![Business Insights + Business Watchlist Screening Workflow](https://files.readme.io/1d47ca1-image.png) 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. ## [Step 1. - Initialize flow ](https://developer.trulioo.com/reference/flow):

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.

Method	Endpoint
* GET*	[https://api.trulioo.com/wfs/interpreter-v2/flow/:flowid](https://api.trulioo.com/wfs/interpreter-v2/flow/:flowid)

Path Variables
* flowid*	652ffb712e470e32d625ba7e

#### Example Request ``` curl --location 'https://api.trulioo.com/wfs/interpreter-v2/flow/652ffb712e470e32d625ba7e' ``` #### Example Response ``` { "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" } ``` ## [ Step 2. - Submit the data:](https://developer.trulioo.com/reference/submit)

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.

Method	Endpoint
POST	[https://api.trulioo.com/wfs/interpreter-v2/submit/:flowid](https://api.workflow.prod.trulioo.com/interpreter-v2/submit/:flowid)

Path Variables
* flowid*	652ffb712e470e32d625ba7e

#### Body ``` { "652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c459":"MICROSOFT CORPORATION", "652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c463":"600413485", "652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45a":"US", "652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45d":"91-1144442", "652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45e":"Redmond", "652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45f":"WA", "652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45b":"WA", "652ffbbdc792412ab8e9c45c":"123" } ``` #### Example Request ``` curl --location 'https://api.trulioo.com/wfs/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" }' ``` #### Example Response ``` { "id": "652ffbe0c792412ab8e9c50f", "type": "end" } ``` ## [Step 3. - Get Authorization Token to Retrieve Profile:](https://developer.trulioo.com/reference/accesstoken)

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.

Method	Endpoint
POST	[https://auth-api.trulioo.com/connect/token](https://auth-api.trulioo.com/connect/token)

Body urlencoded
client_id	\{\{envClientId}}
client_secret	\{\{envClientSecret}}
grant_type	client_credentials
scope	workflow.studio.api

#### Example Request ``` 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' ``` #### Example Response ``` { "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" } ``` ## [Step 4. - Retrieve Profile:](https://developer.trulioo.com/reference/getclientdata)

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.

Method	Endpoint
GET	[https://api.trulioo.com/wfs/export/v2/query/client/:x-hf-session](https://api.trulioo.com/wfs/export/v2/query/client/:x-hf-session)

Path Variables
x-hf-session

#### Example Request ``` curl --location 'https://api.trulioo.com/wfs/export/v2/query/client/:x-hf-session' ``` #### Example Response ``` { "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" } ``` ## [Step 5. - Get KYB Report: ](https://developer.trulioo.com/reference/get_v3-business-report-transactionrecordid)

Authorization
OAuth 2.0

Method	Endpoint
GET	[https://api.trulioo.com/kyb/v3/business/report/:transactionId](https://api.trulioo.com/kyb/v3/business/report/:transactionId)

Path Variables
transactionId	Retrieved via Retrieve Profile

## [Step 6. - Get Transaction Record:](https://developer.trulioo.com/reference/get_v3-verifications-transactionrecord-transactionrecordid)

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.

Method	Endpoint
GET	[https://api.trulioo.com/kyb/v3/verifications/transactionrecord/:transactionRecordID](https://api.trulioo.com/kyb/v3/verifications/transactionrecord/:transactionRecordID)

Authorization
OAuth 2.0

Path Variables
transactionRecordID

#### Example Request ``` curl --location 'https://api.trulioo.com/kyb/v3/verifications/transactionrecord/:transactionRecordID' ``` ### Responses | Note: The examples below are for a test entity; the data presented is not based on real information. | | :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | #### Example Verification Response ``` { "TransactionID": "23a29398-631b-4921-a537-a594fae4fd37", "UploadedDt": "2018-05-29T23:12:58", "CountryCode": "CA", "ProductName": "Identity Verification", "Record": { "TransactionRecordID": "fd244b13-8cfe-4235-a61a-eadcdd629859", "RecordStatus": "match", "DatasourceResults": [ { "DatasourceName": "Business Insights 433673", "DatasourceFields": [ { "FieldName": "MonthOfIncorporation", "Status": "match" }, { "FieldName": "PostalCode", "Status": "missing" }, { "FieldName": "StreetType", "Status": "missing" }, { "FieldName": "YearOfIncorporation", "Status": "match" }, { "FieldName": "BusinessName", "Status": "match" }, { "FieldName": "taxidnumber", "Status": "missing" }, { "FieldName": "City", "Status": "missing" }, { "FieldName": "BuildingNumber", "Status": "missing" }, { "FieldName": "BusinessRegistrationNumber", "Status": "match" }, { "FieldName": "Suburb", "Status": "missing" }, { "FieldName": "BuildingName", "Status": "missing" }, { "FieldName": "JurisdictionOfIncorporation", "Status": "match" }, { "FieldName": "StateProvinceCode", "Status": "missing" }, { "FieldName": "UnitNumber", "Status": "missing" }, { "FieldName": "DayOfIncorporation", "Status": "match" }, { "FieldName": "County", "Status": "missing" }, { "FieldName": "StreetName", "Status": "missing" } ], "AppendedFields": [ { "FieldName": "JurisdictionOfIncorporation", "Data": "BC" }, { "FieldName": "BusinessName", "Data": "Acme Inc." }, { "FieldName": "BusinessStatus", "Data": "Active" }, { "FieldName": "BusinessType", "Data": "Corporation" }, { "FieldName": "EnhancedProfile", "Data": "{\"Location\":{\"PrimaryAddress\":[{\"StreetAddressLine\":[{\"LineText\":\"1055 Hastings St W Suite 1200\"}],\"UndeliverableIndicator\":false,\"PrimaryTownName\":\"VANCOUVER\",\"TerritoryAbbreviatedName\":\"BC\",\"PostalCode\":\"V6E 2E9\",\"CountryISOAlpha2Code\":\"CA\",\"TerritoryOfficialName\":\"BRITISH COLUMBIA\",\"PremisesDetail\":[{\"PremisesAreaMeasurement\":7502,\"PremisesAreaMeasurementReliabilityText\":{\"@DNBCodeValue\":9093,\"$\":\"Estimated\"},\"PremisesAreaMeasurementUnitText\":{\"@DNBCodeValue\":3848,\"$\":\"Square Feet\"}}],\"CountryGroupName\":\"North America\",\"LatitudeMeasurement\":49.28765,\"LongitudeMeasurement\":-123.118534,\"GeographicalPrecisionText\":{\"@DNBCodeValue\":30257,\"$\":\"Street Address Centroid\"},\"RegisteredAddressIndicator\":false}]},\"Telecommunication\":{\"TelephoneNumber\":[{\"TelecommunicationNumber\":\"(778) 123-4567\",\"UnreachableIndicator\":false,\"InternationalDialingCode\":\"1\"}],\"WebPageAddress\":[{\"TelecommunicationAddress\":\"www.acme.com\"}]},\"Linkage\":{\"GlobalUltimateOrganization\":{\"PrimaryAddress\":[{\"StreetAddressLine\":[{\"LineText\":\"1055 Hastings St W Suite 1200\"}],\"UndeliverableIndicator\":false,\"PrimaryTownName\":\"VANCOUVER\",\"TerritoryAbbreviatedName\":\"BC\",\"PostalCode\":\"V6E 2E9\",\"CountryISOAlpha2Code\":\"CA\",\"TerritoryOfficialName\":\"BRITISH COLUMBIA\"}],\"DUNSNumber\":\"203111604\",\"OrganizationPrimaryName\":[{\"OrganizationName\":{\"$\":\"Acme Inc\"}}]},\"DomesticUltimateOrganization\":{\"PrimaryAddress\":[{\"StreetAddressLine\":[{\"LineText\":\"1055 Hastings St W Suite 1200\"}],\"UndeliverableIndicator\":false,\"PrimaryTownName\":\"VANCOUVER\",\"TerritoryAbbreviatedName\":\"BC\",\"PostalCode\":\"V6E 2E9\",\"CountryISOAlpha2Code\":\"CA\",\"TerritoryOfficialName\":\"BRITISH COLUMBIA\"}],\"DUNSNumber\":\"203111604\",\"OrganizationPrimaryName\":[{\"OrganizationName\":{\"$\":\"Acme Inc\"}}]},\"LinkageSummary\":{\"GlobalUltimateFamilyTreeLinkageCount\":2},\"FamilyTreeHierarchyLevel\":1},\"RegisteredDetail\":{\"LegalFormDetails\":{\"LegalFormText\":{\"$\":\"Corporation\",\"@DNBCodeValue\":451}},\"IncorporationYear\":\"2010\"},\"PrincipalsAndManagement\":{\"CurrentPrincipal\":[{\"PrincipalName\":{\"FirstName\":\"John\",\"LastName\":\"Doe\",\"FullName\":\"John Doe\",\"@type\":\"fir:IndividualNameType\"},\"JobTitle\":[{\"JobTitleText\":{\"$\":\"Board Member\"}}],\"CurrentManagementResponsibility\":[{\"ManagementResponsibilityText\":{\"$\":\"Board of Directors\",\"@ManagementResponsibilityCode\":\"A1G7\"}}],\"PrincipalIdentificationNumberDetail\":[{\"@DNBCodeValue\":24215,\"@TypeText\":\"Professional Contact Identifier\",\"PrincipalIdentificationNumber\":\"2031116042\"}]},{\"PrincipalName\":{\"FirstName\":\"Jane\",\"LastName\":\"Doe\",\"FullName\":\"Jane Doe\",\"@type\":\"fir:IndividualNameType\"},\"JobTitle\":[{\"JobTitleText\":{\"$\":\"President & Board Member\"}}],\"CurrentManagementResponsibility\":[{\"ManagementResponsibilityText\":{\"$\":\"President\",\"@ManagementResponsibilityCode\":\"A1A6\"}},{\"ManagementResponsibilityText\":{\"$\":\"Board of Directors\",\"@ManagementResponsibilityCode\":\"A1G7\"}}],\"PrincipalIdentificationNumberDetail\":[{\"@DNBCodeValue\":24215,\"@TypeText\":\"Professional Contact Identifier\",\"PrincipalIdentificationNumber\":\"2031116041\"}]}]},\"ActivitiesAndOperations\":{\"LineOfBusinessDetails\":[{\"LineOfBusinessDescription\":{\"$\":\"Miscellaneous personal services, nec, nsk\"}}],\"PrimarySICCategoryValue\":\"I\"},\"SubjectHeader\":{\"OrganizationSummaryText\":\"Miscellaneous personal services, nec, nsk\",\"DUNSNumber\":\"11111604\",\"LastUpdateDate\":{\"$\":\"2020-07-01\"},\"MarketabilityIndicator\":true,\"DUNSSelfRequestIndicator\":false},\"IndustryCode\":{\"IndustryCode\":[{\"IndustryCodeDescription\":[{\"$\":\"Consumer Services\",\"@LanguageCode\":39,\"@IndustryCodeDescriptionLengthCode\":9120}],\"@DNBCodeValue\":25838,\"@TypeText\":\"D&B Hoovers Industry Code\",\"IndustryCode\":{\"$\":\"1208\"},\"DisplaySequence\":1},{\"IndustryCodeDescription\":[{\"$\":\"All Other Personal Services\",\"@LanguageCode\":39,\"@IndustryCodeDescriptionLengthCode\":9120}],\"@DNBCodeValue\":700,\"@TypeText\":\"NAICS\",\"IndustryCode\":{\"$\":\"812990\"},\"DisplaySequence\":1},{\"IndustryCodeDescription\":[{\"$\":\"All Other Personal Services\",\"@LanguageCode\":39,\"@IndustryCodeDescriptionLengthCode\":9120}],\"@DNBCodeValue\":24664,\"@TypeText\":\"North American Industry Classification System 2012\",\"IndustryCode\":{\"$\":\"812990\"},\"DisplaySequence\":1},{\"IndustryCodeDescription\":[{\"$\":\"Other service activities not elsewhere classified\",\"@LanguageCode\":39,\"@IndustryCodeDescriptionLengthCode\":9120}],\"@DNBCodeValue\":21182,\"@TypeText\":\"UK SIC 2003\",\"IndustryCode\":{\"$\":\"93.050\"},\"DisplaySequence\":1},{\"IndustryCodeDescription\":[{\"$\":\"CONSUMER BUYING SVC\",\"@LanguageCode\":39,\"@IndustryCodeDescriptionLengthCode\":2121}],\"@DNBCodeValue\":3599,\"@TypeText\":\"D&B Standard Industry Code\",\"IndustryCode\":{\"$\":\"72999904\"},\"DisplaySequence\":1},{\"IndustryCodeDescription\":[{\"$\":\"Misc personal services\",\"@LanguageCode\":39,\"@IndustryCodeDescriptionLengthCode\":1441}],\"@DNBCodeValue\":399,\"@TypeText\":\"US SIC (1987)\",\"IndustryCode\":{\"$\":\"7299\"},\"DisplaySequence\":1}]},\"Financial\":{\"KeyFinancialFiguresOverview\":[{\"StatementHeaderDetails\":{\"FinancialPeriodDuration\":\"P1Y\"},\"SalesRevenueAmount\":[{\"@CurrencyISOAlpha3Code\":\"USD\",\"@ReliabilityText\":\"Modelled\",\"@UnitOfSize\":\"SingleUnits\",\"$\":1791405},{\"@CurrencyISOAlpha3Code\":\"CAD\",\"@ReliabilityText\":\"Modelled\",\"@UnitOfSize\":\"SingleUnits\",\"$\":2368916}]}]},\"OrganizationName\":{\"OrganizationPrimaryName\":[{\"OrganizationName\":{\"$\":\"Acn Inc\"}}]},\"OrganizationDetail\":{\"FamilyTreeMemberRole\":[{\"FamilyTreeMemberRoleText\":{\"@DNBCodeValue\":12775,\"$\":\"Global Ultimate\"}},{\"FamilyTreeMemberRoleText\":{\"@DNBCodeValue\":12774,\"$\":\"Domestic Ultimate\"}},{\"FamilyTreeMemberRoleText\":{\"@DNBCodeValue\":12771,\"$\":\"Headquarters\"}}],\"StandaloneOrganizationIndicator\":false,\"ControlOwnershipDate\":{\"$\":\"2004\"},\"ControlOwnershipTypeText\":{\"@DNBCodeValue\":0,\"$\":\"Unknown\"},\"BoneyardOrganizationIndicator\":false,\"OperatingStatusText\":{\"@DNBCodeValue\":9074,\"$\":\"Active\"},\"OrganizationStartYear\":\"2010\"},\"EmployeeFigures\":{\"ConsolidatedEmployeeDetails\":{\"TotalEmployeeQuantity\":15,\"EmployeeCategoryDetails\":[{\"EmployeeBasisText\":{\"@DNBCodeValue\":9064,\"$\":\"Principals\"}}],\"ReliabilityText\":{\"@DNBCodeValue\":9093,\"$\":\"Estimated\"}}},\"Assessment\":{\"CommercialCreditScore\":[{\"MarketingRiskClassText\":{\"@DNBCodeValue\":10925,\"$\":\"Low\"}}]},\"SocioEconomicIdentification\":{\"MinorityOwnedIndicator\":false,\"FemaleOwnedIndicator\":false,\"SmallBusinessIndicator\":false,\"OwnershipEthnicity\":[{\"EthnicityTypeText\":{\"@DNBCodeValue\":0,\"$\":\"Unknown\"}}]}}" }, { "FieldName": "BusinessDetails", "Data": "{\"resultId\":\"104506\",\"entityName\":\"Acme Inc.\",\"entityNumber\":\"BRN123ABC\",\"normalizedEntityStatus\":\"Active\",\"jurisdiction\":\"BC\",\"formationDate\":\"1990-05-13T00:00:00\",\"normalizedEntityType\":\"Corporation\"}" }, { "FieldName": "BusinessRegistrationNumber", "Data": "BRN123ABC" }, { "FieldName": "DayOfIncorporation", "Data": "13" }, { "FieldName": "MonthOfIncorporation", "Data": "05" }, { "FieldName": "YearOfIncorporation", "Data": "1990" } ], "Errors": [], "FieldGroups": [] }, { "DatasourceName": "International Watchlist", "DatasourceFields": [ { "FieldName": "BusinessName", "Status": "missing" } ], "AppendedFields": [ { "FieldName": "WatchlistState", "Data": "Clear" } ], "Errors": [], "FieldGroups": [] }, { "DatasourceName": "Business Insights 480052", "DatasourceFields": [ { "FieldName": "BuildingNumber", "Status": "match" }, { "FieldName": "POBox", "Status": "missing" }, { "FieldName": "City", "Status": "match" }, { "FieldName": "BusinessRegistrationNumber", "Status": "match" }, { "FieldName": "BuildingName", "Status": "missing" }, { "FieldName": "Telephone", "Status": "missing" }, { "FieldName": "Suburb", "Status": "missing" }, { "FieldName": "JurisdictionOfIncorporation", "Status": "match" }, { "FieldName": "UnitNumber", "Status": "match" }, { "FieldName": "DayOfIncorporation", "Status": "match" }, { "FieldName": "StateProvinceCode", "Status": "match" }, { "FieldName": "StreetName", "Status": "match" }, { "FieldName": "MonthOfIncorporation", "Status": "match" }, { "FieldName": "County", "Status": "missing" }, { "FieldName": "StreetType", "Status": "match" }, { "FieldName": "YearOfIncorporation", "Status": "match" }, { "FieldName": "PostalCode", "Status": "match" }, { "FieldName": "BusinessName", "Status": "match" }, { "FieldName": "Source", "Status": "missing" } ], "AppendedFields": [ { "FieldName": "City", "Data": "Vancouver" }, { "FieldName": "BusinessName", "Data": "Acme Inc." }, { "FieldName": "PostalCode", "Data": "V6M 1A3" }, { "FieldName": "BusinessStatus", "Data": "Active" }, { "FieldName": "BusinessDetails", "Data": "{\"CompanyName\":\"Acme Inc.\",\"RegistrationNumber\":\"BRN123ABC\",\"CompanyStatus\":\"Active\",\"RegisteredFullAddress\":\"123 Main St, Vancouver, V6M 1A3\",\"RegisteredAddress\":{\"street_address\":\"123 Main St\",\"locality\":\"Vancouver\",\"region\":\"BC\",\"postal_code\":\"V6M 1A3\",\"country\":\"CA\"},\"CountryCode\":\"ca\",\"DayOfIncorporation\":\"13\",\"MonthOfIncorporation\":\"05\",\"YearOfIncorporation\":\"1990\",\"Source\":\"https://www.realsource.com/data.html?corpId=BRN123ABC\",\"AdditionalData\":{\"dissolution_date\":null,\"company_type\":\"Corporation\",\"branch\":null,\"branch_status\":null,\"inactive\":false,\"created_at\":\"2015-12-15T23:28:19+11:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2018-05-02T16:43:43+10:00\",\"retrieved_at\":\"2017-02-25T21:41:28+11:00\",\"source\":{\"publisher\":\"Corporations Canada\",\"url\":\"https://www.realsource.com/data.html?corpId=F154630\",\"retrieved_at\":\"2017-02-25T21:41:28+11:00\"},\"agent_name\":null,\"alternative_names\":[],\"previous_names\":[],\"number_of_employees\":null,\"native_company_number\":null,\"industry_codes\":[],\"identifiers\":[{\"identifier\":{\"uid\":\"859486577RC0001\",\"identifier_system_code\":\"ca_bn\",\"identifier_system_name\":\"Canadian Business Number\"}}],\"trademark_registrations\":[{\"trademark_registration\":{\"mark_details\":{\"mark_text\":\"secretstuff\",\"mark_image_url\":\"https://www.realsource.com/data.html\"},\"register_name\":\"United States Patent and Trademark Office\",\"registration_date\":\"2015-08-25\",\"expiry_date\":null}},{\"trademark_registration\":{\"mark_details\":{\"mark_text\":\"copyrights\",\"mark_image_url\":\"https://www.realsource.com/data.html\"},\"register_name\":\"United States Patent and Trademark Office\",\"registration_date\":\"2015-08-25\",\"expiry_date\":null}},{\"trademark_registration\":{\"mark_details\":{\"mark_text\":\"Brand Name\",\"mark_image_url\":\"https://www.realsource.com/data.html\"},\"register_name\":\"United States Patent and Trademark Office\",\"registration_date\":\"2015-02-24\",\"expiry_date\":null}}],\"corporate_groupings\":[],\"data\":null,\"financial_summary\":null,\"home_company\":null,\"controlling_entity\":null,\"ultimate_beneficial_owners\":[],\"filings\":[],\"officers\":[{\"officer\":{\"id\":19371865,\"name\":\"John Bob\",\"position\":\"director\",\"uid\":null,\"start_date\":null,\"end_date\":null,\"occupation\":null,\"inactive\":false,\"current_status\":null,\"address\":\"123 West 9st\\nVancouver BC V8W 1P0\\nCanada\",\"nationality\":null,\"date_of_birth\":null}},{\"officer\":{\"id\":177852560,\"name\":\"Mary Berry\",\"position\":\"director\",\"uid\":null,\"start_date\":null,\"end_date\":null,\"occupation\":null,\"inactive\":false,\"current_status\":null,\"address\":\"123 - a different avenue\\nLangley BC V8U 3K7\\nCanada\",\"nationality\":null,\"date_of_birth\":null}},{\"officer\":{\"id\":19397462,\"name\":\"David O'Leary\",\"position\":\"director\",\"uid\":null,\"start_date\":null,\"end_date\":null,\"occupation\":null,\"inactive\":false,\"current_status\":null,\"address\":\"#6- The Place\\nSan Francisco CA 68716\\nUnited States\",\"nationality\":null,\"date_of_birth\":null}},{\"officer\":{\"id\":193546563,\"name\":\"Samantha Stafford\",\"position\":\"director\",\"uid\":null,\"start_date\":null,\"end_date\":null,\"occupation\":null,\"inactive\":false,\"current_status\":null,\"address\":\"35 West East Street\\nVancouver BC V0G 8P0\\nCanada\",\"nationality\":null,\"date_of_birth\":null}},{\"officer\":{\"id\":1574146,\"name\":\"Amanda Anaconda\",\"position\":\"director\",\"uid\":null,\"start_date\":null,\"end_date\":null,\"occupation\":null,\"inactive\":false,\"current_status\":null,\"address\":\"41 Up Down Place\\2nd Floor\\nNew York NY 12359\\nUnited States\",\"nationality\":null,\"date_of_birth\":null}}]}}" }, { "FieldName": "Source", "Data": "https://www.realsource.com/data.html" }, { "FieldName": "StateProvince", "Data": "BC" }, { "FieldName": "DayOfIncorporation", "Data": "13" }, { "FieldName": "MonthOfIncorporation", "Data": "05" }, { "FieldName": "YearOfIncorporation", "Data": "1990" }, { "FieldName": "BuildingNumber", "Data": "123" }, { "FieldName": "UnitNumber", "Data": "1" }, { "FieldName": "StreetName", "Data": "Main" }, { "FieldName": "StreetType", "Data": "St" }, { "FieldName": "BusinessRegistrationNumber", "Data": "BRN123ABC" } ], "Errors": [], "FieldGroups": [] } ], "Errors": [], "Rule": { "RuleName": "RuleScript BusinessVerify", "Note": "Script manually created" } }, "Errors": [] } ``` #### Trulioo Watchlist Response ``` { "TransactionID": "cab59115-2885-44b9-bb93-9dc584839349", "UploadedDt": "2022-08-15T05:20:49", "CompletedDt": "2022-08-15T05:20:54", "CountryCode": "CA", "ProductName": "Identity Verification", "Record": { "TransactionRecordID": "202e67ff-28fb-ea9a-d325-d7af3245b0ea", "RecordStatus": "nomatch", "DatasourceResults": [ { "DatasourceName": "Advanced Business Watchlist", "DatasourceFields": [], "AppendedFields": [ { "FieldName": "WatchlistState", "Data": "Potential Hit" }, { "FieldName": "WatchlistData", "Data": { "num_WL_hits": 2, "num_AM_hits": 2 } }, { "FieldName": "WatchlistHitDetails", "Data": { "WL_results": [ { "score": 1.0, "subjectMatched": "Gringotts Wizarding Bank", "entityName": "Gringotts Wizarding Bank", "sourceListType": "FEDERAL - Fine - Breached Sanctions", "sourceRegion": "United Kingdom", "remarks": "Posted Date: 12/19/1973 | Letter Issue Date: 07/26/1973 | Subject: Breached Sanction Violation", "caution": "The Gringotts Bank violated the Ministry of Magic sanctions and lent out a sum of 10,000 galleons to the Death Eaters for their marketing initiative", "URL": "https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Gringotts_Wizarding_Bank" }, { "score": 0.95, "subjectMatched": "Gringotts Bank", "entityName": "Gringotts Banks", "sourceListType": "MOM - Enforcement - Insufficient Security", "sourceRegion": "United Kingdom", "remarks": "Issuance Date: 1991-07-31", "caution": "The Gringotts Bank has been fined 1,000 galleons by the Ministry of Magic for poor compliance and security and allowing the theft of an object of national importance", "URL": "https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Break-in_of_Gringotts_Wizarding_Bank_(1991)" } ], "AM_results": [{ "score": 0.95, "subjectMatched": "Gringotts Bank", "text": "Investigations continue into the break-in at Gringotts on 31 July, widely believed to be the work of Dark wizards or witches unknown. Gringotts goblins today insisted that nothing had been taken. The vault that was searched had in fact been emptied the same day. But we're not telling you what was in there, so keep your noses out if you know what's good for you, said a Gringotts spokesgoblin this afternoon", "URL": "https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Break-in_of_Gringotts_Wizarding_Bank_(1991)" }, { "score": 0.90, "subjectMatched": "Gringotts", "text": "Gringotts has recently won 2 new awards for compliance and security as the safety place to store objects except for Hogwarts", "URL": "https://thedailyprophet.net/" } ] } } ], "Errors": [], "FieldGroups": [] } ], "Errors": [], "Rule": { "RuleName": "RuleScript - BusinessVerify_v11", "Note": "Match on (Business Registration Number OR DUNS)" } }, "Errors": [] } ``` ``` curl --location 'https://api.trulioo.com/watchlist/v3/verifications/transactionrecord/:transactionRecordID' ``` #### Example Response ``` { "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 Microsoftâ€™s servers were not enforcing protective DMARC authentication protocols when communications were received â€“ 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 companyâ€™s Exchange Online Protection filtering service. Authored by Vice President of Research & Developer Lomy Ovadia, the blog post said that nearly 100 of Ironscalesâ€™ customers across multiple industries â€“ including financial services, health care, insurance, manufacturing, utilities, and telecommunications â€“ 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,â€ Ovadia wrote. â€œAny 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 senderâ€™s identity using DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) and Sender Policy Framework (SPF) standards. DMARC users also set a policy for whether emails that donâ€™t pass validation should be rejected, quarantined or allowed by the email servers that receive them. Asked to comment on Ironscalesâ€™ findings and scathing assessment, Microsoft asserted that it does leverage DMARC and other protections. â€œContrary 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,â€ said a Microsoft spokesperson. Microsoft also said that DMARC checks actually â€œhappened in this instance,â€ and that, in addition, the company has gone beyond by â€œleveraging our unique cloud-base[d] spoof intelligence that enables domain spoofing protection to domains that have not enforced DMARC.â€ Moreover, the company said that Office 365 and Microsoft Defender for Office 365 â€œemploys 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.â€ 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 doesnâ€™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 organizationâ€™s Microsoft 365 security settings. In other words, messages that fail DMARC wonâ€™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 Microsoftâ€™s comments with the following reply: â€œWhether or not Microsoft users have deployed the latest securityÂ 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.â€ IRONSCALES further countered that the phishing emails in questions landed in inboxes and not the junk folders as Vailmail stated.Â Security awareness training programs teach employees to look at an incoming emailâ€™s sender address to ensure that it is authentic. But if a phishing email perfectly mimics a companyâ€™s legitimate domain, then that is one less clue that recipients have to determine that they are being scammed. â€œYou have 3 quarantined messages in your quantine [sic] portal as of 12/2/2020. You can choose what happens to them,â€ 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 victimsâ€™ 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 â€œadvanced mailbox-level email security that continuously studies every employeeâ€™s inbox to detect anomalies based on both email data and metadata extracted from previously trusted communications.â€ Joseph Neumann, director of offensive security at Coalfire, told SC Media that companies like Microsoft â€œare 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 doesnâ€™t stop rogue entities from using the lack of DMARC to phish organizationsâ€™ customers and entities.â€ Ray Kelly, principal security engineer at WhiteHat Security, also noted that DMARC can be â€œincredibly difficultâ€ 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. â€œCompanies 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,â€ said Kelly. â€œMany companies that utilize DMARC have their policy set to â€˜noneâ€™ [which allows potentially fradulent emails to still be sent] rather than â€˜rejectâ€™ in fear that it will stop legitimate emails from being delivered.â€ 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 naÃ¯vely 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,â€ 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 didnâ€™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. â€œIn 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,â€ 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 oneâ€™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 userâ€™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 â€“ 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 â€“ 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. â€œTeams [the product]â€¦ has the inherent ability to mislead users that all others are on the same side. The psychology of information security plays a role here,â€ said Mark Kedgley, chief technology officer atÂ New Net Technologies.Â â€œCollaboration 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.â€ In one case, a hospital customer of Avanan that uses Teams was found to liberally share patientsâ€™ medical information with hundreds of end users via the platform. â€œMedical 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,â€ the report states. For example, â€œmedical information, procedures and family circumstances of a minor, was shared together with her name and social security number,â€ 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. â€œWhen 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,â€ 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 theyâ€™re saved to OneDrive, but only for known malware signatures and not in real time â€“ so in that sense itâ€™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. â€œMore focus on least privilege is needed as itâ€™s still too common for users to run with local admin rights,â€ said Kedgley. Additionally, organizations should follow â€œconfig 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. â€œOrganizations need to add security in the cloud and across all the endpoints: laptops, phones, and tablets â€“ 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.â€ 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! - Kidsâ€™ 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! - Kidsâ€™ 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 wouldnâ€™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 â€“ to install a coin miner that silently steals computer resources and generates revenue for the attackers â€“ 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 â€“ collectively responsible for building and selling more than half of the voting systems in the U.S. â€“ 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 conferences@bankrupt.com 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 toconferences@bankrupt.com/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) -- jinnelli@innellilaw.com -- Two Penn Center, Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA 19102, Counsel for Appellant. Jamisen A. Etzel (Argued) -- jetzel@carlsonlynch.com -- Gary F. Lynch -- glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Kilpela & Carpenter, 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222. Gerald D. Wells, III -- gwells@cwg-law.com -- 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: luke@baumstarkfirm.com - 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: matt@williamsdirks.com cstout@williamsdirks.com - 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: mshell@shell-law.com 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: mnewburger@bn-lawyers.com 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 -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON & WANCA, pro hac vice, Ryan Michael Kelly -- rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON & WANCA, pro hac vice & Benjamin Cole Aaron, NEAL & HARWELL PLC. Amedisys Holding, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kevin C. Baltz -- kevin.baltz@butlersnow.com -- 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 -- dbrahmbhatt@onellp.com -- One LLP, John E. Lord , One LLP & Peter Reza Afrasiabi -- pafrasiabi@onellp.com -- One LLP. Apple Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, represented by David Michael Walsh, Esq. -- dwalsh@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster, Erin Patricia Lupfer -- elupfer@mofo.com -- Morrison and Foerster LLP, Lauren Lynn Erker -- lerker@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & Tiffany Cheung -- tcheung@mofo.com -- 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: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com - 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: csanders@barshaysanders.com 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: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com 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: arlo@liberationlawgroup.com ernesto@liberationlawgroup.com 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 - tjmcgoey@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis, A'Dair Ragan Flynt - aflynt@liskow.com - Liskow & Lewis & Kindall Chauffe James - kjames@liskow.com - 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: doug@lipskylowe.com 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 -- cmcnerney@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden LLP, Lewis M. Steel -- ls@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden LLP, Nina T. Martinez -- nmartinez@outtengolden.com -- New York Legal Assistance Group & Ossai Miazad -- om@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden LLP. Levy Premium Foodservice Limited Partnership, Defendant, represented by Gina Renee Merrill -- gmerrill@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Stacey Blecher -- sblecher@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Frederick Thomas Smith -- fsmith@seyfarth.com -- 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. mike@aswtlawyers.com alfredo@aswtlawyers.com 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: sliddle@ldclassaction.com ncoulson@ldclassaction.com 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 -- michaelmoore@popemcglamry.com -- Pope McGlamry Kilpatrick Morrison & Norwood PC, Raymond L. Moss -- rlmoss@mossgilmorelaw.com -- Moss & Gilmore, LLP, Courtney Lynn Engelke, Pope McGlamry, Jay Forbes Hirsch, Pope McGlamry, Kimberly J. Johnson, Pope McGlamry, P.C. & Wade Tomlinson -- triptomlinson@popemcglamry.com -- 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 -- angela.spivey@alston.com -- McGuireWoods, LLP, pro hac vice, Christian Edmund Henneke -- chenneke@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods, LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer R. Burbine, McGuireWoods, LLP, R. Trent Taylor -- rtaylor@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP, pro hac vice & Travis C. Gunn -- tgunn@mcguirewoods.com -- 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 -- rprongay@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY AND BINKOW, LLP, Charles Henry Linehan -- CLINEHAN@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Lesley F. Portnoy -- LPORTNOY@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP & Lionel Zevi Glancy -- LGLANCY@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP. Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Stickney -- davids@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN AND LITOWITZ, pro hac vice & Jonathan Daniel Uslaner -- jonathanu@blbglaw.com -- 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 -- peter.morrison@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP, Jay B. Kasner -- jay.kasner@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP, pro hac vice & Scott D. Musoff -- scott.musoff@skadden.com -- SKADDEN ARPS, LLP, pro hac vice. Sunil Chand & Amir Softic, Movants, represented by Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- 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: robin@potterlaw.org nieves@potterlaw.org patrick@potterlaw.org - 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: jsf@thefranklinlawfirm.com 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 -- jbowers@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC, JULIE SELESNICK -- jselesnick@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C., KAREN L. HANDORF -- khandorf@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC & MARTHA A. GEER -- mgeer@cohenmilstein.com -- 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 -- cejohnson@robinsonbradshaw.com -- ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A., DAVID C. WRIGHT, III -- dwright@robinsonbradshaw.com -- 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 -- CAROLINE.WONG@SIDLEY.COM -- SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP, CHRIS K. MEYER -- CMEYER@SIDLEY.COM -- SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP & MARK B. BLOCKER -- MBLOCKER@SIDLEY.COM -- SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP. MEDCOST LLC & MEDCOST BENEFIT SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, represented by RICHARD A. COUGHLIN -- rcoughlin@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP, MAUREEN DEMAREST MURRAY -- mmurray@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP & WHITNEY D. PIERCE -- wpierce@foxrothschild.com -- 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 Defendantâ€™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 - beth@hbsslaw.com - and Daniel J. Kurowski - dank@hbsslaw.com - 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 - dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com - Walcheske & Luzi LLC, James A. Walcheske - jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com - Walcheske & Luzi LLC & Scott S. Luzi - sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com - 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: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com 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: dcooper@kleinlaw.com vchavez@kleinlaw.com mestrada@kleinlaw.com 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: TParanjpe@pandmllp.com DBivona@pandmllp.com BRuemke@pandmllp.com 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: fmcniel@velaw.com pmizell@velaw.com mhoffman@velaw.com snoble@velaw.com bnoble@velaw.com - 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: jhk@thekimlawfirm.com 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: ak@kazlg.com ml@kazlg.com - 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: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com 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: csanders@barshaysanders.com 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 -- anthony@broderick-law.com -- Broderick & Paronich, P.C., pro hac vice, Matthew Passi McCue -- mmccue@massattorneys.net -- The Law Office of Matthew P. McCue, pro hac vice, Edward A. Broderick -- ted@broderick-law.com -- Broderick and Paronich, P.C. & Jon Bernhard Fougner -- Jon@FougnerLaw.com. Freedom Financial Network, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian P. Astrup -- bastrup@kleinmoynihan.com -- Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, pro hac vice, Jay Thomas Ramsey -- jramsey@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP, Jonah Sampson Van Zandt -- jvz@severson.com -- Severson and Werson & Robert James Guite -- rguite@sheppardmullin.com -- 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 1â€“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: ben@weisenbergfirm.com 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: jmorris@grsm.com 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 -- Lorraine@morey-law.com -- Morey Law PLLC. Global Tranz Enterprises Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by Benjamin Christian Nielsen -- benjamin.nielsen@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP, Christopher Bradley Vynalek -- brad.vynalek@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP, Eric Bowen Johnson -- eric.johnson@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP & Michael Shawn Catlett -- michael.catlett@quarles.com -- 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: rm@maniskas.com - 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: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com 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: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com 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 - James@jameshawkinsaplc.com - James Hawkins APLC, Michael J.S. Calvo - Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com - James Hawkins APLC & Gregory E. Mauro - Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com - 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 - hbesch@seyfarth.com - Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Brian P. Long - bplong@seyfarth.com - 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: Katherine.DenBleyker@lewisbrisbois.com 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 -- mweinkowitz@lfsblaw.com -- LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN, ESQS., JASON S. RATHOD -- jrathod@classlawdc.com -- MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP, NICHOLAS A. MIGLIACCIO -- nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com -- 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 -- mmbufano@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP & PETER C. HARVEY -- pcharvey@pbwt.com -- 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 - gainerb@jbltd.com - Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Jack E. Bentley- bentleyj@jbltd.com - Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Ahmed A. Kosoko - kosokoa@jbltd.com - Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Lisa Marie Mcelroy - mcelroyl@jbltd.com - Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Michael Richard Sherer - shererm@jbltd.com - Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Monica Burkoth - burkothm@jbltd.com - Johnson & Bell, Ltd. & Zachary Adam Pestine - pestinez@jbltd.com - 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: aaron@aaroncoxlaw.com - 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: markwasvary@hotmail.com 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: djones@allenbrotherspllc.com neilpioch@allenbrothersplls.com 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: gthomas@thomasdegrood.com 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: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - 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: rm@maniskas.com 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: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com mross@scopelitis.com - 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: ahawley@scopelitis.com jeckhart@scopelitis.com 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: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com 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: slesser@klafterolsen.com 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 -- david@yeremianlaw.com -- David Yeremian and Associates Inc., Jason J. Thompson -- jjthompson@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwatz PC, pro hac vice, Kevin J. Stoops -- kstoops@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz PC, pro hac vice & Trenton R. Kashima -- trk@classactionlaw.com -- Finkelstein and Krinsk LLP. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, represented by Candace Sheri Bertoldi -- cbertoldi@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Christian J. Rowley -- crowley@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Kerry McCoy Friedrichs -- kfriedrichs@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Pamela L. Vartabedian -- pvartabedian@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Parnian Vafaeenia -- pvafaeenia@seyfarth.com -- 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 -- lbrener@brenerlawfirm.com -- Brener Law Firm & Douglas R. Kraus -- dkraus@brenerlawfirm.com -- 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: ds@lawsolo.net 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: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com csanders@barshaysanders.com 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: pcooper@jcpclaw.com 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: lreasons@dicellolevitt.com - 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: tony@epfirm.com - 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: kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com 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: admin@fishlawfirrn.com dfish@fishlawfirm.com khilton@fishlawfirm.com kunze@fishlawfinn.com 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 -- doug@djcampion.com -- Law Offices of Douglas J Campion, Abbas Kazerounian, Kazerounian Law Group, APC & Joshua B. Swigart -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- 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 -- hkramer@dykema.com -- 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 -- tseitz@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC, pro hac vice, Todd A Gale -- tgale@dykema.com -- 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 Courtâ€™s September 26, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxfqrn9y from Leagle.com Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey -- rcarey@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice. Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart -- astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- 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 -- caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP, pro hac vice & Charles S. Zimmerman -- csz@zimmreed.com -- 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 -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- chtucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang, Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M. Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller -- hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- 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: steve@newlawoffice.com 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 -- connorst@lanepowell.com -- LANE POWELL PC & Heidi Brooks Bradley -- bradleyh@lanepowell.com -- 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: scott@wbmllp.com pat@wbmllp.com - 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: emaginnis@maginnislaw.com kgwaltney@maginnislaw.com 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: mark.henriques@wbd-us.com Mike.ingersoll@wbd-us.com Matthew.Tilley@wbd-us.com Debbie.Harden@wbd-us.com 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: mike@mateskylaw.com litigation@mateskylaw.com - 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: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com 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: lbathgate@bathweg.com ktognan@bathweg.com - 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: amm@kttlaw.com - and - Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP 555 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 200-0580 E-mail: jgs@mccunewright.com 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: meyet@se-llp.com 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: khaas@cozen.com 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: efanning@mccarter.com ghindy@mccarter.com rmintz@mccarter.com sweingart@mccarter.com 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: harrisa@harrisandruble.com mgal@narrisandruble.com 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 expectationsâ€”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 - sweltman@siprut.com - Siprut PC, Charles C. Sweedler , Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman, 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-3697, pro hac vice, Elaine Ryan - eryan@bffb.com - 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 - cgilden@cohenmilstein.com - Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Jeffrey Ian Carton - jcarton@denleacarton.com - Denlea & Carton Llp, pro hac vice & Peter Newton Freiberg - pfreiberg@denleacarton.com - 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 - KMCCALL@SIDLEY.COM - Sidley Austin LLP, Michael W. Davis - mdavis@sidley.com - 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 -tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com - Carpenter Law Group & James Richard Patterson - jim@pattersonlawgroup.com - 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: pam@mcinnes-law.com 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: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com - and - Brian H. Pollock, Esq. FAIRLAW FIRM 7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: 305 230-4884 E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com 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: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com 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: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com acherniak@hammondlaw.com 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: mike@vartainlaw.com 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: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com aticzko@stephanzouras.com - 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: bwise@pwcklegal.com plesko@pwcklegal.com 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 -- matthew.knepper@knepperclark.com -- Knepper & Clark LLC, Miles N. Clark -- miles.clark@knepperclark.com -- Knepper & Clark LLC & David H. Krieger -- info@hainesandkrieger.com -- Haines & Krieger, LLC. NPAS Solutions, LLC, Defendant, represented by John H. Mowbray -- jmowbray@spencerfane.com -- Spencer Fane LLP & Mary E. Bacon -- mbacon@spencerfane.com -- 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 -- hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Sabita J. Soneji -- ssoneji@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, George Volney Granade, Reese LLP, Michael Robert Reese -- mreese@reesellp.com -- Reese LLP & Tanya Susan Koshy -- tkoshy@tzlegal.com -- Tycko and Zavareei LLP. NRT West, Inc., doing business as, Defendant, represented by Aaron Paul Rudin -- arudin@grsm.com -- 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: Helland@nka.com dbrome@nka.com - 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: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com lotus.cannon@jtblawgroup.com 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 -- agillett@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Anne M. Lockner -- ALockner@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP, Brant D. Penney -- b.penney@rwblawfirm.com -- Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Dianne M. Anderson, Saxena White P.A., pro hac vice, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. -- g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com -- Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Heather Schlesier -- hschlesier@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph E. White, III -- jwhite@saxenawhite.com -- 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 -- msaxena@saxenawhite.com -- Saxena White P.A., pro hac vice & Steven Bennett Singer -- ssinger@saxenawhite.com -- Saxena White P.A., pro hac vice. Patterson Companies, Inc., Scott P. Anderson & Ann B. Gugino, Defendants, represented by Aaron G. Thomas -- athomas@briggs.com -- Briggs & Morgan, PA, Jordan Weber -- jweber@briggs.com -- Briggs & Morgan, PA & Patrick S. Williams -- pwilliams@briggs.com -- 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 -- carolyn.anderson@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP & June Pineda Hoidal -- june.hoidal@zimmreed.com -- 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 -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Emma Gilmore -- egilmore@pomlaw.com -- Brenda F. Szydlo -- bszydlo@pomlaw.com -- Jennifer B. Sobers -- jbsobers@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, New York, NY., for Plaintiffs-Appellees. Lewis J. Liman -- lliman@cgsh.com -- Jared Gerber -- jgerber@cgsh.com -- 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: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com - 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: ashamis@shamisgentile.com gberg@shamisgentile.com 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: skhoffman@jamhoff.com 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: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - 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: bbarron@barronlawfirmok.com - and - Zachary T Barron, Esq. Barron Law Firm PLLC PO BOX 369 CLAREMORE, OK 74018 Tel: (918) 341-8402 Fax: (918) 515-4691 Email: zbarron@barronlawfirmok.com 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 - Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com - Capstone Law APC, Joseph Hakakian - Joseph.Hakakian@capstonelawyers.com - Capstone Law APC & Orlando Villalba -Orlando.Villalba@capstonelawyers.com - Capstone Law APC. QG Printing II, LLC, a Conneciticut limited liability company & Quad/Graphics, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation, Defendants, represented by Gregory G. Iskander - giskander@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, P.C., James Phuc Van - jpvan@littler.com - Littler Mendelson & Andrew Hoon Woo - awoo@littler.com - 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: dgetman@getmansweeney.com - 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: smartin@martinbonnett.com jkroll@martinbonnett.com - and - Edward Tuddenham, Esq. 23 Rue Du Laos Paris, France Telephone: 33 684 79 89 30 E-mail: etudden@prismnet.com - 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: hzrosen@rmrllp.com 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: lgiamela@fisherphillips.com sdaley@fisherphillips.com 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 Defendantâ€™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: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com 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 - dlallis@pmlegalfirm.com - 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 - jmalsch@pmlegalfirm.com - 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 -- sdrotar@omm.com -- Mark W. Robertson -- mrobertson@omm.com -- (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 -- krichman@richmanlawgroup.com -- Richman Law Group, Brooklyn, NY, for National Consumers League, amicus curiae in support of Plaintiffs-Appellants Cox et al. Seth P. Waxman -- SETH.WAXMAN@WILMERHALE.COM -- Catherine M.A. Carroll -- CATHERINE.CARROLL@WILMERHALE.COM -- 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: dirks@williamsdirks.com - and - Michael Hodgson, Esq. THE HODGSON LAW FIRM 3609 SW Pryor Road Lee's Summit, MO 64082 Telephone: (913) 890-3529 11mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com - 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: hhardinger@meyerslaw.com 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: mbainer@bainerlawfirm.com 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: kcabrera@foley.com - 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: amanwani@foley.com 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 -- zev@zysmanlawca.com -- 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 -- ssheridan@steptoe.com -- 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: jbeccera@jbecceralaw.com - 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: tfavaiDte@gleasonfavarote.com TILE SHOP: 7th Cir. Affirms IWPCA Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, issued an Opinion affirming the District Courtâ€™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 - karpelesm@gtlaw.com - 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 - claydonj@gtlaw.com - for Defendant-Appellee. Bryan J. Morben - bmorben@fredlaw.com - for Defendant-Appellee. Joseph M. Sokolowski - jsokolowski@fredlaw.com - 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: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com 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 - jgeraci@ckslaw.com - Cohelan Khoury and Singer & Michael D. Singer - msinger@ckslaw.com - Cohelan Khoury & Singer. Travel Nurse Across America, LLC, An Arkansas Limited Liability Company, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Dawson Sulzer - ksulzer@constangy.com - 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: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com hjenkins@stephanzouras.com 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: hm@messrelianlaw.com 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: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com 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: mgodino@glancylaw.com - 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: rrivas@zlk.com klandau@tcllaw.com - 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: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com 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 -- wlawton@drml-law.com -- Dean Ringers Morgan & Lawton & Gail C. Bradford -- gbradford@drml-law.com -- 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: jrubin@moginrubin.com dmogin@moginrubin.com joliver@moginrubin.com 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 Â§ 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 - frichter@rgrdlaw.com - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, James E. Barz - jbarz@rgrdlaw.com - 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 - AANDREWS@SIDLEY.COM- Sidley Austin LLP, Heather Benzmiller Sultanian , Sidley Austin LLP, James Wallace Ducayet - JDUCAYET@SIDLEY.COM - Sidley Austin LLP, John M. Skakun III - JSKAKUN@SIDLEY.COM - Sidley Austin Llp & Kristen R. Seeger -KSEEGER@SIDLEY.COM- Sidley Austin LLP. Gregory D. Wasson, Defendant, represented by Thomas B. Quinn - tquinn@rshc-law.com - Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP & Eli Joseph Litoff - elitoff@rshc-law.com - 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 -- gene@ludwiglawfirm.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. Rodney Paul Moore, I, for Amicus on Behalf of Appellee(s). Chad W. Pekron -- cpekron@qgtlaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. Michael Alan Thompson -- ThompsonLaw@sssnet.com -- for Amicus on Behalf of Appellee(s). Robert Ryan Younger -- ryounger@qgtlaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. Ryan Kent Culpepper -- ryan@ludwiglawfirm.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. Kale L. Ludwig -- kale@ludwiglawfirm.com -- 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: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com 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: dbarshay@sanderslawpllc.com. 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: gfjermedal@davidsonfink.com 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: booten@shafferlaw.net ameade@shafferlaw.net rwalters@shafferlaw.net - 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: esnyder@drofwv.org junderhill@drofwv.org 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 -- bnagel@nagelrice.com -- NAGEL RICE, LLP, JOSEPH LOPICCOLO -- lopiccolo@pllawfirm.com -- POULOS LOPICCOLO PC & RANDEE M. MATLOFF -- rmatloff@nagelrice.com -- NAGEL RICE, LLP. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by LATHROP BARRERE NELSON, III -- lnelson@mmwr.com -- MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS & MEGAN B. TRESEDER -- treseder@wtotrial.com -- 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 -- sgraziano@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN, LITOWITZ, BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, New York, New York, for Appellant. John A. Neuwirth -- john.neuwirth@weil.com -- 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 -- johnr@blbglaw.com -- Rebecca E. Boon -- Rebecca.Boon@blbglaw.com -- Julia K. Tebor -- julia.tebor@blbglaw.com -- 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 -- efuhr@HuntonAK.com -- Eric H. Feiler -- efeiler@HuntonAK.com -- Johnathon E. Schronce -- jschronce@HuntonAK.com -- 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: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com 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: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com 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: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com pcooper@jcpclaw.com 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: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com - 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: mikes@hbsslaw.com reed@hbsslaw.com danielles@hbsslaw.com 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: llusher@vandallp.com 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: tlogan@edelson.com 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: cklee@leelitigation.com anne@leelitigation.com 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: john@hrlawcounsel.com 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: lcabassa@wfclaw.com twells@wfclaw.com 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: tgonzalez@tsghlaw.com 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 Headphonesâ€™ 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 Defendantâ€™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: Sean@Neinsurancelaw.com - 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: tnaylor@gs-legal.com jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - 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: justin@finneylawfirm.com - 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: bmarkovits@msdlegal.com pdemarco@msdlegal.com tcoates@msdlegal.com 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: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com 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: mburton@audctlaw.com evu@audetlaw.com 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: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com 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: Michael@Faillacelaw.com 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 Connâ€™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: avaught@baronbudd.com spatel@baronbudd.com 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: tmccreight@munsch.com mharvey@munsch.com cjordan@munsch.com 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: tdurkin@hayberlawfirm.com 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: gparker@hiltonparker.com jhilton@hiltonparker.com 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: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM 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: ras@asmlawyers.com rwlm@asmlawyers.com hvr@asmlawyers.com caj@asmlawyers.com bar@asmlawyers.com 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: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com ryanderry@paulhastings.com paulholton@paulhastings.com 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: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com 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: ajsackowitz@katzmelinger.com 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: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com - 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: zabogado@aol.com 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' consentâ€”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: justin@zeiglawfirm.com 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: sscott@spanglaw.com - 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: hzavareei@tzlegal.com agold@tzlegal.com kaizpuru@tzlegal.com - 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: ostrow@kolawyers.com streisfeld@kolawyers.com 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: lgail@masseygail.com hcoustan@masseygail.com - 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: ksrinvasan@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com bcaforio@susmangodfrey.com oelkhunovich@susmangodfrey.com 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: erik@zellerip.com 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: wms@sweetnamllc.com ns@sweetnamllc.com 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: ron@consumersadvocates.com mike@consumersadvocates.com 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: cmc@westconlaw.com rjw@westconlaw.com 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: jfont@fontnelson.com 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: rlamontagne@shutts.com - 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: vmadani@shutts.com slabrit@shutts.com 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: ashamis@shamisgentile.com 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: bruce@stecklerlaw.com dean@stecklerlaw.com 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 mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com 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, DAVEâ€™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: pjoseph@balljanik.com jprichard@balljanik.com esmall@balljanik.com kcorcoran@balljanik.com 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: glen@andrewsdevalerio.com daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com 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: Michael@Faillacelaw.com 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. -- Emorales@mintz.com -- 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: joshua@levinepstein.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 891 Northern Blvd., Suite 201 Great Neck, NY 11021 Tel: (516) 303-0552 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com - 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: fcastiglione@khowajala.com - 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: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com cpsons@bormeslaw.com 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: fcastiglione@khowajalaw.com kasif@khowajalaw.com - 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: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com cpsons@bormeslaw.com 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: kgoza@gohonlaw.com 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: lduarte@hanglaw.com 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: nfrank@laborlaws.com jmyers@laborlaws.com 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: doug@lipskylowe.com chris@lipskylowe.com milana@lipskylowe.com 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: michael@hop-law.com john@hop-law.com 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: Faillacc@employnientcompliance.com 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: namjed@ktmc.com rdegnan@ktmc.com mtroutner@ktmc.com 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: jpietz@fdpklaw.com rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com - 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: Contact@TLawF.com The Defendants are represented by: Catherine S. Ryan, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 225 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 288-3131 E-mail: cryan@reedsmith.com - 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: michael.oneil@reedsmith.com bvanbaren@reedsmith.com 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: llusher@vandallp.com - and - Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW FIRM LLC 281 Summerhill Road, Suite 210 East Brunswick, NJ 08816 Telephone: (212) 808-2224 E-mail: naydenskiyl aw@gmail.com 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: zabogado@aol.com 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: thomas.alch@shooplaw.com 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: nl@rgpattorneys.com pmh@rgpattorneys.com 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: erodriguez@fordharrison.com vjohnson@fordharrison.com 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: cjenkins@minnillojenkins.com rstokar@minnillojenkins.com 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 donâ€™t call me. \"Iâ€™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 Defendantâ€™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: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com - 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: dwerman@flsalaw.com zflowerree@flsalaw.com 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: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com - 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: skamber@kamberlaw.com 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: brichman@edelson.com ewadescott@edelson.com - 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: dfish@fishlawfirm.com jkunze@fishlawfirm.com 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: joseph@cml.legal 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: joseph@cml.legal 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: sdenittis@denittislaw.com rschmierer@denittislaw.com - 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: tfriedman@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com 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: fcastiglione@khowajalaw.com kasif@khowajalaw.com - 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: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com cpsons@bormeslaw.com 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: gknopp@akingump.com 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: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com 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 â€“ who require Makeup Artists to work sales promotion events at retailers like Sephora USA, Inc., Macy's, Inc., and Ulta Beauty, Inc. â€“ 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: kallen@vzfirm.com dvelton@vzfirm.com 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: brichman@edelson.com ewadescott@edelson.com - 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: dfish@fishlawfirm.com jkunze@fishlawfirm.com 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: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd #607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com 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: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com chris@sanfordlawfirm.com 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: law@stefancoleman.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com 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 â€˜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: Michael@Faillacelaw.com 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: me@espino-law.com [*] Torkin Manes Attorney Discusses Historical Sexual Abuses Cases ------------------------------------------------------------------ Loretta Merritt, Esq. -- lmerritt@torkinmanes.com -- 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 dhowley@yahoofinance.com over via encrypted mail at danielphowley@protonmail.com , 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 Buffettâ€™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 mcranston@afr.com 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: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com (2) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com (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@rabinlaw.com (4) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax; 610.667.7056, E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.comAMERICREDIT 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: jrclim@climacolaw.com.Representing 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:jmnewman@jonesday.com or gjritts@jonesday.com.CARDINAL 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: christopher.kim@lrklawyers.com or lisa.yang@lrklawyers.com (2) Edward Chang, Joseph H. Meltzer, Schiffrin and Barroway, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706, E-mail: echang@sbclasslaw.com or jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com (3) Edward W Ciolko, Richard S. Schiffrin, Schiffrin & Barroway, 3 Bala Plaza E, Ste 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706, Email: eciolko@sbclasslaw.com (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: bleland@kellerrohrback.com, lsarko@kellerrohrback.com, dcopley@kellerrohrback.com (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: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.comCARDINAL 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: jarnold@cpaslaw.com. 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: jcogan@jonesday.com.CONAGRA 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:john.clarke@dlapiper.com; 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: kchang@wolfpopper.com, rfinkel@wolfpopper.com, mrosner@wolfpopper.com; (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: alipton@milberg.com, psloane@milberg.comMICROSOFT 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: rich@horwitzlaw.com andjsmith@horwitzlaw.com.NEW 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: kchittur@chittur.com. 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:robertlgreene@earthlink.net 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: sstern@mirandasokoloff.com.NORTH 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: antitrust@ftc.gov;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: ahalperin@phlp.org.PREMIERE 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: pivenlaw@erols.com (3) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com (4) Paskowitz & Associates, Phone: 800.705.9529, E-mail: classattorney@aol.com (5) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com (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: info@whhf.comSEPRACOR 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:maryjo.johnson@wilmerhale.com. 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: ted@shulaw.com (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: nespole@whafh.com or wales@whafh.com (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: dpastor@gilmanpastor.comSYNCOR 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: deverson@stinsonmoheck.com. 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: rschachter@zsz.com.WELLMAN 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:lawinfo@cmht.com.WFS 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;mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.comDecember 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;mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.comDecember 12-13, 2005LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCEMealey PublicationsThe Ritz-Carlton Pentagon City, Washington DCContact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.comJanuary 23-24, 2005ADVANCED INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUESMealey PublicationsThe Four Seasons Hotel, PhiladelphiaContact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.comApril 5-8, 2006INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLEMealey PublicationsThe Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZContact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.comFebruary 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; info@pli.eduSeptember 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; info@cleonline.comDecember 01-30, 2005CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECTLIABILITYCLEOnline.ComContact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.comDecember 01-30, 2005HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURYCLEOnline.ComContact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.comDecember 01-30, 2005IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?CLEOnline.ComContact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.comDecember 01-30, 2005BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE& CONSUMER LAW UPDATESCLEOnline.ComContact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.comDecember 7, 2005PERCHLORATEMealey PublicationsContact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.comDecember 8, 2005SSRI's TELECONFERENCEMealey PublicationsContact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.comDecember 14, 2005FINITE RISK REINSURANCEMealey PublicationsContact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.comDecember 14, 2005CLASS CERTIFICATION--HOW TO GET A CLASS CERTIFIED OR DEFEATCERTIFICATIONMealey PublicationsContact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.comDecember 15, 2005D&O TELECONFERENCEMealey PublicationsContact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.comDecember 15, 2005PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ISSUESMealey PublicationsContact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.comTORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1CEB OnlineContact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2CEB OnlineContact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3CEB OnlineContact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTSCEB OnlineContact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1CEB OnlineContact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2CEB OnlineContact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3CEB OnlineContact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTSCEB OnlineContact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZINGYOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURECEB OnlineContact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINAITONCEB OnlineContact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTENDISCOVERYCEB OnlineContact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONSCEB OnlineContact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIESLawCommerce.Com/Mealey'sOnline Streaming VideoContact: customerservice@lawcommerce.comASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERSLawCommerce.Com/Mealey'sOnline Streaming VideoContact: customerservice@lawcommerce.comEXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASESLawCommerce.Com/Mealey'sOnline Streaming VideoContact: customerservice@lawcommerce.comINTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIESBig Class ActionContact: seminars@bigclassaction.comNON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATIONOnline Streaming VideoLawCommerce.Com/Mealey'sContact: customerservice@lawcommerce.comPAXIL LITIGATIONOnline Streaming VideoLawCommerce.Com/Mealey'sContact: customerservice@lawcommerce.comRECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOLOnline Streaming VideoLawCommerce.Com/Mealey'sContact: customerservice@lawcommerce.comRECOVERIESBig Class ActionContact: seminars@bigclassaction.comSELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAMOnline Streaming VideoLawCommerce.Com/Mealey'sContact: customerservice@lawcommerce.comSHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?LawCommerce.Com / Law Education InstituteContact: customerservice@lawcommerce.comTHE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEMOnline Streaming VideoLawCommerce.Com/Mealey'sContact: customerservice@lawcommerce.comTHE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSIONOnline Streaming VideoLawCommerce.Com/Mealey'sContact: customerservice@lawcommerce.comTRYING AN ASBESTOS CASELawCommerce.ComContact: customerservice@lawcommerce.comTHE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCOSALES AND ADVERSTISINGAmerican Bar AssociationContact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org________________________________________________________________The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in theClass Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions viae-mail to carconf@beard.com 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:mail@kaplanfox.com, 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: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.MIKOHN 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:info@gsk-law.com.STONE 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:classattorney@pipeline.com.STONE 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: info@sbclasslaw.com, 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:investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com. *********A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissionsvia e-mail to carconf@beard.com 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 registrar@comcom.govt.nz 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: rchamber@lehman.com2. Timothy S. Collins Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. 720 E. Wisconsin Ave. Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 E-mail: timothycollins@northwesternmutual.com3. Keith Chan The Dreyfus Corporation 200 Park Ave. New York, New York 10166 E-mail: chan.kc@dreyfus.com4. Derek Schrier Farallon Capital Management, LLC One Maratime Plaza, Ste, 1325 San Francisco, California 94111 E-mail: Dschrier@FarallonCapital.com(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 an