Source: http://www.bankrupt.com/CAR_Public/111215.mbx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:07:04+00:00

Document:
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over "Yellow Dog Contracts"
class action lawsuit authorized in Quebec.
for seats adapted to their condition.
when acting as the attendant for a person with a disability.
domestic flight from Dec. 5, 2005, to Dec. 5, 2008.
he's actively seeking someone to represent WestJet Airlines Ltd.
clients in the same claim.
qualified under the "one-person, one-fare" policy.
claimant and they are actively looking for one across the country.
people who flew with WestJet and paid for an extra seat."
domestic airlines must offer the policy.
WestJet about C$1.5 million a year.
and damages amounted to C$2,500.
authorized an official notice to members this week.
action is before the courts.
A spokesman for WestJet also had no comment.
Insurance, more than 226,000 consumers may be affected nationwide.
U.S. District Court, Western District of Oklahoma.
Tony Gould at Brown & Gould at 405-595 0504.
class action claims in the United States.
same companies in California this past August.
suit in order to secure sales rights.
from breaking into other media markets.
of digital music files" through iTunes.
one of the world's largest technology companies.
A copy of the Complaint in Hilton v. Apple Inc., et al., Case No.
EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, L.L.C.
cashed when the firm said they would be.
other soaps and may be harmful.
the Company's November 29, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
dismissed from the lawsuit, without prejudice, on October 9, 2002.
whether the appellant has standing to object to the settlement.
remaining objector lacks standing to object to the settlement.
and the plaintiffs have moved to dismiss that appeal.
related payment orders should be granted.
preliminary injunction and other payment orders were predicated"
and was "in compliance with the [latest] payment order."
when Fincorp collapsed in 2007.
Federal Court of Australia in May this year.
were part of the class action.
difficult time financially and emotionally," Ms. McDonald said.
resolution as they receive their settlement payments this month."
and rolled the investment over after that date.
our 5,390 class action group members," Ms. McDonald said.
necessary to receive their settlement payment.
compensation who we have been unable to contact.
2012 to ensure that they receive the funds they are entitled to,"
and caused large numbers of deaths and birth defects.
heard in Australia would be vexatious and an abuse of process.
The Victorian Supreme Court has reserved its decision.
entered into a Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement").
Agreement resolves the claims of all of the Settling Claimants.
(c) $4,000,000 on before December 24, 2012.
In a statement dated November 29, 2011, Horizon Lines, Inc.
Rico direct purchaser antitrust class action settlement.
million by December 24, 2012.
claims involving the Puerto Rico tradelane," said Michael T.
resolves claims of all the remaining significant opt outs.
continental United States with Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
Exchange Commission for the year ended October 1, 2011.
motion for class certification has been filed by plaintiff.
gaming operator profits by enhancing the player's experience.
Court for the District of Nevada, are captioned Carr et al. v.
Jordan et al. v. International Game Technology et al., Case No.
consolidated complaint was granted in part and denied in part.
Commission for the year ended October 1, 2011.
statements about play levels and server-based technology.
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.
Directors, Parent, J.Crew Group, Inc., TPG, TPG Fund VI and LGP.
MOU pending the execution of a more formal settlement agreement.
whose behalf the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action purport to act.
to seek monetary damages following the closing of the Acquisition.
asserted in the Delaware Action vigorously.
filed by the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action on July 26, 2011.
attorneys' fees and expenses in the total amount of $9.0 million.
insurance recovery, of $7.1 million for attorneys' fees.
No. 65125-2010; Weisenberg v. J.Crew Group, Inc., et al., No.
KBC Asset Management NV v. J.Crew Group, Inc., et al., No.
until a final resolution or settlement of the Delaware Action.
agreed amount plus mutual exchange of releases.
final certification of the Class for purposes of the settlement.
Eshkenazi serve as Class Representatives.
Becker & Poliakoff, P.A. is approved to serve as Class Counsel.
August 16, 2010 through October 7, 2011.
for adjustment of the attorneys' fees.
the 2000 Sephia vehicle model sold by Kia Motors.
the amount of damages and litigation costs awarded to the class.
abuse its discretion in approving certification of the class.
Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille penned the Supreme Court opinion.
Justices J. Michael Eakin, Max Baer, Debra Todd, and Seamus P.
damages incurred by the individual class members.
agreement in a conditions-of-confinement suit. Michael C.
Plaintiffs-Appellees, MICHAEL C. DONOVAN, Movant-Appellant, v.
LIBERTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE CORP., et al., Defendants, GEORGE H.
2011 order is available at http://is.gd/EpRqUcfrom Leagle.com.
and implementing proper treatment of brain injuries.
said his symptoms were linked to concussion.
psychology, said the symptoms of concussion are wide-ranging.
which of course probably comes into play with this lawsuit. . . .
loss and memory problems that can go on for some time."
could implement pre-game and post-game screenings.
"You have to have a baseline to work off of," Dr. Warnick said.
difficult based on the varied nature of the injury.
medical event. It has to be very closely watched."
for the year ended June 30, 2011.
additional securities class action lawsuits, entitled Schapiro v.
prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
which will be covered by the Company's insurance policy.
the quarter ended October 31, 2011.
of the complaint as against Pandora.
together with the In re iPhone Application case.
connection with their use of iPhone and iPad applications.
to vigorously defend its position.
a planned class-action lawsuit against the beverage company.
of its new carbonated beverage appliance.
Primo issued a statement saying it intends to "vigorously defend"
Gregory E. del Gaizo, Esq.
Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq.
permit this action to proceed collectively or as a class.
Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.
Company's November 30, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
plaintiffs' motion to reconsider was denied by the court.
consolidated class action complaint on March 3, 2008, as amended.
the Plaintiffs many opportunities to correct such deficiencies.
Plaintiffs had no additional facts to plead.
expedited discovery and trial of this action.
bread companies can be heard.
the company was not included in the lawsuit.
claiming damages for contraventions of the Competition Act.
cartel conduct, paving the way for civil claims by those harmed.
million, Pioneer ZAR197 million and Foodcorp ZAR45 million.
application for a "class certification order" to court.
granted it leave to appeal against the high court's decision.
Supreme Court of Appeal granted the group leave to appeal.
the proceedings by an opt-in or opt-out mechanism.
merely in a vertical context, between the state and its citizens.
This may be a point of contention as the matter unfolds,"
"significant victory" in its battle for compensation.
with such high levels of poverty and unemployment."
because of the collusive behavior.
do, in fact, represent actual damages suffered by class members,"
the Company's December 1, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
damages in an unspecified amount.
the litigation than non-test case issuer defendants.
these claims were asserted only against the Individual Defendants.
Circuit vacated the district court's class certification decision.
the one that was rejected.
Circuit consider the motion on an expedited basis.
Russell, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v.
United States; and remanded the case for further consideration.
lawsuit, had satisfied his individual claim.
brief were Tony West, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, J.
and Michael J. Quinn, Esq., Trial Attorney.
charity's compliance with tax rules.
shares of the settlement fund.
pending court approval next month.
to cover the cost if those opinions go south."
and that is where we reach much more uncharted territory."
transactions where there is a real risk of getting it wrong.
accept a retainer in this area.
qualified to minimize a firm's exposure."
area of charity tax law for reasons apart from avoiding lawsuits.
circulated back to private hands.
it can undermine a firm's brand."
programs' promoters rarely feature those opinions, he points out.
liability issues in Lipson v. Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP.
claim was statute-barred, wrote in Lipson.
use it to market the donation program to potential donors."
be used in another in the future."
firm was negligent. He notes there will be an appeal.
charitable timeshare program between 2000 and 2003.
athletic associations in anticipation of tax credits.
cash donations but not the timeshares.
limitation period, dismissed Mr. Lipson's case last month.
Mr. Dewar says he plans to appeal.
their opinions in the future."

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.