ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

PROCEEDING UNDER the Class Action Proceedings Act, 1992 , S.O. 1992, C. 6

BETWEEN:

TORONTO COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION and HOUSING SERVICES INCORPORATED
Plaintiffs

– and –

THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR (CANADA) LIMITED, THYSSENKRUPP NORTHERN ELEVATOR CORPORATION, THYSSEN ELEVATOR LIMITED all from time to time carrying on business under the names “ThyssenKrupp Northern Elevator” and “ThyssenKrupp Elevator”
Defendants

Linda R. Rothstein and Odette Soriano , for the plaintiffs
John P. Brown , for the defendants

HEARD: November 21, 2012

C. HORKINS J.

[ 1 ] This is a motion for approval of the settlement of this class action and class counsel fees pursuant to s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act , 1992, S.O. 1992, c. C.6 (" Class Proceedings Act "). Notice of this approval hearing has been given to the class.

[ 2 ] I certified the action as a class proceeding on August 18, 2011. Leave to appeal the certification decision was denied on January 10, 2012.

[ 3 ] The class consists of “[a]ll persons in Ontario who owned or own an elevating device that was fitted with a traction motor brake, known as a sheave jammer or sheave brake, designed, manufactured, sold or installed by any of the Defendants, that was replaced as required by TSSA Director’s Order 207/06 with an alternative form of emergency ACO and UCM protection and incurred remediation expenses as a result.”

[ 4 ] In addition a subclass was certified for the breach of contract claim: “All class members who had a standard form maintenance contract in force with TKE or its predecessors at the time that their sheave jammer(s) were replaced as required by TSSA Director’s Order 207/06.”

[ 5 ] A sheave jammer is a secondary braking device designed to stop the movement of an elevator in the event the primary control and braking systems do not operate effectively.

[ 6 ] The plaintiffs allege that the defendants negligently designed and manufactured the sheave jammer, and then knowingly sold and installed the negligently designed sheave jammers. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants, not the elevator owners, are liable for the costs associated with removing the sheave jammers and replacing them with an alternate emergency braking device.

[ 7 ] In addition, the defendant ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Ltd. (“TKE”) entered into preventative maintenance contracts that covered between 80 to 90% of elevators in Ontario with sheave jammers. The claim asserts that the cost of replacing the sheave jammers was included as part of the preventative maintenance services, and that TKE breached the contracts by refusing to pay for the sheave jammer replacements under the contracts.

[ 8 ] The available evidence shows that class members replaced approximately 2,100 sheave jammers in elevating devices in Ontario as a result of the TSSA Order. The average replacement cost was $10,000 per sheave jammer.

Summary of the Settlement

[ 9 ] The parties commenced settlement negotiations in the spring of 2012. After the exchange of initial offers, the parties participated in a two-day mediation on July 20, 2012 and August 15, 2012 with George Adams as mediator. A settlement was reached on August 15, 2012.

[ 10 ] All class members (the class and subclass) are entitled to participate in the settlement and file a claim to receive compensation based on the number of sheave jammers they paid to replace. The settlement applies to the class as a whole and there is no special treatment given to the subclass.

[ 11 ] The key terms of the Settlement Agreement are:

(a) The defendants have paid $12,000,000 into an interest bearing account, which will comprise the Settlement Fund;

(b) Class counsel’s fees and disbursements, inclusive of taxes, as approved by the court, will be deducted from the Settlement Fund and from prior awards of costs made by the court and paid by the defendants;

(c) The Bruneau Group will be appointed as claims administrator, subject to court approval;

(d) Costs of the notice programs and administration of the settlement will be paid out of the Settlement Fund;

(e) Honoraria to the representative plaintiffs, if approved by the Court, will be paid out of the Settlement Fund; and

(f) The balance will be distributed to class members by the claims administrator in accordance with a distribution protocol.

[ 12 ] The proposed distribution protocol requires class members to complete and submit a simple claim form for each building they own/owned with affected elevators. The Claims Administrator will send the claim form for completion directly to class members together with the Settlement Approval Notice.

[ 13 ] Using the data provided by the defendants and the TSSA, each class member will be sent a claim form for each building it owned with affected elevators, detailing the license number of the elevator(s) on which the replacements were performed. Class members will be required to verify the information on the claim forms, provide any missing or additional information, and sign a declaration.

[ 14 ] For class members who do not appear in the data provided by the defendants and the TSSA, additional claim forms will be available from the Claims Administrator and from class counsel, and will be available on their respective websites.

[ 15 ] Class counsel propose a deadline of March 29, 2013 for Class Members to submit completed and signed claim forms to the Claims Administrator. The Claims Administrator will then process all valid claims and determine the total number of sheave jammers replaced by qualifying claimants.

[ 16 ] Qualifying claimants will be paid the balance of the Settlement Fund on a pro rata basis, depending on the number of sheave jammers they had replaced. None of the Settlement Fund reverts to the defendants.

Opt Outs

[ 17 ] The opt-out period expired on May 31, 2012. Class counsel received opt-out notices from three class members following publication of the notice of certification.

[ 18 ] In addition, class counsel received an opt-out for the Tarion Warranty Corporation (“Tarion”) on behalf of 104 class members. Tarion is the insurer that administers the Ontario New Home Warranty Fund (the “Warranty Fund”). Tarion had commenced its own action against the defendants. Tarion settled its action and then opted out of the class proceeding. Counsel confirm that the settlement of the Tarion claim is in the range of the expected recovery per sheave jammer in this class action.

[ 19 ] In total, class counsel has identified 289 sheave jammers that are excluded from the settlement through opt outs.

[ 20 ] After certification, the defendants also entered into settlement agreements with two individual class members for claims pertaining to sheave jammer replacements. Counsel confirm that these settlements involved the class members paying the defendants for the cost the defendants incurred when it replaced their sheave jammers. Therefore these class members, like the rest of the class members are out of pocket the cost incurred to replace the sheave jammers. These class members signed releases for their individual settlements. However, the parties have agreed that they are entitled to participate in this class action settlement.

Estimated Rate of Return for Qualifying Class Members

[ 21 ] The all-inclusive Settlement Fund ($12,000,000) represents a significant recovery of the out of pocket expenses incurred by class members for the replacement of their sheave jammers. Based on a per sheave jammer replacement cost of $10,000, and assuming the owners of all 2,100 sheave jammers covered by the settlement make claims, the per sheave jammer recovery rate is 57%.

[ 22 ] It is uncertain if all class members will make a claim. If class members representing 85% of all sheave jammers make a claim, the recovery rate range would increase to 67% of costs incurred per sheave jammer. If only 60% claimed, the recovery rate would be 95%.

[ 23 ] After the projected deductions for class counsel fees, additional disbursements, notice, claims administration and the honoraria requested for the representative plaintiffs (if approved by the court), the estimated value of the distribution fund is approximately $8,400,000. After such deductions, the recovery per sheave jammer for the class under this settlement can be explained as follows:

(a) If the owners of 2,100 sheave jammers were to participate, their net recovery per sheave jammer would be 40% of their incurred expenses;

(b) If class members representing 85% of all sheave jammers make claims, the net recovery would increase to 47% of costs incurred per sheave jammer.

(c) If 60% make claims, the net recovery would be 67%.

Settlement approval

Legal Framework

[ 24 ] Section 29(2) of the Class Proceedings Act provides that a settlement of a class proceeding is not binding unless it has been approved by the court. The test for approving a settlement is whether, in all of the circumstances, the settlement is fair, reasonable and in the best interests of the class as a whole, taking into account the claims and defences in the litigation and any objections to the settlement.

[ 25 ] When considering the approval of negotiated settlements, the court may consider, among other things the following factors: likelihood of recovery or likelihood of success; amount and nature of discovery, evidence or investigation; settlement terms and conditions; recommendation and experience of counsel; future expense and likely duration of litigation and risk; recommendation of neutral parties, if any; number of objectors and nature of objections; the presence of good faith, arm's length bargaining and the absence of collusion; the degree and nature of communications by counsel and the representative plaintiffs with class members during the litigation; and information conveying to the court the dynamics of and the positions taken by the parties during the negotiation: See Dabbs v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (1998), 1998 14855 (ON SC) , 40 O.R. (3d) 429 at 440-44 (Gen. Div.), aff'd (1998), 1998 7165 (ON CA) , 41 O.R. (3d) 97 (C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [1998] S.C.C.A. No. 372; Parsons v. Canadian Red Cross Society (1999), 103 O.T.C. 161, [1999] O.J. No. 3572 at paras. 71-72 (S.C.J.) ; Frohlinger v. Nortel Networks Corp . (2007), 2007 696 (ON SC) , 40 C.P.C. (6th) 62, [2007] O.J. No. 148 at para. 8 (S.C.J.); Kelman v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co ., 2005 803 (ON SC) , [2005] O.T.C. 36 (S.C.J.), [2005] O.J. No. 175 at paras. 12-13 ; Sutherland v. Boots Pharmaceutical plc , [2002] O.T.C. 233, [2002] O.J. No. 1361 at para. 10 (S.C.J.) .

[ 26 ] These factors provide a guide for analysis rather than a rigid set of criteria that must be applied to every settlement. In practice, it may be that all of the factors are not applicable or should not be given equal weight. (See Parsons v. Canadian Red Cross Society , supra , at para. 73.)

[ 27 ] The court is not required to have evidence sufficient to decide the merits of the issue. This “is not required because compromise is necessary to achieve any settlement. However, the court must possess adequate information to elevate its decision above mere conjecture. This is imperative in order that the court might be satisfied that the settlement delivers adequate relief for the class in exchange for the surrender of litigation rights against the defendants” ( Ontario New Home Warranty Program v. Chevron Chemical Co . (1999), 1999 15098 (ON SC) , 46 O.R. (3d) 130, [1999] O.J. No. 2245 at para. at 92 (S.C.J.)).

[ 28 ] A settlement does not have to be perfect. It need only fall "within a zone or range of reasonableness": Ontario New Home Warranty Program v. Chevron Chemical Co. , supra, at para. 89: See also Parsons , at para. 69 (S.C.J.); Bilodeau v. Maple Leaf Foods Inc., [2009] O.J. No. 1006 at paras. 45-46 (S.C.J.) ; Dabbs v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada , supra , at pp. 439-440; Frohlinger v. Nortel Networks Corp., supra, at para. 8.

[ 29 ] The "zone of reasonableness" concept helps to guide the exercise of the court's supervisory jurisdiction over the approval of a settlement of class actions. It is not the court's responsibility to determine whether a better settlement might have been reached. Nor is it the responsibility of the court to send the parties back to the bargaining table to negotiate a settlement that is more favourable to the class. Where the parties are represented, as they are in this case, by reputable counsel with expertise in class action litigation, the court is entitled to assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that it is being presented with the best reasonably achievable settlement and that class counsel is staking his or her reputation and experience on the recommendation.

[ 30 ] As stated in Dabbs v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, supra , at p. 440, there is a strong initial presumption of fairness when a proposed class settlement, which was negotiated at arm's length by class counsel, is presented for Court approval:

[T]he recommendation of counsel of high repute is significant. While class counsel have a financial interest at stake, their reputation for integrity and diligent effort on behalf of their clients is also on the line.

Factors Supporting Approval

[ 31 ] I accept that the settlement was the product of hard fought negotiations conducted by experienced counsel at arm's length. The settlement is grounded in a principled approach to the assessment of damages and is reasonably reflective of the litigation risks, costs and delays that would result from taking the matter to trial.

[ 32 ] A careful risk assessment was undertaken by class counsel together with in-house counsel for the representative plaintiff Toronto Community Housing Corporation ("TCHC" ). Class counsel also relied on the assistance of an expert where appropriate.

[ 33 ] Counsel had a sufficient evidentiary basis to evaluate liability and damages. The parties commenced the documentary discovery process in early 2012 and exchanged the first tranche of productions in July 2012. Settlement discussions commenced during the documentary discovery phase of the litigation. The plaintiffs produced more than 15,600 documents and had collected approximately 9 gigabytes of electronic documents. The defendants had produced almost 3,000 documents and were preparing to produce a significant additional volume of documents. Class counsel also had numerous discussions with the TSSA and obtained production of key documents from the TSSA. Ultimately, Roland Hadaller, who made the order mandating the sheave jammer replacements, swore an affidavit that was critical for the motion for certification, and the on-going litigation. By the time of the mediation, class counsel were satisfied that sufficient information had been obtained to evaluate the case and any offer to settle.

[ 34 ] When negotiating the settlement, class counsel took into consideration various risk factors. Before issuing TSSA Order 207/06, the TSSA observed numerous tests of the sheave jammer in different installations, some of which were relatively new installations. The TSSA concluded that the sheave jammer was “inherently unreliable”. The defendants disputed TSSA’s conclusion and claimed that the sheave jammer’s performance issues were due to aging or improper maintenance.

[ 35 ] At trial, it would not be enough to simply prove that the sheave jammer was “inherently unreliable”. This is a pure economic loss claim and the plaintiffs had to prove that the sheave jammer was dangerous and defective. There was a real risk that the plaintiffs would not be able to prove both elements of this cause of action. For example, the defendants correctly pointed out that Ontario is the only jurisdiction that required the mandatory replacement of sheave jammers and there have been no catastrophic (or even noteworthy) incidents of sheave jammer failure in other jurisdictions.

[ 36 ] With respect to the breach of contract claim, the defendants denied liability for the replacement costs under the preventative maintenance contracts based on the language of the agreements.

[ 37 ] If the plaintiffs were able to establish liability at trial, they then faced the argument that any damages owing to the class should be reduced based on the principle of “betterment”. The defendants asserted that the class was not entitled to full replacement cost because the class received the benefit of the use of the elevators with the sheave jammers for some period of time and received a new and more expensive emergency brake at the time of the replacements.

[ 38 ] At the mediation, Mr. Adams carefully considered the parties’ arguments and shared his views of the strengths and weaknesses of the claims and defences. In his view, the plaintiffs faced a real risk that they may not be able to establish that the sheave jammers were both dangerous and defective and that the defendants’ betterment argument, if accepted, would significantly reduce any damages award. Mr. Adams who is an experienced mediator expressed his view that the settlement is a good result for the class.

[ 39 ] Class counsel, who are experienced lawyers, took all of the above risks into consideration in arriving at a settlement. As well, they factored in the time it would take to reach a trial, the risk of an appeal and further delay and the ongoing cost of litigation.

[ 40 ] Throughout this litigation class counsel regularly communicated with the representative plaintiffs and the class. Notice of this settlement was given to the class and there are no objections. The representative plaintiffs support and recommend approval of the settlement. They understand the inherent risks associated with a trial. They were actively involved in the settlement negotiations and have concluded that the settlement is in the best interests of the class.

Compensation for Representative Plaintiffs

[ 41 ] The court is asked to approve payment of a $15,000 honorarium to TCHC and a $1,500 honorarium for First Ontario Realty Corporation (“FORC”). Counsel say that the representative plaintiffs made a significant contribution to this class proceeding that has resulted in success for the class. In essence, counsel are asking that the representative plaintiffs be paid for their work.

[ 42 ] Compensation for a representative plaintiff is rare and “must be awarded sparingly” ( Sutherland v. Boots Pharmaceutical Plc, [2002] O.T.C. 233, [2002] O.J. No. 1361 at para. 22 (S.C.J.)(“ Sutherland ”) ). As the court stated in Windisman v. Toronto College Park Ltd. (1996), 3 C.P.C. (4th) 369 at para. 28 (Ont. Gen. Div.) (“ Windisman”) “such awards should not be seen as routine.” (See also McCarthy v. Canadian Red Cross Society (2007), 158 A.C.W.S. (3d) 12 , [2007] O.J. No. 2314 at para. 20 (S.C.J.) ; Bellaire v. Daya (2007), 162 A.C.W.S. (3d) 371 , [2007] O.J. No. 4819 at para. 71 (S.C.J.) ; Baker Estate v. Sony BMG Music (Canada) Inc. , 2011 ONSC 7105 at para. 93 , [2011] O.J. No. 5781; Garland v. Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. (2006), 2006 41291 (ON SC) , 153 A.C.W.S. (3d) 785, [2006] O.J. No. 4907 at paras. 45-46 (S.C.J.); Robinson v. Rochester Financial Ltd., 2012 ONSC 911 at paras. 26-43 , [2012] 5 C.T.C. 24).

[ 43 ] Compensation must only be awarded if the representative plaintiff has made an exceptional contribution that has resulted in success for the class. As Winkler J. stated in Sutherland at para. 22, the representative plaintiff’s assistance must be “necessary” and “such assistance must result in monetary success for the class and in any event, if granted, should not be in excess of an amount that would be purely compensatory on a quantum meruit basis.”

[ 44 ] If compensation is justified it should be paid out of the settlement fund and not from class counsel fees as requested in this case (see Smith Estate v. National Money Mart Co ., 2011 ONCA 233 at paras. 135 , 276 O.A.C. 237). As the court explained in Smith Estate v. National Money Mart Co. at para. 135 “[cl]ass counsel fees are predicated on the work that class counsel have done for the class. Allocating a part of that fee to a layperson, especially a representative plaintiff, raises the spectre of fee splitting”.

[ 45 ] There is good reason to limit compensation to the exceptional cases. This was explained in Sutherland at para. 22:

… Otherwise, where a representative plaintiff benefits from the class proceeding to a greater extent than the class members, and such benefit is as a result of the extraneous compensation paid to the representative plaintiff rather than the damages suffered by him or her, there is an appearance of a conflict of interest between the representative plaintiff and the class members. A class proceeding cannot be seen to be a method by which persons can seek to receive personal gain over and above any damages or other remedy to which they would otherwise be entitled on the merits of their claims.

[ 46 ] I accept that the TCHC made an exceptional contribution to this class action and approve the honorarium. This is one of the rare cases where it is appropriate to compensate the representative plaintiff.

[ 47 ] TCHC became involved in this litigation as the representative plaintiff when the original representative’s rights were subrogated to Tarion. TCHC assumed exposure to the real risk of an adverse costs award. In order to maximize recovery to the class, TCHC elected not to seek funding from the Class Proceedings Fund or any third party funder. Furthermore, class counsel did not agree to indemnify TCHC for costs. When FORC joined the action as a representative plaintiff, TCHC agreed to indemnify FORC in respect of any cost award made against it.

[ 48 ] Because TCHC had so many elevators affected by the mandatory sheave jammer replacements, it was uniquely positioned to provide class counsel with the materials necessary to support a motion for certification. TCHC made senior employees available to assist class counsel with the preparation of extensive records that allowed the plaintiffs to effectively resist the defence arguments during the certification motion and assist in providing important background information for settlement negotiations. Without the information that TCHC provided, it would have been difficult for class counsel to refute many of the contentious factual positions that the defence advanced prior to settlement.

[ 49 ] TCHC invested significant time and effort to identify and collect relevant documents that were required throughout the litigation. TCHC staff conducted extensive paper and electronic searches in multiple locations and reviewed voluminous materials.

[ 50 ] It is estimated that TCHC staff made the following contributions to the prosecution of this action:

(a) TCHC legal counsel spent more than 200 hours in gathering and reviewing documents, researching, advising internal clients, meeting with class counsel and attending the mediation. Furthermore, more than 100 hours were spent by a paralegal, a legal clerk, and students to research and gather/review documents.

(b) The Elevator Maintenance unit at TCHC spent approximately 75 hours to gather technical documents, which resulted in approximately 30 banker boxes of documents. Furthermore, they provided technical advice throughout the process to assist class counsel.

(c) The Information Technology Department at TCHC spent approximately 110 hours gathering documents. This process involved upgrading the existing mail archiving solution to a different format to search for emails from past and present employees.

(d) The Asset Management Department at TCHC spent approximately 40 hours gathering documents related to financial decisions made.

(e) The Human Resources Department at TCHC spent approximately a day searching its archived records for information on employees that are no longer with TCHC

(f) TCHC also had to pay approximately $1,000 in consultation fees to retired staff with respect to the time spent in assisting with this litigation.

[ 51 ] The time and effort that TCHC invested in this case goes well beyond what is normally expected of a representative plaintiff. This contribution was valuable and contributed to the successful outcome of the mediation. This effort, together with the fact that TCHC assumed the risk of costs on behalf of the class, leads me to conclude that the $15,000 honorarium is justified.

[ 52 ] I do not reach the same conclusion for FORC. I recognize that FORC was dedicated to its job as a representative plaintiff and I acknowledge this contribution. FORC fulfilled the usual tasks expected of the position. Representatives of FORC assisted in collecting documents, reviewed pleadings, swore affidavits and were cross-examined, met with class counsel to discuss the case, the mediation and settlement. FORC did not incur the extraordinary time that TCHC invested and was never exposed to costs. Compensation to a representative plaintiff is rare and must be awarded sparingly. In this case, FORC’s role was not exceptional and I am not prepared to approve the compensation requested.

Approval of class Counsel fees

Legal Framework

[ 53 ] The court’s task is to determine a fee that is "fair and reasonable" in all of the circumstances: see Parsons v. Canadian Red Cross Society (2000), 2000 22386 (ON SC) , 49 O.R. (3d) 281 at paras. 13 and 56 (S.C.J.).

[ 54 ] In Vitapharm Canada Ltd. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd ., [2005] O.T.C. 208, [2005] O.J. No. 1117 at para. 67 (S.C.J.) , Cumming J. summarized some of the factors to be considered by the court when fixing class counsel's fees:

(a) the factual and legal complexities of the matters dealt with;

(b) the risk undertaken, including the risk that the matter might not be certified;

(c) the degree of responsibility assumed by class counsel;

(d) the monetary value of the matters in issue;

(e) the importance of the matter to the class;

(f) the degree of skill and competence demonstrated by class counsel;

(g) the results achieved;

(h) the ability of the class to pay;

(i) the expectations of the class as to the amount of fees; and

(j) the opportunity cost to class counsel in the expenditure of time in pursuit of the litigation and settlement.

[ 55 ] With these factors in mind, the following review confirms the reasonableness of the proposed fees and disbursements.

The Retainer Agreement

[ 56 ] Class counsel entered into a contingency fee retainer agreement with the representative plaintiffs whereby fees were to be fixed at 30% of any settlement or award, subject to court approval. Class counsel seek approval of their fees in accordance with this agreement, in the amount of $3,495,000 plus applicable taxes, and $5,000 for future disbursements.

[ 57 ] An agreement respecting fees and disbursements between class counsel and a representative plaintiff is enforceable if approved by the court.

The Fee is Fair and Reasonable

[ 58 ] The amount sought for class counsels’ fees is reasonable given the time expended, the complexity of the case, the risks assumed, and the quantum of recovery achieved for the class. The representative plaintiffs, who are both represented by experienced lawyers, agree that these fees are reasonable.

[ 59 ] A team of lawyers at Paliare Roland has been involved in the prosecution of this action since early 2008. In 2007, in the early stage of the litigation a team of lawyers at Miller Thomson was also involved. Paliare Roland has docketed time totaling approximately $1,751,174 (not including applicable taxes). Miller Thomson has docketed time totaling approximately $53,620, with the majority of work being completed by September 2009.

[ 60 ] The time incurred by class counsel involved an extensive amount of work: extensive research and investigation, pleadings, certification, cross-examinations on affidavits, production of documents, mediation and settlement. The defendants vigorously defended the action throughout. The outcome of the action was not certain and the result that class counsel achieved is fair and reasonable.

Conclusion

[ 61 ] In summary, I approve the settlement, the fees and disbursements of class counsel and the compensation for TCHC. With the exception of the compensation requested for FORC, I grant the relief set out in the notice of motion dated November 8, 2012. Class counsel shall notify the court when the administration of the settlement is completed.

C. Horkins J.

Released: November 22, 2012

Elevator (Canada) Limited, 2012 ONSC 6626
COURT FILE NO.: CV-08-00355006-00CP
DATE: 20121122

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN:

TORONTO COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION and HOUSING SERVICES INCORPORATED Plaintiffs – and – THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR (CANADA) LIMITED, THYSSENKRUPP NORTHERN ELEVATOR CORPORATION, THYSSEN ELEVATOR LIMITED all from time to time carrying on business under the names “ThyssenKrupp Northern Elevator” and “ThyssenKrupp Elevator” Defendants

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT RE SETTLEMENT APPROVAL

C. Horkins J.

Released: November 22, 2012