341(a) of the Bankruptcy Code in all bankruptcy cases.All creditors are invited, but not required, to attend. ThisMeeting of Creditors offers the one opportunity in a bankruptcyproceeding for creditors to question a responsible office of theDebtor under oath about the company's financial affairs andoperations that would be of interest to the general body ofcreditors. About Eddie BauerEstablished in 1920 in Seattle, Washington, Eddie Bauer is aspecialty retailer that sells outerwear, apparel and accessoriesfor the active outdoor lifestyle. The Eddie Bauer brand is anationally recognized brand that stands for high quality,innovation, style and customer service. Eddie Bauer products areavailable at 371 stores throughout the United States and Canada,through catalog sales and online at http://www.eddiebauer.com/Eddie Bauer participates in a joint venture in Japan and haslicensing agreements across a variety of product categories.Eddie Bauer, Inc., was a subsidiary of Spiegel, Inc. Eddie BauerInc. emerged from Spiegel's 2003 chapter 11 case as a separate,reorganized entity under the control and ownership of Eddie BauerHoldings, Inc.Eddie Bauer Holdings, Inc., and eight affiliates filed forbankruptcy on June 17, 2009 (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No.09-12099). Judge Mary F. Walrath presides over the case. DavidS. Heller, Esq., Josef S. Athanas, Esq., and Heather L. Fowler,Esq., at Latham & Watkins LLP, serve as the Debtors' generalcounsel. Kara Hammond Coyle, Esq., and Michael R. Nestor, Esq.,at Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, serve as local counsel.The Debtors' restructuring advisors are Alvarez and Marsal NorthAmerica LLC. Their financial advisors are Peter J. SolomonCompany. Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC acts as claims andnotice agent. As of April 4, 2009, Eddie Bauer had $525,224,000in total assets and $448,907,000 in total liabilities.EDDIE BAUER: Wants to Sell Assets to CCMP Affiliate for $202MM--------------------------------------------------------------New Brunswick Business Journal reports that Eddie Bauer Holdings,Inc., wants to sell its brand and assets to a CCMP CapitalAdvisors, LLC, affiliate for $202 million.According to Business Journal, the deal is subject to an auctionand court approval. Business Journal quoted Eddie Bauerspokesperson Wendi Kopsick as saying, \"If successful in their bidthey intend to retain the majority of employees.\"The Journal of Commerce Online relates that Eddie Bauer owesExpeditors International of Washington $700,000. Court documentssay that Eddie Bauer also listed $2.5 million owed to U.S.Customs, while the Company owes $75 million to Bank of New York.Eddie Bauer, according to The Journal of Commerce, owed $200,000to parcel shipping technology specialist Newgistics. Eddie Bauersaid that it also has a $131,000 outstanding debt to FedEx andowes $100,000 to TranzAct Technologies, The Journal of Commercereports.Established in 1920 in Seattle, Washington, Eddie Bauer is aspecialty retailer that sells outerwear, apparel and accessoriesfor the active outdoor lifestyle. The Eddie Bauer brand is anationally recognized brand that stands for high quality,innovation, style and customer service. Eddie Bauer products areavailable at 371 stores throughout the United States and Canada,through catalog sales and online at http://www.eddiebauer.com/Eddie Bauer participates in a joint venture in Japan and haslicensing agreements across a variety of product categories.Eddie Bauer, Inc., was a subsidiary of Spiegel, Inc. Eddie BauerInc. emerged from Spiegel's 2003 chapter 11 case as a separate,reorganized entity under the control and ownership of Eddie BauerHoldings, Inc.Eddie Bauer Holdings, Inc., and eight affiliates filed forbankruptcy on June 17, 2009 (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No.09-12099). Judge Mary F. Walrath presides over the case. DavidS. Heller, Esq., Josef S. Athanas, Esq., and Heather L. Fowler,Esq., at Latham & Watkins LLP, serve as the Debtors' generalcounsel. Kara Hammond Coyle, Esq., and Michael R. Nestor, Esq.,at Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, serve as local counsel.The Debtors' restructuring advisors are Alvarez and Marsal NorthAmerica LLC. Their financial advisors are Peter J. SolomonCompany. Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC acts as claims andnotice agent. As of April 4, 2009, Eddie Bauer had $525,224,000in total assets and $448,907,000 in total liabilities.Upon filing for bankruptcy, the Company entered into a \"stalkinghorse\" agreement with an affiliate of CCMP Capital Advisors LLC,under which CCMP Capital proposes to buy the Eddie Bauer business,subject to an auction and Bankruptcy Court approval, for$202 million in cash, with working capital and similaradjustments. CCMP Capital is a global private equity firm. CCMPCapital's legal advisor is Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP.ENTERGY GULF: Moody's Upgrades Preferred Stock Rating to 'Ba2'--------------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service upgraded the ratings of Entergy GulfStates Louisiana, L.L.C., including its senior secured debt toBaa2 from Baa3, senior unsecured debt to Baa3 from Ba1, andpreferred stock to Ba2 from Ba3 and maintained a positive outlook.Moody's also assigned a Baa3 Issuer Rating to EGSL with a positiveoutlook.The upgrade follows last year's jurisdictional separation of EGSLfrom Entergy Texas, Inc., effective January 1, 2008, and thesuccess Entergy Texas has had in accessing the debt markets andpaying off part of the EGSL debt it assumed following theseparation. As part of the agreement to divide the former EntergyGulf States into two separate utilities, the newly spun offEntergy Texas assumed and became obligated for a prorated share(originally $1.1 billion or 46%) of Entergy Gulf States' debtsecurities under a debt assumption agreement with EGSL. Since theseparation, Entergy Texas has successfully issued $650 million offirst mortgage bonds on its own, using part of the proceeds to payoff some of this assumed debt, which now stands at $699 million.Entergy Texas has until December 31, 2010 to repay the balance ofthe assumed debt and Moody's expects the company to issueadditional first mortgage bonds over the next 18 months to meetthis deadline.The positive outlook reflects Moody's expectation that EGSL willexhibit a stronger financial profile than both the former EntergyGulf States and the newly spun-off Entergy Texas and considers themore predictable regulatory environment in Louisiana, whichremains fully regulated with an extension of EGSL's formula rateplan currently under discussion with the Louisiana Public ServiceCommission. The positive outlook also considers Moody'sexpectation that Entergy Texas will continue to issue sufficientfirst mortgage bonds over the next 18 months to pay off theremainder of the assumed debt. A further upgrade could beconsidered when all or a significant portion of the $699 millionof assumed debt remaining at EGSL is paid off by Entergy Texas.Ratings upgraded with a positive outlook include: -- EGSL's senior secured debt to Baa2 from Baa3; senior unsecured debt to Baa3 from Ba1; and preferred stock to Ba2 from Ba3.The last rating action on EGSL was on December 14, 2007, when itsrating was affirmed and its rating outlook changed to positivefrom stable.Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C., is a public utilityheadquartered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and Entergy Texas, Inc, isa public utility headquartered in Beaumont, Texas. Both aresubsidiaries of Entergy Corporation, an integrated energy companyheadquartered in New Orleans, Louisiana.EXTENDED STAY: Allowed to Maintain Insurance Programs-----------------------------------------------------Extended Stay Inc. and its debtor-affiliates sought and obtainedinterim approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York to continue to honor their insuranceprograms. The Debtors are authorized to pay claims under theInsurance Programs that become due and payable from June 15, 2009to the date the Court issues its final approval.The Debtors maintain a workers' compensation program, generalliability program and various other insurance policies as part oftheir business operations. The nature of their business requiresthe Debtors to carry insurance policies to maintain theirproperties and ensure the safety of their employees andcustomers. Workers' Compensation ProgramsThe Debtors, together with their managing company, HVM L.L.C.,maintain a Workers' Compensation Program through (i) a fully-insured, third-party insurance program provided by Zurich NorthAmerican Insurance Company, (ii) statutorily required insuranceprograms in Ohio and Washington, and (iii) a federally mandatedprogram in Newfoundland and Ontario, Canada.The insurance program provided by Zurich is maintained by theDebtors and HVM, and covers all of HVM's domestic employees whoare not covered by the Debtors' insurance programs in Ohio andWashington. Under the program, the Debtors pay an annual premiumbut incur no other costs. Zurich is responsible for the paymentof all claims and benefits up to the applicable statutory limitfor all employees covered by the insurance program without therequirement for the Debtors to pay any deductible.Currently, the Zurich Insurance Program covers the period fromOct. 1, 2008 through Oct. 1, 2009. The annual premium of$6,800,158 is due in monthly installments of about $505,000,after an initial down payment was made in October 2008. BecauseHVM and the Debtors share the cost of maintaining the ZurichProgram, the Debtors pay only a portion of the monthlyinstallment. As of the Petition Date, the Debtors are obliged tomake further payments under the Zurich Program.Meanwhile, under their statutorily required insurance programs,the Debtors purchase workers' compensation insurance through amandatory state-sponsored and managed workers' compensationsystem. For the State Programs, HVM pays the full annual premiumin advance. The Debtors have no obligation to pay anydeductibles under the State Programs, and no cap on coverageexists for claims arising in Ohio or Washington.In addition to the State Programs and the Zurich Programs, theDebtors are also required to maintain compensation insurance foremployees working in the Debtors' hotels located in Newfoundlandand Ontario, Canada. All Canadian-based employees are coveredunder the federally mandated programs. Premium and otherpayments with respect to those programs are made by HVM CanadaHotel Management U.L.C., the Debtors' management company fortheir Canadian operations. Other Insurance PoliciesAside from the Workers' Compensation Program, the Debtors alsomaintain various other insurance programs, including generalliability programs, and liability and property insuranceprograms. A. General Liability Program. The Debtors' primary general liability insurance coverage is provided by Zurich and covers the period October 1, 2008 to October 1, 2009. The annual $654,289 premium under the General Liability Program is due to the Debtors' insurance broker, Willis HRH, in equal monthly installments of around $44,000 after an initial down payment was made in October 2008. Because HVM and the Debtors share the cost of maintaining the General Liability Program, the Debtors pay only a portion of the monthly installment. Because not all claims expenses are covered under the General Liability Program and covered expenses are subject to a $250,000 deductible, the Debtors maintain a loss reserve fund in conjunction with the General Liability Program to fund the cost of anticipated future and unpaid expenses related to claims. The Debtors pay directly to Zurich a $3.8 million annual premium from the escrow account to maintain the loss reserve fund. Monthly premium payments equal about $304,000 after an initial down payment was made. In addition, the Debtors are obligated to make payments to Zurich for claims associated with their previous general liability insurance coverage with the company, which expired on October 1, 2007. Although the Debtors are no longer obligated to pay premiums under the expired program, they are required to reimburse Zurich for any related claims and expenses. Zurich bills the Debtors on a monthly basis and those bills typically average $175,000. The Debtors estimate that as of the Petition Date, about $3,600,000 in reimbursement claims related to the prepetition period will remain. B. Liability and Property Insurance Programs. The Debtors maintain various liability and property-related insurance programs, which provide the Debtors with insurance coverage for liabilities relating to, among other things, commercial automotive claims, commercial property damage, flood damage, terrorism, commercial crime, premises pollution, and umbrella and excess liability claims. Continuation of these policies is essential to the ongoing operation of the Debtors' business. The Debtors are required to pay premiums under the Liability and Property Insurance Programs based on fixed rates established by the insurance carrier. In most instances, the Debtors paid the premiums due under the various Liability and Property Insurance Programs in advance to the Insurance Broker. However, premiums under the automobile insurance policy the Debtors maintain with Zurich are due on a monthly installment basis in the amount of approximately $15,0000 after an initial down payment in October 2008. As of their bankruptcy filing, the Debtors are obliged to make further payments under the automobile insurance policy. C. Insurance Programs Maintained by HVM and HVM Canada. HVM maintains, on behalf of the Debtors' U.S. operations, multiple layers of risk protection against director and officers' liability, as well as risk protection against employment practices liability, employed lawyers professional liability, excess executive liability and crime and special circumstances. HVM is responsible for paying all premiums and associated costs with maintaining these policies. Similarly, HVM Canada maintains, on behalf of the Debtors' Canadian operations, general liability and automobile insurance programs. All premiums and costs associated with maintaining these programs are paid by HVM Canada. Thus, the Debtors do not owe any amounts relating to the prepetition period for any of these policies.The hearing to consider final approval of the Debtors' request isscheduled for July 13, 2009. Creditors and other concernedparties have until July 10 to file their objections. About Extended StayExtended Stay is the largest owner and operator of mid-priceextended stay hotels in the United States, holding one of the mostgeographically diverse portfolios in the lodging sector withproperties located across 44 states (including 11 hotels locatedin New York) and two provinces in Canada. As a result ofacquisitions and mergers, Extended Stay's portfolio has expandedto encompass over 680 properties, consisting of hotels directlyowned or leased by Extended Stay or one of its affiliates.Extended Stay currently operates five hotel brands: (i) CrosslandEconomy Studios, (ii) Extended Stay America, (iii) Extended StayDeluxe, (iv) Homestead Studio Suites, and (v) StudioPLUS DeluxeStudios.For the year ending December 31, 2008, Extended Stay's auditedfinancial statements show consolidated assets (including nondebtoraffiliates) totaling approximately $7.1 billion and consolidatedliabilities totaling approximately $7.6 billion. Consolidatedrevenues for the 12 months ending December 31, 2008 wereapproximately $1 billion.Extended Stay Inc. and its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 on June15, 2009 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 09-13764). Judge James M. Peckhandles the case. Marcia L. Goldstein, Esq., at Weil Gotshal &Manges LLP, in New York, represents the Debtors. Lazard Freres &Co. LLC is the Debtors' financial advisors. Kurtzman CarsonConsultants LLC is the claims agent.Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes Extended StayBankruptcy News. The newsletter provides gavel-to-gavel coverageof the Chapter 11 proceedings undertaken by Extended Stay Inc. andits various affiliates. (http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).EXTENDED STAY: Asks Court to Approve Weil Gotshal Engagement------------------------------------------------------------Extended Stay Inc. and its debtor-affiliates seek authority fromthe U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York toemploy Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP as their legal counsel, effectiveJune 15, 2009.The Debtors selected Weil Gotshal because of the firm's expertisein business reorganizations under Chapter 11 of the BankruptcyCode, according to Joseph Teichman, Extended Stay's secretary andgeneral counsel. He says that Weil Gotshal has also representedthe Debtors in their restructuring efforts since last year andthus, has become familiar with the Debtors' businesses, financialaffairs and capital structure.As legal counsel, Weil Gotshal is tasked to: (1) prepare legal papers on behalf of the Debtors in connection with the administration of their estates; (2) take all necessary action to protect and preserve the estates, including the prosecution of actions on the Debtors' behalf, the defense of any actions commenced against the Debtors, the negotiation of disputes in which the Debtors are involved, and the preparation of objections to claims filed against the estates; (3) take all necessary actions in connection with the Debtors' plan or plans of reorganization and related disclosure statement; and (4) perform all other necessary legal services in connection with the prosecution of the Debtors' bankruptcy cases.Weil Gotshal will be paid of its services on an hourly basis andwill be reimbursed of actual and necessary expenses incurred inconnection with its employment. The firm's hourly rates are: Members/Counsel $655 - $950 Associates $355 - $640 Paraprofessionals $155 - $290Jacqueline Marcus, Esq., at Weil Gotshal, assures the Court thather firm does not hold or represent interest adverse to theDebtors' estates. She also maintains that Weil Gotshal is a\"disinterested person\" under section 101(14) of the BankruptcyCode. About Extended StayExtended Stay is the largest owner and operator of mid-priceextended stay hotels in the United States, holding one of the mostgeographically diverse portfolios in the lodging sector withproperties located across 44 states (including 11 hotels locatedin New York) and two provinces in Canada. As a result ofacquisitions and mergers, Extended Stay's portfolio has expandedto encompass over 680 properties, consisting of hotels directlyowned or leased by Extended Stay or one of its affiliates.Extended Stay currently operates five hotel brands: (i) CrosslandEconomy Studios, (ii) Extended Stay America, (iii) Extended StayDeluxe, (iv) Homestead Studio Suites, and (v) StudioPLUS DeluxeStudios.For the year ending December 31, 2008, Extended Stay's auditedfinancial statements show consolidated assets (including nondebtoraffiliates) totaling approximately $7.1 billion and consolidatedliabilities totaling approximately $7.6 billion. Consolidatedrevenues for the 12 months ending December 31, 2008 wereapproximately $1 billion.Extended Stay Inc. and its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 onJune 15, 2009 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 09-13764). Judge James M.Peck handles the case. Marcia L. Goldstein, Esq., at Weil Gotshal& Manges LLP, in New York, represents the Debtors. Lazard Freres& Co. LLC is the Debtors' financial advisors. Kurtzman CarsonConsultants LLC is the claims agent.Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes Extended StayBankruptcy News. The newsletter provides gavel-to-gavel coverageof the Chapter 11 proceedings undertaken by Extended Stay Inc. andits various affiliates. (http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).EXTENDED STAY: Court Extends Schedules Deadline to July 30----------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New Yorkpermits Extended Stay Inc. and its affiliates to file theirschedules of assets and liabilities and statement of financialaffairs until July 30, 2009.Extended Stay is the largest owner and operator of mid-priceextended stay hotels in the United States, holding one of the mostgeographically diverse portfolios in the lodging sector withproperties located across 44 states (including 11 hotels locatedin New York) and two provinces in Canada. As a result ofacquisitions and mergers, Extended Stay's portfolio has expandedto encompass over 680 properties, consisting of hotels directlyowned or leased by Extended Stay or one of its affiliates.Extended Stay currently operates five hotel brands: (i) CrosslandEconomy Studios, (ii) Extended Stay America, (iii) Extended StayDeluxe, (iv) Homestead Studio Suites, and (v) StudioPLUS DeluxeStudios.For the year ending December 31, 2008, Extended Stay's auditedfinancial statements show consolidated assets (including nondebtoraffiliates) totaling approximately $7.1 billion and consolidatedliabilities totaling approximately $7.6 billion. Consolidatedrevenues for the 12 months ending December 31, 2008 wereapproximately $1 billion.Extended Stay Inc. and its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 on June15, 2009 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 09-13764). Judge James M. Peckhandles the case. Marcia L. Goldstein, Esq., at Weil Gotshal &Manges LLP, in New York, represents the Debtors. Lazard Freres &Co. LLC is the Debtors' financial advisors. Kurtzman CarsonConsultants LLC is the claims agent.Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes Extended StayBankruptcy News. The newsletter provides gavel-to-gavel coverageof the Chapter 11 proceedings undertaken by Extended Stay Inc. andits various affiliates. (http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).EXTENDED STAY: Court OKs Payment of Prepetition Sales & Use Taxes-----------------------------------------------------------------Extended Stay Inc. and its debtor-affiliates sought and obtainedinterim authorization from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for theSouthern District of New York to pay their prepetition taxes.The Debtors owe as much as $75,417,000 in pre-bankruptcy taxes,which consist of: Taxes Amount ----------- ----------- Real Property Taxes $63,315,000 Occupancy Taxes 9,200,000 Personal Property Taxes 2,182,000 Franchise Taxes 500,000 Sales Taxes 100,000 Use Taxes 100,000 License & Permit Fees 10,000 Annual Report Fees 10,000Jacqueline Marcus, Esq., at Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, in NewYork, maintains that the Debtors need to pay their taxes to avoiddistraction in the reorganization efforts of their officers anddirectors who might be exposed to criminal liabilities in casethey would not pay their taxes. \"Failure to pay prepetitionproperty taxes may increase the scope of secured and priorityclaims held by the taxing authorities against the Debtors'estates,\" she says.Ms. Marcus adds that the taxes must be remitted to the taxingauthorities since they are not property of the Debtors' estates.The hearing to consider final approval of the Debtors' request isscheduled for July 13, 2009. Creditors and other concernedparties have until July 10 to file their objections. About Extended StayExtended Stay is the largest owner and operator of mid-priceextended stay hotels in the United States, holding one of the mostgeographically diverse portfolios in the lodging sector withproperties located across 44 states (including 11 hotels locatedin New York) and two provinces in Canada. As a result ofacquisitions and mergers, Extended Stay's portfolio has expandedto encompass over 680 properties, consisting of hotels directlyowned or leased by Extended Stay or one of its affiliates.Extended Stay currently operates five hotel brands: (i) CrosslandEconomy Studios, (ii) Extended Stay America, (iii) Extended StayDeluxe, (iv) Homestead Studio Suites, and (v) StudioPLUS DeluxeStudios.For the year ending December 31, 2008, Extended Stay's auditedfinancial statements show consolidated assets (including nondebtoraffiliates) totaling approximately $7.1 billion and consolidatedliabilities totaling approximately $7.6 billion. Consolidatedrevenues for the 12 months ending December 31, 2008 wereapproximately $1 billion.Extended Stay Inc. and its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 on June15, 2009 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 09-13764). Judge James M. Peckhandles the case. Marcia L. Goldstein, Esq., at Weil Gotshal &Manges LLP, in New York, represents the Debtors. Lazard Freres &Co. LLC is the Debtors' financial advisors. Kurtzman CarsonConsultants LLC is the claims agent.Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes Extended StayBankruptcy News. The newsletter provides gavel-to-gavel coverageof the Chapter 11 proceedings undertaken by Extended Stay Inc. andits various affiliates. (http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).EXTENDED STAY: May Employ Kurtzman Carson as Claims Agent---------------------------------------------------------Extended Stay Inc. and its debtor affiliates sought and obtainedthe Court's permission to employ Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC,as their official notice and claims agent effective June 15,2009.Joseph Teichman, Extended Stay's secretary and general counsel,says the employment of Kurtzman is necessary given the complexityof the Debtors' business, and the large number of creditors andparties involved in their bankruptcy cases.\"By appointing [Kurtzman] as claims agent, the distribution ofnotices and the processing of claims will be expedited, and theOffice of the Clerk of the Court will be relieved of theadministrative burden of processing what may be an overwhelmingnumber of claims,\" Mr. Teichman avers.As notice and claims agent to the Debtors, Kurtzman is tasked to: (a) notify all potential creditors of the filing of the Debtors' bankruptcy petitions and of the setting of the first meeting of creditors; (b) prepare and serve required notices in the Debtors' cases, including notice of the filing of the cases and the initial meeting of creditors; notices of objections to claims; notices of any hearings on a disclosure statement and confirmation of a plan or plans of reorganization; and other notices which the Debtors, Clerk of the Court or the Court may deem necessary and appropriate for an orderly administration of the cases; (c) maintain an official copy of the Debtors' schedules, listing the Debtors' known creditors and the amounts owed; (d) provide access to the public for examination of copies of the proofs of claim or interest filed without charge during regular business hours; (e) furnish a notice of the last date and the form for the filing of proofs of claims after Court approval of such notice and form; (f) file with the Clerk of the Court an affidavit or certificate of service for each pleading filed which includes a copy of the notice, a list of persons to whom it was mailed and the date mailed, within 10 days of service; (g) docket all claims received by the Clerk's office, maintain the official claims registers for each Debtor on behalf of the Clerk, and provide the Clerk with certified duplicate, unofficial claims registers on a monthly basis, unless otherwise directed; (h) record all transfers of claims and provide notices of the transfers; (i) specify in the claims register the claim number assigned, the date it receives the claim, the name and address of the claimant and agent who filed the claim, and the classification of the claim, for each claim docketed; and (j) relocate, by messenger, all of the actual proofs of claim filed with the Court to Kurtzman, not less than on a weekly basis; (k) upon completion of the docketing process for all claims received to date by the Clerk's office for each case, turn over to the Clerk copies of the claims register for review; (l) make changes in the claims registers pursuant to court order; (m) maintain the official mailing list for each Debtor of all entities that have filed a proof of claim, which should be available upon request by a party-in-interest or the Clerk; (n) assist in the solicitation and calculation of votes and distribution required in furtherance of confirmation of plans of reorganization; (o) provide other claims processing, noticing, and administrative services upon request by the Debtors; (p) thirty days before the bankruptcy cases are closed, an order dismissing Kurtzman as claims agent should be submitted terminating the services upon completion of its duties and responsibilities and upon the closing of the cases; (q) file in Court the final version of the claims register immediately before the closing of the bankruptcy cases; and (r) at the close of the bankruptcy cases, box and transport all original documents, in proper format, as provided by the Clerk's Office, to the Federal Archives Record Administration, located at Central Plains Region, 200 Space Center Drive, Lee's Summit, in Missouri.Kurtzman will also assist the Debtors in maintaining and updatingthe master mailing lists of creditors, gathering data for thepreparation of the Debtors' schedules, and tracking andadministering claims.The Debtors agree to pay Kurtzman for its services, expensesand supplies at the rates or prices set by the firm. The Debtorsalso agree to indemnify Kurtzman under certain circumstances.Prior to their bankruptcy, the Debtors paid the firm a retainerof $100,000.Michael Frishberg, Vice-President of Corporate RestructuringServices of Kurtzman, assures the Court that his firm does nothold or represent interest adverse to the Debtors' estates andthat his firm is a \"disinterested person\" under section 101(14)of the Bankruptcy Code. About Extended StayExtended Stay is the largest owner and operator of mid-priceextended stay hotels in the United States, holding one of the mostgeographically diverse portfolios in the lodging sector withproperties located across 44 states (including 11 hotels locatedin New York) and two provinces in Canada. As a result ofacquisitions and mergers, Extended Stay's portfolio has expandedto encompass over 680 properties, consisting of hotels directlyowned or leased by Extended Stay or one of its affiliates.Extended Stay currently operates five hotel brands: (i) CrosslandEconomy Studios, (ii) Extended Stay America, (iii) Extended StayDeluxe, (iv) Homestead Studio Suites, and (v) StudioPLUS DeluxeStudios.For the year ending December 31, 2008, Extended Stay's auditedfinancial statements show consolidated assets (including nondebtoraffiliates) totaling approximately $7.1 billion and consolidatedliabilities totaling approximately $7.6 billion. Consolidatedrevenues for the 12 months ending December 31, 2008, wereapproximately $1 billion.Extended Stay Inc. and its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 onJune 15, 2009 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 09-13764). Judge James M.Peck handles the case. Marcia L. Goldstein, Esq., at Weil Gotshal& Manges LLP, in New York, represents the Debtors. Lazard Freres& Co. LLC is the Debtors' financial advisors. Kurtzman CarsonConsultants LLC is the claims agent.Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes Extended StayBankruptcy News. The newsletter provides gavel-to-gavel coverageof the Chapter 11 proceedings undertaken by Extended Stay Inc. andits various affiliates. (http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).EXTENDED STAY: May Maintain Prepetition Customer Programs---------------------------------------------------------Extended Stay Inc. and its debtor-affiliates sought and obtainedinterim authorization from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for theSouthern District of New York to maintain their customerprograms.\"It is essential that the [Debtors] be permitted to honor theircustomer programs in accordance with their prepetition practicesand customers' expectations in order to ensure continuingcustomer loyalty and to maintain the public's confidence in theDebtors' commitment to their customers,\" said Jacqueline Marcus,Esq., at Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, in New York.\"The Debtors' customers have come to expect a certain level ofsatisfaction and service from the Extended Stay servicemark andthe Customer Programs ensure that this reputation can be upheld,\"Ms. Marcus said.The Debtors' customer programs include promotions, barterarrangements, gift certificates and customer deposits. A. Promotion. The Debtors are involved in a number of promotions, including (i) online promotional codes that customers can utilize when booking hotel reservations on the Debtors' Web site; and exclusive promotional codes provided to customers who sign up for the \"Suite Offers\" email program; among others. B. Barter Arrangements. Under the barter arrangements, the Debtors grant the media and marketing institutions a certain dollar amount of credits towards stays in the Debtors' hotels in exchange for advertising. These credits are applicable towards stays in the Debtors' hotels and are valid through June 30, 2011. C. Gift Certificates. The Debtors distribute \"Be Our Guest Gift Certificates\" as promotions to certain individuals and also to address any customer service issues that may have occurred at a hotel during a customer's stay. The gift certificates provide a free night's stay at the Debtors' hotel. D. Customer Deposits. In the ordinary course of business, some of the hotel properties collect a security deposit or an advance deposit to hold a block of rooms for a special event. The deposits are collected when the customer checks into the hotel, or for larger events, prior to check-in, and the customer is refunded the deposit amount at check out, less any outstanding charges or damages to the hotel room. The deposits are considered an integral part of the Debtors' business as well as a staple in the hotel industry.The hearing to consider final approval of the Debtors' request isscheduled for July 13, 2009. Creditors and other concernedparties have until July 10 to file their objections. About Extended StayExtended Stay is the largest owner and operator of mid-priceextended stay hotels in the United States, holding one of the mostgeographically diverse portfolios in the lodging sector withproperties located across 44 states (including 11 hotels locatedin New York) and two provinces in Canada. As a result ofacquisitions and mergers, Extended Stay's portfolio has expandedto encompass over 680 properties, consisting of hotels directlyowned or leased by Extended Stay or one of its affiliates.Extended Stay currently operates five hotel brands: (i) CrosslandEconomy Studios, (ii) Extended Stay America, (iii) Extended StayDeluxe, (iv) Homestead Studio Suites, and (v) StudioPLUS DeluxeStudios.For the year ending December 31, 2008, Extended Stay's auditedfinancial statements show consolidated assets (including nondebtoraffiliates) totaling approximately $7.1 billion and consolidatedliabilities totaling approximately $7.6 billion. Consolidatedrevenues for the 12 months ending December 31, 2008 wereapproximately $1 billion.Extended Stay Inc. and its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 onJune 15, 2009 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 09-13764). Judge James M.Peck handles the case. Marcia L. Goldstein, Esq., at Weil Gotshal& Manges LLP, in New York, represents the Debtors. Lazard Freres& Co. LLC is the Debtors' financial advisors. Kurtzman CarsonConsultants LLC is the claims agent.Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes Extended StayBankruptcy News. The newsletter provides gavel-to-gavel coverageof the Chapter 11 proceedings undertaken by Extended Stay Inc. andits various affiliates. (http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: May Sell Motor Home to AIP for $53,000,000-----------------------------------------------------------------American Industrial Partners Capital Fund IV, L.P. of New York andFleetwood Enterprises, Inc., report that the U.S. Bankruptcy Courthas approved the sale of Fleetwood's motor home assets to AIP for$53 million, subject to pre-closing conditions and post-closingadjustments.Fleetwood did not conduct an auction because no other qualifiedbids were received.The sale includes two motor home manufacturing facilities, twomotor home service facilities, and Fleetwood's Gold Shield supplysubsidiary, all presently located in Decatur, Indiana. It alsoincludes the intellectual property for Fleetwood's existing motorhome brands and certain machinery and equipment in Riverside,California. AIP may operate the Riverside facility for anundetermined period of time going forward. AIP has agreed toassume certain liabilities, including warranty obligations onFleetwood motorized products.The companies expect the deal to close within a matter of weeks.\"Fleetwood's motor home brands are highly respected, and we areconfident that this market will recover with the broader economy,\"said Dino Cusumano, Partner of AIP. \"We look forward tocontinuing to manufacture Fleetwood motor homes. Fleetwood'sdealers and customers should see no change in Fleetwood motorhomes' commitment to high quality industry-leading product. Wegreatly value the relationships that Fleetwood has with itsdealers, customers and suppliers and very much look forward tocontinuing and improving those relationships going forward.\"Elden L. Smith, Fleetwood's president and chief executive officer,stated that management, \"is pleased to see that the Fleetwood namewill be preserved in the RV market place with this sale to AIP.The Fleetwood motor home group will benefit greatly from havingownership that is well capitalized, experienced, and committed togrowth in the RV industry. We are now focused on making this asmooth transition for our dealers, Fleetwood motor home owners,and associates.\" About American Industrial PartnersFounded in 1989, American Industrial Partners --http://www.aipartners.com/-- is a U.S.-based private equity firm that makes control equity investments, in partnership withmanagement, in U.S. headquartered industrial companies withleading market shares that can benefit from the firm's systematicapproach to implementing strategic and operational improvements.It is investing its fourth fund which recently closed with$405.5 million of committed capital. AIP can be reached at212-627-2360. About Fleetwood EnterprisesFounded in 1950, Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. and its varioussubsidiaries produce, distribute, and service recreationalvehicles and manufactured housing. Fleetwood continues to employapproximately 2,100 people in 14 plants located in 10 states.Fleetwood's products are primarily marketed through extensivedealer networks throughout the United States and Canada. Thecompany is headquartered in Riverside, Calif.The Company and 19 of its affiliates filed for Chapter 11protection on March 10, 2009 (Bankr. C.D. Calif. Lead Case No. 09-14254). Craig Millet, Esq., at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP,represents the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. TheDebtors proposed Ernst & Young LLP as auditor, FTI Consulting Inc.as consultant, and Greenhill & Co. LLC as financial advisor.G & S METAL: Case Summary & 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors----------------------------------------------------------Debtor: G & S Metal Consultants, Inc. 50 Dimension Avenue Wabash, IN 46992-4127Bankruptcy Case No.: 09-32979Debtor-affiliate filing separate Chapter 11 petition: Entity Case No. ------ --------G & S Transport, Inc. 09-32980Type of Business: The Debtors buy, process, convert and sell aluminum. See http://www.gsmetalinc.com/Chapter 11 Petition Date: June 24, 2009Court: Northern District of Indiana (South Bend Division)Judge: Harry C. Dees, Jr.Debtors' Counsel: Jay Jaffe, Esq. [email protected] Baker & Daniels LLP 600 E. 96th Street Suite 600 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Tel: (317) 569-9600 Fax: (317) 569-4800Estimated Assets: $10 million to $50 millionEstimated Debts: $10 million to $50 millionThe Debtor's Largest Unsecured Creditors: Entity Nature of Claim Claim Amount ------ --------------- ------------Star Leasing Company $550,0004080 Business Park DriveColumbus, OH 43204Intrametco $425,482PO Box 663862Indianapolis, IN 46266Mcnichols Scrap Iron & Metal $386,655PO Box 09387Detroit, MI 48209Kelsey-Hayes/Fowlerville $368,869Metaldyne/Edon $309,302Kelsey-Hayes/Fenton $235,097Cmc Recycling $232,425Schupan & Sons, Inc. $230,235Indiana Refractories, Inc. $208,887Alcoa Wheel Products $186,907Duffy Electric & Automation $160,564Kormet Enterprises, Inc. $152,617Louis Padnos Iron & Metal Co $151,585Wimco metals, inc. $150,544David J. Joseph company $148,260Lorbec Metals $123,261Omnisource $120,551Trw Canada Ltd $117,715Duke Energy $114,445Mintz Scrap & Metal Co. Inc. $89,456The petition was signed by R. Scott Galley II, president.GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL: CVC Discloses 48% Equity Stake-----------------------------------------------------The ComVest Group (CVC California, LLC) disclosed in a regulatoryfiling with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it owns11,786,111 shares, or 48.2%, of the outstanding common stock ofGeneral Environmental Management, Inc.CVC directly beneficially owns the securities in the form ofdirect ownership of 600,000 shares of Common Stock, a ConvertibleTerm Note exercisable into 8,486,111 shares of Common Stock, andwarrants to purchase 1,350,000 shares of Common Stock at $0.60 pershare and 1,350,000 shares of Common Stock at $0.70 per share.ComVest Capital LLC indirectly beneficially owns the securities byvirtue of the fact that Capital is the sole member and themanaging member of CVC. ComVest Capital Management LLC indirectlybeneficially owns the securities by virtue of the fact thatManagement is the managing member of Capital. In their capacityas Managing Members of Management, Michael Falk and Robert Priddyshare indirect voting and dispositive power with respect to thesecurities indirectly beneficially owned by Management and may bedeemed to be the beneficial owner of such securities, althoughMessrs. Falk and Priddy disclaim beneficial interest in suchsecurities other than that portion which corresponds with theirmembership interest in Management.On June 1, General Environmental Management entered into anagreement with its CVC, its senior lender, to amend the parties'loan agreements. Pursuant to the Amendment, CVC waived allprevious Events of Default, revised terms of certain Covenants ofthe Revolving Credit and Term Loan Agreement and cancelled certainwarrants.Among other things, the original loan agreement requires thatEBITDA of the Company not be less than (a) $1,000,000 for thefiscal quarter ending September 30, 2008, (b) $2,000,000 for thetwo consecutive fiscal quarters ending December 31, 2008, (c)$3,000,000 for the three (3) consecutive fiscal quarters endingMarch 31, 2009, or (d) $4,000,000 in any four consecutive fiscalquarters ending on or after June 30, 2009; provided, however, thatit shall not be an Event of Default if actual EBITDA in anymeasuring period is within 10% of the required minimum EBITDA forsuch measuring period, so long as actual EBITDA for the nextsucceeding measuring period hereunder is equal to or greater thanthe required EBITDA for such.For the fiscal quarter ending September 30, 2008, the Company hadEBITDA that was within 10% of the required minimum EBITDA for suchmeasuring period but was not able to achieve the EBITDA requiredin the next succeeding measuring period.In consideration GEM paid fees consisting of common stock and apromissory note and agreed to amend the Convertible Term Note andthe terms of certain warrants to purchase shares of the Company'scommon stock. The Company issued 600,000 shares of its commonstock having an agreed value of $0.74 per share.A full-text copy of the Amendment to Revolving Credit and TermLoan Agreement dated as at June 1, 2009 between GeneralEnvironmental Management, Inc. and CVC California LLC, isavailable at no charge at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3e21 About General Environmental ManagementGeneral Environmental Management, Inc. -- http://www.go-gem.com/-- is a full-service hazardous waste management and environmentalservices firm providing integrated environmental solutions managedthrough its proprietary web-based enterprise software, GEMWare,including the following service offering: management andtransportation of waste; design and management of on-site wastetreatment systems; management of large remediation projects;response to environmental incidents and spills; and environmental,health and safety compliance. Headquartered in Pomona,California, GEM operates eight field service locations and oneTreatment, Storage, Disposal facility, servicing all markets inthe Western U.S.GENERAL MARITIME: S&P Assigns 'B' Senior Unsecured Debt Rating--------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services said that it assigned itspreliminary 'B' senior unsecured debt and preliminary 'B'subordinated debt ratings under General Maritime Corp.'s Rule 415universal shelf registration for debt securities filed on Feb. 10,2009. The 'B' preliminary rating on the senior unsecured debt istwo notches below the 'BB-' corporate credit rating, the same asthe subordinated debt rating, because of the substantial portionof secured debt relative to the company's assets. As of March 31,2009, secured debt was about 60% of the company's total assets ona lease-adjusted basis.Standard & Poor's 'BB-' long-term corporate credit rating on NewYork, New York-based General Maritime reflects the company'saggressively leveraged financial profile, reduced financialflexibility, shareholder-friendly policies, and participation inthe capital-intensive, highly fragmented, volatile, andcompetitive shipping industry. Positive credit factors includethe company's established market position in the oceantransportation of crude oil and its strong customer base withlong-standing relationships with oil majors.The negative outlook reflects S&P's view that there could be amore meaningful deterioration in the company's cash generation andfinancial risk profile if tanker rates continue to decline overthe next year. The negative outlook also reflects S&P's concernsregarding the limited cushion under the company's financialcovenant requirements.General Maritime provides international shipping of crude oil. Ratings List General Maritime Corp. Corp. credit rating BB-/Negative/-- Ratings AssignedRule 415 universal shelf registration Senior unsecured debt B (prelim) Subordinated debt B (prelim)GENERAL MOTORS: Retirees Turn to Congress to Protect Benefits-------------------------------------------------------------Following denial by the federal bankruptcy court of the GeneralMotors Retirees Association's application for a benefits committeeto protect GM salaried retirees, GMRA is now asking the U.S.Congress to act immediately in defense of the benefits these GMretirees earned through decades of labor and loyalty to GM.\"We at GMRA are deeply disappointed by the failure of thebankruptcy court to allow us to take reasonable steps underSection 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code to protect the health andsecurity of all GM retirees,\" said John Christie, GMRA President.\"The court, in our opinion, did not do what was necessary topermit all parties to be treated fairly.\"\"While the GMRA leadership will consider all the legal optionsavailable to us, we now look squarely to the Obama administrationand to the U.S. Congress to make certain there is a fair processand outcome for all GM retirees,\" said Mr. Christie. \"GM retireesalways expected to sacrifice as part of GM's restructuring, butone group of retirees shouldn't bear the bulk of that burden.Surely our elected officials can intervene to protect the sick andelderly from poverty when these people worked hard and played bythe rules.\"The majority of all General Motors retirees have been representedby the United Auto Workers in negotiations with the GM leadershipand bondholders on pension, healthcare, and other benefits.However, over 122,000 salaried retirees and their survivingspouses were not part of the UAW agreement and have had norepresentation in discussions about the new GM. The non-union,salaried retirees were engineers, project managers, clerks, andother employees. Many earned annual salaries equal to or less thanthe wages earned by union employees.For the non-UAW retirees, who live throughout the United States,the current GM proposal would reduce certain benefits by two-thirds, including the outright elimination of dental, vision, andlong-term disability coverage. The retirees would see significantincreases in premiums, co-payments and deductibles for healthcare.The non-UAW retirees also would face an immediate reduction oflife insurance benefits following the emergence of the new GM frombankruptcy. In some cases retirees would lose $70,000 or more inlife insurance benefits.\"For people living on a fixed income, the benefit losses proposedby GM are breathtaking,\" said Karen DeOrnellas, Director ofCommunications for GMRA. \"These retirees are old. Many are sick ordisabled. In almost all cases they cannot make this money back orreturn to work.\"GM retirees have written GMRA to say the latest proposals forbenefit losses will make them choose between paying forprescription drugs and paying for food, electricity, and housing.Many will be unable to replace lost life insurance, jeopardizingthe ability of their spouses to remain in their homes.\"We want a reorganized GM to succeed, but bankruptcy shouldn'tpush tens of thousands of retirees and their families into povertyor endanger their health when those people did nothing wrong,\"said Ms. DeOrnellas.GMRA is represented before the federal bankruptcy court by FarellaBraun & Martel LLP.The General Motors Retirees Association -- http://www.gmret.org/-- is a national advocacy organization devoted to the preservationof pension, health care, and other benefits earned by GM retireesthrough their years of labor and loyalty to GM. GMRA stands forthe fair treatment of all GM retirees, including the salariedretirees not already represented by the United Auto Workers. GMRAcollaborates with the National Retirees Legislative Network. About General MotorsHeadquartered in Detroit, Michigan, General Motors Corp. (NYSE:GM) -- http://www.gm.com/-- was founded in 1908. GM employs about 266,000 people around the world and manufactures cars andtrucks in 35 countries. In 2007, nearly 9.37 million GM cars andtrucks were sold globally under the following brands: Buick,Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, GM Daewoo, Holden, HUMMER, Opel,Pontiac, Saab, Saturn, Vauxhall and Wuling. GM's OnStarsubsidiary is the industry leader in vehicle safety, security andinformation services.GM Europe is based in Zurich, Switzerland, while General MotorsLatin America, Africa and Middle East is headquartered in Miramar,Florida.As reported by the Troubled Company Reporter, GM reported net lossof US$6.0 billion, including special items, in the first quarterof 2009. This compares with a reported net loss of US$3.3 billionin the year-ago quarter. As of March 31, 2009, GM hadUS$82.2 billion in total assets and US$US$172.8 billion in totalliabilities, resulting in US$90.5 billion in stockholders'deficit.On April 27, General Motors presented the U.S. Department ofTreasury with an updated plan as required by the loan agreementsigned by GM and the U.S. Treasury on December 31, 2008. The planaddresses the key restructuring targets required by the loanagreement, including a number of the critical elements of the planthat was submitted to the U.S. government on December 2, 2008.Among these are: U.S. market competitiveness; fuel economy andemissions; competitive labor cost; and restructuring of thecompany's unsecured debt. It also includes a timeline forrepayment of the Federal loans, and an analysis of the Company'spositive net present value. The plan details the future reductionof GM's vehicle brands and nameplates in the U.S., furtherconsolidation in its workforce and dealer network, acceleratedcapacity actions and enhanced manufacturing competitiveness, whilemaintaining GM's strong commitment to high-quality, fuel-efficientvehicles and advanced propulsion technologies. A full-text copyof GM's viability plan presented in February 2009 is available athttp://researcharchives.com/t/s?39a4General Motors Corporation and three of its affiliates filed forChapter 11 protection on June 1, 2009 (Bankr. S.D. N.Y. Lead CaseNo. 09-50026). The Honorable Robert E. Gerber presides over theChapter 11 cases. Harvey R. Miller, Esq., Stephen Karotkin, Esq.,and Joseph H. Smolinsky, Esq., at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP,assist the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. Al Koch at APServices, LLC, an affiliate of AlixPartners, LLP, is the Debtors'restructuring officer. GM is also represented by Jenner & BlockLLP and Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP as counsels.Cravath, Swaine, & Moore LLP is providing legal advice to the GMBoard of Directors. GM's financial advisors are Morgan Stanley,Evercore Partners and the Blackstone Group LLP.GHOST TOWN: Wants to Borrow $250,000 from Alaska Pressley---------------------------------------------------------Ghowst Town Partners, LLC, asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for theWestern District of North Carolina for authority to borrow up to$250,000 from an individual, Alaska Pressley, to finish theuplifting of the mechanical mechanisms in the Park and, moreparticularly, the funicular incline railway and chair lift.The Debtor says it has obtained other credit but not for thoseitems. The Debtor has agreed, as part of the consideration forthe credit line, that the funicular incline railway be named TheAlaska Pressley Railway.The loan will be repaid over a 5 year period by payment of$1 per customer for 2009 and $2 per customer for the next 4 yearsas part of the use of the incline railway. Interest will accrueat 4.25%.Based in Waynesville, North Carolina, Ghost Town Partners, LLC,operates an amusement park. The Debtor filed for Chapter 11protection on March 11, 2009 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Case No. 09-10271).David G. Gray, Esq., at Westall, Gray, Connolly & Davis,P.A., and William E. Cannon, Jr., at Brown, Ward & Haynes P.A.,represent the Debtor in its restructuring efforts. In itsbankruptcy petition, the Debtor listed total assets of $13,035,300and total debts of $12,305,672.GOODY'S LLC: Landlords Wants Federal Court to Determine Stub Rent-----------------------------------------------------------------Law360 reports that a group of landlords -- including DiversifiedRealty Corp., PICOA Inc. and E&A Acquisition Two LP -- holdingleases on Goody's LLC outlets wants a federal appeals court todetermine whether their claims for stub rent should be dealt withas administrative or unsecured claims by the bankruptcy courtoverseeing the liquidation.Headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware, Goody's LLC, successor toGoody's Family Clothing Inc., operates a chain of clothing stores.Goody's Family Clothing Inc., and 19 of its affiliates filed forChapter 11 protection on June 9, 2008 (Bankr. D. Del. Lead CaseNo. 08-11133). Gregg M. Galardi, Esq., and Marion M. Quirk, Esq.,at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, and Paul G. Jennings,Esq., at Bass, Berry & Sims PLC, represented the Debtors. TheCompany emerged from bankruptcy on October 20, 2008, after closingmore than 70 stores. The reorganized entity was named Goody'sLLC.Goody's subsequently announced plans to liquidate in January2009 when it was unable to restructure terms with creditors.Goody's LLC and 13 of its affiliates filed for Chapter 11protection on January 13, 2009 (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No.09-10124). M. Blake Cleary, Esq., at Young, Conaway, Stargatt &Taylor, LLP; Paul G. Jennings, Esq., Gene L. Humphreys, Esq.,Edward C. Meade, Esq., and Kristen C. Wright, Esq., at Bass Berry& Sims PLC represent the Debtors as counsel. Skadden, Arps, SlateMeagher & Flom, LLP, is the Debtors' special counsel; FTIConsulting Inc. is the Debtors' financial advisor. Goody's hasclosed its 282 stores and liquidated its inventory and otherassets. In its schedules, Goody's LLC listed assets of$542,231,601 and liabilities of $510,471,005. * * *Troubled Company Reporter said on June 19, 2009, that the Courtextended the Debtors' exclusive period to file a plan untilAugust 11, 2009, and their exclusive period to solicit acceptancesthereof until October 12. This is the first extension of theDebtors' exclusive periods.GOTTSCHALKS INC: Court Establishes August 24 General Bar Date-------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has setAugust 24, 2009, at 5:00 p.m. (Pacific Daylight Time), as thegeneral bar date for the filing of proofs of claim in GottschalksInc.'s bankruptcy case.In the event the Debtor amends its schedules of assets andliabilities, the Court fixes the later of: (i) the general bardate, and (ii) 30 days after the date that notice of theapplicable amendment to the schedules is served on the claimant asthe amended schedules bar date in this case. The bar date orderrequires all entities who disagree with an amendment to theschedules to file a proof of claim on or before the Schedules BarDate.Proofs of claim must be filed so as to be actually received on orbefore the general bar date to: Gottschaks Claims Processing Center c/o Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC 2335 Alaska Avenue El Segundo, CA 90245Headquartered in Fresno, California, Gottschalks Inc. (PinkSheets: GOTTQ.PK) -- http://www.gottschalks.com/-- is a regional department store chain, operating 58 department stores and threespecialty apparel stores in six western states. Gottschalksoffers better to moderate brand-name fashion apparel, cosmetics,shoes, accessories and home merchandise.The Company filed for Chapter 11 protection on January 14, 2009(Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 09-10157). O'Melveny & Myers LLPrepresents the Debtor in its Chapter 11 case. Lee E. Kaufman,Esq., and Mark D. Collins, Esq., at Richards, Layton & Finger,P.A., serves as the Debtors' co-counsel. The Debtor selectedKurtzman Carson Consultants LLC as its claims agent. The U.S.Trustee for Region 3 appointed seven creditors to serve on anofficial committee of unsecured creditors. When the Debtor filedfor protection from its creditors, it listed $288,438,000 intotal assets and $197,072,000 in total debts.GRANT FOREST: S&P Withdraws 'CCC+' Corporate Credit Rating----------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services withdrew its 'CCC+' long-termcorporate credit rating on Toronto-based oriented strandboardmanufacturer Grant Forest Products Inc. due to a lack of financialinformation.The Company has no rated debt.GRANT FOREST: Seeks Bankruptcy Protection in Ontario----------------------------------------------------Grant Forest Products Inc. and three affiliates have soughtprotection from creditors in Ontario, Canada, after a GeneralElectric Co. unit tried to force the company into bankruptcy.According to Joe Schneider at Bloomberg News, Judge Frank Newbouldof the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted Grant's requestfor bankruptcy protection pursuant to the Companies' CreditorsArrangement Act in Canada following a closed-door hearing inToronto.Grant's filing was precipitated by the collapse in the U.S.housing markets, which hurt sales.The Company has about C$600 million in secured debt.Ernst & Young Inc. is the court-appointed monitor.Grant Forest Products Inc. is a closely held Canadian maker oforiented strand board used in residential construction.HAIGHTS CROSS: Inks Pact With Lenders on Debt Restructuring-----------------------------------------------------------Haights Cross Communications Inc. and its subsidiary Haights CrossOperating Company executed a commitment letter with theadministrative agent and the lenders under the parties' seniorsecured term loan on June 17, 2009. Pursuant to the CommitmentLetter, certain of the Lenders have made commitments to effectuatea Credit Agreement restructuring.The Company, however, warned it would explore all otherrestructuring alternatives in the event it is unsuccessful incompleting a restructuring. Options include an out-of-courtrestructuring or the commencement of a Chapter 11 plan ofreorganization under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, with or without apre-arranged plan of reorganization. The Company cannot assurethat any alternative restructuring arrangement or plan could beaccomplished.Haights Cross has been in default under the Indentures for itsSenior Notes and Senior Discount Notes and under the CreditAgreement after it failed to file audited financial statements ontime. Ernst & Young LLP in New York City, its independentregistered public accounting firm also has raised substantialdoubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. Theadverse opinion caused the Company to violate a separate covenantof the Credit Agreement.Last week, Haights Cross filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three monthsended March 31, 2009. The Company said net losses for the three-month period ended March 31, 2009, was $7.3 million and$9.9 million for the three month period ended March 31, 2008. AtMarch 31, 2009, the Company had $228,965,000 in total assets;$408,679,000 in total current liabilities and $14,238,000 in totallong-term liabilities, resulting in $193,952,000 in stockholders'deficit. As of March 31, 2009, the Company had an available cashbalance of $34.5 million.Haights Cross does not expect that its cash on hand and cashgenerated from operations will be sufficient to fund the repaymentof its senior secured term loan under the Credit Agreement shouldit be declared due. In addition, an acceleration of the seniorsecured term loan would cause defaults under the Senior Notes andSenior Discount Notes. As of May 31, 2009, the outstandingprincipal balances excluding any premiums or discounts under theCredit Agreement, the Senior Notes and Senior Discount Notes (atmaturity) were $108.3 million, $138.8 million and $135.0 million,respectively.On April 15, 2009, Haights Cross entered into a short-termforbearance agreement with the Lenders under the Credit Agreementrelating to the financial reporting defaults, and since that timehave entered into further forbearance agreements to extend theapplicable forbearance period, including a Fourth ForbearanceAgreement and Amendment No. 1 to Credit Agreement on May 7, 2009,as extended on June 12, 2009. The Forbearance Agreement andAmendment also provides for a forbearance relating to defaults, ifany, resulting from its failure to satisfy the financial covenantsunder its Credit Agreement for the periods ended December 31, 2008and March 31, 2009.Pursuant to the Forbearance Agreement and Amendment, the Lendershave agreed to forbear exercising any rights and remedies underthe Credit Agreement until the earliest of (i) July 16, 2009; (ii)June 17, 2009, unless the Company enters into a binding commitmentletter on substantially the terms of the proposed amendment to theCredit Agreement; (iii) its failure to pay a commitment fee to theLenders when due; (iv) the occurrence of an event of default underthe Credit Agreement other than those events covered by theForbearance Agreement and Amendment; or (v) the occurrence orexistence of any event of default under either of the Indenturesfor the Senior Notes or the Senior Discount Notes.Upon expiration of the forbearance period, the forbearance will beimmediately and automatically terminated and be of no furtherforce or effect, which would permit the Lenders to exercise theirrights and remedies under the Credit Agreement and relatedsecurity documents.Under the forbearance arrangements, commencing April 15, 2009,Haights Cross agreed to pay the Lenders the default rate ofinterest under the Credit Agreement, an increase of 2% over thestated variable rate. Effective, May 7, 2009, the CreditAgreement was amended to increase the base interest rate by 4%over the stated variable rate (an increase of 2% over the previousdefault rate), such that the applicable interest rate under theCredit Agreement is now, at Haights Cross' election, either: -- the three month LIBOR rate (with a floor of 3.00%) plus 12.25% per annum, payable monthly (LIBOR rate loans had previously been payable quarterly); or -- the prime rate (with a floor of 5.25%) plus 11.0% per annum, payable monthly.In consideration of this increase and a forbearance fee of$541,000, the Lenders have agreed to waive any default interestduring the current forbearance period. As of May 31, 2009,Haights Cross' base rate of interest under the Credit Agreementwas 15.25%. Under certain circumstances, Haights Cross is allowedto make an election to have a portion of the interest, not toexceed 2% per annum, paid-in-kind through an increase in theoutstanding principal amount of the term loans.On June 8, 2009, the Company announced a plan to restructure itsindebtedness, including a voluntary exchange of the Company'sSenior Discount Notes that are held by Eligible Holders for sharesof Common Stock of the Company, subject to the terms andconditions of an exchange offer to be presented to such EligibleHolders. Under the restructuring, the Company offers to issue120.21 shares of its Common Stock for each $1,000 in principalamount at maturity of Senior Discount Notes exchanged, or anaggregate of 16,228,350 shares of Common Stock (subject toadjustment to eliminate fractional shares) if all $135 millionaggregate principal amount at maturity of Senior Discount Notesare exchanged. These shares would represent at least 89% (subjectto adjustment for rounding of fractional shares) of theoutstanding shares of Common Stock of the Company immediatelyafter the closing of the Exchange Offer.Immediately prior to the closing of the Exchange Offer, theCompany would effect a one-for-five reverse stock split that wouldconvert holdings of currently outstanding shares, and warrants topurchase shares, of Common Stock into approximately 2,005,682shares (including warrant rights thereto), or 11% of theoutstanding shares immediately after the closing of the ExchangeOffer (assuming 100% of Senior Discount Notes are exchanged).Affiliates of Monarch Alternative Capital, LP, which arestockholders of the Company and holders of approximately 33% ofthe aggregate principal amount at maturity of the outstandingSenior Discount Notes, have agreed to support this restructuring.Concurrently with the Exchange Offer, the Company also issoliciting consents from the Eligible Holders for certainamendments to the Indenture pursuant to which the Senior DiscountNotes were issued, to eliminate or substantially amend all of therestrictive covenants and modify certain of the events of defaultand various other provisions contained in such Indenture.Eligible Holders that tender Senior Discount Notes pursuant to theExchange Offer must also consent to the Proposed Amendment inrespect of such tendered Senior Discount Notes. The ProposedAmendment will not become operative unless and until the ExchangeOffer is consummated.The Exchange Offer and Consent Solicitation will expire at 11:59p.m., New York City time, on July 6, 2009, unless extended orearlier terminated.The Company also proposes to issue to its existing stockholders,as part of the overall restructuring, warrants with a five yearterm to purchase up to an aggregate of approximately 1,478,390shares of its Common Stock (assuming all Senior Discount Notes areexchanged) at an exercise price of approximately $7.40 per share(assuming all Senior Discount Notes are exchanged). The sharesreserved for issuance upon the exercise of the New Warrants wouldrepresent approximately 7.5% of HCC's outstanding shares andwarrants (calculated on a fully diluted basis after giving effectto the issuance of the shares represented by the New Warrants) ifall the Senior Discount Notes are exchanged. The number of sharesto be covered by the New Warrants and the exercise price of theNew Warrants will be subject to proportionate adjustment if allSenior Discount Notes are not exchanged in the Exchange Offer.The consummation of the Exchange Offer will be conditioned uponthe satisfaction or waiver of a number of conditions including,among others: (i) at least 95% of the aggregate principal amountof the Senior Discount Notes being validly tendered for exchangeand not revoked, and Eligible Holders representing such SeniorDiscount Notes delivering their consents to the ProposedAmendments; (ii) the execution of a satisfactory amendment to theCredit Agreement; and (iii) holders of a majority of theoutstanding shares of Common Stock consenting to an amendment tothe Company's Certificate of Incorporation to effect, among otherthings, the adoption of a one-for-five reverse stock split, anincrease in the Company's authorized shares of Common Stock, theadoption of cumulative voting for the election of directors, andcertain other amendments to the Company's Certificate ofIncorporation. Beneficial holders of a majority of the Company'soutstanding Common Stock have agreed to effect the amendment toits Certificate of Incorporation and have also agreed to terminatethe operative provisions of the existing stockholders agreement,such that there will be no further agreements regarding theelection of the Company's directors or participation in futureofferings following the closing of the Exchange Offer.The terms of the proposed Credit Agreement Restructuring: (i) The Company will make a $17,500,000 cash principal payment in respect of the existing secured term loan facility; thereby reducing the aggregate principal balance of the existing term loans from $108,200,000 to $90,700,000. The Term Loan Paydown shall be allocated among certain of the existing Lenders. (ii) The Company shall repurchase 100% of the $27,475,000 principal amount of the Company's Senior Notes held by certain of the existing Lenders constituting funds or accounts managed and/or advised by DDJ Capital Management, LLC, at a 20% discount, for aggregate consideration consisting of interests in $21,980,000 principal amount of the new Term B Loans. (iii) After giving effect to the Term Loan Paydown, (x) the $55,862,000 of aggregate principal amount of existing term loans that are held by certain Lenders (including certain of the existing term-loans held by the DDJ Noteholder Lenders) shall be converted into new first-out term A loans in the aggregate principal amount of $55,862,000, and (y) the $34,838,000 aggregate principal amount of existing term loans that are held by the DDJ Noteholder Lenders, together with the $21,980,000 of Repurchase Consideration owed to the DDJ Noteholder Lenders, shall be converted into new last-out term B loans in the aggregate principal amount of $56,818,000, on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Lenders (including without limitation with respect to voting rights, payments and prepayments, application of proceeds, purchase options and bankruptcy rights). (iv) The aggregate principal amount of Restructured Term Loans outstanding after giving effect to the transactions described in clauses (i)-(iii) shall equal $112,680,000. Such amount does not include the aggregate amount of payment in kind interest, if any, added to the principal amount of the secured term loan facility under the Credit Agreement during the period commencing on the First Amendment Effective Date (i.e., May 7, 2009) and ending on the effective date of the closing of the transactions contemplated by the proposed debt restructuring. (v) It is currently anticipated that the Applicable Margin on the Term A Loans shall be equal to (a) 10.75% per annum with respect to LIBOR Loans (8.75% per annum cash pay and 2.00% per annum payment in kind) and (b) 9.50% per annum with respect to Base Rate Loans (7.50% per annum cash pay and 2.00% per annum payment in kind). It is also currently anticipate that the Applicable Margin on the Term B Loans shall be equal to (a) 15.75% per annum with respect to LIBOR Loans (13.75% per annum cash pay and 2.00% per annum payment in kind) and (b) 14.50% per annum with respect to Base Rate Loans (12.50% per annum cash pay and 2.00% per annum payment in kind). It is currently anticipated that the LIBOR rate on all Restructured Term Loans shall have a 3.00% floor and the Base Rate on all Restructured Term Loans shall have a 5.25% floor, consistent with the existing Credit Agreement. (vi) The Company will pay a commitment fee to the Lenders, which commitment fee shall be earned upon the execution of a binding commitment letter with respect to the Credit Agreement Restructuring and shall be due and payable on the earliest to occur of (a) the date on which at least 90% of the Senior Discount Notes have been tendered for exchange pursuant to the Exchange Offer, (b) the date on which the Company, the Agent and the Lenders have reached substantial agreement on the documentation for the Credit Agreement Restructuring or (c) the date on which (1) at least 60% of the Senior Discount Notes have been tendered for exchange pursuant to the Exchange Offer, and (2) the Company has consummated the Exchange Offer and effected the Credit Agreement Restructuring either (i) with the consent of the Agent and the Lenders in their discretion or (ii) with alternative financing. With limited exceptions, once paid no part of the Commitment Fee shall be refundable for any reason. (vii) A default under the Restructured Term Loans will trigger an additional 2.00% of interest above the stated rates.After giving effect to the Credit Agreement Restructuring, theCredit Agreement (i) will require the Company to pay customaryfees to Agent and Lenders, including, without limitation, thecommitment fee and a closing fee and (ii) will furnish Agent andLenders with rights and remedies that are typical for atransaction of this kind. Among other remedies, upon theoccurrence of an event of default, the Agent and Lenders shall beentitled to charge a default interest rate and to declare theRestructured Term Loans outstanding to be due and payable, eitherin whole or in part, immediately.The Lenders' commitment is subject to the satisfaction or waiverof certain conditions, including the negotiation, execution anddelivery of definitive documents. Subject to the satisfaction ofthe conditions precedent set forth in the Commitment Letter, thefunding of the Facility will occur on a date on or before July 16,2009. Pursuant to the Commitment Letter, the Company agreed to(i) pay or reimburse the Lenders and the Agent for certainreasonable and documented out-of-pocket costs and expenses and(ii) the Lenders earned a commitment fee. About Haights Cross CommunicationsFounded in 1997 and based in White Plains, New York, Haights CrossCommunications -- http://www.haightscross.com/-- is an educational and library publisher of books, audio products,software and online services, serving these markets: K-12supplemental education, public library and school publishing andaudio books. Haights Cross companies include: Triumph Learning(New York, NY), Buckle Down Publishing (Iowa City, IA), OptionsPublishing (Iowa City, IA), and Recorded Books (Prince Frederick,MD).HARTMARX CORP: Sale to Emerisque Okayed Amid Committee Objections-----------------------------------------------------------------Erik Larson at Bloomberg News, citing U.S. Representative PhilHare, reports that the sale of Hartmarx Corp. to Emerisque BrandsU.K. has been approved by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of theNorthern District of Illinois.According to Bill Rochelle at Bloomberg, Hartmarx faced oppositionfrom the official committee of unsecured creditors appointed inits Chapter 11 case in connection with the sale of its assets toEmerisque Brands U.K. Ltd. and SKNL North America Ltd. TheCreditors Committee objects to how the contract and a relatedagreement were modified to provide that all of the $80 million insale proceeds will be turned over to the bank lenders when thesale is completed. The Committee asserts that the sale will onlybenefit the lenders and will leave the estates \"administrativelyinsolvent\".As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on June 4, 2009, theBankruptcy Court approved Hartmarx's proposal to name EmerisqueBrands U.K. Limited and its partner SKNL North America, B.V. asstalking horse bidder. As a result of last minute negotiations,Emerisque/SKNL and the Company, supported by its lenders, agreedto a total transaction value of $128.4 million for the acquisitionof substantially all of the assets of Hartmarx Corporation and theassumption of certain liabilities. A copy of the amended andrestated asset purchase agreement between Hartmarx Corp. andEmerisque and SKNL, dated as of June 1, 2009, is available at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/Hartmarx.AmendedAPA.pdfEarly this month, the Creditors Committee sued the Debtors'secured lenders, asking the Bankruptcy Court to declare that the$12 million resulting from termination of a store lease isn't partof their collateral. About Hartmarx CorporationBased in Chicago, Illinois, Hartmarx Corporation --http://www.hartmarx.com/-- produces and markets business, casual and golf apparel under its own brands, including Hart SchaffnerMarx, Hickey-Freeman, Palm Beach, Coppley, Monarchy, ManchesterEscapes, Society Brand, Racquet Club, Naturalife, Pusser's of theWest Indies, Brannoch, Sansabelt, Exclusively Misook, Barrie Pace,Eye, Christopher Blue, Worn, One Girl Who . . . and b.chyll. Inaddition, the company has certain exclusive rights under licensingagreements to market selected products under a number of premierbrands such as Austin Reed, Burberry men's tailored clothing, TedBaker, Bobby Jones, Jack Nicklaus, Claiborne, Pierre Cardin, Lyle& Scott, Golden Bear, Jag and Dr. Martens. The Company's broadrange of distribution channels includes fine specialty and leadingdepartment stores, value-oriented retailers and direct mailcatalogs.Hartmarx and certain affiliates filed for bankruptcy protection onJanuary 23, 2009 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Lead Case No. 09-02046).George N. Panagakis, Esq., Felicia Gerber Perlman, Esq., and EricJ. Howe, Esq., at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP,represent the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. When theDebtors filed for bankruptcy, they listed $483,108,000 in totalassets and $261,220,000 in total debts as of August 31, 2008.HAWAII SUPERFERRY: Seeks to Abandon Two Catamarans--------------------------------------------------Derrick DePledge at The Honolulu Advertiser reports that HawaiiSuperferry, Inc., has sought the permission of the U.S. BankruptcyCourt for the District of Delaware to abandon its two high-speedcatamarans to creditors due to the significant cost of maintainingthe vessels.According to The Honolulu Advertiser, Hawaii Superferry told theCourt that it can't find financing to maintain operations whilesearching for charter opportunities. The Honolulu Advertiserrelates that Hawaii Superferry has no current source of revenue,but has to cover the cost of insurance, maintenance, security,storage, and a skeleton crew for the catamarans at main privateinvestor J.F. Lehman & Co.'s shipyard.The Honolulu Advertiser states that the Maritime Administration,which guaranteed construction loans for the catamarans, wouldlikely take possession of the catamarans. The report says thatMaritime Administration holds first priority on the mortgages andis owed $135.7 million by Hawaii Superferry.The Court will hold a hearing on Hawaii Superferry's request onJuly 1, The Honolulu Advertiser reports.Wilmington, Delaware-based HSF Holding Inc. operates as the parentcompany of Hawaii Superferry, Inc., a Hawaiian inter-island ferryservice expected to commence operations in early 2007. TheCompany is planning to use the latest generation of large, high-speed roll-on/roll-off catamaran ferries. The ferries will beused to transport travellers from island to island as well astransport agricultural and bulk goods.The Company and its affiliate filed for Chapter 11 on May 30,2009 (Bankr. D. Del. Case Nos. 09-11901 and 09-11902). David B.Stratton, Esq., and Evelyn J. Meltzer, Esq., at Pepper HamiltonLLP represent the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. Whenthe Debtors sought protection from their creditors, they listedboth assets and debts between $100 million and $500 million.HAWAIIAN TELCOM: Considered, But Rejected, Sandwich Plan--------------------------------------------------------Hawaiian Telcom Communications, Inc., and its debtor-affiliatesinform the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Hawaii thatthey did not refuse Sandwich Isles Communications, Inc.'s proposalto acquire their assets for $450 million.Theodore D.C. Young, Esq., at Cades Schutte LLP, in Honolulu,Hawaii, relates that Sandwich Isles orally presented its offer tothe Debtors on April 20, 2009, wherein it proposed to purchasesubstantially all of Hawaiian Telcom's assets for $250 million incash and $150 million in a Hawaiian Telcom-financed note, subjectto purchase price adjustments and due diligence.On April 24, 2009, Sandwich Isles entered into discussions withthe Debtors' financial advisor, Lazard Freres & Co. LLP, who inturn sought additional information from Sandwich Isles relating tothe financing of the proposal. According to Mr. Young, SandwichIsles has not provided any of the financial information sought byLazard Freres. Despite Sandwich Isles' failure to provide anyfinancial diligence, the Debtors entertained another telephoneconference with Sandwich Isles on May 1, 2009, to discuss theBuyout Proposal. At the conference call, Sandwich Isles concededthat it had no committed financing, and that while it proposed tosubmit an application to the federal government for financing toacquire the Debtors' assets, the application for financing wouldtake months with no guarantee of success. Sandwich Isles alsomentioned that its purchase of the Debtors' assets is contingenton the termination of the Debtors' pension plan for unionemployees for the elimination of benefits.The Debtors subsequently discussed Sandwich Isles' Proposal withtheir secured lenders and the International Brotherhood ofElectrical Workers, Local 1357, who both agreed with the Debtorsthat the Buyout Proposal would not maximize value for the Debtors'estates or lead to a successful transaction. The Debtors alsodiscussed the Proposal with the Official Committee of UnsecuredCreditors, who also do not support the Proposal. The specialcommittee of the Debtors' Board of Directors also held a meetingon May 13, 2009, regarding the Proposal and expressed concern onthe lack of committed financing of the transaction. In light ofthe progress made in negotiations with the Secured Lendersregarding the Debtors' Joint Plan of Reorganization dated June 3,2009, the Special Committee has also determined not to pursue theProposal.Mr. Young cites the reasons why the Debtors did not pursue theProposal: 1. Sandwich Isles relies on government aid and grants to operate its business and does not have any committed financing to fund its proposed acquisition of the Debtors' assets. 2. Sandwich Isles' proposed financing plan is sheer speculation and consists of pursuing government acquisition financing -- a form of financing for which there is known precedent, plus seller financing from the creditors, who do not support the proposal. 3. Sandwich Isles lack the necessary federal and state licenses to operate in urban areas. 4. Sandwich Isles has provided no facts or evidence that it has the financial wherewithal to operate the Debtors' businesses or provide the adequate assurance necessary for it to take assignment of the contracts and leases that are critical to operating the businesses or to make the ongoing payments that would be required under the $150 million note it proposed. 5. Sandwich Isles does not operate a full-service communications company let alone a telecom network serving an entire state. Sandwich Isles could not demonstrate to the Debtors that it has the experience and ability to ensure the continued operation of this critical infrastructure. 6. Sandwich Isles failed to provide any details regarding its plan or ability to obtain the necessary regulatory approvals from state and federal agencies, including obtaining FCC expansion of its existing service area to include all of the neighbor islands, which it admits is \"critical to Sandwich Isles' plan to acquire the Debtors' assets.\" 7. Sandwich Isles conceded that its proposal would leave the businesses highly levered - a problem that brought the Debtors in bankruptcy and which the Debtors believe that Hawaii Public Utilities Commission would not permit to happen again. 8. Sandwich Isles' Proposal contains an undefined diligence period and assuming, it could even obtain financing and regulatory approvals necessary, the diligence, financing and approval could extend the Debtors' Chapter 11 cases by months at significant additional cost to the Debtors' estates.Mr. Young tells the Court that since the filing of theExclusivity Motion and the Plan, the Debtors have continued topress forward towards their emergence from Chapter 11. Indeed,in consultation with the Committee, the Debtors rescheduled ahearing to approve the Disclosure Statement accompanying the Planfrom July 23, 2009, to August 11, 2009, and is working diligentlyto resolve the Committee's objections to the Plan. Therescheduled Disclosure Statement hearing is also to ensure itsconnection with the summary judgment hearing in the lien disputecommenced by Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc., as administrativeagent to the Secured Lenders against the Committee. The Debtorshave also been working with and addressing the questions of theHPUC to initiate the required regulatory approvals for the Plan,he adds.\"Sandwich Isles' Motion to Modify Exclusive Periods is repletewith accusations and speculation but lacks any support,\" Mr.Young contends. He maintains that the Debtors have at all timesacted in good faith and in the best interests of their estates.He reiterates that the Debtors thoroughly analyzed the Proposalbefore concluding that the transaction is limited and speculativeat best, which conclusion was seconded by the Debtors'constituencies. Rejecting an unqualified purchase offer ispatently not bad faith, he asserts. The Debtors have consideredall restructuring alternatives and are now pursuing a plan thatmaximizes value, he avers. Mr. Young tells the Court that theDebtors previously made substantial progress with one purchasertowards a sale but after two months, that purchaser abandoned thetransaction. At all times, the Debtors remained open to seriousproposals that could benefit their estates and engaged theirequity sponsor regarding a standalone reorganization and,separately discussed standalone restructuring options with theirbondholders and Secured Lenders, Mr. Young insists.Moreover, the Debtors have filed a viable Chapter 11 Plan onJune 3, 2009. While Sandwich Isles questioned the confirmabilityof the Plan, this will be adjudicated at the confirmationhearing, Mr. Young notes. Thus, Sandwich Isles' speculationabout whether the Plan can be confirmed, while completelyunsupported, is irrelevant in the context of determining cause toextend or modify exclusivity, Mr. Young asserts. He alsoclarifies that the Debtors have not sought any extension to theExclusive Periods due to any ongoing litigation, including theLien Dispute, which will be resolved or settled in connectionwith confirmation.For those reasons, the Debtors ask the Court to grant theirExclusivity Motion and deny Sandwich Isles' Cross-Motion.In support of the Debtors' Reply, (i) Kevin Nystrom, chiefoperating officer of the Debtors, (ii) Nick Melton, managingdirector at Lazard Freres, and (iii) Alan M. Oshima, member ofthe Special Committee of the Debtors' Board of Directors, havefiled declarations, affirming the information set forth in theReply. Secured Lenders Side with DebtorsIn support of the Debtors, the Secured Lenders affirm that theDebtors' Plan is the result of months of good faith, arm's-lengthnegotiations they entered into with the Debtors. The SecuredLenders also comment that Sandwich Isles' Motion to ModifyExclusivity inappropriately tries to roadblock progress in theDebtors' Chapter 11 cases by asserting that its proposed offer tothe Debtors would provide better recoveries to creditors than thatof the Debtors' Plan. The Secured Lenders tells the Court thatSandwich Isles' Proposal does not have the support of the Debtors'stakeholders. The Secured Lenders clarify that they haveconsidered every offer of a third party bidder brought to them bythe Debtors, but none of those offers have been viable because ofa lack of committed financing, including that of Sandwich Isles'Proposal.Accordingly, the Secured Lenders ask the Court to grant theDebtors' Exclusivity Motion and deny Sandwich Isles' Motion toModify Exclusivity. Sandwich Isles Says Debtors' Attacks on Proposal are MisplacedLex R. Smith, Esq., at Kobayashi, Sugita & Goda, in Honolulu,Hawaii, clarifies that after the conference call, the Debtors madeno further effort to consider the Sandwich Isles Proposal andwould not even respond to its request for access to theirdiligence room. Contrary to the Debtors' assertion, SandwichIsles has responded to Lazard Freres' request for financialinformation, he continues.More importantly, Mr. Smith asserts that the Debtors' allegationsregarding Sandwich Isles' Proposal are simply wrong for thesereasons: 1. Sandwich Isles is a strategic buyer and not a bank, however, it has received initial financial commitments and if granted access to the diligence room, it would promptly be able to confirm financing. 2. The Debtors have ignored that Sandwich Isles is a proven, successful, and profitable locally owned company operating on Hawaii for more than 10 years. 3. Any of the Debtors' assets will have to obtain the regulatory approval and Sandwich Isles, being already regulated by the HPUC and a Hawaii-owned business, will not face the regulatory hurdles posed by the ownership structure contemplated in the Plan. 4. The Debtors are incorrect in stating that Sandwich Isles lacks the necessary federal and state licenses to operate in urban areas because Waiman Enteprises, its wholly owned subsidiary, has a separate subsidiary that is fully licensed to operate anywhere on Hawaii. 5. While the Debtors contend that Sandwich Isles' Proposal undervalues their assets, they did not complain to Sandwich Isles about the $450 million purchase price and have not given Sandwich Isles access to the information necessary to value their estates and assets. 6. Sandwich Isles never denied that the Proposal would leave the Debtors' business highly leveraged. It even believes that a leveraged business model with borrowings from a mix of public and private sources is the best approach to the unique challenge of operating a telecommunication business on Hawaii. 7. Sandwich Isles received telephone calls from representatives of several Secured Lenders who indicated that they had never heard of Sandwich Isles' proposal and only learned of it through the news. Notably, the Secured Lenders' Joinder does not state that all of the Secured Lenders have been advised of the Sandwich Isles Proposal, or were asked to determine their interest.Mr. Smith insists that the Debtors have not established cause tofurther extend the Exclusive Periods. He contends that theDebtors are attempting to distract the Court from their inabilityto move their Chapter 11 cases forward by raising those attackson Sandwich Isles' Proposal, which issues are simply not relevantbefore the Court. More importantly, the Debtors' filing of theirPlan does not demonstrate their prospects for filing a viableChapter 11 plan, Mr. Smith says. He points out that the proposedownership under the Plan remains the central issue on theDebtors' request to extend exclusivity.According to Mr. Smith, certain of the Debtors' stakeholders haveinformed Sandwich Isles that the true plan is to sell the Debtorsagain within three years after exiting from Chapter 11protection. He also comments that the Debtors did not evenexplain (i) what the questions that were asked by HPUC are, and(ii) how they will deal with HPUC's strict restriction on foreignownership. Moreover, Mr. Smith stresses, the Debtors'deteriorating business is directly relevant to their ExclusivityMotion because the longer they wait to open this process to realbuyers, the less likely that a real buyer will be found who iswilling to go through the regulatory process necessary to acquirea telecommunications company.Sandwich Isles contends that the Debtors' Plan fails to embodyany compromise among creditors and key stakeholders; and containsinsurmountable regulatory obstacles. The Debtors' Plan simplyhas no hope of confirmation and will ultimately need to berenegotiated, Mr. Smith emphasizes. In the meantime, thebusiness of the Debtors and the people of Hawaii will suffer asexpenses and service failures mount and customer losses increase,he stresses. In contrast, the Sandwich Isles Proposal is aviable alternative plan being delayed by exclusivity andconstitutes a serious attempt to achieve a confirmable plan ofreorganization within a relatively short timeframe, Mr. Smithmaintains. \"Denial of the Debtors' Exclusivity Motion will thusnot prejudice the Debtors' confirmation efforts, but wouldfurther the prospects for reorganization in the Debtors' Chapter11 cases,\" Mr. Smith says.Accordingly, Sandwich Isles asks the Court to grant its Motion toModify and deny the Debtors' Exclusivity Motion. * * *In an amended bridge order, Judge Lloyd King extends by one daythe Debtors' exclusive period to file a reorganization plan fromJune 30, 2009, to and including July 1, 2009; and the Debtors'exclusive period to solicit acceptances for that plan from August31, 2009, to and including September 1, 2009.No party other than the Debtors may file any Chapter 11 plan inthe Debtors' cases through July 1, 2009.Judge King will consider the Debtors' Exclusivity Motion on afinal basis, on July 1, 2009. About Hawaiian TelcomBased in Honolulu, Hawaii, Hawaiian Telcom Communications, Inc.-- http://www.hawaiiantel.com/-- operates a telecommunications company, which offers an array of telecommunications products andservices including local and long distance service, high-speedInternet, wireless services, and print directory and Internetdirectory services.The Company and seven of its affiliates filed for Chapter 11protection on December 1, 2008 (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No.08-13086). As reported by the TCR on December 30, 2008, JudgePeter Walsh of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District ofDelaware approved the transfer of the Chapter 11 cases to the U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the District of Hawaii before Judge LloydKing (Bankr. D. Hawaii Lead Case No. 08-02005).Richard M. Cieri, Esq., Paul M. Basta, Esq., and Christopher J.Marcus, Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, represent the Debtors intheir restructuring efforts. The Debtors proposed Lazard Freres &Co. LLC as investment banker; Zolfo Cooper Management LLC asbusiness advisor; Deloitte & Touche LLP as independent auditors;and Kurztman Carson Consultants LLC as notice and claims agent.An official committee of unsecured creditors has been appointedand is represented by Christopher J. Muzzi, Esq., at Moseley BiehlTsugawa Lau & Muzzi LLC, in Honolulu, Hawaii.When the Debtors filed for protection from their creditors, theylisted total assets of $1,352,000,000 and total debts of$1,269,000,000 as of September 30, 2008.Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes Hawaiian TelcomBankruptcy News. The newsletter tracks the Chapter 11 proceedingundertaken by Hawaiian Telcom Communications, Inc., and seven ofits affiliates. (http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000) HAWAIIAN TELCOM: Hawaii State Retains Chanin as Fin'l Advisors--------------------------------------------------------------The State of Hawaii asks the Court to approve the retention ofChanin Capital Partners, LLC, as financial advisors andconsultants to the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission effectiveJuly 1, 2009.The Debtors' Joint Plan of Reorganization and DisclosureStatement dated June 3, 2009, requires the regulatory approvalfrom the HPUC, which approval could take six to nine months toobtain. In furtherance of HPUC's role, Chanin Capital iscontemplated to assist the HPUC: (1) in its review of the Debtors' Plan and Disclosure Statement; and (2) in its administrative and regulatory review of the Plan pursuant to Chapter 269 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes.Specifically, Chanin Capital will: (a) assist the HPUC in the review of financial related disclosures required by the Court, including the Schedules of Assets and Liabilities, the Statement of Financial Affairs and Monthly Operating Reports of the Debtors; (b) assist in the review of the Debtors' short-term cash management procedures and cash flows; (c) assist and advise the HPUC with respect to the Debtors' identification of core business assets and the disposition of assets or liquidation of unprofitable operations; (d) assist with a review of the Debtors' performance of cost-benefit evaluations with respect to the affirmation or rejection of several executory contracts and leases; (e) provide assistance regarding the evaluation of operations and identification of areas of potential cost savings, including overhead and operating expense reductions and efficiency improvements; (f) assist in the review of financial information distributed by the Debtors to creditors and others, including cash flow projections and budgets, cash receipts and disbursement analysis, analysis of various asset and liability accounts, and analysis of proposed transactions for which Court approval is sought; (g) attend meetings and assist in discussions with the Debtors, potential investors, banks, other secured lenders, the HPUC and any other official committees organized in these Chapter 11 proceedings, the U.S. Trustee, other parties-in-interest and professionals hired by the same, as sought; (h) assist in the review or preparation of information and analysis necessary for the confirmation of a plan in these Chapter 11 proceedings; (i) assist in the evaluation and analysis of avoidance actions, including fraudulent conveyances and preferential transfers; (j) provide litigation advisory services with respect to accounting and tax matters, along with expert witness testimony on case related issues as required by the HPUC; (k) render other general business consulting or other assistance as the HPUC or its counsel may deem necessary that are consistent with the role of a financial advisor and not duplicative of services provided by other professionals in this proceeding.The Debtors are a monopoly landline provider fortelecommunication services. As a monopoly provider, the Debtors,as reorganized, must continue to provide those monopoly services.If the Debtors or the Reorganized Debtors cannot provide thoseservices, the Court will have to inquire as to any contingencyplans by the HPUC to provide for those monopoly services. HPUCwill thus work with Chanin Capital and other governmentalentities and agencies to prepare contingency plans if theDebtors' reorganization is unsuccessful and a new entity has tobe established to operate the monopoly landlines network. Onlythe HPUC in conjunction with other state agencies, working withChanin Capital, will be in a position to draft and preparecontingency plans for a successor entity, the State of Hawaiimaintains.HPUC proposes to pay Chanin Capital a fixed monthly fee of$150,000 and reimburse the actual and necessary expenses incurredby the firm as of July 1, 2009.Moreover, HPUC seeks to retain Chanin Capital pursuant to Section328(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides that ChaninCapital's employment, including its fees, are not subject forfurther review.Brian J. Cullen, managing director at Chanin Capital, filed withthe Court a list of entities his firm has represented, currentlyrepresents, and may represent, a copy of which is available forfree at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/HawTel_ChaninCapitalDisclosures.pdfMr. Cullen adds that Chanin Capital also represents severalentities, including those listed that buy and sell distresseddebt of Chapter 11 debtors. However, since distressed bank andnote debt is actively traded in commercial markets, ChaninCapital may be unaware of the actual holder of the debt at anygiven moment. Despite these disclosures, he assures the Courtthat Chanin Capital is a \"disinterested person\" as the term isdefined under Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code, and doesnot hold or represent an interest adverse to the Debtors' estateswith respect to the matters for it is being employed pursuant toSection 328(c). About Hawaiian TelcomBased in Honolulu, Hawaii, Hawaiian Telcom Communications, Inc.-- http://www.hawaiiantel.com/-- operates a telecommunications company, which offers an array of telecommunications products andservices including local and long distance service, high-speedInternet, wireless services, and print directory and Internetdirectory services.The Company and seven of its affiliates filed for Chapter 11protection on December 1, 2008 (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No.08-13086). As reported by the TCR on December 30, 2008, JudgePeter Walsh of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District ofDelaware approved the transfer of the Chapter 11 cases to the U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the District of Hawaii before Judge LloydKing (Bankr. D. Hawaii Lead Case No. 08-02005).Richard M. Cieri, Esq., Paul M. Basta, Esq., and Christopher J.Marcus, Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, represent the Debtors intheir restructuring efforts. The Debtors proposed Lazard Freres &Co. LLC as investment banker; Zolfo Cooper Management LLC asbusiness advisor; Deloitte & Touche LLP as independent auditors;and Kurztman Carson Consultants LLC as notice and claims agent.An official committee of unsecured creditors has been appointedand is represented by Christopher J. Muzzi, Esq., at Moseley BiehlTsugawa Lau & Muzzi LLC, in Honolulu, Hawaii.When the Debtors filed for protection from their creditors, theylisted total assets of $1,352,000,000 and total debts of$1,269,000,000 as of September 30, 2008.Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes Hawaiian TelcomBankruptcy News. The newsletter tracks the Chapter 11 proceedingundertaken by Hawaiian Telcom Communications, Inc., and seven ofits affiliates. (http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000) HAWAIIAN TELCOM: May Use Cash Collateral Through August 31----------------------------------------------------------Pursuant to the minutes of the hearing held on June 18, 2009,Judge Lloyd King authorized Hawaiian Telcom Communications Inc.'scontinued use of cash collateral of their Prepetition Lenders, ona consensual basis, through and including August 31, 2009. JudgeKing directed the Debtors' counsel to submit an order forapproval. About Hawaiian TelcomBased in Honolulu, Hawaii, Hawaiian Telcom Communications, Inc.-- http://www.hawaiiantel.com/-- operates a telecommunications company, which offers an array of telecommunications products andservices including local and long distance service, high-speedInternet, wireless services, and print directory and Internetdirectory services.The Company and seven of its affiliates filed for Chapter 11protection on December 1, 2008 (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No.08-13086). As reported by the TCR on December 30, 2008, JudgePeter Walsh of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District ofDelaware approved the transfer of the Chapter 11 cases to the U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the District of Hawaii before Judge LloydKing (Bankr. D. Hawaii Lead Case No. 08-02005).Richard M. Cieri, Esq., Paul M. Basta, Esq., and Christopher J.Marcus, Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, represent the Debtors intheir restructuring efforts. The Debtors proposed Lazard Freres &Co. LLC as investment banker; Zolfo Cooper Management LLC asbusiness advisor; Deloitte & Touche LLP as independent auditors;and Kurztman Carson Consultants LLC as notice and claims agent.An official committee of unsecured creditors has been appointedand is represented by Christopher J. Muzzi, Esq., at Moseley BiehlTsugawa Lau & Muzzi LLC, in Honolulu, Hawaii.When the Debtors filed for protection from their creditors, theylisted total assets of $1,352,000,000 and total debts of$1,269,000,000 as of September 30, 2008.Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes Hawaiian TelcomBankruptcy News. The newsletter tracks the Chapter 11 proceedingundertaken by Hawaiian Telcom Communications, Inc., and seven ofits affiliates. (http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000) HAYES LEMMERZ: Committee Taps Bifferato as Delaware Counsel-----------------------------------------------------------The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Hayes LemmerzInternational Inc. and its debtor-affiliates asks the U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware for permission toemploy Bifferato Gentilotti LLC as its Delaware counsel.The firm will, among other things: a) provide legal advice as necessary with respect to the Committee's powers; b) assist the Committee in investigating the acts, conduct, assets, liabilities, and financial condition of the Debtors, the operation of the Debtors' businesses, potential claims, and any other matters relevant to the cases or to the formulation of a plan of reorganization; c) participate in the formulation of a Plan; d) provide legal advice as necessary with respect to any disclosure statement and Plan filed in these cases and with respect to the process for approving or disapproving disclosure statements and confirming or denying confirmation of a Plan; and e) prepare on behalf of the Committee, as necessary, applications, motions, complaints, answers, orders, agreements and other legal papers.The firm's hourly rates are: Designation Hourly Rate ----------- ----------- Members/Associates $250-$345 Paralegals/Legal Assistants $145-$185Garvan F. McDaniel, Esq., a member of the firm, assures the Courtthat the firm is a \"disinterested person\" as defined in Section101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code. About Hayes LemmerzOriginally founded in 1908, Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc.(NasdaqGM: HAYZ) is a worldwide producer of aluminum and steelwheels for passenger cars and light trucks and of steel wheels forcommercial trucks and trailers. The Company is also a supplier ofautomotive powertrain components. The Company has globaloperations with 23 facilities, including business, sales officesand manufacturing facilities, located in 12 countries around theworld. The Company sells products to every major North American,Asian and European manufacturer of passenger cars and light trucksand to commercial highway vehicle customers throughout the world.The Company and certain affiliates filed for bankruptcy onMay 11, 2009 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 09-11655) after reachingagreements with lenders holding a majority of the Company'ssecured debt. The Company's principal bankruptcy attorneys areSkadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP. Lazard Freres & Co.,LLC serves as the Company's financial advisors. AlixPartners, LLPserves as the Company's restructuring advisors. The Garden CityGroup, Inc., serves as the Debtors' claims and notice agent.Roberta A. DeAngelis, the United States Trustee for Region 3,appointed three creditors to serve on the Official Committee ofUnsecured Creditors of Hayes Lemmerz International Inc. and itsdebtor-affiliates. As of January 31, 2009, the Debtors had totalassets of $1,336,600,000 and total debts of $1,405,200,000. Thisis the Company's second trip to the bankruptcy court, dubbed aChapter 22, which was precipitated by an unprecedented slowdown inindustry demand and a tightening of credit markets. The Companyplans to reduce its debt and restructure its balance sheet.Hayes Lemmerz and its direct and indirect domestic subsidiariesand one subsidiary in Mexico first filed for bankruptcy inDecember 2001 before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District ofDelaware. The Chapter 11 filings were precipitated by decliningmarket conditions and the Company's excessive debt burdens,according to Mr. Clawson, who also served as chairman and chiefexecutive officer at that time. The Court confirmed the Company'sreorganization plan in May 2003, allowing the Company to exitbankruptcy in June 2003. In accordance with the 2003 Plan,approximately $2.1 billion in pre-petition debt and otherliabilities were discharged. The Plan provided for holders ofprepetition secured claims to receive $478.5 million in cash and53.1% of the reorganized company common stock. Holders of seniornote claims were to receive $13 million in cash and 44.9% of theNew Common Stock, and holders of general unsecured claims were toreceive 2% of the New Common Stock. Hayes Lemmerz' prior commonstock and securities were cancelled as of June 3, 2003.HAYES LEMMERZ: Committee Taps Chanin Capital as Financial Advisor-----------------------------------------------------------------The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Hayes LemmerzInternational Inc. and its debtor-affiliates asks the U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware for permission toemploy Chanin Capital Partners as its financial advisor.The firm will: a) review and analyze the Debtors' operations, financial condition, business plan, strategy, and operating forecasts; b) analyze any merger, divestiture, joint-venture, or investment transaction; c) assist in the determination of an appropriate go-forward capital structure for the Debtors; d) assist the Committee in developing, evaluating, structuring and negotiating the terms and conditions of a restructuring or Plan of Reorganization including the value of the securities, if any, that may be issued to the Committee under any such restructuring or Plan; e) provide testimony, as necessary, before the bankruptcy court; and f) provide the Committee with other appropriate general restructuring advice The firm's hourly rates are:The firm will be paid $175,000 per month for this engagement.Brent C. William, managing member of the firm, assures the Courtthat the firm is a \"disinterested person\" as defined in Section101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code. About Hayes LemmerzOriginally founded in 1908, Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc.(NasdaqGM: HAYZ) is a worldwide producer of aluminum and steelwheels for passenger cars and light trucks and of steel wheels forcommercial trucks and trailers. The Company is also a supplier ofautomotive powertrain components. The Company has globaloperations with 23 facilities, including business, sales officesand manufacturing facilities, located in 12 countries around theworld. The Company sells products to every major North American,Asian and European manufacturer of passenger cars and light trucksand to commercial highway vehicle customers throughout the world.The Company and certain affiliates filed for bankruptcy onMay 11, 2009 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 09-11655) after reachingagreements with lenders holding a majority of the Company'ssecured debt. The Company's principal bankruptcy attorneys areSkadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP. Lazard Freres & Co.,LLC serves as the Company's financial advisors. AlixPartners, LLPserves as the Company's restructuring advisors. The Garden CityGroup, Inc., serves as the Debtors' claims and notice agent.Roberta A. DeAngelis, the United States Trustee for Region 3,appointed three creditors to serve on the Official Committee ofUnsecured Creditors of Hayes Lemmerz International Inc. and itsdebtor-affiliates. As of January 31, 2009, the Debtors had totalassets of $1,336,600,000 and total debts of $1,405,200,000. Thisis the Company's second trip to the bankruptcy court, dubbed aChapter 22, which was precipitated by an unprecedented slowdown inindustry demand and a tightening of credit markets. The Companyplans to reduce its debt and restructure its balance sheet.Hayes Lemmerz and its direct and indirect domestic subsidiariesand one subsidiary in Mexico first filed for bankruptcy inDecember 2001 before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District ofDelaware. The Chapter 11 filings were precipitated by decliningmarket conditions and the Company's excessive debt burdens,according to Mr. Clawson, who also served as chairman and chiefexecutive officer at that time. The Court confirmed the Company'sreorganization plan in May 2003, allowing the Company to exitbankruptcy in June 2003. In accordance with the 2003 Plan,approximately $2.1 billion in pre-petition debt and otherliabilities were discharged. The Plan provided for holders ofprepetition secured claims to receive $478.5 million in cash and53.1% of the reorganized company common stock. Holders of seniornote claims were to receive $13 million in cash and 44.9% of theNew Common Stock, and holders of general unsecured claims were toreceive 2% of the New Common Stock. Hayes Lemmerz' prior commonstock and securities were cancelled as of June 3, 2003.HAYES LEMMERZ: Committee Taps Lowenstein Sandler as Counsel-----------------------------------------------------------The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Hayes LemmerzInternational Inc. and its debtor-affiliates asks the U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware for permission toemploy Lowenstein Sandler PC as its counsel.The firm will, among other things: a) provide legal advice as necessary with respect to the Committee's powers; b) assist the Committee in investigating the acts, conduct, assets, liabilities, and financial condition of the Debtors, the operation of the Debtors' businesses, potential claims, and any other matters relevant to the cases or to the formulation of a plan of reorganization; c) participate in the formulation of a Plan; d) provide legal advice as necessary with respect to any disclosure statement and Plan filed in these cases and with respect to the process for approving or disapproving disclosure statements and confirming or denying confirmation of a Plan; and e) prepare on behalf of the Committee, as necessary, applications, motions, complaints, answers, orders, agreements and other legal papers.The firm's hourly rates are: Designation Hourly Rate ----------- ----------- Partners $410-$765 Counsel $320-$520 Associates $220-$380 Legal Assistants $120-$215Mary E. Seymour, Esq., a member of the firm, assures the Courtthat the firm is a \"disinterested person\" as defined in Section101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code. About Hayes LemmerzOriginally founded in 1908, Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc.(NasdaqGM: HAYZ) is a worldwide producer of aluminum and steelwheels for passenger cars and light trucks and of steel wheels forcommercial trucks and trailers. The Company is also a supplier ofautomotive powertrain components. The Company has globaloperations with 23 facilities, including business, sales officesand manufacturing facilities, located in 12 countries around theworld. The Company sells products to every major North American,Asian and European manufacturer of passenger cars and light trucksand to commercial highway vehicle customers throughout the world.The Company and certain affiliates filed for bankruptcy onMay 11, 2009 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 09-11655) after reachingagreements with lenders holding a majority of the Company'ssecured debt. The Company's principal bankruptcy attorneys areSkadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP. Lazard Freres & Co.,LLC serves as the Company's financial advisors. AlixPartners, LLPserves as the Company's restructuring advisors. The Garden CityGroup, Inc., serves as the Debtors' claims and notice agent.Roberta A. DeAngelis, the United States Trustee for Region 3,appointed three creditors to serve on the Official Committee ofUnsecured Creditors of Hayes Lemmerz International Inc. and itsdebtor-affiliates. As of January 31, 2009, the Debtors had totalassets of $1,336,600,000 and total debts of $1,405,200,000. Thisis the Company's second trip to the bankruptcy court, dubbed aChapter 22, which was precipitated by an unprecedented slowdown inindustry demand and a tightening of credit markets. The Companyplans to reduce its debt and restructure its balance sheet.Hayes Lemmerz and its direct and indirect domestic subsidiariesand one subsidiary in Mexico first filed for bankruptcy inDecember 2001 before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District ofDelaware. The Chapter 11 filings were precipitated by decliningmarket conditions and the Company's excessive debt burdens,according to Mr. Clawson, who also served as chairman and chiefexecutive officer at that time. The Court confirmed the Company'sreorganization plan in May 2003, allowing the Company to exitbankruptcy in June 2003. In accordance with the 2003 Plan,approximately $2.1 billion in pre-petition debt and otherliabilities were discharged. The Plan provided for holders ofprepetition secured claims to receive $478.5 million in cash and53.1% of the reorganized company common stock. Holders of seniornote claims were to receive $13 million in cash and 44.9% of theNew Common Stock, and holders of general unsecured claims were toreceive 2% of the New Common Stock. Hayes Lemmerz' prior commonstock and securities were cancelled as of June 3, 2003.HOLLYWOOD THEATERS: Moody's Assigns 'B3' Rating on Senior Notes---------------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service assigned a B3 rating to the seniorsecured note issuance of Hollywood Theaters, Inc. The companyapplied proceeds from the $157 million issuance primarily to repayexisting bank debt.Moody's also upgraded the corporate family and probability ofdefault ratings, each to B3, from Caa2 and Caa3, respectively, andwithdrew ratings on the former senior secured bank debt. Thetransaction occurred largely in line with Moody's expectations ascommunicated in the June 4, 2009, press release on Hollywood. Theface value of the bonds increased to $157 million from theproposed $150 million due to the larger original issue discount,but Moody's believes liquidity, incorporating the $10 millionrevolving credit facility expected to be in place shortly afterthe close of the transaction, will remain adequate.Hollywood Theaters, Inc. -- Probability of Default Rating, Upgraded to B3 from Caa3 -- Corporate Family Rating, Upgraded to B3 from Caa2 -- Assigned B3 rating to Senior Secured Regular Bonds -- Outlook, Changed To Stable From Rating Under Review -- Senior Secured First Lien Bank Credit Facility, Withdrawn, previously rated Caa1, LGD2, 25% -- Senior Secured Second Lien Bank Credit Facility, Withdrawn, previously rated Ca, LGD5, 73%The weakly positioned B3 corporate family rating incorporates thecompany's ongoing significant financial risk. Hollywood'sattendance lagged the industry in 2008, which elevated leverage tothe mid-6x debt-to-EBITDA from below 6x in 2007. High capitalexpenditures contributed to negative free cash flow and weak fixedcharge coverage in 2008, and Moody's anticipates continued cashconsumption in 2009, exacerbated by increased interest expense.Lack of scale also constrains the rating, although Hollywoodbenefits somewhat from reasonable geographic diversification. Thecompany's modern theater circuit, which contributes to its strongEBITDA margin and allows for fairly modest maintenance capitalrequirements, as well as expectations that a reduction inexpansionary capital expenditures after 2009 will yield improvingfree cash flow, lend support to the ratings.The most recent rating action for Hollywood Theaters, Inc., was onJune 4, 2009, when Moody's assigned a (P)B3 to Hollywood'sproposed notes issuance.Hollywood Theaters, Inc.'s ratings were assigned by evaluatingfactors Moody's believe are relevant to the credit profile of theissuer, such as i) the business risk and competitive position ofthe company versus others within its industry, ii) the capitalstructure and financial risk of the company, iii) the projectedperformance of the company over the near to intermediate term, andiv) management's track record and tolerance for risk. Theseattributes were compared against other issuers both within andoutside of Hollywood's core industry and Hollywood's ratings arebelieved to be comparable to those of other issuers of similarcredit risk.Hollywood Theaters, Inc., headquartered in Portland, Oregon,operates approximately 50 theaters and 536 screens primarilylocated in the Southwest and West Coast. Revenue for the lasttwelve months ending March 31, 2009, was approximately$131 million.HUNTSMAN CORP: Lawsuit Settlement Cues S&P to Keep Negative Watch-----------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services said that its ratings on SaltLake City-based Huntsman Corp. remain on CreditWatch with negativeimplications, following Huntsman's announcement of its agreementwith Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank to settle claims overHuntsman's lawsuit related to the failed $6.5 billion acquisitionof Huntsman by Apollo Management-owned Hexion Specialty ChemicalsInc.S&P said in March that it lowered its ratings on Huntsman,including its corporate credit rating to 'B' from 'BB-'. Theratings remain on CreditWatch with negative implications. At thesame time, S&P assigned its '5' recovery rating, indicating theexpectation of modest recovery (10%-30%) in the event of adefault, to Huntsman International LLC's existing $300 millionsenior unsecured notes. S&P also assigned a '6' recovery rating,indicating the expectation of negligible recovery (0%-10%) in theevent of a default, to Huntsman International LLC's existingsubordinated notes aggregating $1.285 billion.Global chemical manufacturer and marketer Huntsman announced thatthe settlement consists of $620 million in cash and $1.1 billionin loans to be provided by the two banks. Huntsman also received$12 million in reimbursement of litigation costs.Huntsman announced it would utilize a portion of the settlement'sapproximately $1.7 billion in cash proceeds to reduce andrefinance debt.\"The settlement and planned use of proceeds to improve the balancesheet addresses S&P's immediate credit concerns related to near-term debt maturity requirements and liquidity,\" said Standard &Poor's credit analyst Paul Kurias.The company's near-term debt maturities included a $575 millionaccounts receivable securitization facility that matures inNovember 2009, $295 million in senior secured notes, and a$650 million revolving credit facility that matures in the secondhalf of 2010 -- nearly 30% of the $4.9 billion of total adjusteddebt outstanding as of March 31, 2009.\"We nevertheless remain concerned that 2009 operations andearnings will remain depressed because of the ongoing globalrecession, which has driven down stifled overall demand for thecompany's products in key businesses. While the settlementannouncement is expected to address immediate liquidityconcerns, S&P expects credit metrics to remain relatively weak forthe current ratings,\" said Mr. Kurias.S&P plans to resolve the CreditWatch once more details on theHuntsman's prospective capital structure become available.IED PINNACLE/MILLER: Lender Wants Case Converted to Chapter 7-------------------------------------------------------------SunBank, N.A., the lender of IED Pinnacle/Miller, LLC, asks theU.S. Bankruptcy Court District of Arizona to convert the Debtor'sChapter 11 case to a case under Chapter 7.The lender relates that on Aug. 2, 2007, it made a loan to theDebtor in the maximum principal amount of $27.6 million for theconstruction of a certain Pinnacle property. The lender adds thatthe Debtor's indebtedness secured by the Pinnacle Property farexceeds the Property's value.SunBank asserts conversion is warranted, citing that the PinnacleProperty cannot generate revenue and the Debtor cannot pay theexpenses that are necessary to preserve and protect the PinnacleProperty, including insurance premium payments. About IED Pinnacle/Miller, LLCLas Vegas, Nevada-based IED Pinnacle/Miller, LLC, filed forChapter 11 on May 22, 2009 (Bankr. Case No. 09-11222). IED isrepresented by attorneys at Eric Slocum Sparks PC. At the time ofthe filing, the Debtor disclosed assets of $30,000,000 againstdebts of $27,600,000.IMF INVESTMENT: Case Summary & 3 Largest Unsecured Creditors------------------------------------------------------------Debtor: IMF Investment, LLC PO Box 26583 Tampa, FL 33623Bankruptcy Case No.: 09-13392Chapter 11 Petition Date: June 24, 2009Court: United States Bankruptcy Court Middle District of Florida (Tampa)Debtor's Counsel: Sheila D. Norman, Esq. Norman and Bullington, P.A. 1905 West Kennedy Blvd Tampa, FL 33606 Tel: (813) 251-6666 Fax: (813) 254-0800 Email: [email protected] Assets: $2,504,400Total Debts: $1,673,200A full-text copy of the Debtor's petition, including a list of its3 largest unsecured creditors, is available for free at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/flmb09-13392.pdfThe petition was signed by Syed Raza, manager and member of theCompany.INC. CATHEXIS: Case Summary & 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors------------------------------------------------------------Debtor: Inc. Cathexis 10421 South Jordan Gateway, St. #550 South Jordan, UT 84095Bankruptcy Case No.: 09-26549Chapter 11 Petition Date: June 24, 2009Court: United States Bankruptcy Court District of Utah (Salt Lake City)Debtor's Counsel: Steven C. Tycksen, Esq. Tycksen & Shattuck, LC Pioneer Business Park 12401 South 450 East, Unit E-1 Draper, UT 84020 Tel: (801) 748-4081 Fax: (801) 748-4087 Email: [email protected] Assets: $1,000,001 to $10,000,000Estimated Debts: $1,000,001 to $10,000,000A list of the Company's 20 largest unsecured creditors isavailable for free at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/utb09-26549.pdfThe petition was signed by Shane Glover, president of the Company.JOURNAL REGISTER: Court Defers Ruling on Chapter 11 Plan--------------------------------------------------------Judge Allan Gropper of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York said he will \"reserve\" his decision on theconfirmation of Journal Register Company's Chapter 11 plan fornext week.At the June 25 confirmation hearing, Journal Register CEO RobertConway said that without a $6.6 million \"gift\" that securedlenders agreed to give trade partners, the Company won't be ableto keep operating. The Plan was supported by holders of 96% ofsecured debt and 97% of the unsecured claims.As reported by the Troubled Company Reporter on May 1, JRC revisedits plan to \"placate unsecured creditors.\" While the originalversion of the Plan didn't offer any recovery to unsecuredcreditors who didn't provide goods and services, the revised planoffers unsecured creditors with some $27.1 million in claims arecovery of 9.2% of their claims.The revised plan would give all of the new stock and $225 millionin new term loans to the pre-bankruptcy secured lenders owed $695million. Existing stock would be canceled. The disclosurestatement says the Plan represents a 42% recovery for the lenders. Overview of the PlanThe overall purpose of the Plan is to provide for therestructuring of the Debtors liabilities in a manner designed tomaximize recovery to stakeholders and to enhance the financialviability of the reorganized Debtors. Generally, the Planprovides for a balance sheet restructuring that exchanges theDebtors' current debt obligations under the existing creditagreement for new term loans and equity in reorganized Debtors.The reorganized Debtors' existing common stock has no value andwill be cancelled. Upon emergence, all of reorganized Debtors'new common stock will be owned by the lenders, and will be subjectto dilution only by: a) the options to purchase the new common stock that may be issued to the reorganized Debtors' post-Effective date directors, officers and employees; and b) the warrant shares issued upon exercise of the revolving facility warrants.Neither the new common stock nor the revolving facility warrantswill be registered with the SEC or any state securities regulatoryauthority and will not trade on any public exchange.Other secured creditors will receive cash, their collateral orretain their liens, as applicable, in satisfaction of theirClaims. Unsecured creditors will receive their pro rata shareof the unsecured claim distribution on account of their allowedclaims under the Plan. In addition to their distribution underthe plan, holders of trade unsecured claims that (i) do notobject to confirmation of the Plan and (ii) have granted thereleases provided in the Plan will be eligible to receive paymentof the remaining balance of the allowed amount of their claims infull in cash from an account established by the Lenders. TheDebtors currently estimate that the allowed trade unsecured claimswill total approximately $5.4 million.The resulting debt structure of the reorganized Debtors willsubstantially de-lever the company and provide liquidity needed tosupport its future operations. The Debtors believe that the Planprovides for appropriate treatment of all classes of claims andinterests, taking into account the valuation of the company andthe differing natures and priorities of the claims and interests.In connection with preparing the estimation of recoveries, theseassumptions were made: -- The ongoing enterprise value of the reorganized Debtors for purposes of the Plan, based on the valuation prepared by Lazard Freres & Co., LLC, the Debtors' financial advisors, is approximately $300 million. -- The aggregate allowed amount of administrative expense claims unpaid as of the effective date will be approximately $4.2 million. -- The aggregate allowed amount of U.S. Trustee fees unpaid as of the effective date will be approximately $38,000. -- The aggregate Allowed amount of fee claims will be approximately $6.7 million. -- The aggregate Allowed amount of unpaid priority tax claims will not exceed approximately $21.6 million. -- The aggregate Allowed amount of priority non-tax claims unpaid as of the effective Date will be approximately $0.5 million -- The aggregate allowed amount of other secured claims will be approximately $2.6 million. -- The aggregate allowed amount of unsecured claims will be approximately $27.1 million, which is comprised of approximately $5.4 million of trade unsecured claims and $21.7 million of other unsecured claims.In addition, holders of secured lender claims, totaling$695 million, are expected to recover 42% and holders of unsecuredcreditors, totaling $27.1 million, are expected to recover 9.2%under the Plan.All holders of existing securities laws claims and common stockinterest will not receive any distribution.A full-text copy of the Debtors' disclosure statement is availablefor free at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3c8dA full-text copy of the Debtors' amended joint Chapter 11 plan orreorganization is available for free at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3c8c About Journal RegisterYardley, Pennsylvania-based Journal Register Company (PINKSHEETS:JRCO) -- http://www.JournalRegister.com-- owns 20 daily newspapers, more than 180 non-daily publications and operates over200 individual Web sites that are affiliated with the Company'sdaily newspapers, non-daily publications and its network ofemployment Web sites. All of the company's operations arestrategically clustered in six geographic areas: GreaterPhiladelphia; Michigan; Connecticut; Greater Cleveland; and theCapital-Saratoga and Mid-Hudson regions of New York. The companyalso owns JobsInTheUS, a network of 20 employment Web sites. Thecompany, along with its affiliates, filed for Chapter 11bankruptcy protection on February 21, 2009 (Bankr. S.D. N.Y. CaseNo. 09-10769). Marc Abrams, Esq., Rachel C. Strickland, Esq.,Shaunna D. Jones, Esq., and Jennifer J. Hardy, Esq., at WillkieFarr & Gallagher LLP, represent the Debtors as counsel. WilliamM. Silverman, Esq., Scott L. Hazan, Esq., and Jeanette A. Barrow-Bosshart, Esq., at Otterbourg, Steindler, Houston & Rosen, P.C.,represent the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors ascounsel. Conway, Del Genio, Gries & Co., LLC, providesrestructuring management services to the Debtors. Robert P.Conway is the company's chief restructuring officer. The companylisted $100 million to $500 million in total assets and$500 million to $1 billion in total debts.KABUTO ARIZONA: U.S. Trustee Unable to Appoint Creditors Committee------------------------------------------------------------------Ilene J. Lashinsky, the U.S. Trustee for Region 14, tells the U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona that she will not beable to appoint an official committee of unsecured creditors inKabuto Arizona Properties, LLC's Chapter 11 cases.Ms. Lashinsky adds that there has not been a creditor showinginterest to be appointed in the committee, despite efforts tocontact the 20 largest unsecured creditors.Litchfield Park, Arizona-based Kabuto Arizona Properties, LLC,filed for Chapter 11 on May 22, 2009 (Bankr. D. Ariz. Case No. 09-11282). David W.M. Engelman, Esq., at Engelman Berger, P.C.,represents the Debtor in its restructuring efforts. The Debtorhas assets and debts both ranging from $50 million to$100 million.KIRBY PETERSON: Involuntary Chapter 11 Case Summary---------------------------------------------------Alleged Debtor: Kirby D. Peterson aka Timberline Lodge, Inc. aka Timberline Construction aka Timberline Trips.com aka Timberline Lodge & Big Country Outfitters aka Timberline Homes aka Valley Springs Ranch HA PO Box 454 Daniel, WY 83115Case Number: 09-20566Debtor-affiliate subject to Chapter 11 petition: Entity Case No. ------ --------Melanie M Peterson 09-20567Involuntary Petition Date: June 17, 2009Court: District of Wyoming (Cheyenne)Judge: Peter J. McNiffPetitioner's Counsel: Vance Countryman, Esq. Vance T. Countryman, P.C. 233 Garfield Lander, WY 82520 Tel: (307) 335-7075 Petitioner Nature of Claim Claim Amount ----------- --------------- ------------Wyo. Country Builders, LLC contract $73,42824 Valley Springs Dr.Lander, WY 82520LAKE LAS VEGAS: Will Abandon Reflection Bay Golf------------------------------------------------Lake at Las Vegas Joint Venture, LLC, said in court documents thatit will close Reflection Bay Golf Club and lay off that club'semployees on June 30.Reflection Bay, designed by Jack Nicklaus, will revert to seniorlender Carmel Land & Cattle Co., Patrick Fitzgerald posted on TheWall Street Journal's blog, Bankruptcy Beat. According toBankruptcy Beat, Carmel Land will hold a foreclosure sale on theproperty July 9.Lake at Las Vegas, Bankruptcy Beat relates, said that it isabandoning Reflection Bay because the golf course is worthsignificantly less than the $29 million it owes to Carmel Land,which already took control of the Debtor's The Falls Golf Club.Headquartered in Henderson, Nevada, Lake at Las Vegas JointVenture, LLC and 14 of its debtor-affiliates --http://www.lakelasvegas.com/-- are owners and developers of 3,592-acre residential and resort destination Lake Las VegasResort in Las Vegas, Nevada. Centered around a 320-acre man-madelake, Lake Las Vegas contains more than 9,000 residential units,and also includes two luxury resort hotels (a Loews and a Ritz-Carlton), a casino, a specialty retail village shopping area,marinas, three signature golf courses and related clubhouses, andother real property.The Debtors filed separate petitions for Chapter 11 relief onJuly 17, 2008 (Bankr. D. Nev. Lead Case No. 08-17814). When Lakeat Las Vegas Joint Venture, LLC, filed for protection from itscreditors, it listed assets of $100 million to $500 million, anddebts of $500 million to $1.0 billion. Courtney E. Pozmantier,Esq., Martin R. Barash, Esq., at Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff & SternLLP, Jason D. Smith, Esq., at Santoro, Driggs, Walch, Kearney,Holley & Thompson, Jeanette E. McPherson, Esq., Lenard E.Schwartzer, Esq., at Schwartzer & McPherson Law Firm, representthe Debtors as counsel. Kaaran E. Thomas, Esq., Ryan J. Works,Esq., at McDonald Carano Wilson LLP, represent the OfficialCommittee of Unsecured Creditors as counsel.LAKE AT LAS VEGAS: Use of Cash Collateral Extended until June 30----------------------------------------------------------------Lake at Las Vegas Joint Venture, LLC, Northshore Golf Club,L.L.C., Carmel Land & Cattle Company and the agent to theprepetition lenders in respect of the operations and maintenanceof the Reflection Bay GC, have agreed to further extend LLVJV'sand Northshore's use of Carmel's and the prepetition agent's cashcollateral until June 30, 2009.This is the 5th extension of the aforementioned Debtors' use ofCarmel's and the p[repetition agent's cash collateral since theNovember 25, 2008 approval by the Court, on a final basis, of theReflection Bay stipulation authorizing the use of cash collateralthrough January 5, 2009. Same was previously extended through andincluding February 4, 2008, February 23, 2009, April 10, 2009, andMay 26, 2009, respectively. About Lake at Las VegasHeadquartered in Henderson, Nevada, Lake at Las Vegas JointVenture, LLC and 14 of its debtor-affiliates --http://www.lakelasvegas.com/-- are owners and developers of 3,592-acre residential and resort destination Lake Las VegasResort in Las Vegas, Nevada. Centered around a 320-acre man-madelake, Lake Las Vegas contains more than 9,000 residential units,and also includes two luxury resort hotels (a Loews and a Ritz-Carlton), a casino, a specialty retail village shopping area,marinas, three signature golf courses and related clubhouses, andother real property.The Debtors filed separate petitions for Chapter 11 relief onJuly 17, 2008 (Bankr. D. Nev. Lead Case No. 08-17814). When Lakeat Las Vegas Joint Venture, LLC filed for protection from itscreditors, it listed assets of $100 million to $500 million, anddebts of $500 million to $1.0 billion. Courtney E. Pozmantier,Esq., Martin R. Barash, Esq., at Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff & SternLLP, Jason D. Smith, Esq., at Santoro, Driggs, Walch, Kearney,Holley & Thompson, Jeanette E. McPherson, Esq., Lenard E.Schwartzer, Esq., at Schwartzer & McPherson Law Firm, representthe Debtors as counsel. Kaaran E. Thomas, Esq., and Ryan J.Works, Esq., at McDonald Carano Wilson LLP, represent theofficial committee of unsecured creditors as counsel.LAKE AT LAS VEGAS: Seeks to Extend Plan Filing Deadline to June 30------------------------------------------------------------------Lake at Las Vegas Joint Venture, LLC, and its affiliated debtorsask the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada to extendtheir exclusive periods to propose a plan and solicit acceptancesthereof to June 30, 2009, and August 28, 2009, respectively. TheDebtors relate that absent extraordinary circumstances, theyexpect this to be their final request for an extension of theirplan filing exclusivity period.This is the Debtors' 5th motion for extension of their exclusiveperiods.The Debtors relate that they have achieved broad consensusregarding most aspects of a draft Chapter 11 plan ofreorganization, but a \"handful of material issues\" still needs tobe resolved before a fully consensual plan can be filed with theCourt.The Debtors add that the requested extension is supported by theofficial committee of unsecured creditors, Credit Suisse, CaymanIslands Branch, as agent under the Debtors' primary DIP facility,the lenders under the Debtors' primary DIP Facility and DorfincoCorporation, the lender under SouthShore Golf Club, L.L.C.'sseparate DIP facility.A hearing on the motion is scheduled for June 29, 2009, at 10:00a.m. About Lake at Las VegasHeadquartered in Henderson, Nevada, Lake at Las Vegas JointVenture, LLC and 14 of its debtor-affiliates --http://www.lakelasvegas.com/-- are owners and developers of 3,592-acre residential and resort destination Lake Las VegasResort in Las Vegas, Nevada. Centered around a 320-acre man-madelake, Lake Las Vegas contains more than 9,000 residential units,and also includes two luxury resort hotels (a Loews and a Ritz-Carlton), a casino, a specialty retail village shopping area,marinas, three signature golf courses and related clubhouses, andother real property.The Debtors filed separate petitions for Chapter 11 relief onJuly 17, 2008 (Bankr. D. Nev. Lead Case No. 08-17814). When Lakeat Las Vegas Joint Venture, LLC filed for protection from itscreditors, it listed assets of $100 million to $500 million, anddebts of $500 million to $1.0 billion. Courtney E. Pozmantier,Esq., Martin R. Barash, Esq., at Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff & SternLLP, Jason D. Smith, Esq., at Santoro, Driggs, Walch, Kearney,Holley & Thompson, Jeanette E. McPherson, Esq., Lenard E.Schwartzer, Esq., at Schwartzer & McPherson Law Firm, representthe Debtors as counsel. Kaaran E. Thomas, Esq., and Ryan J.Works, Esq., at McDonald Carano Wilson LLP, represent the officialcommittee of unsecured creditors as counsel.LEAR CORP: May Seek Bankruptcy Protection By July 1---------------------------------------------------Lear Corp. may file for bankruptcy protection as early as June 29and no later than July 1, Craig Trudell and Lauren Coleman atBloomberg News report, citing a person familiar with the matter.Current lenders JPMorgan Chase & CO. will provide debtor-in-possession financing, the person said, according to the report.Bloomberg relates that Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP willrepresent the bondholders; and Simpson Tchacher & Bartlett LLPwill represent creditors. Investment bank Miller Buckfire & Co.is giving Lear Corp. advice.As reported by the Troubled Company Reporter on June 3, 2009, Leardid not make the $38 million semi-annual interest payments due onJune 1, 2009, with respect to its 8.50% senior notes due 2013, and8.75% senior notes due 2016. The Company utilized the 30-daygrace period applicable to the interest payments, while itcontinues discussions of a possible capital restructuring with itslenders and certain other parties, according to Matthew J.Simoncini, senior vice president and chief financial officer ofthe company. Under the applicable indentures relating to thesenior notes, the use of the 30-day grace period does notconstitute a default that permits acceleration of the senior notesor any other indebtedness, Mr. Simoncini said.On May 13, 2009, the Company entered into an amendment and waiverunder its primary credit facility, wherein the waiver of covenantdefaults under the primary credit facility would terminate if theCompany were to make any payments with respect to the seniornotes. A full-text copy of the second amendment and waiver isavailable for free at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3a6e About Lear CorporationBased in Southfield, Michigan, Lear Corporation --http://www.lear.com/-- is one of the world's leading suppliers of automotive seating systems, electrical distribution systems andelectronic products. The Company's products are designed,engineered and manufactured by a diverse team of 80,000 employeesat 210 facilities in 36 countries. Lear is traded on the New YorkStock Exchange under the symbol [LEA]. * * *Lear had approximately $1.2 billion in cash and cash equivalentsas of April 4, 2009, as compared to approximately $1.6 billion asof December 31, 2008. The decline reflects negative free cashflow in the first quarter, as well as the termination of anaccounts receivable factoring facility in Europe. Lear had totalassets of $6.4 billion, current liabilities of $4.4 billion andlong-term liabilities of $2.0 billion, resulting in $41.4 millionin stockholders' deficit at April 4, 2009.LENOX HILL: Moody's Affirms 'Ba1'; Changes Outlook to Negative--------------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the Ba1 rating assigned toLenox Hill Hospital. The outlook has been revised to negativefrom stable and reflects the recent halt of its improvingfinancial trend and expectations for an operating deficit for theyear, contrary to Moody's 2008 expectations for break-evenperformance by 2010. The outlook revision applies to$130.4 million of rated debt. This review follows Moody's reviewof audited fiscal year 2008 financial statements and performancethrough April 30, 2009. Stellar transparency and informationdissemination continues to be a very favorable factor.Legal Security: Gross revenue pledge of Lenox Hill Hospital. 1.25rolling twelve-month debt service covenant test and 50 day cash onhand requirement. Moody's analysis has historically incorporatedthe consolidated financial performance of Lenox Hill Hospital andManhattan Eye Ear and Throat Hospital who is not obligated on thedebt but who is an important component of Lenox Hill Hospital'soverall strategic plan for competing in the difficult New YorkCity healthcare market. A full legal merger with MEETH in 2007solidifies that relationship and its incorporation with LHH'smission and Moody's credit analysis.Interest Rate Derivatives: none Challenges* Combination of global economics and inability to achieve volume expectations for various reasons have more than offset the volume being generated from a new cardiology group relationship. Volume growth is critical to meeting break-even financial goals.* Increased operating deficit expected for FY2009 from 2008 deficit, which would reverse the multi-year financial improvement that had decreased annual operating losses and increased operating cashflow since FY2005.* Balance sheet has declined with market losses and recent performance; days cash on hand at 69 days as of April 30, 2009. Sale of unencumbered asset (122 East 76th Street) did not occur during 2008.* Little leverage with payers to get rates comparable to peer hospitals in the city who are larger or part of a network; rates remain below market despite high acuity and services provided at LHH.* Debt creep from leases over the last year to fund some capital projects. Capital spending has been held to modest levels for the last two years and capital spending will continue to be monitored in light of of year to date performance.* Long and short term investment pools remain in alternative investments, with lock-up periods averaging 90 days.* Need for new types of physician relationships, including employment, changes the dynamic of the voluntary medical staff and management will need to integrate these new relationships without disrupting the existing staff.* Stand-alone facility in a consolidated market of much larger providers, results in decreased leverage with payers and emphasizes the competitive challenge to grow volume. Strengths* Large tertiary provider ($651 million revenue base) located on the affluent Upper East Side of Manhattan that has carved a niche for itself by remaining an independent organization within a consolidating market and concentrating on its designated centers of excellence in orthopedics, cardiovascular surgery, maternal child health and surgical services. High Medicare case mix index of 1.87 year-to-date through April 30, 2009).* LHH has differentiated itself from its local competitors by being a teaching hospital without the added expense inherent in academic medical centers affiliated with medical schools. Its low cost structure, favorable payer mix and low length of stay are also key strengths.* Improved contracting terms received from its largest payers to generate significantly improved revenue over immediate term.* New volume being generated as expected from new (2008) relationship with large cardiology group.* Debt is all fixed rate; no derivatives or swaps outstanding.* Portfolio allocation produced better than market returns during 2008 and through first four months of 2009. Recent Developments/ResultsYear-to-date performance is particularly disappointing becausemuch progress was made over a multi-year period to stabilizefinancial performance at LHH, improve its balance sheet and reduceits annual operating losses. The operating deficit in FY2008 wasreduced to $11.1 million from $16.0 million in 2007 and marked thefourth year of operating improvement for the hospital, whichseemed to position LHH to meet its break-even performance fromoperations goal in FY2010. Through four months of 2009, however,LHH is posting an $8.2 million operating loss, which comparesunfavorably to the $5 million operating loss through four months2008. Expectations are for a year ending deficit of $20 millionwhich includes the residual impact of $41 million of correctiveaction plan initiatives that includes reduction in force andimproved rates.Recent financial performance is largely tied to volume that hasnot met budgeted goals and is particularly impacted by theunanticipated loss of admissions from three key admitters who haveleft the staff for differing reasons. Reaching break-even waspredicated on improved rates received from payers and volumeincreases, and so the full benefit of improved rates has not beenrealized because of the volume losses. Discussions continue withseveral multi-specialty groups for varying types of affiliationrelationships to solidify referral patterns, since LHH lacks theprimary care clinics and physician relationships enjoyed by itscompetitor academic medical centers. Currently, LHH's medicalstaff is mostly voluntary with many physicians not participatingin managed care networks or even accepting Medicare. To date,management has entered into an arrangement with CardiovascularAssociates of NY, a 16-physician group of cardiologists, locatedin Queens, who is on target to bring significant incrementaladmissions to LHH. Payer contracts have been renegotiated and arenow based on case rates, with decreased denials expected andincremental revenue expected if volume meets targeted levels.After improving in 2008 with the monetization of some non-coreassets and receipt of NY State HEAL monies, LHH's cash increasedto $141 million from $130.7 million but days of cash on handremained stable around 82 days. Cash-to-debt improved to anhistorical high 79.3% with the retirement of some debt with HEALfunds. Some additional HEAL monies may be available if LHH reducesits bed size. However, through April 30, 2009, cash has declinedto $122.8 million (69.2 days). A three-year capital budget isbeing evaluated (the capital spending ratio has been less than 1.0times for the last three years) but capital spending cannot bedeferred much longer. Management has used $20 million of capitalleases in the last six months to fund its short-term needs, andexpects cash to increase by $4 million shortly when LHH isreimbursed for monies already spent.Cash continues to be invested in alternative investments with lockup periods that range from 30-90 days. Moody's excludesapproximately $20 million from LHH's cash due management'sdistinction of these funds as long term endowment funds which arenot readily available. Portfolio returns have outperformed themarket in 2008 and in the current interim period. However,Moody's believe the investment risk of its liquidity position dueto an above average allocation in alternative investments in itsoverall portfolio needs to be carefully monitored and is overlyaggressive for a below investment grade credits with modest liquidassets. OutlookThe negative outlook is based on Moody's belief that the recentdownturn in Lenox Hill's operating performance and balance sheetmetrics pressure the current rating unless plans to stabilizeoperations do not generate tangible results over the immediateterm. What could change the rating -- UPReduction of operating losses and sustainable results from thecorrective action plan without one time benefits, demonstratedbenefits of new physician relationships, increase in cash What could change the rating -- DOWNIncreased operating losses, decline in existing cash, unfavorablechanges in operating indicators or market position Key Indicators* Assumptions & Adjustments: -- Based on financial statements for LHH and Subsidiaries -- First number reflects audit year ended December 31, 2007 -- Second number reflects audit year ended December 31, 2008 -- Investment returns smoothed at 6% unless otherwise noted* Admissions: 30,164 admissions; 29,014 admissions* Total operating revenue: $583.1 million; $651.3 million* Net revenue available for debt service: $46.7 million; $62.0 million* Total debt outstanding: $184.4 million; $178 million* Operating margin: (2.8%); (1.7%)* Operating cashflow margin: 5.6%; 5.5%* Cash-to-debt: 70.8%; 79.3%* Debt-to-cashflow: 5.3 times; 3.38 times* Days cash on hand: 84.9 days; 82.5 days* Maximum annual debt service: $18.653 million (includes lines of credit and mortgage)* MADS coverage with actual investment income as reported: 2.4 times; 2.0 times* MADS coverage with investment income normalized at 6%: 2.51 times; 3.33 timesRated Debt:* Series 2001, $130.4 millionThe last rating action with respect to Lenox Hill Hospital was onAugust 14, 2008, when its rating was upgraded to Ba1 with a stableoutlook.LYNDON CREAGER: Case Summary & 10 Largest Unsecured Creditors-------------------------------------------------------------Joint Debtors: Lyndon F. Creager, Jr. Linda L. Creager 11916 Shadow Run Blvd. Riverview, FL 33569Bankruptcy Case No.: 09-13423Chapter 11 Petition Date: June 24, 2009Court: United States Bankruptcy Court Middle District of Florida (Tampa)Debtors' Counsel: Pierce J. Guard Jr., Esq. 4200 S Florida Avenue Lakeland, FL 33813 Tel: (863) 619-7331 Fax: (863) 619-7992 Email: [email protected] Assets: $3,174,468Total Debts: $2,719,066A full-text copy of the Debtors' petition, including a list oftheir 10 largest unsecured creditors, is available for free at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/flmb09-13423.pdfThe petition was signed by the Joint Debtors.MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: U.S. Trustee Appoints Creditors Committee------------------------------------------------------------------Pursuant to Section 1102(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, Roberta A.DeAngelis Acting United States Trustee, Region 3, appoints thesepersons to the Committee of Unsecured Creditors in connection withthe Chapter 11 cases of MagnaChip Semiconductor Finance Companyand its affiliates: 1. Avenue Special Situations Fund V, L.P., c/o Avenue Capital Management II, L.P., Attn: Randal Klein, 535 Madison Avenue, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-850-7553, Fax: 212-486-1891 2. Bank of New York Mellon, Indenture Trustee, Attn: David M. Kerr, 101 Barclay Street, New York, NY 10286, Phone: 212-815-5650, Fax: 732-667-9322 3. Law Debenture Corporation, Indenture Trustee, Attn: Robert Bice, 400 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 646-747-1254, Fax: 212-750-1361 About MagnaChip SemiconductorMagnaChip Semiconductor -- http://www.magnachip.com/-- designs, develops, and manufactures mixed-signal and digital multimediasemiconductors addressing the convergence of consumerelectronics and communications devices. MagnaChip also provideswafer foundry services utilizing CMOS high voltage, embeddedmemory, and analog and power process technologies for themanufacture of IC's for customer-owned designs. As of Dec. 31,2009, MagnaChip had assets of $425 million against debts of$1.04 billion as of Dec. 31, 2008.MagnaChip Semiconductor LLC and its affiliates filed for Chapter11 on June 12, 2009 (Bankr. D. Del. Case NO. 09-12009). JudgePeter J. Walsh handles the case. James E. O'Neill, Esq., andLaura Davis Jones, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, arebankruptcy counsel to the Debtors. Omni Management Group LLC isthe Debtors' claims agent.MAHALO ENERGY: Can Hire Kline Kline as General Bankruptcy Counsel-----------------------------------------------------------------The Hon. Terrence L. Michael of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for theEastern District of Oklahoma authorized Mahalo Energy (USA) Inc.to employ Kline, Kline, Elliott & Bryant, P.C., as generalbankruptcy counsel.The firm is expected to assist the Debtors in connection withexercising its rights and performing its duties as debtor-in-possession. The firm will also perform all legal servicesnecessary in the Chapter 11 case.G. David Bryant, an employee at the firm, told the Court that thehourly rates of the firm's personnel range from $70 to $290.Mr. Bryant assured the Court that the firm is a \"disinterestedperson\" as that term is defined in Section 101(14) of theBankruptcy Code.Mr. Bryant can be reached at: Kline, Kline, Elliott & Bryant, P.C. 720 N.E. 63rd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Tel: (405) 848-4448 About Mahalo Energy (USA) Inc.Mahalo Energy (USA) Inc. has 300 producing wells in Oklahoma and60,000 acres of gas-bearing shale formations. Tulsa, Oklahoma-based Mahalo Energy filed for Chapter 11 on May 21, 2009 (Bankr.E.D. Okla. Case No. 09-80795). Stephen W. Elliott, Esq., atKline, Kline, Elliot & Bryant, PC, represents the Debtor in itsrestructuring efforts. The Debtor listed $10 million to$50 million in assets and $100 million to $500 million in debts.MAHALO ENERGY: U.S. Trustee Appoints 6-Member Creditors Committee-----------------------------------------------------------------Richard A. Wieland, the U.S. Trustee for Region 20, appointed sixcreditors to serve on the official committee of unsecuredcreditors in Mahalo Energy (USA) Inc.'s Chapter 11 cases:The Committee members are:1. Rose Resources Oil & Gas, Inc. Attn: Timothy J. Stanley, president P. O. Box 330258 Tulsa, OK 74133 Tel: (918) 289-0460 Fax: (918) 289-04632. Mustang Fuel Corporation Attn: Kurt Rupert, attorney 201 Robert S. Kerr Ave., Ste. 1600 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Tel: (405) 235-7000 Fax: (405) 996-34033. West Rock Energy Consultants Ltd. Attn: Ryan Ganske, vice president 910 7th Ave. SW, Ste. 1110 Calgary, AB Canada T2P 3N8 Tel: (403) 969-9900 Fax: (403) 262-95764. Scientific Drilling International, Inc. Attn: Joshua D. Wells, attorney Peggy Miller 10205 N. Pennsylvania Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Tel: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-21125. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. Attn: Christopher J. Ryan, manager of collections 2929 Allen Parkway, Ste. 2100 Houston, TX 77019 Tel: (713) 439-8771 Fax: (713) 439-87786. River Valley Oilfield Enterprises Attn: Matt Place/Jeff Cooper, partners P. O. Box 91 Poteau, OK 74953 Tel: (918) 658-2424Official creditors' committees have the right to employ legaland accounting professionals and financial advisors, at theDebtor's expense. They may investigate the Debtor's businessand financial affairs. Importantly, official committees serveas fiduciaries to the general population of creditors theyrepresent. Those committees will also attempt to negotiate theterms of a consensual Chapter 11 plan -- almost always subjectto the terms of strict confidentiality agreements with theDebtors and other core parties-in-interest. If negotiationsbreak down, the Committee may ask the Bankruptcy Court toreplace management with an independent trustee. If theCommittee concludes reorganization of the Debtor is impossible,the Committee will urge the Bankruptcy Court to convert theChapter 11 cases to a liquidation proceeding. About Mahalo Energy (USA) Inc.Mahalo Energy (USA) Inc. has 300 producing wells in Oklahoma and60,000 acres of gas-bearing shale formations. Tulsa, Oklahoma-based Mahalo Energy filed for Chapter 11 on May 21, 2009 (Bankr.E.D. Okla. Case No. 09-80795). Stephen W. Elliott, Esq., atKline, Kline, Elliot & Bryant, PC, represents the Debtor in itsrestructuring efforts. The Debtor listed $10 million to$50 million in assets and $100 million to $500 million in debts.MARK IV: Court Sets Disclosure Statement Hearing on July 28-----------------------------------------------------------The U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York hasset a hearing on July 28, 2009, at 2:00 p.m. (Eastern time) toconsider approval of the proposed disclosure statement withrespect to the Joint Plan of Reorganization of Mark IV Industries,Inc., and its affiliated debtors, dated June 17, 2009.Responses, objection, and proposed modification, if any , to theDisclosure Statement must be filed with the Court, so as to beactually received on or before 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) onJuly 21, 2009.As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on June 18, 2009,the Debtors submitted to the Court a proposed Plan ofReorganization and accompanying Disclosure Statement on June 17,2009.Mark IV seeks to emerge from chapter 11 as a privately heldcompany. Pursuant to the Plan, the lenders under Mark IV'sprepetition $865 million first lien credit facility would receive92% of the equity in the reorganized Mark IV. General unsecuredcreditors would get the remaining 8% of the new common stock. ThePlan classifies all claims of Mark IV's second lien lenders asgeneral unsecured claims. Holders of equity interests in Mark IVare out of the money.According to the Plan, the new common stock issued to the lendersand the unsecured creditors would be subject to dilution from theexercise of options and grants of restricted stock to employeespursuant to a new Management Equity Incentive Plan. The Plandocuments do not indicate the percentage of equity that may beissued pursuant to the proposed incentive plan.A full-text copy of Mark IV's plan of reorganization filedJune 17, 2009, is available at no charge at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/MarIVPlan.PDFA full-text copy of Mark IV's disclosure statement filed June 17,2009, is available at no charge at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/MarIVDS.PDF About Mark IV IndustriesHeadquartered in Amherst, New York, Mark IV Industries, Inc. --http://www.mark-iv.com/-- is a privately held leading global diversified manufacturer of highly engineered systems andcomponents for vehicles, transportation infrastructure andequipment. The company's systems and components are designed topromote a cleaner and safer environment and include powertransmission, air admission and cooling, advanced radiofrequency, and information display, technologies. The company hasa geographically diverse innovation, marketing and manufacturingfootprint.Mark IV Industries, Inc. and 17 affiliates filed for chapter 11 onApril 30, 209 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 09-12795). JudgeStuart M. Bernstein presides over the case. Jay M. Goffman, Esq.,J. Eric Ivester, Esq., and Matthew M. Murphy, Esq., at Skadden,Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, serve as the Debtors' counsel.David Orlofsky, Managing Director; Tadd Crane, Director; JoseAlvarez; and Jeffrey Genova at Zolfo Cooper serve as RestructuringAdvisors. David Hilty and Saul Burian, Managing Directors atHoulihan Lokey, serve as Investment Bankers and FinancialAdvisors. Sitrick and Company acts as Public Relations Advisor.Steven M. Fuhrman, Esq., at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP,represents JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., the First Lien Agent and theDIP Agent. Scott L. Hazan, Esq., at Otterbourg, Steindler,Houston & Rosen, P.C., represents the Creditors' Committee.The Debtors disclosed $100 million to $500 million in estimatedassets and more than $1 billion in debts when they filed forbankruptcy.MAXXAM INC: Sells Stake in RMCAL Joint Venture for Nominal Amount-----------------------------------------------------------------M. Emily Madison, MAXXAM Inc.'s Vice President for Finance,relates that in 2004, a subsidiary of the Company and a thirdparty real estate development company formed a joint venture,RMCAL Development LP, to develop a residential parcel in theCompany's real estate development in Rancho Mirage, California.In connection with the formation of RMCAL, the Company sold a 50%interest in the parcel and contributed the remainder of the parcelto the joint venture in return for a 50% non-controlling interestin RMCAL. The Company accounts for its investment in RMCAL underthe equity method of accounting.RMCAL's development loan matured in March 2009 and RMCAL'smanaging partner, which had certain guaranty obligations withrespect to the development loan, was engaged in discussions withthe lender to renew the facility. During the second quarter of2009, it became evident the venture would require substantialadditional capital to continue its business and in June 2009, theCompany agreed to sell its entire interest in RMCAL for a nominalamount, in accordance with a provision in the limited partnershipagreement. Once the transaction closes, the Company will nolonger have any ownership interest in the venture. As a result ofthe developments, the Company will record a $4.2 millionimpairment charge in the second quarter of 2009 related to thisinvestment. Going Concern DoubtAs reported by the Troubled Company Reporter on April 7, 2009,Grant Thornton LLP said the uncertainty surrounding the realestate industry and the ultimate outcome of proceedings involvingMAXXAM Inc.'s former unit, Pacific Lumber Company, and theireffect on the Company, as well as the Company's operating lossesraise substantial doubt about the ability of the Company tocontinue as a going concern.A full-text copy of MAXXAM's quarterly report is available at nocharge at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3cd4 About MAXXAM Inc.Headquartered in Houston, MAXXAM Inc. is a publicly-tradedcompany, with business interests in forest products, real estateinvestment and development and racing operations.MERCER INT'L: Refinancing Risks Cue Moody's to Junk Ratings-----------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service downgraded the credit ratings of theRestricted Group of Mercer International Inc., while concurrentlyplacing the ratings on review for possible further downgrade. TheCorporate Family Rating and Probability of Default Rating werelowered to Caa1 from B2, the rating on the senior unsecured noteswas lowered to Caa2 from B2 and the Speculative Grade LiquidityRating was lowered to SGL-4 from SGL-3.These rating actions incorporate the refinancing risk associatedwith upcoming debt maturities and the considerable deteriorationin Mercer's revenue, margins and liquidity profile. A steepdecline in the selling price of Northern Bleached Softwood Kraft(NBSK) pulp, compounded by the recent deterioration in the USdollar against both the euro and the Canadian dollar, has led tonet price realizations that Moody's views as unsustainable. Whileglobal pulp demand and pricing appear to have stabilized in recentweeks (at depressed levels), Moody's does not project a materialrebound in NBSK selling prices until supply is further curtailed.Meanwhile, the alternative fuels tax credit in the U.S. -- and therecently announced program in Canada -- may be incentivizingotherwise unprofitable kraft pulp producers to continueproduction. Hence, Moody's believes Mercer's operating resultswill continue to be challenged over the intermediate term.The downgrade in the liquidity rating to SGL-4 reflects the near-term maturity of both of Mercer's revolvers (due in February andMay 2010), a modest cash balance (EUR28 million at March 31, 2009)and Moody's expectation of negative free cash flow over the nextfour quarters, despite likely working capital and input costimprovements. Additionally, refinancing risk on the US$67 millionsenior subordinated convertible notes due October 15, 2010(unrated by Moody's) is becoming increasingly higher as thismaturity date approaches.The review for possible downgrade will focus on Mercer's medium-term liquidity and the viability of its capital structure,including the potential impact of the Canadian Pulp and PaperGreen Transformation Program, whether financing is obtained forCelgar's green energy project, and Mercer's refinancing plan forthe upcoming debt maturities of its Celgar and Rosenthal revolvingcredit facilities and the senior subordinated convertible notes.Moody's downgraded these ratings: -- $310 million 9.25% senior unsecured notes due February 2013, to Caa2 (LGD4, 58%) from B2 (LGD4, 51%) -- Speculative Grade Liquidity Rating, to SGL-4 from SGL-3 -- Corporate Family Rating, to Caa1 from B2 -- Probability of Default Rating, to Caa1 from B2The last rating action occurred on August 21, 2006 when Moody'saffirmed Mercer's existing ratings.Mercer International Inc., a Washington-based corporation withcorporate offices in Vancouver, British Columbia, is a globalproducer of NBSK pulp. Moody's ratings cover the RestrictedGroup, which includes the Celgar and Rosenthal pulp mills butexcludes the Stendal mill. Annual production capacity of theRestricted Group is approximately 820,000 ADMTs (air-dried metrictones) and revenue for the twelve months ended March 31, 2009, wasEUR391 million.METALDYNE CORP: Receives Final Approval to Borrow $20 Million-------------------------------------------------------------According to Bill Rochelle at Bloomberg, the U.S. Bankruptcy Courtfor the Southern District of New York, in Manhattan, grantedMetaldyne Corp. final approval to borrow $19.9 million for 60 dayspending the sale of its businesses.The report relates that the bankruptcy judge wrote a 12-pageopinion overruling objections from the official committee ofunsecured creditors formed in the chapter 11 case. The CreditorsCommittee argued that the case and the financing only benefitedthe secured lenders.Metaldyne is seeking approval of procedures to govern the sale ofits business to Brussels-based RHJ International, the lead bidder.The offer, valued at $100 million, includes $25 million cash, a$50 million note, the rollover of $20 million note owed by aGerman subsidiary and debt assumption. RHJ is the majority ownerof Metaldyne's Japan-based parent Asahi Tec Corp.Metaldyne is also seeking approval of auction procedures underwhich Carlyle group will be lead bidder for some of its chassisbusiness in the U.S., Mexico and Spain. About Metaldyne CorporationHeadquartered in Plymouth, Michigan, Metaldyne Corporation --http://www.metaldyne.com/-- is a wholly owned subsidiary of Asahi Tec, a Shizuoka, Japan-based chassis and powertrain componentsupplier in the passenger car/light truck and medium/heavy trucksegments. Asahi Tec is listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange.Metaldyne is a global designer and supplier of metal basedcomponents, assemblies and modules for transportation relatedpowertrain and chassis applications including engine,transmission/transfer case, wheel end, and suspension, axle anddriveline, and noise and vibration control products to the motorvehicle industry.On January 11, 2007, in connection with a plan of merger, AsahiTee Corporation in Japan acquired the shares of Metaldyne. On thesame date, Asahi Tee contributed those shares to MetaldyneHoldings, and Asahi Tee thereby became the indirect parent ofMetaldyne and its other units. RHJ International S.A. of Belgiumnow holds approximately 60.1% of the outstanding capital stock ofAsahi Tec.The Company own 23 different properties, including 14 domesticmanufacturing facilities in six states, and more than 10manufacturing facilities North America, Europe, South America andAsia.Metaldyne Corporation aka MascoTech, Inc., aka MascoTech Harbor,Inc., Riverside Acquisition Corporation and Metaldyne SubsidiaryInc. and its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 on May 27, 2009(Bankr. S. D. NY Lead Case No. 09-13412). The filing did notinclude the company's non-U.S. entities or operations. Richard H.Engman, Esq., at Jones Day represents the Debtors in theirrestructuring efforts. Judy A. O'Neill, Esq., at Foley & LardnerLLP serves as conflicts counsel; Lazard Freres & Co. LLC andAlixPartners LLP as financial advisors; and BMC Group Inc. asclaims agent. For the fiscal year ended March 29, 2009, thecompany recorded annual revenues of approximately US$1.32 billion.As of March 29, 2009, utilizing book values, the company hadassets of approximately US$977 million and liabilities ofUS$927 million.MIDWAY GAMES: Threshold Sues to Block Mortal Kombat Sale--------------------------------------------------------According to Michael Bathon at Bloomberg News, ThresholdEntertainment Inc. sued Midway Games Inc. before the U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to stop a BankruptcyCourt-sanctioned sale of the Mortal Kombat franchise. Thresholdsays that it has an exclusive license to produce derivative workssuch as films and television shows based on the video game.As reported by the Troubled Company Reporter on May 25, MidwayGames signed a deal to sell its U.S. assets to Warner Bros.Entertainment Inc., a subsidiary of Time Warner, Inc. (NYSE:TWX)for $33 million, subject to higher and better offers at anauction.Pursuant to the asset purchase agreement signed by the parties,Warner Bros. Entertainment would acquire substantially all of theCompany's U.S. assets including its Mortal Kombat franchise andits development studios in Chicago and Seattle for a purchaseprice of $33,000,000, subject to adjustment as of the closing forchanges in inventory, plus the agreed value of the Company's U.S.account receivables. The agreement does not include the Company'sdevelopment studio in San Diego and the TNA franchise games, nordoes it include the Company's development studio in Newcastlewhich had developed the Company's recently released Wheelman game.The salient terms of the APA reached by Midway and Warner Bros.are: -- Warner Bros. will pay $33 million cash at closing, subject to adjustments based on inventory valuation, and exclusive of Warner's payment of cure amounts and the accounts receivable amount. -- Assets to be sold include (i) all previously released titles, all video games based on the Mortal Kombat universe and This is Vegas universe, all Game Party video games, all Touchmaster video games, all Area 51 video games, all Spy unter video games, all Wheelman video games, and all of Midway's arcade and coin-operated games including, but not limited to, Gauntlet, Rampage, Joust, and Rampart, and all \"back catalog\" and \"classic intellectual property\" library video games (ii) all assigned contracts, including all leasehold interests in and to the real property located at the acquired studios in: (a) 3131 Elliot Avenue, Seattle, Washington, USA 98121; (b) 2633 W. Roscoe St., Chicago, Illinois, USA 60618; and (c) 2727 W. Roscoe St., Chicago, Illinois, USA 60618 (iii) any rights, claims or causes of action of Midway against Warner Bros. relating to the assets, properties, business or operations of Midway arising out of events occurring on or prior to the closing date, including, but not limited to, causes of action under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code. -- Excluded assets include: * all shares of capital stock, limited liability company membership interests and other equity interests, of Midway and all its subsidiaries; * assets of any foreign subsidiary, unless otherwise specified; * all cash and cash equivalents of Midway; * all causes of actions of Midway against third parties other than Warner Bros. relating to assets of Midway arising out of events occurring on or prior to the closing date, including causes of action in connection with the complaint brought by the Creditors Committee against National Amusements, Inc., et al. * all TNA Wrestling, NBA/NHL/MLB, Lord of the Rings, and Mechanic Master video games. * the Wheelman Distribution Agreement between Ubisoft Entertainment and Midway Home Entertainment Inc.; platform agreements; an agreement of Purchase and sale dated July 7, 2008, between Midway, as seller, and Lexington Homes LLC, as buyer, relating to property located at 2633 W. Roscoe St., Chicago, Illinois, USA 60618, and a related redevelopment agreement between the City of Chicago and Midway; and (i) any contracts that relate to properties located at: (i) the New Castle Studio, (ii) Heimaranstrasse 35, Munich, Germany 80339; (iii) 13 Rue Vivienne, Paris, France 75002; (iv) 43 Worship Street, London, EC21 2DX United Kingdom; and (v) any other property located outside the United States. -- Warner Bros. will hire certain of Midway's employees, including key designers and employees on design teams for certain of Midway's games that are included in the sale. -- The cure amounts for certain of Midway's games are: Game Cure Amount ---- ----------- Happy Feet $359,218 Ant Bully $166,126 Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe $7,342,476 -- Closing conditions include: * With respect to the Unreal Engine 3 License Agreement dated January 14, 2005, between Midway Home Entertainment Inc. and Epic Games, inc., Warner Bros. will receive all Midway's rights and benefits under the Unreal Engine License. * Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. and Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd., (with respect to the PlayStation platforms) and Microsoft Licensing GP (with respect to the Xbox platforms) will each approve Warner Bros. as the \"publisher of record\" with respect to all the games included in the APA. -- Either party may terminate the agreement if closing has not occurred by July 15, 2009.Warner Bros. has claims against Midway pursuant to prepetitionagreements pertaining to the games Mortal Kombat v. DC Universe,Happy Feet and Ant Bully. Midway owes Warner Bros. an aggregateof $7,867,820 on a prepetition basis in connection with thesegames. The claim will be waivedCopies of the Asset Purchase Agreement and related exhibits areavailable at; http://bankrupt.com/misc/Midway_WarnerExhB.1.pdf http://bankrupt.com/misc/Midway_WarnerExhB.2.pdf http://bankrupt.com/misc/Midway_WarnerExhB.3.pdf About Midway GamesMidway Games Inc. (OTC Pink Sheets: MWYGQ), headquartered inChicago, Illinois, with offices throughout the world, is a leadingdeveloper and publisher of interactive entertainment software formajor videogame systems and personal computers. More informationabout Midway and its products can be found athttp://www.midway.com/The Company and nine of its affiliates filed for Chapter 11protection on February 12, 2009 (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 09-10465). David W. Carickhoff, Jr., Esq., Michael David Debaecke,Esq., and Victoria A. Guilfoyle, Esq., at Blank Rome LLP,represent the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. The Debtorsproposed Lazard as their investment banker, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP asspecial counsel, and Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions LLC as claimsagent.MILACRON INC: To Pursue Avenue Capital Deal; No Rival Bids Filed----------------------------------------------------------------Milacron Inc. reports that, as of the June 24 bid deadlineestablished by the Bankruptcy Court in its Chapter 11 proceeding,it had not received an offer for its assets higher than the onemade in the definitive agreement reached last month with a groupof existing investors.At a hearing later today, June 26, Milacron will ask the Court toapprove the sale of its assets pursuant to the definitiveagreement. If approval is granted, the company would expect tocomplete the sale within the next month.As reported by the Troubled Company Reporter on May 7, 2009,Milacron signed a definitive agreement to sell substantially allof its assets to a company formed by certain affiliates of AvenueCapital Group, certain funds or accounts managed by DDJ CapitalManagement LLC and certain other entities that together holdapproximately 93% of the company's 11-1/2% Senior Secured Notesfor total consideration estimated at approximately $175 million.The definitive agreement was subject to higher offers from otherparties, which were solicited in accordance with Court-approvedbid procedures. Although substantial interest was expressed, itdid not result in the submission of a higher offer by the biddeadline. About Milacron Inc.Headquartered in Batavia, Ohio, Milacron Inc. (Pink Sheets: MZIAQ)supplies plastics-processing technologies and industrial fluids,with major manufacturing facilities in North America, Europe andAsia. First incorporated in 1884, Milacron also manufacturessynthetic water-based industrial fluids used in metalworkingapplications.The Company and six of its affiliates filed for protection onMarch 10, 2009 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Lead Case No. 09-11235). On thesame day, the Company filed an ancillary proceeding forreorganization of its Canadian subsidiary under the Companies'Creditors Arrangement Act in the Ontario Superior Court of Justicein Canada. The petitions include the Company and its U.S. andCanadian subsidiaries and its non-operating Dutch holding companysubsidiary only, and do not include any of the Company's operatingsubsidiaries outside the U.S. and Canada.Kim Martin Lewis, Esq., Tim J. Robinson, Esq., and Patrick D.Burns, Esq., at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, represent the Debtors intheir restructuring efforts. Conway, Del Genio, Gries Co., LLC,is the Debtors' financial advisor. Rothschild Inc. is theDebtors' investment banker and financial advisor. Kurtzman CarsonConsultants LLC is the noticing, balloting and disbursing agentfor the Debtors. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP,represents DIP Lender General Electric Capital Corp. TaftStettinius & Hollister LLP is counsel for the Official Committeeof Unsecured Creditors.At April 30, 2009, the Company had $527,497,000 in total assetsand $809,732,000 in total liabilities.MODERN CONTINENTAL: Files Liquidating Plan; Jalbert as Trustee--------------------------------------------------------------Modern Continental Construction Co., Inc., has filed with the U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts a proposedbankruptcy exit plan that provides for the liquidation of thecompany's remaining assets in an orderly manner.The Debtor will use the liquidation proceeds to pay creditors inthis order: 1. holders of secured claims against a particular asset sold, 2. holders of priority claims, 3. holders of general unsecured claimsUnder the Plan, Craig Jalbert will be appointed as LiquidatingSupervisor to oversee the liquidation upon confirmation of thePlan.Modern Continental Construction Co. --http://www.moderncontinental.com/-- of Cambridge, Massachusetts was established in 1967 when its founders, Lelio \"Les\" Marino andKenneth Anderson, earned a small contract for the construction ofa sidewalk in the town of Peabody. Since then, the company hasblossomed into a multi-faceted organization which is highlyrespected throughout the construction industry, and is rankedamong the top contractors in the country.The company filed for Chapter protection on June 23, 2008 (Bankr.D. Mass. Case No. 08-14558). Harold B. Murphy, Esq., at Hanify &King P.C., represents the Debtor in its restructuring efforts. AnOfficial Committee of Unsecured Creditors has been appointed inthe Debtor's bankruptcy case.When the debtor filed for protection from its creditors, it listedassets of $100 million to $500 million, and debts of $500 millionto $1 billion.MOOG INC: S&P Downgrades Corporate Credit Rating to 'BB'--------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services said that it lowered itsratings, including the corporate credit rating, on East Aurora,New York-based Moog Inc. to 'BB' from 'BB+'. S&P also removed theratings from CreditWatch, where S&P placed them with negativeimplications on April 10, 2009. The outlook is stable.The downgrade reflects S&P's expectations of deteriorating creditprotection measures in 2009, due to the effect of the globalrecession on key market segments, especially industrial andcommercial aerospace, as well as higher debt levels to fundacquisitions. Demand has deteriorated significantly for mostindustrial markets, while the company reduced sales expectationsfor the commercial aerospace market because of a slower productionramp-up on Boeing Co.'s new 787 jetliner and expected lowerproduction of other Boeing and Airbus SAS jetliners and businessjets. Along with the earnings decline, debt has increased as aresult of several small to midsize acquisitions, resulting in thedeterioration of credit protection measures.The 'BB' corporate credit rating reflects Moog's participation inthe cyclical and competitive commercial aerospace and industrialmarkets, the likelihood of the company using debt to financeacquisitions, and associated integration risk. The ratingsbenefit somewhat from leading positions in niche markets.S&P expects credit protection measures to deteriorate in 2009, butbe appropriate for the lower rating level. Stabilization in keymarkets over the next year and fewer acquisitions could result insome modest improvement in 2010.\"We could revise the outlook to negative if Moog increasesleverage significantly to fund an acquisition or greater-than-expected weakness in the industrial and commercial aerospacemarkets results in sustained debt to EBITDA above 4x,\" saidStandard & Poor's credit analyst Christopher DeNicolo.\"It is unlikely that S&P would revise the outlook to positive inthe near term, following the recent downgrade and challengingconditions in key markets,\" he continued.MXENERGY INC: Societe Generale Directs Exchange Offer for Notes---------------------------------------------------------------MXenergy Inc. and MXenergy Electric Inc., subsidiaries of MXenergyHoldings Inc., entered into a Fifth Amendment, dated and effectiveas of June 15, 2009, to the Third Amended and Restated CreditAgreement dated as of November 17, 2008 with the Company andcertain of its subsidiaries, as guarantors, the lenders partythereto and Societe Generale, as administrative agent.The Company entered a Fourth Amendment and Waiver, dated andeffective as of June 8, 2009, to Credit Agreement.Pursuant to the terms of the Credit Agreement, the Company wasrequired to achieve specified milestones related to theconsummation of a Liquidity Event. Pursuant to the CreditAgreement Amendment, these milestones were revised by amending andrestating in its entirety the definition of \"Trigger Event\"contained therein, which now requires: (1) the Company to initiate the commencement of an exchange offer (or similar offer) to holders of the Senior Notes, or to enter into one or more exchange agreements with holders of at least 70% of the outstanding principal amount of the Senior Notes, in each case on or before June 26, 2009 and on terms necessary to meet the conditions specified in the financing proposal the lenders have received from the borrowers; (2) the Company to deliver (in the case of a Senior Notes Exchange Offer) evidence that the holders of at least 70% of the outstanding principal amount of the Senior Notes have agreed to accept the Senior Notes Exchange Offer on or before June 26, 2009; (3) the Company to deliver to the administrative agent and the lenders on or before July 8, 2009, a letter that is addressed to the administrative agent and the lenders and from a finance party acceptable to the administrative agent in its sole discretion confirming to the effect that such finance party actively continues to conduct due diligence and negotiate documentation in good faith with the borrowers on a refinancing of all of the obligations under the Credit Agreement and anticipates closing the refinancing on or before July 31, 2009; (4) that the Senior Notes Exchange Offer shall not have (i) expired on or before, or be extended to expire after, July 27, 2009 without holders of a sufficient amount of the Senior Notes to make the Senior Notes Exchange Offer effective having accepted the Senior Notes Offer, or (ii) terminated on or before July 27, 2009, and that any Senior Notes Exchange Agreement shall not have terminated or expired or the exchange thereunder not be consummated on or before July 27, 2009; (5) the Company to deliver to the administrative agent and the lenders on or before July 17, 2009 a commitment letter providing for the refinancing in full of the obligations under the Credit Agreement on or before July 31, 2009; and (6) that neither the Company nor the borrowers shall have received a notice of or have become aware of a termination or abandonment of a refinance party, or of a significant change in structure that could reasonably be expected to delay the closing to after July 31, 2009 of, the refinancing in full of the obligations under the Credit Agreement contemplated as of the effective date of the Credit Agreement Amendment, and that neither the Company nor any borrower or any of its subsidiaries shall have sent notice of the termination or abandonment of such refinancing, in each case without having identified another acceptable refinance party at the sole discretion of the Administrative Agent and the Majority Lenders.Pursuant to the terms of the Credit Agreement Amendment, therevolving commitments of the lenders were reduced to$115.0 million as of the effective date of the Credit AgreementAmendment. Additionally, the Company is required to maintain aminimum of $75.0 million in cash with the administrative agent assecurity for all obligations under the Credit Agreement until thetermination thereof, the repayment in full of all obligationsthereunder, the termination of all letters of credit issuedthereunder and the termination of all revolving commitments of thelenders thereunder. Prior to the Credit Agreement Amendment, theCompany was required to post $65.0 million in cash as collateral,which was held on deposit with the administrative agent.Effective June 15, 2009, the Credit Agreement Amendment prohibitsthe Company from issuing, increasing or extending any letter ofcredit that would be for the benefit of a counterparty providingnatural gas related hedging to any borrower under the CreditAgreement.Members of the lending syndicate are: * Wachovia Bank, N.A. * CoBank, ACB * Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A. * Bank of America, N.A. * Allied Irish Banks p.l.c. * RZB Finance LLC About MXenergy HoldingsMXenergy is a retail natural gas and electricity supplier in NorthAmerica, serving approximately 500,000 customers in 39 utilityterritories in the United States and Canada. Founded in 1999 toprovide natural gas and electricity to consumers in deregulatedenergy markets, MXenergy helps residential customers and smallbusiness owners control their energy bills by providing both fixedand variable rate plans.At March 31, 2009, the Company's balance sheet showed total assetsof $316.4 million and total liabilities of $362.4 million,resulting in a stockholders' deficit of about $46.0 million.PROTEIN SCIENCES: To Contest Involuntary Ch. 7 Petition--------------------------------------------------------Protein Sciences Corp., said it intends to fight against being putinto Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Its CEO said the Company will pursueits legal remedies.As reported by the Troubled Company Reporter on June 23, 2009,creditors of Protein Sciences Corp. filed an involuntary Chapter 7petition against the company before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court forthe District of Delaware (Case No. 09-12151). The Creditors wantthe company liquidated to satisfy claims. A unit of EmergentBioSolutions Inc. holds the bulk of the debt listed on thepetition at $11.5 million.According to Bloomberg, Emergent, last May, agreed to acquire\"substantially all of the assets\" of Protein Sciences after thecompany was granted \"fast-track\" status by the Food and DrugAdministration for its FluBlok vaccine, according to a statement.As part of the deal, Emergent would pay $28 million in cash andtake on Protein Science's debt, a 5-year note worth $20 millionthat could be converted to Emergent stock at a price of $12.50 ashare, and as much $30 million more if FluBlok sales met certainmilestones.Protein Sciences Corp. is a biopharmaceutical company that startedmaking a vaccine to protect humans against the H1N1 influenzavirus last week. Protein Sciences said in a June 15 statement ithas started manufacturing \"the first and only\" vaccine, PanBlok,that would be able to combat the virus. The company said it wouldbe able to produce at least 100,000 doses of the vaccine a week.QUIGLEY CO: Reaches $16.5-Mil. Settlement with OneBeacon--------------------------------------------------------OneBeacon Insurance Group Ltd. agreed to pay about $6 million intoQuigley Co.'s asbestos personal injury trust, as well as$10.5 million to Quigley's parent, Pfizer Inc., to settle acoverage dispute involving liability policies.According to Bill Rochelle at Bloomberg News, OneBeacon will paythe $16 million in installments over 12 years to fulfillobligations to pay asbestos claims under insurance policies.Quigley's plan, which was accepted by the required majorities ofcreditors, creates trusts to take over asbestos liability and inthe process shield New-York-based Pfizer from claims.The plan confirmation process is under way. The plan proposes todistribute $757 million, which include contributions from Pfizer. About Quigley CompanyQuigley Company, Inc., a division of Pfizer Inc., sold asbestos-containing insulation products until the early 1970s. Quigleyfiled for protection under chapter 11 on September 3, 2004 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Case No. 04-15739) in order to implement a proposedglobal resolution of all pending and future asbestos-relatedpersonal injury liabilities.Asbestos victims and Pfizer have been negotiating a settlementdeal which calls for Pfizer to pay $430 million to 80% of existingplaintiffs. It will also place an additional $535 million into anasbestos settlement trust that will compensate future plaintiffsas well as the remaining 20% of current plaintiffs with claimsagainst Pfizer and Quigley. The compensation deal is worth$965 million all up. Of that $535 million, $405 million is in a40-year note from Pfizer, while $100 million will come frominsurance policies.Lawrence V. Gelber, Esq., and Michael L. Cook, Esq., at SchulteRoth & Zabel LLP, represent the Debtor in its restructuringefforts. Elihu Inselbuchm Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered,represents the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. Whenthe Debtor filed for protection from its creditors, it listed$155,187,000 in total assets and $141,933,000 in total debts.RADIO ONE: S&P Junks Corporate Credit Rating From 'B-'------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its corporate creditand issue-level ratings on Lanham, Maryland-based radiobroadcaster Radio One Inc. S&P lowered the corporate creditrating to 'CCC+' from 'B-'. The rating outlook is negative.In addition, S&P lowered the issue-level rating on Radio One's$800 million senior secured credit facility to 'CCC+' (at the samelevel as the 'CCC+' corporate credit rating on the company) from'B-'. The recovery rating on this debt remains unchanged at '3',indicating S&P's expectation of meaningful (50% to 70%) recoveryfor lenders in the event of a payment default.\"Although visibility into the second half of 2009 is very limited,the ratings downgrade reflects S&P's belief that Radio One couldbe in danger of violating its financial covenants in the fourthquarter of 2009 if operating trends don't meaningfully improve,\"said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Michael Altberg.The company had a thin margin of compliance with its senior andtotal leverage covenants as of March 31, 2009, and S&P expectsoperating performance in the second quarter to be relatively inline with the first three months of the year. In the secondquarter of 2008, the company had a one-time expense related to CEOcompensation of $10.4 million, which will benefit year-over-yearEBITDA comparisons, providing it with a modest cushion ofcompliance. Still, S&P is concerned that if trends don'tmeaningfully improve in the second half of the year, the companycould violate covenants in the fourth quarter. The downgrade alsoincorporates S&P's view that Radio One may not be able to absorb apotentially significant increase in interest rates, as well asfees, which could accompany an amendment under current creditmarket conditions.The company had limited liquidity as of March 31, 2009 (withmodest discretionary cash flow, which S&P believes could turnnegative this year), $20.3 million of cash, and $13 million ofborrowing availability under its revolving credit facility due toits thin margin of compliance with financial covenants.Radio One is primarily a radio broadcaster (80% of revenue)targeting the African-American audience, with a portfolio of about53 radio stations in 16 of the top 50 African-American markets.The company also has a 51% ownership interest in Reach Media Inc.,a programming syndication business, and a 36% interest in TV OneLLC, an African-American targeted cable television network.ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Case Summary & 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors-------------------------------------------------------------Debtor: Rocky Mountain Instrument Co. 106 Laser Dr. Building 1 Lafayette, CO 80026Bankruptcy Case No.: 09-22368Chapter 11 Petition Date: June 23, 2009Court: United States Bankruptcy Court District of Colorado (Denver)Judge: Howard R. TallmanDebtor's Counsel: Christian C. Onsager, Esq. 1873 S. Bellaire St., Ste. 1401 Denver, CO 80222 Tel: (303) 512-1123 Email: [email protected] Assets: $0 to $50,000Estimated Debts: $1,000,001 to $10,000,000A list of the Company's 20 largest unsecured creditors isavailable for free at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/cob09-22368.pdfThe petition was signed by Dr. Yubong Hahn, president of theCompany.SARA DELUCIO: Case Summary & 5 Largest Unsecured Creditors----------------------------------------------------------Debtor: Sara R. DeLucio 24228 S. River Trail Channahon, IL 60410Bankruptcy Case No.: 09-22828Chapter 11 Petition Date: June 23, 2009Court: United States Bankruptcy Court Northern District of Illinois (Chicago)Judge: Susan Pierson SonderbyDebtor's Counsel: Michael J. Davis, Esq. Springer, Brown, Covey, Gaertner, &Davis 400 S. County Farm Road, Suite 330 Wheaton, IL 60187 Tel: (630) 510-0000 Ext. 29 Fax: (630) 510-0004 Email: [email protected] Assets: $1,000,001 to $10,000,000Estimated Debts: $1,000,001 to $10,000,000A full-text copy of Ms. DeLucio's petition, including a list ofher 5 largest unsecured creditors, is available for free at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/ilnb09-22828.pdfThe petition was signed by Ms. DeLucio.SEA LAUNCH: Boeing Co. Takes $35-Million Charge-----------------------------------------------Boeing Co., said it will record a pretax charge of about $35million this quarter as a result of the bankruptcy filing by SeaLaunch Co., in which it owns a 40% stake. Boeing Co. and anotherSea Launch partner are obligated to make payments to certaincreditors if Sea Launch doesn't make its payments. Boeing has aright to reimbursement from Sea Launch and its partners so thatthe percentage of guaranteed debt Boeing pays is no larger thanthat of its stake in Sea Launch. If Boeing is unable to receivereimbursement, it could record further pretax charges of up to$478 million.Sea Launch Company, L.L.C., filed for Chapter 11 on June 22, 2009(Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 09-12153). Joel A. Waite, Esq., andKenneth J. Enos, Esq., at Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP,in Wilmington, Delaware, serve as the Debtor's counsel. At thetime of the filing, the Company said its assets range from$100 million to $500 million and debts are at least $1 billion.SEALY CORP: Expects to Post $30MM Q2 2009 Income from Operations----------------------------------------------------------------Sealy Corporation expects to issue a press release containing itsfiscal second quarter 2009 results after the market close onTuesday, June 30, 2009, to be followed by a conference call at5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.On June 18, 2009, Sealy announced selected preliminary informationrelating to results for the fiscal quarter ended May 31, 2009: Q2 2009 Range Q2 2008 Actual ------------- -------------- Total Net Sales: $294 - $301 million $375.4 million Gross Profit: $119 - $123 million $148.4 million Gross Profit Margin: 40.1% - 41.1% 39.50% Income from Operations: $28 - $30 million $35.3 million Adjusted EBITDA: $40 - $42 million $49.8 million Adjusted EBITDA Margin: 13.3% - 14.2% 13.30%During the second quarter of fiscal 2008, Gross Profit benefitedfrom a change in accounting estimate related to the Company'swarrantable and other product return reserves, which resulted inan increase to Sales of approximately $3.7 million, a reduction ofCost of Sales of approximately $4.5 million, and an increase inIncome from Operations and Adjusted EBITDA of $8.2 million.\"During the second quarter, we were able to strengthen ourcompetitive position, consistently execute on our strategicinitiatives, and improve our operating performance compared to thefirst quarter of fiscal 2009. We believe that our Company hasnever been in a stronger strategic position to gain profitablemarket share on a global basis,\" stated Larry Rogers, Sealy'sPresident and Chief Executive Officer. About Sealy Corp.Trinity, North Carolina-based Sealy Corp. (NYSE: ZZ) --http://www.sealy.com/-- is the largest bedding manufacturer in the world with sales of $1.5 billion in fiscal 2008. The Companymanufactures and markets a broad range of mattresses andfoundations under the Sealy(R), Sealy Posturepedic(R), includingSpringFree(TM), PurEmbrace(TM) and TrueForm(R); Stearns &Foster(R), and Bassett(R) brands. Sealy operates 25 plants inNorth America, and has the largest market share and highestconsumer awareness of any bedding brand on the continent. In theUnited States, Sealy sells its products to approximately 3,000customers with more than 7,000 retail outlets.As of March 31, 2009, Sealy had $889,214,000 in total assets;$237,295,000 in total current liabilities, $726,976,000 in long-term obligations, net of current portion, $72,858,000 in othernoncurrent liabilities, $5,889,000 in deferred income taxes, and$8,638,000 in Common stock and options subject to redemption;resulting in $162,442,000 in stockholders' deficit. * * *As reported by the Troubled Company Reporter on May 19, 2009,Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its corporate creditrating on Sealy Corp. to 'B' from 'B+'. At the same time, S&Plowered the issue-level ratings on the company's senior securedcredit facilities to 'BB-', from 'BB', while maintaining the '1'recovery rating. S&P also lowered the issue-level rating on thecompany's senior subordinated notes to 'CCC+' from 'B+', andrevised the recovery rating on these notes to '6' (indicating thelikelihood of negligible [0%-10%] recovery in a payment default)from '4'. At the same time, Standard & Poor's assigned its 'BB-'issue-level rating with a recovery rating of '1' (indicating thelikelihood of very high [90%-100%] recovery) to Sealy Mattress'proposed seven-year $350 million senior secured notes due 2016,and a 'B' issue-level rating with a recovery rating of '4'(indicating the likelihood of average [30%-50%] recovery) to itsproposed $177 million senior secured convertible pay-in-kind notesdue 2016. Sealy's proposed $100 million asset-based revolvingcredit facility maturing in 2013 is not rated.On May 18, the TCR said Moody's Investors Service assigned a Ba3rating to Sealy's proposed senior secured notes. At the sametime, Sealy's B2 corporate family rating and probability-of-default rating was affirmed as was the Caa1 rating on the seniorsubordinated notes and SGL 3 liquidity rating. The ratingsoutlook remains negative.SENSUS METERING: Refinancing Plans Won't Move Moody's 'B2' Rating-----------------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service said that the successful completion ofthe refinancing plans currently proposed by Sensus MeteringSystems Inc. would likely not result in a change in the company'sdebt rating (Corporate Family Rating at B2), but that thebeneficial effects on the company's capital structure couldwarrant a revision in the rating outlook to stable from negative.Sensus' refinancing plans intend to address the near term maturityof its $70 million revolving bank facility and $159 million termloan, currently due December 2009 and December 2010 respectively.Under the proposal, Sensus would extend the revolver maturity dateuntil December 2012, while the maturity date of $125 million ofits term loan would extend until June 2013 (the remaining$34 million term debt would remain ultimately due December 2010).Additionally, the proposal seeks to obtain covenant relief toprovide the company with additional flexibility through the nextcouple of years. The company's $275 million senior subordinatednotes, due December 2013, are not part of its refinancing plans.Sensus' B2 Corporate Family rating reflects Moody's view thatSensus' results are likely to remain relatively favorable throughthe challenging economic environment. Despite the evidence ofsome pressures from municipal budget constraints in recentquarters, Moody's expects sales of Sensus' water meters to remainresilient, supported by replacement cycle sales across variousgeographies globally. Moreover, Moody's believes the continueddeployment of its existing advanced metering infrastructurecontracts should enable Sensus to record modest overall growth inrevenues and profitability through at least the next couple ofyears. Prospects for additional AMI contract wins that couldultimately support ratings improvement appear favorable givenSensus' early signs of success in this market and industrymomentum towards the deployment of smart meters generally.Nonetheless, the rating is currently constrained by several ofSensus' key credit metrics, including leverage of roughly 5x andEBITA interest coverage of approximately 1.5x. While Moody'sexpects Sensus to generate free cash flow through the near term,Moody's believes that much of these funds will be consumed byearn-out payments related to the company's previous purchase ofits AMI technology. Consequently, the improvement to Sensus' keycredit metrics from levels cited above is expected to be modestthrough much of the ratings horizon.Moody's last rating action on Sensus was March 25, 2009, when thecompany's rating outlook was changed to negative to reflectrefinancing risks associated with its bank facilities.Headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina, Sensus Metering Systems,Inc., is a leading provider of metering and related communicationsystems to electric, gas and water utilities.SIX FLAGS: Gets Court Allows Firm to Tap Cash Collateral--------------------------------------------------------Bloomberg News reports that the Hon. Christopher S. Sontchi ofU.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has allowed SixFlags Inc. to spend the cash held as collateral for its lenders.According to Bloomberg, Avenue Capital Management II had objectedSix Flag's motion. Bloomberg News relates that Six Flags owedAvenue Capital about $100 million. Judge Sontchi ruled thatAvenue Capital didn't have a right as a minority lender to stopSix Flags from using the cash it generates to keep operating,Bloomberg relates.Steven T. Catlett, Six Flags' lawyer, said that the Company lastestimated that it has about $7 million in cash, Bloomberg reports.Headquartered in New York City, Six Flags, Inc., is the world'slargest regional theme park company with 20 parks across theUnited States, Mexico and Canada.Six Flags filed for chapter 11 protection on June 13, 2009 (Bankr.D. Del. Lead Case No. 09-12019). Paul E. Harner, Esq., Steven T.Catlett, Esq., and Christian M. Auty, Esq., at Paul, Hastings,Janofsky & Walker LLP in Chicago, Illinois, act as the Debtors'lead counsel. Daniel J. DeFranceschi, Esq., and L. KatherineGood, Esq., at Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., in Wilmington,Delaware, act as local counsel. Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP,serves as special counsel. Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin CapitalInc., serves as financial advisors, while KPMG LLC acts asaccountants. Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC serves as claims andnotice agent. As of March 31, 2009, Six Flags had $2,907,335,000in total assets and $3,431,647,000 in total liabilities.Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes Six FlagsBankruptcy News. The newsletter provides gavel-to-gavel coverageof the Chapter 11 proceedings undertaken by Six Flags Inc. and itsvarious affiliates. (http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945- 7000).SPECTRUM BRANDS: Court Confirms Plan; to Emerge in August---------------------------------------------------------The Honorable Judge King of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for theWestern District of Texas, San Antonio Division, has approvedSpectrum Brands Inc.'s Plan of Reorganization and will enter aconfirmation order upon submission.Spectrum Brands said following entry of the confirmation order,the plan will become effective --- and the company will exitbankruptcy protection --- as soon as all closing conditions to thePlan, including the closing of the company's exit financing, havebeen met. Spectrum Brands expects to emerge from Chapter 11 inAugust.On Wednesday, Spectrum Brands reached an agreement with the agentacting for the senior term lenders as to the terms of a settlementthat would revise the terms of its senior term credit facility andresolve the senior term lenders' objection to Spectrum Brands'Plan. As reported by the Troubled Company Reporter, the key termsof the amendment to the senior term credit facility include: -- a floor on LIBOR rate of 150 basis points; -- an increase of 250 basis points in the applicable rate to apply to each tranche of the facility; -- increased required senior leverage ratios to allow a maximum senior leverage ratio of 5.75 through October 2010, 5.50 from October 2010 through October 2011; and 5.00 thereafter; and -- a change in the maturity of the senior term loans from March 2013 to June 2012.Kent Hussey, Chief Executive Officer of Spectrum Brands, said: \"Weare pleased that our Plan of Reorganization has been approved bythe Court, a key milestone in our financial restructuring process,and one that sets the stage for our exit from bankruptcy inAugust. When we emerge, we will have reduced our subordinateddebt by $840 million and eliminated approximately $60 million ofannual cash interest expenses for at least each of the next twoyears. We will emerge with a stronger balance sheet that willbetter position us to maintain and strengthen our current platformand to pursue opportunities to grow our company.\" About Spectrum BrandsBased in Cibolo, Texas, Spectrum Brands, Inc. --http://www.spectrumbrands.com/-- supplies consumer batteries, lawn and garden care products, specialty pet supplies, shaving andgrooming products, household insect control products, personalcare products, and portable lighting. Spectrum Brands' businessis operated in three reportable segments: (a) Global Batteries andPersonal Car; (b) Global Pet Supplies; and (c) Home and Garden.Spectrum Brands has roughly 5,960 employees worldwide, with about2,700 of those employees working within the United States. Inaddition, Spectrum Brands holds a 50% interest in a domesticentity; minority interests (less than 25% each) in a domesticentity and a foreign entity; a limited partnership interest in aforeign entity; and a 100% interest in a foreign trust.Spectrum Brands, Inc., and 13 subsidiaries filed separateChapter 11 petitions on February 3, 2009 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. LeadCase No. 09-50455). The Hon. Ronald B. King presides over thecases. D. J. Baker, Esq., at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & FlomLLP, in New York; Harry A. Perrin, Esq., and D. Bobbitt Noel, Jr.,Esq., at Vinson & Elkins LLP, in Houston, Texas; and William B.Kingman, Esq., in San Antonio, serve as the Debtors' counsel.Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP acts as special counsel; PerellaWeinberg Partners LP, as financial advisor; Deloitte Tax LLP astax consultant; and Logan & Company Inc. as claims and noticingagent. As of September 30, 2008, Spectrum Brands had$2,247,479,000 in total assets and $3,274,717,000 in totalliabilities.An official committee of equity security holders -- composed ofMittleman Brothers, LLC, Ralston H. Coffin, Cookie Jar LLC and thePeter and Karen Locke Living Trust -- was appointed by the U.S.Trustee in Spectrum's bankruptcy cases on March 11, 2009. TheEquity Committee has tapped Alston & Bird LLP as its bankruptcycounsel.The U.S. Trustee was unable to appoint an Official Committee ofUnsecured Creditors as too few creditors expressed an interest inbeing appointed to the Committee.Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes Spectrum BrandsBankruptcy News. The newsletter tracks the Chapter 11 proceedingundertaken by Spectrum Brands Inc. and its various subsidiaries.(http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000) SPEEDEMISSIONS INC: Stockholders Re-elect 5 Members to Board------------------------------------------------------------At the 2009 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of Speedemissions,Inc., which was held on June 15, 2009, the Company's stockholdersre-elected these members to the Company's Board of Directors: -- Richard A. Parlontieri, -- Bradley A. Thompson, -- Ernest A. Childs, Ph.D., -- Michael E. Guirlinger, and -- Gerald Amato.Each Director's term will expire at the annual meeting ofstockholders to be held in 2010. The Board concurrently approveda $1,000 monthly cash retainer for each member of the Board.On June 15, 2009, the Board appointed the Company's ChiefFinancial Officer, Michael S. Shanahan, as Secretary of theCompany. In connection with his service as Secretary, theCompensation Committee of the Board approved an increase to Mr.Shanahan's annual base salary to $145,000, effective June 1, 2009.On June 15, the Compensation Committee of the Board approved anincrease to the annual base salary of the Company's President andChief Executive Officer, Richard A. Parlontieri tto $225,000,effective June 1, 2009.The Compensation Committee took into consideration length ofservice, quality of work, time commitment to the responsibilities,and market rates for each position.Speedemissions, Inc., operates vehicle emissions testing andsafety inspection centers in four separate markets, greaterAtlanta, Georgia; Houston, Texas; St. Louis, Missouri and SaltLake City, Utah. The Company manages its operations based onthese four regions and has one reportable segment. As of May 4,2009, the Company operated 39 vehicle emissions testing and safetyinspection centers in these regions and four mobile units in theAtlanta, Georgia area. Going Concern DoubtAs reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on May 19, 2008,Tauber & Balser, P.C., in Atlanta, expressed substantial doubtabout Speedemissions Inc.'s ability to continue as a going concernafter auditing the company's consolidated financial statements forthe years ended Dec. 31, 2007, and 2006. The auditing firmpointed to the company's recurring losses from operations andlimited capital resources.SPRINGBROOK HILL: Case Summary & 11 Largest Unsecured Creditors---------------------------------------------------------------Debtor: Springbrook Hill, LLC 2110 Maryland Avenue Baltimore, MD 21218Bankruptcy Case No.: 09-10844Chapter 11 Petition Date: June 24, 2009Court: United States Bankruptcy Court Maine (Bangor)Debtor's Counsel: Benjamin E. Marcus, Esq. Drummond Woodsum & MacMahon 84 Marginal Way, Suite 600 Portland, ME 04101-2480 Tel: (207) 772-1941 Fax: (207) 772-3627 Email: [email protected] Assets: $1,000,001 to $10,000,000Estimated Debts: $1,000,001 to $10,000,000A list of the Company's 11 largest unsecured creditors isavailable for free at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/meb09-10844.pdfThe petition was signed by Walter J. Skayhan III, manager of theCompany.STUDIO THEATRE: U.S. Trustee Wants Case Converted to Chapter 7--------------------------------------------------------------Diana G. Adams, U.S. Trustee for Region 2, asks the U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of New York to convertStudio Theatre School's bankruptcy case to Chapter 7 of theBankruptcy Code or, in the alternative, dismiss the Debtor's casefor \"cause\".The U.S. Trustee says that the Debtor has failed to file monthlyfinancial reports since the inception of its case and has alsofailed to pay the quarterly fees due to the United States Trusteefor the quarter ended March 31, 2009.The U.S. Trustee adds the Debtor has no current businessoperations to reorganize and has demonstrated an absence of areasonable likelihood of rehabilitation warranting dismissal orconversion of its case pursuant to section 1112(b)(4)(A) of theBankruptcy Code.Based in Buffalo, NY, Studio Theatre School is a not-for-profittheater school and production company. It filed for bankruptcy onJune 18, 2008 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y., Case No. 08-12680). Garry M.Graber, Esq., at Hodgson Russ LLP, represents the Debtor ascounsel. When the Debtor filed for bankruptcy, it listed between$1 million and $50 million each in assets and debts.SUNRISE SENIOR: To Receive $9.8MM in Settlement of Trinity Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., acquired in September 2006 all of theoutstanding stock of Trinity Hospice, Inc., from its stockholderspursuant to an agreement and plan of merger. In connection withthe Merger Agreement, the parties had raised certain claimsagainst each other.To resolve and settle the claims among them, on June 15, 2009,Sunrise and its wholly owned subsidiary, Trinity, entered into aSettlement Agreement with the former majority stockholders ofTrinity, which, among other matters, provides for the release anddischarge of all claims and causes of action between the partiesto the Agreement.In consideration of the Agreement, the Selling Parties agree topay Sunrise an aggregate amount of $9,835,951 within 2 businessdays after the effective date of the Agreement, consisting of: -- $6,749,999.44 from the Selling Parties; and -- $3,085,951.56 (together with any other interest accrued thereunder through and as of the date of release) to be released to Sunrise by the United Bank as escrow agent under the Merger Agreement.The parties to the Agreement also agree to cooperate to achievevoluntary dismissal of certain litigation matters.In exchange for the consideration provided in the Agreement andeffective upon receipt by Sunrise of the payment, the SunriseParties and the Selling Parties will reciprocally release eachother from any and all claims that each such parties have againstother such parties relating to any matters through the date of theAgreement (other than any claim the Sunrise Parties or the SellingParties may assert as a result of any alleged failure ofperformance by the other parties under the Agreement). About Sunrise Senior LivingMcLean, Virginia-based Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. --http://www.sunriseseniorliving.com-- employs roughly 40,000 people. As of December 31, 2008, Sunrise operated 435 communitiesin the United States, Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom, witha combined capacity for approximately 54,000 residents. Sunriseoffers a full range of personalized senior living services,including independent living, assisted living, care forindividuals with Alzheimer's and other forms of memory loss, aswell as nursing, rehabilitative and hospice care.The Company had $1,247,759,000 in total assets and $1,123,412,000in total liabilities at March 31, 2009. The Company has debt of$622.5 million including scheduled debt maturities of$196.6 million in 2009 and long-term debt that is in default of$265.8 million, including $202.2 million that is in default as aresult of its failure to pay principal and interest on debtrelated to its German communities and $63.6 million which resultsfrom its failure to meet financial covenants.In its May 2009 regulatory filing with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, the Company said it is working with its lenders toeither re-schedule certain of the obligations or obtain waivers.SYNCORA GUARANTEE: BCP Offer for RMBS Classes Moved Until Friday----------------------------------------------------------------The BCP Voyager Master Funds SPC, Ltd., acting on behalf of andfor the account of the Distressed Opportunities Master SegregatedPortfolio, extended the expiration date of the Fund's offer for 55classes of residential mortgage backed securities insured bySyncora Guarantee Inc. to 11:59 p.m., New York City time, onFriday, June 26, 2009. The offer will expire at that time, unlessextended.An agreement has been reached by the Fund and Syncora Guaranteeand one RMBS holder to remediate RMBS exposures totaling 1.7remediation points, in the event certain conditions are met. TheFund and Syncora Guarantee are in continuing discussions withnumerous other holders of RMBS as the offer continues.The Fund unveiled results of the offer and the status of certaindiscussions with holders of RMBS as of June 24, 2009. As ofJune 24, tenders have been received in the offer and binding, non-binding and other agreements have been reached by the Fund orSyncora Guarantee and holders of RMBS to remediate RMBS exposurestotaling 54.7 remediation points. RMBS representing 38.4remediation points have been tendered into the offer, bindingagreements have been reached by the Fund or Syncora Guarantee andRMBS holders to remediate RMBS exposures totaling 10.7 remediationpoints, subject to certain conditions, and non-binding agreementshave been reached by the Fund or Syncora Guarantee and RMBSholders to remediate RMBS exposures totaling 5.5 remediationpoints.The aggregate principal amounts of RMBS securities that have beentendered into the offer are: Aggregate PrincipalBalance in US$Tendered as CUSIP No. Security Description of June24, 2009 --------- ------------------------------------ 39539BAA1 Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Trust 2006-HE186,452,326 126685DT0 Countrywide Home Equity Loan Trust 2006D137,928,505 39539JAA4 GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Trust 2007-HE155,690,854 45664UAA3 Indymac Home Equity Mortgage Loan Asset Backed Trust Series 2006-H375,460,819 126685DS2 Countrywide Home Equity Loan Trust 2006D226,354,373 41161MAB6 Harborview Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-574,098,902 126685AT3 CWABS, Home Equity Revolving Loan110,046,593 Trust 2005-K 1248MKAA3 C-BASS Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-SL166,977,590 75114GAB5 RALI 2006-QO4 Trust51,404,290 41161PE41 Harborview Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates 2006-CB139,701,573 456612AB6 Indymac Indx Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR684,772,320 41161PG64 Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-BU134,339,366 68402SAA7 Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-HL1205,830,564 12668VAB5 Countrywide Home Equity Loan Trust 2006-S723,900,595 86801CAA1 STICS 2007-183,210,970 65538BAA7 Nomura NAAC 2007-S2- 41161PL35 Harborview Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates 2006-493,977,192 41161PP72 Harborview Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates 2006-4- 41161PQ22 Harborview Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates 2006-441,768,612 12668VAC3 Countrywide Home Equity Loan Trust 2006-S738,551,660 1248MKAB1 C-BASS Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-SL162,150,773 785778QA2 SACO I Trust 2006-110,941,134 41161PXG3 Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-1514,575,372 41161PUJ0 Harborview Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates 2005-1112,686,329 12587PEM8 BSSP 2007-R5 (Bear Stearns)- 12668VAD1 Countrywide Home Equity Loan Trust 2006-S7- 12668VAA7 Countrywide Home Equity Loan Trust 2006-S713,523,180 23332UGP3 Downey Savings and Loan Mortgage Trust Series 2006-AR1- 23332UGL2 Downey Savings and Loan Mortgage Trust Series 2006-AR1426,155 12668VAF6 Countrywide Home Equity Loan Trust 2006-S7- 52524PBT8 Lehman XS Trust, Series 2007-63,097,240 12668VAE9 Countrywide Home Equity Loan Trust 2006-S712,025,983 126685AU0 CWABS, Home Equity Revolving Loan10,542,964 Trust 2005-K 456612AE0 Indymac Indx Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR642,044,903 07401UAB9 Bear Stearns Second Lien Trust 2007-SV1162,192,000 126673QB1 Countrywide Home Equity Loan Trust 2004R38,060,530 52524TAS3 Lehman XS Trust, Series 2007-8H- 41161PL68 Harborview Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates 2006-4- 30248EAA6 First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2007-FFB-SS89,928,498 525248BL3 Lehman XS Trust, Series 2007-5H25,219,400 75114GAE9 RALI 2006-QO4 Trust40,478,820 126685AX4 CWABS, Home Equity Revolving Loan39,787,632 Trust 2005-K 525248BK5 Lehman XS Trust, Series 2007-5H28,593,744 126673QA3 Countrywide Home Equity Loan Trust 2004R- 126673MY5 Countrywide Home Equity Loan Trust 2004Q49,857,273 126685AW6 CWABS, Home Equity Revolving Loan12,978,770 Trust 2005-K 07401UAU7 Bear Stearns Second Lien Trust 2007-SV125,529,277 86363GBS2 Structured Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2007-328,745,884 126673MX7 Countrywide Home Equity Loan Trust 2004Q- 41161PUM3 Harborview Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates 2005-11- 525245CP9 Lehman XS Trust, Series 2007-317,241,072 41161PG98 Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-BU114,911,945 68402SAD1 Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-HL1- 68402SAC3 Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-HL122,220,000 68402SAB5 Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-HL122,161,593The offer and related financing are also conditioned on theconsummation of an agreement entered into between SyncoraGuarantee and certain counterparties to Syncora Guarantee's creditdefault swap transactions and financial guarantee insurancepolicies, the tender of a minimum amount of RMBS, approval of theNew York Department of Insurance and certain other conditions.Holders of RMBS that have tendered or will tender their RMBS intothe offer are no longer able to withdraw their tendered RMBS.The offer by the Fund and any transactions with Syncora Guaranteeare being conducted only with qualified institutional buyers andare exempt from registration under Section 4(2) of the SecuritiesAct of 1933, as amended. Any securities that may be issuedpursuant to such transactions have not been and, at the time ofthe closing of the transaction, will not be registered under theSecurities Act or any state securities laws. The securities maynot be offered or sold in the United States absent registrationunder, or an applicable exemption from, the registrationrequirements of the Securities Act and applicable state securitieslaws. About Syncora Guarantee Inc.Syncora Guarantee Inc. -- http://www.syncora.com/-- is a wholly owned subsidiary of Syncora Holdings Ltd. Syncora Holdings Ltd.is a Bermuda-domiciled holding company.In April 2009, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services revised itsfinancial strength and financial enhancement ratings on SyncoraGuarantee Inc. to 'R' from 'CC'. Standard & Poor's also revisedits counterparty credit rating on Syncora to 'D' from 'CC'. Aninsurer rated 'R' is under regulatory supervision because of itsfinancial condition. The 'CC' counterparty credit, financialstrength, and financial enhancement ratings on Syncora GuaranteeU.K. Ltd. are unchanged because at this time, that company is notsubject to any regulatory orders that mandate the suspension ofclaims payments.SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Fitch Cuts Issuer Default Rating to 'BB-'------------------------------------------------------------Fitch Ratings has downgraded Synovus Financial Corporation and itssubsidiary banks' long- and short-term Issuer Default Ratings, aswell as their Individual ratings. The Rating Outlook is Negative.A full ratings list follows at the end of this release.The rating actions reflects Fitch's revised loss expectations forSNV's portfolio, given the company's significant exposure totroubled regions of the Southeast. Fitch believes prolongedcredit stress will continue to weigh heavily on the company'sfinancial condition. Credit concerns continue to stem from SNV'sresidential construction, development, and land loan portfolios;the majority of which reside in the greater Atlanta area, as wellas the west coast of Florida. Although SNV's management hasremained focused on its disposition strategy of problem assetsthrough both the utilization of auctions and the formation of itsspecial asset management group, Fitch believes the impact ofheightened credit costs will continue to hamper SNV's performanceand will threaten its capital position.The Negative Outlook reflects both the possibility of creditdeterioration becoming more pronounced and the weakening of someof SNV's other fundamental strengths, such as its core fundingbase. SNV's ratings continue to be supported by its currentcapital position, which is viewed as necessary given its creditexposure. The company's liquidity position, sound funding base,and augmented reserve levels, provide additional ratings support.However, these fundamental strengths could be pressured as thecompany endures increased credit stress.Fitch has taken these rating actions on SNV and its subsidiarieswith a Negative Outlook:Synovus Financial Corp. -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Subordinated Debt downgraded to 'B' from 'BBB-'; -- Preferred Stock downgraded to 'B-' from 'BB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed 'NF'.Columbus Bank & Trust -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Short-term Deposits downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.Athens First Bank & Trust Co. -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.Bank of Coweta -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Short-term Deposits downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.Bank of Nashville -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.Bank of North Georgia -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.Bank of Pensacola -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.Bank of Tuscaloosa -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.CB&T Bank of Middle Georgia -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.Citizens Bank & Trust of West Georgia -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.Citizens First Bank -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.Coastal Bank of Georgia -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Short-term Deposits downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.Cohutta Banking Company -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Short-term Deposits downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.Commercial Bank -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Short-term Deposits downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.Commercial Bank & Trust Co. -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Short-term Deposits downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.Community Bank & Trust of Southeast Alabama -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.First Commercial Bank -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Short-term Deposits downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.First Commercial Bank of Huntsville -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.First Community Bank of Tifton -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.First National Bank of Jasper -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Short-term Deposits downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.First State Bank and Trust Company of Valdosta -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.Georgia Bank & Trust -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.National Bank of South Carolina -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Short-term Deposits downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.National Bank of Walton County -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.Sea Island Bank -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Short-term Deposits downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.Security Bank & Trust Company of Albany -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.Sterling Bank -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Short-term Deposits downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.Sumter Bank & Trust Company -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.Synovus Bank of Tampa -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.Tallahassee State Bank -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.Trust One Bank -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.Vanguard Bank & Trust Company -- Long-term IDR downgraded to 'BB-' from 'BBB'; -- Long-term Deposits downgraded to 'BB' from 'BBB+'; -- Short-term IDR downgraded to 'B' from 'F2'; -- Individual downgraded to 'D' from 'C'; -- Support affirmed at '5'; -- Support Floor affirmed at 'NF'.TERRA CONVERSIONS: Case Summary & 19 Largest Unsecured Creditors----------------------------------------------------------------Debtor: Terra Conversions Group, LLC 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1020 Miami, FL 33131Bankruptcy Case No.: 09-22721Chapter 11 Petition Date: June 24, 2009Court: United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District of Florida (Miami)Judge: Robert A. MarkDebtor's Counsel: Lydia C. Quesada, Esq. 2600 Douglas Rd #506 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Tel: (305) 447-0392 Email: [email protected] Assets: $1,328,673Total Debts: $2,714,005A full-text copy of the Debtor's petition, including a list of its19 largest unsecured creditors, is available for free at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/flsb09-22721.pdfThe petition was signed by Juan Arcila, managing member of theCompany.TEUFEL NURSERY: Voluntary Chapter 11 Case Summary-------------------------------------------------Debtor: Teufel Nursery, Inc. aka Teufel Landscape 100 SW Miller Rd. Portland, OR 97225-6130Bankruptcy Case No.: 09-34880Type of Business: The Debtor offers lawn and gardening services. See http://www.teufel.comChapter 11 Petition Date: June 24, 2009Court: District of OregonJudge: Elizabeth L PerrisDebtor's Counsel: Robert J. Vanden Bos, Esq. [email protected] Vanden Bos & Chapman 319 SW Washington #520 Portland, OR 97204 Tel: (503) 241-4869Estimated Assets: $10 million to $50 millionEstimated Debts: $10 million to $50 millionThe Debtor did not file a list of 20 largest unsecured creditors.The petition was signed by Lawrence A. Teufel.TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: S&P Keeps Negative Watch on BB Rating-----------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services said that its ratings onTicketmaster Entertainment Inc., including its 'BB' corporatecredit rating, will remain on CreditWatch with negativeimplications, where they were placed on Feb. 11, 2009, followingthe company's announcement of an all-stock merger agreement withLive Nation Inc. The ratings on Live Nation, including its 'B'corporate credit rating, remain on CreditWatch with positiveimplications, where they also were placed on Feb. 11, 2009.If the transaction is completed, Ticketmaster would become awholly owned subsidiary of Live Nation, which would continue asthe public company parent of the combined companies under the nameLive Nation Entertainment Inc. Standard & Poor's plans tomaintain separate corporate credit ratings for both companies asboth companies expect to maintain separate capital structures andbecause of likely limits, in S&P's view, on Ticketmaster'scapacity to provide credit support to Live Nation. If the mergeris completed with a different capital structure than currentlyenvisioned, with the companies refinanced as one entity, S&P wouldanalyze the company on a consolidated basis. Currently, under theproposed scenario of separate capital structures, Ticketmaster'scredit agreement and its other financial resources, limit itsability to provide credit support to Live Nation. The transactionis subject to approval by both companies' shareholders, andregulatory review and approvals, which are not expected to becompleted until late in the fourth quarter of 2009, at theearliest.The merger is largely complementary, and would combine the leadingticketing company and artist management agency with the largestconcert promoter. The management teams anticipate that thecombined company could realize about $40 million of operatingsynergies through the combination of their ticketing, marketing,data centers, and back-office functions. Live Nation wouldbenefit from having access to more artists, Ticketmaster'scustomer data base, and reduced costs as S&P would expect LiveNation to eventually close its own ticketing business.In resolving the CreditWatch, S&P will review the companies'business and financial strategies. S&P expects that if thetransaction proceeds as planned, S&P could lower the corporatecredit rating on Ticketmaster to as low as 'B+', reflecting inpart the business and strategic link that S&P would ascribe tothe companies' relationship, and to a lesser extent, the potentialloss of its contract with AEG. If the transaction is notcompleted, the rating on Ticketmaster could also be lowered to aslow as 'B+' if operating performance, debt leverage, and themargin of covenant compliance continue to deteriorate.On the other hand, S&P could raise the corporate credit rating onLive Nation to as high as 'B+' if the merger is completed. Keyconsiderations for a one-notch upgrade, beyond feasibility ofrevenue and costs synergies, and prospects for leverage reduction,will be in S&P's view of the extent to which Ticketmaster willhave the ability and means to support Live Nation, despite debtterms and restrictions, and the extent to which Live Nation'scredit profile, in S&P's view, suggests such needs. If the mergeris not completed, S&P would most likely affirm Live Nation's 'B'corporate credit rating.TITAN ENERGY: Closes Acquisition of RBG's Industrial Division-------------------------------------------------------------Titan Energy Worldwide, Inc., through its wholly owned subsidiary,Grove Power, Inc., entered into an asset purchase agreement onJune 11, 2009, with R.B. Grove, Inc., a Florida corporationengaged in the marketing, selling, distribution and servicing ofbackup and emergency power equipment in the state of Florida andcertain other territories, and Tom Piper, the sole shareholder ofRBG.Titan, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Grove Power, acquiredcertain assets and liabilities of RBG's Industrial Division andService Division for this consideration: 1) a $50,000 deposit, which amount was paid prior to the Closing Date; 2) $521,510, which Grove Power will pay to MTU/Katolight on RBG's behalf in satisfaction of all amounts owed to MTU/Katolight as set forth in the Asset Purchase Agreement; 3) $144,827, which amount was paid to RBG on the Closing Date; 4) $86,612 in the form of a secured promissory note that is due 18 months after the Closing Date and accrues interest at the rate of 8% per year; 5) the issuance of a five-year warrant to purchase 200,000 shares of common stock of Titan at a price of $0.01 per share; and 6) $20,000 for legal fees, which amount was paid on the Closing Date.The Asset Purchase Agreement contains customary terms andconditions for a transaction of this type, includingrepresentations, warranties and covenants, as well as provisionsdescribing the consideration and the process of exchanging theconsideration. The Asset Purchase Agreement also containsreciprocal indemnification provisions that provide forindemnification in the event of a breach of a representation orwarranty.In connection with the issuance of the Note, as partialconsideration for the Business, Grove Power and RBC entered into asecurity agreement, dated June 11, 2009, pursuant to which GrovePower granted to RBG a junior subordinated security interest inGrove Power's interest in the Business.In connection with the Asset Purchase Transaction, RBG enteredinto a sublease agreement with Grove Power, dated June 1, 2009,pursuant to which RBG agreed to sublease to Grove Power certainoffice and warehouse space in Miami, Florida, for a period ofeighteen months commencing on June 1, 2009, and terminating onNovember 30, 2010, for a monthly rent of $5,157 plus 50% ofutilities and phone and copier charges. The sublease obligationswere guaranteed by Titan.There were no material relationships between Titan, Grove Power orits respective affiliates and any of the parties to the AssetPurchase Agreement, other than in respect of the Asset PurchaseAgreement.\"This purchase gives Titan Energy entrance into Florida's$150 million emergency power market,\" stated Thomas Black,President of Titan Energy Worldwide, Inc. \"Florida represents oneof the top markets in the United States for emergency powergeneration equipment sales and service. The region has tremendousneed for back up power generation due to hurricanes and storms.Additionally, many companies and institutions in Florida arerequired by legislation to install back up power in case ofemergency.\" About Titan Energy WorldwideTitan Energy Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.titanenergy.com/-- manufactures, markets and services energy generation products andservices, including development and support for new energy-relatedtechnology. Founded in 2005, Titan serves disaster recovery firstresponders, relief agencies, homeland security, the department ofdefense and municipalities.The Company incurred a net loss for the three months endedMarch 31, 2009, of $336,916 and at March 31, 2009, had anaccumulated deficit of $23,700,397. The accumulated deficitincludes a charge of $9,767,847 for the early extinguishment ofthe Series A, B and C Preferred Stock and issuance of Common Stockin 2007. In addition, the Company issued Series D ConvertiblePreferred Stock with a beneficial conversion feature whichresulted in recording a preferred stock dividend of $4,076,646.The accumulated deficit without these transactions would have been$9,855,904. However, these conditions raise substantial doubt asto the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.At March 31, 2009, the Company had $4,914,606 in total assets and$1,610,305 in total liabilities.TPF II: S&P Changes Outlook to Negative; Affirms 'BB-' Rating-------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services revised the outlook on TPF IILC LLC to negative from stable. At the same time, S&P affirmedthe 'BB-' rating on TPF's $205 million in first-lien facilitiesconsisting of a $165 million seven-year term loan ($142.7 millionoutstanding) and a $40 million revolving facility.The ratings action is driven by the low clearing price realized inthe most recent base residual auction in the RTO (unconstrained)area of PJM Interconnect's RPM capacity market for the deliveryyear May 2012-June 2013. Due in part to market rule revisionsthat encourage demand-side resources to participate in theauctions, total supply bids increased 5.5% to 145,373 megawatts;demand-side bids increased nearly 500% to comprise 9,848 MW ofthis total. Previously, demand-side resources sold theInterruptible Load for Reliability product, which was discontinuedas of the 2012-2013 delivery year.TRONOX INC: Court Sets August 12 as Claims Bar Date---------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New Yorkhas set August 12, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. (Pacific Time) by whichclaimants holding claims against the Debtors that arose before thePetition Date, including claims pursuant to Section 503(b)(9) ofthe Bankruptcy Code, may file their proofs of claim.The Debtors' standard form of Proof of Claim, Bar Date Notice,General Publication Notice and the Site-Specific PublicationNotices are approved.Pursuant to Rule 3003(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of BankruptcyProcedure, all creditors that fail to timely file a proof ofclaim in appropriate form will not be treated as a creditor withrespect to the claim for purposes of voting on a Chapter 11 planand distribution on account of the claim.Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2002(f), the Debtors will give noticeof the Bar Dates by publishing the Bar Date Notice in The WallStreet Journal on one occasion on or before July 10, 2009.The Debtors will also give notice of the Bar Dates by publishingcertain Site-Specific Publication Notices on one occasion on orbefore July 10, 2009.In the event the Debtors amend or supplement their schedules ofassets and liabilities, the Debtors must give notice of anyamendment or supplement to the holders of any Claim affectedthereby, and the holders will be afforded 30 days from the dateon which the notice is given or until the Bar Date, if the BarDate is later, to file a proof of claim with respect to theirclaim or be forever barred from doing so.The Debtors are further directed to include these information onevery Proof of Claim Form that they supply to a creditor whoseClaim is listed on the Debtors' Schedules: (a) the amount of thecreditor's Claim against the applicable Debtor, as reflected inthe Schedules; (b) the type of Claim held by the creditor, asreflected in the Schedules; and (c) whether the Claim iscontingent, unliquidated or disputed as reflected in theSchedules.The holder of any Claim that arises from the Debtors' rejectionof any executory contract or unexpired lease after the date ofentry of the Order must file a Proof of Claim based on thatrejection by the later of (a) the Bar Date, (b) a date providedin an order authorizing the Debtors to reject an executorycontract or unexpired lease or (c) if no date is provided, 30days after the date of any order authorizing the rejection ornotice of the rejection is entered.The Debtors are authorized to mail the Bar Date Notice tocounsels of record for Tort Claimants for whom the Debtors lackpersonal information.The Debtors are authorized to provide supplemental mailings ofthe Bar Date Package as may be necessary. The mailings made atany time up to 30 days in advance of the Bar Date are deemedtimely. The Debtors will not be required to provide anyadditional notice to any creditor to whom the Debtors mailed theBar Date Package in accordance with the terms of the Order andthe notice was returned to the Debtors as undeliverable without aforwarding address.The Debtors are authorized to establish without further notice tofile with the Court one or more orders establishing additionalBar Dates, as necessary. In the event the Debtors establish aSupplemental Bar Date, the Debtors will mail a Bar Date Package,modified to include the Supplemental Bar Date, to Claimants whoare subject to the Supplemental Bar Date within 30 days of anySupplemental Bar Date. About Tronox Inc.Headquartered in Oklahoma City, Tronox Incorporated (Pink Sheets:TRXAQ, TRXBQ) is the world's fourth-largest producer and marketerof titanium dioxide pigment, with an annual production capacity of535,000 tonnes. Titanium dioxide pigment is an inorganic whitepigment used in paint, coatings, plastics, paper and many othereveryday products. The Company's four pigment plants, which arelocated in the United States, Australia and the Netherlands,supply high-performance products to approximately 1,100 customersin 100 countries. In addition, Tronox produces electrolyticproducts, including sodium chlorate, electrolytic manganesedioxide, boron trichloride, elemental boron and lithium manganeseoxide.Tronox has $1.6 billion in total assets, including $646.9 millionin current assets, as at September 30, 2008. The Company has$881.6 million in current debts and $355.9 million in totalnoncurrent debts.Tronox Inc., aka New-Co Chemical, Inc., and 14 other affiliatesfiled for Chapter 11 protection on January 13, 2009 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 09-10156). The case is before Hon. Allan L.Gropper. Richard M. Cieri, Esq., Jonathan S. Henes, Esq., andColin M. Adams, Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis LLP in New York,represent the Debtors. The Debtors also tapped Togut, Segal &Segal LLP as conflicts counsel; Rothschild Inc. as investmentbankers; Alvarez & Marsal North America LLC, as restructuringconsultants; and Kurtzman Carson Consultants serves as notice andclaims agent.An official committee of unsecured creditors and an officialcommittee of equity security holders have been appointed in thecases. The Creditors Committee has retained Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,Wharton & Garrison LLP as counsel.Until September 30, 2008, Tronox Inc. was publicly traded on theNew York Stock Exchange under the symbols TRX and TRX.B. Sincethen, Tronox Inc. has traded on the Over the Counter BulletinBoard under the symbols TROX.A.PK and TROX.B.PK. As ofDecember 31, 2008, Tronox Inc. had 19,107,367 outstanding sharesof class A common stock and 22,889,431 outstanding shares ofclass B common stock.Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes Tronox BankruptcyNews. The newsletter tracks the Chapter 11 proceeding undertakenby Tronox Inc. and its 14 affiliates.(http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000) TRONOX INC: Seeks to Employ ATL as Tax Consultants--------------------------------------------------Tronox Inc. and its affiliates seek the U.S. Bankruptcy Court forthe Southern District of New York's authority to employ AssessmentTechnologies, Ltd. as their property tax consultants, nunc protunc to February 3, 2009, in accordance with the terms andconditions set forth in that certain service agreement datedMay 13, 2009.Gary Barton, the Debtors' Chief Restructuring Officer, relatesthat since the outset of the Chapter 11 Cases, the Debtors havesought to institute cost savings and otherwise locate sources ofvalue in their business operations for the benefit of theirstakeholders. The Debtors believe that one source of value istax savings that may result from a detailed review of the assetvaluations of the taxed properties pursuant to the statutoryvaluation standards from the tax office compared with marketderived valuations of the assets of the properties using variousmarket indexes, comparable sales data and third-party valuationwork. The Debtors estimate that the resulting tax savings couldbe in the range of $1 million to $3 million annually.However, Mr. Barton says, given the Debtors' financialconstraints as a chapter 11 debtor, the Debtors do not presentlyhave the capacity to review the property tax assessments of theseproperties and prosecute any adjustments with the taxingauthorities.Accordingly, the Debtors seek to employ ATL on a contingencybasis to evaluate the property tax assessments for certainproperties and, if appropriate, prosecute adjustments with therelevant taxing authorities.Pursuant to the terms of the Service Agreement, ATL is expectedto provide these property tax consulting services: (a) Review targeted tax assessments on certain property owned or leased by the Debtors including supporting data, calculations and assumptions produced by the appropriate appraisal/assessing authority, together with information provided by the Debtors; (b) Analyze economic feasibility of attaining a reduced assessment/tax; (c) Represent the Debtors' estates before the appropriate tax assessing/collecting and/or court authorities using all reasonable, appropriate and available means provided by statute or within the Bankruptcy Code to adjust the assessment, unclaimed tax or claimed tax amount; and (d) Utilize any local, state or federal remedies ATL deems necessary and appropriate to achieve tax savings, in ATL's discretion, subject to any required approval of the Court.Mr. Barton says that the services to be performed by ATL will notduplicate or overlap with the service being performed by theDebtors' other retained consultants or advisors, and the Debtorswill use its reasonable efforts to ensure that there is noduplication of the services that ATL is begin retained toperform.The Debtors will pay ATL on a contingency basis only, and nopayment will be due to ATL unless ATL achieves tax savings forthe Debtors on any Targeted Property. Specifically, the Debtorswill pay ATL 30% or 35%, in accordance with the Expense Level,defined in the Service Agreement, of: (i) all of the taxsavings received by the Debtors less (ii) reimbursement of ATL'sexpenses, each as a result of ATL's efforts for each TargetedProperty for each tax year.Reimbursable expenses include all special property tax counsellegal fees, third party appraisal fees and any other reasonablefees incurred by ATL in pursuing tax savings for the Debtorsunder the Service Agreement. The reimbursable expenses will befronted by ATL, and ATL will be reimbursed these expenses, atcost, out of the tax savings that ATL achieves for the TargetedProperty, as long as the expenses are reasonable and approved bythe Court.James Hausman, president of ATL, assures the Court that his firmis a \"disinterested person\" within the meaning of Section 101(14)of the Bankruptcy Code and as required by Section 327(a) andreferenced by Section 328(a), and holds no interest adverse tothe Debtors for the matters for which ATL is to be employed.Mr. Hausman says that ATL has no connection to the Debtors, theircreditors or its related parties.A full-text copy of the Service Agreement is available for freeat http://bankrupt.com/misc/Tronox_ATLServiceAgreement.pdf * * *The Court authorized the Debtors to employ ATL as property taxconsultants in accordance with the terms set forth in the ServiceAgreement, nunc pro tunc as of February 3, 2009. ATL will not berequired in its invoices to report the billing rates, aggregatehours spent, or the time incurred by ATL's professionals intenths of an hour increments. ATL will be compensated pursuantto the terms of the Service Agreement, without the necessity ofATL filing formal interim or final fee applications. About Tronox Inc.Headquartered in Oklahoma City, Tronox Incorporated (Pink Sheets:TRXAQ, TRXBQ) is the world's fourth-largest producer and marketerof titanium dioxide pigment, with an annual production capacity of535,000 tonnes. Titanium dioxide pigment is an inorganic whitepigment used in paint, coatings, plastics, paper and many othereveryday products. The Company's four pigment plants, which arelocated in the United States, Australia and the Netherlands,supply high-performance products to approximately 1,100 customersin 100 countries. In addition, Tronox produces electrolyticproducts, including sodium chlorate, electrolytic manganesedioxide, boron trichloride, elemental boron and lithium manganeseoxide.Tronox has $1.6 billion in total assets, including $646.9 millionin current assets, as at September 30, 2008. The Company has$881.6 million in current debts and $355.9 million in totalnoncurrent debts.Tronox Inc., aka New-Co Chemical, Inc., and 14 other affiliatesfiled for Chapter 11 protection on January 13, 2009 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Case No. 09-10156). The case is before Hon. Allan L.Gropper. Richard M. Cieri, Esq., Jonathan S. Henes, Esq., andColin M. Adams, Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis LLP in New York,represent the Debtors. The Debtors also tapped Togut, Segal &Segal LLP as conflicts counsel; Rothschild Inc. as investmentbankers; Alvarez & Marsal North America LLC, as restructuringconsultants; and Kurtzman Carson Consultants serves as notice andclaims agent.An official committee of unsecured creditors and an officialcommittee of equity security holders have been appointed in thecases. The Creditors Committee has retained Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,Wharton & Garrison LLP as counsel.Until September 30, 2008, Tronox Inc. was publicly traded on theNew York Stock Exchange under the symbols TRX and TRX.B. Sincethen, Tronox Inc. has traded on the Over the Counter BulletinBoard under the symbols TROX.A.PK and TROX.B.PK. As ofDecember 31, 2008, Tronox Inc. had 19,107,367 outstanding sharesof class A common stock and 22,889,431 outstanding shares ofclass B common stock.Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes Tronox BankruptcyNews. The newsletter tracks the Chapter 11 proceeding undertakenby Tronox Inc. and its 14 affiliates.(http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000) TRONOX INC: To Execute Stalking Horse Deal by July 31-----------------------------------------------------The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and the OfficialEquity Security Holders Committee of Tronox Inc. filed objectionsto the Debtors' proposal to amend their $125 million DIP creditfacility on the basis that the costs of the First Amendment --particularly the acceleration of the sale process -- outweighedthe benefits that the Debtors would receive under the FirstAmendment.To resolve the Objections, the Debtors, Credit Suisse, asAdministrative Agent and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as CollateralAgent, the DIP Lenders, and the official committees engaged inarm's-length, good faith negotiations regarding the terms of theFirst Amendment.The negotiations resulted in a consensual agreement modifyingcertain the terms of the First Amendment. As agreed to by theparties, the terms of the First Amendment as submitted to theCourt on May 11, 2009 are preserved, with these modifications: (a) the deadline by which the Debtors are required to execute an asset purchase agreement with a \"stalking horse\" bidder is now July 31, 2009, which date may be extended at the discretion of the DIP Agent for an additional 30 days -- this deadline is 60 days later than the deadline set forth in the First Amendment as previously filed with the Court; and (b) the deadline by which the Debtors are required to submit audited financial statements for their fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 to the DIP Lenders is now September 10, 2009 -- this deadline is 30 days later than the deadline set forth in the First Amendment as previously filed with the Court.In exchange for these modifications, the Debtors agreed to pay anincremental waiver fee of 0.5% of the outstanding commitment ofeach DIP Lender who consented to the modified First Amendment,for a total waiver fee of 1.0% to each consenting DIP Lender,equal to $1.25 million.The First Amendment, as modified, has been accepted by therequisite number of DIP Lenders. In addition, both theCreditors' Committee and the Equity Committee have agreed towithdraw their Objections. Accordingly, the Debtors' entry intothe First Amendment is unopposed.The Parties also provided a blacklined copy that reflects themodifications to the First Amendment filed on May 11, 2009. Theblacklined copy is available for free at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3de6 Court Approves DIP AmendmentAccordingly, the Court approved the First Waiver and Amendment.The Debtors are authorized to enter into the First Waiver andAmendment and to perform all acts, to make, execute and deliverall instruments and documents that may be reasonably required forthe performance of their obligations under the First Waiver andAmendment and to pay the Amendment Fees. About Tronox Inc.Headquartered in Oklahoma City, Tronox Incorporated (Pink Sheets:TRXAQ, TRXBQ) is the world's fourth-largest producer and marketerof titanium dioxide pigment, with an annual production capacity of535,000 tonnes. Titanium dioxide pigment is an inorganic whitepigment used in paint, coatings, plastics, paper and many othereveryday products. The Company's four pigment plants, which arelocated in the United States, Australia and the Netherlands,supply high-performance products to approximately 1,100 customersin 100 countries. In addition, Tronox produces electrolyticproducts, including sodium chlorate, electrolytic manganesedioxide, boron trichloride, elemental boron and lithium manganeseoxide.Tronox has $1.6 billion in total assets, including $646.9 millionin current assets, as at September 30, 2008. The Company has$881.6 million in current debts and $355.9 million in totalnoncurrent debts.Tronox Inc., aka New-Co Chemical, Inc., and 14 other affiliatesfiled for Chapter 11 protection on January 13, 2009 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 09-10156). The case is before Hon. Allan L.Gropper. Richard M. Cieri, Esq., Jonathan S. Henes, Esq., andColin M. Adams, Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis LLP in New York,represent the Debtors. The Debtors also tapped Togut, Segal &Segal LLP as conflicts counsel; Rothschild Inc. as investmentbankers; Alvarez & Marsal North America LLC, as restructuringconsultants; and Kurtzman Carson Consultants serves as notice andclaims agent.An official committee of unsecured creditors and an officialcommittee of equity security holders have been appointed in thecases. The Creditors Committee has retained Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,Wharton & Garrison LLP as counsel.Until September 30, 2008, Tronox Inc. was publicly traded on theNew York Stock Exchange under the symbols TRX and TRX.B. Sincethen, Tronox Inc. has traded on the Over the Counter BulletinBoard under the symbols TROX.A.PK and TROX.B.PK. As ofDecember 31, 2008, Tronox Inc. had 19,107,367 outstanding sharesof class A common stock and 22,889,431 outstanding shares ofclass B common stock.Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., publishes Tronox BankruptcyNews. The newsletter tracks the Chapter 11 proceeding undertakenby Tronox Inc. and its 14 affiliates.(http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000) TVI CORPORATION: Nasdaq to Delist Common Stock on July 6--------------------------------------------------------The Nasdaq Stock Market will delist the common stock of TVICorporation effective at the opening of the trading session onJuly 6, 2009.The Nasdaq Staff determined that the Company is no longerqualified for listing on the Exchange pursuant to Listing Rule5450(a)(2) or the bid price rule.TVI Corporation's stock was suspended on April 13, 2009, and hasnot traded on NASDAQ since that time. NASDAQ will file a Form 25with the Securities and Exchange Commission to complete thedelisting. The delisting becomes effective ten days after theForm 25 is filed.Headquartered in Glenn Dale, Maryland, TVI Corporation --http://www.tvicorp.com/-- supplies military and civilian emergency first responder and first receiver products, personalprotection products and quick-erect shelter systems. The productsinclude powered air-purifying respirators, respiratory filters andquick-erect shelter systems used for decontamination, hospitalsurge systems and command and control. The users of theseproducts include military and homeland defense/homeland securitycustomers. The Company and two of its affiliates filed forChapter 11 protection on April 1, 2009 (Bankr. D. Md. Lead CaseNo. 09-15677). Christopher William Mahoney, Esq., at Duane MorrisLLP, represents the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. TheDebtors tapped Buccino & Associates, Inc., as their financialadvisors and consultants.UNI-MARTS LLC: Wants Plan Filing Deadline Moved to July 22----------------------------------------------------------Uni-Marts LLC, for the fifth time, is seeking an extension of itsexclusive period to file a Chapter 11 plan. The Debtor wants thecurrent plan deadline moved to July 22.Uni-Marts has received approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court forthe District of Delaware to conduct an auction on August 18 forits assets. Bids are due August 13. About Uni-MartsHeadquartered in State College, Pennsylvania, Uni-Marts LLC owned283 convenience stores and gasoline stations in Pennsylvania, NewYork and Ohio, but later reduced the store count during itsbankruptcy case, which is still pending. It was taken private in2004 by the Sahakian family and private-equity investors.The Company and six of its affiliates filed for Chapter 11protection on May 29, 2008 (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No.08-11037).Michael Gregory Wilson, Esq., at Hunton & Williams LLP, representsthe Debtors in their restructuring efforts. The Debtors selectedEpiq Bankruptcy Solutions LLC as their claims, notice andballoting agent. The U.S. Trustee for Region 3 appointed sevencreditors to serve on an Official Committee of UnsecuredCreditors. The Committee selected Blank Rome LLP as its counsel.UNITED SUBCONTRACTORS: Plan Confirmed; Expects to Emerge June 30----------------------------------------------------------------United Subcontractors, Inc., said the United States BankruptcyCourt for the District of Delaware confirmed the Company's AmendedJoint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization, dated May 18, 2009. USIcurrently expects to emerge from Chapter 11 on June 30, 2009.The Company and holders of its first-lien loans due in 2012 andholders of the Company's second-lien loans due in 2013 have agreedon the terms of a financial restructuring, which reduces theCompany's funded indebtedness by $314 million, via a conversion ofdebt to equity. Additionally, the Company noted that it has cashon hand in excess of $30 million which, combined with the cashgenerated from ongoing operations, will be more than sufficient torun the business and fund normal business obligations. USI doesnot anticipate the need for any financing facilities in the nearterm.First-lien lenders will receive approximately 96% of the New USIHoldings Common Stock; second-lien lenders will receiveapproximately 4% of the New USI Holdings Common Stock. The Planwas approved by an overwhelming margin of the first-lien lendersand the second-lien lenders. Additionally, under the terms of thePlan, General Unsecured Claims are unimpaired.\"As a result of our achievements during our reorganization, welook forward to emerging as a financially stronger company with,in essence, a debt free balance sheet,\" said Paul Lustig, ChiefExecutive Officer, USI. \"Our progress through the restructuringprocess demonstrates the strength of our business and ourcreditors' confidence in the future of USI. We appreciate theunwavering support from our customers and suppliers and for ouremployees' continued hard work and dedication to the Company.\" About United SubcontractorsUnited Subcontractors, Inc., is a privately owned company withapproximately 35 branches and 1,500 employees across the country.Founded in 1998 and based in Edina, Minnesota, UnitedSubcontractors is a market leader in the installation of a widerange of residential and commercial products within theconstruction industry. About United SubcontractorsUnited Subcontractors, Inc. -- http://www.unitedsub.com/-- is a privately owned company with approximately 40 branches and 1,600employees across the country. Founded in 1998 and based in Edina,Minnesota, USI is a market leader in the installation of a widerange of residential and commercial products within theconstruction industry.The Company and its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcyprotection on March 31, 2009 (Bankr. D. Delaware Case No.09-11152). Mark K. Thomas, Esq., Paul V. Possinger, Esq., andPeter J. Young, Esq., at Proskauer Rose LLP assist the Debtors intheir restructuring efforts. The Debtors propose to hire StevenM. Yoder, Esq., and Gabriel R. MacConaill, Esq., at PotterAnderson & Corroon LLP as co-counsel. The Debtors listed$50 million to $100 million in assets and $100 million to$500 million in debts.UNIVISION COMMUNICATIONS: Fitch Assigns 'B+/RR3' Rating on Notes----------------------------------------------------------------Fitch Ratings has assigned a 'B+/RR3' rating to UnivisionCommunications, Inc.'s senior secured note offering. The proceedsare expected to be used to tender the company's 7.85% notes due2011. Univision's Issuer Default Rating is rated 'B'. The RatingOutlook is Stable.Univision's ratings and Outlook are at the low end of theircategories. The ratings are constrained by a highly leveragedcapital structure, which leaves creditors with a very limitedmargin of safety. Fitch maintains a conservative view of theprospects for economic weakness, but acknowledges that the ratingis susceptible if advertising underperforms Fitch's grim outlook.Over the latest 12 months, Fitch has commented that Univisionfaced several obstacles over the intermediate term. Importantly,two of those obstacles ? payment of the second-lien loan and theGrupo Televisa S.A. litigation ? have largely been resolved.Fitch believes the company's remaining major obstacle over theintermediate term concerns the impact the existing economicdownturn will have on Univision's ability to make interest andprincipal amortization payments and meet covenant step-downs. InFitch's view, Univision should have the ability to meet theseobligations.While 2009 should be extremely difficult for advertising revenues,Fitch believes retransmission revenues, paid-in-kind interest, andthe maturation of $7 billion of higher-than-market interest rateswaps should provide the additional liquidity needed for debtcompliance over the short term. Fitch's current expectations arefor advertising revenue to be down in the 10% range, comprised ofnational advertising likely down in the low single digits andlocal advertising down more than 15%. However, Fitch expectsUnivision's net first-lien leverage to remain below the covenantlimit of 11.25 times (x) by year-end 2009 and that the companyshould be able to handle future covenant step-downs.The ratings are supported by Univision's underlying portfolio ofassets, which include duopoly television and radio stations inmost of the top Hispanic markets, with a national overlay ofbroadcast and cable networks.Liquidity is supported by approximately $473 million of cash onhand on March 31, 2009. The company had approximately $43 millionof cash remaining in the Reserve Fund at that same time andreceived a distribution of $17 million in April 2009.Additionally, the company used $150 million to permanently reduceits revolver borrowings on June 19, 2009. The company's remainingmaturity schedule includes principal amortization on its termloans of approximately $150 million in 2010 and $200 million in2011. Univision's $500 million 7.85% senior notes mature in July2011, potentially bringing total 2011 maturities above$700 million. Principal amortization is reduced to less than$90 million per year thereafter. Fitch's expectations are for thecompany to generate positive cash flow in 2010 and 2011 and to beable to handle these maturities organically. Remaining bulletmaturities begin in 2014 and are substantial.The Recovery Ratings and notching reflect Fitch's recoveryexpectations under a distressed scenario. Univision's recoveryratings reflect Fitch's expectation that the enterprise value ofthe company, and hence, recovery rates for its creditors, will bemaximized in a restructuring scenario (going concern), rather thana liquidation. Fitch has recently reduced its market multiple to7x from 9x, reflecting the existing difficult economicenvironment. The 7x market multiple reflects the company's FCClicenses in top U.S. markets, the elimination of the Televisalitigation and long-term growth prospects, among other things.Fitch estimates the adjusted distressed enterprise valuation inrestructuring to be approximately $4.4 billion. The 'B+/RR3'rating for the secured debt reflects Fitch's expectations forrecovery at the low end of the 51%-70% range under a bankruptcyscenario.UNIVISION COMMUNICATIONS: Moody's Puts 'B2' Rating on $500MM Notes------------------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service assigned a B2 rating to UnivisionCommunications Inc.'s proposed $500 million senior secured notesdue 2014. The company will use proceeds from the proposedoffering to fund the repurchase of its 7.85% $500 million seniorsecured notes due 7/15/2011. A tender offer for the 2011 noterepurchase expires on July 8, 2009 and is contingent upon the saleof the proposed notes. Holders of approximately $491.4 million ofthe 2011 notes have tendered as of June 23, 2009. The offeringwill increase interest expense by approximately $30 millionannually but beneficially pushes out the maturity by three yearsto 2014 from 2011, which Moody's believes provides additionalflexibility to manage in the current advertising downturn withoutthe impending pressure of a maturity. The proposed notes aresecured by a first lien on substantially all of the assets ofUnivision and its subsidiaries that secure the company's$8.05 billion senior secured credit facility, and will beguaranteed by its material domestic operating subsidiaries. LGDpoint estimates were updated to reflect the current debt mix.Univision's B3 Corporate Family Rating, B3 Probability of DefaultRating, SGL-3 speculative-grade liquidity rating and negativerating outlook are not affected.Following is a summary of the rating action:Assignments:Issuer: Univision Communications, Inc. -- $500 million Senior Secured Bonds due 2014, assigned B2, LGD3 - 42%LGD Updates:Issuer: Univision Communications, Inc. -- Senior Secured Bank Credit Facility and Senior Secured Bonds, changed to LGD3 - 42% from LGD3 - 40% (no change to B2 rating)The last rating action was on December 10, 2008, when Moody'sdowngraded Univision's CFR and Probability of Default Rating to B3from B2, the senior secured debt to B2 from B1, and the seniorunsecured notes to Caa2 from Caa1, with a negative rating outlook.Univision, headquartered in New York, is the leading Spanish-language media company in the United States. Annual revenue isapproximately $2 billion.UNIVISION COMMUNICATIONS: S&P Give Negative Outlook on 'B-' Rating------------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services revised its rating outlook onLos Angeles, California-based Spanish language television andradio broadcaster Univision Communications Corp. to stable fromnegative.\"The outlook revision is predicated on the successful tender ofthe company's $500 million 7.85% senior secured notes due 2011 andrefunding with the proposed offer proceeds,\" noted Standard &Poor's credit analyst Michael Altberg.At the same time, S&P has assigned its 'B-' issue-level rating (atthe same level as the 'B-' corporate credit rating) to thecompany's new $500 million senior secured notes due 2014. S&Palso assigned this debt a recovery rating of '3', indicating S&P'sexpectation of meaningful (50% to 70%) recovery for noteholders inthe event of a payment default.Despite local advertising weakness across the radio and TV stationgroups, the company's recent credit amendment alleviates S&P'sprevious concerns about covenant compliance in 2009 and 2010. Inaddition, Univision has recently addressed upcoming maturitieswith a tender offer at par for its $500 million 8.75% senior notesdue 2011, which S&P expects will be repaid with proceeds from itsnew senior secured debt issuance.The 'B-' corporate credit rating reflects Univision's highlyleveraged capital structure and weak credit metrics since its 2007LBO, failure to accomplish planned asset sales in a timely manner,advertising pricing that is not commensurate with its audienceshare, and weak trends in TV and radio advertising, which remainunder economic pressure. Univision's position as the dominantU.S.-based Spanish-language TV and radio broadcaster, favorablelong-term contracts to purchase popular TV programming, andpositive trends in Spanish-language population and viewing aremodestly positive factors that do not offset these risks.VIGO SNACK: Involuntary Chapter 11 Case Summary-----------------------------------------------Alleged Debtor: Vigo Snack Distributing, Inc. 2748 E. Northwood Ave. Terre Haute, IN 47805Case Number: 09-81091Type of Business:Involuntary Petition Date: June 24, 2009Court: Southern District of Indiana (Terre Haute)Judge: Frank J. OttePetitioner's Counsel: Robert D. McMahan, Esq. [email protected] McMahan Law Firm P.O. Box 3105 Terre Haute, IN 47803 Tel: (812) 235-2800 Fax: (812) 238-9486 Petitioner Nature of Claim Claim Amount ---------- --------------- ------------Alfred L Morge unstated unstated241 Francis Ave. Ct.Terre Haute, IN 47804VONAGE HOLDINGS: Settles Shareholder Litigation Over 2006 IPO-------------------------------------------------------------Vonage Holdings Corp. last week reached an agreement in principleto settle litigation against the Company brought on behalf of aclass of shareholders relating to the Company's initial publicoffering, In re Vonage Initial Public Offering SecuritiesLitigation, Civ. A. No. 07-cv-177 (D.N.J.).The settlement includes a release and dismissal of all stockholderclaims against the Company and its individual directors andofficers who were named as defendants. It is still subject tofinal documentation and approval by the U.S. District Court forthe District of New Jersey. According to the CLASS ACTIONREPORTER, the settlement will be funded by Vonage's liabilityinsurance under the Company's D&O policy. As a result, theCompany will incur no additional litigation settlement costs otherthan nominal administrative fees and expenses.In the 2006 IPO, investors bought the shares for $17 each, thensaw the value fall 13% when they opened for trading on May 24, TheAssociated Press. The stock traded at 0.42 at the close ofbusiness on June 24.Motley Rice LLC filed suit on behalf of shareholders a week afterthe IPO. According to AP, the suit alleged Vonage erred when itreserved 13.5% of the IPO shares for customers of phone service.These were not serious investors, the suit alleged, and thefailure of some of them to pay for the shares exacerbated thedecline in share value. About Vonage HoldingsHeadquartered in Holmdel, New Jersey, Vonage Holdings Corp.(NYSE:VG) -- http://www.vonage.com/-- provides broadband telephone services with more than 2.6 million subscriber lines.Its technology enables anyone to make and receive phone calls witha touch tone telephone almost anywhere a broadband Internetconnection is available. Vonage's service is sold on the web andthrough national retailers including Best Buy, Wal-Mart StoresInc. and Target and is available to customers in the U.S., Canadaand the United Kingdom. * * *BDO Seidman, LLP, in Woodbridge, New Jersey, raised substantialdoubt as to Vonage Holdings Corp.'s ability to continue as a goingconcern after auditing the company's consolidated financialstatements for the years Dec. 31, 2007, and 2006.Vonage's balance sheet at March 31, 2009, showed total assets of$330.2 million, total liabilities of $443.9 million, resulting ina stockholders' deficit of $113.6 million. The Company posted anet income of $5.27 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2009,compared to a net loss of $8.96 million.WHITE ENERGY: Gets Final Approval to Use Cash Collateral--------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has grantedfinal approval of White Energy Holding Co. and its affiliates'request to use cash subject to interest of their lenders, BillRochelle at Bloomberg News reports. According to the report, thecash collateral arrangement requires paying 80 percent of a$1.4 million tax refund to the lenders, with the remaining 20%available for operations.As reported on May 25, 2009, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for theDistrict of Delaware authorized, on an interim basis, WhiteEnergy, Inc., and its debtor-affiliates to use cash securingrepayment of loan from West LB AG until July 3, 2009. The Courtalso granted adequate protection to the Debtors' prepetitionsecured parties.As of White Energy's petition date, the Debtors owed $300 millionto West LB AG, New York Branch, as administrative agent, and theprepetition lenders under the amended and restated creditagreement dated as of July 31, 2006, as amended, in respect toloans made and letters of credit issued and other financialaccommodations made. About White Energy, Inc.Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, White Energy, Inc. --http://www.white-energy.com/-- builds and acquires ethanol production projects. White Energy's plants have a combinedcapacity of producing 240 million gallons of ethanol a year,making it one of the 10 largest ethanol producers in the U.S. andthe second-largest gluten maker. Two plants are in Texas with thethird in Kansas. White spent $323 million building the plants inTexas.The Company and its debtor-affiliates filed for Chapter 11 onMay 7, 2009 (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 09-11601). Michael R.Lastowski, Esq., at Duane Morris LLP, represents the Debtors intheir restructuring efforts. The Debtors tapped The Garden CityGroup Inc. as claims agent. On the petition date, the Debtorsdisclosed assets and debts ranging from $100 million to$500 million.YRC WORLDWIDE: Obtains Amendment to JPMorgan Credit Agreement-------------------------------------------------------------YRC Worldwide Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries on June 17,2009, entered into Amendment No. 7 to their Credit Agreement datedas of August 17, 2007, with JPMorgan Chase Bank, NationalAssociation, as agent, and the other lenders. The CreditAgreement continues to provide the Company with a $950 millionsenior revolving credit facility, including sublimits availablefor borrowings under certain foreign currencies and for letters ofcredit, subject to restrictions on access to a so-called RevolverReserve Amount, and a senior term loan in an aggregate outstandingprincipal amount of approximately $111.5 million. Escrow Termination, Prepayments and BorrowingsPrior to the Credit Agreement Amendment, the Company and itssubsidiaries had deposited approximately $73 million of net cashproceeds from real estate assets sales into an escrow account. OnJune 17, 2009, (i) all funds in the Escrow Account -- except for$3,571,405 that was released to the Company to prepay theObligations under the Contribution Deferral Agreement on or beforeJune 30, 2009 -- were released to the Administrative Agent toprepay the revolving loans under the Credit Agreement without acorresponding permanent reduction of the revolving commitments and(ii) the agreement governing the Escrow Account was terminated.Prior to the Credit Agreement Amendment, for any real estate assetsale other than the sale and lease back transaction with NATMITruck Terminals, LLC, the net cash proceeds of which, togetherwith the aggregate amount of net cash proceeds from all assetsales occurring on or after January 1, 2009, but on or beforeJuly 15, 2009, were less than or equal to $300 million, 50% ofsuch proceeds was used to prepay outstanding revolving loans underthe Credit Agreement -- without a corresponding permanentreduction of the revolving commitments -- and the remaining 50%was deposited into the Escrow Account.Due to the release of funds from, and the termination of, theEscrow Account, for any real estate asset sale that closes on orafter June 17, 2009, the net cash proceeds -- after deduction forprepayments of a portion of the Obligations pursuant to theContribution Deferral Agreement -- of which, together with theaggregate amount of net cash proceeds from all asset salesoccurring on or after January 1, 2009, and on or prior to July 15,2009, is less than or equal to $300 million, 100% of such proceedswill be used to prepay outstanding revolving loans under theCredit Agreement (without a corresponding permanent reduction ofthe revolving commitments) with 50% of the proceeds added to theRevolver Reserve Amount.At 12:00am on July 16, 2009, the revolving commitments under theCredit Agreement will be permanently reduced by an amount equal tothe Revolver Reserve Amount. In addition, prior to July 16, 2009,the Company may only borrow funds or request the issuance ofletters of credit from the Revolver Reserve Amount under theCredit Agreement with the approval of lenders with at least two-thirds of the aggregate revolving loan and term loan exposure andunused commitments.If the Company, its domestic subsidiaries -- other than YellowRoadway Receivables Funding Corporation -- and YRC Assurance Co.Ltd, collectively, have more than $150 million in PermittedInvestments as of any business day, then the Company must prepaythe outstanding revolving loans under the Credit Agreement in anamount equal to such excess (without a corresponding permanentreduction of the revolving commitments) the next business day. Inaddition, the Company may only borrow funds or request theissuance of letters of credit under the Credit Agreement to theextent that the Allowable Permitted Investments are less than$150 million. CollateralIn addition to the first priority liens on identified owned realproperty that the lenders under the Credit Agreement previouslyauthorized the Company and its subsidiaries to grant to the Fundsto secure the Obligations under the Contribution DeferralAgreement, the Credit Agreement Amendment permits the Company andits subsidiaries to grant to the Funds second priority liens onadditional identified owned real property to secure theObligations subject to the terms and conditions of anintercreditor agreement among the parties. Event of DefaultThe Credit Agreement Amendment provides that it will be an eventof default under the Credit Agreement if an event or conditionoccurs that enables or permits the holder or holders ofObligations under the Contribution Deferral Agreement -- or anytrustee or agent on a holder's behalf -- to cause such Obligationsto become due or require prepayment, repurchase, redemption ordefeasance of such Obligations prior to its scheduled maturity(after giving effect to any cure or grace period, amendment orwaiver).The Company clarified the Amendment does give it immediate accessto the escrow funds of $73 million by means of revolver capacitythat can be borrowed at any time without approval from the lendersso long as the company's cash is below $150 million. The$150 million is a new maximum of cash and cash equivalents thatwas mutually agreed to by the Company and the lender group and setwell above the company's average daily cash usage. The Company'stotal liquidity includes its cash balance in addition to theavailability under its credit facilities, which in total was$242 million at May 31, 2009.The Company did not pay any fees to the lender group associatedwith the amendment. About YRC WorldwideOverland Park, Kansas-based YRC Worldwide Inc. (NASDAQ: YRCW) is aholding company that through wholly owned operating subsidiariesoffers its customers a wide range of transportation services. Theservices include global, national and regional transportation aswell as logistics. Its operating subsidiaries include YRC NationalTransportation; YRC Regional Transportation; YRC Logistics; andYRC Truckload. At March 31, 2009, about 70% of the Company'slabor force is subject to collective bargaining agreements, whichpredominantly expire in 2013. At March 31, 2009, the Company had$3,674,725,000 in total assets and $3,467,190,000 in totalliabilities.As reported by the Troubled Company Reporter on May 20, 2009,Standard & Poor's Ratings Services maintained its 'CCC' long-termcorporate credit rating on YRC Worldwide Inc. on CreditWatch withnegative implications. S&P had revised the CreditWatchimplications to negative from positive on April 24, 2009,reflecting concerns that the company may not be able to meet itsamended bank covenants.YRC WORLDWIDE: Units Defer $83MM in Pension Contributions---------------------------------------------------------YRC Worldwide subsidiaries YRC Inc., USF Holland Inc., USFReddaway Inc., and New Penn Motor Express, Inc., on June 17, 2009,entered into a Contribution Deferral Agreement with the CentralStates, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund and WilmingtonTrust Company, as agent.The Central States Pension Fund is the largest of the Company'sInternational Brotherhood of Teamsters multiemployer definedbenefit pension funds, representing roughly 58% of the company'spension funding obligations. Other IBT pension funds may executea joinder agreement to become a party to the Contribution DeferralAgreement. Deferred Pension PaymentsThe Central States Pension Fund agreed that the Primary Obligorscould defer the payment to it of roughly $83 million ofcontributions (that were originally due on or before June 15,2009. The Company is working to finalize discussions with otherFunds to defer roughly $50 million of contributions owed to suchFunds and have such Funds agree to the terms of the ContributionDeferral Agreement. As other Funds become a party to theContribution Deferral Agreement, the amount of Deferred PensionPayments would increase by the second quarter 2009 contributionsdue to those Funds. The Funds also agreed that the deferral ofObligations would not be used in any determination that anyObligor or any ERISA affiliate has incurred complete or partialwithdrawal from any such Funds or is otherwise subject towithdrawal liability.Interest will accrue on the Deferred Pension Payments owed to eachFund at the applicable interest rate set forth in the trustdocumentation that governs the Fund. The interest rate for theCentral States Pension Fund is equal to prime plus 2%. Interestfrom the original due date of the Deferred Pension Payments owedto each Fund through the date a Fund becomes a party to theContribution Deferral Agreement with respect to any such DeferredPension Payment will be capitalized, compounded and added to theapplicable Deferred Pension Payments. Interest on the Obligationswill accrue monthly, and commencing on July 15, 2009, will bepayable in arrears on the 15th day of each calendar month.The Primary Obligors will pay the Obligations in (i) payment of$3,571,405 on or before June 30, 2009, and thereafter (ii) thebalance in 36 equal monthly installments payable on the 15th dayof each calendar month commencing on January 15, 2010 (or suchlater dates as the applicable Fund may agree). CollateralIn exchange for the deferral of the Obligations, certain of theCompanies subsidiaries as Obligors will pledge identified realproperty to the Funds so that the Funds have a first prioritysecurity interest in certain of the identified real property and asecond priority security interest in other identified realproperty located throughout the United States and Mexico. TheCompany's lenders under the Credit Agreement will continue to havea first priority security interest in the Second PriorityCollateral and a second priority security interest onsubstantially all of the First Priority Collateral, which in eachcase is subject to the terms and conditions of an intercreditoragreement among the parties. PrepaymentsThe Primary Obligors must prepay the Obligations on a ratablebasis to the Funds (i) with the net cash proceeds from the sale ofFirst Priority Collateral or (ii) to the extent that Liquidity ofthe Company is greater than $250 million, an amount equal to suchexcess; provided, that, Liquidity will be equal to $250,000,000after giving effect to such payment and no payment shall berequired until the Excess Amount is equal to or greater than$1 million at any time. The Primary Obligors may voluntarilyprepay the Obligations at any time without premium or penalty.However, pursuant to the terms of the Credit Agreement, theCompany and its subsidiaries may not voluntarily prepay theObligations until August 15, 2009, and any prepayment must be with(i) the net cash proceeds from the issuance of common stock orother equity interests of the Company or (ii) the issuance ofcommon stock or other equity interests of the Company. Subsidiary GuarantorsThe Obligors that are not the Primary Obligors will guarantee orprovide collateral to secure the Obligations. Recourse by theFunds under the guarantee with respect to any guarantor is limitedto the guarantor's owned real property subject to a mortgage forthe benefit of the Funds. CovenantsThe Contribution Deferral Agreement includes a limited number ofaffirmative and negative covenants. The Obligors cannot sellFirst Priority Collateral without the consent of the Fundsrepresenting a majority of the outstanding Deferred PensionPayments (such consent not to be unreasonably withheld, delayed orconditioned) unless the cash consideration received for suchcollateral is equal to or greater than 100% of the gross bookvalue of such First Priority Collateral.The Obligors shall not (i) provide collateral (other than thecollateral granted pursuant to the Contribution DeferralAgreement) securing obligations owed by any Obligor to any IBTpension fund similarly situated to the Funds (including IBTpensions funds not a party to the Contribution Deferral Agreement)or (ii) make payments in respect of pension contributions owed toany IBT pension fund similarly situated to the Funds to the extentsuch IBT pension fund does not become a party to the ContributionDeferral Agreement (other than payments approved by the Funds thatare owed a majority of the Deferred Pension Payments -- suchapproval not to be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned). Events of DefaultThe Contribution Deferral Agreement includes customary events ofdefault, including nonpayment of the Deferred Pension Payments,materially incorrect representations and warranties, breaches ofthe covenants and bankruptcy related events. Upon and during thecontinuance of an Event of Default, the Funds that are owed amajority of the Deferred Pension Payments may direct the Agent topursue remedies with respect to the collateral, includingforeclosure, subject to the terms of the intercreditor agreement.Any Fund may declare its Deferred Pension Payments due and payableupon the occurrence and during the continuance of an Event ofDefault and pursue remedies (other than remedies with respect tothe Collateral). About YRC WorldwideOverland Park, Kansas-based YRC Worldwide Inc. (NASDAQ: YRCW) is aholding company that through wholly owned operating subsidiariesoffers its customers a wide range of transportation services. Theservices include global, national and regional transportation aswell as logistics. Its operating subsidiaries include YRC NationalTransportation; YRC Regional Transportation; YRC Logistics; andYRC Truckload. At March 31, 2009, about 70% of the Company'slabor force is subject to collective bargaining agreements, whichpredominantly expire in 2013. At March 31, 2009, the Company had$3,674,725,000 in total assets and $3,467,190,000 in totalliabilities.As reported by the Troubled Company Reporter on May 20, 2009,Standard & Poor's Ratings Services maintained its 'CCC' long-termcorporate credit rating on YRC Worldwide Inc. on CreditWatch withnegative implications. S&P had revised the CreditWatchimplications to negative from positive on April 24, 2009,reflecting concerns that the company may not be able to meet itsamended bank covenants.* Business Credit Less Available Than Last Year, TMA Says---------------------------------------------------------Bill Rochelle of Bloomberg reported that, according to 98 percentof 395 respondents in a survey taken by the Turnaround ManagementAssociation, business credit is less available now than it wasthis time last year.According to the TMA survey, 70% of respondents said credit isless available from lenders who provide loans to distressedborrowers, the study found.* Citizens Advice Bureau Says Jersey's Bankruptcy Laws Need Change------------------------------------------------------------------The Citizens Advice Bureau said that Jersey's bankruptcy laws needmodification, to bring vital relief to debt-ridden Islanders,Jersey Evening Post reports.According to Jersey Evening Post, CAB manager Francis Le Gresleysaid that many of his clients were suffering because it was almostimpossible to be declared bankrupt in the state. Citing Mr. LeGresley, the report states that the current laws were leavingdebt-ridden Islanders who, despite failing to repay their debts,were constantly being harassed by creditors.* Hughes Watters Paralegal Turea Simpson Forms Peer Group---------------------------------------------------------Turea Simpson, a senior paralegal with Houston-based law firmHughes Watters Askanase L.L.P., has formed the Houston Associationof Bankruptcy Paralegals. The HABP is the first association ofits kind in Texas and just the second of its kind in the nation.Ms. Simpson explained that she established the HABP because shesaw a strong need and desire among Houston bankruptcy paralegalsfor continuing education and for face-to-face communication.\"Hughes Watters Askanase often sent me to bankruptcy seminarsgeared toward attorneys, but not paralegals. It came to me duringone of these seminars that bankruptcy paralegals do not have ourown events or workshops that help us continue our education whichin turn enables us to be more successful at our jobs. Becausebankruptcy paralegals work with paralegals at other firms on adaily basis, the opportunity to meet colleagues face-to-face isespecially important.\"Ms. Simpson said that response to the new organization has beenexcellent. The group hosted its first social event in May, andmany attendees commented to Simpson that they were delighted tomeet colleagues with whom they had worked with for years, but hadnever met in person.The HABP governing board includes paralegals and an attorney fromseveral leading Houston law firms. Board members include:President and Chairman Turea Simpson, HWA; Vice President KinniSaldana, The Law Office of Pamela L. Stewart; Secretary TinaPavlock, HWA; Treasurer Sandra Olivarez, HWA; Assistant TreasurerKaren Dockens, HWA; Parliamentarian Casey Mucha, Fulbright &Jaworski L.L.P.; Mentorship Committee Chair Yola Galvin, JacksonWalker, L.L.P.; Membership Committee Chair Mary Shiloh, Butler &Hailey, P.C.; Newsletter Editor Dru Graves, Adair & Myers,P.L.L.C.; and Board Advisor Marjorie Britt of Britt and Catrett,P.C.The HABP has attracted more than 40 members since Ms. Simpsonintroduced the organization in April. The HABP offers severallevels of membership, including voting and non-voting levels, withannual dues of $50. All membership dues have been waived for 2009applications. Additionally, the HABP has received significantsponsorship. Businesses that currently support the group include:Waldron & Schneider, L.L.P., Robert Half Legal, Hughes WattersAskanase L.L.P., Britt & Catrett, P.C., and Mach 5 Couriers Inc.Apart from banner and representative recognition at HABP events,sponsors will enjoy Web site recognition and advertising spacewhen the HABP publishes its official Web site.According to Ms. Simpson, the HABP plans to maintain an activeschedule of events and programs. Plans include monthly ContinuingLegal Education events with guest speakers, an annual conference,pro bono opportunities, a peer-to-peer training and mentorshipprogram, and an online job bank. HWA partner Dominique Varnerspoke at the group's first CLE event on June 12, during which shediscussed \"Proofs of Claim: How to Protect Creditors' Rights.\"Other guest speakers scheduled for this year include: DianeLivingstone, assistant U.S. Trustee; Hugh M. Ray, partner atAndrews & Kurth, L.L.P.; and The Honorable Judge Jeff Bohm, UnitedStates Bankruptcy Judge.Ms. Simpson said the HABP board has been actively seeking severalaccreditations and affiliations that will connect the organizationto both state and national resources. Ms. Simpson is petitioningthe Texas Board of Legal Specialization to begin the process thatwould allow paralegals to become certified as bankruptcyparalegals. She has also applied for a National Association ofLegal Assistants Affiliation that will give the HABP a vote withinNALA, access to national continuing education conferences, and theopportunity to promote the HABP on the NALA Web site.Ms. Simpson plans to expand the HABP statewide and nationallywithin coming years. \"This organization is being a model forother organizations,\" Ms. Simpson said. \"I set the bar high foreverything I do.\"A Houston native, Ms. Simpson has been a bankruptcy paralegal forJanet Northrup, Of Counsel with Hughes Watters Askanase L.L.P.,for the past eight years and has been in the bankruptcy field forover 10 years. Ms. Simpson has been a certified bankruptcyassistant since 2007 and is an active member of the AmericanBankruptcy Judicial Assistants. On the Net: http://www.hwa.com/ About Houston Association of Bankruptcy ParalegalsEstablished in April 2009, The Houston Association of BankruptcyParalegals offers members monthly CLE events, an annualconference, opportunities for pro bono work, a mentorship programand an online job bank. For further information on the HABP,please contact Simpson at [email protected] or phone 713-328-2833.* Lehman, AIG, Citi Fees Comprise 10.7% of Weil's Revenues----------------------------------------------------------Stephen Karotkin, Esq., a member of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP,said fees for services to Lehman Brothers, American InternationalGroup and Citigroup represent a combined 10.7% of the firm'sannual gross revenues for the last 12 months (LTM).Mr. Karotkin made the disclosure in a Supplemental Affidavit andDisclosure Statement filed on his firm's behalf in the bankruptcycases of General Motors Corporation, pending before the U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. GeneralMotors is seeking Court approval to hire Weil as its generalcounsel.According to the signed affidavit, Weil's major clients are: Percentage of Revenues for LTM ---------------- Lehman Brothers 6.6% General Electric 3.2% Thomas H. Lee Partners 2.7% AIG 3.0% Microsoft Corporation 0.9% Citigroup 1.1%Nate Raymond at The American Lawyer says Weil may collect morethan $25,000,000 in fees from AIG. Weil is representing AIG inconnection with the company's global divestiture and restructuringprogram. Since early 2008, Weil has worked with AIG to developlegal strategies addressing litigation, financial auditing,reporting, and regulatory compliance issues concerning thecompany's write-downs of hard-to-value, illiquid credit defaultswaps of mortgage- and asset-backed securities.\"Exactly what dollar amount that equals is unclear. But back-of-the-envelope math suggests the fees are at least $25 million to$36 million, if not more,\" Mr. Raymond says.\"Weil's filing says Lehman Brothers made up 6.6 percent of itsrevenue in the last year. Weil has already submitted a$55 million bill for its work on the Lehman case betweenSeptember 15 to January 31. A little cross multiplication, then,would put its AIG fees easily in excess of $25 million.\"And that's erring on the low side since our calculation doesn'tfactor in what Weil earned in the months before Lehman melted downor its work since February.\"It also ignores Weil's 2008 revenues. Last year, it earned$1.23 billion, up 4.75 percent. Quick multiplication puts AIGfees at more than $36 million.\"But again, that too likely undervalues the bill, since Weil'sbankruptcy work is booming and the firm will probably close theyear with higher revenue. In a March memo obtained by TheAmerican Lawyer, Weil said its \"overall level of business hasremained strong and is expected to remain strong when the economy'normalizes.'\"AIG in its quarterly report filed in May 2009 disclosed incurring$274,000,000 in exit expenses which include consulting and otherprofessional fees related to (i) asset disposition activities,(ii) AIG's debt and capital restructuring program with the FederalReserve Bank of New York and the U.S. Department of the Treasuryand (iii) unwinding most of AIGFP's businesses and portfolios.AIG expects exit costs to total $700,000,000.Senior members of the Weil Gotshal team includes partners MichaelAiello, Matthew Gilroy, Marcia Goldstein, Joseph Allerhand, RobertCarangelo and Jason Smith.Mr. Raymond says AIG also has engaged Sullivan & Cromwell, SimpsonThacher & Bartlett and Sidley Austin, among others. None of theirfees are known, he adds.Weil earned $54,000,000 from GM before the bankruptcy filing.Mr. Karotkin filed the affidavit to disclose potential conflictsof interest in connection with the GM engagement, as requiredpursuant to Sections 327, 328(A), 329 and 504 of the BankruptcyCode, and Rules 2014(A) and 2016(b) of the Federal Rules ofBankruptcy Procedure.* Leonard Goldberger Appointed to INSOL Committee-------------------------------------------------Leonard P. Goldberger, Esq., a Stevens & Lee shareholder, has beenappointed to the INSOL International Technical ProgrammeCommittee, a group of only 16 insolvency practitioners worldwide.The group will plan the program for the 2010 INSOL InternationalEurope/Africa/Middle East Regional Conference in Dubai. InDecember 2008, Mr. Goldberger successfully completed INSOLInternational's inaugural Global Insolvency Practice Course, withhonors, and became an INSOL fellow.INSOL International is a world-wide federation of nationalassociations for accountants and lawyers who focus their practiceson turnaround and insolvency. There are currently 40 memberassociations world-wide with over 10,000 professionalsparticipating as members of INSOL International.Mr. Goldberger has over 32 years of experience practicing businessbankruptcy law. He represents insurers in asbestos, mass tort andenvironmental bankruptcy cases and works with domestic and foreigninvestors in the acquisition and financing of financially-distressed businesses.A former Vice President, Director and Executive Committee memberof the American Bankruptcy Institute, Mr. Goldberger was also theChair of the American Bar Association's Committee on InsuranceCoverage Subcommittee on Insolvency, and a member of the ABA'sLitigation Section and its Tort Trial and Insurance PracticeSection.Mr. Goldberger has lectured and written extensively on bankruptcylaw topics and currently serves on the editorial board of theAmerican Bankruptcy Institute Journal. He has appeared as a guestcommentator on CourtTV.Mr. Goldberger received a J.D. from Villanova University School ofLaw and a B.A., summa cum laude, from Temple University. About Stevens & LeeAmong the 200 largest law firms in the nation, Stevens & Lee --http://www.stevenslee.com-- is part of a multidisciplinary professional services platform which also consists of a FINRA-licensed investment bank, a D&O and E&O insurance risk consultingbusiness, a swap and derivative advisory business, federal andstate lobbying units, a health care risk consulting business and agovernment incentives and sales and use tax consulting business.The firm's 240 multidisciplinary professionals represent clientsthroughout the Mid-Atlantic region and across the country from 15offices in: Philadelphia, Reading, Harrisburg, Valley Forge,Lancaster, the Lehigh Valley, Scranton and Wilkes-Barre,Pennsylvania; Princeton and Cherry Hill, New Jersey; Wilmington,Delaware; New York City and Charleston, South Carolina.* NasTrac Says Tool Repossessions Rising Dramatically in Q1 2009----------------------------------------------------------------Repossessions and liquidations of construction equipment nearlytripled in the first quarter of 2009, as did machine toolrepossessions, as compared to the same quarter of 2008, accordingto Nassau Asset Management's NasTrac Quarterly Index. Thefigures, culled from the company's activity reports for bothrepossessions and orderly liquidations, show the dramatic effectof the economy on the construction, manufacturing andtransportation industries, even as signs surface of a possibleeconomic turnaround.Machine tool repossessions have undergone a steady and continuousincrease since the third quarter of 2007, according to Nassau'srecords. Truck repossessions processed by Nassau increasedslightly, by approximately two percent in Q1 2009, as compared tothe same period in 2008.\"We have said in the past that a spike in the machine tool sectorreflects the true economic condition,\" said Ed Castagna, presidentof Nassau Asset Management. \"That may no longer be true, becausethe bankruptcy proceedings for Chrysler and GM have clouded thepicture for the machine tool sector. With so many machine tools inuse by these reorganizing businesses, it is less clear if thespike we saw in the first quarter of 2009 is caused by the failingautomakers and their subcontractors, or by the overall underlyingeconomy.\"Mr. Castagna continued, \"It is Nassau's opinion that, since thespike is so drastic, the burst of the automotive bubble is thereason. If that is true, the increase in activity is more of aresult of a single industry facing problems and not a sign ofoverall negativity in the economy.\"\"What the automotive industry is to machine tools, thehomebuilding sector is to construction equipment,\" Mr. Castagnaadded. \"Clearly, the current rise in construction activity showsthe continued problems faced by the homebuilding industry. Thehousing decline first deeply affected the truck sector and it isnow reaching into the construction equipment category.\"We have stated in the past that the funding of new projects bymoneys in the stimulus package would take some time to have aneffect. Nassau believes the increase in repossession activityindicates that these funds have yet to reach their targetedaudiences with the speed and impact that was planned. Obviously,our statistics indicate there is a buyer's market in the trucking,construction and machine tool sectors and the good news is thatpeople continue to buy on the secondary market.\" Trucking Repossessions and LiquidationsRepossession figures for trucks and tractor trailers increasedslightly by two percent in the first quarter of 2009, as comparedto the same period in 2008, remaining at a very high level ofactivity. This appears to mirror the continued steady strugglesin the economy, as stated in the Beige Book report issued by theFederal Reserve in April. In that report, several districtswithin the Federal Reserve reported that the low demand fortrucking meant that companies continued to trim their fleets andtheir workforces.In a report from the U.S. Department of Transportation, itsfreight transportation services index for March 2009 fell 3.3percent from its February level, to its lowest level in more thansix years. That decrease was the largest monthly drop for anymonth since March 2000.It still appears that fuel prices are not affecting freighttransportation. Even as gas and diesel prices increase, they arestill far below last year's highs and the Energy Departmentpredicts that diesel will average $2.26 a gallon in 2009, downfrom the $3.80 average of last year. Other Repo TrendsNassau's latest NQI compares the company's internal repossessionand orderly liquidation activity in the first quarter of 2009 withthe same period of 2008. In addition to reporting on truckvolume, the latest NQI revealed these trends:Construction Repos Increased Significantly -- Constructionequipment repossessions in Q1 2009 nearly tripled from the totalsfor Q1 2008. This sector continued to be hit hard in the firstpart of the year by the struggles in the housing industry and thedecline in nonresidential construction.While some experts believe the housing market is beginning toexhibit a slight turnaround, thanks to low prices sparkinginterest among buyers, the glut of homes currently on the marketis reducing the need for additional construction.Meanwhile, the Architecture Billings Index, a leading indicator ofU.S. nonresidential construction, has begun to exhibit signs ofrenewed interest in building projects in the past two months.However, contrary to that data, in a poll of the members of theAmerican Institute of Architects, which issues the Billing Index,respondents reported continued pessimism for their own futureoutlook. This suggests that any signs of positive activity arerestricted to specific areas or larger companies, and have notproduced enough momentum to improve conditions in the constructionequipment sector as a whole.Machine Tool Repos Increased Dramatically -- Repossessions ofmachine tool equipment in Q1 2009 increased by threefold over thesame quarter of 2008, reflecting the ongoing struggles in thesector.According to a report by AMT (The Association for ManufacturingTechnology) and AMTDA (the American Machine Tool Distributors'Association), U.S. manufacturing technology consumption inFebruary 2009 declined 62.4% from the total for February 2008, andthe year-to-date total for 2009 was down 66.2% compared to 2008.This data reflects the significant impact on the economy of theproblems faced by Chrysler and GM in the last two quarters. Whileother economic sectors may be showing signs of life, that was notenough to overcome the damage done by the auto industry. Itremains to be seen if the various actions taken by Chrysler and GMas part of their reorganization plans will provide any relief tothis category.Medical Equipment Repos Decreased From Q1 08 -- Data in the NQIshowed repossessions of medical equipment in 2009 declined byapproximately 33% from the same quarter of 2008. About NQINQI reports on Nassau's internal repossession and orderlyliquidation activity in a given quarter compared to the samequarter the previous year or to previous quarters in the sameyear. The results must be viewed over several quarters toestablish trends. About NassauNassau Asset Management of Westbury, New York, has been providingfull-service asset management, including asset recovery,collections, remarketing, plant liquidations, and appraisals formore than 25 years to the equipment finance industry. On the Net:http://www.nasset.com/or call 1-800-4.NASSAU * New Home Sales Unexpectedly Decline 0.6% in May-------------------------------------------------Sales of new homes unexpectedly fell 0.6 percent in May to anannual rate of 342,000, compared with a revised 344,000 for April,the U.S. Commerce Department reported June 24. The median pricefor a new home was 3.4 percent lower than last year, the reportsaid.* Paying Preference Settlement Revives Released Guarantee---------------------------------------------------------According to Bill Rochelle at Bloomberg, the U.S. Court of Appealsin San Francisco ruled June 23 that if a creditor settles apreference claim, the payment revives a previously releasedguarantee,Courts and commentators previously said that a judgment for apreference revives a guarantee. The 9th Circuit in San Franciscodisagreed with a treatise and followed a ruling from a sistercourt of appeals to say that a settlement likewise revives aguarantee, just like a judgment.The Court of Appeals ruling in SNTL Corp. v. Centre Insurance Co.(In re SNTL Corp.), Case No. 08-60001, also answered a questionleft open by a 2007 decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. The SanFrancisco appeals court held that an unsecured creditor has avalid claim for post-bankruptcy attorneys' fees if the underlyingcontract provides.Mr. Rochelle relates that in Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. ofAmerica v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the Supreme Court held thatan unsecured creditor's pre-bankruptcy counsel fees are validclaims if the contract says so.Bill Rochelle said the 9th Circuit didn't write its own opinion;instead, it adopted the opinion that U.S. Bankruptcy Judge DennisMontali wrote as an appellate judge on the Bankruptcy AppellatePanel for the 9th Circuit.* BOOK REVIEW: Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War-----------------------------------------------------Author: Wilfred TrotterPublisher: Beard BooksSoftcover: 264 pagesList Price: $34.95by Henry BerryInstincts of the Herd in Peace and War examines how individualsbecome involved in social groups and how this affects theirinvolvement in a nation, the ultimate social group. According toTrotter, human beings are, by nature, \"gregarious,\" and theirgregariousness is instinctive. Consequently, individuals arecompelled to attach themselves to a primary social group andassume a role within it. Individuals may form attachments toother groups and take different or modified roles within them, butit is their attachment to, identification with, and role within aprimary group that lends them their personal identity, sense ofpurpose, and sense of self-worth and fulfillment.Although a nation is the ultimate group, it becomes the primarysocial group only in the case of war. To Trotter, war and peaceare not mutually exclusive social states. They form a continuumof historical social states that comprise the entirety of allpossible social states. There can be no utopias, nor can there beeternal wars. The flow of events brings periods of peace and war.The events in Europe preceding World War I -- the period duringwhich Trotter wrote the first edition of his book -- were a testcase for the author's observations and conclusions. The people ofEngland, France, Germany, and other European nations becamefocused on defending their nations against external enemies.Societies (i. e., nations) underwent upheaval as their peopleturned from limited involvement with smaller social groups tolarge-scale involvement in national defense.Trotter's book is recognized as a classic in the field ofsociology, a relatively new science in the latter 1800s and early1900s. Trotter and others sought to understand the group dynamicsof democratic societies, which were replacing the class structureof aristocratic, hierarchal societies. Trotter also sought tocounter the misleading effects of psychology, especially theinfluence of Freudian psychology, which saw individuals asinfluenced mostly by inner, largely subconscious feelings andexperiences.Trotter argues that psychology is not an independent field. Saysthe author, \"The two fields -- the social and the individual --are absolutely continuous; all human psychology, it is contended,must be the psychology of associated man, since man as a solitaryanimal is unknown to us . . . .\" Even a hermit is born insociety; and society has an interest in hermits for what they mayreflect about conditions of society.This reprint is the second edition of Trotter's classic work. Thesecond edition includes the author's 45-page \"Postscript of 1919,\"assaying the conditions of peace after World War I had ended.\"With the cessation of war this great stream of moral power [indefending the nation] began rapidly to dry up at its source,\"observes Trotter. He proffers that the aim of statecraft iskeeping this \"great stream of moral power\" in times of peace. Hebelieves that the progressive evolution of society can beaccomplished by a \"scientific statecraft [applying] the intellectas an active factor in the direction of society.\"While basically a work of sociology, Trotter's book can be apicture of individual and group behavior for leaders in anyorganization where motivation, unity, and progress are important.This includes business leaders, especially leaders of largercompanies with multiple business sites and different employeesegments. Business leaders will immediately grasp the truth andrelevance of the author's view of society and glean from itessential lessons and leadership principles, practices, and goals.Wilfred Trotter (1872-1939) was an English surgeon as well as aninfluential sociologist. *********Monday's edition of the TCR delivers a list of indicative pricesfor bond issues that reportedly trade well below par. Prices areobtained by TCR editors from a variety of outside sources duringthe prior week we think are reliable. Those sources may not,however, be complete or accurate. The Monday Bond Pricing tableis compiled on the Friday prior to publication. Prices reportedare not intended to reflect actual trades. Prices for actualtrades are probably different. Our objective is to shareinformation, not make markets in publicly traded securities.Nothing in the TCR constitutes an offer or solicitation to buy orsell any security of any kind. It is likely that some entityaffiliated with a TCR editor holds some position in the issuers'public debt and equity securities about which we report.Each Tuesday edition of the TCR contains a list of companies withinsolvent balance sheets whose shares trade higher than $3 pershare in public markets. At first glance, this list may look likethe definitive compilation of stocks that are ideal to sell short.Don't be fooled. Assets, for example, reported at historical costnet of depreciation may understate the true value of a firm'sassets. A company may establish reserves on its balance sheet forliabilities that may never materialize. The prices at whichequity securities trade in public market are determined by morethan a balance sheet solvency test.A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the TCR. Submissions about insolvency-related conferences are encouraged. Send announcements [email protected] /On Thursdays, the TCR delivers a list of recently filed chapter 11cases involving less than $1,000,000 in assets and liabilitiesdelivered to nation's bankruptcy courts. The list includes linksto freely downloadable images of these small-dollar petitions inAcrobat PDF format.Each Friday's edition of the TCR includes a review about a book ofinterest to troubled company professionals. All titles areavailable at your local bookstore or through Amazon.com. Go tohttp://www.bankrupt.com/books/to order any title today. Monthly Operating Reports are summarized in every Saturday editionof the TCR.The Sunday TCR delivers securitization rating news from the weekthen-ending.For copies of court documents filed in the District of Delaware,please contact Vito at Parcels, Inc., at 302-658-9911. Forbankruptcy documents filed in cases pending outside the Districtof Delaware, contact Ken Troubh at Nationwide Research &Consulting at 207/791-2852. *********S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O NTroubled Company Reporter is a daily newsletter co-publishedby Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland,USA. Ma. Theresa Amor J. Tan Singco, Ronald C. Sy, Joel AnthonyG. Lopez, Cecil R. Villacampa, Sheryl Joy P. Olano, CarloFernandez, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman,Editors.Copyright 2009. All rights reserved. ISSN: 1520-9474.This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers. Information containedherein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but isnot guaranteed.The TCR subscription rate is $775 for 6 months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact ChristopherBeard at 240/629-3300. *** End of Transmission *** ",
"URL": "http://bankrupt.com/TCR_Public/090626.mbx"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 18, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 119 Headlines 724 SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NYALAMOSA INC.: Faces Multiple Suits For Securities Violations in S.D. NYCABLEVISION: NY Judge Dismisses Yankees Fans' Suit Over Games BroadcastCALIFORNIA: Judge Declares Parole-Revoking System \"Unconstitutional\" CATHOLIC CHURCH: Utilizing Mediators to Help Victims of Sexual Abuse CATHOLIC CHURCH: Abuse Victim Opposes Church's Release From LiabilityCROWN MEDIA: DE Court Approves $1.5M Settlement Of Shareholder SuitDIGITAS INC.: Faces Multiple Suits For Securities Violations in S.D. NYELAN PHARMACEUTICAL: Vice-President Takes New Role in SEC InquiryFARMLAND INDUSTRIES: $17M Price-Fixing Suit Settlement LikelyFLAG TELECOM: Faces Suits For Securities Act Violations in S.D. NYFLAG TELECOM: Officers, Directors Named as Defendants in New York SuitINFORTE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NYIPRINT TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NYKNIGHT TRADING: Shareholders Commence \"Front Running\" Securities SuitLANTE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NYMEDICAL INDUSTRY: Suit Leads To Reduction of Work Week For ResidentsMICROSOFT CORP: Antitrust Suit To Proceed Due To Appeals Court RulingMUSIC INDUSTRY: Consumers File Suit Over Copy-Protected Compact DiscsNEW JERSEY: African Americans' Race Bias Suit Denied CertificationNORTH CAROLINA: $7.9M Vitamin Antitrust Settlement Payment PendingONI SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NYONI SYSTEMS: Faces Two Suits Seeking To Block CIENA Merger in CA CourtPARTSBASE.COM: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit For $1.5M in S.D. FLPAYPAL INC.: Plaintiffs Ask To Move Consumer Suit To CA State CourtPAYPAL INC.: Plaintiffs Ask CA Court To Grant Suit Class CertificationPEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Chairman and Padres Owner Named As Defendant in SuitREGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Sued For Federal Securities Violations in FLSIRENZA MICRODEVICES: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in NYSOCCER FEDERATION: Hispanic Fan Sues Over Discriminatory Tickets PolicySTAUFFER CHEMICAL: Former Workers Push For Class Certification of SuitTOBACCO INDUSTRY: Merchants' Appeal Of Class Certification DeniedTOBACCO LITIGATION: Medicaid Recipients Lose Bid For Part of Settlement*D&O Liability Insurers Face Challenge Over Rise in Securities Suits New Securities Fraud CasesAPPLIED DIGITAL: Much Shelist Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FLDYNEGY INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TXFIRST UNION: Grady & Associates Files Amended Securities Suit in FLMERRILL LYNCH: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NYPEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Much Shelist Investigates Securities Fraud ClaimsRAYOVAC CORPORATION: Much Shelist Investigates Securities Fraud ClaimsRELIANT ENERGY: Lockridge Grindal Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX *********724 SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY-----------------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs in the securities class actions against 724 Solutions, Inc. filed an amended suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suits were initially filed in June 2001, on behalf of purported classes of plaintiffs who acquired the Company's common shares during certain periods. The amended suit names as defendants, in addition to the Company, some or all of the current or former directors and officers of the Company and certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering of securities. In general, the amended complaint alleges that the underwriter defendants: (1) allocated shares of the Company's offering of equity securities to certain of their customers, in exchange for which these customers agreed to pay the underwriter defendants extra commissions on transactions in other securities; and (2) allocated shares of the Company's initial public offering to certain of the underwriter defendants' customers, in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional common shares of the Company in the after-market at certain pre- determined prices. The amended complaint also alleges that the Company and the individual defendants failed to disclose these facts and were aware of, ordisregarded, the underwriter defendants' conduct.The Company intends to vigorously defend itself and the individual defendants against these claims. However, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, and because the suit is at a preliminary stage, the Company cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome.ALAMOSA INC.: Faces Multiple Suits For Securities Violations in S.D. NY-----------------------------------------------------------------------Alamosa, Inc. faces several securities class actions pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, arising out of its initial public offering (IPO). Various underwriters of the IPO also are named as defendants in the actions. The suits allege, among other things, that the registration statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for purposes of the IPO were false and misleading because they failed to disclose that the underwriters allegedly: (1) solicited and received commissions from certain investors in exchange for allocating to them shares of common stock in connection with the IPO; and (2) entered into agreements with their customers to allocate such stock to those customers in exchange for the customers agreeing to purchase additional Company shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.The court has ordered that these putative class actions against the Company, along with hundreds of IPO allocation cases against other issuers, be transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. At a status conference held on September 7, 2001, the court adjourned all defendants' time to respond to the complaints until further order of the court. These cases remain at a preliminary stage and no discovery proceedings have taken place.CABLEVISION: NY Judge Dismisses Yankees Fans' Suit Over Games Broadcast-----------------------------------------------------------------------A federal judge dismissed a class action, filed in April by Cablevision subscribers - five Yankees fans - who said that Cablevision violated racketeering and antitrust laws by not showing the New York Yankees games carried by the YES Network, according to a report by Associated Press Newswires.The impasse, if left unresolved, would mean that three million Cablevision subscribers in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Long Island, the northern New York suburbs, New Jersey and Connecticut, would miss 130games this season.US District Court Judge Thomas Platt Jr. said in his 38-page ruling, \"While they (the fans) did allege a contractual right to receive someYankees baseball games from Cablevision this season, they did not pleadany contractual right to receive broadcasts of every Yankees game.\" The Company applauded the judge's decision to dismiss this lawsuit, saying in a news release that it (the lawsuit) \"was entirely withoutmerit.In a separate lawsuit pending in Manhattan federal court, YES has charged Cablevision with antitrust violations based on its refusal tocarry the network \"on reasonable, non-discriminatory terms.\" The YESNetwork accuses Cablevision of locking the network out in order to limit competition against its own sports networks, including Madison Square Garden Network and Fox Sports Net New York.YES has insisted that Cablevision make the new channel part of its basic service package, which would put it in all subscribers' homes. Cablevision, looking for a return on the expense, wants to put YES on a \"premium tier,\" available only to those customers who pay an extra fee.YES is scheduled to show 130 of the regular season's 162 games. Another 20 games will be carried on WCBS-TV, and the remainder will appear on ESPN or FOX.CALIFORNIA: Judge Declares Parole-Revoking System \"Unconstitutional\" -------------------------------------------------------------------California's system to revoke paroles is unconstitutional because it does not offer timely opportunity for parolees to give their side of the story, a federal judge ruled, according to a report by AssociatedPress Newswires, in a class action filed on behalf of the parolees. The suit names as defendants Governor Gray Davis, various correctionalofficials and Steve Green, Assistant Secretary of the California Youthand Adult Correctional Agency, a Cabinet-level agency.US District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled recently that such a systemviolates the parolees' 14th Amendment guarantee of due process. SinceMay 2001, 64 percent of parolees in custody, on holds for alleged violations, had to wait 31 to 45 days for revocation hearings. That is not acceptable, he said.Once a parolee is picked up in connection with a possible violation, any inconvenience to the state because of a prompt probable cause hearing, is not \"sufficient justification for the potentially catastrophic consequences of delay,\" Judge Karlton said in a 21-page order.CATHOLIC CHURCH: Utilizing Mediators to Help Victims of Sexual Abuse --------------------------------------------------------------------Under a process being developed by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Manchester, victims of sexual abuse will be able to use independent mediators to ask the church for counseling, financial relief and other services to promote healing, Associated Press Newswires reports.The Diocese has hired the Concord law firm of Orr & Reno to develop and administer the mediation process, which Bishop John McCormack announced recently. The plan would allow victims to enter the process whether or not they have an attorney or already have filed claims or lawsuits against the Diocese.\"It allows the church to be pastoral. It allows for a more timely resolution than litigation can provide. It allows the parties, if theywant, to remain anonymous,\" said Diane Murphy Quinlan, who will be aliaison between the Diocese and Orr & Reno. The plan allows allegedvictims to mediate their claims either directly with church officials or through third-party mediators. The administrator will provide a list of 15 neutral mediators.An attorney representing about 50 plaintiffs who have joined a class action lawsuit against the Diocese of Manchester, said the plan provides no guarantees. \"They hold all the cards,\" said Manchesterattorney Peter Hutchins. \"It is the same piecemeal, confidential typeof settlement that they have been doing on an ad hoc basis for the last40 years. They admit nothing and they disclose nothing.\"Mr. Hutchins said he would advise clients against entering into mediation and disclosing information about their cases unless there is some guarantee of a \"fair and final resolution.\" Mr. Hutchins estimated that 100 to 120 alleged victims have filed claims against the Diocese. He said the Diocese already has entered into mediation with several people.CATHOLIC CHURCH: Abuse Victim Opposes Church's Release From Liability---------------------------------------------------------------------A Manchester man, age 22, who says he was molested by the Rev. Francis Talbot for eight years recently asked a judge to overturn a confidential document he signed that released the church from liability for his alleged abuse, the Associated Press Newswires reports.Mr. Douglas has asked a Hillsborough County Superior Court judge to rescind the agreement between Mr. Goodwin and the Diocese of Manchester, saying his client's mental state prevented him from realizing what he was doing.According to Cody Goodwin's lawyer, Charles Douglas, Mr. Goodwin wassuicidal, as well as heavily medicated and abusing drugs and alcohol,when he signed away his legal rights about one and one-half years ago. Mr. Douglas said he could not disclose the contents of the agreement, but he did say that Goodwin, who had no lawyer at the time, thought he was signing an order allowing the church to pay for counseling.If allowed to stand, the agreement could hinder a lawsuit Mr. Goodwin recently filed against Rev. Talbot and the Diocese of Manchester. \"Given the mental state of Mr. Goodwin at the time he signed it . there is no way he was competent to understand that he was forever giving up his legal rights, rather than getting money for counseling.\"The lawsuit says that Mr. Goodwin met Rev. Talbot through a relative,and the priest hired him to do odd jobs at Mr. Talbot's house. Mr. Goodwin says that most of the abuse happened at the house from the timeMr. Goodwin was nine until he was 15.Rev. Talbot was included on a list of priests Bishop McCormack released in February, identifying clergymen whose ministries had been revoked after complaints of sexual misconduct had been made against them.CROWN MEDIA: DE Court Approves $1.5M Settlement Of Shareholder Suit-------------------------------------------------------------------The Delaware Chancery Court granted preliminary approval to the settlement proposed by Crown Media Holdings, Inc. relating to a consumer class action filed over the Company's proposal to purchase Crown Media Library.The suit was commenced in June 2001, as a class action and derivative action and alleged, among other things, that the films transaction was the product of an unfair process designed to advantage Hallmark Cards as the controlling stockholder and that the price being paid to Hallmark Entertainment Distribution was not entirely fair. In June 2001, the Company, Hallmark Cards and the other defendants and the plaintiff entered into a memorandum of understanding stating an agreement in principle on a settlement of the lawsuit concerning the transaction. As of February& 20, 2002, the Company and the other parties to the lawsuit entered into a settlement agreement concerning the lawsuit, with terms contemplated by the memorandum of understanding. The settlement agreement provides, among other things, that: (1) the purchase price of the films transaction will be reduced by 425,000 shares of Class A Common Stock; (2) all claims against the Company and related parties that arise out of the events alleged in the lawsuit will be released; and (3) the Company will pay the fees and disbursements of the plaintiff's counsel, without interest. At a settlement hearing on April 18, 2002, the court determined, amongother things, that: (i) the settlement is fair and reasonable, and in the best interest of a class consisting of all record owners and beneficial owners of the Company's common stock on any day from November 6, 2000 (the date that the films transaction was publicly announced) to and including September 28, 2001, the effective date of closing the films transaction; (2) the lawsuit be dismissed such that no plaintiff or class member could sue on their claims again; (3) the lawsuit be certified as a class action; and (4) it should grant the request of the plaintiff's counsel for attorneys fees and reimbursement of expenses of $700,000 in connection with the lawsuit. DIGITAS INC.: Faces Multiple Suits For Securities Violations in S.D. NY-----------------------------------------------------------------------Digitas, Inc. faces several securities class actions pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, several of its officers and directors, and five underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO). The suits are all brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock since March 13, 2000, the date of the offering. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Company's prospectus, incorporated in the Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose that the underwriters had engaged in conduct designed to result in undisclosed and excessive underwriters' compensation in the form of increased brokerage commissions. The alleged conduct of the underwriters artificially inflated the Company's s stock price in the period after the offering.The plaintiffs claim violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission and seek, among other things, damages, statutory compensation and costs of litigation. The Company believes that the claims against it and its officers and directors are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously. Management currently believes that resolving these matters will not have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial position or its results of operations. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome or effect ofthese actions. ELAN PHARMACEUTICAL: Vice-President Takes New Role in SEC Inquiry-----------------------------------------------------------------Tom Lynch, one of the architects of Irish drug manufacturer, Elan Pharmaceutical, has been relieved of most of his executive duties as the row over the firm's controversial accounting practices grows, The Independent (London) reports.Mr. Lynch, vice-president, will focus instead on dealing with lawsuits from investors aggrieved at the questions which have been raised about certain of the Company's accounting practices. Mr. Lynch also will handle the US regulatory inquiry by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) into the complex accounting structure he created.Analysts expect the SEC's inquiry could last into next year, and Mr.Lynch's new responsibilities have been interpreted as an admission of its seriousness. The SEC probe was launched in February after the Company issued a profit warning and said the previous year's earnings would have been substantially lower than they were if it had included several research funding vehicles on its balance sheet.The statement sparked renewed concern that the Company had been recycling its own funds to inflate group sales, by booking license feesfrom Company-funded joint ventures. One analyst said recently that Mr.Lynch, previously responsible for corporate finance and strategic planning, was being made to carry the can for the complex financial structure he had helped create.The profit warning and the SEC inquiry have sparked more than 30 class actions in the United States. The Company declined to comment on the inquiry, but said it was confident of defeating legal claims that it had misled investors, according to the Independent.FARMLAND INDUSTRIES: $17M Price-Fixing Suit Settlement Likely-------------------------------------------------------------Farmland Industries Inc. said it expects to receive $17 million from the settlement of a price-fixing lawsuit against New Jersey-based chemical giant BASF Corporation, Associated Press Newswires reports.The proposed settlement was disclosed in court documents filed in US Bankruptcy Court, in Kansas City, Missouri, by the Company, which has asked for expedited court approval of the deal.In September 1999, when a number of the vitamin companies, accused of price-fixing, agreed to pay more than $1.1 billion to settle a class action involving some 1,000 buyers of bulk vitamins, the Company opted out of the class action, \"because we believed that the settlement did not reflect our actual damages,\" said Company attorney Kelly Schemenauer. The Company has said that its proposed settlement withBASF will result in a 400 percent greater payment than it would havereceived in the class action settlement.\"We think it is a good settlement,\" said Mr. Schemenauer. \"What we want to do is continue prosecuting these claims for the benefit of thebankruptcy estate.\"The settlement with BASF and its parent, BASF AG of Germany, comes atop $2.6 million that the Company has recovered from other vitamin defendants in the last 12 months. It estimates its total damages from all the defendant vitamin makers at $42 million. The Company purchased vitamins A, E and vitamin premix for use in animal feed from the defendants.The class action alleged that the defendants orchestrated a vast nine-year price-fixing conspiracy, leading to artificially high prices for hundreds of food and beverage makers and harming consumers by inflating the costs of everything from breakfast cereal to peanut butter.The Company, North America's largest farmer-owned cooperative, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection May 31. Weak fertilizer sales led to a cash shortage at the Kansas City-based company, triggering paymentpressures from its lenders and other creditors.FLAG TELECOM: Faces Suits For Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY------------------------------------------------------------------FLAG Telecom Holdings, Inc. faces several securities class actions pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, three of its current senior officers, and one of its former senior officers.The suits, which purports to represent all persons who purchased shares of the Company's stock between March 23, 2001 and February 13, 2002, allege: (1) that the Company engaged in reciprocal transactions with other industry participants which were not reported or disclosed in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and which had the effect of materially inflating the Company's reported results; (2) that as a result of this alleged improper accounting treatment, it was not possible for the Company's foreseeable future earnings to be as strong as allegedly represented; and (3) that alleged assertions that the Company was still experiencing growth despite the downturn in the telecommunications market were false and misleading. The complaint purports to assert claims against the Company and the individual defendants under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and against the individual defendants under section 20(a) of the same statute. The filing of Chapter 11, however, operates as an automatic stay of all litigation against the Company. The Company, however, is confident that the litigation will not have a material effect on its financial operations. FLAG TELECOM: Officers, Directors Named as Defendants in New York Suit----------------------------------------------------------------------Several of FLAG Telecom Holdings, Inc.'s past and present officers and directors were named as defendants in a securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit also names as defendants Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. and Verizon Communications, Inc. The Company is not named as a defendant in this action. The suit, filed on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of the Company's stock between February 16, 2000 and February 13, 2002, asserts claims for violations of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and section 20(a) of the same statute. The suit also asserts that the prospectus issued in connection with the Company's February 16, 2000 initial public offering was false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) it was unlikely that the Company could attract enough customers to enable it to recover the cost of financing the FA-1 cable system; and (2) existing trans-Atlantic cable lines had a glut of unused capacity. In management's opinion, the litigation will not have a material effect on the Company's financial position or business operations.INFORTE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY-----------------------------------------------------------------------An amended securities class action has been filed against Inforte Corp. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit also names as defendants: (1) Philip S. Bligh, (2) Stephen C.P. Mack, (3) Nick Padgett, (4) Goldman, Sachs & Co., and (5) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.The amended complaint seeks certification of a class of purchasers of Company stock, unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' and expert witness fees and other costs. The amended complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws in connection with the Company's initial public offering (IPO) occurring in February 2000. The complaint does not allege any claims relating to any alleged misrepresentations or omissions with respect to the Company's business. The Company believes that it has defenses to the claims and intends tovigorously defend the lawsuit.IPRINT TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY-----------------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities suit against IPrint Technologies, Inc. filed an amended suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit names as defendants the Company, two of its former officers and/or directors, and several investment banking firms that served as underwriters of the Company's March 2000 initial public offering (IPO), and was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between March 7, 2000 and December 6, 2000.The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the prospectus incorporated in the registration statement for the offering failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the underwriters allocated to those investors material portions of the shares of Company stock sold in the initial public offering; and (2) the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate shares of Company stock sold in the initial public offering to those customers in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were issued following our initial public offering. No specific damages are claimed. The Company is aware that similar allegations have been made in lawsuits relating to more than 300 other initial public offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000. Those cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes, and defendants' time to respond to the complaints has been stayed pending a plan for further coordination. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the suit. However, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, it cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the litigation. KNIGHT TRADING: Shareholders Commence \"Front Running\" Securities Suit---------------------------------------------------------------------Knight Trading, the largest Nasdaq Stock Market middleman, faces a shareholder lawsuit stemming from allegations by a former executive that the Company engaged in improper trading known as front running.The suit follows recent disclosures that the US Securities and Exchange Commission and the National Association of Securities Dealers are reviewing claims that the Company's traders placed their own orders before customers for the same stock.These claims were made by Robert Stellato, who oversaw the Company's trading with money managers. Mr. Stellato's claims were contained in a sealed arbitration complaint. The lawsuit, which seeks class action status, claims that the Company hurt shareholders by failing to disclose that traders had fraudulently delayed trades.The Company and its former executive officer, Kenneth Pasternak, were named as defendants. Mr. Pasternak is now a consultant to Knight Trading. A spokeswoman for Knight did not immediately return calls.LANTE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY---------------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action against Lante Corporation filed an amended suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit also names as defendants certain of the Company's present and former officers and directors and the underwriters of the Company's February 2000 initial public offering: (1) Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., (2) Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. and (3) Thomas Weisel Partners, LLCThe amended suit seeks unspecified damages as a result of various alleged securities law violations arising from activities purportedly engaged in by the underwriters in connection with the Company's initial public offering. Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the Company's initial public offering was false and misleading in violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements. The Company believes it has various meritorious defenses to the claim and will defend itself accordingly. The action is being coordinated with over three hundred other nearly identical actions filed against other companies before one judge in the Southern District of New York. No date has been set for any response to the complaint.MEDICAL INDUSTRY: Suit Leads To Reduction of Work Week For Residents--------------------------------------------------------------------Many doctors-in-training will see their long work hours cut back under new standards approved recently by a group that accredits teaching hospitals. The positive, though not optimum decision, is a result of the class action filed by approximately 200,000 medical residents in federal court last month. The suit accused seven medical associations and 35 teaching hospitals of rigging the system that determines where medical school graduates train, how much they will be paid and how many hours they will work.The move to ease the strain on sleep-deprived residents comes as concern is growing over medical errors in hospitals. With no limits nationwide on residents' schedules, some work 120 hours a week or more. Shifts vary from hospital to hospital and often between specialties within the same hospital.Under the new rules set by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, residents are to work a maximum of 80 hours a week with 10 hours off between shifts and one day off per week. Hospitals'accreditation, required for federal funding, can be jeopardized if they break the rules, which will take effect in summer 2003.Health-care providers agree that there is a correlation between the number of hours resident physician work and the number of errors they make. However, \"errors are not being tolerated by consumers any longer,\" said Jim Lott, executive vice president of the Healthcare Association of Southern California. \"Hospitals can pay more upfront now or pay more later in terms of getting licenses or accreditations revoked, or lawsuits filed.\"The accreditation council said residents were spending too much time doing work that can be done by others, such as drawing blood or transferring patients, instead of concentrating on their medical education. \"More time should be spent with patients, in educational conferences and learning the craft of being a physician,\" said Dr. David Leach, executive director of the organization. The council accredits 7,800 residency programs nationwide and guides training for 100,000 residents.\"The system needs to change for two reasons - so physicians can live somewhat reasonable lives and, we can provide quality care to our patients,\" said Daniel Schaefer, a second-year resident in Harbor-UCLA's family medicine department.MICROSOFT CORP: Antitrust Suit To Proceed Due To Appeals Court Ruling---------------------------------------------------------------------A lawsuit alleging that software giant Microsoft Corporation violated Minnesota antitrust law can move forward now that the Minnesota Supreme Court has upheld an appellate court's refusal to review an order granting the case class action status to the suit, the Associated Press Newswire reports.In the complaint filed in 2000, Daniel Gordon alleged that he and others who purchased the Company's operating system software paid a higher price than they would have if the Company didn't pursue anticompetitive practices.At issue in the Supreme Court decision, written by Justice Paul Anderson, was whether the state Court of Appeals used the proper method in deciding whether to review the trial court decision. Upholding the Court of Appeals' refusal to review the order granting the case class action status, Justice Anderson wrote that his court made its decision, in part, \"to avoid `piecemeal appeals' that interrupt and delay litigation.\" He said Microsoft \"has effectively placed a hold on the litigation,\" with the appeal, and added that at the Supreme Court\"we view this kind of disruption and delay with disfavor.\"MUSIC INDUSTRY: Consumers File Suit Over Copy-Protected Compact Discs---------------------------------------------------------------------Two consumers filed a class action against five major record companies, claiming that copy-protected compact discs (CDs) are defective and should not be available for sale, Associated Press Newswires reports. The suit, filed recently in Superior Court, seeks either to block theCDs' release or require warning labels identifying them as inferior andhazardous to computers.\"If you use an Apple computer, you can't even get the disc out of the tray,\" said Nicholas Koluncich, who is representing his sister Elizabeth, in the case. \"At the very least, the labels should make sure they sell a product that actually works.\" Plaintiffs Matthew Dickey and Elizabeth Koluncich purchased copy-protected discs and either were unable to make backup copies of the music or had problems using the discs on their computer.Named as defendants in the lawsuit are: (1) Universal Music Group, (2) EMI Music Publishing, (3) BMG Entertainment, (4) Sony Music Entertainment Inc and (5) Warner Music Group.Copy-protected discs use encryption technology to deter digital copying. Some CDs cannot be played on computers, while others try to confuse the drives so they can't extract the disc's data. Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America, said the music labels have not done anything wrong by applying the newtechnology.\"Music creators have the right to protect their property from theft, just like owners of any other property,\" said Ms. Sherman. \"Motion picture studios and software and video game publishers have protected their works for years, and no one has even thought to claim that doing so was inappropriate, let alone unlawful.\"NEW JERSEY: African Americans' Race Bias Suit Denied Certification------------------------------------------------------------------A New Jersey federal judge has denied class action status to a lawsuit that alleges high-level state officials violated the rights of African Americans when state police engaged in racial profiling, The Philadelphia Inquirer reports.US District Judge Joel A. Pisano, in an opinion filed in Newark, ruled that lawyers for three African Americans had not shown that handling the case as a class action would be superior to traditional litigation. The court, he wrote, \"would still have to conduct a mini-trial for eachindividual proposed class member.\" Among other objections, Judge Pisano found the class defined by the lawsuit to be \"overly broad, amorphous and vague.\"One effect of the ruling, lawyers said, is that each of the estimated thousands of motorists subjected to racial profiling in traffic stops will have to hire his or her own lawyer to seek redress from the state. \"There are so many people out there, and they are not going to be ableto bring their lawsuits on their own,\" said Alan L. Yatvin, a Philadelphia lawyer who is lead counsel in the case.He complained that Judge Pisano had ruled more than one week before the deadline for responding to the state's arguments against class actioncertification. \"At this point, the judge clearly has made up his mind,so I guess we will just have to save those arguments for the Court ofAppeals,\" Mr. Yatvin said. He said the legal team might consider adding more people to the lawsuit.Spokesmen for the state Attorney General's Office, which fought class action status for the profiling case, did not return calls seeking comment, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.NORTH CAROLINA: $7.9M Vitamin Antitrust Settlement Payment Pending------------------------------------------------------------------Community health programs across North Carolina will receive US$7.9 million as part of a court-approved settlement with vitamin manufacturers, the state attorney general said recently, according to a report by Associated Press Newswires. The vitamin manufacturers denied any wrongdoing, but they agreed to pay the states and companies more than US$225 million.The money is the result of lawsuits filed by Attorney General Roy Cooper and attorneys general from 22 other states, as well as private class actions, filed against vitamin product manufacturers. The states charged that the manufacturers conspired to fix prices and limit supplies of vitamin products for 10 years until 1999. Vitamin products are in daily vitamin tablets and also are used to fortify food, including cereal, baby food, bread, milk and margarine.Included among the defendants are: (1) BASF Corporation, (2) BASF AG, (3) Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., (4) Eisai Co. Ltd, (5) Aventis Animal Nutrition SA, (6) Horrman-La Roche Inc., (7) Roche Vitamins Inc. and (8) Takeda Chemical Industries Ltd.The settlement money allocated to North Carolina will be distributed to 94 organizations, including the March of Dimes' folic acid campaign, inorder to support health and nutrition programs, Attorney General Coopersaid.ONI SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY---------------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs in the securities class actions against ONI Systems, Inc. filed a consolidated amended suit in the, alleging violations of the federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit names as defendants the Company and: (1) Hugh C. Martin, chairman, president and chief executive officer, (2) Chris A. Davis, former executive vice president, chief financial and administrative officer, and (3) certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the underwriterdefendants violated the securities laws by failing to disclose allegedcompensation arrangements (such as undisclosed commissions or stockstabilization practices) in the initial public offering's registrationstatement and by engaging in manipulative practices to artificially inflate the price of the Company's common stock after the initial public offering. The amended complaint also alleges that the Company and the named officers violated the securities laws on the basis of an alleged failure to disclose the underwriters' alleged compensation arrangements and manipulative practices. The Company said the suit is similar to other complaints filed against more than 300 other issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998. All of these actions have been included in a single coordinated proceeding. The Company intends to defend against the suit vigorously.ONI SYSTEMS: Faces Two Suits Seeking To Block CIENA Merger in CA Court----------------------------------------------------------------------ONI Systems, Inc. faces two class actions filed on behalf of a purported class of Company security holders in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, seeking an injunction to prevent the consummation of the proposed merger with CIENA Corporation. The suit names as defendants the Company and: (1) Matthew Bross, (2) Kevin Compton, (3) Jonathan Feiber, (4) Gregory Maffei and (5) Hugh Martin The suit alleges that the defendants, in connection with the approval of the proposed merger with CIENA, breached their fiduciary duties, including duties of loyalty and good faith, to Company stockholders by, among other things: (i) allegedly failing to obtain the highest value for Company stockholders; (ii) engaging in self-dealing; and (iii) unjustly enriching themselves and other insiders or affiliates of the Company. The Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend these actions vigorously.PARTSBASE.COM: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit For $1.5M in S.D. FL--------------------------------------------------------------------Partsbase.com, Inc. agreed to settle for US$1.5 million the consolidated securities class action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.The consolidated suit names as defendants the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial public offering of securities. The consolidated suit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and alleges the Company's March 2000 registration statement misrepresented and failed to disclose matters related to the Company's business operations and membership sales. The complaint alleges damages of nearly $42 million. The court recently certified a class consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock in the offering during the period from March 22, 2000 through April 25, 2000. In May 2002, the Company reached an agreement in principle for the settlement of the consolidated suit. The plaintiffs in the case and the defendants, entered into a memorandum of understanding outlining the general terms of the proposed settlement. The memorandum of understanding provides for, among other things, a settlement amount of $1.5 million in cash, plus interest, payable to the class under an insurance policy and for the plaintiffs' dismissal of the class action with prejudice as well as a broad form of release in favor of the Company and the other defendants in the class action. This will have the effect of barring all claims by the plaintiffs and the members of the class other than those who opt out, arising out of the purchase and sale of the Company's common stock in its initial public offering of securities.The final settlement of the suit is subject to the preparation and execution of definitive settlement documents and court approval. The settlement also applies to the directors, management personnel, underwriters and securities firms named as defendants in the litigation.PAYPAL INC.: Plaintiffs Ask To Move Consumer Suit To CA State Court-------------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs in the consumer class action against Paypal, Inc. have asked that the suit be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California in Santa Clara County, where it was originally commenced in February 2002.The suit is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of a purported class of users whose accounts have been restricted by the Company. The suit claims that the Company has restricted funds or user accounts in a manner that breaches our User Agreement provisions on account restrictions, that constitutes an unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice under California law, and that constitutes a conversion of the users' funds. On March 18, 2002, the Company removed the case from Superior Court in Santa Clara County to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On April 1, 2002, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case back to Superior Court. The Company is opposing the motion. The Company also filed an answer to the suit, denying each substantive element of the plaintiffs' claim. The Company reiterated that its policies and procedures regarding account restrictions are appropriate and are an important part of its risk management system. The Company intends to vigorously oppose the suit.PAYPAL INC.: Plaintiffs Ask CA Court To Grant Suit Class Certification----------------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs in the consumer class action against Paypal, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, to grant class certification to the suit.The suit was commenced in March 2002, on behalf of all persons who, at any time since the launch of the PayPal service in October 1999, have opened an account with the Company or had money electronically transferred from or to an account with another financial institution in connection with a Company transaction. The suit claims that the Company: (1) violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act by, among other things, failing to conduct a good faith and timely investigation of errors reported by customers, failing to provisionally credit amounts alleged to be in error within ten business days, and failing to provide a telephone number and address readily available to the consumer for reporting unauthorized transactions; (2) converted funds of class members to our own use through unlawful conduct; (3) transferred or retained from class members monies that the Company had no right to retain; (4) unjustly retained monies belonging to the class members; and (5) been negligent in not making dispute resolution information readily available for customers, making it difficult for customers to resolve disputes with the Company in an efficient and appropriate manner, and failing to establish and maintain adequate procedures concerning the transfer of funds. The suit also claims that these alleged actions constitute unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and deceptive business practices under California law. On May 1, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, dropping one of the three named plaintiffs and added in causes of action under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiffs then filed a motion for certification of their proposed plaintiff class. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these lawsuits and will contest the suits vigorously. However, the ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations. PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Chairman and Padres Owner Named As Defendant in Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------------San Diego Padres owner and Peregrine Systems, Inc.'s Chairman John Moores and his investment firms allegedly manipulated the Company's stock price and walked away with $611 million in insider trades, according to a new lawsuit, the Associated Press Newswires reports.Peregrine, a business-software company, is the target of dozens of class actions and a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)investigation, as it admitted it may have overstated as much as US$100 million in revenue. The Company says it will restate three years of earnings.The new suit filed recently in Superior Court, targets Mr. Moores andtwo of his investment companies, JMI Services and JMI Equity Fund, andtheir dealings with the Company. Four law firms are co-plaintiffs in the suit, including one headed by Mr. Moores' former colleague MichaelAguirre. Mr. Moores and Mr. Aguirre campaigned for the Padres' $1billion downtown baseball stadium and redevelopment project.The Company fired Arthur Andersen as its auditor, April 2, and fired its replacement auditor, KPMG, LLP at the end of May. KPMG sent the SEC a letter, alleging possible fraud at the company. After the auditing firms were fired, Steve Gardner stepped down as Board Chairman and Chief Executive, while Matt Gless resigned as Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President of Finance. The news wiped out two-thirds of the value of the Company's shares and prompted more shareholder lawsuits against it.Mr. Moores, a longtime Company Board member, assumed the duties of Chairman. Another Padres executive, Fred Gerson, stepped in as acting Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Moores, who served as the Company's Chairman during the 1990s, made more than $500 million unloading Company shares as it headed toward collapse.REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Sued For Federal Securities Violations in FL-----------------------------------------------------------------------Regeneration Technologies, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Florida Gainesville Division, against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The suits, filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between July 25, 2001 and January 31, 2002, generally allege that the Company's inventory was overvalued and, as a result,public statements made by the Company during the class time period about its net income and earnings per share were false and misleading. The plaintiffs assert that the defendants' conduct violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Since these lawsuits were filed recently, the Company has not yet filed its responses and no discovery has occurred. No provision has beenmade in the accompanying consolidated financial statements for losses, if any, that may result from the outcome of these cases because such amount is not estimable. The Company also expects that these suits will eventually be consolidated.SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in NY-------------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs in the securities class action pending against Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. filed an amended suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit names as defendants the Company, various of its officers and certain underwriters of its initial public offering of securities.The suit alleges that various underwriters engaged in improper and undisclosed activities related to the allocation of shares in the Company's initial public offering, including obtaining commitments from investors to purchase shares in the aftermarket at pre-arranged prices. The plaintiffs bring claims for violation of several provisions of the federal securities laws and seek an unspecified amount of damages. The Company states that the suit is similar to other lawsuits concerning more than 300 other companies' initial public offerings (IPO) that were filed during 2001. The Company believes that the allegations against it are without merit and intends to defend the litigation vigorously. However, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit and an adverse outcome to this litigation could have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated balance sheet, statement of operations or cash flows. SOCCER FEDERATION: Hispanic Fan Sues Over Discriminatory Tickets Policy-----------------------------------------------------------------------A Hispanic-American man filed a class action against the United States Soccer Federation (USSF), claiming discrimination in ticket sales for a World Cup qualifier against Honduras last September, at RFK Stadium.Humberto Martinez of Sterling, Virginia, claims he suffered \"pain, humiliation and embarrassment\" when he was not allowed to buy tickets in the lower half of the stadium for the September 1 game, a 3-2 Honduras victory. His suit seeks $2 million in damages per plaintiff and an injunction against similar ticket policies in the future.Because of the large Hispanic population in the Washington area, US national team games against Central American teams at RFK, often have seemed like road games. For the Honduras game, the USSF attempted to create a more pro-American crowd by limiting sales of the best seats to members of the so-called \"US soccer family.\"As it turned out, the sellout crowd of 54,282 persons was overwhelmingly pro-Honduran, prompting coach Bruce Arena to say at the time, \"Only in America, I guess, we are fighting for a home-field advantage.\"The suit, filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, said the ticket policy violated the DC Human Rights Act and federal law by denying Hispanic fans equal enjoyment of the game on the basis of national origin. The lawsuit says that Mr. Martinez, an American citizen who regularly attends DC United games, received an invitation in the mail to buy tickets for the Honduras game. The lawsuit says he tried to buy seven VIP tickets at $55 each, but his check was returned.\"No one asked my client whom he was going to root for,\" said lawyer forthe plaintiffs, Tom Simeone. \"If they had asked, they would have foundout he was from El Salvador and not Honduras, and he didn't care who won.\"The lawsuit says that even the Honduran ambassador to the United States, Hugo Noe Pino, was not allowed to buy tickets in the lower deck. However, an aide to Pino's wife, using her American name, later sent in the same application and received 50 tickets with no problems, according to the suit. STAUFFER CHEMICAL: Former Workers Push For Class Certification of Suit----------------------------------------------------------------------On the first day of a four-day hearing in the class action against Stauffer Chemical Company, former employee Daniel Giddens testified before Judge Bruce Boyer of the Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court, inFlorida, to help determine whether as many as 1,700 former employees should be certified as a class, the St. Petersburg Times reports.The lawsuit was filed by three former workers who wish to represent all former, living, non-management employees who worked at Stauffer or Victor Chemical Works, as it was previously known. They are Ivan Hoyte, 76, of St. Petersburg, his son, Norman Hoyte, 52, of Clearwater and Stanley Malcolm, 63, of Clearwater.One of their attorneys, J. Hoke \"Trey\" Peacock III, argued that workers in the phosphorus processing company were repeatedly exposed to a variety of toxic substances. The lawsuit claims the Company knowingly exposed workers to unsafe conditions, failed to provide proper safety equipment and failed to notify workers of the hazards. The workers' goal is to force the Company to pay for medical monitoring, which will allow workers to learn, as quickly as possible, whether they have contracted dangerous diseases.The case will die before reaching a jury if class action status is notgranted, said one of their attorneys, Wil Florin. \"Help us get thesemen medically monitored,\" Mr. Florin asked Judge Boyer in his openingstatement, \".so that some of them will be able to get some advantage for their own future health in staving off problems.\"Mr. Giddens, the former employee, with a 29-year employment history at the Company, testified that work clothes were left at work lest the phosphorus dust that collected on them would dry and ignite. He toldhow each day, with a face as black as charcoal, he would scrub the dustthat collected daily in his nose and ears and in the corners of hiseyes. He also told Judge Boyer that workers never knew that the dust and gases they were exposed to daily could cause long-term health problems.Another former employee, Harland Kingsley, 74, showed the court a small, blackened dust mask saved from his days at Stauffer. Because it was so hot working at the furnace, he said, workers would wear the mask as little as possible.Chris S. Coutroulis, one of a team of attorneys representing the Company, noted that a health assessment performed by the state did not conclude that former workers were at risk of contracting serious disease and did not call for medical monitoring.Mr. Coutroulis also argued that class action status was not suitable because workers were subjected to widely different levels of exposure to harmful chemicals depending on the job they performed and how long they worked there. Employee turnover was high, and more than half worked at the Company less than two months, most workers were subjected to medically insignificant amounts of exposure, he said. Working at an elemental phosphorus plant is \"not a desk job,\" Mr. Coutroulis said, and the workers' relatively high pay reflected that.In 1994, the US Environmental Protection Agency placed the former Tarpon Springs phosphorus plant on its Superfund list of most polluted places. Hazardous waste byproducts left behind include, among others,radium-226, radon and carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons.TOBACCO INDUSTRY: Merchants' Appeal Of Class Certification Denied-----------------------------------------------------------------Tobacco and lumber company Universal Corporation said recently that thepetition by it and other defendants seeking the appeal of class actionstatus in a tobacco auction antitrust has been denied, Reuters EnglishNews Service reports.A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuitrecently denied the petition, the Company said in a filing with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Richmond, Virginia-basedCompany did not give a reason for the denial in the filing. Three Company subsidiaries are named, along with other leaf tobaccomerchants, as defendants in the lawsuit known as DeLoach, et al. v.Philip Morris Inc., et al. The subsidiaries are: (1) Universal Leaf Tobacco Co. Inc., (2) JP Taylor Co. Inc. and (3) Southwestern Tobacco Co. Inc.The lawsuit, brought on behalf of United States tobacco growers and quota holders, alleges that the defendants violated antitrust laws by bid rigging at tobacco auctions as well as conspiring to undermine the tobacco quota and price support program administered by the federalgovernment.Plaintiffs in the case, which was certified as a class action on April 3, are seeking injunctive relief, trebled damages in an unspecified amount, pre-and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.The Company said its subsidiaries plan to \"vigorously defend\" the lawsuit, which is still in its initial stages, and that it could not estimate the impact that could result from an unfavorable outcome at trial.TOBACCO LITIGATION: Medicaid Recipients Lose Bid For Part of Settlement-----------------------------------------------------------------------Medicaid recipients who were trying to intercept billions of dollars in tobacco settlement money in Kentucky and Tennessee lost their case recently before the Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati,The Lexington Herald Leader reports.The appeals court upheld earlier decisions by US District Court JudgesJoseph Hood of Kentucky and Todd Campbell of Nashville, who both ruled the states were protected from the suits by sovereign immunity, and because the plaintiffs incorrectly claimed that the states had initially sued tobacco companies on their behalf.\"We resisted them because the tobacco settlements were not for smokersbut for state costs associated with smoking,\" said Assistant Deputy Attorney General Scott White, director of Kentucky's Civil & Environmental Law Division. \"They had no right of action.\"In an opinion written by Appellate Judge Danny Boggs, two members of the three-judge panel ruled that the Medicaid patient who had hoped to press on with a class action were barred from doing so by the 11th Amendment, which has been interpreted as meaning that states have sovereign immunity and are immune from private lawsuits, with few exceptions. Justice Boggs wrote, \"This case poses the question of whether the plaintiffs can escape the Eleventh Amendment bar blocking suits for money damages . by phrasing their requests for monetary relief as requests for future payments. We hold that they cannot.\"The firm of Johnson, Judy, True & Guarnieri filed the Kentucky lawsuit on behalf of two Medicaid patients, Harshell and Kathleen Downs, and had hoped to obtain class action status that would have allowed the addition of hundreds of other Medicaid patients. However, Judge Hood dismissed the case in the District Court.Several similar lawsuits have been tossed out of state and federal courts in Kentucky and around the country, Mr. White said. Kentucky'sshare of the tobacco fund settlement is about $130 million a year, $3.45 billion over 25 years. The money is funneled through the General Fund to agricultural and early-childhood programs. Payments began after the $206 billion settlement was hammered out between tobacco companies and 46 states in 1998.Guthrie True of Frankfort, who represented the Kentucky plaintiffs, said he was not surprised by the decision. He said that when the case was filed in 2000, the federal law was clear that the state could recover what it spent to care for Medicaid patients with tobacco-related health problems, but that whatever \"overage\" remained must go to the patients themselves. The $3.45 billion (the amount that will have been paid to Kentucky at the end of 25 years from the first payment) far exceeded the state's costs, Mr. True said.Justice Boggs' decision appears to address this issue. He wrote that the original state lawsuits that led to the massive tobacco settlementcovered much more than just the states' own Medicaid expenses. Theyalso included, \"for example, counts alleging violation of consumerprotection laws, misrepresentation and deceptive practices targetingyouth, restraint of trade, unjust enrichment, and more,\" he wrote.*D&O Liability Insurers Face Challenge Over Rise in Securities Suits--------------------------------------------------------------------Shareholders of a number of financially troubled companies are hopingthat payments from what is known as \"directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance\" will help soften their losses. However the financial losses of a big insurer could spell bad news for them, The Wall Street Journal reports.Reliance Group Holdings Inc., formerly controlled by financier Saul Steinberg, as recently as 1999 was the sixth-largest writer of D&O insurance. Such insurance covers, among other things, the directors and officers of a company when they are alleged to have been negligent in fulfilling their duties, paying legal fees, settlements and judgments.Late last year, however, Reliance's financially strapped insurance operations liquidated by regulators, a move that means claims on its policies may go unpaid or take years to resolve. The Company, which offered a wide range of property-and-casualty insurance, had filedfor bankruptcy-court protection in June of last year, hobbled by steeplosses. Now, companies holding Reliance policies are discovering big gaps in their coverage. Reliance, for example, had a 20 percent share of the directors and officers coverage for Finova Group Inc., which emerged from its own bankruptcy proceedings in August. Pending court approval, Finova shareholders are supposed to receive $38 million in insurance money to settle a class action against the Company in federal court in Phoenix.However, the $7.6 million portion owed by Reliance will be hard to collect. \"It left a black hole for the plaintiffs in the case,\" said James K. Thurson, an attorney with Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP of Chicago, which represented other insurers in the matter. Mr. Thurston says the plaintiffs have agreed to pursue Reliance's share through the insurer's liquidation proceedings, which could yield few assets for creditors and other parties owed money. \"They may get 100 cents on the dollar or 2 cents on the dollar,\" he added.The likely lost claims payments from Reliance's failure are anotherharsh result of a decade-long insurance price war in the 1990s. Reliance helped drive that price competition, undercutting rivals in aneffort to bring in more premium dollars. For a time, companies such asReliance were able to survive despite the inadequate premiums becausethe raging bull market in stocks enabled insurers to make healthyreturns on their investments. However, in the past two years, theunderpriced policies have come back to haunt the insurers, leavingdozens insolvent and resulting in rate increases in recent months thathave averaged better than 30 percent. In some lines, such as D&Ocoverage, premiums have increased more than 100 percent.Reliance's downfall also will be costly for Bank of America Corp. InFebruary, the bank said it would use insurance and litigation reservesto pay $490 million to settle various class actions filed in federal court, alleging that it did not fully reveal a bad-loan problem prior to the merger of NationsBank and Bank America in 1998. In court filings, Bank of America noted that Reliance would have to pay as muchas $25 million of any decision or settlement against the bank.The way things stand now for Reliance, however, any such payment would have to come from the Reliance liquidation, according to an attorney familiar with the case. Given the uncertainty surrounding Reliance's liquidation, Bank of America itself may have to foot the bill.John Keogh, president of National Union Fire Insurance Co., a Pittsburgh unit of American International Group Inc. that writes D&O coverage, says Reliance may not be the last insurer to become insolvent and thus put claims on such coverage in jeopardy. \"There are a lot of insurers out there who have little room for error in their balance sheets right now,\" he notes. In addition to the 1990s price war that weakened some property and casualty insurers, the estimated $50 billion in insured losses from September 11 have contributed to the problems of some insurers.Directors and officers insurance rates have risen rapidly in the pastyear. One big reason is a jump in the number of securities fraud lawsuits. Last year, there were a record 487 federal securities fraud class actions filed, up from 216 in 2000, and more than double the previous high of 236 in 1998, according to Stanford Law School inStanford, California. The average payment made to shareholder claimants last year was $17.2 million, up from $9.6 million in 2000, according to consulting firm Tillinghast-Towers Perrin.A recent report on directors and officers coverage by Willis Group Holdings Ltd. concludes that companies with healthy balance sheets are experiencing increases of 25 percent to 40 percent. For companies with financial troubles, rate increases of 300 percent and 400 percent arenot uncommon. New Securities Fraud CasesAPPLIED DIGITAL: Much Shelist Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL------------------------------------------------------------------Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Applied Digital Solutions, Inc. (Nasdaq:ADSXE) between February 11, 2000 and May 10, 2002, inclusive.It has been alleged that the Company and Richard J. Sullivan, its Chief Executive Officer, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market. It has also been alleged that defendants were in possession of materially adverse information concerning the lack of proper accounting controls and improper revenue recognition practices at certain of the Company's subsidiaries, but failed to disclose the information to investors for more than two years. According to the allegations, on April 18, 2002, the Company disclosed that during the year ending December 31, 2001, one of its subsidiaries had been booking revenue without \"evidence of customer acceptance prior to the recognition of certain revenue.\" The Company also disclosed that the subsidiary \"did not have proper restrictions to vendor access within its accounts payable system.\"Additionally, the Company disclosed that during the year ended December 31, 2000, a second subsidiary of the Company \"lacked monitoring controls over its accounts receivable and was unable to provide certain detailed inventory listings for certain general ledger balances.\" The disclosure of improper accounting practices at the Company's subsidiaries drove Company stock down 40%. Approximately three weeks later, on May 9, 2002, defendants claimed that nearly every major hospital in the West Palm Beach, Florida area would be equipped with VeriChip scanners, an indispensable component of the Company's Verichip technology. However, not one hospital in West Palm Beach or anywhere else had accepted or agreed to use a scanner, an essential device for retrieving the VeriChip's information. One day later, on May 10, 2002, when the truth was disclosed that no hospital had accepted a scanner, Company stock fell sharply, dropping nearly 30% in one day. For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden by Phone: 800-470-6824 or by E-mail: [email protected] DYNEGY INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX------------------------------------------------------------------Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Dynegy, Inc. (NYSE:DYN) and four of its senior officers on behalf of investors who purchased the Company's common stock during the period between April 1, 2001 and April 24, 2002, inclusive.The suit alleges that defendants issued materially false and misleading financial statements concerning the Company's cash flow from operations. As alleged in the suit, the defendants entered into a series of secret financial transactions with shell corporations, referred to as \"Project Alpha,\" which were actually disguised loan transactions, and which were used to artificially inflate the Company's reported cash flow operations by $300 million for the year 2001. Defendants' misuse of these transactions to inflate its reported cash flow from operations was a serious violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.On April 25, 2002, prior to the market's opening, the Company shocked the investing community by announcing that after consultation with the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Company would file an amended Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001, reducing operating cash flow from $811 million to $511 million, a decrease of approximately 37%. These disclosures caused the Company's stock to plummet nearly 30% by the end of trading on April 25, 2002. For more details, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Phone: 888-476-6529(888-4-POMLAW) by E-mail: [email protected] or visit the firm's Website: http://www.pomlaw.com FIRST UNION: Grady & Associates Files Amended Securities Suit in FL-------------------------------------------------------------------Grady & Associates, LPA filed an amended securities class action against First Union Securities, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The amended suit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased Ask Jeeves, Inc. stock between November 18, 1999 and December 31, 2000, and who were damaged thereby. The second amended suit asserts a cause of action for violations of Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The suit alleges that the Company omitted from the reports and recommendations issued by its analysts on Ask Jeeves information regarding conflicts of interest caused by First Union Securities' inconsistent roles as an investment banker competing for Ask Jeeves; business and as a investment advisor and retail securities broker rendering allegedly unbiased advice and opinions on Ask Jeeves for the use and benefit of investors. As alleged in the suit, this conflict resulted in the issuance of false and misleading analyst reports, which resulted in a fraud on the market and on class members. For more details, contact Thomas R. Grady or Susan Healy by Mail: 720 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 200, Naples, FL 34102 by Phone: 941-261-6555 by Fax: 941-261-1192 by E-Mail: [email protected] or [email protected] MERRILL LYNCH: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY--------------------------------------------------------------------Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP initiated a securities class action charging Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (NYSE:MER) and its former Internet research analyst Henry M. Blodget with issuing false and misleading analyst reports about Internet Capital Group, Inc. (Nasdaq:ICGE). The case was filed on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of Internet Capital during the period between August 30, 1999 and November 8, 2000, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.The lawsuit charges that during the class period, defendants' initiation of coverage and its rating and reports on Internet Capital were not based on independent, objective analyses but instead were biased and tilted in the Company's favor to enable Merrill Lynch to maintain and enhance its lucrative investment banking business relationship with this important client. The suit charges that defendants' positive public statements about Internet Capital were inconsistent with their own contemporaneous, private negative assessments. For example, while repeatedly reiterating an Accumulate/Buy (2-1) rating, defendants internally labeled Internet Capital stock \"a disaster.\" Furthermore, defendants concealed from the public that although Merrill Lynch technically had five ratings, it had a policy and practice of issuing only its top three ratings. During the relevant time herein, defendant never issued a \"reduce\" or \"sell\" rating on any Internet company. Indeed, during the class period, even as market conditions changed, defendants repeatedly reissued an Accumulate/Buy rating on Internet Capital, thus reassuring investors about their continued confidence in the Company. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, the market price of Internet Capital common stock was artificially inflated during the class period. For more details, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Phone: 888-476-6529 (888-4-POMLAW) by E-mail: [email protected] or visit the firm's Website: http://www.pomlaw.com PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Much Shelist Investigates Securities Fraud Claims--------------------------------------------------------------------Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC is investigating possible securities violations against Peregrine Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRGN) on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between July 21, 1999 and May 22, 2002, inclusive.It has been alleged that the Company, certain of its officers and directors and Arthur Andersen, LLP, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business and financial condition during the class period. According to the allegations, Company stock began its decline on May 1, 2002 following its April 30, 2002 announcement that the release of the fiscal fourth quarter and year-end financial results would be delayed pending the completion of an audit by new outside auditor KPMG. Upon this announcement, Company stock fell nearly 50% to close at $3.45. On May 6, 2002, the true facts regarding the Company's financial condition, which were previously concealed or hidden, were revealed to the public. The Company shocked the market by announcing that its board of directors had authorized an internal investigation into accounting inaccuracies, totaling as much as $100 million, which KPMG had brought to the audit committee's attention. Simultaneously, the board of directors announced that the Company's Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer had both resigned all of their positions with the Company. Following this announcement, Company stock fell an additional 61% to close at $1.01. For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden by Phone: 800-470-6824 or by E-mail: [email protected] RAYOVAC CORPORATION: Much Shelist Investigates Securities Fraud Claims----------------------------------------------------------------------Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC is investigating claims against Rayovac Corporation (NYSE:ROV) on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between April 26, 2001 and September 19, 2001, inclusive. It has been alleged that the Company and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing materially false and misleading statements, including a materially false and misleading registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with its secondary offering of shares to the public, regarding the demand for the Company's products and its future prospects. According to the allegations, these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (1) that the Company was experiencing declining demand for its products and in order to stimulate demand and create the impression that the Company was performing according to analyst expectations, the Company was extending generous credit terms to customers in order to induce them to purchase additional products, thereby pulling sales in from the future. Consequently, the Company created the appearance of earnings growth, when defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded that future sales would be negatively impacted by the aforementioned practices; (2) that the Company's expansion in Latin America was the result of aggressive sales practices whereby the Company extended generous payment terms and induced customers to take additional unneeded inventory; and (3) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their statements that the Company would grow by 8-9% in the third and fourth quarter of 2001. On September 20, 2001, before the market opened for trading, the Company issued a press release announcing that its fiscal fourth quarter results would be negatively impacted by a purported slowdown in battery sales in its US and Latin American markets. As a result, contrary to defendants' bullish class period statements, the Company's earnings for the quarter would be flat to down slightly from the same period for the previous year. The market's reaction to this announcement was immediate and punitive, with shares of its common stock falling more than 23% to a class period low of $12.74 per share on almost eight times the normal trading volume. For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden by Phone: 800-470-6824 or by E-mail: [email protected] ENERGY: Lockridge Grindal Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX----------------------------------------------------------------------Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, on behalf of purchasers of Reliant Energy, Inc. (NYSE:REI) stock during the period between August 2, 1999 and May 10, 2002.The suit charges that the Company and certain of its senior officers and directors made materially false and misleading statements to the market, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that the Company is the owner of approximately 82 percent of the stock of Reliant Resources, Inc., an energy services company, marketing power and natural gas in North America and Western Europe and that in December of 2000, the Company transferred substantially all of its unregulated businesses to Reliant Resources, including the operations formerly conducted by its Wholesale Energy business segment. It further alleges that Reliant Resources had engaged in transactions with other power traders during the class period to buy and sell power to each other simultaneously, at the same price (trades known as \"Roundtrip Transactions\"), and that such trades were designed to cancel each other out, so that Reliant Resources would not have to report a gain or a loss in net income, but could still report the trading volume and revenue generated by the sale. The complaint further alleges that the Roundtrip Transactions were used to set benchmark contract prices for energy trades, allowing Reliant Resources to set higher general contract prices for energy through Roundtrip Transactions which cost it nothing. The complaint also alleges that the Roundtrip Transactions had the effect of improperly increasing revenues by 10 percent from 1999-2001 and improperly inflating trading volume by 20 percent in 2001 and that the trades represented some 78 million megawatt hours and 45 billion cubic feet of gas during 2001. Defendants' class period financial statements and press releases were therefore materially false and misleading and, the complaint alleges, failed to comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). For more details, contact Karen M. Hanson or Gregory J. Myers by Mail: 100 Washington Avenue South Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 by Phone: 612-339-6900 or by E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected] *********S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O NClass Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C. Enid Sterling, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.Copyright 2002. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * * ",
"URL": "http://bankrupt.com/CAR_Public/020618.mbx"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Dubai [UAE], July 11 (ANI/WAM): Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and Chairman of Dubai Executive Council, launched the Dubai Digital Cloud project during a visit to the Digital Dubai headquarters. The project is the latest in a series of initiatives aimed at creating a world-leading, efficient, agile and reliable digital infrastructure in Dubai. During his visit, he attended the signing of partnership agreements between Digital Dubai, Microsoft and Moro Hub - a subsidiary of Digital DEWA, the digital arm of the Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (PJSC) - to implement the Dubai Digital Cloud project. The initiative aligns with the vision of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President, Prime Minister and Ruler of Dubai, to reinforce Dubai's position as a digital economy capital and further strengthen its robust and reliable digital infrastructure. Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed said Dubai is steadfast in its commitment to fostering excellence and innovation in the use of advanced technologies to accelerate Dubai's digital transformation in line with the vision of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, to turn the city into the epicentre of the global digital economy. Apart from supporting economic growth, Dubai's accelerated digital transformation seeks to further raise the efficiency of government operations and the quality of life of people in the emirate. He expressed his appreciation for the commitment of various government teams working to advance Dubai's digital development goals in line with the highest global benchmarks. He said the growing pace of Dubai's digital transformation has significantly boosted the performance of government operations. The city's ability to provide citizens, residents and visitors with an exceptional digital experience has reinforced its reputation as the world's best city to live, work and visit, he added. Saeed Mohammed Al Tayer, MDCEO of Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA), said: \"Under the directives of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, and the close guidance of Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and Chairman of The Executive Council of Dubai, we continue to work to strengthen the UAE's global position as a leader in digital solutions. We are proud to be partnering with Digital Dubai to provide cloud services to government entities in Dubai through the Moro Cloud service, which has earned the highest local and international security standards and is managed by our highly qualified, internationally certified team.\"Al Tayer added: \"Moro's advanced digital services aim to support government and private organisations in their digital transformation journeys in the UAE and the Middle East. Moro Cloud helps accelerate this process while promoting innovation and reducing costs. It is managed through green carbon-neutral local data centres, which will help government organisations achieve their carbon neutrality goals.\"Hamad Obaid Al Mansoori, Director General of Digital Dubai, said: \"The Dubai Digital Cloud project is a practical application of our leadership's vision to promote connectivity, integration, and a comprehensive digital government that ensures agility, speed, security, and competitiveness, allowing government entities to provide integrated, proactive, round-the-clock services. It marks a significant milestone on our journey to cement Dubai's global status as a model city and an inspiring example of how digital transformation can be implemented to serve the community and the business sector.\"\"Moreover, the project demonstrates the effective partnership and collaboration between the public and private sectors, which sets the stage for a holistic and integrated digital life for everyone,\" Al Mansoori added. \"It will also empower Dubai Government entities in their digital transformation, providing them with the tools and knowledge necessary to achieve their goals, and roll out cloud computing technologies to deliver best-in-class government services.\"The Dubai Digital Cloud project consists of multiple digital clouds designed to provide high levels of flexibility and operational efficiency, while offering the best solutions from private to public clouds. It also includes multiple service providers, who will work to enhance services and boost their competitiveness, providing government entities with multiple service provider options. The project aims to establish a world-leading efficient, reliable, and agile digital infrastructure in Dubai that leverages the most advanced cloud technologies and enhance the efficiency of government services by ensuring faster delivery, high quality and low operational costs. Additionally, it seeks to address information security risks by implementing strict cybersecurity standards and policies, creating an enabling environment to support Dubai's digital economy and aid decision-making processes. Marwan bin Haidar, Vice Chairman and Group CEO of Digital DEWA, said: \"We are pleased to partner with Digital Dubai on the Dubai Digital Cloud Project. Our objective is to empower government entities with cutting-edge capabilities that go beyond conventional boundaries and through this collaboration, we aim to unlock a myriad of possibilities that will help the public sector build an agile and scalable infrastructure.\"\"We at Digital DEWA firmly believe in fostering sustainability as our Green Data Center embodies our commitment to reducing the carbon footprint and ensuring carbon neutrality,\" Bin Haidar added. \"This partnership with Digital Dubai will definitely achieve positive results by combining our expertise and resources at Digital DEWA and Moro Hub to enhance Dubai's sustainability and digital transformation journey and solidify its global rank in digital solutions.\"Meanwhile, Matar AlHemeiri, CEO of the Digital Dubai Government Establishment, said: \"With its vast portfolio of projects and strategies, Digital Dubai is committed to providing a stimulating and robust environment that supports the growth and development of Dubai's digital economy. We strive to build constructive strategic partnerships with service providers, establish a robust and integrated digital infrastructure, leverage advanced technologies to enhance efficiency and speed of services, and maintain the highest standards of security and protection.\"Naim Yazbeck, GM of Microsoft UAE, said: \"The cloud is a powerful tool for public sector organisations to transform their services, enhance their digital security, and empower their citizens. The cloud also enables organisations to access innovative solutions, including AI services, scale up or down as needed, and collaborate and share data across boundaries. At Microsoft, we are committed to providing our customers with the best-in-class solutions that are secure, reliable, and scalable through our advanced Azure cloud, and will continue to provide our customers, in the emirate and beyond, with the best and most advanced solutions.\"In an effort to achieve the project's ambitious objectives, Digital Dubai signed its first agreements with Moro Hub (Data Hub Integrated Solutions LLC), a subsidiary of Digital DEWA, the digital arm of Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA), and Microsoft Corporation, and continues to collaborate and partner with other private sector stakeholders. Under the terms of the partnerships, Moro Digital Data Hub is set to provide cloud services through its platform, Moro Cloud. Incorporating global best practices, the platform helps reduce overall costs of IT infrastructure in Dubai, and provides a system of emerging technologies and cloud services to support digital transformation. Meanwhile, Microsoft and Digital Dubai will collaborate to support the project by leveraging the Microsoft Azure cloud computing platform and providing platforms dedicated to government entities, in order to ensure the highest levels of security, governance and compliance with Digital Dubai's policies and regulations. The two parties will also work together on a Digital Skills Program. Through the project, Digital Dubai will work to empower government entities with tools, knowledge and best practices, in addition to developing policies and security standards for service providers and government entities, and authorising providers accordingly. It will also work to support government entities to prioritise the transition towards the Dubai Digital Cloud project and select service authorised service providers based on the requirements and objectives of each entity. (ANI/WAM)",
"URL": "https://www.mexiconews.net/news/273894916/dubai-crown-prince-hamdan-bin-mohammed-launches-dubai-digital-cloud-project"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Dubai [UAE], July 11 (ANI/WAM): Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and Chairman of Dubai Executive Council, launched the Dubai Digital Cloud project during a visit to the Digital Dubai headquarters. The project is the latest in a series of initiatives aimed at creating a world-leading, efficient, agile and reliable digital infrastructure in Dubai. During his visit, he attended the signing of partnership agreements between Digital Dubai, Microsoft and Moro Hub - a subsidiary of Digital DEWA, the digital arm of the Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (PJSC) - to implement the Dubai Digital Cloud project. The initiative aligns with the vision of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President, Prime Minister and Ruler of Dubai, to reinforce Dubai's position as a digital economy capital and further strengthen its robust and reliable digital infrastructure. Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed said Dubai is steadfast in its commitment to fostering excellence and innovation in the use of advanced technologies to accelerate Dubai's digital transformation in line with the vision of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, to turn the city into the epicentre of the global digital economy. Apart from supporting economic growth, Dubai's accelerated digital transformation seeks to further raise the efficiency of government operations and the quality of life of people in the emirate. He expressed his appreciation for the commitment of various government teams working to advance Dubai's digital development goals in line with the highest global benchmarks. He said the growing pace of Dubai's digital transformation has significantly boosted the performance of government operations. The city's ability to provide citizens, residents and visitors with an exceptional digital experience has reinforced its reputation as the world's best city to live, work and visit, he added. Saeed Mohammed Al Tayer, MDCEO of Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA), said: \"Under the directives of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, and the close guidance of Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and Chairman of The Executive Council of Dubai, we continue to work to strengthen the UAE's global position as a leader in digital solutions. We are proud to be partnering with Digital Dubai to provide cloud services to government entities in Dubai through the Moro Cloud service, which has earned the highest local and international security standards and is managed by our highly qualified, internationally certified team.\"Al Tayer added: \"Moro's advanced digital services aim to support government and private organisations in their digital transformation journeys in the UAE and the Middle East. Moro Cloud helps accelerate this process while promoting innovation and reducing costs. It is managed through green carbon-neutral local data centres, which will help government organisations achieve their carbon neutrality goals.\"Hamad Obaid Al Mansoori, Director General of Digital Dubai, said: \"The Dubai Digital Cloud project is a practical application of our leadership's vision to promote connectivity, integration, and a comprehensive digital government that ensures agility, speed, security, and competitiveness, allowing government entities to provide integrated, proactive, round-the-clock services. It marks a significant milestone on our journey to cement Dubai's global status as a model city and an inspiring example of how digital transformation can be implemented to serve the community and the business sector.\"\"Moreover, the project demonstrates the effective partnership and collaboration between the public and private sectors, which sets the stage for a holistic and integrated digital life for everyone,\" Al Mansoori added. \"It will also empower Dubai Government entities in their digital transformation, providing them with the tools and knowledge necessary to achieve their goals, and roll out cloud computing technologies to deliver best-in-class government services.\"The Dubai Digital Cloud project consists of multiple digital clouds designed to provide high levels of flexibility and operational efficiency, while offering the best solutions from private to public clouds. It also includes multiple service providers, who will work to enhance services and boost their competitiveness, providing government entities with multiple service provider options. The project aims to establish a world-leading efficient, reliable, and agile digital infrastructure in Dubai that leverages the most advanced cloud technologies and enhance the efficiency of government services by ensuring faster delivery, high quality and low operational costs. Additionally, it seeks to address information security risks by implementing strict cybersecurity standards and policies, creating an enabling environment to support Dubai's digital economy and aid decision-making processes. Marwan bin Haidar, Vice Chairman and Group CEO of Digital DEWA, said: \"We are pleased to partner with Digital Dubai on the Dubai Digital Cloud Project. Our objective is to empower government entities with cutting-edge capabilities that go beyond conventional boundaries and through this collaboration, we aim to unlock a myriad of possibilities that will help the public sector build an agile and scalable infrastructure.\"\"We at Digital DEWA firmly believe in fostering sustainability as our Green Data Center embodies our commitment to reducing the carbon footprint and ensuring carbon neutrality,\" Bin Haidar added. \"This partnership with Digital Dubai will definitely achieve positive results by combining our expertise and resources at Digital DEWA and Moro Hub to enhance Dubai's sustainability and digital transformation journey and solidify its global rank in digital solutions.\"Meanwhile, Matar AlHemeiri, CEO of the Digital Dubai Government Establishment, said: \"With its vast portfolio of projects and strategies, Digital Dubai is committed to providing a stimulating and robust environment that supports the growth and development of Dubai's digital economy. We strive to build constructive strategic partnerships with service providers, establish a robust and integrated digital infrastructure, leverage advanced technologies to enhance efficiency and speed of services, and maintain the highest standards of security and protection.\"Naim Yazbeck, GM of Microsoft UAE, said: \"The cloud is a powerful tool for public sector organisations to transform their services, enhance their digital security, and empower their citizens. The cloud also enables organisations to access innovative solutions, including AI services, scale up or down as needed, and collaborate and share data across boundaries. At Microsoft, we are committed to providing our customers with the best-in-class solutions that are secure, reliable, and scalable through our advanced Azure cloud, and will continue to provide our customers, in the emirate and beyond, with the best and most advanced solutions.\"In an effort to achieve the project's ambitious objectives, Digital Dubai signed its first agreements with Moro Hub (Data Hub Integrated Solutions LLC), a subsidiary of Digital DEWA, the digital arm of Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA), and Microsoft Corporation, and continues to collaborate and partner with other private sector stakeholders. Under the terms of the partnerships, Moro Digital Data Hub is set to provide cloud services through its platform, Moro Cloud. Incorporating global best practices, the platform helps reduce overall costs of IT infrastructure in Dubai, and provides a system of emerging technologies and cloud services to support digital transformation. Meanwhile, Microsoft and Digital Dubai will collaborate to support the project by leveraging the Microsoft Azure cloud computing platform and providing platforms dedicated to government entities, in order to ensure the highest levels of security, governance and compliance with Digital Dubai's policies and regulations. The two parties will also work together on a Digital Skills Program. Through the project, Digital Dubai will work to empower government entities with tools, knowledge and best practices, in addition to developing policies and security standards for service providers and government entities, and authorising providers accordingly. It will also work to support government entities to prioritise the transition towards the Dubai Digital Cloud project and select service authorised service providers based on the requirements and objectives of each entity. (ANI/WAM)",
"URL": "https://www.northkoreatimes.com/news/273894916/dubai-crown-prince-hamdan-bin-mohammed-launches-dubai-digital-cloud-project"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Dubai [UAE], July 11 (ANI/WAM): Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and Chairman of Dubai Executive Council, launched the Dubai Digital Cloud project during a visit to the Digital Dubai headquarters. The project is the latest in a series of initiatives aimed at creating a world-leading, efficient, agile and reliable digital infrastructure in Dubai. During his visit, he attended the signing of partnership agreements between Digital Dubai, Microsoft and Moro Hub - a subsidiary of Digital DEWA, the digital arm of the Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (PJSC) - to implement the Dubai Digital Cloud project. The initiative aligns with the vision of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President, Prime Minister and Ruler of Dubai, to reinforce Dubai's position as a digital economy capital and further strengthen its robust and reliable digital infrastructure. Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed said Dubai is steadfast in its commitment to fostering excellence and innovation in the use of advanced technologies to accelerate Dubai's digital transformation in line with the vision of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, to turn the city into the epicentre of the global digital economy. Apart from supporting economic growth, Dubai's accelerated digital transformation seeks to further raise the efficiency of government operations and the quality of life of people in the emirate. He expressed his appreciation for the commitment of various government teams working to advance Dubai's digital development goals in line with the highest global benchmarks. He said the growing pace of Dubai's digital transformation has significantly boosted the performance of government operations. The city's ability to provide citizens, residents and visitors with an exceptional digital experience has reinforced its reputation as the world's best city to live, work and visit, he added. Saeed Mohammed Al Tayer, MDCEO of Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA), said: \"Under the directives of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, and the close guidance of Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and Chairman of The Executive Council of Dubai, we continue to work to strengthen the UAE's global position as a leader in digital solutions. We are proud to be partnering with Digital Dubai to provide cloud services to government entities in Dubai through the Moro Cloud service, which has earned the highest local and international security standards and is managed by our highly qualified, internationally certified team.\"Al Tayer added: \"Moro's advanced digital services aim to support government and private organisations in their digital transformation journeys in the UAE and the Middle East. Moro Cloud helps accelerate this process while promoting innovation and reducing costs. It is managed through green carbon-neutral local data centres, which will help government organisations achieve their carbon neutrality goals.\"Hamad Obaid Al Mansoori, Director General of Digital Dubai, said: \"The Dubai Digital Cloud project is a practical application of our leadership's vision to promote connectivity, integration, and a comprehensive digital government that ensures agility, speed, security, and competitiveness, allowing government entities to provide integrated, proactive, round-the-clock services. It marks a significant milestone on our journey to cement Dubai's global status as a model city and an inspiring example of how digital transformation can be implemented to serve the community and the business sector.\"\"Moreover, the project demonstrates the effective partnership and collaboration between the public and private sectors, which sets the stage for a holistic and integrated digital life for everyone,\" Al Mansoori added. \"It will also empower Dubai Government entities in their digital transformation, providing them with the tools and knowledge necessary to achieve their goals, and roll out cloud computing technologies to deliver best-in-class government services.\"The Dubai Digital Cloud project consists of multiple digital clouds designed to provide high levels of flexibility and operational efficiency, while offering the best solutions from private to public clouds. It also includes multiple service providers, who will work to enhance services and boost their competitiveness, providing government entities with multiple service provider options. The project aims to establish a world-leading efficient, reliable, and agile digital infrastructure in Dubai that leverages the most advanced cloud technologies and enhance the efficiency of government services by ensuring faster delivery, high quality and low operational costs. Additionally, it seeks to address information security risks by implementing strict cybersecurity standards and policies, creating an enabling environment to support Dubai's digital economy and aid decision-making processes. Marwan bin Haidar, Vice Chairman and Group CEO of Digital DEWA, said: \"We are pleased to partner with Digital Dubai on the Dubai Digital Cloud Project. Our objective is to empower government entities with cutting-edge capabilities that go beyond conventional boundaries and through this collaboration, we aim to unlock a myriad of possibilities that will help the public sector build an agile and scalable infrastructure.\"\"We at Digital DEWA firmly believe in fostering sustainability as our Green Data Center embodies our commitment to reducing the carbon footprint and ensuring carbon neutrality,\" Bin Haidar added. \"This partnership with Digital Dubai will definitely achieve positive results by combining our expertise and resources at Digital DEWA and Moro Hub to enhance Dubai's sustainability and digital transformation journey and solidify its global rank in digital solutions.\"Meanwhile, Matar AlHemeiri, CEO of the Digital Dubai Government Establishment, said: \"With its vast portfolio of projects and strategies, Digital Dubai is committed to providing a stimulating and robust environment that supports the growth and development of Dubai's digital economy. We strive to build constructive strategic partnerships with service providers, establish a robust and integrated digital infrastructure, leverage advanced technologies to enhance efficiency and speed of services, and maintain the highest standards of security and protection.\"Naim Yazbeck, GM of Microsoft UAE, said: \"The cloud is a powerful tool for public sector organisations to transform their services, enhance their digital security, and empower their citizens. The cloud also enables organisations to access innovative solutions, including AI services, scale up or down as needed, and collaborate and share data across boundaries. At Microsoft, we are committed to providing our customers with the best-in-class solutions that are secure, reliable, and scalable through our advanced Azure cloud, and will continue to provide our customers, in the emirate and beyond, with the best and most advanced solutions.\"In an effort to achieve the project's ambitious objectives, Digital Dubai signed its first agreements with Moro Hub (Data Hub Integrated Solutions LLC), a subsidiary of Digital DEWA, the digital arm of Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA), and Microsoft Corporation, and continues to collaborate and partner with other private sector stakeholders. Under the terms of the partnerships, Moro Digital Data Hub is set to provide cloud services through its platform, Moro Cloud. Incorporating global best practices, the platform helps reduce overall costs of IT infrastructure in Dubai, and provides a system of emerging technologies and cloud services to support digital transformation. Meanwhile, Microsoft and Digital Dubai will collaborate to support the project by leveraging the Microsoft Azure cloud computing platform and providing platforms dedicated to government entities, in order to ensure the highest levels of security, governance and compliance with Digital Dubai's policies and regulations. The two parties will also work together on a Digital Skills Program. Through the project, Digital Dubai will work to empower government entities with tools, knowledge and best practices, in addition to developing policies and security standards for service providers and government entities, and authorising providers accordingly. It will also work to support government entities to prioritise the transition towards the Dubai Digital Cloud project and select service authorised service providers based on the requirements and objectives of each entity. (ANI/WAM)",
"URL": "https://www.hongkongnews.net/news/273894916/dubai-crown-prince-hamdan-bin-mohammed-launches-dubai-digital-cloud-project"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "11 Jul 2023, 12:03 GMT+10 Dubai Crown Prince Hamdan bin Mohammed launches Dubai Digital Cloud project Dubai [UAE], July 11 (ANI/WAM): Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and Chairman of Dubai Executive Council, launched the Dubai Digital Cloud project during a visit to the Digital Dubai headquarters. The project is the latest in a series of initiatives aimed at creating a world-leading, efficient, agile and reliable digital infrastructure in Dubai. During his visit, he attended the signing of partnership agreements between Digital Dubai, Microsoft and Moro Hub - a subsidiary of Digital DEWA, the digital arm of the Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (PJSC) - to implement the Dubai Digital Cloud project. The initiative aligns with the vision of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President, Prime Minister and Ruler of Dubai, to reinforce Dubai's position as a digital economy capital and further strengthen its robust and reliable digital infrastructure. Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed said Dubai is steadfast in its commitment to fostering excellence and innovation in the use of advanced technologies to accelerate Dubai's digital transformation in line with the vision of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, to turn the city into the epicentre of the global digital economy. Apart from supporting economic growth, Dubai's accelerated digital transformation seeks to further raise the efficiency of government operations and the quality of life of people in the emirate. He expressed his appreciation for the commitment of various government teams working to advance Dubai's digital development goals in line with the highest global benchmarks. He said the growing pace of Dubai's digital transformation has significantly boosted the performance of government operations. The city's ability to provide citizens, residents and visitors with an exceptional digital experience has reinforced its reputation as the world's best city to live, work and visit, he added. Saeed Mohammed Al Tayer, MDCEO of Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA), said: \"Under the directives of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, and the close guidance of Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and Chairman of The Executive Council of Dubai, we continue to work to strengthen the UAE's global position as a leader in digital solutions. We are proud to be partnering with Digital Dubai to provide cloud services to government entities in Dubai through the Moro Cloud service, which has earned the highest local and international security standards and is managed by our highly qualified, internationally certified team.\"Al Tayer added: \"Moro's advanced digital services aim to support government and private organisations in their digital transformation journeys in the UAE and the Middle East. Moro Cloud helps accelerate this process while promoting innovation and reducing costs. It is managed through green carbon-neutral local data centres, which will help government organisations achieve their carbon neutrality goals.\"Hamad Obaid Al Mansoori, Director General of Digital Dubai, said: \"The Dubai Digital Cloud project is a practical application of our leadership's vision to promote connectivity, integration, and a comprehensive digital government that ensures agility, speed, security, and competitiveness, allowing government entities to provide integrated, proactive, round-the-clock services. It marks a significant milestone on our journey to cement Dubai's global status as a model city and an inspiring example of how digital transformation can be implemented to serve the community and the business sector.\"\"Moreover, the project demonstrates the effective partnership and collaboration between the public and private sectors, which sets the stage for a holistic and integrated digital life for everyone,\" Al Mansoori added. \"It will also empower Dubai Government entities in their digital transformation, providing them with the tools and knowledge necessary to achieve their goals, and roll out cloud computing technologies to deliver best-in-class government services.\"The Dubai Digital Cloud project consists of multiple digital clouds designed to provide high levels of flexibility and operational efficiency, while offering the best solutions from private to public clouds. It also includes multiple service providers, who will work to enhance services and boost their competitiveness, providing government entities with multiple service provider options. The project aims to establish a world-leading efficient, reliable, and agile digital infrastructure in Dubai that leverages the most advanced cloud technologies and enhance the efficiency of government services by ensuring faster delivery, high quality and low operational costs. Additionally, it seeks to address information security risks by implementing strict cybersecurity standards and policies, creating an enabling environment to support Dubai's digital economy and aid decision-making processes. Marwan bin Haidar, Vice Chairman and Group CEO of Digital DEWA, said: \"We are pleased to partner with Digital Dubai on the Dubai Digital Cloud Project. Our objective is to empower government entities with cutting-edge capabilities that go beyond conventional boundaries and through this collaboration, we aim to unlock a myriad of possibilities that will help the public sector build an agile and scalable infrastructure.\"\"We at Digital DEWA firmly believe in fostering sustainability as our Green Data Center embodies our commitment to reducing the carbon footprint and ensuring carbon neutrality,\" Bin Haidar added. \"This partnership with Digital Dubai will definitely achieve positive results by combining our expertise and resources at Digital DEWA and Moro Hub to enhance Dubai's sustainability and digital transformation journey and solidify its global rank in digital solutions.\"Meanwhile, Matar AlHemeiri, CEO of the Digital Dubai Government Establishment, said: \"With its vast portfolio of projects and strategies, Digital Dubai is committed to providing a stimulating and robust environment that supports the growth and development of Dubai's digital economy. We strive to build constructive strategic partnerships with service providers, establish a robust and integrated digital infrastructure, leverage advanced technologies to enhance efficiency and speed of services, and maintain the highest standards of security and protection.\"Naim Yazbeck, GM of Microsoft UAE, said: \"The cloud is a powerful tool for public sector organisations to transform their services, enhance their digital security, and empower their citizens. The cloud also enables organisations to access innovative solutions, including AI services, scale up or down as needed, and collaborate and share data across boundaries. At Microsoft, we are committed to providing our customers with the best-in-class solutions that are secure, reliable, and scalable through our advanced Azure cloud, and will continue to provide our customers, in the emirate and beyond, with the best and most advanced solutions.\"In an effort to achieve the project's ambitious objectives, Digital Dubai signed its first agreements with Moro Hub (Data Hub Integrated Solutions LLC), a subsidiary of Digital DEWA, the digital arm of Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA), and Microsoft Corporation, and continues to collaborate and partner with other private sector stakeholders. Under the terms of the partnerships, Moro Digital Data Hub is set to provide cloud services through its platform, Moro Cloud. Incorporating global best practices, the platform helps reduce overall costs of IT infrastructure in Dubai, and provides a system of emerging technologies and cloud services to support digital transformation. Meanwhile, Microsoft and Digital Dubai will collaborate to support the project by leveraging the Microsoft Azure cloud computing platform and providing platforms dedicated to government entities, in order to ensure the highest levels of security, governance and compliance with Digital Dubai's policies and regulations. The two parties will also work together on a Digital Skills Program. Through the project, Digital Dubai will work to empower government entities with tools, knowledge and best practices, in addition to developing policies and security standards for service providers and government entities, and authorising providers accordingly. It will also work to support government entities to prioritise the transition towards the Dubai Digital Cloud project and select service authorised service providers based on the requirements and objectives of each entity. (ANI/WAM)",
"URL": "https://www.newzealandnews.net/news/273894916/dubai-crown-prince-hamdan-bin-mohammed-launches-dubai-digital-cloud-project"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Dubai [UAE], July 11 (ANI/WAM): Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and Chairman of Dubai Executive Council, launched the Dubai Digital Cloud project during a visit to the Digital Dubai headquarters. The project is the latest in a series of initiatives aimed at creating a world-leading, efficient, agile and reliable digital infrastructure in Dubai. During his visit, he attended the signing of partnership agreements between Digital Dubai, Microsoft and Moro Hub - a subsidiary of Digital DEWA, the digital arm of the Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (PJSC) - to implement the Dubai Digital Cloud project. The initiative aligns with the vision of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President, Prime Minister and Ruler of Dubai, to reinforce Dubai's position as a digital economy capital and further strengthen its robust and reliable digital infrastructure. Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed said Dubai is steadfast in its commitment to fostering excellence and innovation in the use of advanced technologies to accelerate Dubai's digital transformation in line with the vision of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, to turn the city into the epicentre of the global digital economy. Apart from supporting economic growth, Dubai's accelerated digital transformation seeks to further raise the efficiency of government operations and the quality of life of people in the emirate. He expressed his appreciation for the commitment of various government teams working to advance Dubai's digital development goals in line with the highest global benchmarks. He said the growing pace of Dubai's digital transformation has significantly boosted the performance of government operations. The city's ability to provide citizens, residents and visitors with an exceptional digital experience has reinforced its reputation as the world's best city to live, work and visit, he added. Saeed Mohammed Al Tayer, MDCEO of Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA), said: \"Under the directives of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, and the close guidance of Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and Chairman of The Executive Council of Dubai, we continue to work to strengthen the UAE's global position as a leader in digital solutions. We are proud to be partnering with Digital Dubai to provide cloud services to government entities in Dubai through the Moro Cloud service, which has earned the highest local and international security standards and is managed by our highly qualified, internationally certified team.\"Al Tayer added: \"Moro's advanced digital services aim to support government and private organisations in their digital transformation journeys in the UAE and the Middle East. Moro Cloud helps accelerate this process while promoting innovation and reducing costs. It is managed through green carbon-neutral local data centres, which will help government organisations achieve their carbon neutrality goals.\"Hamad Obaid Al Mansoori, Director General of Digital Dubai, said: \"The Dubai Digital Cloud project is a practical application of our leadership's vision to promote connectivity, integration, and a comprehensive digital government that ensures agility, speed, security, and competitiveness, allowing government entities to provide integrated, proactive, round-the-clock services. It marks a significant milestone on our journey to cement Dubai's global status as a model city and an inspiring example of how digital transformation can be implemented to serve the community and the business sector.\"\"Moreover, the project demonstrates the effective partnership and collaboration between the public and private sectors, which sets the stage for a holistic and integrated digital life for everyone,\" Al Mansoori added. \"It will also empower Dubai Government entities in their digital transformation, providing them with the tools and knowledge necessary to achieve their goals, and roll out cloud computing technologies to deliver best-in-class government services.\"The Dubai Digital Cloud project consists of multiple digital clouds designed to provide high levels of flexibility and operational efficiency, while offering the best solutions from private to public clouds. It also includes multiple service providers, who will work to enhance services and boost their competitiveness, providing government entities with multiple service provider options. The project aims to establish a world-leading efficient, reliable, and agile digital infrastructure in Dubai that leverages the most advanced cloud technologies and enhance the efficiency of government services by ensuring faster delivery, high quality and low operational costs. Additionally, it seeks to address information security risks by implementing strict cybersecurity standards and policies, creating an enabling environment to support Dubai's digital economy and aid decision-making processes. Marwan bin Haidar, Vice Chairman and Group CEO of Digital DEWA, said: \"We are pleased to partner with Digital Dubai on the Dubai Digital Cloud Project. Our objective is to empower government entities with cutting-edge capabilities that go beyond conventional boundaries and through this collaboration, we aim to unlock a myriad of possibilities that will help the public sector build an agile and scalable infrastructure.\"\"We at Digital DEWA firmly believe in fostering sustainability as our Green Data Center embodies our commitment to reducing the carbon footprint and ensuring carbon neutrality,\" Bin Haidar added. \"This partnership with Digital Dubai will definitely achieve positive results by combining our expertise and resources at Digital DEWA and Moro Hub to enhance Dubai's sustainability and digital transformation journey and solidify its global rank in digital solutions.\"Meanwhile, Matar AlHemeiri, CEO of the Digital Dubai Government Establishment, said: \"With its vast portfolio of projects and strategies, Digital Dubai is committed to providing a stimulating and robust environment that supports the growth and development of Dubai's digital economy. We strive to build constructive strategic partnerships with service providers, establish a robust and integrated digital infrastructure, leverage advanced technologies to enhance efficiency and speed of services, and maintain the highest standards of security and protection.\"Naim Yazbeck, GM of Microsoft UAE, said: \"The cloud is a powerful tool for public sector organisations to transform their services, enhance their digital security, and empower their citizens. The cloud also enables organisations to access innovative solutions, including AI services, scale up or down as needed, and collaborate and share data across boundaries. At Microsoft, we are committed to providing our customers with the best-in-class solutions that are secure, reliable, and scalable through our advanced Azure cloud, and will continue to provide our customers, in the emirate and beyond, with the best and most advanced solutions.\"In an effort to achieve the project's ambitious objectives, Digital Dubai signed its first agreements with Moro Hub (Data Hub Integrated Solutions LLC), a subsidiary of Digital DEWA, the digital arm of Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA), and Microsoft Corporation, and continues to collaborate and partner with other private sector stakeholders. Under the terms of the partnerships, Moro Digital Data Hub is set to provide cloud services through its platform, Moro Cloud. Incorporating global best practices, the platform helps reduce overall costs of IT infrastructure in Dubai, and provides a system of emerging technologies and cloud services to support digital transformation. Meanwhile, Microsoft and Digital Dubai will collaborate to support the project by leveraging the Microsoft Azure cloud computing platform and providing platforms dedicated to government entities, in order to ensure the highest levels of security, governance and compliance with Digital Dubai's policies and regulations. The two parties will also work together on a Digital Skills Program. Through the project, Digital Dubai will work to empower government entities with tools, knowledge and best practices, in addition to developing policies and security standards for service providers and government entities, and authorising providers accordingly. It will also work to support government entities to prioritise the transition towards the Dubai Digital Cloud project and select service authorised service providers based on the requirements and objectives of each entity. (ANI/WAM)",
"URL": "https://www.mexicostar.com/news/273894916/dubai-crown-prince-hamdan-bin-mohammed-launches-dubai-digital-cloud-project"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Dubai [UAE], July 11 (ANI/WAM): Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and Chairman of Dubai Executive Council, launched the Dubai Digital Cloud project during a visit to the Digital Dubai headquarters. The project is the latest in a series of initiatives aimed at creating a world-leading, efficient, agile and reliable digital infrastructure in Dubai. During his visit, he attended the signing of partnership agreements between Digital Dubai, Microsoft and Moro Hub - a subsidiary of Digital DEWA, the digital arm of the Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (PJSC) - to implement the Dubai Digital Cloud project. The initiative aligns with the vision of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President, Prime Minister and Ruler of Dubai, to reinforce Dubai's position as a digital economy capital and further strengthen its robust and reliable digital infrastructure. Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed said Dubai is steadfast in its commitment to fostering excellence and innovation in the use of advanced technologies to accelerate Dubai's digital transformation in line with the vision of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, to turn the city into the epicentre of the global digital economy. Apart from supporting economic growth, Dubai's accelerated digital transformation seeks to further raise the efficiency of government operations and the quality of life of people in the emirate. He expressed his appreciation for the commitment of various government teams working to advance Dubai's digital development goals in line with the highest global benchmarks. He said the growing pace of Dubai's digital transformation has significantly boosted the performance of government operations. The city's ability to provide citizens, residents and visitors with an exceptional digital experience has reinforced its reputation as the world's best city to live, work and visit, he added. Saeed Mohammed Al Tayer, MDCEO of Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA), said: \"Under the directives of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, and the close guidance of Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and Chairman of The Executive Council of Dubai, we continue to work to strengthen the UAE's global position as a leader in digital solutions. We are proud to be partnering with Digital Dubai to provide cloud services to government entities in Dubai through the Moro Cloud service, which has earned the highest local and international security standards and is managed by our highly qualified, internationally certified team.\"Al Tayer added: \"Moro's advanced digital services aim to support government and private organisations in their digital transformation journeys in the UAE and the Middle East. Moro Cloud helps accelerate this process while promoting innovation and reducing costs. It is managed through green carbon-neutral local data centres, which will help government organisations achieve their carbon neutrality goals.\"Hamad Obaid Al Mansoori, Director General of Digital Dubai, said: \"The Dubai Digital Cloud project is a practical application of our leadership's vision to promote connectivity, integration, and a comprehensive digital government that ensures agility, speed, security, and competitiveness, allowing government entities to provide integrated, proactive, round-the-clock services. It marks a significant milestone on our journey to cement Dubai's global status as a model city and an inspiring example of how digital transformation can be implemented to serve the community and the business sector.\"\"Moreover, the project demonstrates the effective partnership and collaboration between the public and private sectors, which sets the stage for a holistic and integrated digital life for everyone,\" Al Mansoori added. \"It will also empower Dubai Government entities in their digital transformation, providing them with the tools and knowledge necessary to achieve their goals, and roll out cloud computing technologies to deliver best-in-class government services.\"The Dubai Digital Cloud project consists of multiple digital clouds designed to provide high levels of flexibility and operational efficiency, while offering the best solutions from private to public clouds. It also includes multiple service providers, who will work to enhance services and boost their competitiveness, providing government entities with multiple service provider options. The project aims to establish a world-leading efficient, reliable, and agile digital infrastructure in Dubai that leverages the most advanced cloud technologies and enhance the efficiency of government services by ensuring faster delivery, high quality and low operational costs. Additionally, it seeks to address information security risks by implementing strict cybersecurity standards and policies, creating an enabling environment to support Dubai's digital economy and aid decision-making processes. Marwan bin Haidar, Vice Chairman and Group CEO of Digital DEWA, said: \"We are pleased to partner with Digital Dubai on the Dubai Digital Cloud Project. Our objective is to empower government entities with cutting-edge capabilities that go beyond conventional boundaries and through this collaboration, we aim to unlock a myriad of possibilities that will help the public sector build an agile and scalable infrastructure.\"\"We at Digital DEWA firmly believe in fostering sustainability as our Green Data Center embodies our commitment to reducing the carbon footprint and ensuring carbon neutrality,\" Bin Haidar added. \"This partnership with Digital Dubai will definitely achieve positive results by combining our expertise and resources at Digital DEWA and Moro Hub to enhance Dubai's sustainability and digital transformation journey and solidify its global rank in digital solutions.\"Meanwhile, Matar AlHemeiri, CEO of the Digital Dubai Government Establishment, said: \"With its vast portfolio of projects and strategies, Digital Dubai is committed to providing a stimulating and robust environment that supports the growth and development of Dubai's digital economy. We strive to build constructive strategic partnerships with service providers, establish a robust and integrated digital infrastructure, leverage advanced technologies to enhance efficiency and speed of services, and maintain the highest standards of security and protection.\"Naim Yazbeck, GM of Microsoft UAE, said: \"The cloud is a powerful tool for public sector organisations to transform their services, enhance their digital security, and empower their citizens. The cloud also enables organisations to access innovative solutions, including AI services, scale up or down as needed, and collaborate and share data across boundaries. At Microsoft, we are committed to providing our customers with the best-in-class solutions that are secure, reliable, and scalable through our advanced Azure cloud, and will continue to provide our customers, in the emirate and beyond, with the best and most advanced solutions.\"In an effort to achieve the project's ambitious objectives, Digital Dubai signed its first agreements with Moro Hub (Data Hub Integrated Solutions LLC), a subsidiary of Digital DEWA, the digital arm of Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA), and Microsoft Corporation, and continues to collaborate and partner with other private sector stakeholders. Under the terms of the partnerships, Moro Digital Data Hub is set to provide cloud services through its platform, Moro Cloud. Incorporating global best practices, the platform helps reduce overall costs of IT infrastructure in Dubai, and provides a system of emerging technologies and cloud services to support digital transformation. Meanwhile, Microsoft and Digital Dubai will collaborate to support the project by leveraging the Microsoft Azure cloud computing platform and providing platforms dedicated to government entities, in order to ensure the highest levels of security, governance and compliance with Digital Dubai's policies and regulations. The two parties will also work together on a Digital Skills Program. Through the project, Digital Dubai will work to empower government entities with tools, knowledge and best practices, in addition to developing policies and security standards for service providers and government entities, and authorising providers accordingly. It will also work to support government entities to prioritise the transition towards the Dubai Digital Cloud project and select service authorised service providers based on the requirements and objectives of each entity. (ANI/WAM)",
"URL": "https://www.singaporestar.com/news/273894916/dubai-crown-prince-hamdan-bin-mohammed-launches-dubai-digital-cloud-project"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Dubai [UAE], July 11 (ANI/WAM): Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and Chairman of Dubai Executive Council, launched the Dubai Digital Cloud project during a visit to the Digital Dubai headquarters. The project is the latest in a series of initiatives aimed at creating a world-leading, efficient, agile and reliable digital infrastructure in Dubai. During his visit, he attended the signing of partnership agreements between Digital Dubai, Microsoft and Moro Hub - a subsidiary of Digital DEWA, the digital arm of the Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (PJSC) - to implement the Dubai Digital Cloud project. The initiative aligns with the vision of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President, Prime Minister and Ruler of Dubai, to reinforce Dubai's position as a digital economy capital and further strengthen its robust and reliable digital infrastructure. Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed said Dubai is steadfast in its commitment to fostering excellence and innovation in the use of advanced technologies to accelerate Dubai's digital transformation in line with the vision of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, to turn the city into the epicentre of the global digital economy. Apart from supporting economic growth, Dubai's accelerated digital transformation seeks to further raise the efficiency of government operations and the quality of life of people in the emirate. He expressed his appreciation for the commitment of various government teams working to advance Dubai's digital development goals in line with the highest global benchmarks. He said the growing pace of Dubai's digital transformation has significantly boosted the performance of government operations. The city's ability to provide citizens, residents and visitors with an exceptional digital experience has reinforced its reputation as the world's best city to live, work and visit, he added. Saeed Mohammed Al Tayer, MDCEO of Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA), said: \"Under the directives of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, and the close guidance of Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and Chairman of The Executive Council of Dubai, we continue to work to strengthen the UAE's global position as a leader in digital solutions. We are proud to be partnering with Digital Dubai to provide cloud services to government entities in Dubai through the Moro Cloud service, which has earned the highest local and international security standards and is managed by our highly qualified, internationally certified team.\"Al Tayer added: \"Moro's advanced digital services aim to support government and private organisations in their digital transformation journeys in the UAE and the Middle East. Moro Cloud helps accelerate this process while promoting innovation and reducing costs. It is managed through green carbon-neutral local data centres, which will help government organisations achieve their carbon neutrality goals.\"Hamad Obaid Al Mansoori, Director General of Digital Dubai, said: \"The Dubai Digital Cloud project is a practical application of our leadership's vision to promote connectivity, integration, and a comprehensive digital government that ensures agility, speed, security, and competitiveness, allowing government entities to provide integrated, proactive, round-the-clock services. It marks a significant milestone on our journey to cement Dubai's global status as a model city and an inspiring example of how digital transformation can be implemented to serve the community and the business sector.\"\"Moreover, the project demonstrates the effective partnership and collaboration between the public and private sectors, which sets the stage for a holistic and integrated digital life for everyone,\" Al Mansoori added. \"It will also empower Dubai Government entities in their digital transformation, providing them with the tools and knowledge necessary to achieve their goals, and roll out cloud computing technologies to deliver best-in-class government services.\"The Dubai Digital Cloud project consists of multiple digital clouds designed to provide high levels of flexibility and operational efficiency, while offering the best solutions from private to public clouds. It also includes multiple service providers, who will work to enhance services and boost their competitiveness, providing government entities with multiple service provider options. The project aims to establish a world-leading efficient, reliable, and agile digital infrastructure in Dubai that leverages the most advanced cloud technologies and enhance the efficiency of government services by ensuring faster delivery, high quality and low operational costs. Additionally, it seeks to address information security risks by implementing strict cybersecurity standards and policies, creating an enabling environment to support Dubai's digital economy and aid decision-making processes. Marwan bin Haidar, Vice Chairman and Group CEO of Digital DEWA, said: \"We are pleased to partner with Digital Dubai on the Dubai Digital Cloud Project. Our objective is to empower government entities with cutting-edge capabilities that go beyond conventional boundaries and through this collaboration, we aim to unlock a myriad of possibilities that will help the public sector build an agile and scalable infrastructure.\"\"We at Digital DEWA firmly believe in fostering sustainability as our Green Data Center embodies our commitment to reducing the carbon footprint and ensuring carbon neutrality,\" Bin Haidar added. \"This partnership with Digital Dubai will definitely achieve positive results by combining our expertise and resources at Digital DEWA and Moro Hub to enhance Dubai's sustainability and digital transformation journey and solidify its global rank in digital solutions.\"Meanwhile, Matar AlHemeiri, CEO of the Digital Dubai Government Establishment, said: \"With its vast portfolio of projects and strategies, Digital Dubai is committed to providing a stimulating and robust environment that supports the growth and development of Dubai's digital economy. We strive to build constructive strategic partnerships with service providers, establish a robust and integrated digital infrastructure, leverage advanced technologies to enhance efficiency and speed of services, and maintain the highest standards of security and protection.\"Naim Yazbeck, GM of Microsoft UAE, said: \"The cloud is a powerful tool for public sector organisations to transform their services, enhance their digital security, and empower their citizens. The cloud also enables organisations to access innovative solutions, including AI services, scale up or down as needed, and collaborate and share data across boundaries. At Microsoft, we are committed to providing our customers with the best-in-class solutions that are secure, reliable, and scalable through our advanced Azure cloud, and will continue to provide our customers, in the emirate and beyond, with the best and most advanced solutions.\"In an effort to achieve the project's ambitious objectives, Digital Dubai signed its first agreements with Moro Hub (Data Hub Integrated Solutions LLC), a subsidiary of Digital DEWA, the digital arm of Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA), and Microsoft Corporation, and continues to collaborate and partner with other private sector stakeholders. Under the terms of the partnerships, Moro Digital Data Hub is set to provide cloud services through its platform, Moro Cloud. Incorporating global best practices, the platform helps reduce overall costs of IT infrastructure in Dubai, and provides a system of emerging technologies and cloud services to support digital transformation. Meanwhile, Microsoft and Digital Dubai will collaborate to support the project by leveraging the Microsoft Azure cloud computing platform and providing platforms dedicated to government entities, in order to ensure the highest levels of security, governance and compliance with Digital Dubai's policies and regulations. The two parties will also work together on a Digital Skills Program. Through the project, Digital Dubai will work to empower government entities with tools, knowledge and best practices, in addition to developing policies and security standards for service providers and government entities, and authorising providers accordingly. It will also work to support government entities to prioritise the transition towards the Dubai Digital Cloud project and select service authorised service providers based on the requirements and objectives of each entity. (ANI/WAM)",
"URL": "https://www.philippinetimes.com/news/273894916/dubai-crown-prince-hamdan-bin-mohammed-launches-dubai-digital-cloud-project"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Dubai [UAE], July 11 (ANI/WAM): Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and Chairman of Dubai Executive Council, launched the Dubai Digital Cloud project during a visit to the Digital Dubai headquarters. The project is the latest in a series of initiatives aimed at creating a world-leading, efficient, agile and reliable digital infrastructure in Dubai. During his visit, he attended the signing of partnership agreements between Digital Dubai, Microsoft and Moro Hub - a subsidiary of Digital DEWA, the digital arm of the Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (PJSC) - to implement the Dubai Digital Cloud project. The initiative aligns with the vision of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President, Prime Minister and Ruler of Dubai, to reinforce Dubai's position as a digital economy capital and further strengthen its robust and reliable digital infrastructure. Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed said Dubai is steadfast in its commitment to fostering excellence and innovation in the use of advanced technologies to accelerate Dubai's digital transformation in line with the vision of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, to turn the city into the epicentre of the global digital economy. Apart from supporting economic growth, Dubai's accelerated digital transformation seeks to further raise the efficiency of government operations and the quality of life of people in the emirate. He expressed his appreciation for the commitment of various government teams working to advance Dubai's digital development goals in line with the highest global benchmarks. He said the growing pace of Dubai's digital transformation has significantly boosted the performance of government operations. The city's ability to provide citizens, residents and visitors with an exceptional digital experience has reinforced its reputation as the world's best city to live, work and visit, he added. Saeed Mohammed Al Tayer, MDCEO of Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA), said: \"Under the directives of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, and the close guidance of Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and Chairman of The Executive Council of Dubai, we continue to work to strengthen the UAE's global position as a leader in digital solutions. We are proud to be partnering with Digital Dubai to provide cloud services to government entities in Dubai through the Moro Cloud service, which has earned the highest local and international security standards and is managed by our highly qualified, internationally certified team.\"Al Tayer added: \"Moro's advanced digital services aim to support government and private organisations in their digital transformation journeys in the UAE and the Middle East. Moro Cloud helps accelerate this process while promoting innovation and reducing costs. It is managed through green carbon-neutral local data centres, which will help government organisations achieve their carbon neutrality goals.\"Hamad Obaid Al Mansoori, Director General of Digital Dubai, said: \"The Dubai Digital Cloud project is a practical application of our leadership's vision to promote connectivity, integration, and a comprehensive digital government that ensures agility, speed, security, and competitiveness, allowing government entities to provide integrated, proactive, round-the-clock services. It marks a significant milestone on our journey to cement Dubai's global status as a model city and an inspiring example of how digital transformation can be implemented to serve the community and the business sector.\"\"Moreover, the project demonstrates the effective partnership and collaboration between the public and private sectors, which sets the stage for a holistic and integrated digital life for everyone,\" Al Mansoori added. \"It will also empower Dubai Government entities in their digital transformation, providing them with the tools and knowledge necessary to achieve their goals, and roll out cloud computing technologies to deliver best-in-class government services.\"The Dubai Digital Cloud project consists of multiple digital clouds designed to provide high levels of flexibility and operational efficiency, while offering the best solutions from private to public clouds. It also includes multiple service providers, who will work to enhance services and boost their competitiveness, providing government entities with multiple service provider options. The project aims to establish a world-leading efficient, reliable, and agile digital infrastructure in Dubai that leverages the most advanced cloud technologies and enhance the efficiency of government services by ensuring faster delivery, high quality and low operational costs. Additionally, it seeks to address information security risks by implementing strict cybersecurity standards and policies, creating an enabling environment to support Dubai's digital economy and aid decision-making processes. Marwan bin Haidar, Vice Chairman and Group CEO of Digital DEWA, said: \"We are pleased to partner with Digital Dubai on the Dubai Digital Cloud Project. Our objective is to empower government entities with cutting-edge capabilities that go beyond conventional boundaries and through this collaboration, we aim to unlock a myriad of possibilities that will help the public sector build an agile and scalable infrastructure.\"\"We at Digital DEWA firmly believe in fostering sustainability as our Green Data Center embodies our commitment to reducing the carbon footprint and ensuring carbon neutrality,\" Bin Haidar added. \"This partnership with Digital Dubai will definitely achieve positive results by combining our expertise and resources at Digital DEWA and Moro Hub to enhance Dubai's sustainability and digital transformation journey and solidify its global rank in digital solutions.\"Meanwhile, Matar AlHemeiri, CEO of the Digital Dubai Government Establishment, said: \"With its vast portfolio of projects and strategies, Digital Dubai is committed to providing a stimulating and robust environment that supports the growth and development of Dubai's digital economy. We strive to build constructive strategic partnerships with service providers, establish a robust and integrated digital infrastructure, leverage advanced technologies to enhance efficiency and speed of services, and maintain the highest standards of security and protection.\"Naim Yazbeck, GM of Microsoft UAE, said: \"The cloud is a powerful tool for public sector organisations to transform their services, enhance their digital security, and empower their citizens. The cloud also enables organisations to access innovative solutions, including AI services, scale up or down as needed, and collaborate and share data across boundaries. At Microsoft, we are committed to providing our customers with the best-in-class solutions that are secure, reliable, and scalable through our advanced Azure cloud, and will continue to provide our customers, in the emirate and beyond, with the best and most advanced solutions.\"In an effort to achieve the project's ambitious objectives, Digital Dubai signed its first agreements with Moro Hub (Data Hub Integrated Solutions LLC), a subsidiary of Digital DEWA, the digital arm of Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA), and Microsoft Corporation, and continues to collaborate and partner with other private sector stakeholders. Under the terms of the partnerships, Moro Digital Data Hub is set to provide cloud services through its platform, Moro Cloud. Incorporating global best practices, the platform helps reduce overall costs of IT infrastructure in Dubai, and provides a system of emerging technologies and cloud services to support digital transformation. Meanwhile, Microsoft and Digital Dubai will collaborate to support the project by leveraging the Microsoft Azure cloud computing platform and providing platforms dedicated to government entities, in order to ensure the highest levels of security, governance and compliance with Digital Dubai's policies and regulations. The two parties will also work together on a Digital Skills Program. Through the project, Digital Dubai will work to empower government entities with tools, knowledge and best practices, in addition to developing policies and security standards for service providers and government entities, and authorising providers accordingly. It will also work to support government entities to prioritise the transition towards the Dubai Digital Cloud project and select service authorised service providers based on the requirements and objectives of each entity. (ANI/WAM)",
"URL": "https://www.sierraleonetimes.com/news/273894916/dubai-crown-prince-hamdan-bin-mohammed-launches-dubai-digital-cloud-project"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Dubai Crown Prince Hamdan bin Mohammed launches Dubai Digital Cloud project ANI 11 Jul 2023, 12:03 GMT+10 Dubai [UAE], July 11 (ANI/WAM): Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and Chairman of Dubai Executive Council, launched the Dubai Digital Cloud project during a visit to the Digital Dubai headquarters. The project is the latest in a series of initiatives aimed at creating a world-leading, efficient, agile and reliable digital infrastructure in Dubai. During his visit, he attended the signing of partnership agreements between Digital Dubai, Microsoft and Moro Hub - a subsidiary of Digital DEWA, the digital arm of the Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (PJSC) - to implement the Dubai Digital Cloud project. The initiative aligns with the vision of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President, Prime Minister and Ruler of Dubai, to reinforce Dubai's position as a digital economy capital and further strengthen its robust and reliable digital infrastructure. Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed said Dubai is steadfast in its commitment to fostering excellence and innovation in the use of advanced technologies to accelerate Dubai's digital transformation in line with the vision of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, to turn the city into the epicentre of the global digital economy. Apart from supporting economic growth, Dubai's accelerated digital transformation seeks to further raise the efficiency of government operations and the quality of life of people in the emirate. He expressed his appreciation for the commitment of various government teams working to advance Dubai's digital development goals in line with the highest global benchmarks. He said the growing pace of Dubai's digital transformation has significantly boosted the performance of government operations. The city's ability to provide citizens, residents and visitors with an exceptional digital experience has reinforced its reputation as the world's best city to live, work and visit, he added. Saeed Mohammed Al Tayer, MDCEO of Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA), said: \"Under the directives of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, and the close guidance of Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and Chairman of The Executive Council of Dubai, we continue to work to strengthen the UAE's global position as a leader in digital solutions. We are proud to be partnering with Digital Dubai to provide cloud services to government entities in Dubai through the Moro Cloud service, which has earned the highest local and international security standards and is managed by our highly qualified, internationally certified team.\"Al Tayer added: \"Moro's advanced digital services aim to support government and private organisations in their digital transformation journeys in the UAE and the Middle East. Moro Cloud helps accelerate this process while promoting innovation and reducing costs. It is managed through green carbon-neutral local data centres, which will help government organisations achieve their carbon neutrality goals.\"Hamad Obaid Al Mansoori, Director General of Digital Dubai, said: \"The Dubai Digital Cloud project is a practical application of our leadership's vision to promote connectivity, integration, and a comprehensive digital government that ensures agility, speed, security, and competitiveness, allowing government entities to provide integrated, proactive, round-the-clock services. It marks a significant milestone on our journey to cement Dubai's global status as a model city and an inspiring example of how digital transformation can be implemented to serve the community and the business sector.\"\"Moreover, the project demonstrates the effective partnership and collaboration between the public and private sectors, which sets the stage for a holistic and integrated digital life for everyone,\" Al Mansoori added. \"It will also empower Dubai Government entities in their digital transformation, providing them with the tools and knowledge necessary to achieve their goals, and roll out cloud computing technologies to deliver best-in-class government services.\"The Dubai Digital Cloud project consists of multiple digital clouds designed to provide high levels of flexibility and operational efficiency, while offering the best solutions from private to public clouds. It also includes multiple service providers, who will work to enhance services and boost their competitiveness, providing government entities with multiple service provider options. The project aims to establish a world-leading efficient, reliable, and agile digital infrastructure in Dubai that leverages the most advanced cloud technologies and enhance the efficiency of government services by ensuring faster delivery, high quality and low operational costs. Additionally, it seeks to address information security risks by implementing strict cybersecurity standards and policies, creating an enabling environment to support Dubai's digital economy and aid decision-making processes. Marwan bin Haidar, Vice Chairman and Group CEO of Digital DEWA, said: \"We are pleased to partner with Digital Dubai on the Dubai Digital Cloud Project. Our objective is to empower government entities with cutting-edge capabilities that go beyond conventional boundaries and through this collaboration, we aim to unlock a myriad of possibilities that will help the public sector build an agile and scalable infrastructure.\"\"We at Digital DEWA firmly believe in fostering sustainability as our Green Data Center embodies our commitment to reducing the carbon footprint and ensuring carbon neutrality,\" Bin Haidar added. \"This partnership with Digital Dubai will definitely achieve positive results by combining our expertise and resources at Digital DEWA and Moro Hub to enhance Dubai's sustainability and digital transformation journey and solidify its global rank in digital solutions.\"Meanwhile, Matar AlHemeiri, CEO of the Digital Dubai Government Establishment, said: \"With its vast portfolio of projects and strategies, Digital Dubai is committed to providing a stimulating and robust environment that supports the growth and development of Dubai's digital economy. We strive to build constructive strategic partnerships with service providers, establish a robust and integrated digital infrastructure, leverage advanced technologies to enhance efficiency and speed of services, and maintain the highest standards of security and protection.\"Naim Yazbeck, GM of Microsoft UAE, said: \"The cloud is a powerful tool for public sector organisations to transform their services, enhance their digital security, and empower their citizens. The cloud also enables organisations to access innovative solutions, including AI services, scale up or down as needed, and collaborate and share data across boundaries. At Microsoft, we are committed to providing our customers with the best-in-class solutions that are secure, reliable, and scalable through our advanced Azure cloud, and will continue to provide our customers, in the emirate and beyond, with the best and most advanced solutions.\"In an effort to achieve the project's ambitious objectives, Digital Dubai signed its first agreements with Moro Hub (Data Hub Integrated Solutions LLC), a subsidiary of Digital DEWA, the digital arm of Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA), and Microsoft Corporation, and continues to collaborate and partner with other private sector stakeholders. Under the terms of the partnerships, Moro Digital Data Hub is set to provide cloud services through its platform, Moro Cloud. Incorporating global best practices, the platform helps reduce overall costs of IT infrastructure in Dubai, and provides a system of emerging technologies and cloud services to support digital transformation. Meanwhile, Microsoft and Digital Dubai will collaborate to support the project by leveraging the Microsoft Azure cloud computing platform and providing platforms dedicated to government entities, in order to ensure the highest levels of security, governance and compliance with Digital Dubai's policies and regulations. The two parties will also work together on a Digital Skills Program. Through the project, Digital Dubai will work to empower government entities with tools, knowledge and best practices, in addition to developing policies and security standards for service providers and government entities, and authorising providers accordingly. It will also work to support government entities to prioritise the transition towards the Dubai Digital Cloud project and select service authorised service providers based on the requirements and objectives of each entity. (ANI/WAM) Dubai [UAE], July 11 (ANI/WAM): Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and Chairman of Dubai Executive Council, launched the Dubai Digital Cloud project during a visit to the Digital Dubai headquarters. The project is the latest in a series of initiatives aimed at creating a world-leading, efficient, agile and reliable digital infrastructure in Dubai. During his visit, he attended the signing of partnership agreements between Digital Dubai, Microsoft and Moro Hub - a subsidiary of Digital DEWA, the digital arm of the Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (PJSC) - to implement the Dubai Digital Cloud project. The initiative aligns with the vision of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President, Prime Minister and Ruler of Dubai, to reinforce Dubai's position as a digital economy capital and further strengthen its robust and reliable digital infrastructure. Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed said Dubai is steadfast in its commitment to fostering excellence and innovation in the use of advanced technologies to accelerate Dubai's digital transformation in line with the vision of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, to turn the city into the epicentre of the global digital economy. Apart from supporting economic growth, Dubai's accelerated digital transformation seeks to further raise the efficiency of government operations and the quality of life of people in the emirate. He expressed his appreciation for the commitment of various government teams working to advance Dubai's digital development goals in line with the highest global benchmarks. He said the growing pace of Dubai's digital transformation has significantly boosted the performance of government operations. The city's ability to provide citizens, residents and visitors with an exceptional digital experience has reinforced its reputation as the world's best city to live, work and visit, he added. Saeed Mohammed Al Tayer, MDCEO of Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA), said: \"Under the directives of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, and the close guidance of Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and Chairman of The Executive Council of Dubai, we continue to work to strengthen the UAE's global position as a leader in digital solutions. We are proud to be partnering with Digital Dubai to provide cloud services to government entities in Dubai through the Moro Cloud service, which has earned the highest local and international security standards and is managed by our highly qualified, internationally certified team.\"Al Tayer added: \"Moro's advanced digital services aim to support government and private organisations in their digital transformation journeys in the UAE and the Middle East. Moro Cloud helps accelerate this process while promoting innovation and reducing costs. It is managed through green carbon-neutral local data centres, which will help government organisations achieve their carbon neutrality goals.\"Hamad Obaid Al Mansoori, Director General of Digital Dubai, said: \"The Dubai Digital Cloud project is a practical application of our leadership's vision to promote connectivity, integration, and a comprehensive digital government that ensures agility, speed, security, and competitiveness, allowing government entities to provide integrated, proactive, round-the-clock services. It marks a significant milestone on our journey to cement Dubai's global status as a model city and an inspiring example of how digital transformation can be implemented to serve the community and the business sector.\"\"Moreover, the project demonstrates the effective partnership and collaboration between the public and private sectors, which sets the stage for a holistic and integrated digital life for everyone,\" Al Mansoori added. \"It will also empower Dubai Government entities in their digital transformation, providing them with the tools and knowledge necessary to achieve their goals, and roll out cloud computing technologies to deliver best-in-class government services.\"The Dubai Digital Cloud project consists of multiple digital clouds designed to provide high levels of flexibility and operational efficiency, while offering the best solutions from private to public clouds. It also includes multiple service providers, who will work to enhance services and boost their competitiveness, providing government entities with multiple service provider options. The project aims to establish a world-leading efficient, reliable, and agile digital infrastructure in Dubai that leverages the most advanced cloud technologies and enhance the efficiency of government services by ensuring faster delivery, high quality and low operational costs. Additionally, it seeks to address information security risks by implementing strict cybersecurity standards and policies, creating an enabling environment to support Dubai's digital economy and aid decision-making processes. Marwan bin Haidar, Vice Chairman and Group CEO of Digital DEWA, said: \"We are pleased to partner with Digital Dubai on the Dubai Digital Cloud Project. Our objective is to empower government entities with cutting-edge capabilities that go beyond conventional boundaries and through this collaboration, we aim to unlock a myriad of possibilities that will help the public sector build an agile and scalable infrastructure.\"\"We at Digital DEWA firmly believe in fostering sustainability as our Green Data Center embodies our commitment to reducing the carbon footprint and ensuring carbon neutrality,\" Bin Haidar added. \"This partnership with Digital Dubai will definitely achieve positive results by combining our expertise and resources at Digital DEWA and Moro Hub to enhance Dubai's sustainability and digital transformation journey and solidify its global rank in digital solutions.\"Meanwhile, Matar AlHemeiri, CEO of the Digital Dubai Government Establishment, said: \"With its vast portfolio of projects and strategies, Digital Dubai is committed to providing a stimulating and robust environment that supports the growth and development of Dubai's digital economy. We strive to build constructive strategic partnerships with service providers, establish a robust and integrated digital infrastructure, leverage advanced technologies to enhance efficiency and speed of services, and maintain the highest standards of security and protection.\"Naim Yazbeck, GM of Microsoft UAE, said: \"The cloud is a powerful tool for public sector organisations to transform their services, enhance their digital security, and empower their citizens. The cloud also enables organisations to access innovative solutions, including AI services, scale up or down as needed, and collaborate and share data across boundaries. At Microsoft, we are committed to providing our customers with the best-in-class solutions that are secure, reliable, and scalable through our advanced Azure cloud, and will continue to provide our customers, in the emirate and beyond, with the best and most advanced solutions.\"In an effort to achieve the project's ambitious objectives, Digital Dubai signed its first agreements with Moro Hub (Data Hub Integrated Solutions LLC), a subsidiary of Digital DEWA, the digital arm of Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA), and Microsoft Corporation, and continues to collaborate and partner with other private sector stakeholders. Under the terms of the partnerships, Moro Digital Data Hub is set to provide cloud services through its platform, Moro Cloud. Incorporating global best practices, the platform helps reduce overall costs of IT infrastructure in Dubai, and provides a system of emerging technologies and cloud services to support digital transformation. Meanwhile, Microsoft and Digital Dubai will collaborate to support the project by leveraging the Microsoft Azure cloud computing platform and providing platforms dedicated to government entities, in order to ensure the highest levels of security, governance and compliance with Digital Dubai's policies and regulations. The two parties will also work together on a Digital Skills Program. Through the project, Digital Dubai will work to empower government entities with tools, knowledge and best practices, in addition to developing policies and security standards for service providers and government entities, and authorising providers accordingly. It will also work to support government entities to prioritise the transition towards the Dubai Digital Cloud project and select service authorised service providers based on the requirements and objectives of each entity. (ANI/WAM)",
"URL": "https://www.myanmarnews.net/news/273894916/dubai-crown-prince-hamdan-bin-mohammed-launches-dubai-digital-cloud-project"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Australia-based NewLease, a specialist in subscription software licensing, has opened its first office in Jakarta -- PT NewLease International Indonesia -- as a partner of PT Microsoft Indonesia for cloud computing service provider licensing agreements (SLPA). The move was a follow-up after Microsoft Corporation appointed NewLease in June as the first Microsoft 'Cloud Licensing Solution Provider', or official cloud distributor to assist vendors and partner customers transitioning to the new method. NewLease's Indonesian office is the fifth to be opened in Southeast Asia after ones were opened in Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines and Malaysia. 'Indonesia was one of the fastest embracers of cloud computing. A recent estimation said that Indonesian small and medium enterprises [SMEs] would spend as much as US$1.2 billion on cloud computing services in 2017,' NewLease CEO Dominic O'Hanlon said in Jakarta on Thursday. Moreover, Microsoft Indonesia CEO Andreas Diantoro said that cloud computing was 'an opportunity for SMEs because they need 40 percent lower operational costs.' Patara Yongvanich, NewLease Southeast Asia Managing Director, added that the business model offered by his company was subscription-based, which means the service provider, NewLease, and the software vendor would not make a cent until the end-user customer starts and continues to use the service. Your premium period will expire in 0 day(s) close x Subscribe to get unlimited access Get 50% off now Subscribe now You might also like : Coal waste tip of iceberg as govt delists more toxic wastes One killed in East Java's magnitude 5.9 quake Inaugural Indonesian MotoGP delayed until 2022 KPK resumes manhunt of graft fugitives following wanted suspect arrest",
"URL": "https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/08/08/newlease-aims-local-cloud-market.html"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "Microsoft subsidiary in Hungary agrees to pay $8.7 million in criminal penalties to resolve foreign bribery case NEW YORK, USA – A wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation, has agreed to pay a criminal penalty of more than $8.7 million to resolve the government’s investigation into violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) arising out of a bid-rigging and bribery scheme in connection with the sale of Microsoft software licenses to Hungarian government agencies. Assistant attorney general Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice department’s criminal division, US attorney Geoffrey S. Berman of the Southern District of New York and assistant director Robert Johnson of the FBI’s criminal investigative division made the announcement. According to Microsoft Hungary’s admissions, beginning by at least 2013 and continuing until at least 2015, a senior executive and other employees of Microsoft Hungary participated in a scheme to inflate margins in the Microsoft sales channel in connection with the sale of Microsoft software licenses to Hungarian government agencies. In furtherance of that scheme, Microsoft Hungary executives and employees falsely represented to Microsoft that steep discounts were necessary to conclude deals with resellers who bid for the opportunity to sell Microsoft licenses to government customers. In actuality, the savings were not passed on to the government customers, but instead were used for corrupt purposes and were falsely recorded as “discounts” and stored in various tools and databases on Microsoft servers in the United States in violation of the FCPA. Microsoft Hungary entered into a non-prosecution agreement and agreed to pay a criminal penalty of $8,751,795 to resolve the matter. The department reached this resolution based on several factors. Although Microsoft Hungary did not voluntarily self-disclose the misconduct, Microsoft Hungary received credit for its and Microsoft Corporation’s substantial cooperation with the department’s investigation and for taking extensive remedial measures. For example, Microsoft Hungary terminated four licensing partners and Microsoft Corporation has implemented an enhanced system of compliance and internal controls, company-wide, to address and mitigate corruption risks. Accordingly, the criminal penalty reflects a 25 percent reduction off the bottom of the applicable US sentencing guidelines fine range for the company’s full cooperation and remediation. In a related matter with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Microsoft Corporation agreed to pay to the SEC disgorgement and prejudgment interest totaling approximately $16,565,151 for conduct in Hungary. The case is being investigated by the FBI’s New York field office. Trial attorneys Derek J. Ettinger and Della Sentilles of the criminal division’s fraud section and assistant US attorney Sarah Lai of the Southern District of New York are handling the case. The fraud section is responsible for investigating and prosecuting all FCPA matters. ",
"URL": "https://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/2019/07/24/microsoft-subsidiary-in-hungary-agrees-to-pay-8-7-million-in-criminal-penalties-to-resolve-foreign-bribery-case/"
},
{
"score": 1,
"subjectMatched": "Microsoft Corporation",
"text": "13:27 05/07/2016 MOSCOW, July 5 (RAPSI) – The Russian Chamber of Patent Disputes has upheld a decision refusing South Korean LG Electronics Inc. to register its trademark Quick Window due to its similarity to Microsoft-registered Windows trademarks, the patent agency’s records show. LG sought to register this trademark under the ninth class of the Nice classification (computer software, compact discs and DVDs); however, the Rospatent, the Russian patent agency, found the respective trademark to be confusingly similar to the Windows brand series registered in the name of Microsoft Corporation for the same range of products. The grounds for refusal Rospatent has pointed out included similarity between word elements of trademarks (Window / Windows) and homogeneity of covered products with regard to their purpose, sale factors and circle of customers, what could confuse buyers, dismissing LG arguments that Windows trademark was too well known as the Microsoft operating systems family brand to be confused with LG products. ",
"URL": "http://rapsinews.com/news/20160705/276444331.html"
}
]
}
}
],
"Errors": [],
"FieldGroups": []
}
],
"Errors": [],
"Rule": {
"RuleName": "RuleScript - WatchlistRules_v1",
"Note": "1 Records Match (\n (WatchlistState = \"Clear\") OR (WatchlistState = \"No Hit\")\n )"
}
},
"Errors": []
}
