/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150617.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, June 17, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 120 Headlines 99 CENTS: Faces "Stankie" Suit Over Loss Prevention Policies AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS: Morgan & Morgan Files Class Action AFFINION GROUP: Parties to Provide Report Over Remaining Claims AFFINION GROUP: No Hearing Yet on Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit AFFINION GROUP: Court Has Not Yet Decided on Plaintiff's Motion AFFINION GROUP: Objections to Report & Recommendation Pending AFFINION GROUP: No Activity in N.D. Calif. Class Action ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Surrogate Cheese ALON BLUE: Court Approved Bid to Withdraw Claim v. Mega Retail ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Name of Cheese ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over "1+1" Promo ALON BLUE: Suit v. Mega Retail Prices Recognized as Class Action ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Purchase Vouchers ALON BLUE: Faces Suit Over Chilled Drinking Water Facilities ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Suit Over Marking of Expiry Dates ALON BLUE: Claim Over Weighing Devices Withdrawn ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Salt Products ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Special Sales ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Camera Tracking ALON BLUE: Legal Procedures Continue in Dor Alon Class Action ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Ice Cream Products ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over UHT Milk Products ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Salt Products ALON BLUE: Court Asked Parties in Dor Alon Case to File Pleadings ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Large Packaging ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Internet Site ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Advertised Price ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Honey Products ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Suit Claims AMERICAN EDUCATION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Werner" Suit Claims AMERICAN FAMILY: Removed "Edwards" Suit to E.D. Arkansas ASIA HONG KONG: Faces "Wang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ATHENAHEALTH INC: Parties to Mediate Case on June 23 ATLAS AIR: Opposed Recommendation in Pricing Practices Class Suit BACKROADS: Faces "Alampi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in N.Y. Over FX Future Price Manipulation BAYER: Lawyers of Rice GMO Plaintiff Battle Over Fees BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE: Sued Over Mishandling of Deceased Bodies BLAZIN WINGS: Faces "Robbins" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime BOMBAY CLUB: Faces "Razmyar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action CLAIM JUMPER: Faces "Jordan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CLICKSOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES: Buyout Process "Flawed," Suit Says CLIENT SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lepore" Suit Claims CLUB FIT: "Buck" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages CMRE FINANCIAL: Faces "Brang" Suit in Cal. Over TCPA Violations CONSUMER CELLULAR: "Bell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages DAVID RANDALL: $22.4MM Verdict Affirmed in Class Action DELTA LIQUID: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Combest" Suit Claims DICK'S SPORTING: Faces "Bouchard" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT DONA ANA: College Students' Lawsuit Can Proceed as Class Action EAGLE ROCK: Faces "Braun" Suit Over Proposed Company Merger EAGLE ROCK: Faces "Heydenrych" Suit Over Sale to Vanguard EBAY INC: Suit in Cal. Over Failure to Refund Final Value Fees EMCOR GROUP: USM Defends Class Action by Employees FACEBOOK INC: Faces Privacy Class Action in Austria FAIR COLLECTIONS: Faces "Loera" Suit Over Violation of TCPA FOAM DISTRIBUTORS: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT FORCEFIELD ENERGY: June 16 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bids FORD MOTOR: Female Workers File Amended Sexual Harassment Lawsuit FXCM INC: Scott+Scott Files Class Action Over Shares Sale GENPACT SERVICES: Faces "Lepore" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA GEOTRUST INC: Removed "Zargarian" Class Suit to C.D. California GOLD COAST PARKING: Faces "Scheer" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT GREEN TREE: Removed "Wittstadt" Class Suit to Maryland Dist. Ct. GR OPCO: Faces "Bogran" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages GRUMA S.A.B.: "Cox" Suit v. Gruma Corp. Dismissed HEIGHTS APARTMENTS: Aug. 10 Final Approval Hearing of Settlement HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Pomerantz Files Class Action HUNTSMAN CORPORATION: Texas Case Trial Scheduled for Feb. 2016 HUNTSMAN CORPORATION: Defendant in Indirect Purchasers Action IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Vincent Wong Files Class Action IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Weisslaw LLP Files Securities Class Action INFORMATICA CORPORATION: 2 Stockholder Class Actions Filed INSULET CORPORATION: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action JHODANICO LLC: "Valencia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages JUST ENERGY: Koskie Minsky Files Misclassification Class Action JW LEE: Faces "Demaria-Dominguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT LG DISPLAY: Reached Settlement with Attorneys General LG DISPLAY: Pursuing Appeal of Cert. Decision in Canadian Case LG DISPLAY: To Defend Class Action Filed in Israel LIGHTNING FLUID: Faces "Mendoza" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT LIVE NATION: Accrued $34.9MM Costs Related to Class Suit Deal MADISON COUNTY: Prenzler Responds to Class Action Classification MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Seck" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA MIAMI USED PALLETS: Faces "Barea" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MICREL INCORPORATED: Sued in Calif. Over Acquisition by Microchip MICROSOFT CORP: Seeks 9th Cir. En Banc Rehearing in "Baker" MILLERCOORS LLC: Removed "Parent" Class Suit to S.D. California MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Class Suits Filed in Ill. v. Kraft Foods NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Faces "Johnson" Suit over Violation of TCPA NDEAVOR TELECOM: Faces "Whitfield" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT NORTHLAND GROUP: Illegally Collects Debt, "Felberbaum" Suit Says ORORA NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Inaccurate Wage Statements PAPA MURPHY'S: Faces "Lennartson" Suit Over Violation of TCPA PATH INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, "Sterk" Suit Claims POLYCOM INC: Court Granted Plaintiffs Leave to Amend Class Suit PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Cummings" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Flint" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach PROGRAM ONE: "Cabrera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages RAYONIER ADVANCED: July 6 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bids RUBICON TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action RUBICON TECHNOLOGY: Morgan & Morgan Files Class Action RUBICON TECHNOLOGY: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action SANDISK CORP: June 22 Trial Date Vacated in Ritz Camera Suit SANDISK CORP: District Court Stayed Discovery in Antitrust Suit SANDISK CORP: Court Granted Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend SANDISK CORP: Faces "Glore" Class Action in N.D. Calif. SEARS HOLDINGS: Faces "Solak" Suit Over Real Estate Asset Sales SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Acquisition by Sillerman SONY: "Ladore" Class Action Over Playstation Game Dismissed STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Faces "Aiton" Suit Over FDCPA Violations STUDENT AID: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Abella" Suit Says SUNNYVALE IMPORTS: Faces "Anorboev" Suit Over Refund Policies SUPERIOR MAINTENANCE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims SYNGENTA SEEDS: Faces "Grain" Suit Over Sale of Viptera Corn SYNGENTA SEEDS: Faces "Redman" Suit Over Sale of Viptera Corn THRASHER LAW: Faces "Van-Pelt" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA THUNDER DEMOLITION: "Bruce" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages TINDER INC: Sued Over Alleged Age Discrimination Policies TPUSA INC: Removed "Murat" Suit to S.D. Florida Federal Court TURNAGE GENERAL: "Sunner" Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages UIL HOLDINGS: Five Shareholder Class Actions Filed UNITED AIRLINES: Woman Sues for $5 Million URBAN OUTFITTERS: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action VANTIV LLC: Removed "Nguyen" Suit to N.D. California VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Rosen Files Class Action Over AlphaSector Fund WEST ASSET: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lynch" Suit Claims WHOLE FOODS: Snell & Wilmer's Dwyer Discusses FCRA Suits WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Supreme Court Upheld Ninth Circuit Ruling WILLIAMS COMPANIES: First Trial for Certain Plaintiffs Begins WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Appeal in Alaska Refinery Case Pending WORLD FUEL: Quebec Judge Authorized Lac Megantic Class Action WRIGHT MEDICAL: Facing 4 Class Actions Over Tornier Merger WRIGHT MEDICAL: Expects More Suits Over Hip Replacement Products WRIGHT MEDICAL: Defendant in 34 Lawsuits Over PROFEMUR(R) YAHOO INC: Illegally Discloses User's Email Contents, Suit Claims ZEOBIT LLC: Suit Over MacKeeper Security Program Being Settled * Herrick Feinstein Discusses Early Bids to Strike Class Claims * McCarthy Tetrault Discusses Book on Class Action Euro-Style * McGuireWoods' Trask Discusses HR 1927 * South African Banks at Risk of Suits Over Home Foreclosures ********* 99 CENTS: Faces "Stankie" Suit Over Loss Prevention Policies ------------------------------------------------------------ Dennis J. Stankie, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC, Case No. BC582920 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 29, 2015), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's loss prevention policies where the Defendant use a law firm to operate its demand letters mills to extort money from consumers accused of shoplifting. 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC is a California corporation that operates retail stores throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aghavni V. Kasparian, Esq. Darrell M. Padgette, Esq. KP LAW 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 223-2110 Facsimile: (213) 986-2131 E-mail: akasparian@kplitigators.com dpadgette@kplitigators.com - and - Michael H. Chen, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF CHEN & TRAN 1633 E. 4th Street, Suite 214 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Telephone: (888) 938-5393 Facsimile: (818) 436-5953 E-mail: mhchen@chentranlaw.com AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS: Morgan & Morgan Files Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Morgan & Morgan announced that a shareholder class action has been filed against Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between August 6, 2014 and April 23, 2015, inclusive. If you purchased Aerie common stock during the Class Period, you may, no later than June 29, 2015, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you want more information about the Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Class Action, contact Morgan & Morgan at 1(800) 732- 5200 or email info@morgansecuritieslaw.com. Aerie is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of therapies for the treatment of patients with glaucoma and other diseases of the eye. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Aerie and certain of its executive officers made a series of false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information about the future prospects for Rhopressa, a once-daily eye drop that is designed to lower intraocular pressure ("IOP") in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. On April 23, 2015, Aerie issued a press release announcing the results of its first Phase 3 registration trial for Rhopressa. According to the press release, "[t]he trial did not meet its primary efficacy endpoint of demonstrating non-inferiority of IOP lowering for once-daily Rhopressa compared to twice-daily timolol, the most widely used comparator in registration trials for glaucoma." Following this news, shares of Aerie's stock fell $22.52 per share, or over 63 percent, to close on April 24, 2015 at $12.87 per share. About Morgan & Morgan Morgan & Morgan is one of the nation's largest 200 law firms. In addition to shareholder rights, the firm also practices in the areas of antitrust, personal injury, consumer protection, overtime, and product liability. AFFINION GROUP: Parties to Provide Report Over Remaining Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court set a deadline of April 30, 2015, for the parties to provide a report to the court with a proposed joint schedule for resolving the remaining claims in the lawsuit. On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the Company and Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant") in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a California-only subclass in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and for unjust enrichment. On September 29, 2010, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration of all of the claims asserted in this lawsuit. On February 24, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion. On March 28, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing the district court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration. On September 7, 2012, the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court denying arbitration. While that issue was on appeal, the matter proceeded in the district court. There was written discovery and depositions. Previously, the court had set a briefing schedule on class certification that called for the completion of class certification briefing on May 18, 2012. However, on March 28, 2012, the court suspended the briefing schedule on the motion due to the filing of two other overlapping class actions in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The first of those cases was filed on March 6, 2012, against the Company, Trilegiant, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corp., Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Apollo Global Management, LLC, 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc., United Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Int'l, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corp., People Finderspro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc., IAC/InteractiveCorp., and Shoebuy.com, Inc. The second of those cases was filed on March 25, 2012, against the same defendants as well as Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Vertrue, Inc., Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co. These two cases assert similar claims as the claims asserted in the earlier-filed lawsuit in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs. On April 26, 2012, the court consolidated these three cases. The court also set an initial status conference for May 17, 2012. At that status conference, the court ordered that Plaintiffs file a consolidated amended complaint to combine the claims in the three previously separate lawsuits. The court also struck the class certification briefing schedule that had been set previously. On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting substantially the same legal claims. The consolidated amended complaint added Priceline, Orbitz, Chase Paymentech, Hotwire, and TigerDirect as Defendants and added three new Plaintiffs; it also dropped Webloyalty and Rakuten as Defendants. On December 7, 2012, all Defendants filed motions seeking to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and to strike certain portions of the complaint. Plaintiff's response brief was filed on February 7, 2013, and Defendants' reply briefs were filed on April 5, 2013. On September 25, 2013, the court held oral argument on the motions to dismiss. On March 28, 2014, the court ruled on the motions to dismiss, granting them in part and denying them in part. The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' RICO claims and claims under the California Automatic Renewal Statute as to all defendants. The court also dismissed certain named Plaintiffs as their claims were barred either by the statute of limitations and/or a prior settlement agreement. Certain Defendants were also dismissed from the case. The court also struck certain allegations from the consolidated amended complaint, including certain of Plaintiffs' class action allegations under CUTPA. As to the Company and Trilegiant, the court denied the motion to dismiss certain Plaintiffs' claims under ECPA and for unjust enrichment, as well as certain other claims of Plaintiffs under CUTPA. Also, on December 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs' law firms in these consolidated cases filed an additional action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. That case is identical in all respects to this case except that it was filed by a new Plaintiff (the named Plaintiff from the class action complaint previously filed against the Company, Trilegiant, 1-800- Flowers.com, and Chase Bank USA, N.A., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November 10, 2010). On January 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate that case into the existing set of consolidated cases. On June 13, 2013, the court entered an order staying the date for all Defendants to respond to the Complaint until 21 days after the court ruled on the motion to consolidate. On March 28, 2014, the court entered an order granting the motion to consolidate. On May 12, 2014, remaining Defendants in the consolidated cases filed answers in which they denied the material allegations of the consolidated amended complaint. On April 28, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking interlocutory appellate review of portions of the court's order of March 28, 2014. Briefing on the motion was completed on June 5, 2014. On March 26, 2015, the court denied Plaintiff's motion for interlocutory appeal. On March 20, 2015, the court set a deadline of April 30, 2015, for the parties to provide a report to the court with a proposed joint schedule for resolving the remaining claims in the lawsuit. AFFINION GROUP: No Hearing Yet on Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint in a class action lawsuit filed against Webloyalty, one of its former clients and one of the credit card associations. On August 27, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against Webloyalty, one of its former clients and one of the credit card associations in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging, among other things, violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, civil theft, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act violation (the "Connecticut Action"). This lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on and after October 1, 2008. On November 1, 2010, the defendants moved to dismiss the initial complaint, which plaintiff then amended on November 19, 2010. On December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a second motion to dismiss this lawsuit. On May 15, 2014, the court heard oral argument on plaintiff's motion to strike the Company's request for judicial notice of the plaintiff's membership enrollment documents filed in support of the Company's second motion to dismiss. On July 17, 2014, the court denied plaintiff's motion to strike. The court, at the same time, dismissed those claims grounded in fraud, but reserved until further proceedings the determination as to whether all of plaintiff's claims are grounded in fraud and whether those claims not grounded in fraud are dismissible. The court permitted the plaintiff until August 15, 2014 to amend his complaint and allowed the parties the opportunity to conduct limited discovery, to be completed by September 26, 2014, concerning the issues addressed in its dismissal order. All other discovery is currently stayed in the case. The July 17, 2014 order indicated that the court will set a further motion to dismiss briefing schedule following the conclusion of this limited discovery. The plaintiff amended his complaint as scheduled, and the parties conducted limited discovery as ordered. After this limited discovery, the parties proposed a motion to dismiss briefing schedule calling for the defendants to file their opening briefs on January 9, 2015. The plaintiff filed his opposition brief on March 24, 2015, and the defendants' reply briefs in response to that opposition are due on April 24, 2015. The court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. AFFINION GROUP: Court Has Not Yet Decided on Plaintiff's Motion --------------------------------------------------------------- Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has not yet decided or scheduled a hearing on the plaintiff's motion in a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Webloyalty. On June 7, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Webloyalty that was factually similar to the Connecticut Action. The action claims that Webloyalty engaged in unlawful business practices in violation of California Business and Professional Code Sec. 17200, et seq. and in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Both claims are based on allegations that in connection with enrollment and billing of the plaintiff, Webloyalty charged plaintiff's credit or debit card using information obtained through a data pass process and without obtaining directly from plaintiff his full account number, name, address, and contact information, as purportedly required under Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act. On September 25, 2012, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety and the Court scheduled a hearing on the motion for January 14, 2013. Webloyalty also sought judicial notice of the enrollment page and related enrollment and account documents. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 12, 2012, and Webloyalty filed its reply submission on January 7, 2013. Thereafter, on January 10, 2013, the court cancelled the previously scheduled January 14, 2013 hearing and indicated that it would rule based on the parties' written submissions without the need for a hearing. On August 28, 2013, the court sua sponte dismissed plaintiff's complaint without prejudice with leave to amend by September 30, 2013. The plaintiff filed his amended complaint on September 30, 2013, adding purported claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and for unjust enrichment, money had and received, conversion, civil theft, and invasion of privacy. On December 2, 2013, the Company moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint. Plaintiff responded to the motion on January 27, 2014. On February 6, 2014, the court indicated that it would review the submissions and issue a decision on plaintiff's motion without oral argument. On September 29, 2014, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims on substantive grounds and/or statute of limitations grounds. The court has allowed the plaintiff 28 days to file a motion demonstrating why a further amendment of the complaint would not be futile. On October 27, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint and attached a proposed amended complaint. The Company responded to the motion on November 10, 2014. However, the court has not yet decided or scheduled a hearing on the plaintiff's motion. AFFINION GROUP: Objections to Report & Recommendation Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company does not know when the Court will rule on its objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in a class action lawsuit filed against the Company and one of its clients. On February 7, 2014 a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and one of its clients in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging, among other things, violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Electronic Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, money had and received, conversion, misrepresentation, violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and equitable relief. Claims are based on allegations that plaintiff was enrolled and billed for a package program without plaintiff's proper consent and knowledge. On April 4, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. A hearing on that motion was held on July 24, 2014. On March 11, 2015, the magistrate judge to whom the motion was referred by the district court judge issued a report and recommendation granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. The magistrate judge granted the motion to dismiss on the fraud claim, which was dismissed as time-barred, but denied the remainder of the motion. On March 25, 2015, the Company filed objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Briefing on the objections concluded on April 9, 2015. "We do not know when the court will rule on the objections," the Company said. AFFINION GROUP: No Activity in N.D. Calif. Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a class action lawsuit was filed on May 12, 2014, against the Company and one of its clients in the United States District Court, Northern District of California - San Francisco Division. The complaint alleges plaintiff was unknowingly enrolled in and charged for an Identity Theft Protection program. The defendants moved to compel individual arbitration of the case or in the alternative to dismiss the case, and briefing on that motion concluded on September 26, 2014. On October 31, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion to compel individual arbitration of the case. There has been no activity in the matter since that time. ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Surrogate Cheese --------------------------------------------------------------- Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in December 2010, a claim and a request to recognize it as a class action was filed against the Company and Mega Retail Ltd. ("Mega") relating to the sale of different cheese and butter products in the supermarkets operated by Mega. According to the claimant, the Company sells surrogate cheese and butter products as if they were real cheese and milk products, and in that way misleads the customers. The claimant quantifies his damage at approximately NIS 700 and estimates the damage to the group of claimants for the purpose of the claim at NIS 456 million. In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this claim in its financial statements. ALON BLUE: Court Approved Bid to Withdraw Claim v. Mega Retail -------------------------------------------------------------- Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in March 2013, a letter of claim and motion for approval as a class action was filed against Mega Retail. The Plaintiff alleges that Mega overcharged certain dairy products which are subject to price control regulation. The claim does not state the amount sought if it is approved as a class action. In December 2014, the court approved the Plaintiff's request to withdraw the claim. ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Name of Cheese ------------------------------------------------------------- Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in July 2013 a claim and a request to recognize it as a class action was filed against Mega and other supermarket chains, in the sum of NIS 42 million. The claim alleges that a certain cheese named "Gush Chalav" should have been sold for the same price as a cheese named "Emek", which is subject to price control regulation, since practically, as alleged, they are the same product. In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this claim in its financial statements. ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over "1+1" Promo ---------------------------------------------------------- Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in July 2013 a claim and a request to recognize it as a class action was filed against Mega, Kfar Hash'ashuim Toy Stores Chain and other store chains, with regard to special sales that offer reduced prices for the second item bought. It is claimed that when purchasing 4 items (1+1 and 1+1), the reduction is always made from the lowest prices of all four. The claim does not state the amount sought if it is approved as a class action. In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this claim in its financial statements. ALON BLUE: Suit v. Mega Retail Prices Recognized as Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in September 2013 a claim and a request to recognize it as a class action was filed against Mega, in the sum of NIS 110 million, alleging that Mega failed to mark prices per measurement unit in its supermarkets. The claim was recognized as a class action in March 2015. The Company is currently reviewing the Claim and denying all allegations. "However, at this time, given this matter is preliminary in nature, our financial statements currently do not provide for any amount. We will continue to assess this matter as the request for the class action develops," the Company said. ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Purchase Vouchers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in January 2014, a claim, and a request to recognize the claim as a class action, was filed against the Company and Mega, in the sum of approx. NIS 70 million. The claim is with respect to purchase vouchers, which are exercised in "Mega" supermarkets for 90% of their value, and which are can not be exercised in "You" supermarkets. In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this claim in its financial statements. ALON BLUE: Faces Suit Over Chilled Drinking Water Facilities ------------------------------------------------------------ Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in January 2014, a claim, and a request to recognize the claim as a class action, was filed against Mega, in the sum of approx. NIS 29.4 million. The claim is with respect to the alleged lack of chilled drinking water facilities in the company's supermarkets, as required by law. In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this claim in its financial statements. ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Suit Over Marking of Expiry Dates -------------------------------------------------------------- Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in March 2014, a claim and a request to recognize it as a class action was filed against Mega and other defendants, in the sum of NIS 124 million. The claim is with regard to the alleged lack of marking of expiry date, ingredients and nutritional facts on delicate food products. In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this claim in its financial statements. ALON BLUE: Claim Over Weighing Devices Withdrawn ------------------------------------------------ Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in December 2013 a claim, and a request to recognize the claim as a class action, was filed against Mega, in the sum of approx. NIS 161 million. The claim alleges that Mega failed to comply with regulation requirements with respect to verifying the accuracy of weighing instruments in its supermarkets. In January 2015 the court approved the plaintiff's request to withdraw the claim. ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Salt Products ------------------------------------------------------------ Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in March 2014, a claim and a request to recognize it as a class action was filed against Mega and other defendants, in the total sum of NIS 657 million, with regard to the alleged breach of price control regulation in the sale of certain salt products. In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this claim in its financial statements. ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Special Sales ------------------------------------------------------------ Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in May 2014, a claim and a request to recognize the claim as a class action were filed against Mega and another defendant, in the sum of NIS 30 million referred to Mega. The claim is with regard to alleged misleading in the conduction of special sales. In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this claim in its financial statements. ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Camera Tracking -------------------------------------------------------------- Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in June 2014, a claim and a request to recognize the claim as a class action were filed against Mega, in the sum of NIS 50 million. The claim is with regard to the use of camera tracking in supermarket stores, without proper notification. In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this claim in its financial statements. ALON BLUE: Legal Procedures Continue in Dor Alon Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on December 3, 2003 a claim was filed in the amount of NIS 450 against the gas companies (including a subsidiary of Dor Alon) alleging that the defendants were parties to a cartel, which they entered into beginning in 1994 (and even prior thereto) and up to 2003, in the course of which the Restrictive Practices Authority gave notice of a recommendation to file charges against the gas companies and their managers in connection with the existence of a cartel, as stated. The plaintiff contends that by means of the alleged cartel the gas companies collected unfair and unreasonable prices. A request for certification of the claim as a class action pursuant to the Restrictive Practices Law, the Consumer Protection Law and Rule 29 of the Rules of Civic Procedure (1984), was filed together with the claim. The amount of the class action was set by the requesting party at an amount of at least NIS 1 billion, along with punitive damages. The subsidiary of Dor Alon has submitted its response to the request for certification of the claim as a class action. The parties twice reached a compromise agreement that was submitted to Court's approval. However, the Court rejected the two compromise agreements and therefore the legal procedures continue. In any case, in the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this claim in its financial statements. ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Ice Cream Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in August 2014, a claim and a request to recognize the claim as a class action were filed against Mega and Shufersal. The claim is with respect to the alleged lack of price marking on certain ice cream products. The claim does not state the amount sought if it is approved as a class action, and requests quantitative data in order to assess such amount. In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this claim in its financial statements. ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over UHT Milk Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in November 2014, a claim and a request to recognize the claim as a class action were filed against Mega, in the sum of approximately NIS 103 million. The claim is with regard to certain UHT milk products and the alleged false coordination of their prices; the sale for a price exceeding the maximum price imposed by price control regulations; and the charging of excessive prices. In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this claim in its financial statements. ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Salt Products ------------------------------------------------------------ Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in January 2015, a claim and a request to recognize the claim as a class action were filed against Mega, in the sum of approximately NIS 27.7 million. The claim is with respect to certain salt products, including low sodium salt, and it is claimed among others that these products should be priced in accordance with price control regulations; that Mega misleads the public to think that low sodium salt can prevent disease or help people that suffer from high blood pressure etc., and other claims regarding the violation of product labeling obligations. In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this claim in its financial statements. ALON BLUE: Court Asked Parties in Dor Alon Case to File Pleadings ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in October 2009, Dor Alon received a statement of claim and an application for approval of the claim as a class action; the claim was lodged against Dor Alon and other fuel companies. The claimant claims payment of damages of NIS 124 million (Dor Alon's share in the said claim amount as per the statement of claim is NIS 21.9 million). According to the claimant, the defendants overcharged him for fuel when filling up his car. According to the claimant, after passing his credit card but before starting to fill up, the payment meter started operating without the provision of fuel. The overcharge has allegedly amounted at times to several Agorot and at times to several NIS. The parties have reached a compromise that was rejected by court and the court asked the parties to file their pleadings before the compromise agreement is filed. In the event the parties will not reach a compromise agreement, the Company believes, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this claim in its financial statements. ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Large Packaging -------------------------------------------------------------- Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in January 2015, a claim and a request to recognize the claim as a class action were filed against Mega, claiming that Mega sells products in large packaging that does not reflect the amount of contents. The claim does not state the amount sought if it is approved as a class action. In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this claim in its financial statements. ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Internet Site ------------------------------------------------------------ Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in March 2015, a claim and a request to recognize the claim as a class action were filed against Mega, claiming that Mega is misleading the public by not informing buyers at its internet site of the basic qualities of products, such as ingredients, nutritional information, weight after filtering, etc. The claim is with respect to certain pickles and canned sardine fish products. The claim does not state the amount sought if it is approved as a class action, although it is mentioned that such sum is above NIS 3 million. The Company is currently reviewing the Claim and denying all allegations. "However, at this time, given this matter is preliminary in nature, our financial statements currently do not provide for any amount. We will continue to assess this matter as the request for the class action develops," the Company said. ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Advertised Price --------------------------------------------------------------- Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in March 2015, a claim and a request to recognize the claim as a class action were filed against Mega and Eden Teva Market, claiming that Mega and Eden mislead the public by not charging the advertised price of certain products in special sales. The claim does not state the amount sought if it is approved as a class action. The Company is currently reviewing the Claim and denying all allegations. "However, at this time, given this matter is preliminary in nature, our financial statements currently do not provide for any amount. We will continue to assess this matter as the request for the class action develops," the Company said. ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Honey Products ------------------------------------------------------------- Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in April 2015, a claim and a request to approve the claim as a class action was filed against Mega and another defendant, in the total sum of NIS 50 million. The claim is with respect to the alleged lack of marking of certain honey products with details as required by law. The Company is currently reviewing the Claim and denying all allegations. "However, at this time, given this matter is preliminary in nature, our financial statements currently do not provide for any amount. We will continue to assess this matter as the request for the class action develops," the Company said. ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Border Crossing Law Firm, P.C., individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Altisource Portfolio Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01994-CAP (N.D. Ga., June 2, 2015), to stop its practice of sending unsolicited fax advertisements to the fax machines of consumers and businesses nationwide and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct. Altisource Portfolio Solutions, Inc. is a marketplace and transaction solutions provider for the real estate, mortgage and consumer debt industries that leverages proprietary business process, vendor and electronic payment management software to improve outcomes for marketplace participants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Auer Jordan, Esq. SHAMP SPEED JORDAN WOODWARD 1718 Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 660 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 893-9400 Facsimile: (404) 260-4180 E-mail: jordan@ssjwlaw.com - and - Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com AMERICAN EDUCATION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Werner" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joann S. Werner and Gregory Werner, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. American Education Services, et al., Case No. 603423/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., May 28, 2015), arises from the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. American Education Services operates a financial services company that offers student loans. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq. 775 Park Avenue, Suite 255 Huntington, NY 11743 Facsimile: (631) 824-9328 Telephone: (631) 335-1107 E-mail: mpash@verizon.net AMERICAN FAMILY: Removed "Edwards" Suit to E.D. Arkansas -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Gary Edwards, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Family Home Insurance Company, Case No. CV-15-00039, was removed from the Van Buren County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00272-JM to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violation of insurance contract. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfred F. Tom Thompson III, Esq. Casey P. Castleberry, Esq. MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD, SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY Post Office Box 2595 Batesville, AR 72503-2595 Telephone: (870) 793-3821 E-mail: aftomt2001@yahoo.com caseycastleberry2003@yahoo.com - and - D. Matt Keil, Esq. John C. Goodson, Esq. KEIL & GOODSON, P.A. Post Office Box 618 Texarkana, AR 75504-0618 Telephone: (870) 772-4113 E-mail: mkeil@kglawfirm.com jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com - and - James M. Pratt Jr., Esq. JAMES M. PRATT, JR. P.A. Post Office Box 938 Camden, AR 71711 Telephone: (870) 836-7328 E-mail: jamiepratt@cablelynx.com - and - Jason E. Roselius, Esq. MATTINGLY & ROSELIUS, PLLC 13182 North MacArthur Boulevard Oklahoma City, OK 73142 Telephone: (405) 603-2222 E-mail: jason@mroklaw.com - and - Matthew L. Mustokoff, Esq. Richard A. Russo Jr., Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 E-mail: mmustokoff@ktmc.com rrusso@ktmc.com - and - Richard E. Norman, Esq. Ronald Martin Weber Jr., Esq. CROWLEY NORMAN LLP Three Riverway, Suite 1775 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 651-1771 Facsimile: (713) 651-1775 E-mail: rnorman@crowleynorman.com mweber@crowleynorman.com - and - Stephen C. Engstrom, Esq. ENGSTROM LAW FIRM Post Office Box 71 Little Rock, AR 72203-0071 Telephone: (501) 375-6453 E-mail: stephen@engstromlaw.com - and - Stevan E. Vowell, Esq. Timothy Joseph Myers, Esq. Warner H. Taylor, Esq. William Benjamin Putman IV, Esq. TAYLOR LAW PARTNERS Post Office Box 8310 Fayetteville, AR 72703-8310 Telephone: (479) 443-5222 E-mail: svowell@taylorlawpartners.com tmayers@taylorlawpartners.com whtaylor@taylorlawpartners.com wbputman@taylorlawpartners.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew E. Samuels, Esq. Mark A. Johnson, Esq. Robert J. Tucker, Esq. Rodger L. Eckelberry, Esq. BAKER & HOSTELLER LLP 65 East State Street, Suite 2100 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 228-1541 Facsimile: (614) 462-2616 E-mail: asamuels@bakerlaw.com pjohnson@bakerlaw.com rtucker@bakerlaw.com reckelberry@bakerlaw.com - and - Kevin A. Crass, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3522 Telephone: (501) 370-1592 E-mail: crass@fridayfirm.com ASIA HONG KONG: Faces "Wang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- De Huo Wang, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Xin Liu and Asia Hong Kong Inc. d/b/a Asia Sariku Inc. d/b/a Sariku, Case No. 1:15-cv-04239-ALC (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 174 Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10016. The Plaintiff is represented by: Darren Paul Brian Rumack, Esq. THE KLEIN LAW GROUP 11 Broadway, Suite 960 New York, NY 10117 Telephone: (212) 344-9022 Facsimile: (212) 344-0301 E-mail: darren@thekleinlawgroup.com ATHENAHEALTH INC: Parties to Mediate Case on June 23 ---------------------------------------------------- athenahealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties in a class action lawsuit will mediate the case on June 23, 2015. On March 1, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California captioned Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. Epocrates, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-945, on behalf of a putative class of Epocrates' stockholders against Epocrates and its former officers and directors. The complaint asserted claims under sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all stockholders that purchased Epocrates stock in its initial public offering ("IPO") and claims under sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all stockholders that purchased shares between February 2, 2011 (the day after the IPO) and August 9, 2011. On October 8, 2013, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging only claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and voluntarily dismissing a number of the individual defendants. Plaintiffs allege that Epocrates made false or misleading statements with respect to the fact that Epocrates' pharmaceutical clients were awaiting guidance from the Food and Drug Administration on the use of advertising and social media, which caused the clients to delay marketing and negatively impacted the timing of Epocrates' sales and revenue growth. The complaint seeks certification as a class action, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, plaintiffs' costs, attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. "On December 9, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint," the Company said. On June 4, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing the complaint and granting plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On June 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which asserts substantially similar claims as those set forth in the first amended complaint. "On July 14, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint," the Company said. "On October 2, 2014, the court granted plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint by October 23, 2014, and denied the motion to dismiss as moot. Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint on October 23, 2014, which asserts substantially similar claims on behalf of all stockholders that purchased shares between February 1, 2011, and August 9, 2011. "We filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on November 10, 2014, and the court denied the motion on March 13, 2015," the Company said. On April 8, 2015, the court approved the parties' stipulation, which noted that the parties will mediate the case on June 23, 2015. The court set a date to answer the third amended complaint on April 27, 2015, but delayed further deadlines until after the date of the mediation. "We deny the allegations in the third amended complaint and will contest the claims vigorously," the Company said. ATLAS AIR: Opposed Recommendation in Pricing Practices Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company has filed its opposition to a recommendation with the judge in the Pricing Practices class action. The Company and Old Polar have been named defendants, along with a number of other cargo carriers, in several class actions in the United States arising from allegations about the pricing practices of Old Polar and a number of air cargo carriers that have now been centralized for pretrial purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants, including the Company and Old Polar, manipulated the market price for air cargo services sold domestically and abroad through the use of surcharges, in violation of United States, state, and European Union antitrust laws. The suit seeks treble damages and injunctive relief. In 2007, the Company and Old Polar commenced an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court against each of the plaintiffs in this class action litigation seeking to enjoin the plaintiffs from prosecuting claims against the Company and Old Polar that arose prior to July 28, 2004, the date on which the Company and Old Polar emerged from bankruptcy. In 2007, the plaintiffs consented to the injunctive relief requested and the bankruptcy court entered an order enjoining plaintiffs from prosecuting Company claims arising prior to July 28, 2004. The court in the antitrust class actions has heard and decided a number of procedural motions. Among those was the plaintiffs' motion to join Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. as an additional defendant, which the court granted for discovery purposes on April 13, 2011. There was substantial pretrial written discovery and document production, and a number of depositions were taken. A court hearing on whether or not to certify the case as a class action was held in October 2013, and oral arguments and an evidentiary hearing were held in November 2013. On October 15, 2014, the magistrate judge issued a decision recommending that the court enter an order certifying the class for adjudicating the claims. "We filed our opposition to that recommendation with the judge on December 1, 2014 and also intend to vigorously pursue a number of defenses," the Company said. "We are unable to reasonably predict the court's ruling on our opposition to class certification and our defenses, or the ultimate outcome of the litigation." BACKROADS: Faces "Alampi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courtney Alampi and Matthew Mcdonald, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BackRoads, BackRoads Utah, Inc., and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. RG15772255 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. The Defendants are providers of tourism services in California and throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul T. Cullen, Esq. THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, APC 19360 Rinaldi St., Box 647 Porter Ranch, CA 91326 Facsimile: (866) 794-5741 Telephone: (818) 360-2529 E-mail: paul@cullenlegal.com BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in N.Y. Over FX Future Price Manipulation --------------------------------------------------------------- Nasser Bakizada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv- 04230-UA (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2015), arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to manipulate prices for foreign exchange ("FX") futures and options on FX futures. FX futures are agreements to buy or sell a foreign currency at a set price and date in the future, and are traded on centralized exchanges, such as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME") and ICE Futures U.S. Exchanges ("ICE"). Bank of America Corporation is a financial services company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Douglas Richards, Esq. Michael Elsenkraft, Esq. George Farah, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 Facsimile: (212) 838-7745 E-mail: drichards@cohenmilstein.com meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com gfarah@cohenmilstein.com - and - Manuel John Dominguez, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 833-6575 E-mail: dominguez@cohenmilstein.com - and - H. Silverman, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com BAYER: Lawyers of Rice GMO Plaintiff Battle Over Fees ----------------------------------------------------- Southeast Texas Record reports that high profile lawyer Mikal Watts of San Antonio and his colleagues in litigation against Bayer chemical company face a federal suit claiming they reaped millions in fees that didn't belong to them. Lawyers who led national litigation against Bayer at federal court in St. Louis allege that the Watts group improperly retained fees from similar cases in state courts. Their complaint argues that the Watts group should pay for advantages they gained in state courts through membership on the legal team in federal court. The complaint seeks restitution of 11 percent for all recoveries that the Watts group obtained in state courts. The complaint does not specify an amount for those recoveries, but it asserts that the claim exceeds $5 million. In March, the leaders of the federal litigation team asked District Judge Catherine Perry to certify a class action against the Watts group. Perry had dismissed the suit in 2013, but Eighth Circuit appellate judges reversed her last year and the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for review in March. Litigation started in 2006, after the U. S. Department of Agriculture announced contamination of rice by a strain that Bayer had genetically modified. As prices for rice fell, growers sued Bayer in federal and state courts of Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Missouri. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation consolidated all federal suits and transferred them to Perry. Perry chose Don Downing of St. Louis and Adam Levitt of Chicago as lead plaintiff counsel, and she picked six others for an executive committee. She held three bellwether trials, for the purpose of setting a range of values for possible settlement, and plaintiffs won all three. Plaintiffs in state courts also prevailed at trial. In 2010, Perry ordered Bayer to create a common benefit trust fund holding eight percent of any grower's recovery, plus three percent for expenses. She urged state court judges to require participation in the trust fund, but admitted she lacked jurisdiction over them. As an example of a lawyer gaining advantage in state court from the work of the leaders she singled out Martin Phipps, a San Antonio lawyer in the Watts group. "Although Phipps has used his own expert witnesses, he has also used the depositions taken by the leadership team, and he has used the documents and other discovery from Bayer obtained by the leadership group," Perry wrote. She wrote that members of his firm attended the leadership team's depositions and obtained large portions of transcripts from two trials she conducted. "The lawyers and plaintiffs who have not agreed to join in the trust will have been unjustly enriched if they are not required to contribute to the fees of the leadership group," she wrote. "The leadership group shares the products of its labor with all of the plaintiffs." In 2011, Bayer and the leadership team agreed on a $750 million settlement of all claims, state and federal. The agreement created a settlement fund, with an administrator in Nueces County, Texas, to distribute recoveries and fees from state court actions. In September 2012, Perry's leadership group moved for an order allocating $72 million from the common fund among six firms. In November 2012, Phipps, Watts, and Stephen Murray of New Orleans filed an action for declaratory judgment at Nueces County courthouse in Corpus Christi. They asked Court at Law Judge Leeanne Galvan to rule that they owed nothing to the common fund. According to Downing and Leavitt, they did not serve notice of the action. In December 2012, Perry entered a $72 million allocation order. "It is not an exaggeration to say that the Phipps group has been unjustly enriched by the work of the common benefit attorneys," Perry wrote. In January 2013, Downing and Leavitt filed a class action complaint in St. Louis against Watts, Phipps, their firms, and the firm of Keller Stolarczyk in Boerne, Texas. Downing and Leavitt filed it as their own lawyers, along with 13 others. According to Downing and Levitt, the Watts group then served notice of the action in Nueces County. Next, Downing and Levitt amended the complaint to add Murray as defendant. The court assigned District Judge Carol Jackson to the case, but Perry granted a motion from Downing and Levitt to consolidate it with the ongoing Bayer litigation. The Watts group called on Perry to recuse herself, arguing that she demonstrated bias or prejudice in Bayer rulings and in granting consolidation. Watts filed an affidavit swearing that he first met Downing at a settlement conference in St. Louis, in 2009. "After I told him I was unwilling to agree to pay him a common benefit fee for state court cases, he warned me that I needed to reach an agreement with him, threatening that 'Judge Perry is going to give me whatever common benefit fee I ask for,'" Watts wrote. He wrote that in 2011, Downing flew to Texas and pressed him again about paying a common benefit fee. He told Downing 8 percent was too high and would yield an exorbitant fee. "When I pointed out that the fee percentage being sought was well above what could be justified with the number of hours he claimed had been worked, he then kept adjusting the total amount of common benefit award he needed upward, and kept changing the total amount of time his group had worked," Watts wrote. "When I asked him how he did that, he said, 'If we need to, we'll get the records in to support it,' and, 'she won't care that the records are not there yet; she's going to give me what I ask for." Watts wrote that he asked Downing how he knew what the judge would do, and Downing said he was allowed to have "ex parte" communications with her. He wrote that he said Perry couldn't tell Arkansas and Texas state court judges what to do. "He warned that Judge Perry would exert influence over those judges, and she would make sure they knew that she thought they should order us to pay him," Watts wrote. He wrote that Downing pressed him again in 2012, after intervening in multiple Arkansas state court cases. One judge denied intervention and Downing dismissed an intervention. He wrote that he said his group was entitled to some of the common benefit assessment, since it provided some of the work. "At that meeting, before the common benefit rulings were even issued by Judge Perry, Downing told me point blank: 'Judge Perry is going to f -- Martin; she hates him; he will never get a dime,'" Watts wrote. Perry's next decision showed no bias for Downing and Levitt, however, for she dismissed the complaint. She ruled that neither Missouri's long arm statute nor due process permitted the exercise of jurisdiction over the Watts group. Downing and Levitt appealed to the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis, where judges reversed her last August. "Each defendant traveled to Missouri to negotiate settlement of their state court cases with Bayer," the judges wrote. "The fact that the location of the negotiations was not selected by the defendants does not mean that their decision to travel to Missouri was involuntary," they wrote. Meanwhile, in Corpus Christi, Judge Galvan denied a motion from Downing and Levitt to enter special appearances in opposition to declaratory judgment. Downing and Levitt petitioned for review at the 13th District appellate court in Corpus Christi, and judges there stayed the proceedings before Galvan. They heard arguments in December, and had not reached a decision as of May 4. In January, in St. Louis, Downing and Levitt amended their complaint to install their firms as plaintiffs rather than themselves. They added Charles Banks of Little Rock as a defendant, along with his firm. In February, the Watts group moved to split the federal case into two or three cases and transfer them to other courts. They proposed to send claims against Watts, Phipps and the Keller Stolarczyk firm to eastern Arkansas or western Texas. They proposed to send the claim against Banks to eastern Arkansas and the claim against Murray to eastern Louisiana. Downing and Levitt opposed transfers in March, arguing that Perry's special knowledge of the underlying case suited her to bring the claims to resolution. They moved for class certification on March 27, claiming defendants injured more than 1,000 persons by refusing to contribute. "The three percent cost portion of the common benefit assessment was either absorbed by the lawyers or passed on to rice producers," they wrote. If plaintiffs prevail, they wrote, all who paid three percent would benefit. Michael Vitale of St. Louis opposed class certification for the Watts group on April 23, arguing that no contractual relationship existed between them and plaintiffs. He wrote that if anyone received a benefit from the federal litigation, the farmer clients of the Watts group did. "Defendants themselves were not parties to the underlying cases and therefore could not have enjoyed and appreciated the benefit plaintiffs have alleged," Vitale wrote. Perry has set trial next Feb. 29. Watts attracted national attention in 2010, by filing more than 40,000 individual claims in litigation of the BP oil spill. In 2011, the New York Times reported that some of his clients did not exist and others said they had not retained him. Federal agents raided his office and seized records in 2013. No arrest or indictment has occurred. BP sued Watts at federal court in New Orleans last year, seeking to halt distribution of funds to a group that included his clients. He moved to stay the suit pending the criminal investigation, invoking Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination. District Judge Carl Barbier denied an injunction in February 2014, and asked for a report on the status of the criminal investigation in 120 days. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE: Sued Over Mishandling of Deceased Bodies ------------------------------------------------------------- Pequeena Dixon as the named class representative plaintiff, with Deborah McClain, Deveda Perkins, Diana Owens, William Perkins and all others similarly situated v. Biological Resource Center of Illinois, LLC, et al., Case No. 2015-CH-08513 (Ill. Cir. Ct., May 28, 2015), arising from the Defendants' mishandling, abuse, and desecration of the Plaintiffs' deceased loved one's body, issuing a false certification of cremation and incomplete return of remains, and making false statements and promises concerning how and where donated bodies will be used. Biological Resource Center of Illinois, LLC is a non-transplant anatomical donation organization located at 9501 W. Devon Ave, Suite 605, Rosemont, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clinton A. Krislov, Esq. Kenneth T. Goldstein, Esq. KRISLOV ASSOCIATES LTD 20 N Wacker 1300 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 606-0500 BLAZIN WINGS: Faces "Robbins" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Alisha Robbins and Amber Grandstaff, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, known and unknown v. Blazin Wings, Inc. d/b/a Buffalo Wild Wings, Case No. 6:15-cv-06340 (W.D.N.Y., June 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Blazin Wings, Inc. owns and operates hundreds of Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Lynne Lukasiewicz, Esq. THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP 693 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14607 Telephone: (585) 272-0540 Facsimile: (585) 272-0574 E-mail: jlukasiewicz@theemploymentattorneys.com BOMBAY CLUB: Faces "Razmyar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Nasser Razmyar v. The Bombay Club, Inc., Prentice-Hall Corp. Sys., Inc., Knightsbridge Management, Inc., and Ashok Bajaj, Ashok Bajaj, Case No. 1:15-cv-00807 (D.D.C., June 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate restaurants in Washington, DC. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brendan James Klaproth, Esq. KLAPROTH LAW PLLC 406 5th Street, NW, Suite 350 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 618-2344 Facsimile: (202) 618-4636 E-mail: bklaproth@klaprothlaw.com CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Cellular Biomedicine Group Inc. ("CBMG" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:CBMG) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, and docketed under 15-cv-01795, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased CBMG securities between June 18, 2014 and April 7, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933. If you are a shareholder who purchased CBMG securities during the Class Period, you have until June 22, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at -- rswilloughby@pomlaw.com -- or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Cellular Biomedicine Group Inc., is a biomedicine company that develops treatments for cancerous and degenerative diseases in Greater China. It focuses on developing and marketing cell-based therapies to treat serious chronic and degenerative diseases, such as cancer, osteoarthritis, tissue damage, various inflammatory diseases, and metabolic diseases. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company achieved an unsustainable $500m valuation by using paid stock promoters, yet failed to disclose the use of such promoters in its regulatory filings pursuant to Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 ; (ii) the Company's "Car-T" technology had experienced patient deaths and lacked any meaningful valuation; and (iv) as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On April 7, 2015, a report was published on Seekingalpha.com, alleging that the Company was engaged in a massive fraudulent scheme to mislead investors and that the Company lacked any meaningful financial value. On this news, CBMG securities declined $7.00 per share, or over 21.7%, to close at $25.22 per share on April 7, 2015. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. More than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. CLAIM JUMPER: Faces "Jordan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Farah Jordan, Ortega Alina, and Cononico Christian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Claim Jumper Restaurants, Inc., Claim Jumper Acquisition Company, and Does 1 through 25, Case No. BC583679 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Valencia, Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq. GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP 801 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2170 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 542-2135 Facsimile: (213) 542-2101 E-mail: agundzik@gghslaw.com CLICKSOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES: Buyout Process "Flawed," Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Sol Scharf, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. ClickSoftware Technologies Ltd., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00790241 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 29, 2015), seeks enjoinment of the proposed acquisition of ClickSoftware by Optimizer Topco S.A.R.L through a flawed process that deprives ClickSoftware's public stockholders of the ability to participate in the Company's long-term prospects. ClickSoftware Technologies Ltd. is a business software, field service management and workforce management company that offers automated mobile workforce management and service optimization solutions for enterprises and small business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (610) 667-9029 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com CLIENT SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lepore" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Alexandra Lepore, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Client Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 02707 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2015), arises from the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt in violation of 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 CLUB FIT: "Buck" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Buck, Michael Marchena, Mario De Armas, Jacob De Armas, Glenn Gavic, Justin Kowalsky, and other similarly situated individuals v. Club Fit FT Lauderdale, Inc. d/b/a The Zoo Health Club of Fort Lauderdale, Gil Khron, and Dennis Okunyade, Case No. 0:15-cv-61162 (S.D. Fla., June 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a fitness gym in Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com CMRE FINANCIAL: Faces "Brang" Suit in Cal. Over TCPA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Brang, Mariana L. Brang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CMRE Financial Services, Inc., Does 1 through 10, Inclusive, and Each of Them, Case No. 2:15-cv-03562- FMO-PJW (C.D. Cal., May 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arvin Ratanavongse, Esq. Lee Paul Mankin IV, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF L. PAUL MANKIN IV 324 South Beverly Drive Suite 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: aratanavongse@toddflaw.com pmankin@paulmankin.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC 324 South Beverly Drive Suite 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com CONSUMER CELLULAR: "Bell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Shawna Bell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Consumer Cellular, Incorporated, Case No. 3:15-cv- 00941-SI (D. Or., May 30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Consumer Cellular, Incorporated is an Oregon-based provider of cellular telephone products and services with its principal place of business in Portland, Oregon. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan J. Leiman, Esq. Drew G. Johnson, Esq. LEIMAN & JOHNSON, LLC 44 W. Broadway, Suite 326 Eugene, OR 97440 Telephone: (541) 345-2376 Facsimile: (541) 345-2377 E-mail: alan@leimanlaw.com drew@leimanlaw.com DAVID RANDALL: $22.4MM Verdict Affirmed in Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers and Settlements reports that a federal judge in New Jersey affirmed a $22.4 million statutory damage award to class members for the defendant's violation of the fax advertisement law under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Business owners can be held directly liable for unsolicited fax advertisements sent by third party agencies promoting the business's goods or services under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act or TCPA. The TCPA nor the court distinguished between phone calls and faxes. With this recent decision it is possible more companies may face claims for blast-fax campaigns. City Select Auto Sales and other businesses sought relief after the defendant, David Randall Associates, a roofing company, authorized a third party -- Business to Business -- to transmit unsolicited advertisements 44,832 times to 29,113 different fax numbers. Several other businesses complained about the faxes and stated the 'opt out' 800 number was unavailable. A number customers also threatened to file action against Randall. Despite the complaints, the defendant continued to have fax blast campaigns sent. Sent Ads Without Permission The class action complaint alleged the defendant sent advertisements to thousands of fax numbers without prior permission or invitation. The defendant moved for summary judgment, stating the plaintiff class failed to state a claim under TCPA because the defendant was not physically sending the faxes. The motion was denied. The TPCA prohibits unsolicited advertisements without the prior consent of the recipient. It is the plaintiffs' burden to sufficiently establish: 1. The defendant utilized a "telephone facsimile machine" to send one or more faxes." 2. that the transmissions constituted "advertisements." 3. that the defendant sent he transmissions without the recipient's consent, absent application of a statutory exception. Defendant Liable for Third Party Advertiser Addressing each element, first the court determined the advertisement focused on David Randall's roofing services and were approved for transmission by the owner. Second, fax advertisements are not prohibited if the sender is a business with an existing relationship with the recipient and the sender obtained the fax number through a website. According to the FCC, this alone does not permit someone to pull the fax number from an existing website and begin blast-fax campaigns. The advertiser must obtain consent from the recipient to legally solicit business through fax. This leads to the third element where there must be evidence that the class action members sufficiently publicized their numbers or had a relationship with the defendant. Sufficiently publishing means either directly providing the information or providing express permission. In sum, to advertise via fax legitimately, the sender must have a record that the recipient gave permission or directly provided the information to the sender. Without the recipients consent the business advertising the goods or services can be held liable for the actions of third party entities. In the court's recent decision in Palm Beach Golf Center-Boca, Inc v. Sarris, it found the defendant liable for his connection to a third party advertiser, which faxed unsolicited dental advertisements to the golf center. 771 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2014). Relying on this decision, the court re-emphasized the entity can be held strictly liable for unsolicited advertisements despite not physically sending the fax under the TPCA. City Select Auto Sales Inc v. David Randall Associates, Inc, et al., No 11-2658, 2015 WL 1421539 (D.N.J. March 27, 2015) DELTA LIQUID: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Combest" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Brandi Combest, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Delta Liquid Energy Holdings, LLC, Case No. BC583156 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 28, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Delta Liquid Energy Holdings, LLC operates a propane services company that does business throughout California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 DICK'S SPORTING: Faces "Bouchard" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- John Bouchard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., Case No. 2015-CH-08615 (Ill. Cir. Ct., May 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates approximately 23 retail stores in the State of Illinois, The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward A. Wallace, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 West Monroe, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346.2222 Facsimile: (312) 346.0022 E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com DONA ANA: College Students' Lawsuit Can Proceed as Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- KOB4 reports that a state district court judge has ruled that a lawsuit filed by eight former Dona Ana Community College students against the school will become a class-action proceeding. Las Cruces Sun-News reports that the initial lawsuit was filed after the students claimed they suffered turmoil and financial loss after the community college's nursing school lost its national accreditation in 2012. Students are saying that loss was a breach of contract. According to court documents, 100 students were enrolled at that time and will now be included in the case. Some students remained at the school after it lost accreditation, while the majority chose to transfer to New Mexico State University's nursing program. An attorney for the students says any of the students can choose to opt out of the lawsuit. EAGLE ROCK: Faces "Braun" Suit Over Proposed Company Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- Irving and Judith Braun, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Eagle Rock Energy Partners LP, et al., Case No. 201530441 (Tex. Dist. Ct., May 28, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' efforts to complete the sale of the partnership to Vanguard LLC for inadequate and unfair consideration and to the detriment of the public unit holders. Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Eagle Rock Energy Partners LP is a growth-oriented master limited partnership engaged in the upstream business, which includes exploiting, developing, and producing hydrocarbons in oil and gas properties. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew M. Edison, Esq. EDISON McDOWELL & HETHERINGTON LLP Phoenix Tower 3200 Southwest Freeway, Suite 2100 Houston, Texas 77027 Telephone: (713) 337-5581 Facsimile: (713) 337-8841 E-mail: andrew.edison@emhllp.com EAGLE ROCK: Faces "Heydenrych" Suit Over Sale to Vanguard --------------------------------------------------------- Pieter Heydenrych, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-01470 (S.D. Tex., June 1, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' efforts to complete the sale of the partnership to Vanguard LLC for inadequate and unfair consideration and to the detriment of the public unit holders. Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Eagle Rock Energy Partners LP is a growth-oriented master limited partnership engaged in the upstream business, which includes exploiting, developing, and producing hydrocarbons in oil and gas properties. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. THE BILEK LAW FIRM LLP 700 Louisiana, Ste 3950 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 227-7720 E-mail: tbilek@bileklaw.com EBAY INC: Suit in Cal. Over Failure to Refund Final Value Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Theo Chen, Edgar Amirkhanyan, Eugene Cobb, Gary George, Nazar Pailevanian, Nicolepitteloud, Filip Novac, Richard Dame, Kim Bunch, Francis Jancik, John Hamisch, Brent Farris, Nicole Jones, and Patrick Hyndman, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons in similarly situated v. EBay, Inc. and PayPal, Inc., Case No. RG15772122 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 29, 2015), is brought on behalf of all eBay sellers in California who suffered damages as a result of the Defendants' failure and refusal to credit back the Final Value Fees that were associated with the sales that were rescinded at the insistence of eBay. EBay, Inc. is the world's largest online marketplace. PayPal, Inc. provides online payment solutions for individuals and businesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. David Franklin, Esq. FRANKLIN & FRANKLIN, APLC 402 West Broadway, Suite 1140 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 229-4441 - and - Anthony A Ferrigno, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY A FERRIGNO 1116 Ingleside Avenue Athens, TN 37303 Telephone: (423) 744-4041 Facsimile: (925) 945-8792 - and - Pamela E. Havird, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PAMELA E. HA VIRD PO Box 375 La Jolla, CA 92038 Telephone (619) 888- 8090 Facsimile (858) 815-7778 EMCOR GROUP: USM Defends Class Action by Employees -------------------------------------------------- Emcor Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that USM, Inc. is defending a class action filed by employees of USM's California janitorial subcontractors. The Company said, "One of our subsidiaries, USM, Inc. ("USM"), doing business in California provides, among other things, janitorial services to its customers by having those services performed by independent janitorial companies. USM and one of its customers, which owns retail stores (the "Customer"), are co- defendants in a federal class action lawsuit brought by five employees of USM's California janitorial subcontractors. The action was commenced on September 5, 2013 in a Superior Court of California and was removed by USM on November 22, 2013 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The employees allege in their complaint, among other things, that USM and the Customer, during a period that began before our acquisition of USM, violated a California statute that prohibits USM from entering into a contract with a janitorial subcontractor when it knows or should know that the contract does not include funds sufficient to allow the janitorial contractor to comply with all local, state and federal laws or regulations governing the labor or services to be provided. The employees have asserted that the amounts USM pays to its janitorial subcontractors are insufficient to allow those janitorial subcontractors to meet their obligations regarding, among other things, wages due for all hours their employees worked, minimum wages, overtime pay and meal and rest breaks. These employees seek to represent not only themselves, but also all other individuals who provided janitorial services at the Customer's stores in California during the relevant four year time period." "We do not believe USM or the Customer has violated the California statute or that the employees may bring the action as a class action on behalf of other employees of janitorial companies with whom USM subcontracted for the provision of janitorial services to the Customer. However, if the pending lawsuit is certified as a class action and USM is found to have violated the California statute, USM might have to pay significant damages and might be subject to similar lawsuits regarding the provision of janitorial services to its other customers in California. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that USM has violated the California statute, monetary damages, including all unpaid wages and thereon, restitution for unpaid wages, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs." FACEBOOK INC: Faces Privacy Class Action in Austria --------------------------------------------------- Alan Meneghetti, writing for Locke Lord LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that a class action against Facebook has been filed in Vienna by privacy campaigner and Austrian law graduate Max Schrems, along with 25,000 other users of the social network site. The lawsuit alleges breaches of EU privacy law and mass surveillance. The case was filed on April 9, 2015, against Facebook's European HQ in Dublin, which handles accounts outside the U.S. and Canada, accounting for approximately 80% of Facebook's 1.35 billion users. The alleged breach of European privacy laws relates to the way that Facebook monitors its users' activation of its "Like" buttons. Currently, the 25,000 users are claiming EUR500 (GBP392) each in damages for the "illegal" tracking of their data under EU law, amounting to over EUR10 million if the charges against Facebook are proved in this case. A further 55,000 users have registered to join the procedures at a later stage. Schrems is reported in the Guardian as commenting: "Basically we are asking Facebook to stop mass surveillance, to (have) a proper privacy policy that people can understand, but also to stop collecting data of people that are not even Facebook users." Facebook has raised procedural objections, asking for the case to be dismissed. The Vienna court will rule in several weeks or so whether it has jurisdiction to hear the class action in Austria. FAIR COLLECTIONS: Faces "Loera" Suit Over Violation of TCPA ----------------------------------------------------------- Veronica Loera and Alfredo Loera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fair Collections and Outsourcing of New England, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-03454 (C.D. Cal., May 7, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE AND SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - S. Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq. Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Gouya Askari Ranekouhi, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: mike@kazlg.com ak@kazlg.com gouya@kazlg.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 324 South Beverly Drive Suite 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com FOAM DISTRIBUTORS: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Clara Perez, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Foam Distributors, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, Case No. RG15772012 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 28, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the California Labor Code. Foam Distributors, Inc. owns and operates an industry, business and establishment throughout California and is headquartered in the County of Alameda. The Plaintiff is represented by: Un Kei Wu, Esq. LIBERATION LAW GROUP, P.C. 2760 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 941110 Telephone: (415) 695-1000 Facsimile: (415) 695-1006 E-mail: Info@LiberationLawGroup.com FORCEFIELD ENERGY: June 16 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bids ----------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of ForceField Energy, Inc. FNRG, -16.67% between September 16, 2013 and April 15, 2015. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. If you purchased or otherwise acquired ForceField Energy, Inc. ("ForceField") securities between September 16, 2013 and April 15, 2015, your rights may be affected by this action. To get more information go to: http://zlk.9nl.com/forcefield-energy or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose that articles issued by independent authors touting the Company were in fact paid promotions. On April 19, 2015 the Company's founder and majority shareholder voluntarily resigned as Executive Chairman of the Board following his April 17, 2015 arrest. Shares of ForceField were down more than 21% on intraday trading on April 20, 2015. If you suffered a loss in ForceField you have until June 16, 2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in securities and shareholder lawsuits. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Brower Piven on Board The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, announced that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of ForceField Energy Inc. during the period between October 16, 2013 and April 15, 2015, inclusive. Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have until June 16, 2015 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you have suffered a loss from investment in ForceField securities purchased on or after October 16, 2013 and held through the revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of the Class Period, as described below, and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please visit our website at http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html. You may also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-6616. No class has yet been certified in the above action. Members of the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement for the Class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in Company securities during the Class Period. Brower Pivenalso encourages anyone with information regarding the Company's conduct during the period in question to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants' failure to disclose during the Class Period that reports issued by promoters paid by the Company did not disclose their compensation despite having been reviewed by ForceField's management prior to publication and that members of the Company's management have unscrupulous backgrounds. Following a March 20, 2014 article published through Fortune.com revealing the promoter compensation issues and an April 15, 2015 article published through SeekingAlpha.com disclosing the promoter compensation issues and the unscrupulous backgrounds of members of the Company's management, the value of ForceField shares declined significantly. Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating securities and other class action cases and have been advocating for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s. If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the class. The firm can be reached at: Charles J. Piven Brower Piven Tel No: 410-415-6616 E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com FORD MOTOR: Female Workers File Amended Sexual Harassment Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Pete, writing for NWI Times, reports that an amended sexual harassment lawsuit was filed by female workers at Ford Motor Co.'s Chicago assembly plant on May 1 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. A full text copy of the lawsuit is available free at: http://is.gd/n9JCus The Plaintiffs are Christie Van, Charmella Leviege, Maria Price, Helen Allen, Jacqueline Barron, Theresa Bosan, Shranda Campbell, Keturah Carter, Michelle Dahn, Tonya Exum, Jeannette Gardner, Arlene Goforth, Christine Harris, Orissa Henry, Lawanda Jordan, Danielle Kudirka, Terri Lewis-Bledsoe, Constance Madison, Cephani Miller, Miyoshi Morris, Stephanie Szot, Shirley Thomas-Moore, Rose Thomas, Toni Williams, Bernadette Clyburn, Martha Corbin, Angela Glenn, LaDwyna Hoover, Ogery Ledbetter, Latricia Shanklin, Antoinette Sullivan, Derricka Thomas, and Nichea Walls. They allege that male workers: -- refer to new female employees as "fresh meat"; -- talk and gesture about the size of their penis; -- comment on women's buttocks with statements that women had a "big booty", "loose booty", "nice ass" and "fat ass." -- make bets with each other about which male would be the first to have sex with new female employees; -- assign the women to work areas requiring them to constantly bend over in front of the male supervisor with their buttocks in the air; and -- constantly stare at women's breasts and buttocks. They are represented by: Timothy S. Millman, Esq. Kathleen M. Nemechek, Esq. Berkowitz Oliver Williams, Esq. SHAW & EISENBRANDT LLP 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200 Kansas City, MO 64108 Tel.: (816) 561-7007 - and - Eugene Scalia, Esq. Thomas M. Johnson, Jr., Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel.: (202) 955-8500 - and - Mark H. Boyle, Esq. Karen Kies DeGrand, Esq. DONOHUE BROWN MATHEWSON & SMYTH LLC 143 South Dearborn Street, Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel.: (312) 422-0900 FXCM INC: Scott+Scott Files Class Action Over Shares Sale --------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of FXCM Inc.'s common stock between June 11, 2013 and January 20, 2015, inclusive. The action seeks remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. FXCM provides online foreign exchange trading and related services to retail and institutional customers worldwide. The Company acts as an agent between retail customers and a collection of global banks and financial institutions by making foreign currency markets for customers trading in foreign exchange spot markets. FXCM provides its customers access to over-the-counter FX markets through its proprietary technology platform. The complaint alleges that the Company issued materially false and/or misleading statements regarding the Company's business operations and the strength of its financial prospects, while concealing significant weaknesses concerning its core business. According to the complaint, the truth was that: (1) the Company's agency model did not insulate the Company from financial risk from its heavily leveraged clients; (2) the Company did not disclose the true potential risk posed by market volatility; (3) the Company did not maintain sufficient regulatory capital reserves; and (4) the Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and growth lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased FXCM stock during this time period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court no later than July 7, 2015. Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide. The firm can be reached as: Michael Burnett Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP Tel: (800) 404-7770 Fax: (860) 537-5537 E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com GENPACT SERVICES: Faces "Lepore" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA ------------------------------------------------------------- Alexandra Lepore, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Genpact Services, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv- 02706 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of 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 GEOTRUST INC: Removed "Zargarian" Class Suit to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Jonathan Zargarian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GeoTrust, Inc. and Does 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. BC575965, was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court 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-03520 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sara Rezvanpour, Esq. Sina Rezvanpour, Esq. RKR LEGAL 17530 Ventura Boulevard Suite 102 Encino, CA 91316 Telephone: (866) 502-0787 Facsimile: (866) 502-5065 E-mail: sara@rkrlegal.com sr@rkrlegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Ciara Nicole Mittan, Esq. Molly R. Melcher, Esq. Tyler Griffin Newby, Esq. Laurence F. Pulgram, Esq. FENWICK AND WEST LLP 555 California Street 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 875-2300 Facsimile: (415) 281-1350 E-mail: cmittan@fenwick.com mmelcher@fenwick.com tnewby@fenwick.com lpulgram@fenwick.com GOLD COAST PARKING: Faces "Scheer" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Paulo Rogerio Scheer and all others similarly situated v. Gold Coast Parking Systems, Inc. and Peter Sorrentino, Case No. 1:15- cv-22110-JLK (S.D. Fla., June 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate a valet parking services company that transacts business within Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM GREEN TREE: Removed "Wittstadt" Class Suit to Maryland Dist. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Mark Wittstadt v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC and Rosa Maria Reyes, Case No. 40255IV, was removed from the Circuit Court of Maryland for Montgomery County to the U.S. District Court District of Maryland (Greenbelt). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-01263-DKC to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Hill Wittstadt, Esq. MORRIS HARDWICK SCHNEIDER, LLC 9409 Philadelphia Road Baltimore, MD 21237 Telephone: (410) 284-9600 Facsimile: (410) 282-1677 E-mail: mwittstadt@closingsource.net The Defendant is represented by: Phillip R. Robinson, Esq. CONSUMER LAW CENTER LLC Suite 307, 8737 Colesville Road Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 637-6270 E-mail: phillip@marylandconsumer.com GR OPCO: Faces "Bogran" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Lidia Bogran, Silda Chavez, Claudia Cruz, Jose Estrada, Ricardo Valdes and all persons similarly situated v. GR Opco, LLC, d/b/a E11even Miami, and Elevated Eateries of Miami, LLC, CJS Global, LLC, Dennis Degori, Kenneth Ratner, and Frances Martin, Case No. 1:15-cv-22100-MGC (S.D. Fla., June 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an adult entertainment venue and night club in Miami Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Howard Randolph Tanner, Esq. HOWARD TANNER PA 100 S. Pointe Drive, #1909 Miami Beach, FL 33139 Telephone: (305) 458-2913 E-mail: h@howard-tanner.com GRUMA S.A.B.: "Cox" Suit v. Gruma Corp. Dismissed ------------------------------------------------- GRUMA, S.A.B. de C.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on or about December 21, 2012, a consumer filed a putative class action against Gruma Corporation, claiming that Mission tortilla chips should not be labeled "All Natural" if they contain certain non-natural ingredients. The plaintiff sought restitution or other actual damages including attorneys' fees. On July 2014, this matter was dismissed with prejudice. HEIGHTS APARTMENTS: Aug. 10 Final Approval Hearing of Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lolita Lopez, writing for NBC Los Angeles, reports that under a new class action settlement, several dozen apartment complexes across Southern California must repay hundreds of dollars in fees they kept from tenants when they moved out. Up to $288 is up for grabs for renters from Burbank to Long Beach, tenants who lived in one of 31 apartment buildings dating back to 2008. The money, according to the lawsuit settlement, involves fees landlords took from renters when they moved, for paint and carpet or vinyl replacement. California law is specific with regard to what can be deducted from a tenant's security deposit. Normal wear and tear expenses cannot be deducted. "As students, we didn't know how that worked, so we would just give whatever we had to," renter Diana Aguiler said. While not part of the lawsuit, two out of three students and renters who spoke with NBC4 say they have been taken for their security deposits. Several of the complexes named in the lawsuit are near USC. "There's not many resources on who to go to for that," Bryanna Tapia said. "Especially when you are no longer a tenant and you've moved out." "It's important for renters to know both their obligations and their rights," said Elena Popp of the Eviction Defense Network. Giving out this information is part of Popp's work at the Eviction Defense Network. She said 60 percent of LA County residents are renters. "You should document anything that's already broken or wrong," Popp said, adding that renters should take photos close-up and wide of the property before moving in. "I have a case right now where the tenant is being charged $6,000 to replace tiles, that they say were broken 15 years ago (2010) when they moved in," Popp said. She said repainting and changing carpets after their life expectancy -- what's called normal wear and tear -- is the responsibility of the landlord, the crux of the lawsuit. Defendants in the case have agreed to settle but are not admitting liability. More advice for renters: "You need to request that pre-move out inspection," Popp said. "You need to make sure you gave 30 days written notice that you were moving." If no written notice is given, a landlord can take the deposit. Some 10,000 notices have been mailed to people who moved out of the complexes in the lawsuit and could be victims. The cases are: Hager v. The Heights Apartments, L.P. Superior Court of the State of California - County of Los Angeles Case No. BC452024 (Lead Case) Seltzer v. R.W. Selby & Co., Inc. Superior Court of the State of California - County of Los Angeles Case No. BC476270 (Related Case) CPT Group serves as class action administrator in both cases. Important Dates: Opt-Out Deadline for Hager v. The Heights Apartments, L.P.: June 5, 2015 Objection Deadline for Hager v. The Heights Apartments, L.P.: June 5, 2015 Claim Form Deadline for Seltzer v. R.W. Selby & Co., Inc.: June 25, 2015 Opt Out Deadline for Seltzer v. R.W. Selby & Co., Inc.: June 25, 2015 Objection Deadline for Seltzer v. R.W. Selby & Co., Inc.: July 6, 2015 Final Approval Hearing: August 10, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. For questions, please contact CPT Group at the following: Telephone: 1-866-997-4997 for the Hager v. The Heights Apartments, L.P. case Telephone: 1-877-433-4862 for the Seltzer v. R.W. Selby & Co., Inc. case Fax: (949) 419-3446 Email: securitydepositsettlement@cptgroup.com HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Pomerantz Files Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP disclosed this notice: TO: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. ("Hemispherx") common stock trading under ticker symbol HEB from March 14, 2012 through and including December 20, 2012, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). "You Are Hereby Notified, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, that a hearing will be held on July 22, 2015 at 9:30 a.m., before the Honorable William H. Yohn Jr. United States District Judge, at the courthouse for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, to determine, among other things, whether: (1) a Settlement Class should be certified for purposes of the Settlement and whether Lead Plaintiff and its counsel have adequately represented the Class Members; (2) the proposed Settlement of the Class's claims against the Defendants for $2,750,000.00 should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (3) the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, just, reasonable, and adequate; (4) the Court should permanently enjoin the assertion of any claims that arise from or relate to the subject matter of the above-captioned class action ("the Action"); (5) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement filed with the Court; (6) the application by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; and (7) an application for reimbursement of reasonable costs and expenses of Lead Plaintiff Member Marc Verheyen should be granted. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Hemispherx common stock trading under ticker symbol HEB during the Class Period, your rights may be affected by this Action and the Settlement thereof. If you have not received the detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Settlement Fairness Hearing, and Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain them free of charge by contacting the Claims Administrator, by mail at: Hemispherx Securities Settlement Administrator, PO Box 30172 College Station, TX 77842-3172; by telephone at 866-374-7219; by e-mail at Info@HemispherxSettlement.com; or by visiting the website at: www.HemispherxSettlement.com. If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the Settlement money, you must submit a Proof of Claim no later than August 21, 2015 establishing that you are entitled to recovery. As further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the Class, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, by no later than July 8, 2015. Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation or attorney's fees and expenses must be filed, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, no later than July 8, 2015. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Lead Counsel for the Class: Joshua B. Silverman, Pomerantz LLP, 10 South La Salle Street, Ste. 3505, Chicago, IL 60603, Telephone: 312-377-1181 The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. More than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. " The firm can be reached at: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com HUNTSMAN CORPORATION: Texas Case Trial Scheduled for Feb. 2016 -------------------------------------------------------------- Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that trial is scheduled for February 22, 2016, in a case filed in Texas. The Company said, "We were named as a defendant in consolidated class action civil antitrust suits filed on February 9 and 12, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging that we and our co-defendants and other alleged co- conspirators conspired to fix prices of titanium dioxide sold in the U.S. between at least March 1, 2002 and the present. The other defendants named in this matter were DuPont, Kronos and Cristal (formerly Millennium). On August 28, 2012, the court certified a class consisting of all U.S. customers who purchased titanium dioxide directly from the defendants (the "Direct Purchasers") since February 1, 2003. We and all other defendants settled the Direct Purchasers litigation and the court approved the settlement on December 13, 2013. We paid the settlement in an amount immaterial to our condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited)." "On November 22, 2013, we were named as a defendant in a civil antitrust suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota brought by a Direct Purchaser who opted out of the Direct Purchasers class litigation (the "Opt-Out Litigation"). On April 21, 2014, the court severed the claims against us from the other defendants and ordered our case transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Subsequently, Kronos, another defendant, was also severed from the Minnesota case and claims against it were transferred and consolidated for trial with our case in the Southern District of Texas. Trial is scheduled for February 22, 2016. It is possible that additional claims will be filed by other Direct Purchasers who opted out of the class litigation." HUNTSMAN CORPORATION: Defendant in Indirect Purchasers Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that, "We were named as a defendant in a class action civil antitrust suit filed on March 15, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by the purchasers of products made from titanium dioxide (the "Indirect Purchasers") making essentially the same allegations as did the Direct Purchasers. On October 14, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class Action Complaint narrowing the class of plaintiffs to those merchants and consumers of architectural coatings containing titanium dioxide. Plaintiffs have raised state antitrust claims under the laws of 16 states, consumer protection claims under the laws of 10 states, as well as unjust enrichment claims under the laws of 20 states. The Opt-Out Litigation and Indirect Purchasers plaintiffs seek to recover injunctive relief, treble damages or the maximum damages allowed by state law, costs of suit and attorneys' fees. We are not aware of any illegal conduct by us or any of our employees. Nevertheless, we have incurred costs relating to these claims and could incur additional costs in amounts which in the aggregate could be material to us. Because of the overall complexity of these cases, we are unable to reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of loss associated with these claims and we have made no accruals with respect to these claims." IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Vincent Wong Files Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announced that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased iDreamSky Technology Limited American Depositary Shares between August 8, 2014 and March 13, 2015, including investors who purchased ADSs pursuant to the Initial Public Offering on or about August 7, 2014. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants concealed from the investing public that: (a) the Company had overstated its ability to monetize its user base and effectively integrate its distribution channels; (b) as a result, the Company had to lower its earnings guidance; and (c) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you suffered a loss in iDreamSky you have until June 1, 2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone at 212.425.1140, or visit http://docs.wongesq.com/DSKY-Info- Request-Form-706. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Weisslaw LLP Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- A securities class action was filed by WeissLaw LLP in the Southern District of New York, Jeremias et al. v. iDreamSky Technology Ltd. et al., 15-cv-03484, seeking damages and rescission of the IPO of iDreamSky American Depository Shares ("ADSs") on August 7, 2014, and for purchasers of DSKY's ADSs on the open market through March 23, 2015. On March 23, 2015, iDreamSky disclosed, contrary to the representations made in its IPO Registration Statement and Prospectus, that it experienced complicated financial record reconciliation and reduced monetization due to billing code issues, significant embedded operational and financial difficulties from unpredictable and delayed source code receipt for the launch of games, and reduced monetization due to distribution platform competition. Following its announcement, the Company's target price was downgraded from $24.00 to $9.00 per ADS, representing a reduction of more than sixty percent (60%). Furthermore, only a mere two reporting periods post-IPO, DSKY's ADSs are trading well below their $15.00 offering price. The deadline for investors having significant realized or unrealized losses to serve as lead plaintiff is June 1, 2015. These investors are encouraged to contact WeissLaw LLP for more information about their rights or to share information. Please contact Mark Smilow by telephone at (212) 682-3025, (888) 593-4771 or by email at stockinfo@weisslawllp.com. INFORMATICA CORPORATION: 2 Stockholder Class Actions Filed ---------------------------------------------------------- Informatica Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on April 16, 2015, two stockholder class action complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of a putative class of the Company's stockholders: Luciano Scotto v. Sohaib Abbasi et al., Case No. 10913 (filed April 16, 2015) and Janice Ridgeway v. Informatica Corporation et al., Case No. 10917 (filed April 16, 2015). The complaints generally allege that, in connection with the proposed acquisition of the Company by Newco, the Informatica directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company's stockholders by agreeing to sell the company for purportedly inadequate consideration, engaging in a flawed sales process, and agreeing to a number of purportedly preclusive deal protection devices. The complaints further allege that Italics Inc. ("Newco") and Italics Merger Sub Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Newco ("Merger Sub"), the Permira Funds, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board ("CPPIB"), and the Company aided and abetted the Board of Directors in the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints seek, among other things, an order enjoining the close of the proposed transaction or, in the event that the proposed transaction is consummated, an award of rescission and/or rescissory damages. INSULET CORPORATION: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, representing investors of Insulet Corp. filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of a class comprising purchasers of Insulet securities between February 27, 2013 and April 30, 2015, inclusive. Please contact Casey Sadler, Esquire or Lesley Portnoy, Esquire at (310) 201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter. If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. Insulet is primarily engaged in the development, manufacturing and sale of its proprietary OmniPod Insulin Management System (the "OmniPod System"), an insulin infusion system for people with insulin-dependent diabetes. The complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was experiencing slower demand for its products; (2) that the Company was facing issues with its sales and marketing efforts; (3) that, as a result, the Company experienced unevenness in its financial performance; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities after disclosing the decline in its revenues, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court, no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice, to serve as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you inquire via email, please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. JHODANICO LLC: "Valencia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Wilmer Valencia, Luis Enrique Hernandez, Paulo Rodriguez, Dalmy Del Carmen Mijango, Jeison Balmore Blanco Hernandez, Erik Lopez, Eliazar de Jesus Solano, and Josue Argueta, on behalf of themselves and others similarly-situated v. Jhodanico LLC, d/b/a Vry Auto Detail, Omar Carranza and Karen L. Anazgo Quintanilla, Case No. 1:15-cv-00685-LMB-MSN (E.D. Va., June 1, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate car wash and automobile detailing services company doing business within the State of Virginia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Francis Hennessy, Esq. THOMAS F. HENNESSY 4015 Chain Bridge Rd, Suite 6 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 865-8836 Facsimile: (703) 865-7633 E-mail: th@virginiawage.com JUST ENERGY: Koskie Minsky Files Misclassification Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Koskie Minsky LLP has initiated a class action against Just Energy Group Inc., Just Energy Corp., and Just Energy Ontario L.P. for its artificial misclassification of its door-to-door Sales Agents as "independent contractors" instead of employees, and thereby its failure to provide such employees with the minimum protections of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, including minimum wage, overtime pay, vacation pay, and public holiday and premium pay -- compensation to which the employees were entitled and earned. The Statement of Claim issued May 4 alleges, among other things, that Just Energy breached its statutory and contractual duties to the Sales Agents by requiring them to work well beyond permitted weekly work hours and failing to appropriately provide them with minimum wage, overtime pay, vacation pay and public holiday and premium pay, in accordance with the ESA. The allegations have not yet been proven in court. Generally, the class to be represented is comprised of all Ontario current and former Sales Agents of Just Energy since 2012. Class Counsel believes that the estimated class size could be in the thousands. Kia Kordestani, a former Sales Agent with Just Energy, is the proposed representative plaintiff seeking to pursue the action on the class members' behalves. Mr. Kordestani worked as a Sales Agent at Just Energy from June 2012 until June 2013. As stated by David Rosenfeld, a partner in Koskie Minksy LLP's class actions group, "For too long, Just Energy has been artificially misrepresenting to their employees the status of their employment relationship and abusing its position of power by failing to recognize basic minimum employment standards. This case seeks to provide access to justice for thousands of Just Energy Sales Agents so that they can seek the basic minimum employment standards and obtain compensation to which they are entitled and for which they worked so hard." Koskie Minsky LLP represents the plaintiff in this action. JW LEE: Faces "Demaria-Dominguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Demaria-Dominguez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. JW Lee, Inc. d/b/a Scarlett's Cabaret, Case No. 0:15-cv-61173-PDG (S.D. Fla., June 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. JW Lee, Inc. is a Florida corporation that operates an adult entertainment club. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad Evan Levy, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF LEVY & LEVY, P.A. 915 Middle River Drive, Suite 518 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33304 Telephone: (954) 763-5722 Facsimile: (954) 763-5723 E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com LG DISPLAY: Reached Settlement with Attorneys General ----------------------------------------------------- LG Display Co., Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that after the commencement of the U.S. Department of Justice investigation, a number of class action complaints were filed against LG Display, LG Display America and other TFT-LCD panel manufacturers in the United States and Canada alleging violation of respective antitrust laws and related laws. In a series of decisions in 2007 and 2008, the class action lawsuits in the United States were transferred to the Northern District of California for pretrial proceedings, which the Company refers to as the MDL Proceedings. In March 2010, the federal district court granted the class certification motion filed by the indirect purchaser plaintiffs, and granted in part and denied in part the class certification motion filed by the direct purchaser plaintiffs. In January 2011, 78 entities (including groups of affiliated entities) submitted requests for exclusion from the direct purchaser class. In April 2012, ten entities (including groups of affiliated companies) submitted requests for exclusion from the indirect purchaser class. In addition, since 2010, the attorneys general of Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin filed complaints against LG Display, alleging similar antitrust violations as alleged in the MDL Proceedings. In June 2011, LG Display reached a settlement with the direct purchaser class, which the federal district court approved in December 2011. In July 2012, LG Display reached a settlement with the indirect purchaser class plaintiffs and with the state attorneys general of Arkansas, California, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, New York, West Virginia and Wisconsin, which was approved by the federal district court in April 2013 and, in the case of the state attorneys general actions, by their respective state governments. As of April 29, 2015, LG Display has reached settlement with each of the attorneys general that has filed action. In addition, in relation to the MDL Proceedings, in 2009, ATS Claim, LLC (assignee of Ricoh Electronics, Inc.), AT&T Corp. and its affiliates, Motorola Mobility, Inc. ("Motorola"), and Electrograph Technologies Corp. and its subsidiary filed separate claims in the United States, and all of the actions were subsequently consolidated into the MDL Proceedings. In 2010, TracFone Wireless Inc., Best Buy Co., Inc. and its affiliates, Target Corp., Sears, Roebuck and Co., Kmart Corp., Old Comp Inc., Good Guys, Inc., RadioShack Corp., Newegg Inc., Costco Wholesale Corp., Sony Electronics, Inc. and its affiliate, SB Liquidation Trust and the trustee of the Circuit City Stores, Inc. Liquidation Trust filed claims in the United States. In 2011, the AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust on behalf of All American Semiconductor Inc., CompuCom Systems, Inc., Interbond Corporation of America, Jaco Electronics, Inc., Office Depot, Inc., P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, MARTA Cooperative of America, Inc., ABC Appliance, Inc., Schultze Agency Services, LLC on behalf of Tweeter Opco, LLC and its affiliate, T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc., Tech Data Corporation and its affiliate filed similar claims in the United States. In 2012, ViewSonic Corp., NECO Alliance LLC, Rockwell Automation LLC, Proview Technology Inc. and its affiliates filed similar claims. In November 2013, Acer America Corporation and its affiliates filed similar claims in the United States. The cases were transferred to the MDL Proceedings for pretrial proceedings. In December 2012, Sony Europe Limited and its affiliate filed similar claims in the High Court of Justice in the United Kingdom. As of April 29, 2015, LG Display has reached settlement with each of the plaintiffs mentioned, except as to Motorola and Costco Wholesale Corp. In January 2014, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted defendants' motion to dismiss nearly all of Motorola's claims. Motorola appealed the decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the lower court's decision in an order dated January 2015. In March 2015, Motorola filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. As of April 29, 2015, the United States Supreme Court has not issued a decision regarding Motorola's petition for review. In October 2014, a jury in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington rendered a verdict of approximately US$36.7 million for Costco Wholesale Corporation against LG Display and AU Optronics. As of April 29, 2015 the court has not entered judgment. LG DISPLAY: Pursuing Appeal of Cert. Decision in Canadian Case -------------------------------------------------------------- LG Display Co., Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in 2007, class action complaints were filed against LG Display and other TFT-LCD manufacturers in Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the class in May 2011. "We are pursuing an appeal of the class certification decision. The actions in Quebec and British Columbia have been held in abeyance," the Company said. LG DISPLAY: To Defend Class Action Filed in Israel -------------------------------------------------- LG Display Co., Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in December 2013, a class action complaint was filed in the Central District in Israel. "We plan to vigorously defend against any claims asserted by the class," the Company said. LIGHTNING FLUID: Faces "Mendoza" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Fernando Mendoza, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lightning Fluid Services, Inc., and William Starns, Case No. 2:15-cv-00239 (S.D. Tex., June 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants provide chemical blending services and technical expertise to leading oil and gas operators throughout Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Todd Slobin, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net LIVE NATION: Accrued $34.9MM Costs Related to Class Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of March 31, 2015, the Company had accrued $34.9 million, its best estimate of the probable costs associated with the settlement in the Ticketing Fees Consumer Class Action Litigation. In October 2003, a putative representative action was filed in the Superior Court of California challenging Ticketmaster's charges to online customers for shipping fees and alleging that its failure to disclose on its website that the charges contain a profit component is unlawful. The complaint asserted a claim for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and sought restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i) the total shipping fees charged by Ticketmaster in connection with online ticket sales during the applicable period, and (ii) the amount that Ticketmaster actually paid to the shipper for delivery of those tickets. In August 2005, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, then pleading the case as a putative class action and adding the claim that Ticketmaster's website disclosures in respect of its ticket order processing fees constitute false advertising in violation of California's False Advertising Law. On this new claim, the amended complaint seeks restitution or disgorgement of the entire amount of order processing fees charged by Ticketmaster during the applicable period. In April 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint adding new claims that (a) Ticketmaster's order processing fees are unconscionable under the UCL, and (b) Ticketmaster's alleged business practices further violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs later filed a third amended complaint, to which Ticketmaster filed a demurrer in July 2009. The Court overruled Ticketmaster's demurrer in October 2009. The plaintiffs filed a class certification motion in August 2009, which Ticketmaster opposed. In February 2010, the Court granted certification of a class on the first and second causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster misrepresents/omits the fact of a profit component in Ticketmaster's shipping and order processing fees. The class would consist of California consumers who purchased tickets through Ticketmaster's website from 1999 to present. The Court denied certification of a class on the third and fourth causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster's shipping and order processing fees are unconscionably high. In March 2010, Ticketmaster filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate with the California Court of Appeal, and plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Superior Court's class certification order. In April 2010, the Superior Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's class certification order, and the Court of Appeal denied Ticketmaster's Petition for Writ of Mandate. In June 2010, the Court of Appeal granted the plaintiffs' Petition for Writ of Mandate and ordered the Superior Court to vacate its February 2010 order denying plaintiffs' motion to certify a national class and enter a new order granting plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class on the first and second claims. In September 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on all causes of action in the Superior Court, and that same month plaintiffs filed their Motion for Summary Adjudication of various affirmative defenses asserted by Ticketmaster. In November 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion to Decertify Class. In December 2010, the parties entered into a binding agreement providing for the settlement of the litigation and the resolution of all claims therein. In September 2011, the Court declined to approve the settlement in its then-current form. Litigation continued, and later that same month, the Court granted in part and denied in part Ticketmaster's Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties reached a new settlement in September 2011, which was preliminarily approved, but in September 2012 the Court declined to grant final approval. In June 2013, the parties reached a revised settlement, which was preliminarily approved by the Court in April 2014. In February 2015, the Court granted the parties' motion for final approval of the settlement. Ticketmaster and its parent, Live Nation, have not acknowledged any violations of law or liability in connection with the matter. As of March 31, 2015, the Company had accrued $34.9 million, its best estimate of the probable costs associated with the settlement. The calculation of this liability is based in part upon an estimated redemption rate. Any difference between the Company's estimated redemption rate and the actual redemption rate it experiences will impact the final settlement amount; however, the Company does not expect this difference to be material. MADISON COUNTY: Prenzler Responds to Class Action Classification ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Telegraph reports that Madison County Treasurer Kurt Prenzler, CPA, said he's pleased with a recent court decision involving tax sales under a former county treasurer. The Third Judicial Circuit Court handed down a decision to certify a lawsuit seeking restitution for victims of rigged tax sales under former Madison County Treasurer Fred Bathon as a class action suit. Prenzler said he was satisfied with the decision of Judge William Becker, an associate circuit judge from Clinton County, who granted the motion to certify the class action. "It only makes sense," Prenzler said in a release. "The former treasurer, Fred Bathon, and three tax buyers are in prison for this crime." Bathon, who served as treasurer from 1998 until his resignation in 2009, pleaded guilty in 2013 to violating the Sherman Antitrust Act in relation to rigged tax sales. He was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison. The tax buyers also pleaded guilty in connection with the scheme. Multiple lawsuits were filed against the county in February 2013 by taxpayers claiming they paid excessive penalty interest on the sale of delinquent taxes. Becker heard testimony in January on the cases. Prenzler said that from the beginning he believed the victims should receive restitution. "This lawsuit is the last chance for these taxpayers who were harmed to be made whole," Prenzler said. MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Seck" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Abdou Seck, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv- 02704 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of 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 MIAMI USED PALLETS: Faces "Barea" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Medardo Kauffman Barea and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b v. Miami Used Pallets, Corp. and Roberto Rodriguez Ramos, Case No. 1:15-cv-22087-RNS (S.D. Fla., June 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a pallet company that regularly transacts business within Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM MICREL INCORPORATED: Sued in Calif. Over Acquisition by Microchip ----------------------------------------------------------------- Raymond Gallegos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Micrel, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 1-15-CV-281242 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 29, 2015), seeks enjoinment of the proposed acquisition of Micrel by Microchip Technology Incorporated through a flawed process that deprives Micrel's public stockholders of the ability to participate in the Company's long- term prospects. Micrel, Incorporated together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures, and markets analog, mixed-signal and digital semiconductor devices primarily in North America, Asia, and Europe. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Louis N. Boyarsky, Esq. GLANCY PRONGA Y & MURRAY LLP 3 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2 100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 432-1495 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com lboyarsky@glancylaw.com MICROSOFT CORP: Seeks 9th Cir. En Banc Rehearing in "Baker" ----------------------------------------------------------- Judy Suwatanapongched at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, in an article for National Law Review, reports that it recently reported on a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion reversing a district court's decision to strike class action allegations in a putative class action against Microsoft. Baker v. Microsoft Corp., No. 12-35946, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4317 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2015). In Baker v. Microsoft Corporation, the Ninth Circuit panel of judges held that proof that individual class members were damaged by an alleged defect (here, a defect in Xbox 360 video game consoles resulting in scratched game discs) was not necessary for a class action to be certified. Microsoft has now petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing en banc, putting a spotlight on a strategy class action plaintiffs have employed to "end-run" the appeals process once they have been denied class certification. Namely, instead of pursuing individual claims to final judgment and then filing an appeal on the denial of class certification, plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss the action so that they can immediately appeal the order denying class certification. This strategy short cuts the appeals process because class certification orders (granting or denying class certification) are not immediately appealable as a matter of right; the Court of Appeals only has appellate jurisdiction over final judgments. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. Ordinarily, a party can either (1) seek an interlocutory appeal under the discretionary Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) and/or (2) litigate the claims until a final judgment is entered, and then appeal the class certification order. However, at least some class action plaintiffs are skipping this process by filing dismissals either before or after seeking a Rule 23(f) appeal. In Baker, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit after the district court ordered the class action allegations stricken and the plaintiffs unsuccessfully moved for a Rule 23(f) interlocutory appeal of that order. 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4317 at *11-12. The Ninth Circuit held there was appellate jurisdiction following a voluntary dismissal, citing Berger v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 741 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2014). Id. In its petition, Microsoft argues that the Ninth Circuit should rehear the issue of appellate jurisdiction because the panel decision conflicts with (1) Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (1978), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that, in line with the congressional policy against piecemeal appeals, the fact an interlocutory order may induce a party to abandon its claim before final judgment is not sufficient to consider the order a "final decision" under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291; (2) Huey v. Teledyne, Inc., 608 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir. 1979), a Ninth Circuit opinion finding appellate jurisdiction lacking under similar procedural facts as Baker; and (3) decisions rejecting appellate jurisdiction over class certification denials in the Third, Fourth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits. See Camesi v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 729 F.3d 239, 245-46 (3d Cir. 2013); Rhodes v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 636 F.3d 88, 100 (4th Cir. 2011); Telco Grp., Inc. v. AmeriTrade, Inc., 552 F.3d 893, 893-94 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); Bowe v. First of Denver Mortg. Investors, 613 F.2d 798, 800-02 (10th Cir. 1980). Whether the Ninth Circuit grants Microsoft's petition for rehearing en banc, and how it handles the shortcut strategy to appellate jurisdiction, could significantly affect how class actions are litigated in the Ninth Circuit because a class certification order often decides whether the case is settled or dismissed. Stay tuned along with us to see how it all pans out. MILLERCOORS LLC: Removed "Parent" Class Suit to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Evan Parent, an individual on behalf of himself, a class of persons similarly situated, and the general public v. MillerCoors LLC and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 37-02015-00013913-CU-BT-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court, San Diego County, Central Division to the U.S. District Court Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01204-GPC-WVG to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of all consumers who purchased Blue Moon beer from a retailer within the state of California for personal, family, or household purposes, and not for resale purposes. The Plaintiff seeks "damages, restitution and injunctive relief" on behalf of the putative class. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Craig Clark, Esq. CLARK & TREGLIO 205 West Date Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-1321 Facsimile: (888) 273-4554 E-mail: cclark@clarklawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: David T. Biderman, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1888 Century Park E., Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721 Telephone: (310) 788-9900 Facsimile: (310) 843-1284 E-mail: DBiderman@perkinscoie.com - and - Julie L. Hussey, Bar No. 237711 PERKINS COIE LLP 11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350 San Diego, CA 92130-2594 Telephone: (858) 720-5700 Facsimile: (858) 720-5799 E-mail: JHussey@perkinscoie.com - and - Julie E. Schwartz, Esq. Lauren B. Cohen, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 3150 Porter Drive Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212 Telephone: (650) 838-4300 Facsimile: (650) 838-4350 E-mail: JSchwartz@perkinscoie.com LCohen@perkinscoie.com MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Class Suits Filed in Ill. v. Kraft Foods ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mondelez International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that class action complaints were filed against Kraft Foods Group and the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Company said, "In April 2013, the staff of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") advised us and Kraft Foods Group that it was investigating activities related to the trading of December 2011 wheat futures contracts that occurred prior to the Spin-Off of Kraft Foods Group. We cooperated with the staff in its investigation. On April 1, 2015, the CFTC filed a complaint against Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (the "CFTC action"). The complaint alleges that Kraft Foods Group and we (1) manipulated or attempted to manipulate the wheat markets during the fall of 2011; (2) violated position limit levels for wheat futures and (3) engaged in non-competitive trades by trading both sides of exchange-for-physical Chicago Board of Trade wheat contracts. The CFTC seeks civil monetary penalties of either triple the monetary gain for each violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (the "Act") or $1 million for each violation of Section 6(c)(1), 6(c)(3) or 9(a)(2) of the Act and $140,000 for each additional violation of the Act, plus post- judgment interest; an order of permanent injunction prohibiting Kraft Foods Group and us from violating specified provisions of the Act; disgorgement of profits; and costs and fees." "In addition, class action complaints were filed against Kraft Foods Group and us in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. These were filed on April 2, 2015 by Harry Ploss, as trustee for the Harry Ploss Trust dated 8/16/1993, on April 9, 2015 by Richard Dennis, on April 16, 2015 by Henrik Christensen, on April 22, 2015 by White Oak Fund, LP and on April 24, 2015 by Budicak Inc., in each case on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The complaints make the same allegations as those made in the CFTC action and seek class action certification; an unspecified amount for damages, interest and unjust enrichment; and costs and fees. It is not possible to predict the outcome of these matters; however, based on our Separation and Distribution Agreement with Kraft Foods Group dated as of September 27, 2012, we expect to predominantly bear any monetary penalties or other payments in connection with the CFTC action." NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports ----------------------------------------------------------- City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NationStar Mortgage Holdings Inc., Jesse K. Bray, and Robert D. Stiles, Case No. 0:15-cv-61170-JEM (S.D. Fla., June 2, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. engages in the servicing and origination of mortgage loans in the United States and internationally. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth A. Shonson, Esq. Jack Reise, Esq. Paul Jeffrey Geller, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: 750-3364 E-mail: eshonson@rgrdlaw.com jreise@rgrdlaw.com pgeller@rgrdlaw.com NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Faces "Johnson" Suit over Violation of TCPA -------------------------------------------------------------- Randy Johnson, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Navient Solutions, Inc., Docket No. 1:15-cv-00716 (S.D. Ind., May 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Scott Lee, Esq. KROHN & MOSS LTD. 10474 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 401 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (323) 988-2400 Facsimile: (866) 861-1390 E-mail: rlee@consumerlawcenter.com The Defendant is represented by: Navient Solutions, Inc. PRO SE NDEAVOR TELECOM: Faces "Whitfield" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Marty Whitfield, Fred Backman, Edwin Blaine, Leon Brown, Mark Frazier, Errol Hart, David Johnson, Johnny Johnson, Jason Mills, Dexter Rowland, Devon Thompson, Lolita Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ndeavor Telecom, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01959-LMM (N.D. Ga., June 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Ndeavor Telecom, Inc. is engaged in providing wholesale field services to customers in many states. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin B. Kandy, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN B. KANDY LLC 534 Medlock Road, Suite 109 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (678) 824-2251 Facsimile: (678) 401-0398 E-mail: ben@bkandylaw.com - and - Mitchell D. Benjamin, Esq. DeLONG, CALDWELL, BRIDGERS, FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN LLC 3100 Centennial Tower 101 Marietta Street, NW Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 979-3150 Facsimile: (404) 979-3157 E-mail: benjamin@dcbflegal.com NORTHLAND GROUP: Illegally Collects Debt, "Felberbaum" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chaya Felberbaum, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Northland Group Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 02705-CBA-LB (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2015), arises from the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt in violation of 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 ORORA NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Inaccurate Wage Statements --------------------------------------------------------- Eufroncino Pablo Carrillo, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Orora North America and Does 1 Through 10, Case No. RG15771975 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 28, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide accurate and complete wage statements. Orora North America is a California corporation, which manufactures and distributes packaging products throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin F. Woodall, Esq. WOODALL LAW OFFICES 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 413-4629 Facsimile: (866) 937-4109 E-mail: kevin@kwoodalllaw.com PAPA MURPHY'S: Faces "Lennartson" Suit Over Violation of TCPA ------------------------------------------------------------- John Lennartson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Papa Murphy's International LLC and Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-05307-RBL (W.D. Wash., May 7, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Karin Bornstein Swope, Esq. Mark Adam Griffin, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK 1201 3rd Ave, Ste 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: kswope@kellerrohrback.com mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com PATH INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, "Sterk" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Sterk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Path, Inc., Case No. 2015-CH-08609 (Ill. Cir. Ct., May 29, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unauthorized text message calls to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct. Path, Inc. operates one of the largest social networks in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Ari J. Scharg, Esq. John C. Ochoa, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com ascharg@edelson.com jochoa@edelson.com POLYCOM INC: Court Granted Plaintiffs Leave to Amend Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Polycom, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has dismissed all claims against Polycom and granted plaintiffs leave to amend in a class action lawsuit. On July 26, 2013, a purported shareholder class action, initially captioned Neal v. Polycom Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC, and presently captioned Nathanson v. Polycom, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. On December 13, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead and liaison counsel. On February 24, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. The amended complaint alleged that, between January 20, 2011 and July 23, 2013, the Company issued materially false and misleading statements or failed to disclose information regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies, including with respect to its former Chief Executive Officer's expense submissions and the Company's internal controls. The lawsuit further alleged that the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading. The amended complaint alleged violations of the federal securities laws and sought unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On April 3, 2015, the Court dismissed all claims against Polycom and granted plaintiffs leave to amend. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any range of reasonably possible loss relating to the securities class action. PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Cummings" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Patricia Cummings, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00878- RSM (W.D. Wash., June 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to properly secure and protect its users' sensitive, personally-identifiable information and personal health information from data breach. Premera Blue Cross is a health plan provider headquartered in Montlake Terrace, Washington. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Ide, Esq. IDE LAW OFFICE 7900 SE 28th Street, Suite 500 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Telephone: (206) 625-1326 E-mail: mjide@yahoo.com - and - David E. Bower, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Ave, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (877) 247-4292 E-mail: dbower@faruquilaw.com PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Flint" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Andra Flint, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross, 2:15-cv-00877-RSM (W.D. Wash., June 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to properly secure and protect its users' sensitive, personally- identifiable information and personal health information from data breach. Premera Blue Cross is a health plan provider headquartered in Montlake Terrace, Washington. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Ide, Esq. IDE LAW OFFICE 7900 SE 28th Street, Suite 500 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Telephone: (206) 625-1326 E-mail: mjide@yahoo.com - and - David E. Bower, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Ave, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (877) 247-4292 E-mail: dbower@faruquilaw.com PROGRAM ONE: "Cabrera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Misael Cabrera, Jose Barrera, Ricardo Almaraz, Luis Garcia, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees, known and unknown v. Program One Professional Building Services, Inc., Program One Professional Services, Inc., and Clinton Coronado, Case No. 2015-CH-08635 (Ill. Cir. Ct., May 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Defendants operate one or more commercial window washing companies from a location at or near 960 Rand Road, Des Plaines, Illinois, 60016. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Luka, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PAUL LUKA, P.C. 120 S. State Street, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 971-7309 E-mail: paul@lukapc.com RAYONIER ADVANCED: July 6 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bids ---------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until July 6, 2015 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc. RYAM, -3.97% if they purchased the Company's securities between June 30, 2014 and January 28, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. What You May Do If you purchased shares of Rayonier Advanced and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com). If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by July 6, 2015. About the Lawsuit On June 30, 2014, Rayonier, Inc. spun-off its Performance Fibers Division, resulting in two independent, publicly-traded companies (the "Separation"). Rayonier Advanced and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period and at the time of the Separation, violating federal securities laws. Rayonier Advanced allegedly improperly recorded and/or failed to record on its publicly issued financial statements material liabilities for environmental remediation and related obligations in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and failed to disclose the true demand for its products. Additionally, in connected with the Separation, Rayonier Advanced incurred approximately $950 million of new debt, $906 million of which was distributed to the Company's former parent company. RUBICON TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of Rubicon Technology, Inc. common stock in the Company's public offering on or about March 19, 2014. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Rubicon Technology investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Rubicon Technology class action, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-609.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The lawsuit alleges that the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Offering contained false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material trends, events and uncertainties known to management, which were reasonably expected to materially impact Rubicon Technology's income from continuing operations, including: (1) the reversal of its trend of shrinking losses; (2) higher-than-expected development costs; and (3) inventory write-offs due to Rubicon Technology's inability to sell certain of its wafers during the first quarter of 2014 at prices above their manufacturing cost, which led to an impairment under applicable accounting rules and regulations. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 29, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-609.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Kevin Chan, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com kchan@rosenlegal.com RUBICON TECHNOLOGY: Morgan & Morgan Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Morgan & Morgan disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Rubicon Technology, Inc. on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock in the Company's public offering on or about March 19, 2014 (the "Offering"). If you purchased Rubicon securities during the Class Period, you may, no later than June 29, 2015, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you want more information about the Rubicon Technology, Inc. Securities Class Action, contact Morgan & Morgan at 1(800) 732- 5200 or email info@morgansecuritieslaw.com. Rubicon and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information in connection with the Offering, violating federal securities laws. On May 1, 2014, Rubicon reported disappointing financial results and revealed, among other things, that the trend of shrinking gross losses, operating losses, and losses per share from the prior quarters had dramatically reversed in the first quarter of 2014. Rubicon further states that it had gross losses of $7.5 million, losses from operations of $10.9 million, and losses per share of $0.43. Following this news, the price of Rubicon's shares fell by more than 16%, to close at $8.51 on May 2, 2014. About Morgan & Morgan Morgan & Morgan is one of the nation's largest 200 law firms. In addition to shareholder rights, the firm also practices in the areas of antitrust, personal injury, consumer protection, overtime, and product liability. RUBICON TECHNOLOGY: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., including former Special Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy J. MacFall, disclosed that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Rubicon Technology, Inc. pursuant or traceable to its public offering commenced on or about March 19, 2014 alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company and certain of its officers (the "Complaint"). If you purchased shares of Rubicon in the March 19, 2014 offering, or during the period February 19, 2014 and May 1, 2014, inclusive, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at (888) 969- 4242; by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com; or at: http://is.gd/qPLGdD The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants' public statements and filings, including the Registration Statement issued in connection with March 19, 2014 offering, contained materially false and misleading statements, and/or failed to disclose known material trends, events and/or uncertainties known to management that were reasonably expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's operating income. As a result of defendants' alleged false and misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. According to the Complaint, on May 1, 2014, the Company issued a press release and hosted a conference call to review its first quarter 2014 results. In the release, the Company reported disappointing financial results and revealed previously undisclosed and materially adverse information regarding: (i) the reversal of positive trend of shrinking losses; (ii) higher than expected development costs; (iii) inventory write-off; and (iv) its risky PSS business. On this news, shares in Rubicon plummeted more than 16%, closing at $8.51 per share on May 2, 2014, on extremely high trading volume. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 29, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this matter, the firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. SANDISK CORP: June 22 Trial Date Vacated in Ritz Camera Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ SanDisk Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that a trial date of June 22, 2015, as previously set by the District Court, has since been vacated in the Ritz Camera Federal Antitrust Class Action. On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz") filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "District Court"), alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc. and Eliyahou Harari, former SanDisk Corporation Chief Executive Officer, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures controlled by the Company from June 25, 2006 through the present. The complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained a monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for its competitive use. On February 24, 2011, the District Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss, which resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant. On September 19, 2011, the Company filed a petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the "Federal Circuit") for the portion of the District Court's Order denying the Company's motion to dismiss based on Ritz's lack of standing to pursue Walker Process antitrust claims. On October 27, 2011, the District Court administratively closed the case pending the Federal Circuit's ruling on the Company's petition. On November 20, 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's order denying SanDisk's motion to dismiss. On December 2, 2012, the Federal Circuit issued its mandate returning the case to the District Court. On July 5, 2013, the District Court granted Ritz's motion to substitute in Albert Giuliano, the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz bankruptcy estate, as the plaintiff in this case. On October 1, 2013, the District Court granted the Trustee's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which adds CPM Electronics Inc. and E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. as named plaintiffs. On September 19, 2014, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which adds a cause of action for attempted monopolization and adds MFLASH as a named plaintiff. The plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification, and the Company has filed a motion for summary judgment as to all of the plaintiffs' asserted claims. Both motions are fully briefed and have been taken under submission by the District Court. A trial date of June 22, 2015, as previously set by the District Court, has since been vacated. SANDISK CORP: District Court Stayed Discovery in Antitrust Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- SanDisk Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that the District Court has stayed discovery until after completion of the pleading stage in the Federal Antitrust Class Action Against SanDisk, et al. On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v. SD- 3C LLC, et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "District Court") on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards alleging various claims against the Company, SD-3C, LLC ("SD-3C"), Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Toshiba and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under federal antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act, California antitrust and unfair competition laws, and common law. The complaint seeks an injunction of the challenged conduct, dissolution of "the cooperation agreements, joint ventures and/or cross-licenses alleged herein," treble damages, restitution, disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. The plaintiffs allege that the Company (along with the other members of SD-3C) conspired to artificially inflate the royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards in violation of federal and California antitrust and unfair competition laws, which in turn allegedly caused the plaintiffs to pay higher prices for SD cards. The allegations are similar to, and incorporate by reference the complaint in the Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; and SD-3C LLC described. On May 21, 2012, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed. On May 14, 2014, the appeals court issued a decision reversing the District Court's dismissal on statute of limitations grounds and remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The appeals court denied the defendants' petition for rehearing and issued its mandate to send the case back to the District Court. On December 1, 2014, the defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently denied. On February 3, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in the District Court. On February 27, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which is fully briefed and is set for hearing on May 8, 2015. The District Court has stayed discovery until after completion of the pleading stage. SANDISK CORP: Court Granted Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend ----------------------------------------------------------------- SanDisk Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that the Court has granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, with leave to amend, in the federal securities class action against Fusion-io et al. Beginning on November 19, 2013, Fusion-io and certain of its officers were named in three putative class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Denenberg v. Fusion-io, Inc. et al.; Miami Police Relief & Pension Fund v. Fusion-io, Inc. et al.; Marriott v. Fusion-io, Inc. et al.). Two of the complaints are allegedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of Fusion-io's common stock between August 10, 2012 and October 23, 2013, and one is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers between January 25, 2012 and October 23, 2013. The complaints generally allege violations of the federal securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the alleged class periods. The complaints seek, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. On June 10, 2014, the Court consolidated the cases, appointed a lead plaintiff, and ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint. On August 6, 2014, a consolidated amended complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Fusion-io common stock between October 25, 2012 and October 23, 2013, inclusive. The consolidated complaint generally alleges violations of the federal securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the alleged class period and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. On February 12, 2015, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. SANDISK CORP: Faces "Glore" Class Action in N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------- SanDisk Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that on March 30, 2015, the Company and certain of its officers were named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Glore v. SanDisk Corp. et al.). The complaint is allegedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's securities between October 16, 2014 and March 25, 2015, and alleges violations of federal securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the alleged class period. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. SEARS HOLDINGS: Faces "Solak" Suit Over Real Estate Asset Sales --------------------------------------------------------------- John Solak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sears Holdings Corporation, et al., Case No. 11081 (Del. Ch., May 29, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of Sears to prevent the Defendants from siphoning off one of Sears' last remaining valuable assets, its real estate portfolio, through an unfair process. Sears Holdings Corporation operates a national network of stores with 1,725 full-line and specialty retail stores in the United States operating through Kmart and Sears Roebuck. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter B. Andrews, Esq. Craig J. Springer, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC 3801 Kennett Pike, Building C, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 504-4957 Facsimile: (302) 397-2681 E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com cspringer@andrewsspringer.com SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Acquisition by Sillerman ----------------------------------------------------------- Craig Borchardt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SFX Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 11082 (Del. Ch., May 29, 2015), arises from the proposed acquisition of SFX by Robert F.X. Sillerman for inadequate consideration in negotiation and structure, price, and process. SFX Entertainment, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that owns and operates live entertainment venues. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdr@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com SONY: "Ladore" Class Action Over Playstation Game Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- Rhiannon Nee, writing for Geek Snack, reports that last year, somebody decided to sue Sony for allegedly misrepresenting the details of its Playstation 4 game Killzone: Shadowfall. The plaintiff was a California resident named Douglas Ladore, and he was claiming that Sony had falsely advertised Killzone: Shadowfall's resolution. In May 2015, a US federal court dismissed the case. Ladore's case was filed after the Playstation 4 launch game's multiplayer mode had been found by Eurogamer's Digital Foundry to run at 960 x 1080, as opposed to 1920 x 1080, which is the resolution commonly known as 1080p. Ladore claimed Killzone developer Guerilla Games, which is a subsidiary of Sony, had advertised in videos, social media, and the Killzone website, that the game would run in native 1080p. In multiplayer mode, however, the game ran with what Guerilla Games called "temporal reprojection," which is a sort of technological shortcut to getting games to run at something similar to 1080p. Killzone's website says, "the temporal reprojection technique gave subjectively similar results and it makes certain parts of the rendering process faster." Guerilla claims that most of the time the effect is "identical to a normal 1080p image." Ladore's original complaint charged Sony with, among other things, negligent misrepresentation, false advertisement, unfair competition and fraud and inducement. He sought damages of more than $5 million USD. The case was a class action lawsuit, which meant any damages he won would also have been won on behalf of everybody who had bought Killzone: Shadowfall. Typically, those sorts of cases lead to game owners being refunded a small amount of their purchase. When the case first went to court, Sony tried to have it thrown out right away. But Judge Edward Chen of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California allowed the case to proceed, saying Sony's argument for the case to be thrown out was "premised on an unduly narrow reading of [the] plaintiff's complaint." But according to a court filing, Judge Chen dismissed the case this week, signing "a joint stipulation that dismisses lead plaintiff Douglas Ladore's lawsuit with prejudice." Prejudice is a legal phrase that means the plaintiff cannot file another lawsuit against Sony over this issue again in the future. Both parties have also been ordered to pay their own legal fees. STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Faces "Aiton" Suit Over FDCPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Dawn Aiton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Stoneleigh Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-03296- FLW-DEA (D.N.J., May 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation 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 STUDENT AID: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Abella" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Abella, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Student Aid Center, Inc. and Mozeo, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-03067-SD (E.D. Pa., June 1, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited text messages to consumers' cellular telephones nationwide using an automatic telephone dialing system, without prior express consent. Student Aid Center, Inc. is a Florida corporation that offers student loan consolidation services. Mozeo, LLC is a New York corporation that operates an online platform designed to facilitate bulk SMS text blasting and allow a business to easily reach all of its mobile contact. The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Senoff, Esq. CAROSELLI BEACHLER MCTIERNAN & COLEMAN 1845 Walnut Street, 15th FL Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 609-1350 Facsimile: (215) 609-1351 E-mail: cmcnally@cbmclaw.com SUNNYVALE IMPORTS: Faces "Anorboev" Suit Over Refund Policies ------------------------------------------------------------- Marufjon Anorboev and on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated v. Sunnyvale Imports d/b/a Stevens Creek Hyundai, Hyundai Capital America, d/b/a Hyundai Motor Finance, and Does 1 through 500, inclusive, Case No. 1-15-CV-281256 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 29, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendants' practice of improperly rescinding contracts after the contractual 10-day period and misrepresenting consumers' rights to refunding of down payments. Sunnyvale Imports is a California corporation engaged in the business of buying, repairing and re-selling used vehicles to the general public and, taking vehicles in trade. Hyundai Capital America is a financial institution engaged in the business of holding conditional sale contracts and collecting payments made by consumers pursuant to such contracts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Liberty, Esq. LIBERTY, OTTO & GUILLEN 553 Pilgrim Drive, Suite A Foster City, CA 94404 Telephone: (650) 341-0300 Facsimile: (650) 341-0302 SUPERIOR MAINTENANCE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Victor Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Superior Maintenance of Westchester, Inc., RYB, Inc., SCS Outsourced Services Inc., and Richard Bross, Case No. 705607/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., May 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the New York Labor Law. The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing a variety of cleaning services within the New York Tri-State Area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740-1000 Facsimile: (718) 740-2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Schwarz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Synergetic Communication Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00060- DPM (E.D. Ark., May 12, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell Snow Thompson IV, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC 5235 East Southern Avenue, D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone: (888) 595-9111 Facsimile: (866) 317-2764 E-mail: rthompson@consumerlawinfo.com SYNGENTA SEEDS: Faces "Grain" Suit Over Sale of Viptera Corn ------------------------------------------------------------ Matawan Grain and Feed, Inc. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 27-CV-15-9474 (Minn. Dist. Ct., May 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide an adequate warning to farmers, grain elevators, grain exporters, and the general public regarding the dangers of planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, or otherwise using Viptera corn at the time Viptera corn was sold. Syngenta Seeds, Inc. is engaged in commercial seed business, developing, producing, and selling, through dealers and distributors or directly to growers, a wide range of agricultural products throughout the United States, including corn seed with certain genetically modified traits. The Plaintiff is represented by: William R. Sieben, Esq. SCHWEBEL GOETZ & SIEBEN, P.A. 5120 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-2246 Telephone: (612) 377-7777 E-mail: bsieben@schwebel.com - and - Richard M. Paul III, Esq. Ashlea G. Schwarz, Esq. PAUL McINNES LLP 601 Walnut, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 984-8100 E-mail: paul@paulmcinnes.com ashlea@paulmcinnes.com SYNGENTA SEEDS: Faces "Redman" Suit Over Sale of Viptera Corn ------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas A. Redman v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 27-CV-15-9471 (Minn. Dist. Ct., May 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide an adequate warning to farmers, grain elevators, grain exporters, and the general public regarding the dangers of planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, or otherwise using Viptera corn at the time Viptera corn was sold. Syngenta Seeds, Inc. is engaged in commercial seed business, developing, producing, and selling, through dealers and distributors or directly to growers, a wide range of agricultural products throughout the United States, including corn seed with certain genetically modified traits. The Plaintiff is represented by: William R. Sieben, Esq. SCHWEBEL GOETZ & SIEBEN, P.A. 5120 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-2246 Telephone: (612) 377-7777 E-mail: bsieben@schwebel.com - and - Richard M. Paul III, Esq. Ashlea G. Schwarz, Esq. PAUL McINNES LLP 601 Walnut, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 984-8100 E-mail: paul@paulmcinnes.com ashlea@paulmcinnes.com THRASHER LAW: Faces "Van-Pelt" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA ----------------------------------------------------------- Carolyn Van-Pelt, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Thrasher Law Firm, Case No. 3:15-cv-0329-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., May 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com THUNDER DEMOLITION: "Bruce" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Burce and other similarly situated individuals v. Thunder Demolition, Inc. and Ronny F. Herrera, Case No. 1:15-cv-22086-JLK (S.D. Fla., June 1, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a construction company, having its main place of business in Miami Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anaeli Caridad Petisco, Esq. Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower Suite 2200, 44 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: apetisco@rgpattorneys.com agp@rgpattorneys.com TINDER INC: Sued Over Alleged Age Discrimination Policies --------------------------------------------------------- Allan Candelore, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tinder, Inc., and Does 1 through 50, Case No. BC583162 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 28, 2015), alleges that the Defendant charges consumers who are 30 years of age more than consumers who are less than 30 years old. Tinder, Inc. owns and operates an online dating application named "Tinder". The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly A. Kralowec, Esq. Kathleen Styles Rogers, Esq. Chad A. Sauders, Esq. THE KRALOWEC LAW GROUP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 546-6800 Facsimile: (415) 546-6801 E-mail: kkralwec@kraloweclaw.com krogers@kraloweclaw.com csaunders@kraloweclaw.com - and - Alfred G. Rava, Esq. RAVA LAW FIRM 3667 Voltaire Street San Diego, CA 92106 Telephone: (619) 238-1998 Facsimile: (619) 374-7288 E-mail: alrava@cox.net TPUSA INC: Removed "Murat" Suit to S.D. Florida Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Jean Murat and other similarly situated individuals v. TPUSA, Inc. f/k/a The Answer Group, Inc., Case No. CACE-15-009058, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florid to the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:15-cv-61171-JIC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Melissa Segarra Zinkil, Esq. Sarah Jane Lis, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 222 Lakeview Avenue 4th Floor Esperante Building West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6147 Telephone: (561) 671-3675 Facsimile: (561) 659-6313 E-mail: Melissa.Zinkil@akerman.com sarah.lis@akerman.com - and - Eric Andrew Gordon, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 777 So. Flagler Drive Suite 1100 West Tower West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 671-3651 Facsimile: (561) 659-6313 E-mail: eric.gordon@akerman.com TURNAGE GENERAL: "Sunner" Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Sunner, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Kenneth R. Turnage II General Contractor, Inc., d/b/a K2GC, Inc., Kenneth R. Turnage II, and Does 1-10, Case No. RG15772244 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, restitution, penalties, and other damages pursuant to the California Labor Code. The Defendants own and operate a general contracting firm that provides East Bay homeowners with home remodeling services, repairs, maintenance programs, kitchen and bathroom design, water and fire damage restoration, and emergency repairs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Liu, Esq. THE LIU LAW FIRM, P.C. 324 Day Street San Francisco, CA 94131 Telephone: (415) 896-4260 Facsimile: (415) 231-0011 E-mail: jliu@liulawpc.com UIL HOLDINGS: Five Shareholder Class Actions Filed -------------------------------------------------- UIL Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that following the February 25, 2015 announcement that UIL Holdings had entered into a definitive agreement to combine with a subsidiary of Iberdrola USA, five shareholder putative class action lawsuits were filed in Connecticut Superior Court, beginning on February 27, 2015, against UIL Holdings, its directors, Iberdrola USA and merger sub, alleging breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction. The complaints generally and collectively assert that defendants failed to maximize the value of UIL Holdings, and seek to enjoin the proposed transaction as well as unspecified damages, costs and fees. Service has been accepted by UIL Holdings and its directors in all pending cases. "Insofar as the allegations in these lawsuits can be analyzed by us at this early stage, we believe the claims are without merit and intend to defend the actions vigorously," the Company said. UNITED AIRLINES: Woman Sues for $5 Million ------------------------------------------ Jenn Gidman, writing for Newser.com, reports that on Feb. 21, Cary David paid $7.99, settled back into her seat on a four-hour United Airlines flight from Puerto Rico to Newark, NJ, and got ready to watch some DirecTV programming to pass the time. Except that DirecTV and WiFi services don't work outside the continental US or when the plane is flying above water--a fact the airline neglected to tell her, David alleges in a $5 million federal class-action lawsuit she filed against United, the Record reports. "This information [that the services do not work] is not disclosed to those who purchase DirecTV or WiFi on-board. It is not until after the purchase that the consumer learns he or she will not receive some or all of the service that has been paid for," David's complaint states, per the Asbury Park Press. But United has a completely different take on things, issuing a statement that says her suit doesn't fly. "On our DirecTV-equipped planes, we clearly inform our passengers in writing on the screen before they confirm their purchase that 'Live DIRECTV programming is not available while the aircraft is outside of the continental United States' and that 'Wi-Fi service is available over the continental US,'" the statement reads, per the Road Warrior Voices website. In the meantime, why--as Andrew Bender writing for Forbes queries--is David "creating a federal case" out of her encounter rather than simply asking for her eight bucks back? Because she thinks other people may have been scammed out of their money, too, her lawyer says, prompting her to file the complaint class-action style, per the New York Post. "Defendants have earned millions of dollars, or more, from providing or purporting to . . . . provide in-flight DirecTV and WiFi service," attorney Jennifer Sarnelli writes in the complaint. URBAN OUTFITTERS: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- The National Law Review reports that the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently denied a motion to dismiss filed by Urban Outfitters, Inc. and its senior executives in a securities fraud class action. The court found that the plaintiffs' claims were sufficiently particularized under the heightened pleading standard of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA). The plaintiffs' complaint alleges that in 2013, the defendants made a series of statements to the market suggesting that the company's sales growth in its retail stores was steady, and that it was reducing its use of price markdowns. According to the plaintiffs, in contrast to Urban Outfitters' representations, sales growth was declining, the company was experiencing excess inventory and stores were marking down their prices on merchandise. The plaintiffs relied on a number of "confidential witnesses" who are or were purportedly employees at Urban Outfitters' retail stores. The complaint alleged that these employees were able to observe declining sales figures and increasing markdowns because Urban Outfitters tracked this information in an internal Intranet available to all employees. The court held that the plaintiffs' allegations were sufficiently particularized to survive a motion to dismiss. The court held that, while plaintiffs did not provide details such as the dates on which their confidential witnesses learned of their information, they did provide sufficient details regarding their access to such information through the company's Intranet. Additionally, the court noted that, according to the complaint, one senior executive sold $50 million of stock during the class period, while another officer sold 99 percent of his holdings shortly before the company announced negative results. Cara Salvatore at Law360.com reports that Lead plaintiff David Schwartz alleges the retailer misled investors about its financial performance, failing to disclose its declining sales in the months before a stock drop. U.S. District Judge L. Felipe Restrepo found that the plaintiff identified specific company and executive statements that were allegedly false or misleading, including statements by CEO Richard Hayne. VANTIV LLC: Removed "Nguyen" Suit to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Tuan Nguyen, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Vantiv LLC, Vantiv Inc., and Vantiv Holding LLC, Case No. RG15765753, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv- 02436-LB to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric A. Grover, Esq. KELLER GROVER LLP 1965 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 543-7861 Facsimile: (415) 543-7861 E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com The Defendant is represented by: Ivy A. Okoniewski, Esq. ULMER BERNE, LLP 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 3600 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 658-6500 Facsimile: (312) 658-6501 E-mail: iokoniewski@ulmer.com The Defendant is represented by: Ivy A. Okoniewski, Esq. ULMER BERNE, LLP 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 3600 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 658-6500 Facsimile: (312) 658-6501 E-mail: iokoniewski@ulmer.com VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Rosen Files Class Action Over AlphaSector Fund ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Virtus Allocator Premium AlphaSector Fund Class A, C, and I shares, Virtus AlphaSector Rotation Fund Class A, C, and I shares, Virtus Dynamic AlphaSector Fund Class A, B, C, and I shares, Virtus Global Premium AlphaSector Fund Class A, C, and I shares, and Virtus Premium AlphaSector Fund Class A, C, and I shares between May 8, 2010 and December 22, 2014, inclusive. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for AlphaSector Fund investors under the federal securities laws. To join the AlphaSector Fund class action, go to the website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-610.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Jonathan Stern, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- jstern@rosenlegal.com -- for information on the class action. The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. According to the lawsuit, Virtus Investment Partners, Inc, F-Squared Investments, Inc., and certain of their officers, directors and affiliates issued materially false and misleading statements about the AlphaSector Funds true financial condition and prospects. Specifically, on October 1, 2009, January 28, 2010, January 27, 2011, January 27, 2012 and January 25, 2013, Virtus Opportunity Trust issued registration statements that falsely claimed that F-Squared's AlphaSector strategy had a track record dating back to 2003, when in reality F-Squared did not begin managing money until 2009. Virtus also failed to correct this information in a registration statement issued January 28, 2014. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 7, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-610.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact, Phillip Kim, Esq. or Jonathan Stern, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- jstern@rosenlegal.com WEST ASSET: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lynch" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Lynch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. West Asset Management, Inc. and Pendrick Capital Partners, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00756-JMS-TAB (S.D. Ind., May 11, 2015), arises from the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Angie K. Robertson, Esq. Mary E. Philipps, Esq. David J. Philipps, Esq. PHILIPPS AND PHLIPPS, LTD. 9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One Palos Hills, IL 60465 Telephone: (708) 974-2900 Facsimile: (708) 974-2907 E-mail: angiekrobertson@aol.com mephilipps@aol.com davephilipps@aol.com - and - John Thomas Steinkamp, Esq. JOHN T. STEINKAMP AND ASSOCIATES 5218 S. East Street, Suite E1 Indianapolis, IN 46227 Telephone: (317) 780-8300 Facsimile: (317) 217-1320 E-mail: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com The Defendant West Asset Management, Inc. is represented by: West Asset Management, Inc. PRO SE The Defendant Pendrick Capital Partners, LLC is represented by: Pendrick Capital Partners, LLC PRO SE WHOLE FOODS: Snell & Wilmer's Dwyer Discusses FCRA Suits -------------------------------------------------------- Anne Dwyer at Snell & Wilmer, in an article for JDSupra, reports that does your company run background checks on its employees? Do you pay a third-party to run the reports and trust them to get it right? You may not be as safe as you think you are. Just ask Whole Foods, Paramount Pictures and Michaels. Each of those companies has been hit with a huge national class action regarding background checks in the past few months. Here's the issue: employee background checks are governed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Its requirements are specific and rigorous. In addition, if the employer is located in California, state law imposes additional technical requirements for employee background check forms. If those forms do not comply with the FCRA or California law, it is nearly impossible to defend class action claims on the merits. The plaintiffs' class action bar has figured out that these might be some of the easiest and most lucrative class action lawsuits around. The best way employers can limit their liability, and avoid joining the ranks of employers facing FCRA class actions, is to invest on the front end and make sure their forms and procedures are compliant. Both the FCRA and California law proscribe specific procedures for employers who run consumer reports and investigative consumer reports on applicants or employees. Under the FCRA, a consumer report is broadly defined and includes any report obtained from a consumer reporting agency that bears on a person's credit, character, reputation or personal characteristics. Investigative consumer reports are similar but involve a more intensive investigation with personal interviews. Under California law, however, investigative consumer reports are defined as a consumer report containing information on a person's character, general reputation, personal characteristics and mode of living (but not credit) obtained through any means. Before obtaining what the FCRA defines as a "consumer report" and what California law defines as an "investigative consumer report," the employer must notify the applicant or employee of its intent and obtain their written consent. This disclosure must be a separate and conspicuous writing. California law further requires that the disclosure inform the applicant or employee that a report will be made about the person's character, general reputation, personal characteristics and/or mode of living. It must state the report's permissible purpose and the nature and scope of the investigation. It must also provide the third-party agency's name, address, telephone number and Internet address. Additionally, the disclosure must provide specific information about the person's rights to obtain information regarding the investigative report, including that they can view the file maintained by the consumer reporting agency, obtain a copy of the file by mail or in person, or obtain a summary of the report over the telephone. Finally, under California law the disclosure form must contain a check box where the applicant or employee can request a copy of any report that is prepared on them. All of these disclosures must be made to the applicant or employee before the employer requests a third-party agency run a background check. The employer must then certify to the third-party agency that it has made all the applicable disclosures. Afterwards, if an employer decides to take adverse action against the person as a result of the report, the FCRA and California law impose additional requirements, including providing additional disclosures and a copy of the report to the applicant or employee, before any adverse action is taken. These hyper-technical disclosure requirements are easy to misinterpret and employers should not assume that third-party agencies hired to provide the forms will get them right. Moreover, other states have enacted their own fair credit reporting laws with separate and distinct disclosure requirements. Unless you have an indemnification from the third-party agency that you use, and hint, most companies do not, the employer is typically responsible for any violations, even if the violation is caused by the forms given to you by the agency. To avoid facing costly class action lawsuits alleging violations of either the FCRA or state law, employers should take it upon themselves now to ensure the forms they use are compliant. WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Supreme Court Upheld Ninth Circuit Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Ninth Circuit ruling that revived state law claims in multi-district litigation against Energy, Inc. (WPX) and others. Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states filed class actions against WPX, and others alleging the manipulation of published gas price indices and seeking unspecified amounts of damages. Such actions were transferred to the Nevada federal district court for consolidation of discovery and pre-trial issues. In 2011, the Nevada district court granted WPX's joint motions for summary judgment to preclude the plaintiffs' state law claims because the federal Natural Gas Act gives the FERC exclusive jurisdiction to resolve those issues. The court also denied the plaintiffs' class certification motion as moot. The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling and on April 10, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court and remanded the cases to the district court to permit the plaintiffs to pursue their state antitrust claims for natural gas sales that were not subject to FERC jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act. On April 21, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Ninth Circuit ruling that revived state law claims in multi-district litigation against WPX and others, rejecting arguments that the claims are preempted by the Natural Gas Act. The U.S. Supreme Court remanded the cases to the Nevada district court for further proceedings. "Because of the uncertainty around the remaining pending unresolved issues, including an insufficient description of the purported classes and other related matters, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential exposures at this time," the Company said. "However, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these items and our related indemnification obligation could result in future charges that may be material to our results of operations. In connection with this indemnification, we have an accrued liability balance associated with this matter, and as a result, have an indirect exposure to future developments in this matter." WILLIAMS COMPANIES: First Trial for Certain Plaintiffs Begins ------------------------------------------------------------- The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that multiple lawsuits, including class actions for alleged offsite impacts, property damage, customer claims, and personal injury, have been filed against the Company. The Company said, "The first trial for certain plaintiffs claiming approximately $45 million in personal injury damages is set to begin on June 15, 2015 in Iberville Parish, Louisiana. For these and all other unsettled lawsuits, in the event of an adverse ruling, we intend to appeal and we expect any ultimate losses to be covered by our general liability insurance policy, which has an aggregate annual limit of $610 million and retention (deductible) of $2 million per occurrence." "For these matters, we believe it is reasonably possible that losses will be incurred. However, due to ongoing litigation concerning defenses to liability, the number of individual plaintiffs, limited information as to the nature and extent of all plaintiffs' damages, and the ultimate outcome of all appeals, we are unable to reliably estimate a range of reasonably possible loss at this time. We believe that it is probable that any ultimate losses incurred will be covered by insurance." WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Appeal in Alaska Refinery Case Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that an appeal in the Alaska refinery contamination litigation is pending. The Company said, "In 2010, James West filed a class action lawsuit in state court in Fairbanks, Alaska on behalf of individual property owners whose water contained sulfolane contamination allegedly emanating from the Flint Hills Oil Refinery in North Pole, Alaska. The suit named our subsidiary, Williams Alaska Petroleum Inc. (WAPI), and Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC (FHRA), a subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., as defendants. We owned and operated the refinery until 2004 when we sold it to FHRA. We and FHRA made claims under the pollution liability insurance policy issued in connection with the sale of the North Pole refinery to FHRA. We and FHRA also filed claims against each other seeking, among other things, contractual indemnification alleging that the other party caused the sulfolane contamination." "In 2011, we and FHRA settled the James West claim. We and FHRA subsequently filed motions for summary judgment on the other's claims. On July 8, 2014, the court dismissed all FHRA's claims and entered judgment for us. On August 6, 2014, FHRA appealed the court's decision to the Alaska Supreme Court. "We currently estimate that our reasonably possible loss exposure in this matter could range from an insignificant amount up to $32 million, although uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, expert evaluations, and jury dynamics might cause our exposure to exceed that amount." WORLD FUEL: Quebec Judge Authorized Lac Megantic Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Rakobowchuk, writing for Montreal New, reports that a Quebec Superior Court justice has authorized a class-action lawsuit almost two years after a train derailment and explosion killed 47 people in Lac-Megantic, Que. But in his 30-page ruling, Justice Martin Bureau has given the plaintiffs permission to go after only two companies -- World Fuel Services and Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. The lawsuit alleges that CPR was negligent and there was a lack of prudence in all circumstances leading up to the tragedy. The exact amount being sought will be determined at a later date. Initially, the legal action targeted 37 different parties, including Irving Oil Ltd., the now-bankrupt Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railway and its former president, Edward Burkhardt. But in the weeks following the tragedy in July 2013, some of the parties sought protection from creditors and also filed a request to have the lawsuit suspended. That suspension is still in effect and means they couldn't take part in the lawsuit hearings. Bureau noted that the parties are also working out arrangements with creditors and the victims. In authorizing the class-action lawsuit, the judge listed 12 issues that will be dealt with when it is finally heard, including whether World Fuel and CPR knew that the fuel being transported was poorly identified. The lawsuit was filed by three-Lac Megantic residents -- Guy Ouellet, Serge Jacques and Louis-Serge Parent -- on behalf of all the victims. In January, victims of the rail disaster reached a major financial settlement with Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Canada Co. A U.S. lawyer who worked on the wrongful-death lawsuits said $200 million will be distributed in settlement funds to families of those who died as well as other parties involved in the legal battle. The settlement involves Montreal Maine and Atlantic Canada Co., its insurance carrier, rail-car manufacturers and some oil producers. A runaway train hauling tanker cars loaded with volatile crude oil broke loose and barrelled into the town of 6,000 in the early morning hours of July 6, 2013, before derailing and exploding. It set off several massive blasts and wiped out a big part of the downtown core. Three railway employees have each been charged with 47 counts of criminal negligence causing death. Their trial date is to be set Sept. 8. WRIGHT MEDICAL: Facing 4 Class Actions Over Tornier Merger ---------------------------------------------------------- Wright Medical Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on November 25, 2014, two purported Wright shareholders, Anthony Marks (as Trustee for Marks Clan Super) and Paul Parshall, filed class action complaints challenging the proposed merger with Tornier N.V. (Tornier) in the Chancery Court of Shelby County Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District, at Memphis and the Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware, respectively. On November 26, 2014, a third purported Wright shareholder, City of Warwick Retirement System, filed a class action complaint challenging the proposed merger in the Circuit Court of Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District, at Memphis. On December 2, 2014, a fourth purported Wright shareholder, Paulette Jacques, filed a class action complaint challenging the proposed merger in the Chancery Court of Shelby County Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District, at Memphis. The four complaints name as defendants, among others, Wright, Tornier, and the members of the board of directors of Wright. The complaints seek, among other relief, an order enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award of attorneys' fees and costs on the grounds that the Wright board or directors breached their fiduciary duty in connection with entering into the merger agreement and approving the merger. The complaints further allege that Wright, Tornier, and certain of their respective subsidiaries aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Wright board of directors. It is possible that these complaints will be amended to make additional claims and/or that additional lawsuits making similar or additional claims relating to the merger will be brought. WRIGHT MEDICAL: Expects More Suits Over Hip Replacement Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wright Medical Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Wright Medical Technology, Inc. (WMT) has been named as a defendant, in some cases with multiple other defendants, in lawsuits in which it is alleged that as yet unspecified defects in the design, manufacture or labeling of certain metal-on-metal hip replacement products rendered the products defective. The lawsuits generally employ similar allegations that use of the products resulted in excessive metal ions and particulate in the patients into whom the devices were implanted, in most cases resulting in revision surgery. "We anticipate that additional lawsuits relating to metal on metal hip replacement products may be brought," the Company said. Because of the similar nature of the allegations made by several plaintiffs whose cases were pending in federal courts, upon motion of one plaintiff, Danny L. James, Sr., the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in February 2012 transferred certain actions pending in the federal court system related to metal on metal hip replacement products to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, for consolidated pre-trial management of the cases before a single United States District Court Judge (the MDL). The consolidated matter is known as In re: Wright Medical Technology, Inc. Conserve Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation. Certain plaintiffs have elected to file their lawsuits in state courts in California. In doing so, most of those plaintiffs have named a surgeon involved in the design of the allegedly defective products as a defendant in the actions, along with his personal corporation. Pursuant to contractual obligations, Wright Medical has agreed to indemnify and defend the surgeon in those actions. Similar to the MDL proceeding in federal court, because the lawsuits generally employ similar allegations, certain of those pending lawsuits in California were consolidated for pretrial handling on May 14, 2012 pursuant to procedures of California state Judicial Counsel Coordinated Proceedings. The consolidated matter is known as In re: Wright Hip Systems Cases, Judicial Counsel Coordination Proceeding No. 4710. There are other individual lawsuits related to metal on metal hip products pending in various state courts. WRIGHT MEDICAL: Defendant in 34 Lawsuits Over PROFEMUR(R) --------------------------------------------------------- Wright Medical Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of February 15, 2015, the Company is a defendant in 34 lawsuits in various state and federal courts involving claims for damages for personal injury associated with fractures of the Company's PROFEMUR(R) long titanium modular neck product. YAHOO INC: Illegally Discloses User's Email Contents, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kaylynn Rehberger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Yahoo, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00609 (S.D. Ill., June 2, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's interception and scanning of electronic mail communications sent between its Yahoo Mail users and non-Yahoo Mail users, and disclosure of the intercepted content without the consent of all parties to the communication. Yahoo, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates a free electronic mail service known as "Yahoo Mail." The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq. Kevin P. Green, Esq. GOLDENBERG HELLER ANTOGNOLI & ROWLAND, P.C 2227 South State Route 157 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-5150 E-mail: tom@ghalaw.com kevin@ghalaw.com ZEOBIT LLC: Suit Over MacKeeper Security Program Being Settled -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Kirk, writing for PC World, reports that MacKeeper, a utility and security program for Apple computers, celebrated its fifth birthday in April. But its gift to U.S. consumers who bought the application may be a slice of a $2 million class-action settlement. Released in 2010, MacKeeper has been dogged by accusations that it exaggerates security threats in order to convince customers to buy. Its aggressive marketing has splashed MacKeeper pop-up ads all over the web. The program was originally created by a company called ZeoBIT in Kiev, Ukraine. The country -- full of young, smart programmers -- has long been a hub for lower-cost software development and outsourcing. The class-action suit, filed in May 2014 on behalf of Pennsylvania resident Holly Yencha, contends that MacKeeper falsely flagged security and performance problems in order to coax consumers into paying $39.95 for the full version. The suit sought $5 million in damages. It is close to being settled, according to recent documents filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Under the settlement terms, ZeoBIT would put $2 million into a fund for those who want a refund, but admit no fault, which is customary in such settlements. It has yet to be approved by a judge. MacKeeper was wildly lucrative for ZeoBIT. As many as 650,000 consumers bought it in the U.S., according to documents filed in the suit. At $39.95 per copy, ZeoBIT would have made $26 million in revenue in the U.S. alone. New Owners, Same problems? In April 2013, ZeoBIT, which now lists its headquarters as Sunnyvale, California, sold MacKeeper to a company called Kromtech Alliance Corp. Kromtech was closely affiliated with ZeoBIT in Ukraine, and many employees of ZeoBIT transferred to the company, which lists its headquarters as Cologne, Germany. Jeremiah Fowler, MacKeeper's U.S.-based spokesman, said that Kromtech has toned down its warnings, but defended the program's evaluations. "Sure, it may not be this massive amount of data, but these are things that you'll never use," Fowler said. "You'll probably never activate Chinese." Fowler pointed out that there is a pop-up window with more information on one of the warning screens. That message justified the warnings and said MacKeeper found "a relatively large amount of unneeded files" that could eventually affect a computer's performance or security. Ad Behavior MacKeeper has also taken heat for aggressive and pervasive advertising. Fowler said the company buys upwards of 60 million ad impressions a month, making it one of the largest buyers of web traffic aimed at Mac users. MacKeeper has even posted a statement on its website to answer why people see its ads so often. It has also had issues with some affiliate advertisers, who were attracted by the 50 percent commissions Kromtech pays for sales of MacKeeper. Some affiliates have wrapped MacKeeper ads into advertising software programs, or adware. It's a category of much-loathed tools that offer some functionality such as search but are primarily designed to deliver ads. Thomas Reed, who writes The Safe Mac blog, discovered the reach of MacKeeper affiliates. Reed developed a program called AdwareMedic, which removes adware from Macs. The program is free. Reed wrote in November that he found an adware program called Downlite that, if installed on a Mac, would redirect someone to MacKeeper's website site if they tried to download AdwareMedic. Kromtech has taken steps to reign in unethical affiliates, Fowler said. More than 80 percent of ZeoBIT's affiliate agreements have since been suspended, and the company's new compliance department closely vets new ones. Still, the bad practices of former affiliates caused damage to MacKeeper's reputation, Fowler said. These days, MacKeeper has gone to a subscription-based pricing model rather than a $39.95 one-off payment. It costs $7.95 a month in the U.S. for the premium, year-long plan. Its latest feature is offering phone support from Apple-certified technicians, which it calls Human Inside. On its website, MacKeeper assigns a value to each of its tools, contending the bundle would be worth $510 if bought individually. "Save up to 97 percent," it says. But many of the tools in the software bundle, which includes an antivirus (AV) scanner and 15 other utilities, are already in OS X or available for free. For example, MacKeeper licenses technology in its AV scanner from Germany-based Avira, which offers its Mac security product for free. On its pricing page, MacKeeper estimates the value of an AV scanner at $79. Curiously, MacKeeper doesn't offer updates or what's called real- time protection -- where files that are downloaded or opened are scanned for malware -- unless the customer buys its "premium" version, according to Dennis Technology Labs, which also tested MacKeeper for IDG News Service. Avira's free Mac AV product "includes updates and real-time protection," the labs noted. Other MacKeeper tools already have an equivalent in OS X. MacKeeper's file shredder tool, listed as a $10 value, replicates "secure empty trash," built into OS X. The "default apps" tool is similar to Apple's Finder. When asked about the duplication, Fowler contended that MacKeeper is designed to provide one interface for utilities for less technical people who aren't familiar with Apple computers. For what it's worth, Macworld has two how-tos on uninstalling MacKeeper from your Mac and squashing its popups too. Kromtech continues to market the program aggressively and participated at the Macworld conference last year and the Consumer Electronics Show in January in Las Vegas. Over five years, 20 million copies of MacKeeper have been sold, Kromtech claims. But ZeoBIT's proposed settlement over MacKeeper doesn't include Kromtech as a released party, which means it could be targeted by future lawsuits. Edelson PC, a technology focused law firm that filed the suit, said it could not comment. * Herrick Feinstein Discusses Early Bids to Strike Class Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald J. Levine, David R. King and Leah Kelman, at Herrick, Feinstein LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that in recent years, federal courts around the country have shifted their view on early motions to dismiss or strike class allegations. The courts are not wedded to the long-standing view that preemptive, pre-discovery motions to strike class allegations are premature. Often accompanying defendants' Rule 12 motions to dismiss, an early motion to strike class allegations can be, if successful, case determinative, saving substantial time, money and defendant resources. While many courts still fall back to the traditional rule, other courts have permitted proactive motions attacking class allegations at the beginning of a case to allow swift resolution of dubious class claims. A review of recent New Jersey federal court decisions considering early motions to strike class allegations shows that the law is clearly in flux and remains an area to monitor in the short term. The federal rules offer several procedural avenues for attacking class allegations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(A) provides that the court must -- "[a]t an early practicable time" -- determine by order whether to certify the action as a class action. Further, Rule 12(f) permits a motion to strike "an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." The federal rules also allow that a "court may issue orders that . . . require that the pleadings be amended to eliminate allegations about representation of absent persons and that the action proceed accordingly." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d)(1)(D). Movants inevitably face the defense that "[i]n most cases, some level of discovery is essential to [the class certification] evaluation." Landsman & Funk v. Skinder-Strauss Assocs., 640 F.3d 72, 93 n.30 (3d Cir. 2011) (holding that it is premature for a district court to decide class certification issues prior to discovery unless the "complaint itself demonstrates that the requirements for maintaining a class action cannot be met"). The need for precertification discovery, however, can give way when the insufficiency of class allegations is clearly apparent from the face of the complaint. Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., 789 F.2d 181, 188 (3d Cir. 1986) ("a court should not grant a motion to strike . . . unless the insufficiency . . . is clearly apparent." (internal quotes omitted)); Advanced Acupuncture Clinic v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4056244, at *7 (D.N.J. Aug. 26, 2008) ("A defendant may move to strike class allegations prior to discovery in rare cases where the complaint itself demonstrates that the requirements for maintaining a class action cannot be met"). Recent decisions in New Jersey have come down on both sides of this issue, with several adhering to the convention that courts should reject early motions to strike as premature: -- Jones v. SCO, Silver Care Operations, 2014 WL 5410627 (D.N.J. Oct. 23, 2014) (denying defendants motion to preemptively strike class claims and finding that any challenge defendants have to the certification of collective and class-action claims may be advanced once that issue is presented to the court); -- Naider v. A-1 Limousine, 2014 WL 5025921, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 8, 2014) (denying the defendant's preemptive request to strike collective and class-action claims at the motion to dismiss stage, finding that the plaintiff's collective action allegations were "enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level" that would lead to the discovery of other similarly situated employees); -- Dobkin v. Enter. Fin. Grp., 2014 WL 4354070 (D.N.J. Sept. 3, 2014) (finding defendant's challenge to plaintiff's class action allegations, which preceded a motion for certification as well as any pre-certification discovery, premature); -- In re Paulsboro Derailment Cases, 2014 WL 1371712, at *6 (D.N.J. Apr. 8, 2014) (finding defendant's motion to strike premature; class certification decision is more appropriate on a "full record"); -- Weske v. Samsung Elecs., Am., 934 F. Supp. 2d 698, 706-07 (D.N.J. 2013) ("[N]umerous cases . . . have emphatically denied requests to strike class allegations at the motion to dismiss stage as procedurally premature"); Other courts have rejected the convention and considered attacks on certification at the earliest stages of a case: -- Piemonte v. Viking Range, 2015 WL 519144 (D.N.J. Feb. 9, 2015) (dismissing class-action allegations with respect to the Product Liability Act when plaintiff failed to adequately allege predominance); -- Donachy v. Intrawest U.S. Holdings, 2012 WL 869007, at *10 (D.N.J. Mar. 14, 2012) (while not reaching defendant's motion to dismiss the class allegations because the court dismissed each of plaintiffs' individual claims, noting in the interest of judicial economy that "it is highly skeptical of the suitability of plaintiffs' claims for class treatment" because the court found it unlikely that plaintiffs would satisfy the predominance and superiority requirements to certify a class); -- Green v. Green Mtn. Coffee Roasters, 279 F.R.D. 275 (D.N.J. 2011) (concluding on a motion to strike, even though plaintiff had yet to move for class certification, that plaintiff could not represent the class because he did not meet the predominance requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)); -- Smith v. Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuius, 2008 WL 2885887, at *5- 6 (D.N.J. July 23, 2008) ("[i]t appears from the face of the complaint that this class cannot satisfy the predominance requirement"); -- Innovative Physical Therapy v. Metlife Auto & Home, 2008 WL 4067316 (D.N.J. Aug. 26, 2008) (preemptively striking the class when Rule 23(a)'s adequacy requirement and Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance and superiority requirements not satisfied). McPeak v. S-L Distribution Co., 2014 WL 4388562, at *7 (D.N.J. Sept. 5, 2014), provides a good example of a well-reasoned approach to the issue. In McPeak, the court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that a motion to strike had to be rejected as premature. Instead, the court analyzed each of Rule 23's requirements for a class action. Only after conducting that analysis did the court find that the plaintiff was entitled to discovery and deny the motion to strike. Likewise, in Forst v. Live Nation Entertainment, 2015 WL 858314 (D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2015), the plaintiffs claimed that as a result of the defendant event promoter's unlawful conduct in withholding blocks of ticket sales from the general public, they were forced to pay substantially higher prices than face value for their tickets on the secondary market. The suit was brought as a class action and included "all persons who . . . could not afford to purchase tickets to the concerts at a ticket price that is higher than the face value of the ticket." The defendants moved to dismiss and also sought to strike the class allegations. The court recognized that while plaintiffs are typically entitled to discovery relating to Rule 23's class-certification requirements, there are rare cases in which no amount of discovery can correct deficiencies. In such cases, courts may grant prediscovery motions to strike or dismiss class allegations. In Forst, the court concluded that nonpurchasers of tickets had to be stricken from the class because such persons were not ascertainable. Citing Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300, 303- 04 (3d Cir. 2013), the court noted that a class is not ascertainable if "class members are impossible to identify without extensive and individualized fact-finding or mini-trials." Id. at *5. The plaintiffs trumpeted that discovery was needed, but the court disagreed -- "no amount of discovery would make non- purchasers ascertainable under Rule 23." Id. at *6. The court struck, with prejudice, the nonpurchasers from the plaintiffs' proposed class. With the claimed need for discovery often touted by plaintiffs as a basis to deny certification or attack a denial on appeal, some courts have been creative in harmonizing plaintiffs' demands for certification discovery in cases in which class allegations appear weak on their face. In Smith v. Merial Limited, for example, a case involving putative class claims alleging that plaintiffs' pets were harmed by chemicals in flea and tick prevention products, on defendants' motion to dismiss and strike the class allegations, the court aired its "serious concerns that plaintiffs can ever meet the certification requirements of R. 23(b)" even though a motion to certify the class was not yet pending. 2012 WL 2020361, at *4 (D.N.J. June 5, 2012). The court was concerned that the variances in the applicable states' laws would create manageability issues rendering class certification inappropriate. Recognizing that it had the authority to strike class claims out of the gate, the court weighed its "responsibility to thoroughly scrutinize whether the requirements of Rule 23 are satisfied." The court accelerated briefing on specific class issues and requested presentation of the limited discovery, which was already produced in a related case, and reserved ruling on the dispositive motions to bring the class allegations to the fore. This approach allowed the court to address the class allegations at the outset, and would have negated an argument by the plaintiff on appeal that it was prejudiced on the certification motion by a lack of discovery. In the wake of appellate decisions such as Carrera v. Bayer Corp.; Marcus v. BMW of North America; Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores; and Grandalski v. Quest Diagnostics, which enhance the stringency of class-action requirements, and with courts affording serious consideration to preemptive motions to strike, defendants facing class claims in the Third Circuit should evaluate moving to defeat class certification as early as practicable. * McCarthy Tetrault Discusses Book on Class Action Euro-Style ------------------------------------------------------------- John P. Brown and Brandon Kain at McCarthy Tetrault LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that in 2012 the British Institute of International and Comparative Law was awarded a grant by the European Commission to conduct a study on class action mechanisms in different European Union Member States (which are referred to as collective redress regimes in Europe). In March 2015 BIICL published its long awaited work Collective Redress in Europe -- Why and How? This text is a comprehensive review of class action regimes and issues in Europe. One of the chapters -- Cross-Border Actions for Collective Redress -- Some Lessons from Canada -- provides a distinctly Canadian perspective on these issues. The co-authors John P. Brown and Brandon Kain consider the European Commission's policy paper on collective redress regimes, which was published in June 2013 after a lengthy, contentious, controversial and tortuous political process. The policy paper contains proposals for addressing the violation of rights granted under European Union law including a non-binding Recommendation "on common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in Member States." As is the case with many political compromises, the Recommendation satisfied almost no one. The Recommendation does not require Member States to implement class action regimes or otherwise reform their existing legal systems, it only urges them to do so. Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the Recommendation is the adoption of an opt-in rather than an opt-out model for class action regimes. The focus of the chapter is on how the European Commission's preference for an opt-in model will affect issues such as (a) jurisdiction and the enforceability of class action judgments in other countries, (b) the need for similar class action regimes in the Member States, and (c) the need for cooperation and coordination between courts in Member States in cross-border proceedings. These issues are examined through the lens of Canadian class action experience with a view to offering insights into the challenges Member States will likely face when they begin implementing opt-in class action regimes. Canadian lawyers, judges and lawmakers have been dealing with cross-border ?class actions for over twenty years. In the process they have identified many of the key problems that such actions can create and they continue to struggle, mostly on an ad hoc basis, to find solutions for the issues of jurisdiction and enforceability as they arise. Some viable solutions have been identified which are largely dependent on the existence of similar class action or collective redress regimes between countries. These solutions also require cooperation and coordination between courts in the different countries in order to address competing and/or overlapping class actions. Canada's experience in this area can therefore be quite relevant to the European Union and its independent Member States. * McGuireWoods' Trask Discusses HR 1927 --------------------------------------- Andrew Trask at McGuireWoods LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that since HR 1927 was introduced, there has been an outcry that it will "kill the class action." In fact, opponents (among them Professors Alexandra Lahav, Samuel Issacharoff (Issacharoff HR1927 Letter), and Arthur Miller (Miller HR1927 Letter)) have complained that it was specifically designed to do so. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the bill was specifically designed to have a minimal impact on Rule 23. So how did the disconnect between the intent and the reaction occur? I thought it would be worth walking through the criticisms of the bill so far, and what is actually going on. No more civil rights class actions. Critics have misread the bill's provision to ban any injury that is not to person or property. The criticism is that this would ban any injury that doesn't fall into these narrow categories. If this criticism were accurate, I'd oppose the bill myself. But it's not. It's based on a misreading. The definition of "injury" in this case is only for the purposes of determining when a court must make the inquiry and whether proof is required. If a type of injury was not specified, the bill doesn't affect it. So civil rights class actions (like Brown v. Board of Education), or statutory damages class actions (like those arising under FCRA) are not affected by the bill. (Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.) It is possible that the current language is more ambiguous than I think, in which case Congress can fix it. And if they don't, it is also within a court's powers to give the statute its intended, more restrictive meaning. The bill requires identical injuries. According to the critics, if one class member is injured in the amount of $2, and another for $3, then one cannot certify a class. This is an overly restrictive reading of "type and extent." Extent does not mean "exact quantity." It means "general amount." If I'm wrong, and this is a genuine issue, this is another place where a simple language change would solve the problem the critics have identified. Perhaps to "scope" or "scale." It will require full-blown trials before certification. The language in the bill is "proof by admissible evidence." This was drafted to track the language of various recent Supreme Court cases. So HR 1927 no more requires a full-blown trial on the merits than the Supreme Court has. Even if this were new, it's aimed at a narrow issue: whether the injury suffered by the named plaintiffs matches the injury suffered by the class. "Admissible evidence" includes documents produced by the defendant, affidavits, deposition testimony, and expert testimony -- all evidence already offered in a rigorous certification inquiry. It's a class-action killer. I've been over this criticism many, many times. The PSLRA did not kill the securities class action. CAFA did not kill the class action. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes didn't kill it. Nor did Comcast Corp. v. Behrend. (In fact, Comcast inspired judicial retrenchment.) I know Congress is polarized. And I know that means any bill generated by one side will inspire knee-jerk suspicion from the other side. But it is still possible to have an honest, rigorous debate about these issues. H.R. 1927 was designed to take care of the kind of situation found in Whirlpool and Pella. If plaintiffs' lawyers find those cases acceptable, they can defend then. But the same old rhetoric about how any proposed reform will kill the class action is tired and inaccurate. We're all better than that, aren't we? * South African Banks at Risk of Suits Over Home Foreclosures ------------------------------------------------------------- Shanti Aboobaker, writing for iOL News, reports that a class- action lawsuit to force banks to stop repossessing the homes of South Africans and then selling them off at a fraction of their value is expected to be heard in the high court. Fifty people, represented by Housing Class Action, are taking the country's four major banks, Nedbank, Absa, Standard Bank and FNB, to court. They want either their repossessed property returned or substantial monetary compensation. While banks often reject allegations that they care little for ordinary South Africans, the human rights group says it has records of houses being sold for R200 or R300, with the worst case being a house sold for R10. "In most cases, properties are sold for 30 percent below market value," the organization said. It has taken on the services of advocate Duncan Shaw, a specialist in banking law from Scotland. "This matter may become a class action whereby the banks might have to pay back everyone in the country in the same position," said the organisation, which is linked to the Financial Services Sector Campaign. It said Shaw had studied the practices in other countries and found that most -- if not all -- the other countries require banks to sell repossessed homes at market value. It said that despite the constitution and the country's laws, the judiciary, sheriffs and the police acted contrary to the law in most cases. "Whatever the law and the constitution say in defence of the people, in real, practical terms, working-class black people do not have the right to own property in certain areas in South Africa in 2015," the organization said. It also plans on hauling other institutions to court which it believes have acted negligently in allowing the repossession to take place and the homes to be sold for less than their market value. The group's spokesman, Ian Beddowes, said they had put together a 200-page submission, but a court date had not been set. "We've been up against syndicates which involve the courts, the police -- people don't want to deal with the issue of evictions. Most evictions are illegal and against the laws of South Africa," Beddowes said. "In South Africa, we have one of the most predatory banking systems in the world. The banks consistently do not comply with the provisions of the act that deals with repossessions." Absa rejected the allegation that it was selling repossessed homes far below market value. "As we have said previously, Absa does its utmost to ensure that our customers remain in their homes. With regard to sale in execution, auctions are a last resort after the bank has exhausted all possible rehabilitation solutions and resources available to the bank to recover the bad debt," the bank said. It said it had established a program in 2011 to assist financially distressed home-owners to sell their properties privately before having the bank get involved. "This programme is aimed at ensuring the highest possible price for the property is reached, as it is clearly in our and our customer's best interest." FNB Home Loans head of operations Calvin Ndlovu said that if a property was purchased at a public auction, it was auctioned by the sheriff on behalf of the court. "The bank has no authority over the auction process and therefore refers you to the sheriff's department involved in the particular claim(s) made," Ndlovu said. ********* 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 * * *