/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150521.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 21, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 101 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Sued Over Injuries From Asbestos-Containing Products ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ACTIVE NETWORK: Removes "Mooney" Class Suit to S.D. California AIG INC: Removes PIMCO Suit to Central District of California ALBANY MOLECULAR: Defending Against "Gauquie" Class Action ALLIED COLLECTION: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims AMC NETWORKS: Removes "Cho" Labor Suit to the C.D. California ANZ BANK: Successful Appeal May Hamper Penalties Cases ANZ BANK: Recent Ruling Favorable for Banks, Telecoms Sector ARAMARK HEALTHCARE: Accused of Sexual Harassment in N.D. Illinois ARAMARK UNIFORM: "Strickland" Suit Moved From Calif. to Kansas ARCH AUTO PARTS: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Claims ATLANTIC CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act BERKSHIRE HILLS: Defending Against Shareholder Class Action BIODELIVERY SCIENCES: Class Action Settlement Approved by Court BOSCOV'S INC: Violates Disabilities Act in New Jersey, Suit Says BP PLC: Plaintiffs Lawyers Fight Changes to Oil Spill Settlement BULL HEAD: Faces "Hurley" Suit Over Violation of Disabilities Act CANADA: Class Action Ruling Upholds Farmers' Marketing Freedom CANADA: NFU Balks at Supreme Court's CWB Class Action Ruling CANADA: First Nations Mull Residential School Class Action CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Ralphs" Suit in E.D. Missouri CHINA XD: Named as Defendants in 2 Securities Class Actions CLACKAMAS CTY, OR: Faces Suit Alleging Disabilities Act Violation CRAIG'S CRUISERS: Faces "Gregory" Suit Alleging Bias Due to Sex CYNOSURE INC: Second Circuit to Decide TCPA Case Based on Briefs CYNOSURE INC: Massachusetts Case Over Merger Dismissed DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA DOLLAR TREE: Case by Assistant Store Manager Still Pending DOLLAR TREE: 2012 Case Proceeding to Liability Phase DOLLAR TREE: October 26 Trial Date Set in 2013 Wage Suit DOLLAR TREE: Discovery Has Not Commenced in 2014 Wage Case DOLLAR TREE: Del. Chancery & Appellate Courts Refuse Injunction DUN AND BRADSTREET: Faces "Thomas" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation DYNAMIC PET: Faces "Reed" Suit in S.D. California Alleging Injury E. W. SCRIPPS: Named as Defendant in "Goldfinger" Case EHEALTH INC: Defending Against Two Class Actions ELECTRICAL WORKERS UNION: Accused of Gender Bias and Retaliation EMPIRE MANAGEMENT: Sued for Barring Black Renters ENVIVIO INC: June 15 Settlement Claim Deadline Set EXECUTIVE CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims FACEBOOK INC: Vienna Court Hears Privacy Suit FALCON DRILLING: Fires Staff That Opposed Gender Bias, Suit Says FANDUEL INC: Removes "Leung" Suit to California District Court FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over Wrong Ram 1500 Axle FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Class Action Parties Settle Case FOUNTAIN OF LIFE: Docs Show Leaders Took Part in Tax Lien Sales FREDERIC WEINBERG: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act GLOBAL CASH: Continues to Defend Dollie Williams Case GOLDMAN SACHS: Court of Appeals Reinstates MBS Fraud Suit GOOGLE INC: Lieff Cabraser Seeks $81MM From No Poach Settlement HALSTED FINANCIAL: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act HC2 HOLDINGS: No Responsive Pleading Filed by Defendants HEALTHWAYS INC: Filed with FCC Petition for Retroactive Waiver HI-TECH PHARMA: Court Rejects Contempt Order in Marketing Suit INFINITE CARE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Alleging WARN Act Violation JAKKS PACIFIC: Court Dismissed Class Action Complaint JOSE PALLETS: Faces "Sebastian" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA JOURNAL COMMUNICATIONS: Defending Against 2nd Goldfinger Action JP MORGAN: Accused of Harassment by Woman of Lebanese Origin KEPRO ACQUISITIONS: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT: "Smith" Suit Moved From Calif. to Colorado KIND LLC: Faces "Galvez" Class Suit in California District Court LOCKHEED MARTIN: Accused of Bias and Retaliation in Colorado LOWE'S HOME: Sued in Washington for Violating Disabilities Act LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Crawford" Product Liability Class Suit LUNA INNOVATIONS: Class Actions Filed After Merger Announcement M & T BANK: Accused of Age Discrimination and Retaliation in Pa. MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR: Fails to Pay Equal Rates to Workers, Suit Says METRO-NORTH COMMUTER: Sued Over Discriminatory Firing of Employee NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act NEW ZEALAND: Class Suit Mulled Over Canterbury Earthquakes NYU LANGONE: Accused of Employment Discrimination Due to Age PACIFIC INVESTMENT: AIG Seeks Judgment Over Securities Claims PACIFIC PREMIER: Plaintiffs' Counsel Want to Schedule Depositions PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL: PHIPA Defense Fails to Avert Class Action PETRO RIVER: No Timeline for Court to Rule in Class Action PM REALTY: Removes "Branch" Employment Suit to C.D. California PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act RIVERSIDE, CA: Sued by Minors Alleging Violations of Civil Rights ROBINSON SPORTS: Sued for Violating Disabilities Act in Florida SALVATION ARMY: Accused of Bias Against Black/Latino/Female Staff SALVATION ARMY: Accused of Sexual & Racial Discrimination in Cal. SHELL OIL: Faces "Leonard" Suit Alleging Benzene-Related Injuries SHOWTIME NETWORKS: "Gordon" Sues Over Mayweather-Pacquaio Fight SIEMENS DEMAG: Discriminates Against Black Operator, Suit Claims SKECHERS USA: "Bailey" Suit Consolidated in Toning Shoe MDL SOUTHERN UNITED: Investigators to Probe Obama Care Funds Misuse SPARK NETWORKS: "Kirby" Settlement Granted Final Court Approval SPARK NETWORKS: Updates in Werner and Wright Cases SPARK NETWORKS: Updates on Ben-Jacob, Gever and Korland Cases SPECTRUM HUMAN: Accused of Racial Discrimination and Retaliation SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Urges Dismissal of Shareholder Case STAAR SURGICAL: To File Motion to Dismiss Edward Todd Complaint SUNRISE CITY, FL: Police Dep't Faces "Nigro" Suit in S.D. Florida SYMMETRY SURGICAL: Parties Settled Merger Class Action SYNGENTA AG: Farmers' GMO Corn Suits Gathering Momentum TAKATA CORP: "Shmil" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL TAKATA CORP: "Taylor" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL THURSTON CTY, NE: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Civil Rights TOYS R US: Judge Sends Dresser Case Back to Beaver County Court TRICO BANCSHARES: Parties in Shareholder Suit in Settlement Talks TRICO BANCSHARES: Filed Answer to Former Banker's Suit TRICO BANCSHARES: Faces Class Action by Current Personal Banker UBER TECH: Taxi Drivers Not Employees, Mass. Supreme Court Rules UBER TECH: Legal Department Expands Following Lawsuits UNITED TRANZACTIONS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says URANERZ ENERGY: Defending Against Suit Over Energy Fuels Merger VISION FINANCIAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims VIVINT SOLAR: Final Settlement Agreement to Occur Mid-2015 VIVINT SOLAR: Answersto Former Installation Technicians' Suit VIVINT SOLAR: Plaintiffs Filed Amended Complaint in "Hyatt" Case WALGREEN CO: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Florida WALGREEN CO: Fails to Provide Accessible Facilities, Suit Says WORLD WRESTLING: Responds to Concussion Class Action ********* 3M COMPANY: Sued Over Injuries From Asbestos-Containing Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark D. Cashio and Kimberly W. Cashio v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00489 (M.D. Tenn., April 27, 2015) is an action for injuries under the Tennessee Products Liability Act of 1978. According to the complaint, Mr. Cashio worked with and around asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold, supplied and distributed by the Product Defendants in the 1960s and 1970s. In August 2014, he was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, allegedly resulting from his exposure to asbestos-containing products designed, manufactured, distributed, installed or sold by the Product Defendants. 3M Company is a Delaware corporation headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. The Product Defendants are or were engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, marketing, installing and selling of asbestos-containing products throughout the United States and the state of Tennessee. The other Defendants are Avco Corporation and its Division, Lycoming Engines Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.; CBS Corporation; Cytec Industries, Inc. (Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to Advanced Composites Group and American Cyanamid Company); Dana Companies, LLC; Eaton Corporation (Individually and as Successor- In-Interest to Cutler Hammer, Inc. and Eaton Aeroquip, Inc.); General Dynamics Corporation (Individually and as Successor-In- Interest to Convair Corp.); General Electric Company; Genuine Parts Company; Georgia-Pacific LLC; Goodrich Corporation; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to Goodyear Aerospace Corp.); Harco LLC (f/k/a Harco Laboratories, Inc.); Henkel Corporation (Individually and as Successor-In- Interest to Dexter Corporation and Dexter Hysol Aerospace, LLC); Honeywell International, Inc.; Honeywell, Inc.; Imo Industries, Inc. (Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to Adel Fasteners); Lockheed Martin Corporation; Metlife, Inc.; Northrop Grumman Corp., (Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to Ling- Temco-Vought); Novartis Corporation (Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to Ciba-Geigy Corporation); Parker Hannifan Corporation (Individually and as Individually and as Successor-In- Interest to Cleveland Wheels & Brakes, f/k/a Cleveland Aircraft Products); Rockwell Automation, Inc. (Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to Allen Bradley Company, Inc. and Rostone Corporation); Schneider Electric USA, Inc. (Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to Square D Company; The Boeing Company; Transdigm Group, Inc. and its Division Adel Wiggins Group (Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to Adel Precision Products Corp.); Union Carbide Corporation; United Technologies Corp., and its Division Pratt & Whitney. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kathryn E. Barnett, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN-NASHVILLE, PLLC 810 Broadway, Suite 105 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 490-0944 E-mail: kbarnett@forthepeople.com - and - J. Dennis Weitzel, Esq. Samuel D. Elswick, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 20 N. Orange Avenue, 16th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 841-9520 E-mail: dweitzel@forthepeople.com selswick@forthepeople.com ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael J. Warhol, On behalf of himself and all others Similarly situated v. Accounts Receivable Services, LLC, Case No. 0:15-cv- 02331-SRN-JSM (D. Minn., May 4, 2015) seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Mayer, Esq. MAYER BRAYER LLP 5844 Columbus Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55417 Telephone: (612) 418-9764 E-mail: mayerbrayer@gmail.com ACTIVE NETWORK: Removes "Mooney" Class Suit to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Mooney, et al. v. The Active Network, Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2014-00004713-CU-AT-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00942-AJB-WVG to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint alleges that Active "automatically" enrolled them into a free trial of the Active Advantage program "[u]nbeknownst" to them, and that Plaintiffs did not knowingly consent to the use of their credit cards to pay for Active Advantage memberships. The Plaintiffs further allege that they are "some of many thousands of similarly-situated Class members across the State of California -- indeed, across the entire United States -- who have been victimized by the deceptive Active Advantage program." The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven L. Marchbanks, Esq. PREMIER LEGAL CENTER, A.P.C. 501 West Broadway, Suite 1095 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 235-0137 Facsimile: (619) 235-3300 E-mail: steve@premierlegalcenter.com - and - Robert G. Loewy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT G. LOEWY, P.C. 1300 Bristol Street North, Suite 160 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 442-7103 Facsimile: (949) 242-5105 E-mail: rloewy@rloewy.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel T. Pascucci, Esq. Jennifer B. Rubin, Esq. Wynter N. Lavier, Esq. MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C. 3580 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 314-1500 Facsimile: (858) 314-1501 E-mail: dpascucci@mintz.com jrubin@mintz.com wlavier@mintz.com - and - Evan S. Nadel, Esq. MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C. 44 Montgomery Street, 36th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 432-6000 Facsimile: (415) 432-6000 E-mail: enadel@mintz.com AIG INC: Removes PIMCO Suit to Central District of California ------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit styled Pacific Investment Management Company LLC, et al. v. American International Group, Inc., Case No. 30-2015- 00779738-CU-SL-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv- 00687 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs excluded themselves from the settlement class in In re American International Group, Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation, No. 08-CV-4772, which recently settled after nearly seven years of active litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Like the AIG Class Action, PIMCO's Complaint alleges that AIG made false and misleading public statements about AIG's exposure to the subprime mortgage market between 2006 and 2008 in violation of the federal securities laws. PIMCO's claims also substantially overlap with claims asserted in, and arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts as alleged in, nine other "opt-out" actions pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York brought by other similarly situated investors, who excluded themselves from the AIG Class Action settlement. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Blair A. Nicholas, Esq. Timothy A. DeLange, Esq. Dave Kaplan, Esq. Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. Brandon Marsh, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 793-0070 Facsimile: (858) 793-0323 E-mail: blairn@blbglaw.com timothyd@blbglaw.com DavidK@blbglaw.com Lucas.Gilmore@blbglaw.com brandon.marsh@blbglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Joseph S. Allerhand, Esq. Robert F. Carangelo, Esq. Stacy Nettleton, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Telephone: (212) 310-8000 Facsimile: (212) 310-8007 E-mail: joseph.allerhand@weil.com robert.carangelo@weil.com stacy.nettleton@weil.com - and - Alan A. Greenberg, Esq. Bret D. Hembd, Esq. Adam Sechooler, Esq. GREENBERG GROSS LLP 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1750 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 383-2800 Facsimile: (949) 383-2801 E-mail: AGreenberg@GGTrialLaw.com BHembd@GGTrialLaw.com ASechooler@GGTrialLaw.com ALBANY MOLECULAR: Defending Against "Gauquie" Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Albany Molecular Research, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a purported class action lawsuit, John Gauquie v. Albany Molecular Research, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-6637, was filed on November 12, 2014, against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleges claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Company's August 5, 2014 announcement of its financial results for the second quarter of 2014, including that the OsoBio New Mexico facility experienced a power interruption in July 2014, which would have a material impact on the Company's results. The complaint alleges that the price of the Company's stock was artificially inflated between August 5, 2014 and November 5, 2014, and seeks certification as a class action, unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. ALLIED COLLECTION: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dov Spitezki, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Allied Collection Services of California, L.L.C., and Law Offices of Robert L. Colcough, Case No. 1:15-cv- 02596 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2015) is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com AMC NETWORKS: Removes "Cho" Labor Suit to the C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Cho v. AMC Networks Entertainment LLC, Case No. BC575892, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-03099 to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues. The Defendant is represented by: Kathryn Teresa McGuigan, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-2500 Facsimile: (213) 612-2501 E-mail: kmcguigan@morganlewis.com ANZ BANK: Successful Appeal May Hamper Penalties Cases ------------------------------------------------------ Australasian Lawyer reports that the successful appeal of the ANZ bank class action could make penalties claims much harder, warns lawyer. Jenny Campbell -- Jenny.Campbell@allens.com.au -- partner at Allens has told Australasian Lawyer that the recent decision in the ANZ bank class action could throw a spanner in the works for other class actions. "I think that the decision will be a significant hurdle when it comes to the other penalties cases that are said to be in the works, for example utilities and telecommunications companies. It's certainly going to make penalties claims much harder to bring than was previously the case," she said. A recent report by Allens found that class actions have become increasingly common and that companies in Australia are more likely to face class action litigation than in any other jurisdiction, other than corporations operating in the United States. A report by Maurice Blackburn on the other hand, said that the number of class actions in Australia remains low and steady. It concludes that there have only been 15 class actions in the Federal Court every year since the inception of the regime, amounting to just 0.3 per cent of the 5,000 matters filed in the Court each year. While there is debate around the direction that class action numbers are trending in, both Allens and Maurice Blackburn agree that the number of cases is not disproportionate to Australia's population. Allens' report found that the number of class actions in 2014 was the highest it has ever been, however the same number was reached in 2010. The report attributes the occurrence of class actions in Australia to a number of factors, including a focus on corporate governance and the endorsement of various peak regulators on the importance of class actions, the business opportunity for more firms to develop class action practices and the facilitation of class actions by the courts. "There is a lot of debate about whether class actions in Australia are out of control or not," said Mr. Campbell. "My view is that there is no doubt that we are seeing more class actions now than ever before but we're not seeing the sort of explosion of class actions that people were talking about five or six years ago. I don't think that the flood gates have opened." While class actions have impacted companies of many industries, Campbell anticipates further class actions in the banking and finance sector. "I do think that they have become quite a target for class actions; the bank fees cases are the classic example of that but we've also seen a number of class actions brought by investors against banks and other financial services organizations," she said. "I think that banks, as very large commercial organizations with deep pockets are going to be a sector of the market that the class action promoters are always going to be focused on." ANZ BANK: Recent Ruling Favorable for Banks, Telecoms Sector ------------------------------------------------------------ Darcy Wilson, Esq. of Lander & Rogers, in an article for Lexology, reports that on 8 April 2015, the Full Federal Court, overturned a 2014 Federal Court decision which held late payment fees charged by ANZ amounted to penalties. The Court held that in evaluating whether a fee is 'extravagant and exorbitant' the fee should be compared to the greatest prospective loss that could conceivably flow from the breach, assessed at the time of entering into the contract, as opposed to a retrospective calculation of actual loss suffered. In addition, the Court held that a broader category of indirect loss can be taken into account when estimating the loss that may flow from a breach. Although the case comes as a great relief to the banking and telecommunications industries, it is likely the High Court will be asked to hear the matter on appeal. Facts The class action against ANZ Bank, which began in 2013, challenged the legality of various banking fees imposed on customers. The fees in question included: -- late payment fees on consumer credit card accounts; -- honor, dishonor and non-payment fees charged to consumers and business deposit accounts; and -- over-limit fees on consumer credit card accounts. The main fees in contention were the late payment fees of $20 to $35 incurred each time a customer failed to repay the minimum amount on their credit card each month. This fee was incurred regardless of the lateness of payment and despite the direct loss suffered by ANZ as a result of late payment being estimated at first instance to be $0.50 to $5.00. The main issue in contention is whether such fees are penalties and thus unenforceable. In February 2014, Justice Gordon of the Federal Court decided that the late payment fees on consumer credit card accounts amounted to penalties, as they were not a genuine pre-estimate of the loss ANZ would suffer and were extravagant and unconscionable compared to the loss actually suffered. However, Justice Gordon found that the other fees charged were justified by the provision of additional services by ANZ. For example, in the case of over-limit fees, the customer was being provided with an informal extension of credit, which warranted an additional fee. In the case of dishonor fees, Justice Gordon found that these were in exchange for ANZ's services of considering the customer's request for an informal overdraft. Justice Gordon also rejected the contention that any of the fees contravened statutory prohibitions on unconscionable or unfair conduct. Both parties appealed to the Full Federal Court. ANZ appealed against the decision that the late payment fees amounted to penalties, and Paciocco appealed against the decision that the other bank fees were not penalties and therefore valid. Full Federal Court Decision On April 8, 2015, the Full Federal Court overturned Justice Gordon's decision in relation to the late payment fees, and affirmed her decision in relation to the other fees. Main findings The late payment fees for credit cards were not extravagant, exorbitant or unconscionable and therefore not a penalty. In order to assess whether a fee is 'extravagant and exorbitant', the loss needs to be assessed prospectively (ex ante) as opposed to retrospectively (ex post) (discussed below under 'Method for assessing extravagance'). In assessing that loss, the 'indirect consequences' incurred as a result of a customer's failure to perform an obligation can also be taken into account (discussed below under 'Consideration of indirect consequences'). The Full Court confirmed Justice Gordon's decision that: -- the honor, dishonor, non-payment and over-limit fees constituted genuine fees for services and were not penalties; -- none of the fees contravened statutory prohibitions on unconscionable or unfair conduct; and -- the party claiming that a payment is a penalty has the onus of proving extravagance and exorbitance, which was not achieved in this case. Method for assessing extravagance One of the key reasons behind the findings was the method which should be used to determine whether a fee is "extravagant and exorbitant" compared to the loss suffered. In her decision at first instance, Justice Gordon analyzed the extravagance of the late payment fees on an ex post basis. This entailed a comparison of the fee with the actual loss suffered by ANZ after the breaches occurred, which she estimated to be between 50 cents and $5.00. However, the Full Court agreed with ANZ's argument that the appropriate analysis should be ex ante. This involves an assessment of the greatest prospective losses that could conceivably flow from the breach, assessed at the time of entering into the contract. The Full Court emphasized that the question of whether a fee is extravagant or exorbitant and, therefore, a penalty, is distinct from the question of the damage actually experienced due to a failure to comply with obligations in a contract. An ex post enquiry is only appropriate to calculate the compensation due to the penalized party after the fee has been found to be a penalty. Consideration of indirect consequences The Full Court also broadened the types of loss that could be taken into account when engaging in an ex ante assessment of a fee's extravagance or exorbitance. At first instance, Justice Gordon only considered the direct loss incurred by ANZ when a late payment was made. The Full Court engaged in a much broader assessment of the potential losses suffered, by considering indirect consequences of a customer's failure to make timely payment. For example, the costs incurred by ANZ in maintaining a collections department and in maintaining additional regulatory capital in order to make up for late payments, were losses that could be taken into account when assessing the reasonableness of the fee. After taking into account the costs associated with these indirect consequences, the Full Court concluded that the late payment fees were not penalties. Implications This decision will be welcomed by financial institutions and telecommunications companies, which will feel vindicated in their practice of charging such fees under contract. On the other hand, the decision is a major setback for the class action and the numerous other proceedings against banks and telecommunication companies which have been stayed pending the outcome of this test case. If this decision stands, it will be a significant obstacle for both current and future penalties class actions. It also begs the question of whether the restating of the penalty doctrine in Andrews v ANZ (2012) 247 CLR 205 will have the momentous impact on commercial contracts previously predicted. Bottom Line Although financial institutions and telecommunications companies are likely celebrating the victory, the 'bank fees' saga is far from over. Representatives for the class action have already indicated that special leave will be sought to appeal to the High Court. ARAMARK HEALTHCARE: Accused of Sexual Harassment in N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- Monica Dixon v. Aramark Healthcare Support Services, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-03918 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 2015) is brought under the Civil Rights act of 1964 and the Illinois Whistleblower Act. The Plaintiff is African American and female. She alleges that the Defendant summarily dismissed her allegations of sexual harassment, failing to investigate, identify or discipline the harassment, and additionally failing to prevent future harassment. Aramark Healthcare Support Services, LLC is a national corporation operating in Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina A. Papavasiliou, Esq. CHRISTINA A. PAPAVASILIOU, ATTORNEY AT LAW 180 N. LaSalle St., Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 379-9580 Facsimile: (312) 264-0813 E-mail: c_papav@yahoo.com ARAMARK UNIFORM: "Strickland" Suit Moved From Calif. to Kansas -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Dwayne Strickland, et al. v. Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-09851, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City). The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-07823-DDC-KMH to the proceeding. The collective action is brought for alleged failure to provide overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: George P. Moschopoulos, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE MOSCHOPOULOS, APC 34197 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 100 Dana Point, CA 92629 Telephone: (714) 904-1669 Facsimile: (949) 272-0428 E-mail: g.moschopoulos.esq@gmail.com gestrada@rwillslawfirm.com - and - Rhonda H. Wills, Esq. Genevieve B. Estrada, Esq. WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC 1776 Yorktown, Suite 570 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 528-4455 Facsimile: (713) 528-2047 E-mail: rwills@rwillslawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Kathryn M. Nazarian, Esq. Eric Meckley, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP One Market Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 E-mail: knazarian@morganlewis.com emeckley@morganlewis.com ARCH AUTO PARTS: Violates Fair Labor Standards Act, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Maurice Johnson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arch Auto Parts Holding Company Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02512 (E.D.N.Y., May 1, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. ATLANTIC CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Breeden, Individually, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Atlantic Credit & Finance Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-03106-MAS-DEA (D.N.J., May 4, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS LAW LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 660-8169 E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com BERKSHIRE HILLS: Defending Against Shareholder Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is defending against a shareholder class action related to the Agreement and Plan of Merger. Following the public announcement of the execution of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated November 3, 2014 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among the Company and Hampden Bancorp, Inc. ("Hampden"), on or about February 11, 2015, Brian Levy, a purported shareholder of Hampden, filed a shareholder class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for Hampden County against Hampden, the Directors of Hampden and the Company (the "Hampden shareholder litigation"). The Hampden shareholder litigation purports to be brought on behalf of all of Hampden's public stockholders and alleges that (i) the directors of Hampden breached their fiduciary duties to it's stockholders by, among other things, failing to take steps necessary to obtain a fair and adequate price for Hampden's common stock, (ii) Hampden and its directors failed to disclose material facts in its proxy solicitation materials for its shareholder vote to approve the transaction set forth in the Merger Agreement, and (iii) the Company knowingly aided and abetted Hampden's directors' breach of fiduciary duty. Hampden, its Directors and the Company all deny and are vigorously defending each of the allegations asserted in the Hampden shareholder litigation. Management of the Company believes the Hampden shareholder litigation will not have any material adverse effect on the financial condition or operations of the Company. BIODELIVERY SCIENCES: Class Action Settlement Approved by Court --------------------------------------------------------------- BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a settlement of class action lawsuits has been agreed upon by all parties and approved by the Court. On July 24, 2013 and August 5, 2013, purported class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa Division) against Accentia Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., and several current and former directors and officers of Accentia and its former subsidiary, Biovest International, Inc. (collectively the Class Action), including Frank E. O'Donnell, Jr. M.D., our Executive Chairman. The complaints allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making or causing Accentia and/or Biovest to make false statements, and by failing to disclose or causing Accentia and/or Biovest to fail to disclose material information, concerning the results of the clinical trial of Biovest's cancer vaccine, BiovaxID, and status of its approval by the FDA. Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of shareholders who purchased common stock of Accentia or Biovest during a defined time period. All defendants, including Dr. O'Donnell, believe this litigation to be without merit, deny any wrongdoing or liability and have vigorously defended the alleged claims. A settlement of this matter, in which defendants make no admissions of wrongdoing or liability, has been agreed upon by all parties and approved by the Court. BOSCOV'S INC: Violates Disabilities Act in New Jersey, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Clemente, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Boscov's, Inc. and Boscov's Department Store, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-03127-RBK-KMW (D.N.J., May 1, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 1040 Kings Highway, North, Suite 601 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 795-7250 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com BP PLC: Plaintiffs Lawyers Fight Changes to Oil Spill Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that plaintiffs lawyers have turned to the courts to fight changes to the $9.2 billion Deepwater Horizon settlement that they warn will leave out thousands of businesses suffering oil-spill losses. Lead plaintiffs attorneys petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit last month to reverse changes to the way claim amounts are calculated. Those accounting changes were put into place after that court agreed with BP PLC that the claims administrator was using an accounting method that could have paid thousands of businesses with no oil-spill losses. "What turns out to be a technical accounting question that no one really had on the horizon three years ago now is basically a sink-or-swim issue for a significant number of claimants," said David Logan, a professor at Roger Williams University School of Law. The deadline is June 8 to file claims against the settlement, which resolves economic damages incurred by businesses along the Gulf of Mexico following the 2010 spill. BP declined to comment about the accounting change. As of March 31, claims administrator Patrick Juneau had paid nearly $5 billion on more than 84,000 claims for economic damages, according to court papers. The settlement compensates Gulf Coast businesses that didn't suffer physical damages from oil but say they have lost money, such as seafood producers, restaurants, tourism shops and boat operators that volunteered in cleanup efforts. The specific identities of those companies making claims for economic losses, including law firms that might be filing on their own behalf, remain confidential. Some 60,000 claims remain under review. Of those, at least 20 percent could see their damages significantly reduced or eliminated under the new policy, according to a lawyer familiar with the case, speaking anonymously. On April 16, another plaintiffs lawyer, Brent Coon of Brent Coon & Associates in Beaumont, Texas, who has more than 10,000 oil-spill clients, cited the policy in asking the court to allow class members to opt out of the settlement originally approved in 2012. "It's been made so onerous now that most people can't qualify," he said. The plaintiffs' complaints reflect a shift from the past three years, during which BP complained that some businesses received "windfall" payments based on "fictitious losses." In a flurry of appeals before the Fifth Circuit, BP argued that the settlement required claimants to prove the spill directly caused their financial losses. The court rejected BP's position, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied its petition for review last year. But BP won a small but significant debate over how to calculate business losses -- the issue now at the heart of the plaintiffs attorneys' appeal. In 2013, the Fifth Circuit ruled, 2-1, that Juneau's method was "completely disconnected from any reasonable understanding of calculation of damages." Under the old method, businesses reported revenues during a three-month period after the spill and subtracted expenses incurred during that period. The changes now require a business to subtract expenses actually related to those revenues, regardless of when they were incurred. Lead plaintiffs lawyers objected, arguing that the policy requires additional documentation and accounting calculations that specifically harmed businesses like construction, farming, education and professional services including law firms that attribute drops in work to the spill. On March 31, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier sided with BP; plaintiffs lawyers have appealed that ruling. Co-lead plaintiffs counsel Steve Herman of Herman Herman & Katz in New Orleans, wrote in an email to The National Law Journal that the new system "strays from the settlement agreement's mandate that all claimants be treated equally." Mr. Coon said the change is one of hundreds Mr. Juneau has implemented while determining how much claimants get paid. But it's significant enough to wipe out awards for thousands of his clients, many of them in the Florida Panhandle. "It's more nails in the coffin for the claimants, but it's probably the last nail for many of them." BP, meanwhile, isn't done with its own challenges. In an appeal that goes before the Fifth Circuit on June 3, the company seeks to recover hundreds of millions of dollars paid to businesses under the old accounting method. BP has challenged Judge Barbier's Sept. 24 order refusing its restitution request. "Hundreds of millions of dollars were wrongly paid out because of a misinterpretation of the settlement agreement that has since been overturned," BP spokesman Geoff Morrell wrote in an email to the NLJ. In another appeal, BP seeks to reverse Judge Barbier's refusal last year to grant access to information about businesses "for identifying and preventing the payment of improper, duplicative and fraudulent claims," Mr. Morrell wrote. The Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments on April 7. "The more they go back and change the rules and add issues to be considered in the administrative process, the less likely they'll get the closure they're looking for," Mr. Logan said of the Fifth Circuit, which for the most part has upheld the settlement. BULL HEAD: Faces "Hurley" Suit Over Violation of Disabilities Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fredkiey Hurley, individually v. Bull Head Tavern L.L.C. d/b/a Dull's Head Tavern, a New York for profit corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-03395-LGS (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2015) seeks to recover attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs incurred in pursuing an action to enforce and obtain compliance with provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Hurley suffers from a relatively rare genetic developmental congenital disorder that he contracted at birth -- spina bifida cystica with myelomeningocele. He is permanently disabled and is confined to a wheelchair. The violative property is located in New York City, in New York County. Bull Head Tavern L.L.C., doing business as Bull's Head Tavern, is the tenant on the Property operating this as food service establishment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tara Anne Demetriades, Esq. ADA ACCESSIBILITY ASSOCIATES 2076 Wolver Hollow Road Oyster Bay, NY 11771 Telephone: (516) 595-5009 E-mail: TDemetriades@Aol.com CANADA: Class Action Ruling Upholds Farmers' Marketing Freedom -------------------------------------------------------------- CKRM reports that Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz says the Supreme Court decision not to hear the appeal on the Canadian Wheat Board upholds western Canadian farmers' right to marketing freedom. Ritz says in a statement "the overwhelming majority of farmers have embraced the new economic opportunities created by marketing freedom." Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board filed a class-action lawsuit in 2012 over legislation that removed the marketing agency's monopoly on western wheat and barley sales. It sought leave to appeal after a lower court struck down the main parts of the class-action suit. CANADA: NFU Balks at Supreme Court's CWB Class Action Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ The Exchange Morning Post reports that The National Farmers Union (NFU) is disappointed that the Supreme Court of Canada has refused to hear the farmers' Class Action lawsuit stemming from the Harper Government's dismantling of the single-desk Canadian Wheat Board (CWB). Had the case proceeded, the Supreme Court would have been able to determine whether common law property rights apply to collective interests in property, namely the assets farmers paid for and added value to as a result of their management and direction of the CWB. The central question of the case was "Did the federal government unlawfully expropriate a proprietary interest of grain producers in the CWB by enacting the Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act in 2011?" The class action also claimed that by dismantling the single desk CWB, the government unjustly broke its trust and interfered with farmers' economic relations. The legal action also sought compensation for the losses that resulted from the government's actions. "The economic damage farmers have suffered since the Conservative government destroyed the single desk Canadian Wheat Board is very real," said Ian Robson, NFU Board member. "Western farmers have lost more than $7 billion dollars since August 1, 2012 -- the equivalent of a full year's wheat and barley crop. This is money that is not being spent in rural communities, not being invested in our farms, and not circulating in the Canadian economy. Farmers worked long and hard to build the grain marketing system we had, and which benefited the whole of Canada's economy. It is a shame that the Supreme Court of Canada will not be able to hold the Harper government accountable for this damage." "The Supreme Court's decision is disappointing, but worse is the fact that farmers were forced to go through the judiciary to try to have their voices heard when in the summer of 2011 it was already clear that the majority of farmers supported the single desk," added Matt Gehl, NFU Board member. "By not holding a farmer vote, as was required under the existing CWB legislation and after promising to do so in the 2011 election campaign, the federal government disregarded its duty to represent the people." "Minister Ritz claimed the benefits of individual farmers selling wheat and barley to the private grain company of their choice would be felt immediately, yet the first three years have shown massive losses for farmers," said Doug Scott, NFU Board member. "With the CWB we got close to 100% of the full world price of grain, and sometimes more. Today, we are getting 60% if we are lucky, and economists predict that will keep going down as grain companies and railways flex their muscle. There is no more final payment -- what you get from the elevator is it. The grain company keeps the rest. If this is Gerry Ritz's idea of great early results, I shudder to think about how bad it will be in a decade." "I think it was hard for people to realize just how fundamental the CWB's single desk was. Now that it is gone we are taking hard lessons in transportation, quality, access to delivery and price," said Jan Slomp, NFU President. "To bring order and prosperity back to the prairie grain system, we need to reinstate the single desk." CANADA: First Nations Mull Residential School Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Geordon Omand, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that two First Nations in British Columbia are looking to take the federal government to court on behalf of all the former day students of the country's notorious residential school system. The Tk'emlups te Secwepemc and Shishalh bands are asking permission from the Federal Court to launch a class-action suit representing aboriginal children who attended residential schools but returned to their families at night. "Every single one of them has a story similar to the people who resided in the schools," said former Shishalh chief turned councillor, Garry Feschuk, a plaintiff in the case and whose wife is a former day student. "I really believe it's time that these people are heard and we start to heal our people." Three separate class-action suits are being considered by the court: one for former day students, one for descendants of former day students and one for bands impacted by members who attended residential schools as day students. The certification hearing was set to start on April 13 and was scheduled to last for a week, the allegations of which have not been proven in court. Mr. Feschuk said he expects a decision to be reached by September. In 2008, the Canadian government issued a formal apology for its historic role in the residential school system, but that did not include compensation for the day students who attended the schools alongside live-in students. The lawsuit alleges day students suffered the same loss of cultural connection and language as their residential counterparts, who did receive compensation. It argues that the program was an intentional element of Canada's education policy and resulted in serious and life-long harm to survivors. Mr. Feschuk estimated there are more than 300 former day students belonging to the two representative bands, but he was unable to provide an overall number for the entire country. "It's taken a lot of work to get us to where we are today," said Mr. Feschuk, adding that the legal process began more than three years ago. "I'm just hoping that in the end we can achieve the justice that our people have been waiting for. They've waited long enough." Justice Sean Harrington will ultimately decide whether the two bands should be allowed to speak for all of Canada's former aboriginal day students. That decision could then be appealed by either side before going to trial, provided a negotiated, out-of- court settlement isn't reached in the interim. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Weiss, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Capital Management Services, L.P., Case No. 1:15-cv- 02600 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Ralphs" Suit in E.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------ Anna E. Ralphs f/k/a Anna E. Juergens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Charter Communications, Inc. and Charter Communications Entertainment I, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv- 00711-JAR (E.D. Mo., May 5, 2015) asserts claims for breach of contract. The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis J. Flynn, Esq. JEFFREY J. LOWE, P.C. 8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 678-3400 Facsimile: (314) 678-3401 E-mail: casey@jefflowepc.com CHINA XD: Named as Defendants in 2 Securities Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------------- China XD Plastics Company Limited said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company and certain of its officers and directors have been named as defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. These actions, which allege violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the United States securities laws, were filed on July 15, 2014 and July 16, 2014 and are captioned Yang v. Han, et al., No. 14-cv-5308 (GBD) and Tompkins v. China XD Plastics Company Ltd., et al., No. 14-cv-5359 (GBD), respectively. On November 21, 2014, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed lead plaintiffs. On February 17, 2015, the lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on behalf of a class of all persons other than the defendants who purchased the common stock of China XD Plastics Company Limited between March 25, 2014 and July 10, 2014, inclusive. Specifically, the lead plaintiffs allege that the Company and two of its officers made false or misleading statements and/or omitted material facts in the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 and the Company's Form 10-Q for the first quarter ended March 31, 2014. They also assert that the individual defendants are liable because they allegedly controlled the Company during the time the allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions were made. The lead plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts. "Based on our initial review of the complaints, the management believes the lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them," the Company said. CLACKAMAS CTY, OR: Faces Suit Alleging Disabilities Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Updike, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Clackamas County, Case No. 3:15-cv-00723-SI (D. Or., April 29, 2015) is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl Lee Post, Esq. Daniel J. Snyder, Esq. John D. Burgess, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL SNYDER 1000 S.W. Broadway, Suite 2400 Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: (503) 241-3617 Facsimile: (503) 241-2249 E-mail: carlpost@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com dansnyder@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com johnburgess@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com CRAIG'S CRUISERS: Faces "Gregory" Suit Alleging Bias Due to Sex --------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Gregory v. Craig's Cruisers, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00473 (W.D. Mich., May 6, 2015) is brought for damages and injunctive relief caused by Craig's Cruisers' discrimination on the basis of sex against the Plaintiff in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and the Michigan Work Opportunity Wage Act. Ms. Gregory is a female resident of Wyoming, Michigan. She was hired by Craig's Cruisers on May 17, 2013. She was pregnant at the time of her demotion on December 6, 2013, and her subsequent termination on December 13, 2013. Craig's Cruisers is a Michigan corporation doing business in Michigan, with its Grand Rapids facility located at 5730 Clyde Park SW, in Wyoming, Michigan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicole M. Strickler, Esq. Katherine Maria Saldanha Olson, Esq. MESSER, STILP & STRICKLER, LTD. 166 W. Washington Street, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 334-3476 Facsimile: (312) 334-3434 E-mail: Strickler@messerstilp.com olson@messerstilp.com CYNOSURE INC: Second Circuit to Decide TCPA Case Based on Briefs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cynosure, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has notified the parties in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation that it will not hear oral arguments and will decide the case based on the briefs. The Company said, "In 2005, a plaintiff, individually and as putative representative of a purported class, filed a complaint against us under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) in Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County, captioned Weitzner v. Cynosure, Inc., No. MICV2005-01778 (Superior Court, Middlesex County), seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. The complaint alleges that we violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to the plaintiff and other recipients without the prior express invitation or permission of the recipients. Under the TCPA, recipients of unsolicited facsimile advertisements are entitled to damages of up to $500 per facsimile for inadvertent violations and up to $1,500 per facsimile for knowing or willful violations. Based on discovery in this matter, the plaintiff alleges that approximately three million facsimiles were sent on our behalf by a third party to approximately 100,000 individuals. In January 2012, the court denied the class certification motion. In November 2012, the court issued the final judgment and awarded the plaintiff $6,000 in damages and awarded us $3,495 in costs. The plaintiff appealed this decision, and oral argument on the appeal was held in October 2013 before the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court. In March 2014, the appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling, and in April 2014 the plaintiff filed a request for further appellate review by the Supreme Judicial Court. On May 6, 2014, the Supreme Judicial Court issued a Notice of Denial of Application for Further Appellate Review. No further appeals are possible in Massachusetts. In addition, in July 2012, the plaintiff filed a new purported class action, based on the same operative facts and asserting the same claims as in the Massachusetts action, in federal court in the Eastern District of New York, captioned Weitzner, et al. v. Cynosure, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-03668-MKB-RLM (U.S District Court, Eastern District of New York). In February 2013, that court granted our motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims. In March 2013, the plaintiff drafted a motion seeking reconsideration of the court's judgment and vacation of the court's order of dismissal. In April 2013, we drafted a response opposing the plaintiff's motion. In August 2013, plaintiff filed its motion with the court, although the deadline had been April 2013. We filed a letter with the court objecting to this untimely motion and requesting sanctions. In February 2014, the court denied plaintiff's motion and denied our request for sanctions. On March 6, 2014, plaintiff filed an appeal of the court's judgment entered on March 5, 2013. On July 23, 2014, the Second Circuit notified the parties that it will not hear oral arguments and will decide the case based on the briefs." CYNOSURE INC: Massachusetts Case Over Merger Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------ Cynosure, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a Massachusetts federal action related to a merger agreement has been dismissed. The Company said, "On March 21, 2013, a putative stockholder class action complaint, captioned Edgar Calin v. Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-1051 BLS1 (Superior Court, Suffolk County), was filed against Palomar, its board of directors, us and Commander Acquisition, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and our wholly-owned subsidiary (Commander), in Massachusetts Superior Court in Suffolk County. On April 9, 2013, a second putative stockholder class action complaint, captioned Vladimir Gusinsky Living Trust v. Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-1328 BLS1 (Superior Court, Suffolk County), was filed against Palomar, its board of directors and us in Massachusetts Superior Court in Suffolk County. On April 12, 2013, a third putative stockholder class action complaint, captioned Albert Saffer v. Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 13-1385 BLS1 (Superior Court, Suffolk County), was filed against Palomar, its board of directors, us and Commander in Massachusetts Superior Court in Suffolk County, which we refer to collectively with Edgar Calin and Vladimir Gusinsky Living Trust as the Massachusetts State Actions. On April 23, 2013, each of the plaintiffs in the foregoing suits filed an amended complaint. Each amended complaint alleges that members of the Palomar board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the approval of the merger contemplated by the agreement and plan of merger, dated as of March 17, 2013, by and among Palomar, us and Commander, and that we and, with respect to the Calin and Saffer suits, Commander, aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. Each amended complaint alleges that the Palomar directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction by, among other things, conducting a flawed sale process and failing to maximize stockholder value and obtain the best financial and other terms, and that the registration statement filed by us is materially deficient. Each of these plaintiffs seeks injunctive and other equitable relief, including enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger, in addition to other unspecified damages, fees and costs. The plaintiffs in the Massachusetts State Actions moved to expedite the proceedings on May 1, 2013 and moved to consolidate the actions on May 1, 2013. On May 13, 2013, each of the defendants in the Massachusetts State Actions filed an opposition to expedite, an opposition to consolidate and a cross motion to stay its respective action. On May 16, 2013, each of the plaintiffs filed oppositions to defendants' cross motion to stay. On May 17, 2013, the Massachusetts Superior Court issued an order denying plaintiffs' motion for expedited proceedings and granting defendants' cross motion to stay the Massachusetts State Actions." "On April 19, 2013, a fourth putative stockholder class action complaint, captioned Gary Drabek v. Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 8491, (Del. Ch.) was filed against Palomar, its board of directors, us and Commander in Delaware Chancery Court. On May 1, 2013, a fifth putative stockholder class action complaint, captioned Daniel Moore v. Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 8516, (Del. Ch.) was filed against Palomar, its board of directors, us and Commander in Delaware Chancery Court. Each of the foregoing lawsuits alleges that members of the Palomar board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the approval of the merger and that we and Commander aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. Each complaint alleges that the Palomar directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction by, among other things, conducting a flawed sale process and failing to maximize stockholder value and obtain the best financial and other terms, and that the registration statement filed by us is materially deficient. Each of these plaintiffs seeks injunctive and other equitable relief, including enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger, in addition to other unspecified damages, fees and costs. The plaintiff in the Drabek action moved to expedite the proceedings on April 29, 2013, and the plaintiff in the Moore action moved to expedite and moved for a preliminary injunction on May 3, 2013. On May 7, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Drabek and Moore actions jointly submitted a proposed order of consolidation to consolidate the class actions as In re Palomar Medical Technologies Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 8491-VCP, which order was granted by the court on the same day. "On May 28, 2013, a sixth putative stockholder class action complaint, captioned Melvin Lax v. Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-11276 (D. Mass.) (Massachusetts Federal Action), was filed against Palomar, its board of directors, us, and Commander in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The lawsuit alleges that members of the Palomar board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the approval of the merger, that we and Commander aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties, and that the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by issuing a materially misleading Proxy Statement. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and other equitable relief, including enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger, in addition to other unspecified damages, fees and costs. On August 5, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation and joint motion to stay proceedings. "On June 7, 2013, Palomar entered into a memorandum of understanding, which we refer to as the Delaware Memorandum of Understanding, with the Delaware plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the Delaware putative stockholder class actions and, on June 10, 2013, Palomar filed with the SEC a Current Report on Form 8-K to supplement the Proxy Statement pursuant to the terms of the Delaware Memorandum of Understanding. "On June 14, 2013, Palomar entered into a memorandum of understanding, which we refer to as the Massachusetts Memorandum of Understanding, with the Massachusetts plaintiffs, pursuant to which the plaintiffs in the Massachusetts state and federal actions agreed to be bound by the terms of the Delaware Memorandum of Understanding and on June 14, 2013, Palomar filed with the SEC a Current Report on Form 8-K to supplement the Proxy Statement pursuant to the terms of the Massachusetts Memorandum of Understanding. "The Delaware Memorandum of Understanding and the Massachusetts Memorandum of Understanding contemplate that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. On May 1, 2014, we, Palomar and the Delaware plaintiffs entered into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement was filed with the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and the court approved the form of notice for mailing to the former stockholders of Palomar. Following notice, the court scheduled a hearing for July 21, 2014 at which the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware considered the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement and approved the settlement, resolved and released all claims that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed merger, the merger agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith (but excluding claims for appraisal under Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law), and dismissed the Delaware actions with prejudice. The court also awarded the plaintiffs' counsel attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $420,000 to be paid by Palomar or its successor. As Palomar's successor, we paid through our insurance company the attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. In addition, also on May 1, 2014, we, Palomar and the Massachusetts plaintiffs filed a joint stipulation seeking dismissal of the Massachusetts State Actions, and the court dismissed the Massachusetts State Actions with prejudice on May 7, 2014. Finally, on July 16, 2014, the parties to the Massachusetts Federal Action informed the court that if the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware approved the settlement during the July 21, 2014 hearing, the plaintiff would dismiss the Massachusetts Federal Action with prejudice and we will pay the plaintiff an additional amount for his attorneys' fees and expenses through our insurance company. The Massachusetts Federal Action was dismissed on August 22, 2014. DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Maldonado, Individually, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Diversified Consultants, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-03119-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., May 4, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS LAW LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 660-8169 E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com DOLLAR TREE: Case by Assistant Store Manager Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that in 2011, an assistant store manager and an hourly associate filed a collective action against the Company alleging they were forced to work off the clock in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state law. A federal judge in Virginia ruled that all claims made on behalf of assistant store managers under both the FLSA and state law should be dismissed. The court, however, certified an opt-in collective action under the FLSA on behalf of hourly sales associates. Approximately 4,300 plaintiffs remain in the case. In March 2014, the court denied the Company's motion to decertify the collective action and the case is now continuing. DOLLAR TREE: 2012 Case Proceeding to Liability Phase ---------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that in 2012, a former assistant store manager, on behalf of himself and those alleged to be similarly situated, filed a putative class action in a California state court, alleging the Company failed to provide rest breaks to assistant store managers. The alleged time period is July 13, 2008 to the present. Discovery is ongoing. The class has been certified and the case is proceeding to the liability phase. DOLLAR TREE: October 26 Trial Date Set in 2013 Wage Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that in 2013, a former assistant store manager on behalf of himself and others alleged to be similarly aggrieved filed a representative Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") claim under California law currently pending in federal court in California. The suit alleges that the Company failed to provide uninterrupted meal periods and rest breaks; failed to pay minimum, regular and overtime wages; failed to maintain accurate time records and wage statements; and failed to pay wages due upon termination of employment. Discovery has not commenced. A trial date has been set for October 26, 2015. DOLLAR TREE: Discovery Has Not Commenced in 2014 Wage Case ---------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that in May 2014, a former assistant store manager filed a putative class action in a California state court for alleged failure to provide meal periods, overtime, timely payment of wages during employment and upon termination, failure to provide accurate wage statements, as well as for alleged failure to indemnify employees for business expenses in violation of California labor laws. This matter is in early stages of litigation. Discovery has not commenced and no trial date has been set. DOLLAR TREE: Del. Chancery & Appellate Courts Refuse Injunction --------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that both the Delaware Court of Chancery and the appellate court have refused to issue an injunction against the Family Dollar shareholder vote in favor of the merger. In July and August 2014, several shareholders of Family Dollar Stores, Inc. ("Family Dollar") filed class actions, now consolidated into one class action, in Delaware chancery court against Family Dollar's CEO and board members alleging breach of fiduciary duty. Dollar Tree and Family Dollar were also named as defendants for allegedly aiding and abetting the other defendants. The claimed breach derives from the execution of the merger agreement dated July 27, 2014, between Dollar Tree and Family Dollar, which is alleged to offer unfair and inadequate consideration for Family Dollar stock. The class action, among other things, seek to prevent the merger, obtain higher merger consideration or seek monetary damages. The Delaware Chancery Court and appellate court refused to issue an injunction against the Family Dollar shareholder vote in favor of the merger. DUN AND BRADSTREET: Faces "Thomas" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey A. Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dun and Bradstreet Credibility Corp., Case No. 2:15-cv-03194-BRO-GJS (C.D. Cal., April 28, 2015) alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: dhutchinson@lchb.com - and - Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 Facsimile: (212) 355-9592 E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com - and - David C. Parisi, Esq. PARISI AND HAVENS LLP 212 Marine Street Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (818) 990-1299 Facsimile: (818) 501-7852 E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com DYNAMIC PET: Faces "Reed" Suit in S.D. California Alleging Injury ----------------------------------------------------------------- Khristie Reed, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Dynamic Pet Products and Frick's Meat Products, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00987-WQH-DHB (S.D. Cal., May 1, 2015) asserts injury-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Gordon Blood, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com E. W. SCRIPPS: Named as Defendant in "Goldfinger" Case ------------------------------------------------------ The E. W. Scripps Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company was named as defendant in the case Howard Goldfinger v. Journal Communications, Inc., et al. (Case No. 2:15-cv-00012-JPS). Members of the Board of Directors of Journal Communications, Inc. ("Journal"), and the parties to the Master Transaction Agreement, including Journal and Scripps, were defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in Circuit Court, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin (Howard Goldfinger v. Journal Communications, Inc., et al.). The plaintiff in the lawsuit alleged that the directors of Journal breached their fiduciary duties to Journal shareholders in connection with the Journal Transactions and that the other parties to the lawsuit aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff alleged that the directors of Journal breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, (i) agreeing to enter into the Master Transaction Agreement for inadequate consideration, (ii) having certain conflicts of interest, (iii) not negotiating a "collar" mechanism on the share exchange ratio, and (iv) agreeing to certain deal protection provisions, such as a termination fee, a "no-shop" provision, and a "matching rights" provision. The plaintiff also challenged the qualifications of Journal's financial advisor, Methuselah Advisors LLC ("Methuselah"), and asserted that Methuselah has a conflict because the founder and managing partner of Methuselah, who is the lead investment banker at Methuselah for Journal in the Journal Transactions, was employed by Lazard Fr‚res & Co. LLC ("Lazard") prior to 2010 as a managing director, where he had responsibility for Lazard's relationship with Scripps. On August 29, 2014, the defendants filed Motions to Dismiss asking the Circuit Court to dismiss the lawsuit. On November 12, 2014, the Circuit Court entered an Order granting the defendants' Motions to Dismiss and dismissing the lawsuit. On January 6, 2015, the plaintiff in the above-referenced lawsuit filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Howard Goldfinger v. Journal Communications, Inc., et al. (Case No. 2:15- cv-00012-JPS)), naming Journal, the Board of Directors of Journal, Scripps, and the other parties to the Master Transaction Agreement as defendants. The plaintiff asserts disclosure claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as state common law claims for breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks, among other remedies, injunctive relief enjoining the Journal Transactions and damages. The outcome of this lawsuit is uncertain. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have an adverse effect on the operations and liquidity of Journal and Scripps. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the Journal Transactions, and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the Journal Transactions. Journal, Scripps, and the other defendants named in the lawsuit believe the claims asserted are without merit and intend to continue to vigorously defend against them. EHEALTH INC: Defending Against Two Class Actions ------------------------------------------------ eHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on January 26 and March 10, 2015, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company, its Chairman and chief executive officer, Gary L. Lauer ("Mr. Lauer"), and its senior vice president and chief financial officer, Stuart M. Huizinga ("Mr. Huizinga"), in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company said, "The complaints allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding our financial performance, guidance and operations during alleged class periods of October 31, 2014 to January 14, 2015 and June 5, 2014 to January 14, 2015, respectively. The complaints allege that we and Messrs. Lauer and Huizinga violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints seek compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, equitable/injunctive relief and such other relief as the court deems proper." "We believe the lawsuits to be without merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against them." ELECTRICAL WORKERS UNION: Accused of Gender Bias and Retaliation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Krystyna Annunziata, Carmela Marino, Carol Pearson, and Rosemarie Pelletier v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union #363, Samuel Fratto, Case No. 1:15-cv-03363-VEC (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2015) alleges that the Defendants have discriminated against the Plaintiffs within the meaning of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended by the EPA, by providing them with lower pay than similarly situated male colleagues on the basis of their gender, female. IBEWLU363 is a local labor union located in the state of New York. Samuel Fratto is the Business Manager of IBEWLU363 and is a resident of New York State. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Susan Kaplan, Esq. THE KAPLAN LAW OFFICE 30 Wall St., 8th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (347) 683-2505 Facsimile: (212) 898-1231 E-mail: skaplan@lawkaplan.com EMPIRE MANAGEMENT: Sued for Barring Black Renters ------------------------------------------------- ERASE Racism, Inc.; Fair Housing Justice Center, Inc.; Lisa Darden; John-Martin Green; Bianca Jones; Claude Jay Jones; Adrienne Williams; L.B. Williams; and Angela Scott v. Empire Management America Corporation, Square Realty Group LLC, and John Doe aka Mike, Case No. 1:15-cv-03376-NRB (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2015) alleges that in 2014, Mayfair Garden's building superintendent repeatedly placed discriminatory barriers in the path of African Americans, who inquired about apartments for rent. According to the complaint, the building superintendent lied about whether apartments were available to rent, what date they were available to rent, how many apartments were available to rent, whether the apartments were vacant and could be shown, and what process was required to rent an apartment. By these actions, the Plaintiffs allege, the Defendants are denying African American renters the opportunity to live in a Suffolk County community with good public schools and access to employment opportunities, government services, retail stores (including the Mayfair Shopping Center), and recreational amenities. Mayfair Garden Apartments is a 107-unit rental complex located in Commack, New York, in Suffolk County. The Defendants are the owner, management company, and building superintendent of Mayfair Garden Apartments. ERASE Racism, Inc. is a non-profit organization dedicated to exposing and eliminating racial disparities, particularly in the areas of housing, community development, public education, and health. FHJC is a non-profit New York City-based organization dedicated to ensuring that all people have equal access to housing opportunities in the New York City region by eliminating housing discrimination and creating open, accessible, and inclusive communities. The Individual Plaintiffs are African Americans and are residents of New York. Empire Management is a New York corporation headquartered in Manhattan, New York. Empire Management provided rental management services to Mayfair Garden Apartments at all times relevant to this complaint. Square Realty is a New York corporation headquartered in Manhattan. Square Realty has been the owner and lessor of Mayfair Garden Apartments during relevant times. John Doe is a white man, who worked as the building superintendent for Mayfair Garden and used the name "Mike." The Plaintiffs are represented by: Diane L. Houk, Esq. Theodor O. Oxholm, Esq. EMERY CELLI BRlNCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP 600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 763-5000 Facsimile: (212) 763-5001 E-mail: dhouk@ecbalaw.com toxholm@ecbalaw.com ENVIVIO INC: June 15 Settlement Claim Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------- The Shareholders Foundation on April 13 disclosed that a deadline is coming up on June 15, 2015 in the settlement reached in the securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of investors who purchased shares of Envivio Inc. between April 24, 2012 and October 5, 2012. Investors who purchased a significant amount of shares of Envivio between April 24, 2012 and October 5, 2012, have certain options and should contact the Shareholders Foundation by email at mail@shareholdersfoundation.com or call +1(858) 779 - 1554. The settlement proof of claim form or detailed settlement notice for the settlement in the Envivio Inc. Investor Securities Class Action Lawsuit can be downloaded at: http://bit.ly/1Ag58Wk In order to submit a claim an investor has to submit the claim proof to the class action claim administrator in a timely manner. The deadline to submit the proof with the class administrator is June 15, 2015. The class action administrator for this case is Gilardi & Co. LLC. The lawsuit was originally filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo the against Envivio over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made in connection with the initial public offering on April 24, 2012. The plaintiff alleges that Envivio and certain of its officers and directors violated Federal Securities Laws by issuing a false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with Envivio's April 24, 2012 initial public offering. The plaintiff says that the prospectus represented Envivio's revenue for fiscal years ended January 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012 of $16.3 million, $30 million and $50.6 million respectively. Shortly after the IPO shares of Envivio reached on April 30, 2012 as high as $9.25 per share. However, then on, August 13, 2012, Envivio disclosed that it expects revenue for the quarter ending July 31, 2012 to be in the range of $10 million to $11 million, as compared to its previous guidance of $17 million to $18 million. Shares of Envivio Inc, declined from $6.34 per share on August 6, 2012, to $2.48 per share on August 14, 2012. On September 6, 2012, after the market closed, Envivio announced its results for its fiscal 2012 second quarter and issued its guidance for its fiscal 2012 third quarter. NASDAQ: ENVI shares declined from $2.68 per share to $2.22 per share on September 7, 2012. Those who purchased shares of Envivio have certain options and should contact the Shareholders Foundation. Contact: Shareholders Foundation, Inc. Michael Daniels 3111 Camino Del Rio North - Suite 423 92108 San Diego Phone: +1-(858)-779-1554 Fax: +1-(858)-605-5739 mail@shareholdersfoundation.com EXECUTIVE CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paulette Guillaume and Donald Guillaume, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Executive Credit Management, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:15-cv-03131-CCC-MF (D.N.J., May 4, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS LAW LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 660-8169 E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com FACEBOOK INC: Vienna Court Hears Privacy Suit --------------------------------------------- Culver Stinso, writing for US Markets Daily,, reports that Facebook Inc.'s legal fight in Europe entered yet another stage on April 13 when Vienna district court took up a civil suit filed against the US Company by an Austrian privacy campaigner. The suit jointly filed by Max Schrems, an Austrian law student, and privacy campaigner, along with 25,000 users accuses Facebook of tracking their data in violation of Austrian and EU privacy laws. The first hearing on April 13 would be on the technicalities of the petition as whether the Vienna court is entitled to take up the case and whether the complaint is permissible as a class- action suit. In the meanwhile, the Vienna court instructed Facebook to bring forward translations of documents of representatives of the plaintiff before it within a period of three weeks. The court also asked the applicant's lawyers to be ready with their responses within three weeks' time. A similar case has already been brought out against the US multinational before the Dublin's European Court of Justice from where Facebook operates its accounts outside US and Canada. Although class-action lawsuits are unprecedented in nature, still they are not unheard of in Austrian courts. If the charges are proved in this civil case, then Facebook will be required to cough up a hefty compensation of EUR10 million to the aggrieved parties. Schrems claims that though the case restricts the participation of 25,000 users, still 50,000 people are ready to lend their voice in support of his mission. However, the prominent social networking site questions the interference of the court, citing European procedural laws and argues that the suit is not admissible in Irish courts. On the other hand, the defense lawyer representing Schrems counteracted saying that his plaintiff has every right to approach the court as a customer complainant in his native land. It is not the first time that Facebook Inc. was caught on a wrong foot. At the first occurrence, the Irish Data Protection Commission (IDPC) admonished the globally premier social networking site to show compliance with regional data protection requirements after having audited its practices in 2011 and 2012. Further, Belgium's data protection authority that is commissioned by Facebook exposed chinks in the social networking site's modified privacy policy, blaming it for not taking prior consent from the users before making use of their data. FALCON DRILLING: Fires Staff That Opposed Gender Bias, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lindsey D. Hart v. Falcon Drilling Company, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv- 00569-AJS (W.D. Pa., April 30, 2015) alleges that the Plaintiff was subjected to discrimination in pay and other terms and conditions of her employment and ultimately terminated: (1) because of her gender, and (2) because she opposed conduct that is unlawful under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Falcon Drilling Company, LLC is a limited liability company headquartered in Indiana, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Emily E. Town, Esq. Maureen Davidson-Welling, Esq. STEMBER COHN & DAVIDSON-WELLING, LLC The Hartley Rose Building 425 First Avenue, 7th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 338-1445 Facsimile: (412) 338-1446 E-mail: etown@stembercohn.com mdavidsonwelling@stembercohn.com FANDUEL INC: Removes "Leung" Suit to California District Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Leung v. Fanduel, Inc., Case No. CIV DS 1503519, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00835 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that FanDuel engages in deceptive marketing campaigns that suggest that its fantasy sports are the leader in one day fantasy sports game play. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Milstein, Esq. MILSTEIN ADELMAN, LLP 2800 Donald Douglas Loop North Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (310) 396-9600 Facsimile: (310) 396-9635 - and - Sarah L. Gough, Esq. FLAHERTY HENNESSEY, LLP 8055 West Manchester Street, Suite 420 Playa Del Rey, CA 90293 Telephone: (310) 305-1280 Facsimile: (310) 305-1210 E-mail: sarah@FHAttorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Katherine Robison, Esq. ZWILLGEN LAW, LLP 915-2 Battery Street, 2d Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 590-2340 Facsimile: (415) 445-0908 E-mail: kat@zwillgen.com FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over Wrong Ram 1500 Axle ---------------------------------------------------------- Larry P. Vellequette, writing for Automotive News, reports that a South Carolina man has filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status against Fiat Chrysler after discovering that the Ram 1500 he bought last year didn't have the heavy-duty axle for which he had paid extra. The suit was filed on April 6 in U.S. District Court in South Carolina. Robert Besley Jr. bought a 2014 Ram 1500 Big Horn pickup from Triangle Dodge-Chrysler-Jeep-Ram in Graniteville, S.C., in January 2014. According to the vehicle's Monroney sticker, the pickup came with an optional heavier-duty rear axle that had a ratio of 3.55-to-1, instead of the pickup's standard 3.21-to-1 rear axle. In general, the higher the axle ratio, the more torque is available at the rear wheels and the better a vehicle is at towing, though fuel economy is decreased. According to Ram's consumer website, ramtrucks.com, the 3.55-to-1 axle ratio is a $50 option on a 2015 Ram 1500 Big Horn pickup. After owning his pickup for nine months, Mr. Besley was notified by FCA that his Monroney sticker was wrong, and that his pickup instead had a 3.21-to-1 rear axle ratio. According to the suit, the automaker offered Mr. Besley "750 Mopar dollars" that could be used to buy service or accessories. The suit says that the automaker at no time "offered a complimentary replacement of his rear axle." The suit seeks punitive and other damages from FCA. Mike Palese, a spokesman for FCA, said the company had not yet been served with the lawsuit and therefore couldn't comment on the allegations. Another spokesman for FCA declined to say how many 2014 Ram pickups had different axles from those described on their Monroney stickers. FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shoshie Steinwurzel, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02551 (E.D.N.Y., May 5, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Class Action Parties Settle Case -------------------------------------------------- Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Bank and its subsidiary, Flagstar Reinsurance Company, were named in May 2012 as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit alleging a violation of Section 2607 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). The Court granted summary judgment on June 26, 2014, and dismissed the case. Rather than proceed with an appeal, the parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter. Management does not believe that the settlement amount will be material to the Company's results of operations. FOUNTAIN OF LIFE: Docs Show Leaders Took Part in Tax Lien Sales --------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Shea, writing for NJ.com, reports that court records show that Fountain Of Life leaders were regulars at tax lien sales all over New Jersey for years. The church leaders included David Boudwin, who is the current executive pastor of the church, Susan Esposito, CEO of the church's Fountain Foundation and Paul Graban, a longtime senior pastor who celebrated his 90th birthday last year. One of their companies, SME Mercer Inc., was snared in a massive federal probe of tax sale certificates in New Jersey that saw several people and companies indicted on charges they violated a federal anti-trust law. The case alleged that the defendants conspired starting in the late 1990s to eliminate the competitive nature of the public bids so they could decide who would win the auctions and at what interest rate. Defendants were charged in relation to acts committed from 2003 to 2009, court documents said. Mercer SME Inc. pleaded guilty to a federal crime in 2012 and the corporation was sentenced in April 2013 to two years probation and a $15,000 fine. Ms. Esposito was Mercer SME's president, and she signed the guilty plea agreement. A class action lawsuit, brought by affected homeowners and resulting from the criminal investigation, targeted SME, which as since settled their portion for $250,000, a Fountain of Life spokeswoman said. The civil lawsuit alleges Fountain of Life would purchase tax sale certificates at public auctions, assign them to "shell" corporations like Mercer SME, "in order to hide from the public the fact that it was involved." The church, through a spokesperson, disputes the term "shell" company. The company was established as a corporation to invest the endowment of the non-profit Life Center Academy, which is a private school, according to the church. It would have been irresponsible to allow a non-profit to assume investment liability, a church spokesperson said. It is unclear from the criminal and civil court documents how many homes the Fountain Of Life companies took to foreclosure. FREDERIC WEINBERG: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Josephine T. Bellum and Karen A. Bistek, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. The Law Offices of Frederic I. Weinberg & Associates, P.C., Case No. 2:15-cv-02460-CDJ (E.D. Pa., May 4, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Deborah R. Gross, Esq. LAW OFFICES BERNARD M. GROSS, PC 100 Penn Square East John Wanamaker Bldg., Suite 450 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 561-3600 Facsimile: (215) 561-3000 E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com GLOBAL CASH: Continues to Defend Dollie Williams Case ----------------------------------------------------- Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc. continues to vigorously defend the case Dollie Williams, et al., v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., et al., the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. Dollie Williams, et al., v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., et al., a civil action, was filed on March 8, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Eastern Division, against Multimedia Games and others. The plaintiffs, who claim to have been patrons of VictoryLand, allege that Multimedia Games participated in gambling operations that violated Alabama state law by supplying to VictoryLand purportedly unlawful electronic bingo machines played by the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs seek recovery of the monies lost on all electronic bingo games played by the plaintiffs in the six months prior to the filing of the complaint under Ala. Code Sec. 8-1-150(A). The plaintiffs have requested that the court certify the action as a class action. On March 29, 2013, the court entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On April 12, 2013, the defendants jointly filed a petition with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals seeking permission to appeal the court's ruling on class certification. On June 18, 2013, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order granting the petition to appeal. Following briefing and oral argument, on April 2, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order reversing the district court's ruling on class certification and remanding the case to the district court. The Company continues to vigorously defend this matter. Given the inherent uncertainties in this litigation, however, the Company is unable to make any prediction as to the ultimate outcome. GOLDMAN SACHS: Court of Appeals Reinstates MBS Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Joel Stashenko, writing for Law.com, reports that the Court of Appeals on May 7 reinstated a fraud action against Goldman Sachs & Co. for allegedly inducing an insurer to cover a mortgage-backed security that was designed to fail. The 5-2 majority reversed a finding by the Appellate Division, First Department, which found in 2013 that ACA Financial Guaranty Corp. failed to establish that it justifiably relied on misrepresentations by Goldman to sustain causes of action for fraud in the inducement and for fraudulent concealment. The Court of Appeals also issued rulings on May 7 on whether judges can compel prosecutors to call witnesses or take other actions within their discretion under threat of contempt and whether a nolo contendre plea in another state is equivalent to a guilty plea in New York. Concerning the ACA fraud action, the court said that when weighing a justifiable reliance allegation, a plaintiff should consider if it had the means to gauge whether representations were reliable and whether the plaintiff had hints of its falsity. Using that standard, ACA had adequately alleged justifiable reliance at the pleading stage of the case, the court said in an unsigned memorandum decision in ACA Financial Guaranty Corp. v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 49. Alternately, the court found that Goldman Sachs and its co- defendant, Paulson & Co., did not produce evidence to conclusively show ACA Financial's lack of justifiable reliance, as required by CPLR 3211[a][1]. The court also noted that issues about whether justifiable or reasonable reliance was present are "not generally a question to be resolved as a matter of law on a motion to dismiss," citing DDJ Mgt., LLC v. Rhone Group LLC, 15 NY3d 147 (2010). Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and Judges Eugene Pigott Jr., Jenny Rivera, Leslie Stein and Eugene Fahey were in the majority. Judge Susan Phillips Read, in a dissent joined by Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam, said ACA did not comply with a well-established principle of fraud jurisprudence that was articulated by the Court of Appeals in a seminal 1892 ruling. In Schumaker v. Mather, 133 NY 590, the court said a party could not claim it was induced to enter a transaction by misrepresentation if it had the "means available to him of knowing, by the exercise of ordinary intelligence, the truth or the real quality of the subject of the representation." Here, the dissenters said, "ACA manifestly took no step" to safeguard its interests, thereby negating its justifiable reliance claim. "Savvy commercial and financial players and inventive lawyers abound in New York," Judge Read wrote. "Our venerable rule . . . is designed to make sure that the courts 'reject the claims of plaintiffs who have been so lax in protecting themselves that they cannot fairly ask for the law's protection' and 'may truly be said to have willingly assumed the business risk that the facts may not be as represented' [quoting DDJ Mgt.]." The ACA-Goldman dispute dates back to 2007, when hedge fund Paulson & Co. asked Goldman to package residential mortgages into a security known as a collateralized debt obligation. The obligation was called ABACUS. ACA agreed to insure ABACUS but said it did not know that Paulson intended to take a "short" position on the obligation, thereby exposing the insurer to substantial liability that ACA said it never would have assumed had it known the true intentions behind ABACUS' creation. ABACUS investors lost nearly all their money amid the collapse of the mortgage-backed securities market in the late 2000s, while Paulson made about $1 billion by shorting ABACUS. In 2010, Goldman agreed to pay the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission $515 million to settle a complaint over ABACUS. Goldman acknowledged as part of the settlement that it was a "mistake" to have marketed ABACUS to investors without disclosing that Paulson had helped create it and was taking a short position on it. The dissenters on May 7 said ACA failed to take an "obvious and easy step" to avoiding what it claims was fraud by simply asking Paulson what its investment position was in ABACUS. The majority decision reversed the First Department's 3-2 ruling dismissing the fraud action against Goldman and Paulson (NYLJ, May 15, 2013). Sullivan & Cromwell partner Richard Klapper argued for Goldman. Marc Kasowitz -- mkasowitz@kasowitz.com -- a partner at Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman, represented ACA. He called the May 7 ruling "correct and well-grounded" and said the complaint seeks $120 million due to the alleged fraud. "ACA looks forward to proceeding in the case against Goldman Sachs and Paulson & Co.," he said. Compelling Prosecution Also on May 7, the Court of Appeals sided with Albany County District Attorney P. David Soares in what became a protracted dispute with Albany City Court Judge William Carter over the disorderly conduct prosecutions of Occupy Albany demonstrators in 2012. The 6-0 court said judges may not compel prosecutors to call witnesses or take other actions within the district attorneys' discretion under threat of the court's power of contempt. "Any attempt by the judge here to compel prosecution through the use of his contempt power exceeded his jurisdictional authority," the court said in an unsigned memorandum ruling in Matter of Soares v. Carter, 70. "It is within the sole discretion of each district attorney's executive power to orchestrate the prosecution of those who violate the criminal laws of this state." Mr. Soares, who said he agreed with the economic equality goals of the protesters, declined to prosecute four demonstrators while Judge Carter said their sentences should include a community service component. The two sides went to court after the prosecutions of the demonstrators stalled in late 2012 and early 2013. Judges Lippman, Read, Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam and Fahey joined in the decision. Judge Stein, who was on the Third Department panel that also backed mr. Soares' authority to prosecute the cases as he saw fit (NYLJ, Jan. 24, 2014), took no part. Christopher Horn, a special prosecutor to Mr. Soares, argued for the district attorney. James Knox of the E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy firm in Troy represented Mr. Carter after Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office recused itself, citing a conflict of interest. Mark Mishler of Albany represented the Occupy Albany protesters. Nolo Contendre Pleas In another ruling, the court unanimously found in Matter of Kasckarow v. Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of New York, 56, that the entry of a nolo contendere plea in another jurisdiction is a prior conviction for purposes of New York state sentencing statutes and mandatory listing on the state's sex offender registry. Daniel Kasckarow had disputed his inclusion on the registry when he moved to New York, arguing that his plea in Florida to sexual battery on a child under 16 was not the equivalent of a conviction qualifying him for the sex offender list. Mr. Kasckarow entered the nolo contendere plea in response to a charge that he had consensual sex with a minor in 1997 in Florida when he was 18 and the girl was 15 (NYLJ, Nov. 1, 2011). The court said it decided as early as People v. Daiboch, 265 NY 125 (1934), that nolo contendere pleas, while not recognized in New York state, may be seen as the equivalent of a criminal conviction when made in other states. Lippman, Read, Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein and Fahey joined in the decision. Assistant Solicitor General Claude Platton argued for the state. Anna Pervukhin of Appellate Advocates represented Kasckarow. GOOGLE INC: Lieff Cabraser Seeks $81MM From No Poach Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that claiming a recent $415 million settlement may be the largest payout of its kind, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and other plaintiffs lawyers in the Silicon Valley "no-poach" litigation have asked for an $81 million slice of the recovery. The fee request represents less than 20 percent of the total settlement fund, but amounts to approximately four times the estimated billings, or lodestar, calculated by four plaintiffs firms for their work on the case since 2011. In court papers filed on May 7, the firms urge U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh to award fees that reflect their "landmark" results. "After several years of litigation against well-funded defendants, who are among the largest and wealthiest companies in the United States, class counsel obtained one of the largest monopsony wage settlements ever approved," wrote Joseph Saveri of Joseph Saveri Law Firm, who shared the lead counsel role with Lieff Cabraser. Judge Koh preliminarily approved a $415 million deal in March to resolve claims that Google Inc., Apple Inc., Adobe Systems Inc. and Intel Corp. suppressed worker wages by agreeing not to recruit each other's employees. She had rejected an earlier deal as too low, but signed off when both sides upped the recovery by $90 million. Plaintiffs lawyers say the average class member will receive $5,000. Girard Gibbs partner Daniel Girard, who represented named plaintiff Michael Devine when he objected to the first settlement, is seeking $4.5 million for his work in negotiating the extra payout. Lieff Cabraser, which had 25 lawyers who put in some time on the case, calculated its lodestar at $11.5 million. The firm's lead lawyer on the litigation, Kelly Dermody, indicated she personally worked more than 2,200 hours at a would-be billing rate of $800 an hour. Mr. Saveri, who used an hourly billing rate of $960, said his firm's investment of attorney hours came to $6.5 million. Berger & Montague reported a $1.38 million lodestar and Grant & Eisenhofer calculated its billings as $1.43 million. Mr. Girard may face the toughest fight getting Judge Koh to sign off on his requested fees. Judge Koh seemed skeptical of Mr. Girard's fee request during a settlement hearing in March, asking him if he expected a windfall for "doing two briefs and appearing at two hearings." But Mr. Girard hasn't backed down. In his brief, Mr. Girard estimates a lodestar of $518,919 for 916 hours spent on the litigation, and asked Judge Koh to multiply that base almost nine times. He conceded the multiplier is "on the high end of multipliers typically awarded by courts," but argued it is "far from unprecedented." Mr. Girard claims his firm put its reputation on the line in exchange for a minimal chance of success. "Representing an objector to a settlement, much less an objecting class representative," he wrote, "is anathema to many lawyers in this field, and often to courts as well." In its brief on May 7, Ms. Dermody's team referenced six other cases that involved antitrust claims brought by employees. Before this case, the largest recovery on record was $73 million, the lawyers wrote. And this case was more challenging, they said, because plaintiffs didn't claim their employers directly attempted to suppress their wages. "The result of these efforts is an historic recovery for a wage- suppression case," Ms. Dermody's team wrote. Mr. Saveri seemed worried that Judge Koh might consider discounting her fee award because the first settlement fell flat. "This event is no different than any setback that counsel encounter in prosecuting cases of this magnitude," he wrote, "where counsel rebound using the work they have performed in the litigation and their professional expertise." Mr. Saveri also pointed out class counsel opted not to seek fees based on the additional $90 million. The fee request amounts to 19.5 percent of the total recovery. Judge Koh is set to hear fee arguments and consider final approval of the settlement July 9. HALSTED FINANCIAL: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Gabriel Acevedo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Halsted Financial Services, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:15-cv-03124-ES-MAH (D.N.J., May 4, 2015) is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS LAW LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 660-8169 E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com HC2 HOLDINGS: No Responsive Pleading Filed by Defendants -------------------------------------------------------- No responsive pleading has been filed yet by the defendants in a class action lawsuit filed against HC2 Holdings, Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint challenging the buyout by HC2 Holdings, Inc. of the noncontrolling interest in Schuff International, Inc. ("Schuff International") was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Mark Jacobs v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., and Schuff International, Inc., Civil Action No. 10323 (the "Complaint"). On November 17, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Arlen Diercks v. Schuff International, Inc. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 10359. The Complaints allege, among other things, that in connection with the buyout, the individual members of the Schuff International board of directors and HC2 Holdings, the controlling stockholder of Schuff, breached their fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff class. The Complaints seek a rescission of the buyout and/or compensatory damages, as well as attorney's fees and other relief. On February 19, 2015, the court consolidated the actions (now designated as Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation) and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel. No responsive pleading has been filed yet by the defendants. "We believe that the allegations and claims set forth in the Complaint are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously," the Company said. HEALTHWAYS INC: Filed with FCC Petition for Retroactive Waiver -------------------------------------------------------------- Healthways, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company filed with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") a Petition for Retroactive Waiver related to the Junk Fax Prevention Act Lawsuits. On September 16, 2014, Healthways and its wholly owned subsidiary, Healthways WholeHealth Networks, Inc. ("HWHN"), were named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, seeking damages and other relief relating to alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act ("JFPA"), in connection with faxes allegedly transmitted to members of HWHN's network of complementary and alternative care practitioners. The JFPA prohibits sending an "unsolicited advertisement" to a fax machine and requires the sender to provide a notice to allow a recipient to "opt out" of future fax transmissions (including, pursuant to rules promulgated by the FCC, those sent with the prior express invitation or permission of the recipient). The complaint seeks damages in excess of $5 million. The case has been removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division ("California Matter"). On December 22, 2014, HWHN was also named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division ("Illinois Matter"), seeking damages and other relief relating to alleged violations of the TCPA, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and Illinois common law in connection with faxes allegedly sent to members of HWHN's network of complementary and alternative care practitioners. The complaint seeks damages in an unstated amount. "We deny the claims and intend to vigorously defend these actions," the Company said. In connection with these actions, on March 2, 2015, Healthways and HWHN filed with the FCC a Petition for Retroactive Waiver ("Waiver Petition") of the FCC's regulation that requires advertising faxes sent with the prior express invitation or permission of the recipient to include an "opt-out" notice. The FCC has previously granted retroactive waivers of that regulation to several petitioners who were facing lawsuits alleging that the petitioners failed to include the "opt-out" language in fax advertisements sent with the prior express invitation or permission of the recipients. "We cannot predict whether the FCC will grant our Waiver Petition or, if granted, the impact on the California Matter or the Illinois Matter," the Company said. HI-TECH PHARMA: Court Rejects Contempt Order in Marketing Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Alyson M. Palmer, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal appeals court panel has given a do-over to a Norcross company hit with a $40 million contempt order over its marketing of dietary supplements. The decision vacated a ruling from a year ago, when Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Pannell Jr. issued the sanction against Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals and two top executives after concluding that the company's marketing of four weight-loss supplements had violated a prior injunction. On May 5, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit said the Hi-Tech defendants should get a new chance to back up their marketing claims with evidence that Pannell had rejected on the theory that he already had decided such evidence wasn't sufficient. Judge Pannell last year said consideration of the evidence was barred under the doctrine of collateral estoppels -- which forbids a party's attempt to relitigate an issue that has already been decided against it -- but the Eleventh Circuit panel said Pannell had misapplied that concept. The fight over sanctions is the latest installment in Hi-Tech's battle with the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC on May 6 issued a statement through a spokesman saying it was "reviewing the decision and will take appropriate action in the district court." King & Spalding partner Merritt McAlister, who argued the appeal for Hi-Tech and its CEO last month, said, "This is a clean slate, a chance to present the evidence that we thought we should have been able to present all along . . . We just really want an opportunity to be heard, frankly, and that's what we have now." Part of a series of civil and criminal matters, the case decided by the Eleventh Circuit was initiated by the FTC in 2004. The FTC alleged that Hi-Tech's statements in magazines and flyers -- including a claim that one diet supplement was "an effective treatment for obesity" -- were false and unsubstantiated. In 2008, Judge Pannell found that Hi-Tech's advertising had violated the Federal Trade Commission Act and levied a $15.8 million regulatory fine. He also prohibited Hi-Tech, as well as company CEO Jared Wheat and senior vice president of sales Stephen Smith, from making certain claims about any product's effectiveness as a weight-loss product unless they had "competent and reliable scientific evidence that substantiates the representation." Judge Pannell issued a separate injunction against Dr. Terrill Mark Wright, a physician endorsing Hi-Tech products. The Hi-Tech defendants appealed the injunctions, but a separate Eleventh Circuit panel upheld them in a one-sentence ruling. In 2011, the FTC initiated contempt proceedings against Hi-Tech, Messrs. Wheat, Smith and Wright, alleging their claims about various Hi-Tech supplements had violated the terms of the injunctions. The defendants tried to show that they had scientific evidence to back up their marketing claims, but Pannell refused to consider the defendants' expert testimony on what adequately substantiates the sort of claims the defendants made. The judge said the standard of requiring clinical trials to back up statements about the products had been settled at the time he issued his 2008 injunction and thus the relitigation was barred by collateral estoppel. Judge Pannell said his $40 million contempt sanction represented gross revenues from the sale of the supplements from Jan. 1, 2009, through Aug. 31, 2013, and was intended to repay consumers who may have been swayed by deceptive claims. He also ordered the defendants to recall four supplements marketed either as facilitating rapid weight loss or as a remedy for erectile dysfunction from stores. In addition, Judge Pannell issued a $120,000 sanction against Dr. Wright for violating the injunction against him. Last fall, while the Hi-Tech defendants appealed the sanctions, Judge Pannell decided that the company's compliance with the recall order was insufficient and ordered Messrs. Wheat and Smith jailed. He ordered their release in November after the FTC filed a report saying the defendants had substantially complied with the judge's order. Appealing the monetary sanction, the defendants argued that the district court judge was holding them to a standard that wasn't found in the language of the injunction he said they violated. The FTC defended the sanction by contending that Hi-Tech made only minor changes to its advertisements following Judge Pannell's 2008 rulings even though the defendants clearly knew they would now need to have placebo-controlled testing to support their marketing claims. The panel of Judges Gerald Tjoflat and William Pryor Jr. and visiting Senior Fifth Circuit Judge Rhesa Barksdale vacated Pannell's ruling holding Hi-Tech, Messrs. Wheat, Smith and Wright in contempt. Judge Pryor wrote that the panel was not deciding whether Pannell had erred in holding the Hi-Tech defendants to a higher standard for substantiating their product claims than was required by the injunctions -- just that the district judge had erred in saying collateral estoppel barred the defendants from presenting their evidence. One requirement for applying collateral estoppel to bar further litigation, Judge Pryor explained, is that the issue at stake is identical to the one involved in the prior litigation. He said the Hi-Tech defendants could easily show that Pannell hadn't previously decided the level of substantiation the injunctions required for the product representations at issue in the contempt proceedings. First, Judge Pryor said, the products at issue when the injunctions were issued, though also weight-loss products, were different from those at issue in the contempt proceedings, as were the product representations. Moreover, Judge Pryor said, Judge Pannell had said the "competent and reliable scientific evidence" standard imposed by the injunctions was "context specific" and the nature of scientific studies needed to substantiate a claim would vary depending on the circumstances. "That the representations at issue in the previous litigation involved different products, referenced other weight-loss products by name and were far more specific than those at issue in the contempt proceedings accordingly 'alters the legal inquiry,'" said Judge Pryor, citing a pair of Eleventh Circuit cases. "The issue decided in the previous litigation is not 'identical' to the issue the district court prevented the defendants from litigating in the contempt proceedings." Atlanta lawyer E. Vaughn Dunnigan, who represented Smith on the appeal, said she was happy the court had accepted what she called a "very logical" argument. "Next, we'll go back to the district court and be allowed to present the evidence that in fact Hi-Tech does have substantiation for the claims it was making about its products and was not in contempt of the judge's order," Mr. Dunnigan said. "Hi-Tech's plan was always to comply with the injunction," she added. The case is Federal Trade Commission v. Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, No. 14-13131. INFINITE CARE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Alleging WARN Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Rodriguez, La'Quisha Harris and Ashley White, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Infinite Care, Inc., Julio Miranda, Gary Charnis and Luis Londono, Case No. 2:15-cv- 02492-HB (E.D. Pa., May 5, 2015) is brought under the Worker Adjustment & Retraining Notification Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Ronald Miller, Esq. MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 170 S. Independence Mall W, Suite 400 E Philadelphia, PA 19106-3337 Telephone: (215) 922-5805 E-mail: mmiller@margolisedelstein.com JAKKS PACIFIC: Court Dismissed Class Action Complaint ----------------------------------------------------- A U.S. court has dismissed a complaint without prejudice against Jakks Pacific, Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On July 25, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California captioned Melot v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No. CV13-05388 (JAK) against Stephen G. Berman, Joel M. Bennett (collectively the "Individual Defendants"), and the Company (collectively, "Defendants"). On July 30, 2013, a second purported class action lawsuit was filed containing similar allegations against Defendants captioned Dylewicz v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No. CV13-5487 (OON). The two cases (collectively, the "Class Action") were consolidated on December 2, 2013 under Case No. CV13-05388 JAK (SSx) and lead plaintiff and lead counsel appointed. On January 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint (the "First Amended Complaint") against Defendants which alleged that the Company violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and/or misleading statements concerning Company financial projections and performance as part of its public filings and earnings calls from July 17, 2012 through July 17, 2013. Specifically, the First Amended Complaint alleged that the Company's forward looking statements, guidance and other public statements were false and misleading for allegedly failing to disclose (i) certain alleged internal forecasts, (ii) the Company's alleged quarterly practice of laying off and rehiring workers, (iii) the Company's alleged entry into license agreements with guaranteed minimums the Company allegedly knew it was unable to meet; and (iv) allegedly poor performance of the Monsuno and Winx lines of products after their launch. The First Amended Complaint also alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by Messrs. Berman and Bennett. The First Amended Complaint sought compensatory and other damages in an undisclosed amount as well as attorneys' fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on February 17, 2014, and the motion was granted, with leave to replead. A Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") was filed on July 8, 2014 and it set forth similar allegations to those in the First Amended Complaint about discrepancies between internal projections and public forecasts and the other allegations except that the claim with respect to guaranteed minimums that the Company allegedly knew it was unable to meet was eliminated. The foregoing is a summary of the pleadings and is subject to the text of the pleadings which are on file with the Court. Briefing was completed with respect to a motion to dismiss the SAC and oral argument was held on October 6, 2014 with respect to that motion. On March 2, 2015, the Court granted that motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice to Plaintiff filing by March 23, 2015 an amended pleading setting forth an actionable misstatement (the "Dismissal Order"). The Company said, "The Dismissal Order is not a final judgment, and if an amended pleading is filed we cannot assure you as to the outcome of the matter, or that an adverse decision in such action would not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations." JOSE PALLETS: Faces "Sebastian" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Antonio Sebastian v. Jose Pallets, Inc. and Guadalupe Mancilla, Case No. 1:15-cv-03888 (N.D. Ill., May 3, 2015) seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 307-0766 E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com JOURNAL COMMUNICATIONS: Defending Against 2nd Goldfinger Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Journal Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is defending against a second Howard Goldfinger class action. The Company said, "Members of our Board of Directors, and the parties to the Master Agreement, including us and Scripps, were defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in Circuit Court, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin (Howard Goldfinger v. Journal Communications, Inc., et al.). The plaintiff in the lawsuit alleged that our directors breached their fiduciary duties to our shareholders in connection with the transactions and that the other parties to the lawsuit aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff alleged that our directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, (i) agreeing to enter into the Master Agreement for inadequate consideration, (ii) having certain conflicts of interest, (iii) not negotiating a "collar" mechanism on the share exchange ratio, and (iv) agreeing to certain deal protection provisions, such as a termination fee, a "no-shop" provision, and a "matching rights" provision. The plaintiff also challenged the qualifications of our financial advisor and asserted that it has a conflict because the founder and managing partner, who is the lead investment banker for us in the transactions, was employed by Lazard Fr‚res & Co. LLC ("Lazard") prior to 2010 as a managing director, where he had responsibility for Lazard's relationship with Scripps. On August 29, 2014, the defendants filed Motions to Dismiss asking the Circuit Court to dismiss the lawsuit. On November 12, 2014, the Circuit Court entered an Order granting the defendants' Motions to Dismiss and dismissing the lawsuit." "On January 6, 2015, the plaintiff in the above-referenced lawsuit filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Howard Goldfinger v. Journal Communications, Inc., et al. (Case No. 2:15- cv-00012-JPS)), naming us, our Board of Directors, Scripps, and the other parties to the Master Agreement as defendants. The plaintiff asserts disclosure claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as state common law claims for breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks, among other remedies, injunctive relief enjoining the transactions and damages. On February 6, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion to permit expedited discovery and to set a briefing scheduling on a future motion for preliminary injunction. On February 11, 2015, the defendants filed Motions to Dismiss asking the Court to dismiss the lawsuit, and on February 12, 2015, the defendants filed oppositions to the plaintiff's expedited discovery motion. Both the plaintiff's expedited discovery motion and the defendants' Motions to Dismiss are currently pending. The outcome of this lawsuit is uncertain. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have an adverse effect on the operations and liquidity of us and Scripps. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the transactions, and an adverse judgment grating permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the transactions. We, Scripps, and the other defendants named in the lawsuit believe the claims asserted are without merit and intend to continue to vigorously defend against them." JP MORGAN: Accused of Harassment by Woman of Lebanese Origin ------------------------------------------------------------ Bianca Berry v. JP Morgan & Co Incorporated, JP Morgan Corporate Finance and Venture Capital Private Investors Business Trust, JP Morgan Chase & Co, and JP Morgan Chase National Corporate Services, Case No. 2:15-cv-11521-VAR-APP (E.D. Mich., April 27, 2015) alleges that the Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiff for her complaints of racial, religious and national origin harassment by terminating her employment, in violation of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. Ms. Berry is a Muslim Arabic woman of Lebanese origin. JP Morgan & Co Incorporated is a Delaware corporation conducting business in the state of Michigan as Chase Bank. JP Morgan Corporate Finance and Venture Capital Private Investors Business Trust is a Delaware statutory trust conducting business in Michigan as Chase Bank. JP Morgan Chase & Co is a Delaware corporation. JP Morgan Chase National Corporate Services, Inc, is a foreign profit corporation with a registered office in Bingham Farms, Michigan. The Defendants operate banking facilities, including a facility in Dearborn Heights, Michigan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Caitlin E. Malhiot, Esq. Maia E. Johnson, Esq GOLD STAR LAW, P.C. 2701 Troy Center Dr., Suite 400 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 275-5200 Facsimile: (248) 817-2765 E-mail: cmalhiot@goldstarlaw.com mjohnson@goldstarlaw.com KEPRO ACQUISITIONS: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Diamond, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated individuals v. Kepro Acquisitions, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01085- CEH-EAJ (M.D. Fla., May 6, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT: "Smith" Suit Moved From Calif. to Colorado --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Smith v. Keypont Government Solutions, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-0-0429, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Denver). The Colorado District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00865-REB- KLM to the proceeding. The Plaintiff filed the Collective Action Complaint on behalf of a proposed nationwide Collective of independent contractor investigators, alleging overtime violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, arising from the Defendant's alleged misclassification of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated investigators as independent contractors instead of as employees. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin T. Barnes, Esq. Gregg Lander, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES 5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664 Telephone: (323) 549-9100 Facsimile: (323) 549-0101 E-mail: barnes@kbarnes.com lander@kbarnes.com - and - Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Joshua Konecky, Esq. Nathan Piller, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com npiller@schneiderwallace.com The Defendant is represented by: Karin M. Cogbill, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 50 W. San Fernando, 15th Floor San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 998-4150 Facsimile: (408) 288-5686 E-mail: kcogbill@littler.com - and - Jennifer S. Harpole, Esq. Margaret Parnell Hogan, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 1900 16th Street, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 629-6200 Facsimile: (303) 629-0200 E-mail: jharpole@littler.com mphogan@littler.com KIND LLC: Faces "Galvez" Class Suit in California District Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mayra Galvez and Chris C. Galvez, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. KIND LLC d/b/a KIND Foods LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-03082 (C.D. Cal., April 24, 2015) asserts fraud- related claims. The Plaintiffs are represented by: John T. Jasnoch, Esq. SCOTT AND SCOTT LLP 4771 Cromwell Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (213) 985-1274 Facsimile: (213) 985-1278 E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com LOCKHEED MARTIN: Accused of Bias and Retaliation in Colorado ------------------------------------------------------------ Litha Peneaux v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv- 00874 (D. Colo., April 24, 2015) is brought for discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Family Medical Leave Act. The action is an employment discrimination and retaliation case brought by Ms. Peneaux, a Native American woman, who was a highly successful Lockheed employee for over 13 years and who had worked her way up into the Drafting Department Lead position during her tenure. Shortly before she was fired, Ms. Peneaux alleges that she began experiencing different and worse treatment by her new male manager compared with her similarly situated male colleagues, and she observed his bias against other women as well. Lockheed is a Maryland corporation licensed to and doing business in the state of Colorado during all relevant time periods. The Plaintiff is represented by: Diane S. King, Esq. Kimberly J. Jones, Esq. KING & GREISEN, LLP 1670 York Street Denver, CO 80206 Telephone: (303) 298-9878 Facsimile: (303) 298-9879 E-mail: king@kinggreisen.com jones@kinggreisen.com LOWE'S HOME: Sued in Washington for Violating Disabilities Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Molinari v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC d/b/a Lowe's Home Improvement, a Washington Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-05295 (W.D. Wash., May 5, 2015) seeks to redress the alleged deprivation and interference with rights secured through the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Washington Law against Discrimination, to correct unlawful employment practices by Lowe's and to provide appropriate relief to the Plaintiff. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, doing business as Lowe's Home Improvement, is a North Carolina corporation doing business in the state of Washington. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. G. Blankenship, Esq. Paul S. Woods, Esq. THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S. 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3250 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 343-2700 Facsimile: (206) 343-2704 E-mail: sblankenship@blankenshiplawfirm.com pwoods@blankenshiplawfirm.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Crawford" Product Liability Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline Crawford, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Lumber Liquidators Leasing, LLC, Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. and Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC, Case No. 0:15-cv-60891-JIC (S.D. Fla., April 27, 2015) asserts product liability claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Cullin Avram O'Brien, Esq. CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A. 6541 NE 21st Way Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308 Telephone: (561) 676-6370 Facsimile: (561) 320-0285 E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com LUNA INNOVATIONS: Class Actions Filed After Merger Announcement --------------------------------------------------------------- Luna Innovations Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that three separate putative class action complaints were filed on behalf of API stockholders after the merger announcement. The Company said, "On January 30, 2015, we, Advanced Photonix, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("API"), and API Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and our wholly owned subsidiary ("API Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which API Merger Sub will merge with and into API (the "Merger"), with API surviving as our wholly owned subsidiary." The Company said, "After our announcement of the Merger with API, three separate putative class action complaints were filed on behalf of API stockholders against members of the API board of directors, API, Luna, and API Merger Sub. Two actions were filed in the Circuit Court for the County of Washtenaw of the State of Michigan (captioned Clark v. Advanced Photonix, Inc., Case No. 15- 169-CB and Panzer v. Advanced Photonix, Inc., Case No. 15-214-CB) and one action was filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware (captioned Henderson v. Advanced Photonix, Inc., C.A. No. 10715) (collectively, the "Stockholder Litigation") In general, and to date, the plaintiffs in the Stockholder Litigation allege that the API's directors breached its fiduciary duties to API's stockholders by, among other things, agreeing to sell API to Luna at an inadequate price, implementing an unfair process, agreeing to certain provisions of the Merger Agreement that are alleged to favor Luna and deter alternative bids, and/or by omitting material information from the Registration Statement on Form S-4 that we filed with the SEC in connection with the Merger. The complaints have also generally alleged that API and Luna aided and abetted the API director's breaches of fiduciary duties. The existing complaints seek, among other things, an injunction against the consummation of the Merger and an award of costs and expenses, including a reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these actions." M & T BANK: Accused of Age Discrimination and Retaliation in Pa. ---------------------------------------------------------------- William Chandlee v. M & T Bank Corporation, d/b/a M & T Bank, Case No. 2:15-cv-02458-ER (E.D. Pa., May 4, 2015) is brought for age discrimination, sex discrimination, and retaliation to wit: wrongful discharge, disparate treatment, denial of benefits. M & T Bank is a corporation doing business in Pennsylvania with an office located in Havertown, Pennsylvania. The Defendant provides financial and banking services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shelly Farber, Esq. FARBER AND FARBER LAW OFFICES West Chester Pike, Suite 100 Broomall, PA 19008 Telephone: (610) 356-3900 Facsimile: (610) 356-3952 farberandfarber@gmail.com MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR: Fails to Pay Equal Rates to Workers, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paula Dimopoulos v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02288 (W.D. Tenn., April 29, 2015) is an action for declaratory and monetary relief caused by, among other things, the Defendant's failure to pay Dr. Dimopoulos at a rate less than that paid to male employees for equal work in violation of the Equal Pay Act. Dr. Dimopoulos was an employee of Medtronic as a Program Director, Global Medical Affairs, from July 2011 through June 2014. Medtronic is was the Plaintiff's employer and was doing business in Memphis, Tennessee. The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather Moore Collins, Esq. COLLINS LAW FIRM 2002 Richard Jones Rd., Suite 200-B Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 724-1996 Facsimile: (615) 691-7019 E-mail: heather@hmcollinslaw.com METRO-NORTH COMMUTER: Sued Over Discriminatory Firing of Employee ----------------------------------------------------------------- William Sanchez v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-03413-VEC (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2015) seeks redress for the alleged unlawful discriminatory termination of the Plaintiff's employment, in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law, the Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2005 and other laws. Mr. Sanchez is a resident of the County of Orange in the state of New York. He is a Hispanic male. He was a Metro-North employee for approximately 13 years prior to his termination in May 2013. Metro-North is a public-benefit corporation that is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Metropolitan Transit Authority, a Public Authority of the state of New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Seltzer, Esq. Paul J. Sagar, Esq. YUEN ROCCANOVA SELTZER P.C. 11 Hanover Square, 13th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 608-1178 Facsimile: (212) 608-2913 E-mail: sseltzer@yrsslaw.com psagar@yrsslaw.com NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Smith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. National Enterprise Systems Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00451-D (W.D. Okla., April 28, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq. WEISBERG & MEYERS LLC 5025 N Central Ave., Suite 602 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (850) 867-8701 E-mail: rthompson@consumerlawinfo.com NEW ZEALAND: Class Suit Mulled Over Canterbury Earthquakes ---------------------------------------------------------- Jenee Tibshraeny, writing for Interest.co.nz, reports that a lawyer and a litigation funder are looking to organize group legal action against insurers in the wake of the 2010/11 Canterbury earthquakes. A partner at Shieff Angland Lawyers, Kalev Crossland -- kalev.crossland@shieffangland.co.nz -- and Bruce Sheppard, a director of litigation funders LPF Group and best known as founder of the New Zealand Shareholders' Association, are planning to help property owners sue their insurers. A meeting at the Transitional Cathedral in Christchurch was scheduled for April 17 to explain how group litigation may unfold. Mr. Crossland says from there he'll look at inviting people to register their interest and explain their cases online. He and Sheppard will then assess the best way of tackling the issue. He says he may be able to categorize property owners' cases so there's three or four different groups of class-type action. Or if there are less similarities between cases, he can file them individually and get the court to process them together as a consolidated action. "It's about trying to make efficient use of the court resources", he says. "By getting people together and sharing the knowledge, you can level the playing field. "Insurance companies sometimes rely on the fact they can pick off individuals separately, tie them up with confidentiality clauses and take advantage of them when they really need the cash." The Insurance Council of New Zealand has declined to comment on Mr. Crossland and Sheppard's proposed legal action. 'Sue to show you mean business' So why would property owners join the group rather than settle their disputes with their insurers themselves? Cost. Mr. Crossland can't comment on the specifics of how any group action will be funded, but says it will potentially come at no cost to claimants. "To get people around the table, you need to sue to show you mean business. For many people that's not possible because it's a scary proposition having to commit thousands of dollars to a lawyer on an individual basis. But if you get everyone together, it's not going to cost you anything other than an amount at the end of the process", Mr. Crossland says. "The beauty of litigation funding is that the lawyers work hard in the knowledge that the litigation funder is paying, so you have a separation and perhaps more objectivity is brought to bear." He believes the issue of "good faith" could be the basis for a strong case against insurers. "When customers pay a premium, they do so in good faith; they pay their premiums in the knowledge they will have their claim progressed and settled in a reasonable period of time with as little stress and fuss as possible . . . that certainly hasn't happened and problems are continuing." Mr. Crossland believes insurers are often not acting in good faith in the following four ways: 1. Some insurers are taking advantage of their clients' lack of insurance knowledge and not disclosing all the benefits they may be entitled to when making claims. 2. Some insurers are using the scale of the damage caused by the quakes as an excuse not to settle claims promptly. Mr. Crossland says insurers should have plans in place to increase their staffing levels and expand their resources in the event of a disaster. 3. Some insurers are making their clients pick up the costs of assessing their claims by paying for their own structural engineers, surveyors and so on. Mr. Crossland says anecdotal evidence suggests insurers have entered into exclusive arrangements with specific assessors and builders whose driving imperative is cost, so clients have to employ their own professionals. 4. Some insurers aren't taking their clients' economic and economical vulnerability into account when reaching settlements. Mr. Crossland says he'd like to find out exactly what training insurers' receive when it comes to acting in good faith. Representative action In an article released by Simpson Grierson in 2011, partner John Shackleton explains that while class action cannot be brought in New Zealand, group litigation can in certain circumstances. "One party can sue or be sued on behalf of other parties with the same interest in a proceeding, either with the consent of the other parties, or, as directed by the court. "Representative actions have developed to further the objectives of the High Court Rules -- to ensure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of proceedings. "For example, a representative action can avoid a defendant having to face a multitude of claims based on the same subject matter. "Courts have taken a wide and flexible approach when deciding whether parties have the "same interest" in a proceeding and have allowed representative actions in a range of circumstances." In regard to funding, Mr. Shackleton writes: "Third party litigation funding involves a party, unrelated to the proceeding paying the costs of litigation. If that litigation is successful, the third party recovers a portion of any judgment or settlement reached. "Third party litigation funders do not come without their own issues; they are not subject to the same obligations of client care and conduct and duties to the court as counsel in New Zealand." NYU LANGONE: Accused of Employment Discrimination Due to Age ------------------------------------------------------------ Memoris Pitter Green v. NYU Langone Medical Center, Case No. 1:15- cv-03328-LTS (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2015) is brought to remedy alleged discrimination and retaliation in the terms, conditions and privileges of the Plaintiff's employment on the basis of age in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the New York State Human Rights Law. Ms. Pitter-Green, is a 59 year-old Black female of West Indian descent. She is a resident of the Bronx County in New York. At all time relevant to this action, she was employed by NYU as a Phlebotomist. NYU is a hospital corporation chartered and licensed by the state of New York and operates a hospital located at 530 First Avenue, in New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Cheryl A. Harris, Esq. HARRIS LAW, PLLC 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 785-4001 Facsimile: (646) 964-6670 E-mail: charris@harrislawpllc.com PACIFIC INVESTMENT: AIG Seeks Judgment Over Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- American International Group, Inc. v. Pacific Investment Management Company LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03339-UA (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2015) is brought for declaratory relief against Pacific Investment Management Company LLC and 63 related PIMCO funds. AIG seeks entry of an order and judgment declaring that any claims by PIMCO against AIG under the Securities Act of 1933 stemming from their alleged purchase of AIG securities in six offerings between October 18, 2006, and May 12, 2008, are time-barred by the three-year statute of repose set forth in the Securities Act, which expired three years after each offering and no later than May 12, 2011. PIMCO were members of the putative class in In re American International Group, Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation, No. 08-CV - 4772, that was pending in this Court for nearly seven years prior to its recent settlement. Pursuant to this Court's Order preliminarily approving the Class Action settlement on October 7, 2014, PIMCO opted-out of the settlement class on January 5, 2015. Nearly a week after final approval of the Class Action settlement, on March 27, 2015, PIMCO filed a complaint in state court in Orange County, California, asserting a single cause of action under the Securities Act arising from their alleged purchase of AIG securities in six offerings between October 18, 2006, and May 12, 2008. See Pacific Investment Management Company LLC, et al. v. American International Group, Inc., No. 30-2015-00779738-CU-SL- CXC (Cal. Sup. Ct. Orange Cnty. Mar. 27, 2015). The allegations in the California Action are substantively the same as those in the Class Action, as well as nine individual actions, also pending in this Court, brought by other investors who also elected to exclude themselves from the settlement class. Like the Class Action and Opt-Out Action complaints, the California Action alleges that AIG made false and misleading statements in SEC filings, press releases and investor calls regarding AIG's exposure to the subprime mortgage market between 2006 and 2008. The Plaintiff contends that PIMCO took no action to preserve their claims against AIG prior to the expiration of the Securities Act's repose period. AIG is a Delaware corporation having its principal executive offices in New York City. AIG is a leading international insurance organization serving customers in more than 100 countries and jurisdictions. AIG companies serve commercial, institutional, and individual customers through one of the most extensive worldwide property-casualty networks of any insurer. AIG companies are also leading providers of life insurance and retirement services in the United States. Pacific Investment Management Company LLC is a global investment solutions provider headquartered in Newport Beach, California, that manages investments for various entities and individuals, including public and private pension and retirement plans, companies, central banks, educational institutions, financial advisors, foundations, and endowments. Pacific Investment Management Company LLC manages and advises various funds also named as Defendants herein. The other Defendants are PIMCO CALIFORNIA INTERMEDIATE MUNICIPAL BOND FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO CALIFORNIA SHORT DURATION MUNICIPAL INCOME FUND; PIMCO COMBINED ALPHA STRATEGIES MASTER FUND LDC; PIMCO GLOBAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY MASTER FUND LDC; PIMCO FUNDS: PRIVATE ACCOUNT PORTFOLIO SERIES HIGH YIELD PORTFOLIO; PIMCO FUNDS: PRIVATE ACCOUNT PORTFOLIO SERIES INVESTMENT GRADE CORPORATE PORTFOLIO; PIMCO FUNDS: PRIVATE ACCOUNT PORTFOLIO SERIES MORTGAGE PORTFOLIO; PIMCO ABSOLUTE RETURN STRATEGY II TRUST, A SUB-TRUST OF PIMCO CAYMAN UNIT TRUST; PIMCO ABSOLUTE RETURN STRATEGY II MASTER FUND LDC; PIMCO ABSOLUTE RETURN STRATEGY III MASTER FUND LDC; PIMCO ABSOLUTE RETURN STRATEGY V MASTER FUND LDC; PIMCO BERMUDA TRUST: PIMCO EURO TOTAL RETURN FUND; PIMCO BERMUDA TRUST II: PIMCO BERMUDA GLOBAL AGGREGATE EX-JAPAN BOND FUND (M); PIMCO BERMUDA TRUST II: PIMCO BERMUDA U.S. HIGH YIELD FUND II (M); PIMCO BERMUDA TRUST II: PIMCO BERMUDA JGB FLOATER FOREIGN STRATEGY FUND; PIMCO BERMUDA TRUST IV: PIMCO BERMUDA GLOBAL BOND EX-JAPAN FUND; PIMCO BERMUDA TRUST IV: PIMCO GLOBAL HIGH YIELD STRATEGY FUND; PIMCO BERMUDA TRUST II: PIMCO BERMUDA U.S. HIGH YIELD FUND (M); PIMCO CAYMAN TRUST: PIMCO CAYMAN AUSTRALIAN MULTI-SECTOR FUND; PIMCO CAYMAN TRUST: PIMCO CAYMAN FOREIGN BOND FUND; PIMCO CAYMAN TRUST: PIMCO CAYMAN GLOBAL AGGREGATE EX-JAPAN (YEN-HEDGED) BOND FUND II; PIMCO CAYMAN TRUST: PIMCO CAYMAN GLOBAL AGGREGATE BOND FUND; PIMCO CAYMAN TRUST: PIMCO CAYMAN GLOBAL AGGREGATE EX-JAPAN BOND FUND; PIMCO CAYMAN TRUST: PIMCO CAYMAN GLOBAL AGGREGATE EX-JAPAN INCOME FUND; PIMCO CAYMAN TRUST: PIMCO CAYMAN GLOBAL CREDIT ALPHA FUND; PIMCO CAYMAN TRUST: PIMCO CAYMAN GLOBAL EX-JAPAN (YEN-HEDGED) BOND FUND; PIMCO CAYMAN TRUST - PIMCO CAYMAN GLOBAL HIGH INCOME FUND; PIMCO CAYMAN TRUST: PIMCO CAYMAN GLOBAL HIGH INCOME (YEN-HEDGED) FUND; PIMCO CAYMAN TRUST: PIMCO CAYMAN U.S. BOND FUND; PIMCO CAYMAN TRUST: PIMCO CAYMAN U.S. TOTAL RETURN FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO CONVERTIBLE FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO FLOATING INCOME FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO FOREIGN BOND FUND (UNHEDGED); PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO FOREIGN BOND FUND (U.S. DOLLAR-HEDGED); PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO FUNDAMENTAL INDEXPLUS(R) AR FUND; EQUITY TRUSTEES LIMITED AS RESPONSIBLE ENTITY FOR PIMCO GLOBAL BOND FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO GLOBAL BOND FUND (UNHEDGED); PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO GLOBAL BOND FUND (U.S. DOLLARHEDGED); PIMCO BERMUDA TRUST IV: PIMCO GLOBAL BOND STRATEGY FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO HIGH YIELD FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO HIGH YIELD MUNICIPAL BOND FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO INVESTMENT GRADE CORPORATE BOND FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO LONG DURATION TOTAL RETURN FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO REAL RETURN ASSET FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO REAL RETURN FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO SMALL CAP STOCKSPLUS(R) AR STRATEGY FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO STOCKSPLUS(R) LONG DURATION FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO STOCKSPLUS(R) ABSOLUTE RETURN FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO STOCKSPLUS(R) AR SHORT STRATEGY FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: PIMCO TOTAL RETURN FUND; PIMCO VARIABLE INSURANCE TRUST: PIMCO GLOBAL BOND PORTFOLIO (UNHEDGED); PIMCO VARIABLE INSURANCE TRUST: PIMCO HIGH YIELD PORTFOLIO; PIMCO FUNDS: GLOBAL INVESTORS SERIES PLC, GLOBAL BOND EX-US FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: GLOBAL INVESTORS SERIES PLC, GLOBAL BOND FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: GLOBAL INVESTORS SERIES PLC, GLOBAL HIGH YIELD BOND FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: GLOBAL INVESTORS SERIES PLC, GLOBAL INVESTMENT GRADE CREDIT FUND; PIMCO FUNDS: GLOBAL INVESTORS SERIES PLC, HIGH YIELD BOND FUND; FIXED INCOME SHARES: SERIES C; FIXED INCOME SHARES: SERIES M; PIMCO CORPORATE & INCOME OPPORTUNITY FUND; PIMCO CORPORATE & INCOME STRATEGY FUND;ú AND PIMCO HIGH INCOME FUND, The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph S. Allerhand, Esq. Robert F. Carangelo, Esq. Stacy Nettleton, Esq. WElL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Telephone: (212) 310-8000 Facsimile: (212) 310-8007 E-mail: joseph.allerhand@weil.com robert.carangelo@weil.com stacy.nettleton@weil.com PACIFIC PREMIER: Plaintiffs' Counsel Want to Schedule Depositions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that after a lengthy period of inactivity, the Bank was contacted by plaintiffs' counsel in a class action to schedule depositions and discovery, and prepare the case to go to trial in 2015. In February 2004, the Bank was named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit entitled "James Baker v. Century Financial, et al," which alleged violations of the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act (the "MSMLA") by the Bank's predecessor, Life Bank. The lawsuit alleged that Missouri homeowners were charged closing costs and related fees exceeding the amount permitted by the MSMLA. While Life Bank did not originate these mortgages, it did ultimately own and service them for a period of time, which plaintiffs allege creates potential liability under the MSMLA. The class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri in 2000. The lawsuit seeks restitution of all improperly-charged closing fees and costs, prejudgment interest on improperly-charged closing fees and costs, restitution of all interest payments made by the homeowners, prejudgment interest on all interest paid by the homeowners, attorney's fees, and punitive damages. In March 2005, the Bank's motion to dismiss based on statute of limitations arguments was denied by the trial court without a written opinion. In August 2006, the Bank's "preemption" motion -- claiming that federal law preempted and superseded the MSMLA as to these loans -- was also denied without a written opinion. The Bank answered plaintiffs' complaint, and the parties have exchanged and answered discovery requests. After a lengthy period of inactivity, the Bank was contacted by plaintiffs' counsel to schedule depositions and discovery, and prepare the case to go to trial in 2015. The Board of Directors of the Company determined to establish a $1.7 million reserve related to the lawsuit during the fourth quarter of 2014, which the Board of Directors believes to be a reasonable estimate of the Company's exposure as of December 31, 2014. PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL: PHIPA Defense Fails to Avert Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy G. Hulton, Esq. of Dickinson Wright PLLC, in an article for Lexology, reports that back in 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized the tort of invasion of privacy -- fast forward to the recent string of privacy breaches of personal information held by health care facilities in Ontario. Along comes Hopkins v Kay, 2014 ONSC 321 (CanLII), where patients from the Peterborough Regional Health Centre (the "Hospital") have launched a $5.6 million class action lawsuit against the Hospital alleging that approximately 280 patient records were intentionally and unlawfully accessed and disseminated to third parties without the patients' consent. The Hospital, in response, brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claim on the basis that it did not disclose a cause of action, arguing that the claim was precluded by the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004, SO 2004, c 3, Sch A ("PHIPA") because the legislature intended PHIPA to be a comprehensive code that displaces any common law cause of action, including intrusion upon seclusion (aka the tort of breach of privacy). The Hospital's position is that the plaintiffs' only recourse is a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the Hospital's motion to strike, concluding that it was not plain and obvious that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and the Hospital launched an appeal of this decision. The Ontario Court of Appeal subsequently held that the Hospital cannot escape from the proposed class action proceeding on the basis of the provisions of PHIPA. The proposed class action was launched by a former patient whose records were improperly accessed. Her claim was based on the common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion, a claim recognized by Ontario courts in Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32, 108 O.R. (3d) 241. The representative plaintiff, Erkenraadje Wensvoort, claims that she attended the Hospital on several occasions for treatment of injuries inflicted by her ex-husband. She eventually left her husband, but still feared for her safety. Along with two hundred eighty other patients, the plaintiff received two notices from the Hospital notifying her that the privacy of her personal health information had been breached. The plaintiff was afraid that her ex-husband had paid someone to access her records in order to try to find her. Ms. Wensvoort initially relied on breaches of PHIPA to assert a cause of action, but she later amended her statement of claim to contain only the common law cause of action identified in Jones v. Tsige for intrusion upon seclusion. PHIPA is an Ontario law that governs the collection, use and disclosure of personal health information. It also provides rules to protect the confidentiality of that information and the privacy of individuals, while facilitating the effective provision of health care. PHIPA provides that an individual may make a complaint to Ontario's Information and Privacy Commission for contravention of the Act and the Commissioner has powers to make a variety orders to ensure compliance with the Act. The Court also noted that: The possibility of recovering damages as a result of a breach of PHIPA is the subject of s. 65: (1) If the Commissioner has made an order under this Act that has become final as the result of there being no further right of appeal, a person affected by the order may commence a proceeding in the Superior Court of Justice for damages for actual harm that the person has suffered as a result of a contravention of this Act or its regulations. (2) If a person has been convicted of an offence under this Act and the conviction has become final as a result of there being no further right of appeal, a person affected by the conduct that gave rise to the offence may commence a proceeding in the Superior Court of Justice for damages for actual harm that the person has suffered as a result of the conduct. (3) If, in a proceeding described in subsection (1) or (2), the Superior Court of Justice determines that the harm suffered by the plaintiff was caused by a contravention or offence, as the case may be, that the defendants engaged in wilfully or recklessly, the court may include in its award of damages an award, not exceeding $10,000, for mental anguish. The Court of Appeal pointed out that PHIPA does not allow the Commissioner to award damages, and instead requires individuals to bring an action in Superior Court to seek compensation for any harm caused. The Court found that this undermines the argument that the legislature intended to exclude courts from resolving disputes governed by PHIPA. The Court ultimately concluded that PHIPA does not confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Commissioner to resolve all disputes over misuse of personal health information, holding: PHIPA's highly discretionary review procedure is tailored to deal with systemic issues rather than individual complaints. There is no basis to exclude the jurisdiction of the Superior Court from entertaining a common law claim for breach of privacy and, given the absence of an effective dispute resolution procedure, there is no merit to the suggestion that the court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction. The health care community needs to be even more vigilant in its efforts to protect the privacy of health information, now that Hopkins has thrown the doors wide open to tort claims against custodians of health information for privacy breaches. PETRO RIVER: No Timeline for Court to Rule in Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Petro River Oil Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2015, that there is no specific timeline by which the court must render a ruling in a class action lawsuit. On August 11, 2014, Martha Donelson and John Friend amended their complaint in an existing lawsuit by filing a class action complaint styled: Martha Donelson and John Friend, et al. v. United States of America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Devon Energy Production, LP, et al., Case No. 14-CV-316-JHP-TLW, United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (the "Proceeding"). The plaintiffs added as defendants twenty-seven (27) specifically named operators, including the Company, as well as all Osage County lessees and operators who have obtained a concession agreement, lease or drilling permit approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA") in Osage County allegedly in violation of National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"). Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the BIA improperly approved oil and gas leases, concession agreements and drilling permits prior to August 12, 2014, without satisfying the BIA's obligations under federal regulations or NEPA, and seek a determination that such oil and gas leases, concession agreements and drilling permits are void ab initio. Plaintiffs are seeking damages against the defendants for alleged nuisance, trespass, negligence and unjust enrichment. On October 7, 2014 Spyglass, along with other defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the August 11, 2104 Proceeding on various procedural and legal arguments. Plaintiffs filed their response to the motion to dismiss on October 27, 2014. Spyglass filed its reply brief on November 10, 2014 and the plaintiffs were granted leave until November 19, 2014 to file a surreply to Splyglass's reply brief. Once the briefing cycle concluded on November 19, 2014, the motion to dismiss became ripe for determination by the court. Oral arguments may be ordered by the court. There is no specific timeline by which the court must render a ruling. PM REALTY: Removes "Branch" Employment Suit to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Branch v. PM Realty Group LP, Case No. BC575759, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv- 03303 to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges employment discrimination. The Defendants are represented by: Keith A. Jacoby, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (310) 553-5583 E-mail: kjacoby@littler.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Frund, Individually, and on behald of himself and all others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:15-cv-03117-MCA-JBC (D.N.J., May 4, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS LAW LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 660-8169 E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com RIVERSIDE, CA: Sued by Minors Alleging Violations of Civil Rights ----------------------------------------------------------------- P. H., J. H., K. H., A.1. H. and A.2. H., Minors, by and through their guardian ad litem, and all others similarly situated v. County of Riverside, a public entity; Dori Covarrubias, an individual; Karin Atkins, an individual; and Does, 1 through 10, inclusive, together with all others similarly situated, Case No. 5:15-cv-00890-JGB-DTB (C.D. Cal., May 6, 2015) is brought over alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dennis B. Atchley, Esq. Stephen D. Daner, Esq. Shawn A. McMillan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN A. MCMILLAN APC 4955 Via Lapiz San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 646-0069 Facsimile: (206) 600-4582 E-mail: dbalaw@yahoo.com steve.mcmillanlaw@gmail.com attyshawn@netscape.net - and - Mark Daniel Ankcorn, Esq. ANKCORN LAW FIRM PC 11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (619) 870-0600 Facsimile: (619) 684-3541 E-mail: mark@ankcorn.com ROBINSON SPORTS: Sued for Violating Disabilities Act in Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- Andres Gomez, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Robinson Sports, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-21538-CMA (S.D. Fla., April 24, 2015) is brought over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Tse-Hua Ku, Esq. Louis I. Mussman, Esq. KU & MUSSMAN PA 6001 NW 153 Street, Suite 100 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Telephone: (305) 891-1322 Facsimile: (305) 891-4512 E-mail: brian@kumussman.com louis@kumussman.com SALVATION ARMY: Accused of Bias Against Black/Latino/Female Staff ----------------------------------------------------------------- David N. Brodmann v. Salvation Army, Inc., a California corporation; Mark Nelson, an individual; and, Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:15-cv-00834-SJO-MRW (C.D. Cal., April 27, 2015) alleges that the Salvation Army operated a business rife with sexual harassment and a uniquely atrocious type of discrimination towards African-American, Latino and female employees. According to its Web site, the Salvation Army is an international Christian organization and part of the Universal Christian Church whose message is based on the Bible and rooted in the Christian faith of its members. Defendant Mark Nelson was employed by the Salvation Army and was an officer in the Salvation Army. The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory M. Garrison, Esq. Julia M. Williams, Esq. TEEPLE HALL, LLP 9255 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 500 San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 622-7878 Facsimile: (858) 622-0411 E-mail: greg@teeplehall.com julia@teeplehall.com SALVATION ARMY: Accused of Sexual & Racial Discrimination in Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- David N. Brodmann v. Salvation Army, Inc., a California corporation; Mark Nelson, an individual; and, Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-03137 (C.D. Cal., April 27, 2015) alleges that Defendant Mark Nelson created a hostile work environment through illegal sexual and racial discrimination. According to its Web site, the Salvation Army is an international Christian organization and part of the Universal Christian Church whose message is based on the Bible and rooted in the Christian faith of its members. Defendant Mark Nelson was employed by the Salvation Army and was an officer in the Salvation Army. The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory M. Garrison, Esq. Julia M. Williams, Esq. TEEPLE HALL, LLP 9255 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 500 San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 622-7878 Facsimile: (858) 622-0411 E-mail: greg@teeplehall.com julia@teeplehall.com SHELL OIL: Faces "Leonard" Suit Alleging Benzene-Related Injuries ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wilson Joseph Leonard, Jr., Individually, and Betty Leonard, Individually v. Shell Oil Company, Shell Chemical LP, d/b/a Shell Chemical Company Chevron USA, Inc. f/k/a Gulf Oil Corporation, Texaco, Inc., The Dow Chemical Company, Case No. 2:15-cv-01390- ILRL-KWR (E.D. La., April 29, 2015) alleges that Mr. Leonard was exposed to high levels of benzene from products manufactured, distributed or sold by the Defendants. Benzene has been recognized as a carcinogen known to cause leukemia, according to the complaint. The Plaintiffs contend that through industry and medical studies unknown to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants knew or should have known of the health hazards inherent in the products they manufactured, distributed, sold, supplied, owned, transported, or used. The Plaintiffs add that the actions or inactions of the Defendants constitute gross negligence and demonstrate a reckless disregard for the rights and safety of others. The Defendants are incorporated under the laws of Delaware and Pennsylvania, with their principal places of business in Texas, California and Michigan. The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Eric Williams, Jr., Esq. WILLIAMS LAW OFFICE, LLC 433 Metairie Rd., Suite 401 Metairie, LA 70005 Telephone: (504) 832-9898 Facsimile: (504) 832-9811 E-mail: eric@amlbenzene.net - and - Mickey P. Landry, Esq. Frank J. Swarr, Esq. Philip C. Hoffman, Esq. Amanda J. Ballay, Esq. Matthew C. Clark, Esq. LANDRY & SWARR, L.L.C. 1010 Common Street, Suite 2050 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 299-1214 Facsimile: (504) 299-1215 E-mail: mlandry@landryswarr.com fswarr@landryswarr.com phoffman@landryswarr.com SHOWTIME NETWORKS: "Gordon" Sues Over Mayweather-Pacquaio Fight --------------------------------------------------------------- Allan H. Gordon and Seth J. Lamb, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Showtime Networks Inc., Home Box Office, Inc., Mayweather Promotions, LLC, Top Rank, Inc., Michael Koncz, Robert Arum, Todd Duboef and Emmanuel D. Pacquaio, Case No. 2:15-cv-02511-JHS (E.D. Pa., May 6, 2015) arises from the May 2 "Fight of the Century" boxing match between Messrs. Mayweather and Pacquaio. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc A. Goldich, Esq. SHELLER, P.C. 1528 Walnut Street, 4th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 790-7300 E-mail: mgoldich@sheller.com SIEMENS DEMAG: Discriminates Against Black Operator, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Barry Murphy v. Siemens Demag Delaval Turbomachinery, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02911 (D.N.J., April 24, 2015) alleges that the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's Civil Rights and discriminated against him on the basis of his race. Mr. Murphy is a resident of Willingboro, New Jersey. He is African-American. He was hired by the Defendant in June 1966 as a radial drill press operator. According to the complaint, Mr. Murphy has been a satisfactory employee of the Defendant for over four decades and is extremely experienced in his work. Siemens Demag Delaval Turbomachinery, Inc. is a duly organized corporation regularly conducting business in the state of New Jersey, with a place of business in Hamilton, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard L. Frankel, Esq. BROSS & FRANKEL, P.A. 102 Browning Lane, Bldg. C-1 Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 Telephone: (856) 795-8880 Facsimile: (856) 795-1242 E-mail: rich@ltdbenefitslaw.com - and - Kelly A. Ohlert, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF KELLY A. OHLERT, ESQ., LLC 17 E. Germantown Pike, 2nd Floor Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 E-mail: kelly@ohlertlaw.com SKECHERS USA: "Bailey" Suit Consolidated in Toning Shoe MDL ----------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit styled Bailey v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01352, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky (Louisville). The Kentucky District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00342-TBR to the proceeding. The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: Skechers Toning Shoe Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3:11-md-02308-TBR-LLK. The Plaintiffs in the litigation allege, among other things, that Skechers intentionally made numerous misrepresentations, and continues to make those representations, regarding the efficacy and health benefits of its toning shoes, including Skechers Shape- ups and Tone-ups. Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes, including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups. Skechers markets and promotes its toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless health benefits including improved cardiac function and orthopedic benefits. Skechers markets and promotes its toning shoes to be worn in place of other athletic shoes during daily activities, exercise routines, and in the workplace. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard W. Schulte, Esq. WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC 812 E. National Road Dayton, Ohio 45377 Telephone: (937) 435-7500 Facsimile: (937) 435-7511 E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael D. Eagen, Esq. Susan D. Solle, Esq. Katrina R. Atkins, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 977-8578 Facsimile: (513) 977-8141 E-mail: michael.eagen@dinslaw.com susan.solle@dinsmore.com katrina.atkins@dinslaw.com SOUTHERN UNITED: Investigators to Probe Obama Care Funds Misuse --------------------------------------------------------------- Connor D. Wolf, writing for The Daily Caller, reports that according to a letter made public, federal investigators are looking into whether Obamacare funds were misused to benefit a union. The letter, which was obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation, says the Office of Inspector General has been investigating whether Southern United Neighborhoods and its sub grantee, United Labor Unions Local 100, purposely misused federal funds from the Obamacare Navigator program to recruit members. The program was designed to help people enroll in Obamacare. "Your request as to the disposition of your complaint poses a question, which is outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act, through which individuals may request records," the letter noted. "However, we conducted a search for records relative to your request and were informed there was an open and ongoing investigation concerning this matter." Back in September, after conducting its own research, the group Cause of Action wrote to the OIG asking to investigate whether SUN and Local 100 misused the federal funds. CoA took notice after a court case involving an individual who claimed he was owed overtime by SUN and ULU. "On June 16, 2014, plaintiffs Cedric Anthony ('Anthony') filed a class action lawsuit seeking damages for unpaid overtime against SUN and ULU under the Fair Labor Standards Act," a letter from CoA detailed. "Anthony alleges he was initially employed by SUN as an ACA federal navigator, visiting community events and enrolling individuals in healthcare," the letter continued. "In addition to these duties at SUN, Anthony alleges that he was directed to recruit members for the ULU by visiting schools to register cafeteria workers for the union." "SUN and ULU admit that Anthony was employed by ULU," the letter added. "They deny, however, that Anthony was employed by SUN." On Nov. 6, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice which effectively closed the case. The Joint Stipulation meant questions raised in the case in regards to misuse of funds were not answered, prompting the need for a federal investigation. "Cause of Action uncovered that ObamaCare navigator funds were not only funneled to an ACORN-related entity, but were potentially misused to support union activities at the behest of ACORN founder Wade Rathke," CoA President Dan Epstein told The DCNF. "On the basis of Cause of Action's request for an investigation, the Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services disclosed that there is 'an open and ongoing investigation' concerning the use of the navigator funds," he continued. "It's encouraging to hear that HHS is conducting a probe to ensure taxpayer dollars are used appropriately, and not to enrich ACORN's political interests." Republican Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch recently estimated the administration spent over $120 million on the Navigator program for the 2014 and 2015 open enrollment periods. SUN and Local 100 did not respond to requests for comment from The DCNF. SPARK NETWORKS: "Kirby" Settlement Granted Final Court Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Spark Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court granted final approval to the settlement in the case Kirby, et al. v. Spark Networks USA, LLC. On October 16, 2012, Kristina Kirby, Christopher Wagner and Jamie Carper (collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action Complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles alleging claims against Spark Networks USA, LLC for violations of California Business & Professions Code section 17529.5. Plaintiffs allege that certain e-mail communications advertising websites of Spark Networks USA, LLC and received by Plaintiffs violate a California statute prohibiting false and deceptive e-mail communications (namely, California Business & Professions Code section 17529.5). Plaintiffs generally allege that they seek damages in excess of $25,000. The e-mail publishers responsible for distributing the e- mails at issue in this litigation have agreed to furnish a complete defense to Spark, through counsel at their own expense, pursuant to contractual indemnification provisions. The parties reached a settlement to resolve the action on a classwide basis and the settlement agreement includes a full release of Spark and the publishers. The parties filed the necessary approval paperwork with the court, which granted final to the settlement on February 24, 2015. The court entered final judgment on March 2, 2015 regarding all claims pursuant to its final approval order. The Company recorded an accrual at December 31, 2014 for the cost related to resolving this matter. SPARK NETWORKS: Updates in Werner and Wright Cases -------------------------------------------------- Spark Networks, Inc., in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, provided updates on the case Werner, et al. v. Spark Networks, Inc. and Spark Networks USA, LLC and Wright, et al. v. Spark Networks, Inc., Spark Networks USA, LLC, et al. On July 19, 2013, Aaron Werner, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, filed a putative Class Action Complaint (the "Werner Complaint") in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles against Spark Networks, Inc. and Spark Networks USA, LLC (collectively "Spark Networks"). The Werner Complaint alleges that Spark Networks' website ChristianMingle.com violates California's Unruh Civil Rights Act (the "Unruh Act") by allegedly discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The Werner Complaint requests the following relief: an injunction, statutory, general, compensatory, treble and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment interest, and an award for any other relief the Court deems just and appropriate. On December 23, 2013, Richard Wright, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, filed a putative Class Action Complaint (the "Wright Complaint") in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Francisco against Spark Networks, Inc. The Wright Complaint alleges that Spark Networks' commercial dating services including ChristianMingle.com, LDSSingles.com, CatholicMingle.com, BlackSingles.com, MilitarySinglesConnection.com and AdventistSinglesConnection.com violate the Unruh Act by allegedly intentionally and arbitrarily discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The Wright Complaint requests the following relief: a declaratory judgment, a preliminary and permanent injunction, statutory penalties, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment interest, and an award for any other relief the Court deems just and appropriate. Management believes the likelihood of a material adverse outcome is remote and no accrual has been recorded for any potential loss as of December 31, 2014. SPARK NETWORKS: Updates on Ben-Jacob, Gever and Korland Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- Spark Networks, Inc., in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, provided updates on the case Ben-Jacob vs. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd., Gever vs. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. and Korland vs. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. Three class action law suits have been filed in Israel alleging violations of the Israel Consumer Protection Law of 1981. Spark was served with a Statement of Claim and a Motion to Certify it as a Class Action in the Ben-Jacob action on January 14, 2014. The plaintiff alleges that Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. ("Spark Networks") refused to cancel her subscription and provide a refund for unused periods and claims that such a refusal is in violation of the Consumer Protection Law. Spark Networks was served with a Statement of Claim and a motion to Certify it as a Class Action in the Gever action on January 21, 2014. The plaintiff alleges that Spark Networks renewed his one month subscription without receiving his positive agreement in advance and claims that such renewal is prohibited under the Consumer Protection Law. Spark Networks was served with a Statement of Claim and a Motion to Certify it as a Class Action in the Korland action on February 12, 2014. The plaintiff alleges that Spark Networks refused to give her a full refund and charged her the price of a one month subscription to the JDate website in violation of the Consumer Protection Law. In each of these three cases, the plaintiff is seeking personal damages and damages on behalf of a defined group. On May 8, 2014, the Court granted Spark Networks' motion to consolidate all three cases. All three cases are now consolidated and will be litigated jointly. Spark Networks' combined response to their motions to certify the classes was filed November 1, 2014 and the plaintiffs responded to the combined response. The parties had a hearing before the judge on December 24, 2014. Following the hearing the judge ordered that the pleadings filed by the parties be transferred to the Israel Consumer Council ("ICC") so that the ICC can provide its position as to the parties allegations within 90 days. SPECTRUM HUMAN: Accused of Racial Discrimination and Retaliation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy M. Martin v. Spectrum Human Services, Inc., Spectrum Community Services, Sharon Blain, and Delissa Payne, Case No. 1:15-cv-00453 (W.D. Mich., April 29, 2015) seeks damages for alleged racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. Tracy Martin is an African American female and a resident of the City of Kentwood, County of Kent, state of Michigan. Spectrum Human Services, Inc. is a domestic nonprofit corporation organized in Michigan. Spectrum Community Services is a Michigan domestic nonprofit corporation and is an affiliate of Spectrum Human Services. The Individual Defendants are managers, officers or agents of the Corporate Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christine A. Yared, Esq. CHRISTINE A. YARED, PLC 2503 Mason Ridge Court NE Grand Rapids, MI 49525 Telephone: (616) 363-9041 E-mail: cayared@comcast.net SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Urges Dismissal of Shareholder Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company has filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss the Shareholder Litigation. John Perry v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Filed March 14, 2013 in United States District Court, District of Nevada; Case Number 2:2013-cv-00433-LDG-CWH. This putative consolidated class action raises substantially identical claims and allegations against defendants Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Dr. Rajesh C. Shrotriya, Brett L. Scott, and Joseph Kenneth Keller. The alleged class period is August 8, 2012 to March 12, 2013. The lawsuits allege a violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against all defendants and control person liability, as a violation of Section 20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against the individual defendants. The claims purportedly stem from the Company's March 12, 2013 press release, in which it announced that it anticipated a change in ordering patterns of FUSILEV. The complaints allege that, as a result of the March 12, 2013 press release, the Company's stock price declined. The complaints further allege that during the putative class period certain defendants made misleadingly optimistic statements about FUSILEV sales, which inflated the trading price of Company stock. The lawsuits seek relief in the form of monetary damages, costs and fees, and any other equitable or injunctive relief that the court deems appropriate. On March 21, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing Arkansas Teacher Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On May 20, 2014, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. "On July 18, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint. On September 19, 2014, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System filed an opposition to our motion to dismiss. On October 17, 2014, we filed a reply in support of our motion to dismiss," the Company said. STAAR SURGICAL: To File Motion to Dismiss Edward Todd Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- Staar Surgical Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2015, that the Company intends to file a motion to dismiss the complaint in the case by Edward Todd. On July 8, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed by Edward Todd against STAAR and three officers in the federal court located in Los Angeles, California. The plaintiff claims that STAAR made misleading statements to and omitted material information from our investors between February 27, 2013 and June 30, 2014 about alleged regulatory violations at STAAR's Monrovia manufacturing facility. On July 21, 2014, the Company was served with the Complaint. Although the ultimate outcome of this action cannot be determined with certainty, the Company believes that the allegations in the Complaint are without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss the complaint, when appropriate, in the ongoing proceeding. On October 20, 2014, plaintiff amended its complaint, dismissed two Company officers, added one other officer, and reduced the alleged Class Period to November 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014. SUNRISE CITY, FL: Police Dep't Faces "Nigro" Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy Carol Nigro, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Officer E. Carrasquillo, City of Sunrise Police Department, Individually and in his Official Capacity, Case No. 0:15-cv-60919-JIC (S.D. Fla., April 30, 2015) seeks relief under the Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Cullin Avram O'Brien, Esq. CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A. 6541 NE 21st Way Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308 Telephone: (561) 676-6370 Facsimile: (561) 320-0285 E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com SYMMETRY SURGICAL: Parties Settled Merger Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Symmetry Surgical Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that parties settled a class action suit prior to the consummation of the merger transaction, for no additional consideration and a few additional disclosures filed in a Form 8-k, although left the issue of a claim for fees and costs for resolution at a later time, either through agreement or via a court hearing. On September 29, 2014, a purported class action complaint challenging the company's former parent's merger and the Company's spin-out as a stand-alone public company was filed by Resolution Partners, an alleged stockholder of SMI, and all others similarly situated, in the Kosciusko Circuit Court in the state of Indiana. The complaint named as defendants Symmetry Medical Inc. ("SMI"), the members of the board of directors of SMI, Genstar Capital LLC, Tecomet's sponsor ("Genstar"), Tecomet, Holdings and TecoSym Inc. The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the members of the SMI board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Resolution Partners and SMI stockholders during merger negotiations and by entering into the Merger Agreement and approving the Merger, and that Genstar and Tecomet allegedly aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint further alleges that the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed by Symmetry Surgical with the SEC on September 5, 2014, which contained the preliminary proxy statement of SMI, was misleading or omitted certain allegedly material information. The complaint sought, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining consummation of the Merger, compensatory and/or rescissory damages in an unspecified amount and costs and fees. The parties settled the suit prior to the consummation of the transaction, for no additional consideration and a few additional disclosures filed in a Form 8-k, although left the issue of a claim for fees and costs for resolution at a later time, either through agreement or via a court hearing. The Company has agreed with SMI to share equally in any fee award, up to 50% of the remaining insurance deductible. The Company does not believe this will have a significant impact on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. SYNGENTA AG: Farmers' GMO Corn Suits Gathering Momentum ------------------------------------------------------- Orlan Love, writing for The Gazette, reports that it would be hard not to notice all the "Iowa Corn Lawsuit" advertisements popping up recently on websites accessed by Iowans. Click on one, and you will be informed that thousands of farmers and corn sellers are filing lawsuits against the multinational biotech company Syngenta, which introduced a genetically modified corn seed, Agrisure Viptera, long before it had secured approval from U.S. trade partner China. The lawsuits seek to compensate farmers for alleged financial losses suffered when corn prices fell following China's rejection of more than 1 million tons of U.S. corn after it found traces of the Syngenta trait commingled with most shipments. "Syngenta believes the lawsuits have no merit," company spokesman Paul Minehart said. The company commercialized Agrisure Viptera is in full compliance with regulatory and legal requirements, he said. China's ban on U.S. corn from November 2013 through December 2014 -- "is absolutely a factor in lower corn prices" during that period, said Solon farmer Ed Ulch, who has signed up to participate in the lawsuits. "Everyone I know will be signing up (for the lawsuit) except Syngenta dealers," Mr. Ulch said. Mr. Ulch hopes the lawsuits will send a message to Syngenta to be more responsible in its introduction of new products Linn County farmer Curt Zingula said he has not yet signed on as a plaintiff but intends to. Mr. Zingula said he knew at the time that the loss of the China market adversely would affect grain prices. "I figured I was going to be a victim," he said. Though the lawsuits hold promise for recovery, Mr. Zingula added he remains skeptical that they will succeed. The biggest hurdle, he said, will be "nailing down how much of the decline in corn prices can be attributed to the loss of the China market." The National Grain & Feed Association estimates damages suffered by U.S. farmers and grain exporters from the drop in corn prices exceed $1 billion. Grain exporters Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland and Trans Coastal Supply have all filed individual lawsuits against Syngenta seeking damages linked to China's rejection of shipments, and several law firms are recruiting individual farmers as plaintiffs, including Des Moines lawyer Jeff Link, whose "Iowa Corn Lawsuit" ads have yielded 700 Iowa clients in recent weeks. "The number is going up every day. We signed up 50 in the last two days," Mr. Link said. Mr. Link said the lawsuit "has nothing to do with whether genetically modified products are good or bad." His clients, he said, are seeking damages from a company that "shifted all the risk inherent in introducing a new GMO product from itself to the backs of farmers." Link acknowledges that several factors, including prospective corn surpluses, caused the decline in corn prices in 2013. "But Syngenta's actions contributed in a significant way," he said. Link said he is working with Texas attorney Mikal Watts, who has filed more than 3,000 individual lawsuits against Syngenta. As with Watts, Link said he will file his claims in Minnesota state court. Rather than consolidating the individual suits in a class action, Link said they would be combined in a single civil action, known as a mass tort. Critical advances Roger Zylstra, chairman of the Iowa Corn Growers Association board of directors, said he believes the basis of the lawsuits is "totally misguided." Mr. Zylstra, who will not participate in the lawsuits, said technological advances are critical to agriculture's future success and that trading partners should not exercise undue influence over their introduction. Though Syngenta had not secured China's approval when it introduced the Viptera seeds, "China was not a major importer of corn at the time," said Mr. Zylstra, who farms near Lynnville. Moreover, he said, "Corn prices were already going down (because of anticipated surpluses and other factors) before the Chinese embargo took effect." The U.S. Department of Agriculture approved Agrisure Viptera, which was genetically altered to contain a protein that kills common corn pests such as earworms and cutworms, in 2010. The company began selling it to farmers in 2011. The trait had been approved "in the key import markets recommended at the time by the National Corn Growers Association and other industry associations," according to a Syngenta website. That website also noted that Monsanto and Dow have launched U.S.-approved corn traits in the United States without first securing Chinese import approval. The website also cited the USDA statement that the commodity price of corn declined 32 percent -- from $6.79 to $4.63 a bushel -- between July and October 2013 -- before China's rejection of U.S. corn a month later. Des Moines attorney Link said he sees strong parallels between the Syngenta case and an earlier case in which his Watts, his Texas colleague, helped negotiate a $750 million settlement in 2011 with Bayer Crop Sciences for U.S. rice farmers harmed by the reduction of rice prices caused by contamination of the supply by GMO rice. It was not as if no one foresaw the problem. Out of concern that the lack of Chinese import approval could disrupt trade, Bunge North America, a grain shipment company with scores of facilities including grain terminals at McGregor and Burlington, refused to accept Viptera corn in the summer of 2011. Syngenta sued Bunge, asserting that its reputation and good will with clients would be threatened if Bunge persisted in its refusal. A federal-district court rejected Syngenta's request for an injunction forcing Bunge to accept Viptera corn, stating that its refusal was a legitimate and reasonable business decision. Bunge's position generally was upheld in succeeding court clashes before both sides agreed to dismiss the case just before China's import approval in December. TAKATA CORP: "Shmil" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Shmil v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01634, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-21609-FAM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15- md-02599-FAM. The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris, resulting in injury or even death. The Plaintiffs allege that Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their knowledge from safety regulators and the public. TAKATA CORP: "Taylor" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Taylor v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00303, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-21611-FAM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15- md-02599-FAM. The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris, resulting in injury or even death. The Plaintiffs allege that Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their knowledge from safety regulators and the public. THURSTON CTY, NE: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Civil Rights ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Parker and Gloria J. Payer, and those Similarly Situated v. Thurston County, Nebraska, Caroline Frenchman, Darren Wolf, Georgia Maymberry, Leonard Peters, Greg Jump, Dan Trimble, Mark English, The Village of Walthill, an Entity within the Omaha Reservation and within Thurston County, Nebraska, Mike Grant, Gwen Porter, Vida Stabler, Drew Kingare, Michael Sr. Wolfe, Earlene Hradec, Randy Urbanec, Douglas L. Luebe, Nora H. Goll, Shelly Perez and State of Nebraska, Case No. 8:15-cv-00159-TDT (D. Neb., May 1, 2015) seeks relief under the Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul W. Madgett, Esq. PAUL MADGETT 1111 South 90th Street Omaha, NE 68154 Telephone: (402) 594-6545 E-mail: paulwayne41@yahoo.com TOYS R US: Judge Sends Dresser Case Back to Beaver County Court --------------------------------------------------------------- P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a federal judge has ruled that a suit against Toys R Us, Babies R Us and others involving two children who were killed by a falling dresser can be sent back from federal court to the Beaver County Court of Common Pleas. U.S. Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy of the Western District of Pennsylvania granted plaintiff Deborah DeCostro's motion to remand based on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Prior to Ms. DeCostro's motion, defendants Toys R Us, Babies R Us and former assistant store manager Michael Blain filed a notice of removal to federal court. Ms. DeCostro, a lawyer who administers the estates of Ryeley E. Beatty and Brooklyn N. Beatty, sued Baby Cache Inc. along with the other defendants after a dresser purchased from the defendants tipped over and asphyxiated Brooklyn and Ryeley, who died at ages 2 and 3, respectively. According to Judge Eddy's memorandum, the defendants argued that DeCostro had no standing to bring Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) claims against Mr. Blain -- who the defendants claim was fraudulently joined in the suit to circumvent diversity jurisdiction -- because DeCostro was not the purchaser of the dresser. However, Judge Eddy said Ms. DeCostro had a right to make those claims as a representative of the deceased plaintiffs. "Defendants do not cite any case law holding that a representative of minor decedents may not bring a UTPCPL claim solely as a legal representative of the minor decedents' estates," Ms. Eddy said. "The complaint alleges that the dresser was purchased on behalf of the minor decedents and in justifiable reliance of the alleged misrepresentations made by Blain. The minor decedents were incapable of purchasing this equipment for themselves at the time of the sale and plaintiff DeCostro is bringing this action on their behalf solely in a representative capacity." The plaintiffs' motion to remand, highlighted in Judge Eddy's opinion, said that the dresser was sold to the children's mother and grandmother by Mr. Blain, who "misrepresented the condition of the subject dresser as meeting all applicable safety standards thereby through deceptive means inducing the minor decedents' mother and grandmother into purchasing the subject dresser for them." "Additionally," the motion continued, "it is alleged that defendant Blain sold the dresser at a reduced price as a floor model when in fact the price had been reduced because the dresser lacked appropriate labels, warnings, and anchoring devices." Mr. Blain's alleged conduct, Ms. DeCostro claimed, amounted to unfair business practices under the UTPCPL because the deceased minors' mother and grandmother relied on Mr. Blain's description of the dresser when deciding to purchase it. In opposition, the defendants argued that Ms. DeCostro failed to put forth a "viable" UTPCPL claim. However, Judge Eddy said viability had nothing to do with joinders. Judge Eddy cited the guidelines governing joinders, which stated that joinders are fraudulent only when "there is no reasonable basis in fact or colorable ground supporting the claim against the joined defendant, or no real intention in good faith to prosecute the action against the defendants or seek a joint judgment." "In other words," Judge Eddy said, "the court need only assess whether the plaintiff's claims are 'wholly insubstantial or frivolous.'" Based on that reasoning, Judge Eddy said the defendants failed to meet the burden of proving that Ms. DeCostro had no standing to file suit, nor did they prove that a representative of deceased minors cannot bring a claim under the UTPCPL. "Accordingly, the court finds that Blain was not fraudulently joined in this matter," Judge Eddy said. "Whether plaintiffs have stated a claim against Blain for violation of the UTPCPL is not for this court to decide, as the court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to make such a determination." Kelly M. Tocci of McMillen, Urick, Tocci, Fouse & Jones in Aliquippa represented Ms. DeCostro and said the next step is to get the case under way. "We don't even have an actual answer to the complaint from the defendants yet, so they'll respond and then we'll get into discovery," Ms. Tocci said. Thomas P. Birris of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin represented Baby Cache, and Judith A. Moses of Cipriani & Werner in Pittsburgh represented Toys R Us, Babies R Us and Blain. None of the attorneys returned calls seeking comment. TRICO BANCSHARES: Parties in Shareholder Suit in Settlement Talks ----------------------------------------------------------------- TriCo Bancshares said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties in a shareholder class action lawsuit will negotiate in good faith and use their reasonable best efforts to enter into a stipulation of settlement. On January 24, 2014, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against TriCo, North Valley Bancorp and certain other defendants in connection with TriCo entering into the merger agreement with North Valley Bancorp. The lawsuit, which was filed in the Shasta County, California Superior Court, alleges that the members of the North Valley Bancorp board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to North Valley Bancorp shareholders by approving the proposed merger for inadequate consideration; approving the transaction in order receive benefits not equally shared by other North Valley Bancorp shareholders; entering into the merger agreement containing preclusive deal protection devices; and failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to the North Valley Bancorp shareholders. The lawsuit alleges claims against TriCo for aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the merger, rescission, attorneys' of the merger agreement, fees and costs, and other and further relief. On July 31, 2014 the defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of this lawsuit. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding and in consideration for the full settlement and release of all claims, TriCo and North Valley Bancorp agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed merger, which are contained in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by each of the companies. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will negotiate in good faith and use their reasonable best efforts to enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to North Valley Bancorp's shareholders. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will consider the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated. TRICO BANCSHARES: Filed Answer to Former Banker's Suit ------------------------------------------------------ TriCo Bancshares said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a former Personal Banker at one of the Bank's in-store branches filed on September 15, 2014, a Class Action Complaint against the Bank in Butte County Superior Court, alleging causes of action related to the observance of meal periods. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of "current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt 'personal bankers', or employees with the same or similar job duties, employed by Defendants within the State of California during the preceding four years." The Bank filed an Answer to the Complaint on November 6, 2014, denies the charges, and the Bank intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit against class certification and liability. TRICO BANCSHARES: Faces Class Action by Current Personal Banker --------------------------------------------------------------- TriCo Bancshares said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on January 20, 2015, a current Personal Banker at one of the Bank's in-store branches filed a First Amended Complaint against Tri Counties Bank and TriCo Bancshares, dba Tri Counties Bank, in Sacramento County Superior Court, alleging causes of action related to wage statement violations. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and former exempt and non-exempt employees who worked for the Bank "during the time period beginning October 18, 2013 through the date of the filing of this action". The Company and the Bank have not yet responded to the First Amended Complaint, deny the charges, and intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit against class certification and liability. UBER TECH: Taxi Drivers Not Employees, Mass. Supreme Court Rules ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marlisse Silver Sweeney, writing for Law.com, reports that last year's big driver-as-employee-versus-independent-contractor debate focused on Uber and Lyft. This year, it's widening to yellow cabs. According to Jessica Catlow -- JCatlow@mintz.com -- of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the state's highest court, recently was called on to decide whether taxi drivers were independent contractors. "Rather than the medallion owners and dispatchers establishing a series of rules governing how the drivers operated the cars and picked up passengers, all parties operated under a detailed regime of regulations governing the Boston taxicab industry," explains Ms. Catlow. In this case, the drivers leased medallions (a form of taxi license) from the owners under an agreement dictating that they were independent contractors. However, the taxi drivers claimed they were improperly classified. The court disagreed with the drivers, explaining they met the three-part test for independent contractors under state law, which required them to be (1) free from control and direction; (2) provide services outside the usual course of the employer's business; and (3) engage in an independently established trade or occupation. But don't let this decision act as the bible on the matter. Ms. Catlow notes the "employee/independent contractor dichotomy contains much gray," and businesses must make the classification call based on their own unique facts. UBER TECH: Legal Department Expands Following Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------ David Ruiz, writing for The Recorder, reports that expanding to more than 300 cities throughout 57 countries requires a little legal work. So does raising a couple billion dollars. To carry that load, ride-hailing service Uber has built a 43-lawyer legal department almost overnight. Thirty-three of the company's 36 U.S.-based lawyers have joined since Jan. 1, 2014, according to a Recorder analysis of bar records and LinkedIn profiles. The 70- person department includes 20 paralegals and seven admins. The company's longest serving lawyer, general counsel Salle Yoo, has her hands full. The private company's disruption of regulated taxi businesses, controversies over its handling of customer data and security, and its independent contractor model have all drawn regulatory scrutiny -- and lawsuits. In the last year, Ms. Yoo has hired a pair of lieutenants, one for corporate work, another for litigation. Earlier this year, Uber brought in a former federal prosecutor to serve as chief security officer. Both Ms. Yoo and the new CSO, Joe Sullivan, report in to CEO Travis Kalanick. "Growing from zero to 30 or more in a matter of months, the challenge there is certainly hiring," said DLA Piper of counsel Dan Cooperman -- dan.cooperman@dlapiper.com -- who previously served as general counsel to Oracle Corp. and Apple Inc. "When you get an avalanche of matters at one time, the first thing you need to do is hire outside counsel, but that's only an immediate solution. It's not a long term one." In July 2014, Uber brought aboard former Covington & Burling lawyer Todd Hamblet to manage the company's corporate deals, according to an individual who works with Mr. Hamblet. In December, Uber raised an additional $1.2 billion in funding with help from Fenwick & West, putting the company's value at around $40 billion. At the start of this year, the company brought in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher alumnus Lindsey Blenkhorn Haswell to help manage litigation, said a separate individual who serves as outside counsel to the company. Uber is a defendant in 31 cases across the United States. It's turned to a wide array of firms for those matters, including Gibson Dunn, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Littler Mendelson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Irell & Manella, Locke Lord, Reed Smith, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, Davis Wright Tremaine and Clarence Dyer & Cohen. Mr. Cooperman said that retaining a smattering of firms is normal for a young company facing an "explosion" of work for the first time, especially in Silicon Valley. "Trying out a lot of different approaches to your outside counsel and having quite a number of firms is very natural and appropriate," Mr. Cooperman said. "Over time the lawyers in the company will identify specific skills and gravitate to a select few firms, but in the moment, there will be a lot of movement." Already, the company seems to be gravitating toward Gibson Dunn for headline-grabbing matters. In April it dropped a Morgan Lewis & Bockius team for Gibson Dunn in a Northern District wage-and- hour class action challenging the classification of drivers as independent contractors. It also hired Gibson Dunn to defend a suit filed by a customer allegedly raped by an Uber driver in India. In hiring Sullivan, Uber's new chief security officer, the company called it a key step in ensuring the safety of its customers and their data. Sullivan previously worked as associate general counsel at both Facebook and PayPal, and served as an assistant United States attorney in the Northern District of California. GROWTH CURVE Ms. Yoo started her career at Davis Wright & Tremaine, in 1999, and initially handled regulatory matters for energy clients at the California Public Utilities Commission. She moved on to litigation -- and that combination of experience as well as her familiarity with the CPUC, made her an ideal candidate when Uber looked to make its first legal hire. Uber had tangled with the CPUC since it was launched in 2010, and Davis Wright was its counsel. "They were looking for her, exactly her," said Stephen Greenwald, a Davis Wright partner who headed the energy group where Ms. Yoo practiced. Shortly after Ms. Yoo was hired, the CPUC fined Uber and other ride-hailing services $20,000 for illegally operating in California. By the following year, the CPUC officially authorized ridesharing services, though Uber continued to challenge its authority to regulate it at all. At Davis Wright, Ms. Yoo was known for organizing a series of speakers on a wide range of topics. The San Francisco Chronicle's architecture critic, John King, was one. She also invited politicians, including current S.F. supervisor David Chiu, and John Burton, the California Democratic Party chairman. Ms. Yoo, who speaks Korean, has also been a diversity advocate, both at her firm and at Uber. Uber declined to make Ms. Yoo available for an interview. Last year, a Recorder analysis of diversity efforts at tech companies found that Uber, and Ms. Yoo, were known for seeking out diverse lawyers as outside counsel. Fenwick & West partner Gordon Davidson praised Ms. Yoo for her ability to quickly grow the department. "Litigators are very good at being calm in a crisis and sorting out what's important and what isn't," Davidson said. Ms. Yoo's hires have come from a variety of firms and companies. She has taken three lawyers from her alma mater and another three from Covington & Burling. The Covington lawyers all have a corporate background. Aaron Melville, managing counsel for transaction and product, joined Uber from The Walt Disney Co. and Josh Andrews, senior counsel in the same department, came from Lucasfilm Ltd. The average in-house Uber attorney in California has a little more than nine years of experience under their belt, and few recent grads are in the department. Part of the headache of moving into so many countries is that local legal counsel is needed for many jurisdictions. DLA Piper's Cooperman said Uber's next biggest hurdle will be coordinating and figuring out all the legal issues caused by their rapid expansion outside of the United States. "It's not only a challenge because of the volume of the issues, but the relevant, governing law will require hiring outside counsel for help," Mr. Cooperman said. "Uber will also have to hire its own people in the jurisdictions where it's doing business." According to LinkedIn, several attorneys have worked for Uber in the company's Amsterdam office. According to the company's website, it is currently looking for an associate general counsel, two corporate counsel, one privacy counsel and one senior transactional counsel for that office, which seems to serve as a hub for other international operations. (According to an Uber court filing in April, users of Uber's app in India are contracting with Uber's Netherlands-based affiliate, Uber B.V.). The company also has listings for counsel in China, Brazil, Mexico and India. Keeping up with Uber's scale may be Ms. Yoo's biggest challenge. "When you're confronted with challenges of growth, just know that you're going to make mistakes," Mr. Cooperman said. "But the biggest mistake is inaction. You don't have the luxury of taking your time." Morgan Lewis partner Joan Haratani said she got to know Ms. Yoo through their work advancing minority representation, and called her a role model for younger lawyers. "I do litigation, and regulation work uses a different part of my brain," she said. "It's like saying you do people medicine and also veterinary medicine." UNITED TRANZACTIONS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- John C. Pawlowski, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. United Tranzactions, LLC and Janet Eden, Case No. 2:15-cv-02330-MAK (E.D. Pa., April 28, 2015) seeks relief over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Searles, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. James A. Francis, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C. Land Title Building, 19th Floor 100 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com URANERZ ENERGY: Defending Against Suit Over Energy Fuels Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- Uranerz Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on January 6, 2015, January 9, 2015, January 13, 2015, January 14, 2015, January 15, 2015, January 15, 2015, January 16, 2015, January 20, 2015 January 21, 2015, and February 9, 2015, ten putative class action complaints captioned William Barrett v. Uranerz Energy Corp. et al., Case No. A-15-711942-C; Eric Foreman v. Uranerz Energy Corp. et al., Case No. A-15-712125-C; Chester Travirca v. Uranerz Energy Corp. et al., Case No. A-15-712318-C; Frances Heims v. Uranerz Energy Corp. et al., Case No. A-15-712379-C; Howard H. Bouch v. Uranerz Energy Corp. et al., Case No. A-15-712441-B; Harry Toderash v. Dennis Higgs et al., Case No. A-15-712433-C; Bernard Stern v. Uranerz Energy Corp. et al., Case No. Case No. A-15- 712618-B; David R. Lang v. Uranerz Energy Corp. et al., Case No. CV15-00115, Richard Herman Zimmer v. Uranerz Energy Corp. et al., Case No. A-15-712718-B and Gerald Lee Prewitt v. Uranerz Energy Corp. et al., Case No. A-15-713683-C, respectively, were filed on behalf of an alleged class of Uranerz stockholders in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada (except for the Lang action, which was filed in the District Court, Washoe County, Nevada). The Company said, "The complaints name as defendants Uranerz (except for the Toderasch action, which does not name Uranerz), all members of our Board of Directors, Energy Fuels, Inc., and EFR Nevada Corp (except for the Foreman action, which does not name EFR Nevada Corp.). Each of the complaints alleges that the members of our Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to our stockholders in connection with the Merger and that Uranerz, Energy Fuels, Inc. and EFR Nevada Corp. aided and abetted the Directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs claim that the Merger is proposed at an unfair price and involves an inadequate and unfair sales process, self-dealing, and unreasonable deal-protection devices. The complaints seek injunctive relief, including to enjoin or rescind the Merger, damages, and an award of unspecified attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief. We believe that the claims asserted in the complaints have no merit, and we and all of the members of the Board of Directors intend to defend vigorously against them." VISION FINANCIAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rivka Mandel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vision Financial Corp., Case No. 1:15-cv-02595-RRM-RML (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Palace, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE 383 Kingston Avenue, #113 Brooklyn, NY 11213 Telephone: (347) 651-1077 Facsimile: (347) 464-0012 E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com VIVINT SOLAR: Final Settlement Agreement to Occur Mid-2015 ---------------------------------------------------------- Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company anticipates final court approval of the settlement agreement to occur sometime mid-2015. The Company said, "In December 2013, one of our former sales representatives, on behalf of himself and a purported class, filed a complaint for unspecified damages, injunctive relief and restitution in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Diego against Vivint Solar Developer, LLC, one of our subsidiaries, and unnamed John Doe defendant alleging violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code and seeking penalties of an unspecified amount, interest on all economic damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. In addition, the complaint requests an injunction, which would enjoin us from similar violations of California's Labor Code and Business and Professions Code, and restitution of costs to the plaintiff and purported class members under California's unfair competition law." "In January 2014, we filed an answer denying the allegations in the complaint and asserting various affirmative defenses. In late 2014, the parties agreed to terms of settlement to resolve this case, depending on class participation. The final settlement agreement is subject to court approval, which we anticipate to occur sometime mid-2015. We have recorded a $0.4 million reserve related to this proceeding in our condensed consolidated financial statements." VIVINT SOLAR: Answersto Former Installation Technicians' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company has filed an answer to the amended complaint filed by former installation technicians. The Company said, "In September 2014, two of our former installation technicians, on behalf of themselves and a purported class, filed a complaint for damages, injunctive relief and restitution in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Diego against us and unnamed John Doe defendants. The complaint alleges certain violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code based on, among other things, alleged improper classification of installer technicians, installer helpers, electrician technicians and electrician helpers, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to provide wages on termination." "In December 2014, the original plaintiffs and three additional plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with essentially the same allegations. On February 5, 2015, we filed an answer to the amended complaint, denying liability and asserting a number of defenses. We believe that we have strong defenses to the claims asserted in this matter, and we intend to defend the case vigorously. Although we cannot predict with certainty the ultimate resolution of this suit, we do not believe this matter will have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition." VIVINT SOLAR: Plaintiffs Filed Amended Complaint in "Hyatt" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs have filed a consolidated amended complaint in the case Hyatt v. Vivint Solar, Inc. et al. The Company said, "Beginning in November 2014, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against us, our directors, certain of our officers and the underwriters of our initial public offering of common stock alleging violation of securities laws and seeking unspecified damages. In January 2015, the Court ordered these cases to be consolidated into the earlier filed case, Hyatt v. Vivint Solar, Inc. et al., 14-cv-9283 (KBF). The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in February 2015. We believe this lawsuit is without merit, and we intend to defend the case vigorously. We are unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that could result were there to be an adverse final decision. If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in this case, it is possible that the impact could be material to our results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes probable and estimable." WALGREEN CO: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- James Mears, individually v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 0:15-cv-60883- DMM (S.D. Fla., April 24, 2015) is an action for injunctive relief, declaration or rights, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and pertains to five separate properties owned, operated, or controlled by the Defendant. Mr. Mears is a resident of Broward County, Florida. He is wheelchair bound, and suffers from severe lymphedema and osteoarthritis that has rendered him unable to ambulate without a motorized device. Walgreen Co. is a corporation authorized to do business in Florida. Walgreen owns, leases, leases to, or operates places of public accommodation. The Florida properties at issue are located in Coral Springs, Fort Lauderdale, Weston, and Plantation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel B. Reinfeld, Esq. DANIEL B. REINFELD PA 2450 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 706 Hollywood, FL 33020 Telephone: (954) 923-6110 Facsimile: (954) 628-5054 E-mail: dan@reinfeldlaw.com WALGREEN CO: Fails to Provide Accessible Facilities, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- James Mears, individually v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 0:15-cv-60881- JIC (S.D. Fla., April 24, 2015) alleges that the Defendant has discriminated, and continues to discriminate, against the Plaintiff, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing, inter alia, to have accessible facilities. Mr. Mears is a resident of Broward County, Florida. He is wheelchair bound, and suffers from severe lymphedema and osteoarthritis that has rendered him unable to ambulate without a motorized device. Walgreen Co. is a corporation authorized to do business in Florida. Walgreen owns, leases, leases to, or operates places of public accommodation. The Florida properties at issue are located in Coral Springs, Fort Lauderdale, Weston, and Plantation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel B. Reinfeld, Esq. DANIEL B. REINFELD PA 2450 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 706 Hollywood, FL 33020 Telephone: (954) 923-6110 Facsimile: (954) 628-5054 E-mail: dan@reinfeldlaw.com WORLD WRESTLING: Responds to Concussion Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Jay Anderson, writing for What Culture, reports that with news of a class action lawsuit launched by three former wrestlers (Luther Reigns, Ryan Sakoda, and Big Russ McCullough) against the WWE over brain injuries and accusing the company of concealing evidence regarding concussions making the rounds, legal counsel for the wrestling promotion has responded -- both officially, and less than officially. In an official statement posted to WWE.com, Jerry McDevitt, WWE's outside legal counsel, stated; "This lawsuit is virtually identical to one filed by the same lawyers in Oregon, neither of which have any merit. WWE has never concealed any medical information related to concussions, or otherwise, from our Talent. WWE was well ahead of sports organizations in implementing concussion management procedures and policies as a precautionary measure as the science and research on this issue emerged. We will vigorously contest this lawsuit." The reference to the Oregon case is interesting. In that case, which has yet to be resolved, former WWF wrestler Billy Jack Haynes, who was with the company for a couple of years in the mid to late 80s, claimed the promotion did not warn wrestlers about the dangers of concussions to workers, and that he contracted Hepatitis C while wrestling with the company. At the time, the WWE responded by saying that it was impossible to know when Mr. Haynes contracted Hep C, and that they blood test and complete physicals for wrestlers twice yearly. It should be noted that it is not uncommon for multiple lawsuits to be filed when dealing with class actions. The UFC is currently facing a class action regarding fighter pay in which there are no less than five separate suits filed with eleven fighters represented between them. In regards to the latest WWE lawsuit, Mr. McDevitt also spoke to TMZ, and gave a less official response, saying that lesser known wrestlers long done with the company are "being targeted by attorneys who tell them there's hundreds of thousands of dollars they can make by joining a class action suit like this." He went on to state that "We know these claims are fraudulent, and will fight them." Other complaints from Mr. McDevitt include the belief that wrestlers never complained about brain damage or dementia before lawyers started contacting them, and that the suit spends more time talking about Chris Benoit than the three men behind it. "What was done specifically to them? There are almost no details as to what they actually suffered as a result of working with WWE." The fact is, however, that the Chris Benoit incident will play a factor in this, should it go to trial. Post-mortem, Mr. Benoit was found to have damage to all four lobes of the brain and the brain stem. He was described by a leading neurosurgeon as having the brain of a 80 year old Alzheimer's patient. Of course, there was no complaint about brain damage or dementia from Mr. Benoit because it wasn't discovered until after his death. There's also the fact that as contract workers, most of the wrestlers in the WWE aren't about to speak out too loudly, for fear of losing their jobs and/or being blackballed in the industry. Concussion concern has hit almost every major contact sport of the years. The NHL has brought in rules to deal with hits to the head, hits from behind, and technology behind protective equipment like helmets has improved over the years. The NFL is probably the biggest example of concussion and brain damage effects in pro sports. They were sued in a class action representing over 4,500 former players over what they knew about the effects to players and when they knew it. They chose to settle in 2013 for $765 million dollars rather than risk even more by losing at trial. Despite the WWE being a billion dollar company, the NFL makes them look like a small outfit -- when combined its franchises are worth roughly 45 billion dollars. Don't think for a second that there isn't a legit threat brewing here. Besides the Benoit factor, there will be a serious look at WWE medical practices (remember CM Punk's claims?). Is checking out a fighter twice a year sufficient? MMA fighters do medicals every single fight. The impact of chair shots, blows to the head, bumps off the ropes and through tables, while not as visually gory as a UFC bout, are just as concerning. Consider how many bouts a pro wrestler is involved in over just a six month span. They generally work more than athletes in almost any over comparable league, and while the results are fixed, the damage taken in pro wrestling is all too real. There's a good chance that a few more ex-WWE employees will join in on this suit before all is said and done, and while they're downplaying it publicly, there's a very real chance this suit could drag on for some time. ********* 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. Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale 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 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552. * * * End of Transmission * * *