/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150618.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, June 18, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 121 Headlines AAA CARTING: "Larosa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ABLE HEALTH: Sued in S.D. New York for Firing Pregnant Employee ACTIVE POWER: Class Action Settlement Still Awaits Final Approval ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Action Over Marketing Expense Item ALON BLUE: Bid to Withdraw Claim Over Sanitarian Standards Okayed ALON BLUE: Claim Over Spidomat Approved as Class Action ALON BLUE: Faces Suit Over Product & Service Regulation Order ALON BLUE: Court Approved Settlement in Suit Against Oil Firms ALON BLUE: Still Faces Action Over Production Date Labels ALON BLUE: Bid to Withdraw Claim Over Failure to Comply Approved ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Discount Prices ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Action Over Higher Diesel Prices ALON BLUE: Still Faces Suit Over Video Shooting & Sound Recording ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Suit Over Lowest Prices Promo AMERICAN LAFRANCE: Former Workers Settle Suit for $671,000 AMERICAN MEDICAL: July 28 Mesh Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ARTISTIC CONCRETE: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ASCENSION HEALTH: Settlement Reached in Church Plan Lawsuit ATLANTIC STATE: "Cruz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages AVALON BAY: Removed "Silva" Class Suit to C.D. California BAHAMAS ELECTRICITY: Manager Slams 'Fraud by Hindsight' Claim BALTIMORE, MD: Family Seeks Probe in Johnson "Rough Ride" Case BANCO SANTANDER: "Ranieri" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Allen" Suit Over FX-Price Manipulation BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in Cal. Over Unlawful Banking Practices BLUE CROSS: Faces "Kondell" Class Suit in Florida District Court BLUE CROSS: Data Breach Class Pushes to Return to State Court BOEING CO: To Pay $90 Million to Settle Lawsuit Over Benefits BRAHMIN RECORDS: Removed "Perez" Class Suit to S.D. California CANADA: Suit Over Parental Leave Wins Certification CANADIAN HEATING: June 2016 Deadline Set for Settlement Claims CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Customer Sues for Lost Cable Signal CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Class Action Waivers Violate NLRA CHESWICK GENERATING: Class Allegations Struck in Pollution Suit CHESWICK GENERATING: Class Action Against Power Plant Dropped CIK RESTAURANT: Faces "Preciado" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT COBB & COLE: Sued in Fla. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act CONNECTICUT: Judiciary Committee Approves Settlement CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Removed "Gibson" Suit to W.D. Oklahoma CONTROLADORA VUELA: Facing Class Action Over 2013 IPO COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Court Enters Judgment in "Wallace" Class Action COURTESY VALET: Faces "McGraw" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CVS PHARMACY: Sued Over Alleged Racial Discriminatory Practices DIVERSE FUNDING: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Strikes Fail-Safe Class Definitions EBAY INC: Lawsuit Over 2014 Cyber-Attack Dismissed ELBIT IMAGING: Hearing This Month on Israeli Supreme Court Appeal ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action ENERGY CORP: Bid for Accounting at Law in "Pollock" Case Denied ENSIGN UNITED STATES: Faces "Watt" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ESPAR INC: Faces Guay Bros. Suit Over Parking Heater-Price Fixing ESPRESSO BAR: Israeli Court Allows Suit Over Exposure to Smoking EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Intends to Contest Claims in MERS Case EVERDRY WATERPROOFING: Suit Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA FINGER ONE: Moves "Moore" Suit to Southern District of California FLASH FOODS: Faces "Novinger" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA FORMULA SYSTEMS: Matrix & Formula Have Yet to Respond to Request FORT BEND: Faces Class Action Over Truancy Policy FXCM INC: July 7 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Applications FXCM INC: Faces Customer Suit for Inflating Stock Price G. WILLI-FOOD: Four Civil Complaints in Early Stage GARRETT SEAWRIGHT: "Arguedas" Suit Returns to Mexico Dist. Ct. GEORGIA: Court to Hear City Employees' Challenge to Pension Reform GERON CORP: Shuman Law Firm Investigates Firm GLK FOODS: "Jean-Baptiste" Suit Moved From Florida to Wisconsin GNC HOLDINGS: Six Class Actions Related to Hydroxycut Pending GNC HOLDINGS: Named in 31 Injury Lawsuits Over DMAA, Aegeline GNC HOLDINGS: Trial Scheduled in June 2015 in Sparling Case GNC HOLDINGS: Court Approved Settlement in Class Action GNC HOLDINGS: Final Order Entered Dismissing Calif. Wage Suit GNC HOLDINGS: Mediation Unsuccessful in Brewer Class Action GNC HOLDINGS: Mediation Unsuccessful in Naranjo Class Action GNC HOLDINGS: Parties Settled Claims in "Vargas" Case GREAT AMERICAN PLUMBING: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over Nonpayment of OT HOWARD SCHNEIDER: Accused of Torture, Choking Kids IHEARTMEDIA INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims INDIANA: Bureau of Motor Vehicles Used Ambiguous Fees, Audit Says INSULET CORPORATION: Briscoe & Powers Taylor Launch Probe INTERNATIONAL VITAMIN: Recalls Multivitamin Tablets JJRA22 LLC: "Fachin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages JR POOL: "Valdez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages KARN ARJUN: Faces "Obenauf" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Filed Motion to Dismiss S.D.N.Y. Class Action LEADING EDGE: Faces "Patton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime LIFELOCK INC: Response to Amended Ebarle Complaint Due LIFELOCK INC: Bid for Initial Approval of "Goldman" Deal Due LIFELOCK INC: "Trax" Plaintiff Agreed to Dismiss Class Action LIFELOCK INC: Waiting for Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Bien" Suit LENDINGTREE INC: District Court Stayed "Dijkstra" Case LIGHTINTHEBOX HOLDING: Securities Case Settlement Wins Final OK LIVING SPACES: "Hill" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Removed "Bychkowski" Suit to N.J. Dist. Court LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Insurers Want Out Amid Scandal MARRIOTT INT'L: Cross-Appealed on Statute of Limitations Grounds MASTERCARD INC: Judge in Data Breach Case Won't Bar Target Deal MCCALLUM GROUP: Removes "Moreno" Suit to Florida District Court MCCLURE AND STEVENSON: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages MCGILL HEALTH CENTRE: Sued Over Building Construction Noise MICREL INC: Ryan & Maniskas Launched Probe Over Sale to Microchip MISSOURI: Atheist Prisoner Loses Bid to Represent Inmates MOBILEIRON INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action MOLYCORP INC: Deadline to Amend Complaint Has Expired MOLYCORP INC: Continues to Defend Against Class Actions MONEY STORE: Borrowers Can't Pursue Class Suit Over Legal Fees NEBRASKALAND INC: Accused in New York of Violating FMLA and FLSA NEW ORLEANS: Residents Question Payment to Special Master NEW YORK CAFETERIA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages NORTHLAND GROUP: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act NUCOR STEEL: Appeals Court Revives Class Action Claim OLD DOMINION: Removed "Monge" Suit to C.D. California PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS: To File Motion to Dismiss Class Action PALI DESIGN: Recalls Children's Furniture Due to Injury Hazard PITTSBURGH: Police Accused of Racial Bias, to Revamp Hiring PLASTIC2OIL INC: Court Gave Final Approval of Settlement PRE-PAID LEGAL: June 26 Hearing in "Savetsky" Class Action Set PRECIPICE GLASS: Removes "Salgado" Class Suit to S.D. Florida PROCTER & GAMBLE: Removed "Pettit" Class Suit to N.D. California PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Court Preliminarily Approved Celera Settlement RAMART LLC: Recalls Swing Chair Products Due to Fall Hazard RBS HOLDINGS: Discovery Underway in Hopkins v. AECOM Case RBS HOLDINGS: Discovery Underway in CDS Antitrust Litigation RICELAND FOODS: Faces Class Action Over GMO Rice ROMO BLOCK: "Reyes" Suit Removed to Southern District of Florida ROSS DRESS: Faces "Sitton" Class Suit Alleging Discrimination SANDISK CORP: Aug. 18 Case Mgmt Conference in "Glore" Case Set SCOTT CONANT: Faces "Rivera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SELECT ENERGY: Faces "Coker" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SENGUPTA FOOD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages SHO-ME POWER: KAMO-KPN Class Settlement Gets Court Approval SOUTHERN SPECIALTIES: Removed "Jackson" Class Suit to S.D. Texas SOUTHWEST CARPENTERS: 9th Cir. Reverses Ruling in "Leicht" Case ST. FRANCIS MEDICAL: Refuses to Give ASL Interpreter, Suit Claims ST. LOUIS CARDINALS: Lawsuits Could Force Team Testimony STAPLES CONTRACT: "Rosales" Removed Class Suit to C.D. California STERLING JEWELERS: Court Tosses Tapia's Motion to Amend Complaint SUN-MAID GROWERS: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages SWISHER HYGIENE: Bid to Pay $185,434 in Legal Fees Approved TAKATA CORP: "Johnson" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL THERATECHNOLOGIES INC: Osler Hoskin Discusses High Court Ruling TIME WARNER: Parties Reached MOU in Comcast Merger Case TIME WARNER: Ruling in Set-Top Box Antitrust Case on Appeal TRANSDEV SERVICES: Court Lists Factors in Approving Settlement TRI-VISTA DESIGNS: Recalls Monogram Mugs Due to Fire Hazard TRINIDAD DRILLING: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Pay OT Wages TRINITY INDUSTRIES: June 29 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bids UBER TECH: "Sabatino" Case Stayed Pending Arbitration UBER TECH: Rivals Upset by Preferential Treatment UNITED STATES: New Orleans May Join Hurricane Flood Suit UNITED TRANZACTIONS: Suit Accused of Debt Collection Violations UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Sale US AIRWAYS: PBGC to Pay $5.25 Million to Retired USAir Pilots VISA INC: Class Administrator Files Report in Interchange MDL VISA INC: Appeal Launched in Consumer Interchange Litigation VISA INC: Court Set Sept. 21 Trial Date in Texas State Court Case VISA INC: Petition for Review Nixed in Credit Card Tying Cases VISA INC: Webloyalty.com, GameStop, and Visa File Dismissal Bids WARNER BROS: Court Dismissed Claims in Piracy Case WESTERN UNION: Plaintiffs Object to Report and Recommendation WESTERN UNION: Insurance Carrier and Plaintiff Reached Agreement YELP INC: Aug. 26 Case Mgmt. Conf. in "Curry" Case Vacated * Citicorp, JPMorgan, et al Agree to Parent-Level Guilty Pleas ********* AAA CARTING: "Larosa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas J. Larosa, individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. AAA Carting & Rubbish Removal, Inc., Angelo Cartalemi, Pasquale Cartalemi, and Pasquale Cartalemi, Jr., Case No. 1:15-cv-04273 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a waste recycling service company located at 480 Furnace Dock Road, Cortlandt Manor, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: John M. Gurrieri, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007-2249 Telephone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com ABLE HEALTH: Sued in S.D. New York for Firing Pregnant Employee --------------------------------------------------------------- Gerdie Lambre v. Able Health Care Service, Inc. and Able Health Care Service, Inc.-LHCSA, Case No. 1:15-cv-04078-RWS (S.D.N.Y., May 28, 2015) alleges that the Defendants discriminated against the Plaintiff on the basis of her sex and pregnancy when they fired her. Able Health Care Service, Inc. is a New York corporation providing health care services and headquartered in Merrick, New York. Able Health Care Service, Inc.-LHCSA is a New York corporation operated by Defendant Able for the purpose of providing licensed home health care. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Jerome Rozger, Esq. BERANBAUM MENKEN LLP 80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 509-1616 Facsimile: (212) 509-8088 E-mail: jrozger@nyemployeelaw.com ACTIVE POWER: Class Action Settlement Still Awaits Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Active Power, 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 settlement was subject to final approval by the Court at a hearing scheduled for May 15, 2015. The Company said, "On September 10, 2013, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas against us and certain of our former executives. The case is captioned Don Lee v. Active Power, Inc., et. al. (Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00797-SS). As amended, the complaint alleges that on February 19, 2013, we reported that we had begun working with an unnamed Chinese distributor partner, and that on April 30, 2013, we announced in press releases and conference calls that we had entered into a strategic distribution partnership with Digital China. However, on September 5, 2013, after the close of trading, we disclosed that our partnership was with Qiyuan Network System Limited, which is neither an affiliate nor a subsidiary of Digital China. The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of all stockholders who purchased common stock between February 19 and September 5, 2013. On March 7, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the class action complaint. Our motion was denied by the Court on July 2, 2014. On August 11, 2014, we filed an answer to the class action complaint, and on September 2, 2014, the Court declined to certify its order of July 2, 2014 for an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit." "On September 23, 2014, we reached an agreement in principle and entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the class action complaint. The parties to the class action signed a definitive settlement agreement on December 2, 2014, which was granted preliminary approval by the Court on January 7, 2015. The proposed settlement would resolve for all defendants all of the issues that are pending in the class action complaint. If completed, the class action settlement would result in a payment of $1.5 million to the settlement class, inclusive of fees and expenses. We anticipate that the total settlement amount and related expenses would be paid from insurance proceeds. The proposed settlement is not yet consummated, and is subject to a number of conditions. The proposed settlement is also subject to final approval by the Court at a hearing scheduled for May 15, 2015." ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Alexandra Lepore, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Allianceone Receivables Management, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03113 (E.D.N.Y., May 28, 2015) alleges violations 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 ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Action Over Marketing Expense Item --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 August 22, 2011, Dor Alon received a letter of claim and a motion for approval of action as class action against Dor Alon and the three other gasoline companies for a total of NIS 1 billion (of which Dor Alon's share is NIS 167 million). The claimants argue that the gasoline companies inflated the "marketing expense item" which is incorporated into the calculation of the maximum price of gasoline 95 octane by adding expenses unrelated to the sale of gasoline, thus misleading the regulator and enabling themselves to sell gasoline 95 octane at a higher price than the price that should be charged. The claimants assert that this is violation of legislated provisions in the Supervision Order on Goods and Services (Maximum Prices in Gasoline Stations) - 2002; the Consumer Protection Law - 1981; and the Damage Ordinance (new version) - 1968. 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: Bid to Withdraw Claim Over Sanitarian Standards Okayed ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 September 3, 2012, a letter of claim and motion for approval as a class action was filed against Dor Alon and a subsidiary of Dor Alon, for an aggregate amount of NIS 50 million. The plaintiff claims that Dor Alon failed to comply with law requirements regarding sanitarian standards of lavatories at its petrol stations, particularly cleaning requirements and intactness of facilities. In November 2014 the court approved the Plaintiff's request to withdraw the claim. ALON BLUE: Claim Over Spidomat Approved 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 on September 6, 2012, a letter of claim and motion for approval as a class action was filed against Dor Alon, for an aggregate amount of NIS 43.2 million. The plaintiff claims that as a customer of the Dor Alon "Spidomat" arrangement for car fueling at reduced prices, she discovered that her reduction was less than the regular discount given to all other customers at the station. As result, the Plaintiff claims she suffered financial damages from being a member of the "Spidomat" arrangement. In October 2014, the court approved the claim as a class action, and Dor Alon made a proper provision for this claim in its financial statements. ALON BLUE: Faces Suit Over Product & Service Regulation Order ------------------------------------------------------------- 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 September 13, 2012, a letter of claim and motion for approval as a class action was filed against a subsidiary of Dor Alon and other defendants, for an aggregate amount of NIS 77 million. The letter of claim states that the defendants have breached the provisions of the product and service regulation order (maximum prices in gas stations - 2002 as regards conditions for collection of extra charge on full service, nighttime service and rest days service, as well as the provisions of article 3(D) of the of the product and service regulation order (maximum prices in gas stations) (amendment) - 2006 (herein, "the Amended Order") as regards the signage of self-service fuelling pumps. The claimants argue that the order has set criteria for a minimum rate of self-service pumps in the gas stations out of the total number of pumps in the gas station, and that whenever the criterion is not met, it is prohibited to collect service fee in that station. The claimants further allege that according to the Amended order, whenever a pump is not marked in accordance with the Order, it cannot be regarded as a self-service pump. As a result, the Defendants did not meet the criterion stipulated in the Order in certain stations and are therefore prohibited from collecting service fee in those gas stations. 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 Settlement in Suit Against Oil Firms -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 2013 a letter of claim and motion for approval as a class action was filed against a subsidiary of Dor Alon, together with other defendants including oil companies and credit card companies. It is claimed that there is an agreement between the oil companies and the credit card companies, according to which extra charging is made for a limited period of time, when paying with certain credit cards at gas filling stations, without prior notification to the client. In February 2015 the court approved a settlement agreement between the parties. ALON BLUE: Still Faces Action Over Production Date Labels --------------------------------------------------------- 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 2013 two letters of claim and motions for approval as a class action were filed against a subsidiary of Dor Alon, one in the sum of NIS 7 million, and the other in the amount of NIS 306 million. It is alleged in both claims that the subsidiary, Alon Intrade Coffee Shops Ltd., replaced labels of the production dates of sandwiches, in a way that appeared as if the sandwich had been produced no later than in the last 24 hours from the time it was bought. In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claims will be rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for these claims in its financial statements. ALON BLUE: Bid to Withdraw Claim Over Failure to Comply Approved ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 2014, a letter of claim and motion for approval as a class action was filed against Dor Alon and a subsidiary of Dor Alon, in the sum of approx. NIS 256 million, with regard to the alleged failure to comply with provisions requiring verification and calibration of fuel pumps. In January 2015 the court approved the plaintiff's request to withdraw the claim. ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Action Over Discount Prices -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 letter of claim and motion for approval as a class action in the sum of approx. NIS 94 million was filed against a subsidiary of Dor Alon. It is claimed that the subsidiary did not fulfill its commitment for a certain discount price, and that is failed to properly display prices of fuel and diesel at its filling stations. The Company is currently reviewing the Claims 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 Action Over Higher Diesel Prices ------------------------------------------------------------- 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 letter of claim and motion for approval as a class action in the sum of approx. NIS 71 million was filed against Dor Alon and a subsidiary of Dor Alon. It is claimed that Dor Alon and its subsidiary charge higher prices for diesel purchased at self service pumps than diesel purchased at full service pumps, and that they fail to comply with statutory requirements regarding the display of prices at filling stations. The Company is currently reviewing the Claims 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: Still Faces Suit Over Video Shooting & Sound Recording ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 letter of claim and motion for approval as a class action in the sum of NIS 55 million was filed against Dor Alon and a subsidiary of Dor Alon. The claim is with regard to video shooting and sound recording made in convenience stores without proper notice and consent of the customers. The Company is currently reviewing the Claims 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 continues to develop," the Company said. ALON BLUE: Continues to Face Class Suit Over Lowest Prices 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. AMERICAN LAFRANCE: Former Workers Settle Suit for $671,000 ---------------------------------------------------------- John McDermott, writing for Post and Courier, reports that former American LaFrance employees who sued the Moncks Corner-based vehicle manufacturer after losing their jobs have settled the case for $671,000. Lawyers for Olivia Schreiner and James Schreiner said a lump-sum payment of $385,000 is the equivalent of six weeks of severance package for about 100 fired workers who are eligible to receive a cut of the money. The rest of the settlement proceeds will go toward legal fees and other expenses. The deal requires court approval. A hearing date has not been set. The money will be paid by American LaFrance and Patriarch Partners LLC, a New York financier that controlled the Berkeley County manufacturer. The settlement stemmed from a March 4 mediation session, according to a court document. "Given the precarious financial position of American LaFrance, which ceases to exist or hold meaningful assets, and the inherent risks associated with a protracted legal battle, this settlement compensates the employees, helping them as they transition to the next chapter of their lives" said attorney James L. Ward Jr. -- jward@rpwb.com -- of Richardson Patrick Westbrook & Brickman, which represents the workers. A representative for Patriarch Partners and the company's local attorney did not respond to requests for comment. In a complaint seeking class-action status, the Schreiners last year alleged American LaFrance violated labor law by not providing proper notice about the shutdown in mid-January 2014. They worked for the company for about 10 years before it abruptly closed its doors in South Carolina and two other states as its finances rapidly deteriorated. The Charleston lawsuit cited the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, which requires most companies with 100 or more employees to provide written notice at least 60 calendar days before a factory shutdown or mass layoff. The complaint named the manufacturer and Patriarch Partners, which attorneys for the workers said owned, managed and controlled American LaFrance. The investment firm asked to be dismissed from the lawsuit, saying it was merely a financial adviser. U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel denied that request. American LaFrance and its predecessors had been building fire engines and firefighting equipment for about 180 years. It employed about 500 workers when it went out of business, including about 100 in Moncks Corner. The fired workers at the other locations did not qualify for compensation from the lawsuit because the headcount at those facilities did not meet federal thresholds, Ward said. All eligible former employees will receive written notice of the settlement and additional notifications about the process. Payments will vary depending on individual circumstances. AMERICAN MEDICAL: July 28 Mesh Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- The litigation against American Medical Systems Canada Inc., American Medical systems Inc., and Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("AMS") will proceed as two class actions: (1) On behalf of women who were or are implanted with AMS transvaginal mesh devices for treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence (SUI) and their families (AMS SUI Class Action); (2) On behalf of women who were or are implanted with AMS transvaginal mesh devices for treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) and their families (AMS POP) Class Action). The claims against AMS have not been resolved and the defendant denies any fault or liability and will vigorously defend the actions. For more information: www.amsmeshclassactions.ca 1-800-461-6166 ext. 2367 or 1-866-881-2292 Important information: For more important details see the "Long Form Notice" available at www.amsmeshclassactions.ca or from Class Counsel. If you want to exclude yourself from the AMS SUI class Action or the AMS POP Class Action you must notify Class Counsel by July 28, 2015 in the manner described in the "Long Form Notice" available at www.amsmeshclassactions.ca If you have questions about either the AMS SUI Class Action or the AMS POP Class Action, or for a no-cost consultation about your case, contact Class Counsel at the numbers above. ARTISTIC CONCRETE: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Adrian Alvarez, Adrian Alvarez, Jr., Alexis Fierro, Gonzalo Islas, and Pedro Sanchez v. Artistic Concrete of Georgia, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01996-RWS (N.D. Ga., June 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 hours per week. Artistic Concrete of Georgia, Inc. owns and operates a construction company with offices at 515 Gunnell Road, Comer, Georgia 30629. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Moore Weaver, Esq. QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO, LLP 3516 Covington Hwy. Decatur, GA 30032 Telephone: (404) 299-1211 E-mail: rweaver@qcwdr.com ASCENSION HEALTH: Settlement Reached in Church Plan Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Hazel Bradford at Pensions & Investments reports that Judge Avern Cohn in the U.S. District Court in Detroit reviewed the motion to settle and scheduled a final approval hearing for Sept. 17. On May 9, 2014, Mr. Cohn granted Ascension Health's bid to dismiss the class-action lawsuit, ruling that while the church exemption from federal pension laws and regulations "may appear to be an irrational distinction, it is a distinction mandated by law." At least two other courts in other jurisdictions have disagreed and allowed similar cases to proceed against plan sponsors. After the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, the parties in Overall vs. Ascension entered into six months of court-sponsored mediation before accepting a mediator's proposal. In the preliminary settlement document, plaintiffs call it "an excellent result for the proposed class" because it provides for "significant" plan changes, "in essence mimicking some of ERISA's key provisions," through 2022. Participants will be guaranteed full benefits through 2022 and Ascension will contribute $8 million. Other ERISA-like changes affect plan administration, such as annual notices, statements and claims review. Attorneys' fees and an incentive fee for the named plaintiff are capped at an additional $2 million. The size of the plan could not be learned by press time. In their initial complaint, the plaintiffs alleged Ascension's pension plans were underfunded by $444.5 million Lead plaintiff Marilyn Overall entered into the settlement "with an understanding of the strength and weaknesses" of the claim, the document said, including lengthy and expensive litigation to continue, "significant uncertainties in predicting the outcome of this complex litigation," and the defendants' "determination to fight." The plaintiffs did not give up the right to sue if the law on church plans changes as a result of other court challenges in other circuits. "Ascension Health is not immune from any change in the law. The change in the law just won't come from the 6th Circuit," said Thomas E. Clark Jr., an ERISA lawyer with The Wagner Law Group in St. Louis. Mr. Clark is not connected to the Ascension case. With church plan cases working their way through several District Courts and appeals courts, "I have always felt that it's a race toward either the Supreme Court or Congress," said Mr. Clark. Calls to Ascension and law firms representing the plaintiffs and the defendants were not returned at press time. ATLANTIC STATE: "Cruz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Jesus Cruz and Nelson Sibre, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Atlantic State Development Corp. and Atlantic State Consultants LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-04248- LGS (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are engaged in the construction business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Leonor Hidalgo Coyle, Esq. Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th fl., Suite 1403 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 E-mail: lcoyle@vandallp.com lambinder@vandallp.com AVALON BAY: Removed "Silva" Class Suit to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Daniel Silva, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Avalon Bay Communities, Inc., Case No. BC580095, 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- 04157 to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserts labor-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Silva PRO SE The Defendant is represented by: Michael S. Kun, Esq. EPSTEIN BECKER AND GREEN PC 1925 Century Park East Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2506 Telephone: (310) 556-8861 Facsimile: (310) 553-2165 E-mail: mkun@ebglaw.com BAHAMAS ELECTRICITY: Manager Slams 'Fraud by Hindsight' Claim ------------------------------------------------------------- Neil Hartnell, writing for Tribune 242, reports that the Bahamas Electricity Corporation's (BEC) prospective manager has dismissed as "fraud by hindsight" claims that it artificially inflated its stock price prior to a one-day wipe-out that erased $250 million in shareholder value. Tribune Business can reveal that PowerSecure International is petitioning the eastern district court in North Carolina to dismiss a class action securities fraud claim against it on the basis that it "fails to state a claim". Documents obtained by Tribune Business show that the case, which is thought to have played a key role in delaying the Christie administration's announcement of PowerSecure as the preferred BEC bidder, revolves around the 62 per cent "plunge" in the company's share price that occurred on May 8, 2014. Maguire Financial, the investor leading the 'class action' complaint, is alleging that PowerSecure and its top executives withheld material information that would have informed the market its financial performance was about to take a hit. By allegedly touting strong financial results, Maguire Financial and other investors claim PowerSecure "artificially inflated" its share price starting in August 2013. They allege that this occurred "just in time" for PowerSecure to place a stock issue with investors, raising $34 million from the sale of 2.3 million shares. And, at the same time, the Maguire Financial class is alleging that Sidney Hinton, PowerSecure's chief executive and president, raised $3.2 million by selling 30 per cent of the shares he held in the company. All this occurred prior to May 7, 2014, when BEC's potential manager unveiled first quarter results that led to one of the company's analysts saying they had been "blindsided". PowerSecure unveiled a net $4.3 million loss for a period in which the market had expected a profit, and reduced its revenue and net income expectations for the remainder of 2014. "In response to this shocking material adverse information, PowerSecure's stock plunged by more than 62 per cent, erasing more than $250 million in market capitalization, to close at just $7 on May 8, 2014, on unusually high trading volume," the Maguire Financial class action complaint alleged. It claimed that PowerSecure had been "encountering significant operational issues and inefficiencies" from the 2013 second quarter, but these had not been disclosed to investors and the capital markets. The allegations contained in the class action complaint drove Prime Minister Perry Christie to seek US government guarantees -- from the likes of secretary of state, John Kerry, and commerce secretary, Penny Pritzker -- vouching for PowerSecure's integrity. This process is thought to have delayed the announcement of PowerSecure's selection by several months, with the company having been effectively chosen by the Government as BEC's management partner around Christmas-New Year 2015. The Prime Minister, in particular, wants the selection of BEC's management partner to be beyond reproach, and able to withstand all scrutiny and challenge. Yet the class action lawsuit remains an issue of concern for Bahamians. Clinton Minnis, the Bahamas Electrical Managers Union (BEMU) president, told Tribune Business that PowerSecure's legal battle was one concern it had raised with Deputy Prime Minister Philip Davis. "One of the concerns that we had was whether the company had put all of its legal issues behind it," Mr Minnis said. "We know that there was a class action suit against them." There were, in fact, three separate class action lawsuits that were eventually consolidated into the Maguire Financial complaint, as all made the same allegations. The US is one of the most litigious societies in the world. Class-action lawsuits against publicly-traded companies by disgruntled investors are relatively commonplace when investments fail to work out and deliver the expected returns. In PowerSecure's case, whether there is any substance to the allegations will have to be determined by the North Carolina court. The company is due to file its final response to the claims, and bid for their dismissal, by next month. It will then be up to the judge to sort out. PowerSecure's first bid to dismiss the lawsuit effectively portrays the Maguire Financial group as just a collection of disgruntled shareholders who are unhappy with how their investment turned out. Pointing out that share prices and markets can go down as well as up, PowerSecure said it had delivered numerous cautionary statements and guidance warnings about the factors that could negatively impact its business. "It is only too easy - and too tempting - after a stock drop to look back with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight to allege, as plaintiff has done here, that defendants knew or should have predicted these operational challenges and disappointing financial results," PowerSecure alleged. "Most businesses experience short-term operational challenges or disappointing financial results from time to time." PowerSecure said "several negative factors coalesced during that quarter". These included a large utility customer ordering much less work than in the year-end 2013 quarter; work for another large utility that was more difficult and less profitable; and the pace/timing of large distribution/generation contracts slowing. One of these customers was Florida Power & Light (FPL). "Although each of these negative factors was entirely consistent with the many descriptions and warnings that the company had frequently disclosed about the 'lumpy' and sometimes unpredictable nature of the business, when they all hit at the same time it negatively impacted the company's near-term results," PowerSecure said. "At bottom, this is a fraud by hindsight case. The reliance on hindsight is evident from the fact that plaintiff took the exact explanation offered by company management for the disappointing results in the 2014 first quarter conference call, and then claims that these explanations were previously hidden from investors." It added that while the Maguire Financial complaint referred to 26 separate statements it made between August 7, 2013, and May 7, 2014, there was no allegation that any of these were false. The 'class action' group, though, claims that details provided by a PowerSecure 'whistleblower' "support a strong inference" that the company "knew or recklessly disregarded the serious problems" that were set to impact its performance. While not identified by name, the lawsuit alleges that the whistleblower held several key executive posts with PowerSecure, including vice-president of engineering/project management in its utilities infrastructure group, plus vice-president of sales in the same division. PowerSecure's defence was quick to dismiss the so-called whistleblower's claims, saying they had no contact with senior management and knew nothing about the problem contracts. Describing the purported whistleblower's evidence as "vague", the prospective BEC manager added: "Finally, some of [the whistleblower's] allegations are so implausible that they cast doubt on their credibility. "For example, [the whistleblower] claims 'the utility infrastructure group stopped growing in the third and fourth quarter of 2013', but this allegation is patently false. Utility infrastructure grew from $24.166 million in quarterly revenue in the 2013 third quarter to $37.527 million the in 2013 fourth quarter, an increase that represented 55.2 per cent quarter-over- quarter and 81.6 per cent year-over-year growth." Maguire Financial's complaint also makes a strong personal attack on PowerSecure's chief executive, Mr Hinton, alleging that he had his own "financial motives" to push the company's share price. It claims that he transferred 20 per cent of his equity stake to his wife just before Christmas 2013, as a means to fund his impending divorce. PowerSecure again dismissed this accusations, arguing that the divorce was "an innocent explanation for Mr Hinton's action, and was "more plausible than fraud". The Maguire Financial 'class' apparently remains unconvinced. In their reply to PowerSecure's arguments for dismissing the case, they reiterated: "By failing to disclose the serious problems facing the company, of which defendants were well aware, and instead consistently assuring the investing public all was well, defendants artificially inflated and maintained the trading price of PowerSecure securities. "Defendants profited directly by selling more than $37 million of stock to the public at an artificially-inflated price." BALTIMORE, MD: Family Seeks Probe in Johnson "Rough Ride" Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Sara Ganim, writing for CNN, reported that the family of a man who died after being paralyzed riding in the back of a Baltimore police van wants a criminal investigation into his case. Dondi Johnson Sr., a Baltimore plumber arrested in 2005 for public urination, died two weeks after he was injured in a "rough ride," in which a police van is deliberately driven erratically. The case is eerily similar to Freddie Gray's. Gray died after suffering a spinal injury while in police custody. Six Baltimore police officers have been charged in his death. But in Johnson's case, no charges were filed against the three police officers involved, and the three still work for the Baltimore Police Department. The driver of the van, Nicole Leake, was featured in March in a Baltimore police promotional video, looking into the camera and saying, "I am the BPD." Johnson's family sued the Police Department and in 2010 they were awarded a $7.4 million; the amount they received was much lower, $216,500, because of a legal cap. Johnson was arrested in 2005 for urinating on a sidewalk, He was put in the van without a seat belt, according to an affidavit filed in the family's lawsuit. When police arrived at the barracks and opened the door, he was lying on the floor with a broken neck. He told an officer, "The bitch was driving like an asshole. I fell and I can't move." He was paralyzed. The officers never called an ambulance. Johnson died two weeks later from complications of his paralysis. In the lawsuit, Leake testified that she wasn't driving erratically and didn't strap in Johnson because he said he had to urinate, and she didn't want to cause his bladder discomfort with a seat belt. At trial, a former Baltimore police officer took the stand and testified that rough rides were an "unsanctioned technique" of the Police Department, during which the driver would "drive in such a manner that caused injury or pain." That testimony came five years before Freddie Gray died. Others have come forward, saying they, too, were taken for rough rides during that time by the Baltimore City police. "All that says to us is that they can and will kill or hurt you or your family members and walk free," said Johnson's stepdaughter, who asked CNN not to use her name. Baltimore police did not respond to CNN's questions about the Johnson case or the officers involved. Leake could not be reached for comment. Others Say They Had Rough Rides Since Gray's death, Jake Masters also has said he will sue over what he says was a rough ride. In photos, Masters is bruised almost from head to toe. He said he considers himself lucky to have survived. "They would slam on their brakes like every thousand feet, and to make sure that we slammed into something in the back," he said, recalling the night in 2012 that Baltimore police showed up at his house after a noise complaint. The situation escalated quickly, according to court documents, and he and his wife, Chrissy Abbott, ended up on the ground, cuffed, headed for the back of a police wagon just like the one that transported Freddie Gray before he died. "They throw you in and it's dark in there and so you can't really see anything," he said. ". . .I would hear Chrissy from the other side, slamming into the wall and just crying out." She was on the other side of a metal partition. "Every time he broke or hit on the brakes, I would slam forward and then he'd start driving again, slam back the other way," Abbott said. "I felt less than human, the way they treated you." In 2012 Abbott sued the Baltmore police over her treatment that night. Her case is pending. Masters didn't sue -- until he heard about Freddie Gray, the allegations of "rough rides" and realized that they are more common than he thought. In Baltimore, the practice has been documented as far back as 1997, when Jeffrey Alston was arrested for speeding and placed in the back of a police van. When the ride was over, he was paralyzed. He sued the department and settled for $6 million. He died in 2007. "The fact that this practice is going on to this day is just inexcusable," said Masters' and Abbott's attorney, Steve Norman. ". . . I think it's time to focus exclusively on this rough ride issue to evoke change here, to change the longstanding custom of handing out street justice." Norman said he wants to file a class-action suit against the department, but state protections stand in the way. He said he's exploring his options and may have to file individually for every person who says they've been taken for a rough ride. Baltimore police did not respond to CNN requests for comment on this story. "It's just like they treat you like a cargo they don't care about," Masters said, recalling his anger when he found out from others in Baltimore that they'd been through the same thing. "So, like no value for human life . . . and took us on a ride to make sure we were injured, basically, and felt their anger." BANCO SANTANDER: "Ranieri" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Donna Ranieri and Nicholas Ranieri, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Banco Santander, S.A., Santander Holdings USA, Inc., Santander Bank, N.A., Sovereign Bancorp, Inc., and Sovereign Bank, N.A., Case No. 2:15-cv-03740-MCA-MAH (D.N.J., June 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs of court, pre-judgment and post- judgment interest and injunctive relief under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a savings bank with corporate headquarters located at 75 State St., Boston, Massachusetts, 02109. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Dichiara, Esq. KRAKOWER DICHIARA LLC One Depot Square 77 Market Street Suite 2 Park Ridge, NJ 07656 Telephone: (201) 746-0303 Facsimile: (347) 765-1600 E-mail: md@kdlawllc.com BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Allen" Suit Over FX-Price Manipulation -------------------------------------------------------------- Doris Sue Allen, Donna S. Lucas, and all others similarly situated v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04285-UA (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 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. Ross Wallin, Esq. GRAIS & ELLSWORTH LLP 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 755-7876 Facsimile: (212) 755-0052 E-mail: rwallin@graisellsworth.com - and - J. Brian McTigue, Esq. Regina M. Markey, Esq. MCTIGUE LAW LLP 4530 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202)364-6900 Facsimile: (202) 364-9960 E-mail: bmctigue@mctiguelaw.com jmoore@mctiguelaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in Cal. Over Unlawful Banking Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- Dwayne Yasukochi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 3:15-cv-01231-JLS-NLS (S.D. Cal., June 3, 2015), is brought on behalf of the California who suffered damages due to denial loan modification appeal as a result of the Defendant's improper banking and loan documentation practices. Bank of America, N.A. is a nationally chartered banking association with its principal place of business located in Charlotte, North Carolina. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. Richard L. Miller II, Esq. Michael L. Silverman, Esq. Gregg M. Barbakoff, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 North State Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-0000 Facsimile: (312) 267-1906 E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com rmiller@siprut.com msilverman@siprut.com gbarbakoff@siprut.com - and - Todd C. Atkins, Esq. SIPRUT PC 2261 Rutherford Road Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: 619-255-2380 E-mail: tatkins@siprut.com BLUE CROSS: Faces "Kondell" Class Suit in Florida District Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Janie Kondell, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Florida Blue, Case No. 0:15-cv-61118-RLR (S.D. Fla., May 27, 2015) asserts insurance-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan H. Rolnick, Esq. Daniel Alvarez Sox, Esq. Andres Rivero, Esq. RIVERO MESTRE LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1000 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 445-2500 Facsimile: (305) 445-2505 E-mail: arolnick@riveromestre.com dsox@riveromestre.com arivero@riveromestre.com BLUE CROSS: Data Breach Class Pushes to Return to State Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Kat Greene at Law360.com reports that Blue Cross of California customers who allege the health insurer's shoddy data security left millions of Social Security numbers exposed urged a California federal judge to send their putative class action back to state court, saying federal courts don't have jurisdiction because they're not seeking money damages. U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald said in a short hearing he was considering keeping the case in federal court, rebuffing the plaintiffs' contention that, because they're asking for an injunction rather than money. BOEING CO: To Pay $90 Million to Settle Lawsuit Over Benefits ------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry Siebenmark, writing for The Wichita Eagle, reports that Boeing and the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace have reached a settlement that, if approved, would require Boeing to pay $90 million to settle a 10-year-old class action lawsuit over pension and retiree health benefits for some former Boeing Co. employees represented by the SPEEA and two other unions. The settlement stems from a lawsuit filed in federal court by the SPEEA in 2005 that alleged some union-represented workers at Boeing who went to work for Spirit AeroSystems following the sale of Boeing's commercial operations in Wichita did not receive the pension and retiree health benefits they were due. According to the lawsuit, the benefits were owed the workers under collective bargaining agreements with the SPEEA, the International Association of Machinists and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. According to documents filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, $4.25 million in attorney fees and expenses would come from the $90 million settlement, as would $147,500 in administrative fees and expenses. The amounts received by individual workers included in the class action suit would vary based on a formula that includes eligible workers' credited years of service at Boeing and the number of months they did not receive Boeing pension benefits while they were employed by Spirit, court documents said. The documents gave an example of a man who is still employed by Spirit and will retire at 62. The example said he had 23 years of credited service at Boeing and was eligible to receive Boeing pension benefits beginning at age 55. That would entitle him to receive an estimated $41,000 in lost Boeing pension benefits, the documents said. The other example was a woman who had 25 years of credited service at Boeing, went to work at Spirit and retired three months after turning 55. In that example, according to the documents, the worker would be eligible for an estimated $1,600 under the settlement. The settlement also provides for reimbursement for certain medical costs, up to a maximum of $40,000 for each member of the class action, court documents said. Final approval of the settlement won't come until after a settlement fairness hearing is held in federal court on Aug. 19 in Wichita. It's at that hearing that members of the class action lawsuit could raise objections to the settlement. The Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace plans to hold two meetings on updating members about the settlement. The meetings are to be held at the Machinists District Hall, 3839 S. Meridian. Only members of the class action lawsuit will be permitted to attend, according to the notice. SPEEA Midwest director Bob Brewer refused to comment on the settlement agreement or the lawsuit, citing a federal gag order. A spokesman for Boeing Co. in Chicago said he could comment only on the fact that the company had come to a settlement agreement with plaintiffs in the lawsuit. BRAHMIN RECORDS: Removed "Perez" Class Suit to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Brian Perez and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Brahmin Records, LLC d/b/a King's Head Records, Daniel B. Washburn, and William W. Garcia, Case No. 15-007841-CA-11, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit of Miami, Florida to the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15- cv-21807-JAL to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flager Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: pmh@rgpattorneys.com - and - Rene J. Gonzalez-Llorens, Esq. SHUTTS & BOWEN 201 S Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1500 Miami Center Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 347-7337 Facsimile: (305) 347-7837 E-mail: rgl@shutts.com The Defendant is represented by: Ivan Jose Parron, Esq. PARRON & ASSOCIATES, PL 175 SW 7th Street Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (888) 457-3771 Facsimile: (888) 459-2139 E-mail: ip@parronlaw.com CANADA: Suit Over Parental Leave Wins Certification --------------------------------------------------- Laurie Monsebraaten, writing for The Star, reports that more than 3,000 Canadian mothers who were denied EI sickness benefits while they were on maternity or parental leave between 2002 and 2013 will get their day in court. A $450 million class action lawsuit, sparked by a Toronto cancer survivor's successful claim almost four years ago, was certified. It means women, who were seriously ill while on maternity or parental leave and were denied additional EI sickness benefits of up to 15 weeks, may finally get compensation of up to $7,515 each, plus special damages. Toronto lawyer Stephen Moreau, who represented local mother Natalya Rougas in her successful 2011 claim, launched the class action in 2012 on behalf of Calgary mom Jennifer McCrea. "Natalya alerted us to the fact that this was a problem," Moreau said. "She opened the door to the fact that this was not just a one-off problem, but that it was universal." Rougas has since recovered from breast cancer and is "elated" that her case is helping so many others, her husband Stavros said. "We want to see the class action succeed so that there is no way that those on parental leave ever have to worry about EI again misinterpreting the intent of the rules," he said. McCrea, was diagnosed with breast cancer while on maternity leave in July 2011, the day Rougas won her appeal. It was a Star story about Rougas's win that prompted McCrea to appeal when her own claim was denied in September that year. "A friend Googled EI maternity sickness and Natalya's story popped up," McCrea said in an interview from Calgary. "My friend said keep fighting. So that's what I did." The 38-year-old mother of two who has since run two marathons said she was "ecstatic" when she learned a judge approved the class action. "It has been a long road already," said McCrea, whose son Logan is now 4-and-a-half. "But, as my lawyer says, I am a marathoner, not a sprinter." Ottawa changed the legislation in 2013 to ensure no more women are denied EI sickness benefits if they become seriously ill during maternity or parental leave. And it has quietly paid about 350 women who launched appeals between 2012 and 2013. But as of last November, the federal government has spent $1.3 million fighting McCrea and others who got sick before that, according to government documents. In Ottawa, New Democrat MP David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre) questioned why the government was fighting mothers like McCrea while disgraced Conservative Senator Mike Duffy was embroiled in a spending scandal. "Conservatives promised to fix this situation. Why are they still denying these women the sickness benefits they paid for and that they deserve?" he said. Liberal MP Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton-Canso), asked why Stephen Harper, McCrea's local MP, "did nothing for her." "Why did the Prime Minister not just go to his chief of staff and say: 'Nigel, could you fix this for me? Could you make it good to go?' Because he has done that before," Cuzner added. As part of the Senate spending scandal, Harper's former chief of staff Nigel Wright gave Duffy a personal cheque for $90,000 to cover his expenses and later sent a memo that read: "good to go from the PM." Employment and Social Development Minister Pierre Poilievre said he could not comment on the class action because it is before the courts. "Our hearts go out to families in these difficult circumstances," he told the Commons. "That is why in 2013, our government brought in the Helping Families in Need Act, that ensures that parents who fall ill while they are on parental leave, can actually access sickness benefits," he said. EI legislation was changed in 2002 to extend sickness benefits to working women who become ill during pregnancy or while on maternity and parental leave, but, until the Rougas case, it was never granted. The amendment allows parents to stack sickness benefits onto maternity/parental benefits. If a parent (usually a woman) becomes ill while on maternity or parental leave, she can apply for up to 15 weeks of sickness benefits. Once those benefits are paid, the maternity or parental leave resumes. While the government paid sickness benefits to women who were pregnant, EI officials said none of the mothers who became ill while on maternity and parental leave were eligible because of a "Catch-22" clause in the law that required them to be "otherwise available for work." Technically, mothers on maternity leave are caring for their babies and not available for work, so their sickness claims were denied. Moreau previously estimated that up to 60,000 parents may have become seriously ill while on maternity or parental leave but didn't apply for sickness benefits because they were advised they didn't qualify. However, only those who applied for benefits and were denied were accepted in the class action by Federal Court Justice Catherine Kane in her May 7 certification ruling. The government has 10 days from Kane's ruling to appeal, Moreau said. CANADIAN HEATING: June 2016 Deadline Set for Settlement Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- If you own, lease or otherwise occupy private property containing a glass-fronted gas burning fireplace, fireplace insert or heating stove, you should read this notice. Under a court-approved class action settlement certain manufacturers are offering, free of charge, barriers intended to prevent burns from the hot glass fronts. Further information is below. NOTICE* OF SETTLEMENT APPROVAL AND CLAIMS PROCEDURE OF A CLASS ACTION INVOLVING CERTAIN GAS BURNING FIREPLACES, FIREPLACE INSERTS AND STOVES TO: ALL PERSONS IN CANADA WHO OWN, LEASE OR OTHERWISE OCCUPY PRIVATE PROPERTY CONTAINING A FIREPLACE FROM ONE OF THE SETTLING DEFENDANTS DESCRIBED BELOW CERTIFICATION A lawsuit commenced in British Columbia has been certified as a class action against CANADIAN HEATING PRODUCTS INC., MILES INDUSTRIES LTD., MONESSEN HEARTH CANADA, INC., and MONESSEN HEARTH SYSTEMS COMPANY (doing business as VERMONT CASTINGS GROUP) (the "Settling Defendants"), by the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the "Court"). WHAT IS THE LAWSUIT? It is an action concerning the risk of burns from contacting the hot glass fronts of some gas burning fireplaces. WHAT IS THE SETTLEMENT? The British Columbia Supreme Court has approved a settlement under which the Settling Defendants have agreed to provide, free of charge, barrier screens or screen kits for certain of their Fireplaces to reduce the burn risk. WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT? Class Members are all persons in British Columbia, plus all persons elsewhere in Canada who choose to "opt in", who have one of the Settling Defendants' gas fireplaces, inserts or stoves ("Fireplaces") in their home that was installed between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2014. If you live in British Columbia and have such a Fireplace you are automatically included in the class action settlement. If you live elsewhere in Canada you may choose to opt into the settlement. You should immediately review the full legal notice in this matter to ensure that you understand your legal rights. Further details on the proposed settlement and on opting in are available via the telephone numbers and email & website addresses set out in this notice. Claim Forms and Opt in requests MUST BE SUBMITTED by June 6, 2016. If your communication is not received in time it may not be considered valid. WHAT DOES COURT APPROVAL MEAN? Class Members are bound by the settlement. Notice of the proposed settlement was published in April and May, 2015. The settlement was approved by the Court on May 26, 2015. WHERE CAN I OBTAIN MORE INFORMATION, OR OBTAIN A FIREPLACE BARRIER OR SCREEN? Class Members should contact: Crawford Class Action Services (the "Administrator") Suite 3-505, 133 Weber Street North Waterloo, ON N2J 3G9 Toll Free: 1-877-739-8933 Fax: 1-888-842-1332 E-mail: fireplaceclassaction@crawco.ca DO I NEED TO PAY ANYTHING TO PARTICIPATE? No. You do not need to pay any money to participate in the settlement. Class members pay nothing. The lawyers appointed by the Court to represent the Class will be paid by the defendants under the settlement. WHO ARE THE LAWYERS FOR THE CLASS? The following law firm represents the plaintiffs and the class, and will answer questions about the class action: Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy LLP, 25th Floor, 700 West Georgia Street, Vancouver B.C. V7Y1B3 Contact fireplaceclassaction@farris.com or Mike Wagner at 604-661-9388 or Robert Anderson, QC at 604-661-9372 (*) This Notice is just a summary. For more detailed information, including a list of all defendants and the definitions used in this Notice, please go to www.fireplaceclassaction.com or contact the Administrator listed above, or contact the lawyers above. Do Not Contact the Court about this Notice. For any questions, please contact the Administrator or the lawyers listed above THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE BRITISH COLUMBIA SUPREME COURT CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Customer Sues for Lost Cable Signal ----------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Brown, writing for STL Today, reports that one angry boxing fan has decided to go a round with Charter Communications. Anna Ralphs is suing the cable company for failing to televise the championship bout between Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Manny Pacquiao. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in St. Louis, alleges breach of contract and seeks class-action status. Ralphs contends that she was one of the thousands of Charter pay- per-view customers in St. Louis who missed fights leading up to the welterweight championship unification fight and a large portion of the main-event fight due to a cable outage. A massive cable outage affected Charter customers throughout the St. Louis region and in portions of North Carolina and South Carolina. Customers of some other providers also experienced some problems with viewing the fight, including Time Warner, DirecTV and Comcast. Cable systems were overwhelmed by the crush of pay-per- view orders, causing the fight to be delayed by nearly an hour. In her suit, Ralphs said she paid $99.99 to view the fight on Charter's pay-per-view channel but was unable to view the program for several hours beginning at 8:28 p.m. until the end of the main fight's fourth round. "Despite the fact that Charter cable customers paid for the Fight Package . . . (they missed) entirely the two Under Card Fights, the pageantry of how Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao entered the ring, introductions, the National Anthem performed by Jamie Foxx, and pre-fight commentary," the lawsuit alleges. "At worst, some viewers were unable to view the entire Program." The class action could include thousands of class members, according to the lawsuit, and the matter in controversy exceeds $5 million. The affected customers "have suffered irreparable harm as a result of Defendants' bad faith, fraudulent, deceitful, unlawful, and unfair conduct," the lawsuit alleges. Ralphs, who is represented by Clayton law firm Carey, Danis & Lowe, could not be reached for comment. Charter declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying in an emailed statement that it does not comment on pending legal issues. Charter representatives told customers who called the company's help line that refunds would be issued for those affected by the outage. Charter is the largest local provider of subscription pay- television service. "We are analyzing the events from evening and we apologize to our customers who were affected," Charter said in a statement issued following the outage. "We are giving those customers who had purchased the fight credits when they call us." CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Class Action Waivers Violate NLRA ---------------------------------------------------- National Law Review reports that despite overwhelming judicial disapproval, the NLRB simply will not relent in its view that mandatory arbitration agreements containing class/collective action waivers violate the National Labor Relations Act. In Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Case 14-CA-100530 (NLRB April 30, 2015), the NLRB once again stood behind its 2012 D.R. Horton and 2014 Murphy Oil decisions to hold that an employer violates the National Labor Relations Act when it requires an employee, as a condition of employment, to sign an arbitration agreement that precludes the employee from filing joint, class, or collective claims addressing wages, hours, or other working conditions. The Board is saying that these class/collective waivers effectively prevent employees from exercising their NLRA Section 7 right to act in concert with respect to the terms and conditions of their employment. Dozens of courts have rejecting its line of reasoning, but the Board has ignored them, perhaps waiting for a definitive decision by the Supreme Court on this issue. Thus, while the Board's decision doesn't necessarily settle this issue, employers wanting to take a more conservative approach could offer their employees the opportunity to opt out of an arbitration agreement. Other, less risk adverse employers may continue to require that their employees sign these agreements while banking on the fact that courts will continue to enforce them, including, perhaps, the Supreme Court one day as well. CHESWICK GENERATING: Class Allegations Struck in Pollution Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Silton at Beveridge & Diamond PC, in an article for JD Supra, reports that underscoring the requirement that class action plaintiffs clearly and objectively define the putative class without reference to the underlying merits of plaintiffs' claims, a federal district court in Pennsylvania struck class allegations from a complaint in a suit against a power plant. See Bell v. Cheswick Generating Station, No. 12-929, (W.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2015). The case was back in district court after the Third Circuit reversed the trial court's dismissal, ruling that the Clean Air Act did not preempt Plaintiffs' claims. See Bell v. Cheswick Generating Station, 734 F.3d 199 (3d Cir. 2013). Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint asserting nuisance, negligence, trespass and strict liability claims arising from the plant's emissions. Plaintiffs defined the putative class as those living within a one-mile radius of the power plant "who have suffered similar damages to their property by the invasion of particulates, chemicals, and gases from defendant's facility which thereby caused damages to their real property." Bell, Slip Op. at 2. The district court struck the class allegations because the class definition contained two fatal flaws. First, the Court held Plaintiffs had proposed a prohibited "fail-safe" class, meaning that determining whether individuals fall within the class would turn on resolving "ultimate issues of liability - damage and causation." Id. at 5. Here, class membership would have turned on whether (1) that person was injured and (2) Defendant's emissions caused the injury. Second, the Court concluded that requiring class members' injuries to be "similar" to Plaintiffs' was too subjective a standard to apply, therefore falling short of the class "definiteness" requirement courts have found implicit in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. at 5-6. CHESWICK GENERATING: Class Action Against Power Plant Dropped ------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bowling, writing for TRIB Live News, reports that a Springdale resident has dropped her class-action lawsuit claiming that the Cheswick power plant caused a public nuisance for nearby property owners, according to court documents. Kristie Bell and Joan Luppe sued the owners of the plant in April 2012. Since then, the plant has changed hands and is now owned by NRG Energy. U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon dropped Luppe from the lawsuit April 29 for failing to respond to court orders. The attorneys for Bell and NRG Energy filed a motion to dismiss the case, and Bissoon approved the motion. James DePasquale, the local attorney for Bell, referred questions to the Detroit attorneys handling the case. They couldn't be reached for comment. Bell and Luppe never established that the power plant damaged anyone's property and the motion reflects that, said NRG Energy spokesman David Gaier. "Nothing whatsoever was paid to any of the plaintiffs," he said. "They simply requested to dismiss their own lawsuit with prejudice." The lawsuit claimed that particulate matter and white fly ash caused a nuisance for more than 1,500 people who own property near the plant. The company denied the allegation. U.S. District Judge Terrence McVerry dismissed the case in 2012, ruling that the federal Clean Air Act pre-empted attempts to set tougher emission standards. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision and reinstated the case in 2013, ruling that the federal law sets minimum protections but doesn't preclude lawsuits seeking higher standards. CIK RESTAURANT: Faces "Preciado" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Luis Preciado, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. C.I.K. Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Blueberry Hill Breakfast Cafe and Chris Manolis, Case No. 1:15-cv-04900 (N.D. Ill., June 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 307-0766 E-mail: dstevens@yourclg.com COBB & COLE: Sued in Fla. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joy Steinbaugh, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Cobb & Cole, P.A., a Florida Corporation, and Admiralty Club Condominium Association, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Case No. 6:15-cv-00861-CEM-TBS (M.D. Fla., May 28, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Steven Thomas Simmons, Jr., Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, PA P.O. Box 1870 Lady Lake, FL 32158 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 753-8606 E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com ssimmons@varnellandwarwick.com CONNECTICUT: Judiciary Committee Approves Settlement ---------------------------------------------------- Ken Dixon, writing for Connecticut Post, reports that most Republicans on the Legislature's law-writing Judiciary Committee have voted against cleaning up the final mess left by a former GOP governor in 2003. But the Democratic majority, without naming John G. Rowland -- the disgraced former governor -- approved a settlement with the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition that could save the state hundreds of millions of dollars. The unusual deal with 34,000 state employees includes 2,800 directly affected by the layoffs -- workers that federal and state courts said Rowland targeted because they were unionized. It's those who lost their jobs or were bumped into lower-paying spots who will make the most in the deal, which would be paid out mostly over the next four years, includes retirement benefits and money for claims of emotional distress. Some employees would make as little as $100 to $1,500 in a $40 million portion of the payout. All 34,000 in the class-action suit would receive various levels of additional personal and vacation time under the deal explained to the committee by Rep. William Tong, D-Stamford, the panel's co-chairman. Tong warned the committee that Attorney General George Jepsen believes appealing a ruling against the state by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals to the United State Supreme Court is a long shot and could expose the state to orders to pay as much as $340 million within a month. "There are certain facts that are not helpful to the state's case," Tong said, noting that Rowland and his budget adviser never proved that the layoffs were vital to the state's interest. "The Second Circuit found . . . that the defendants in the federal case had intentionally fired only union members when the firings had minimal impact on the state budget." Still, GOP members of the committee were skeptical, and all but two Republicans voted to reject the two resolutions approving the deal. The House resolution passed the committee 17-13, with Rep. Tom O'Dea, R-New Canaan, joining Democrats. The Senate resolution was approved 8-2, with Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, joining Democrats. "This seems to be the best thing we can do," Kissel said. "We have a gun to our heads," said Sen. Paul R. Doyle, D-Wethersfield. "This is painful to read," said Sen. Michael McLachlan, R-Danbury, who rejected the settlement. "I don't feel that $40 million is a bargain." In 2013, a three-judge panel for the Second Circuit said Rowland's firings violated the constitutional rights of the employees. In unrelated cases later, Rowland served 10 months in prison for corruption charges in 2005, was recently sentenced to 30 months in prison for election fraud. "I'm a little concerned about how this all fits together," said Rep. John Shaban, R-Redding, who voted against the deal. "I'm concerned that a $40 million-ish hit to state coffers at this point is probably not something I can buy into." "I'm also concerned about a $340 million hit," Tong replied. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Removed "Gibson" Suit to W.D. Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Francis Janice Gibson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Continental Resources Inc., Case No. CJ-15-00015, was removed District Court of Blaine County, Oklahoma to the U.S. District Court Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00611-M to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleged breach of contract. The Plaintiff is represented by: Conner L. Helms, Esq. Gary R. Underwood, Esq. HELMS & UNDERWOOD One NE Second St Suite 202 Oklahoma City, OK 73104 Telephone: (405) 319-0700 Facsimile: (405) 319-9292 E-mail: Conner@helmsunderwood.com gary@helmsunderwood.com CONTROLADORA VUELA: Facing Class Action Over 2013 IPO ----------------------------------------------------- Controladora Vuela Compania de Aviacion, 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 the Company, as well as the CEO, CFO, three current directors and the former chairman, are among the defendants in a putative class action commenced on February 24, 2015 in the federal United States District Court for the Southern District of New York brought on behalf of purchasers of ADSs in and/or traceable to the September 2013 initial public offering. The complaint, which also names as defendants the underwriters of the IPO, generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus for the ADSs contained misstatements and omissions with respect to competitive outlook for certain markets and the recognition of non-ticket revenue in violation of the federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified damages and rescission. A lead plaintiff for the action has not yet been appointed by the court. The Company believes that the outcome of the proceedings to which it is currently a party will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements. COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Court Enters Judgment in "Wallace" Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Josephine L. Staton entered judgment on May 22, 2015, in the case captioned REGGIE WALLACE, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., ET AL., Defendants, CASE NO. SACV 08-1463-JLS (MLGX), (C.D. Cal.). The judgment, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1dAn4QGfrom Leagle.com, provides that: 1. The Settlement Class is defined as: "All individuals who received compensation from Full Spectrum Lending, Inc. in the position of Branch Account Executive between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2004 who were sent Acknowledgement Letters in connection with Full Spectrum's back pay program, excluding those Branch Account Executives who released their claims through settlement in the case of Walker v. Countrywide Credit Industries, Inc., et. al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas Case No. 3:03-CV-00684-N." 2. The parties must comply with the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement and of the Order Granting Final Approval, including payment of the approved claims made by Class Members, payment of the enhancement awards of $7,500 each to Plaintiffs Reggie Wallace, Travin Lu'I, and Erik Frates, and payment to Class Counsel of approved attorneys' fees in the amount of $3,150,000 and costs in the amount of $150,000. Upon such compliance, and in accordance with the terms of the Order Granting Final Approval, the matter and the Complaint will be dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice. The Settlement Class members will be barred and enjoined from prosecuting the Released Class Claims against the Releasees, as those terms are defined in the Settlement Agreement. The Court will retain jurisdiction over all matters relating to the interpretation, administration, implementation, effectuation and/or enforcement of the Stipulation of Class Settlement and Release, the First Amendment to Stipulation of Class Settlement and Release, the Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement and Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Incentive Awards and this Judgment. 3. Persons who timely requested exclusion from the Class: (a) will not participate in the recovery obtained through the Settlement Agreement; and (b) are entitled to prosecute an alternative lawsuit, or an individual claim with the California Labor Commission, in accordance with California law, with regard to the claims alleged in the Complaint. Reggie Wallace, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, represented by Dale Michael Fiola -- fiolaw1@aol.com -- Dale M Fiola Law Offices and: Mark A Boling, Esq. Law Office of Mark Boling 21986 Cayuga Ln Lake Forest, CA 92630 Phone Number: (949) 588-9222 Fax Number: (949) 588-7078 Erick Sosa, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, represented by Dale Michael Fiola, Dale M Fiola Law Offices & Mark A Boling, Law Office of Mark Boling. Travin Lu'I, Plaintiff, represented by Dale Michael Fiola, Dale M Fiola Law Offices & Mark A Boling, Law Office of Mark Boling. Erik Frates, Plaintiff, represented by Mark A Boling, Law Office of Mark Boling. Countrywide Home Loans Inc, Defendant, represented by Christopher A Crosman -- ccrosman@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Thomas R Kaufman -- tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, Greg S Labate -- glabate@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP, Rishi Puri -- rpuri@sheppardmullin.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Ruben David Escalante -- rescalante@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Vartan Serge Madoyan -- vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP. Countrywide Financial Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher A Crosman, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Thomas R Kaufman, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, Greg S Labate, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP, Rishi Puri, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Ruben David Escalante, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Vartan Serge Madoyan, Baker & Hostetler LLP. Full Spectrum Lending Inc, Defendant, represented by Christopher A Crosman, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Thomas R Kaufman, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, Greg S Labate, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP, Rishi Puri, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Ruben David Escalante, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Vartan Serge Madoyan, Baker & Hostetler LLP. Besthines Maria Davis, Intervenor, Pro Se. COURTESY VALET: Faces "McGraw" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey McGraw, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v. Courtesy Valet Corporation, Case No. 8:15-cv-01327-SDM-MAP (M.D. Fla., June 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Courtesy Valet Corporation owns and operates a parking and valet services company in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Jean Thomas, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA Ste 1600, 20 N Orange Ave Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: cthomas@forthepeople.com CVS PHARMACY: Sued Over Alleged Racial Discriminatory Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Lacole Simpson, Sheree Steele, Delbert Sorhaindo and Kerth Pollack, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04261- JGK (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's unlawful discriminatory practices in connection with loss prevention approach that intentionally target and racially profile Black and Hispanic shoppers. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. is a Rhode Island corporation with its headquarters and corporate offices in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. CVS owns and operates hundreds of stores located throughout New York City and the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Holden Wigdor, Esq. David E. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael J. Willemin, Esq. WIGDOR LLP 85 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 257-6800 Facsimile: (212) 257-6845 E-mail: dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com mwillemin@wigdorlaw.com DIVERSE FUNDING: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca B. Brown, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Diverse Funding Associates, LLC and Gary S. Lewis, Attorney at Law, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-03577-ES-JAD (D.N.J., May 27, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Ivan Rubin, Esq. THE WOLF LAW FIRM LLC 1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101 North Brunswick, NJ 08902 Telephone: (732) 545-7900 E-mail: drubin@wolflawfirm.net DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Strikes Fail-Safe Class Definitions ------------------------------------------------------------ David Krueger at Benesch, in an article for JDSupra, reports that Kenneth Boyer filed a putative class action against Diversified Consultants, Inc. and LiveVox, Inc., in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, alleging that DCI, through LiveVox, initiated telephone calls using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or prerecorded voices, in alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227. On April 20, 2015, the Eastern District of Michigan struck Boyer's class allegations. Boyer v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., No. 14-cv-12399, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58420 (E.D. Mich. April 20, 2015). Boyer proposed two classes. First, a class of individuals who subscribed to a cellular telephone to which DCI initiated a call using an ATDS, and where the person "did not provide his or her phone number to DCI." Similarly, Boyer proposed a second class of persons who received calls that used a prerecorded message to their wireless phone, and who "did not provide her or her phone number to DCI. . . " DCI moved to strike the class allegations on the grounds that the proposed classes constituted fail-safe class definitions. A fail- safe class definition is one that is defined so that only those who are entitled to relief are part of the class--in such circumstances, if a defendant prevails on liability, that necessarily means that no persons are part of the ultimate class. Here, DCI argued that Boyer's class definitions constituted fail- safe classes because they were defined to only include those persons who did not give DCI consent to call--and thus constituted fail-safe classes, because if DCI proved that some or all persons did give consent, they would no longer be class members and would not be bound by any adverse judgment. In opposing DCI's motion to strike, Boyer argued that DCI's motion was premature as discovery would "allow him to redefine the classes in a matter that avoids a failsafe class." In rejecting the plaintiff's argument, the district court noted that a motion to strike must be judged by "whether the classes as currently defined are legally permissible." The court concluded that the proposed classes were fail-safe definitions, and granted DCI's motion to strike. The court, however, granted Boyer fourteen days to file an amended complaint with a modified class definition. EBAY INC: Lawsuit Over 2014 Cyber-Attack Dismissed -------------------------------------------------- Matthew J. Schwartz, writing for Gov Info Security, reports that a federal judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit filed against eBay in the wake of a 2014 data breach that exposed encrypted passwords and personal information for 145 million users. After eBay discovered the cyber-attack -- which occurred between late February and early March 2014 -- it notified its users and advised them to change their passwords. The database that was exposed during the breach contained users' encrypted passwords, as well as their names, e-mail addresses, mailing addresses, phone numbers and dates of birth, eBay said. But eBay -- which owns PayPal -- said that the database contained no financial information. The lawsuit was filed in July 2014 by Collin Green on behalf of all eBay users in the United States whose personal information was exposed by the breach (see eBay Faces Breach Class Action Suit). The lawsuit alleged that the breach resulted in "economic damages" for eBay users, "actual identity theft," as well as damages resulting from having to mitigate an increased risk of identity theft, as well as lost time. For such a lawsuit to be successful, however, legal experts say plaintiffs must typically prove -- per what's known as Article III standing -- that they suffered an actual or threatened injury. But eBay said there was no evidence that payment card data had been compromised, or users harmed, and the judge presiding over the case appeared to agree. "This case raises the issue of whether the increased risk of future identity theft or identity fraud posed by a data security breach confers Article III standing on individuals whose information has been compromised by the data breach but whose information has not yet been misused," U.S. District Court Judge Susie Morgan wrote in a May 4 order. "After considering the parties' briefs and the relevant case law, the court finds itself positioned with the majority of district courts that have held the answer is no." As a result, Morgan granted eBay's request to dismiss the case, saying that Green "has not adequately alleged Article III standing." A Common Issue Such a ruling in a class action lawsuit filed over data breaches is common. "The failure to establish an injury-in-fact sufficient to support Article III standing has been a key issue in data breach class actions," says Barry Goheen, a partner in the litigation practice group at the Atlanta-based law firm King & Spalding, in a blog post published prior to Morgan dismissing the case. In legal terms, "standing" refers to the ability to demonstrate a connection to - or harm resulting from - a law or action, and "over the last several years, federal courts have dismissed the majority of these types of cases for lack of standing," Goheen says. The lack of standing results from judges ruling that plaintiffs - such as Green - cannot prove that they suffered some tangible or imminent "injury," such as economic harm. "His lawsuit, like so many others before his, basically argued the harm was the risk of future harm, as breach victims have statistically higher likelihood of becoming victims of ID theft," says the privacy blogger known as "Dissent." Lawsuit Exception: Target But when it comes to class action lawsuits filed in the wake of data breaches, not all cases have been dismissed. U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson, for example, allowed several class action lawsuits lodged against Target, in the wake of its massive data breach in 2013 -- which involved the theft of payment card data, and resulting cases of fraud -- to continue. Target has agreed on a provisional settlement of one of those suits that would award $10 million to affected consumers. Attorneys for Target had filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuits. "In consumer cases that have been brought across the country, the vast majority of them have been dismissed. The kinds of injury they claim is really the threat or risk of future harm, and courts have pretty universally found that to be insufficient," Target attorney Wendy Wildung, partner at Faegre Baker Daniels, said in a document filed with the court. Magnuson, however, denied that request, and ruled that the cases would proceed. Subsequently, Target reached its provisional settlement agreement for one lawsuit filed on behalf of consumers, which the judge plans to review in a Nov. 10 hearing, so he can assess how related claims have been handled. Still, it's not clear whether the judge would have ruled in Target's favor, had the case not been settled. Some experts said that Target -- which had $2.2 billion in cash on the books as of Jan. 31, 2015 -- may have agreed to the settlement simply to make the consumer case go away. As of February, the company reported that it had already spent $252 million on breach-related expenses, about $90 million of which was offset by the company's insurance policies. Meanwhile, a class action lawsuit filed by financial institutions against Target seeking reimbursement for breach-related expenses is still pending. And a group of financial institutions affected by the Target data breach that exposed at least 40 million payment cards is asking a court for a preliminary injunction to block the proposed settlement between the retailer and MasterCard that would provide $19 million to card issuers. In documents filed on April 21 in Minnesota U.S. District Court, the banks allege that "the total losses actually suffered by card-issuing financial institutions are astronomically higher than the $19 million offered under the proposed settlement." ELBIT IMAGING: Hearing This Month on Israeli Supreme Court Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Elbit Imaging 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 the hearing of the appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court is currently scheduled for June 2015. The Company said, "Following the approval of the Debt Restructuring by the Court (the "Court Ruling"), a holder of our Series B Notes which had previously filed with the Court a purported class action lawsuit against us on April 11, 2013 (the "Previous Action"), filed an appeal with the Israeli Supreme Court arguing that the Court erred in approving the Debt Restructuring, with specific reference to the exemption from personal civil liability that could potentially have been accorded to our officers and directors (other than Mr. Mordechai Zisser) and the rejection of the Previous Action. It should be noted that the Previous Action was dismissed on June 26, 2014 by the Court. To date, the appeal is yet to be heard by the Supreme Court, and the Debt Restructuring was consummated as mentioned above. The hearing of the appeal is currently scheduled for June 2015." ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the securities of Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. between November 4, 2014 and April 27, 2015, inclusive, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, states that it provides cloud-based platform solutions for small- and medium-sized businesses. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to disclose materially negative facts, about the Company's business prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) the Company overstated its average revenue per subscriber ("ARPS") and organic growth rate; (2) the Company engaged in irregular accounting practices related to its international business; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about Endurance's business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. 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 April 28, 2015, research firm Gotham City Research LLC published a report alleging, among other things, that 40% to 100% of Endurance's reported profits were suspect and the Company's normalized profits would be insufficient to cover its interest expenses. The report alleged that the Company used related parties to inflate earnings, and that transactions with related entities have accounted for at least 16.5% of the Company's 2012-2014 Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization. The report also alleged that the Company's reported organic growth was overstated and that 2014 ARPS had actually declined 13% when the Company's 10-K claimed that ARPS had grown 11%. On this news, shares in Endurance dropped over 10%, closing at $19.70 per share on April 28, 2015, on heavy trading volume. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 3, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- or -- gegleston@gme-law.com ENERGY CORP: Bid for Accounting at Law in "Pollock" Case Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell denied a motion for an accounting at law filed by plaintiffs in the class action captioned DAVID F. POLLOCK, as executor of the estate of Margaret F. Pollock, JOHN T. DIBIASE, JR., JOHN S. FRAYTE, STUART W. WHIPKEY, PATRICIA L. CHRISTOPHER, LOUIS A. VECCHIO and BESSIE P. VECCHIO, BARBARA A. MORRIS; GENE M. VIRGILI and ERIN R. VIRGILI, and LLOYD R. SHAFFER, III, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ENERGY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-1553, (W.D. Penn.). A copy of Mag. Judge Mitchell's May 27, 2015 memorandum order is available at http://bit.ly/1L1Qgeufrom Leagle.com. "The Court finds that the interests of the class would not be fulfilled by granting an accounting seeking the exact amount of interstate charges and marketing fees deducted from their royalties," ruled Mag. Judge Mitchell. "An accounting seeking this information is costly, would unduly burden ECA and not efficiently lead to reliable information given that ECA estimated the aggregate damages stipulated to at trial, ECA does not maintain records on an individual well basis of the costs incurred between the well meter and point of sale, many of the well-owners have since sold the property interest to non-class third parties, and as ECA predicts, it would take a team of three people two to three months to complete the accounting sought. Insofar as it is Plaintiffs' duty to inform this Court and the class members of how the judgment, if any, will be distributed between the subclasses, exactitude is not the standard; rather, the amount distributed to the subclasses must be "fair, reasonable and adequate."" Robert C. Sanders -- rcsanders@rcsanderslaw.com -- Esquire, Law Office of Robert C. Sanders, Upper Marlboro, MD. William R. Caroselli, Esquire, David A. McGowan, Esquire, Caroselli, Beachler, McTiernan & Conboy Pittsburgh, PA, Counsel for Plaintiffs. Kevin C. Abbott, Esquire -- kabbott@reedsmith.com -- Justin H. Werner, Esquire -- jwerner@reedsmith.com -- Nicolle R. Snyder Bagnell, Esquire -- nbagnell@reedsmith.com -- Stacey L. Jarrell, Esquire -- sjarrell@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith, Reed Smith Centre, Pittsburgh, PA, Counsel for Defendant. ENSIGN UNITED STATES: Faces "Watt" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Watt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ensign United States Drilling (S.W.) Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01158 (D. Colo., June 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a single work week. Ensign United States Drilling (S.W.) Inc. is an oilfield service company with significant operations in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Andrew Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com ESPAR INC: Faces Guay Bros. Suit Over Parking Heater-Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Guay Brothers Company, Inc. on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Espar, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03225 (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2015), alleges that from at least October 1, 2007 through at least December 31, 2012, the Defendants and their co-conspirators inflated the price for air and coolant parking heaters sold aftermarket for use in commercial vehicles. Espar, Inc. and Espar Products Inc. are sister corporations that directly and through its affiliates corporations, sold Parking Heaters in the United States for commercial use in the aftermarket. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. Gregory K. Arenson, Esq. Richard J. Kilsheimer, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com garenson@kaplanfox.com rkilsheimer@kaplanfox.com ESPRESSO BAR: Israeli Court Allows Suit Over Exposure to Smoking ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judy Siegel-Itzkovich, writing for Jerusalem Post, reports that the Supreme Court accepted an appeal of a lower-court ruling and made it possible for people exposed to tobacco smoke in public places to file class-action suits over the issue. The claims against owners of premises that do not enforce the no-smoking law could total millions of shekels in each case, as each individual in the suit is entitled to a NIS 1,000 fine against violators. The Israel Cancer Association, represented by attorney Amos Hausner, appeared as a friend of the court in the suit (Efrati vs Espresso Bar Ltd). The appeal was heard by Supreme Court President Miriam Naor with Justices Neal Hendel and Noam Solberg. The ruling overturned a previous Tel Aviv District Court decision by Judge Drora Pilpel and determined that it is possible for those exposed to tobacco smoke in public places to file class-action lawsuits against the owners of offending premises. The district court had reasoned that because an individual can sue businesses, entertainment venues, or banquet halls for this, it ruled out powerful class-action suits. But according to the Supreme Court, anyone complaining about secondhand smoke exposure can make a claim on behalf of other sufferers to file a class- action suit. The ICA welcomed this ruling principle. "The association had encouraged private claims and encouraged law students to assist individuals to file such claims. When private lawsuits' success was only partial, class actions have become an important component in the enforcement of the law prohibiting smoking in public places, which is unfortunately ignored by many business owners who do not enforce it." "This has removed the doubt about the principle in the district court," said Hausner on behalf of the ICA "in any case of exposure to smoke, one can sue in a class action." EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Intends to Contest Claims in MERS Case ---------------------------------------------------------- EverBank Financial Corp. 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 intends to contest all such claims vigorously in the case, Mortgage Electronic Registration Services Related Litigation. Mortgage Electronic Registration Services (MERS), EverHome Mortgage Company, EverBank and other lenders and servicers that have held mortgages through MERS are parties to the following material and class action lawsuits where the plaintiffs allege improper mortgage assignment and, in some instances, the failure to pay recording fees in violation of state recording statutes: (1) State of Ohio, ex. rel. David P. Joyce, Prosecuting Attorney General of Geauga County, Ohio v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc. et al., filed in October 2011 in the Court of Common Pleas for Geauga County, Ohio, and later removed to federal court and subsequently remanded to state court; (2) Boyd County, ex. rel. Phillip Hedrick, County Attorney of Boyd County, Kentucky, et al. v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc., et al. filed in April 2012 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky and now on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; (3) St. Clair County, Illinois v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., MERSCORP, Inc. et al., filed in May 2012 in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois; (4) County of Multnomah v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al., filed in December 2012 in an Oregon state court, later removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon and subsequently remanded back to the state court; and (5) Delaware County, PA, Recorder of Deeds v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al., filed in November 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, and later removed to federal court and subsequently remanded back to state court. In these material and class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs in each case generally seek judgment from the courts compelling the defendants to record all assignments, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, and appropriate attorneys' fees and costs. "We believe that the plaintiff's claims are without merit and intend to contest all such claims vigorously," the Company said. EVERDRY WATERPROOFING: Suit Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Cooper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wisconsin State Home Services Inc. d/b/a Everdry Waterproofing Wisconsin, and William Eyers, Case No. 2:15-cv-00638 (E.D. Wis., May 27, 2015) alleges that within the past three years, the Plaintiff and the putative class members have been denied pay at the minimum wage for all hours worked and compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their respective regular rates for all hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin law. Mr. Cooper and the putative class members have worked as hourly, production crew employees of the Defendants. Wisconsin State Home Services Inc., doing business as Everdry Waterproofing Wisconsin, provides waterproofing services for residential properties in the state of Wisconsin and is principally located in Waukesha, Wisconsin. William Eyers is the owner/operator of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara Zack Quindel, Esq. Timothy Maynard, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 222 East Erie, Suite 210 P.O. Box 442 Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442 Telephone: (414) 271-8650 Facsimile: (414) 271-8442 E-mail: bquindel@hq-law.com tmaynard@hq-law.com FINGER ONE: Moves "Moore" Suit to Southern District of California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Moore v. Finger One, Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2015-00011496-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, Central Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01182-BTM-JLB to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues. The Plaintiff is represented by: Noam Glick, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 652-3100 Facsimile: (858) 652-3101 E-mail: noam.glick@ogletreedeakins.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew D. Skale, Esq. MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY & POPEO PC 3580 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 314-1500 Facsimile: (858) 314-1501 E-mail: askale@mintz.com FLASH FOODS: Faces "Novinger" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Beth Novinger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Flash Foods Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00086-LJA (M.D. Ga., May 27, 2015) is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act for alleged denial of overtime compensation. FORMULA SYSTEMS: Matrix & Formula Have Yet to Respond to Request ---------------------------------------------------------------- Formula Systems (1985) 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 Matrix and Formula have not yet filed a response to the amended request by the applicant. On September 10, 2014, a motion for certification of a class action (together with a statement of claim) was filed by an alleged shareholder of Formula's subsidiary Matrix against Matrix and Matrix's directors and chief executive officer, and against Formula, as Matrix's controlling shareholder. The motion included a claim for damages caused, according to the alleged shareholder, to the shareholders of Matrix as a result of the publication of financial statements that included misleading information, which, according to the applicant, have a significant impact on Matrix's results of operations, a breach of the duty of disclosure under Israeli securities laws and negligent supervision over the financial statements, based on reports regarding the correction of errors discovered in the financial statements of Matrix. On January 13, 2015, the applicant filed an amended request, which included, among other things, a financial expert opinion and an increase to the amount of the claim in accordance with the above request, with the losses to the applicant estimated to be NIS 0.225 and the losses of the entire group estimated to be NIS 41,000 (approximately $ 10,543). Matrix and Formula have not yet filed a response. "At this time, given the multiple uncertainties involved and in large part to the highly speculative nature of the damages sought by the plaintiff we are unable to estimate the amount of the probable loss, if any, to be recognized with respect to this claim," the Company said. FORT BEND: Faces Class Action Over Truancy Policy ------------------------------------------------- Matt Cooper, writing for Courthouse News, reports that the Fort Bend County Independent School District unlawfully sends its frequently absent students to criminal court, a class action claims. Calling it a "mischievous intermingling of two governmental entities," the May 6 complaint accuses Fort Bend's school district of operating an automated program to mass-produce citations that summon over 4,000 students annually to appear before the county truancy court. There, the students face class-C misdemeanor charges and before "a magistrate called a judge" and an "unlawful and biased tribunal," lead plaintiff Verakisha Roach claims. "As this (complaint) will show, everything involved allowed for this intertwined and reckless system to operate to incriminate our young people in a manner completely outside the bounds of Texas law, ushering in violations of the Texas and United States Constitution," the complaint states. Roach's suit, filed on behalf of her minor son, comes just over a week after the school district suspended its program amid public scrutiny and calls for the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate area truancy laws. The department has already opened an investigation of Dallas County's truancy court, upon which the Fort Bend court is based. Fort Bend ISD allows up to 10 unexcused absences in a six-month period, and state law allows the district broad discretion in what it considers an excused or unexcused absence, which it tracks with an automated system, the complaint states. If a student or parent refuses to or cannot take part in the district's truancy diversion program, the district allegedly prints and mails the student a citation. Roach says the citations, summoning students to Fort Bend Truancy Court for "failure to attend school," all bear a "mass produced, electronic" signature from Fort Bend ISD's police officer, Rafael Rincon. One of three "attendance specialists" allegedly attaches a notary stamp and mails the citation through regular U.S. mail. The district makes little effort to investigate habitual absences, the complaint alleges, in part because the attendance departments at many of the district's schools are greatly understaffed. Even when the district has investigated and discovered unique situations that explain a student's frequent absences, the district has sometimes chosen to send the student to court anyway, Roach says. "Many times, even with knowledge of these unique situations, Fort Bend ISD has simply thrown many of these students into the adult criminal justice system without the benefit of legal counsel under the guise of the stated 'we must follow the law' mantra and even with a complete recognition that a student's involuntary absence situation just 'breaks their hearts,'" the complaint states. Fort Bend's district produced a "mind-boggling" number of truancy filings during its peak, according to the complaint, which tallies that number at approximately 8,500 for the 2008-09 school year. The cases overwhelmed the docket of Fort Bend's county justice of the peace for Precinct 3, which has original jurisdiction over truancy cases, the complaint says. Using Dallas County's truancy court as a model, Fort Bend ISD established its own court and immediately treated the court as an independent criminal court even though it is only allowed magistrate activities, Roach says. She adds that students appearing in Fort Bend Truancy Court are not referred to the justice court unless they plead not guilty. The class alleges that the county, its school district and its truancy court staffers lack authority to issue citations or levy criminal charges against minors. It is represented by Deron Harrington of Missouri City, Texas. FXCM INC: July 7 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Applications --------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and KSF partner, the former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until July 7, 2015 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against FXCM Inc. FXCM, +0.70% if they purchased the Company's securities between June 11, 2013 through January 20, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. What You May Do If you purchased shares of FXCM 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 7, 2015. About the Lawsuit FXCM and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. These false statements and omissions included, in part, that: (i) FXCM's agency model of FX trading did not insulate it from financial risk from its heavily leveraged clients; (ii) FXCM did not disclose the true potential risk posed by market volatility; and (iii) FXCM did not maintain sufficient regulatory capital reserves for unforeseen scenarios. On January 16, 2015, FXCM announced that Leucadia National Corp. would be providing a loan of $300 million in cash to FXCM to allow it to meet its regulatory-capital requirements and avoid possible bankruptcy. On this news, trading of the FXCM's stock was suspended. Once the stock resumed trading, the price of FXCM's shares plummeted. About Kahn Swick To learn more about Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, whose partners include the Former Louisiana Attorney General, Charles C. Foti, Jr., and other lawyers with significant experience litigating complex securities class actions nationwide on behalf of both institutional and individual shareholders. FXCM INC: Faces Customer Suit for Inflating Stock Price ------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that a pension fund sued U.S. currency broker FXCM Inc. for allegedly misleading investors about its financial prospects and concealing weaknesses in its core business before its stock dropped 90 percent in January. The International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 478 Pension Fund accused FXCM of fraud and artificially inflating its stock price in the complaint, filed in federal court in New York. The complaint said that FXCM, which provides currency brokerage services to retail clients, claimed its currency trading model was "extremely low-risk" and volatility in the foreign exchange markets was good for its business. The complaint seeks class-action status and undisclosed damages. In addition to the company, the suit names FXCM's chief executive, Dror Niv, and chief financial officer, Robert Lande. The complaint also accused Lande of insider trading, saying that he sold more than $3 million of his personal holdings of FXCM shares while the price of the stock was artificially inflated. FXCM would vigorously defend the allegations, company spokeswoman Jaclyn Klein said in an email. FXCM customers experienced losses of $225 million after the Swiss franc surged as much as 41 percent against the euro in January, following a decision by the Swiss National Bank on Jan. 15, 2015, to end a policy in place since 2011 that allowed the franc to trade freely against the euro, according to the complaint. The pension fund said it is seeking class action status for investors who bought shares in FXCM between June 11, 2013, and Jan. 20, 2015. The pension fund in its complaint also cited FXCM's announcement on Jan. 16, 2015, of a $300 million loan extended by Leucadia National Corp made shortly after the Swiss Bank's decision. It said the terms of the loan were described as "highly punitive," and nearly all shareholder value in the company was wiped out. Trading in FXCM's stock was suspended. Trading in the stock resumed on Jan. 20. The shares closed at $1.60, down from the prior close on Jan. 15 of $12.63, the complaint said. The complaint said FXCM stock "traded at artificially inflated prices during the class period." G. WILLI-FOOD: Four Civil Complaints in Early Stage --------------------------------------------------- G. Willi-Food International 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, December 2014 and April 2015, four civil complaints and applications for their approval as class actions were filed against the Company alleging the unlawful and misleading labeling of products imported and sold by the Company. The complaints seek to represent every resident of the State of Israel who purchased products of the Company. The aggregate amount of the claims, as estimated by the plaintiffs, is approximately NIS 37 million (USD 9.5 million). In light of the early stage of the procedures, it is not possible at this time to provide an assessment of the chances of success of the claims and, therefore no provision has been made in the financial statements. GARRETT SEAWRIGHT: "Arguedas" Suit Returns to Mexico Dist. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- On May 10, 2013, plaintiffs filed a class complaint in the First Judicial District Court, State of New Mexico, against defendant Garrett Seawright individually and as class representative for Defendant Class of State Farm Agents Licensed to Sell Automobile Liability Insurance in New Mexico, asserting violations of the New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act and alleging unfair, misleading, deceptive or unconscionable trade practices in connection to sales of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. On June 17, 2013, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) intervened as a party defendant. On the same day, State Farm filed a Notice of Removal with the Court, asserting subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff's Memorandum Motion to Strike Notice of Removal or Alternatively Remand to State Court for Lack of Federal Jurisdiction, Defendants' Joint Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, Plaintiffs' Reply on Motion to Remand to State Court for Lack of Federal Jurisdiction, and Defendants' Joint Surreply to Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Motion to Remand. "I have determined this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this class action and order it remanded to the First Judicial District Court," wrote District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales in his memorandum opinion and order dated June 3, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1Tr0DOJfrom Leagle.com. "I determine this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this lawsuit. I also determine this Court is without jurisdiction to consider State Farm's Amended Motion to Intervene. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand is granted," Judge Gonzales concluded. The case is ARTHUR ARGUEDAS, BARBARA ARGUEDAS and HELEN BRANSFORD, Plaintiffs, v. GARRETT SEAWRIGHT, individually and as DEFENDANT CLASS REPRESENTATIVE for a Defendant Class of State Farm Agents Licensed to Sell Automobile Liability Insurance in New Mexico, Defendants, NO. CIV 13-00565 KG/KK, (D.N.M.). Arthur Arguedas, Plaintiff, represented by David J Berardinelli -- renea@djblawfirm.com -- Berardinelli Law Firm, Daniel J O'Friel -- dan@ofrielandlevy.com -- O'Freil and Levy, PC & Pierre Levy -- pierre@ofrielandlevy.com -- O'Friel and Levy, P.C. Barbara Arguedas, Plaintiff, represented by David J Berardinelli, Berardinelli Law Firm, Daniel J O'Friel, O'Freil and Levy, PC & Pierre Levy, O'Friel and Levy, P.C. Helen Bransford, Plaintiff, represented by David J Berardinelli, Berardinelli Law Firm, Daniel J O'Friel, O'Freil and Levy, PC & Pierre Levy, O'Friel and Levy, P.C. Garrett Seawright, individually and as Defendant Class Representative for a Defendant Class of State Farm Agents Licensed to Sell Automobile Liability Insurance in New Mexico, Defendant, represented by Rudolph Lucero -- rlucero@mstlaw.com -- Miller Stratvert P.A. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Intervenor Defendant, represented by Joseph A Cancila, Jr. -- jcancila@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP, Neil Lloyd -- nlloyd@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP, Sarah A Ratliff -- sratliff@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP & Terry R. Guebert -- tguebert@guebertlaw.com -- Guebert Bruckner P.C. GEORGIA: Court to Hear City Employees' Challenge to Pension Reform ------------------------------------------------------------------ Katie Leslie, writing for Atlanta Journal Constitution, reports that the Georgia Supreme Court will hear arguments in a class action lawsuit filed by city employees over Atlanta's 2011 pension reform. A handful of employees representing nearly 6,000 fire, police and general workers filed suit against Atlanta in late 2013, contending that the increase in their pension contributions was in violation of their contract and, therefore, unconstitutional. Attorneys for Mayor Kasim Reed say the city acted lawfully in reforming the under-funded pension system. A Fulton Superior Court judge ruled against the employees last year. The workers are appealing that decision to the state's highest court. If the judges side with employees, Atlanta could be on the hook for about $36 million in restitution. According to court filings, Atlanta anticipates that losing the legal challenge would cost the city $160 million in prospective savings over the next 30 years. GERON CORP: Shuman Law Firm Investigates Firm --------------------------------------------- Shuman Law Firm said that it is investigating potential claims against certain officers and directors of Geron Corp. Geron is a Menlo Park, CA-based clinical stage biopharmaceutical company. The Firm's investigation relates to allegations raised in a class action lawsuit against the Company concerning the Company's drug, imetelstat, and related clinical trials which took place between June 16, 2013 and March 11, 2014. The class action alleges that Geron's senior officers and directors may have known that patients treated with imetelstat exhibited liver function abnormalities putting them at risk for chronic liver injury but nonetheless made statements to the public that imetelstat was safe and well- tolerated. When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suspended imetelstat clinical trials on March 11, 2014 due to these liver toxicity concerns, Geron's stock fell 62%. The Firm is investigating whether Geron's officers' and directors' statements may have exposed the Company to civil liability. The Company currently faces a class action lawsuit alleging that Geron knew about imetelstat's harmful side effects and concealed these facts from the public. On April 10, 2015, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer denied, in part, Geron's motion to dismiss the class action and the case is proceeding toward trial. If you currently own Geron common stock and are interested in discussing your rights, or have information relating to this investigation, please contact Kip B. Shuman or Rusty E. Glenn toll-free at (866) 569-4531 or email Mr. Shuman at -- kip@shumanlawfirm.com -- or email Mr. Glenn at -- rusty@shumanlawfirm.com GLK FOODS: "Jean-Baptiste" Suit Moved From Florida to Wisconsin --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Jean-Baptiste v. GLK Foods, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-20691, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Green Bay). The Wisconsin District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00636-WCG to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought by a migrant farmworker to secure and vindicate rights afforded to him by the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. The Plaintiff also seeks relief on behalf of his co-workers for the Defendant's alleged violations of the registration verification, working arrangement and wage payment provisions of the AWPA. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory S. Schell, Esq. MIGRANT FARMWORKER JUSTICE PROJECT 508 Lucerne Avenue Lake Worth, FL 33460-3819 Telephone: (561) 582-3921 Facsimile: (561) 582-4884 E-mail: Greg@Floridalegal.Org The Defendant is represented by: Bradley Scott Bell, Esq. BELL LAW GROUP PA 407 N Howard Ave., Suite 201 Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 867-4522 Facsimile: (813) 867-4542 E-mail: bbell@bbellpa.com - and - Gregory B. Gill, Sr., Esq. GILL & GILL SC 128 N Durkee St. Appleton, WI 54911-5427 Telephone: (920) 739-1107 Facsimile: (920) 739-3027 E-mail: gbgillsr@new.rr.com GNC HOLDINGS: Six Class Actions Related to Hydroxycut Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- GNC 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 as of March 31, 2015, there were six putative class action cases related to Hydroxycut in which the Company had been named. In 2009, the FDA issued a warning on several Hydroxycut-branded products manufactured by Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A., Inc. ("Iovate") based on 23 reports of liver injuries from consumers who claimed to have used the products between 2002 and 2009. As a result, Iovate voluntarily recalled 14 Hydroxycut-branded products. Following the recall, the Company was named, among other defendants, in multiple lawsuits related to Hydroxycut-branded products in several states. The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated pretrial proceedings of many of the pending actions in the Southern District of California (In re: Hydroxycut Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2087), and Iovate previously accepted the Company's tender request for defense and indemnification under its purchasing agreement with the Company in these matters. As of March 31, 2015, there were 76 pending lawsuits related to Hydroxycut in which the Company had been named: 70 individual, largely personal injury claims and six putative class action cases, generally inclusive of claims of consumer fraud, misrepresentation, strict liability and breach of warranty. In May 2013, the parties to the individual personal injury cases signed a Master Settlement Agreement, under which the Company is not required to make any payments. Settlement payments are being made exclusively by Iovate and dismissals are expected to be entered in these actions in the near term. The parties in the consolidated class actions reached a settlement, which was approved by the Court on October 20, 2014 and which does not require the Company to make any payments. Following final resolution of the individual personal injury cases and the settlement of the consolidated class action suits, all of the Hydroxycut claims currently pending against the Company will be resolved without any payment by the Company. GNC HOLDINGS: Named in 31 Injury Lawsuits Over DMAA, Aegeline ------------------------------------------------------------- GNC 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 as of March 31, 2015, the Company was named in 31 personal injury lawsuits involving products containing DMAA and/or Aegeline. Prior to December 2013, the Company sold products manufactured by third parties that contained derivatives from geranium known as 1.3-dimethylpentylamine/dimethylamylamine/13-dimethylamylamine, or "DMAA," which were recalled from its stores in November 2013, and/or Aegeline, a compound extracted from bael trees. As of March 31, 2015, the Company was named in 31 personal injury lawsuits involving products containing DMAA and/or Aegeline. As a general matter, the proceedings associated with these cases, which generally seek indeterminate money damages, are in the early stages, and any liabilities that may arise from these matters are not probable or reasonably estimable at this time. The Company is contractually entitled to indemnification by its third-party vendor with regard to these matters, although the Company's ability to obtain full recovery in respect of any such claims against it is dependent upon the creditworthiness of the vendor and/or its insurance coverage and the absence of any significant defenses available to its insurer. GNC HOLDINGS: Trial Scheduled in June 2015 in Sparling Case ----------------------------------------------------------- GNC 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 one of the personal injury suits in which the Company is named, Leanne Sparling and Michael Sparling on behalf of Michael Sparling, deceased v. USPLabs, GNC Corporation, et al., Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (Case No. 2013-00034663-CU-PL-CTL), filed February 13, 2013, is the subject of pending motion for summary judgment filed by the Company and is scheduled for trial in June 2015. GNC HOLDINGS: Court Approved Settlement in Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- GNC 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 previously was named in three putative class action cases in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, one of which was dismissed with prejudice in December 2014. The two remaining class action claims were consolidated and, in February 2015, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida approved a settlement agreement among the parties, which does not require any payment by the Company. GNC HOLDINGS: Final Order Entered Dismissing Calif. Wage Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- GNC 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 remaining plaintiffs in a class action related to California Wage and Break Claims entered into a settlement agreement with the Company in December 2014 and the Court subsequently entered a final order dismissing the action with prejudice. In November 2008, 98 plaintiffs filed individual claims against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, which was removed to the U.S. District Court, Central District of California in February 2009. Each of the plaintiffs had previously been a member of a purported class in a lawsuit filed against the Company in 2007 and resolved in September 2009. The plaintiffs alleged that they were not provided all of the rest and meal periods to which they were entitled under California law, and further alleged that the Company failed to pay them split shift and overtime compensation to which they were entitled under California law. The plaintiffs also alleged derivative claims for inaccurate wage statements, failure to pay wages due at termination, and penalty claims under the California Labor Code. In June 2013, a trial was conducted with respect to the claims of seven of the plaintiffs. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company on all claims submitted to the jury, and the Court entered an order in favor of the Company on the one claim submitted to the Court. A number of other plaintiffs were dismissed from the action pursuant to stipulation and/or Court order. The remaining plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with the Company in December 2014 and the Court subsequently entered a final order dismissing the action with prejudice. GNC HOLDINGS: Mediation Unsuccessful in Brewer Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- GNC 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 a mediation conducted in April 2015 was unsuccessful in resolving the Plaintiff's claims in the class action by Charles Brewer. In July 2011, Charles Brewer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in federal court, alleging state and federal wage and hour claims (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 11CV3587). In October 2011, plaintiff filed an eight-count amended complaint alleging, inter alia, meal, rest break and overtime violations on behalf of sales associates and assistant store managers, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In January 2013, the Court conditionally certified a Fair Labor Standards Act class with respect to one of Plaintiff's claims, and in November 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a California class, and granted Defendant's Motion for Decertification of FLSA Collective Action. A mediation conducted in April 2015 was unsuccessful in resolving the Plaintiff's claims. As of March 31, 2015, an immaterial liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements. GNC HOLDINGS: Mediation Unsuccessful in Naranjo Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ GNC 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 a mediation conducted in April 2015 was unsuccessful in resolving the Plaintiff's claims in the class action by Elizabeth Naranjo. In February 2012, former Senior Store Manager, Elizabeth Naranjo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated sued General Nutrition Corporation in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda (Case No. RG 12619626). The complaint contains eight causes of action, alleging, inter alia, meal, rest break, and overtime violations. In October 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Class of approximately 900 current and former managers. A mediation conducted in April 2015 was unsuccessful in resolving the Plaintiff's claims. As of March 31, 2015, an immaterial liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements. FLSA Matters. GNC HOLDINGS: Parties Settled Claims in "Vargas" Case ----------------------------------------------------- GNC 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 in June 2010, Dominic Vargas and Anne Hickok, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation and the Company in federal court (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:05-mc-02025). The two-count complaint alleged, generally, that plaintiffs were required to perform work on an uncompensated basis and that the Company failed to pay overtime for such work. The parties have settled the plaintiffs' claims for an immaterial amount. GREAT AMERICAN PLUMBING: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over Nonpayment of OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Gomez, on behalf of a class of similarly situated workers v. The Great American Plumbing Company, Inc. d/b/a $15 Sewer and Drain Service, Mark Anthony McGinnis, and Suretec Indemnity Company, Case No. 5:15-cv-02465 (N.D. Cal., June 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Great American Plumbing Company, Inc. is a California corporation that provides service and repair plumbing. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tomas E. Margain, Esq. JUSTICE AT WORK LAW GROUP 84 W. Santa Clara St., Ste. 790 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408) 317-1100 Facsimile: (408) 351-0105 E-mail: Tomas@JAWLawGroup.Com - and - Stephan R. Wattenberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF STEPHAN R. WATTENBERG 1074 East Avenue, Suite C Chico, California 95926 Telephone: (530) 342-8930 Facsimile: (530) 342-5625 HOWARD SCHNEIDER: Accused of Torture, Choking Kids -------------------------------------------------- Charlene Adams, writing for Daily Mail, reports that a Florida pediatric dentist has been accused of assault, battery, and using his practice to torture children over several decades. In a lawsuit, four plaintiffs allege that Dr. Howard Schneider's dental practice in Jacksonville has little to do with dentistry, but much to do with his 'deviant, sadistic appetites.' The Florida Attorney General's Office recently confirmed that Schneider, 78, is under investigation for alleged medical fraud, the Des Moines Register reports, but the plaintiffs hold that the dentist is guilty of much more. The accusations include, assault, battery, false imprisonment, and intentionally inflicting 'severe emotional distress.' The class-action lawsuit describes Schneider's practice as a 'house of horrors' and accuses the man of physically abusing children, performing unnecessary dental procedures, botching dental procedures, threatening his 'victims' into silence, and refusing to answer to concerned parents and investigators. The suit, which seeks damages exceeding $15,000 and a jury trial, states that attorneys for the plaintiffs have identified at least 60 of Schneider's alleged victims and suggests that there could be as many as 1,000 -- some of whom are now adults, the Register reports. 'When enough people come together, and they're all telling the same story, then certainly there's a lot more creeds. And right now a lot of people are coming forward,' Gust Sarris, an attorney, told the Register. He said he has heard from former patients of Schneider as old as 48. Schneider is accused of choking children to the point of unconsciousness, threatening children into silence, performing painful procedures on children without anesthetic, and more. The plaintiffs attribute the man's alleged behavior to a 'psychosexual disorder.' They hold that the 78-year-old is a 'pathological sadist' who experiences sexual pleasure from inflicting physical or psychological pain on another person. The suit alleges that in January 2014, a child was taken to Schneider to receive two dental caps. Instead, the suit states, Schneider gave the child eight telling the child's parents simply that the child 'needed caps.' All eight of the caps fell off within one month of the treatment, the suit alleges, and the treatment has led to health issues which will likely lead to the child having to have several teeth removed. The Register reports that the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office has been called to Schneider's practice twice -- once in 2001 and again in 2013 -- and two malpractice suits were filed against him in 1995 but later dismissed. IHEARTMEDIA INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Beth Shvarts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. iHeartMedia, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03231 (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 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. iHeartMedia, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates a media and entertainment company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari H. Marcus, Esq. MARCUS LAW, LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: ari@marcuslawnj.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman* Courtney C. Booth EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com cbooth@edelson.com - and - Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq. THE GLAPION LAW FIRM, LLC 39 Schindler Court Neptune, NJ 07753 Telephone: (732) 455-9737 Facsimile: (267) 737-0446 E-mail: jmg@glapionlaw.com INDIANA: Bureau of Motor Vehicles Used Ambiguous Fees, Audit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Coyne, writing for wane.com, reports that the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles lacks oversight, uses a complex fee schedule that leads to inconsistent charges for the same transactions and may have overcharged motorists more than previously disclosed, according to an independent audit released May 11, 2015. The 38-page report by the accounting firm BKD LLP said that during the audit 16 new overcharges were discovered that could mean refunds for drivers. BMV spokesman Josh Gillespie said the agency won't know the amount of the overcharges or how many drivers were affected until late June. Those come in the wake of BMV officials acknowledging the agency has overcharged motorists by more than $60 million since 2013. The most recent acknowledgement came in February when Gov. Mike Pence announced he was seeking legislation to streamline the agency's fee structures because it had overcharged drivers $2 million in six years. The BMV admitted last September it has overcharged state residents $29 million in refunds and a year earlier settled a class-action lawsuit that accused the BMV of overcharging customers $30 million. The audit also found 10 additional undercharges to motorists. Gillespie said the BMV will not attempt to recover the undercharges. Irwin Levin, the attorney who led that class-action lawsuit and has another lawsuit pending against the BMV, said the public should be outraged at how incompetently the agency has been run. "I'm pleased that because of our lawsuit, they were put into a corner and had to have someone do an outside investigation," Levin said. Kent Abernathy, who took over as BMV commissioner, said internal improvements already have begun, including the hiring of a chief of staff and a new chief information officer and the formation of a central internal audit team. "The assessment provides areas of focus helping us put together an aggressive and transformational agenda focusing on legislative, operations and systems adjustments," Abernathy said in a prepared statement. The report said the BMV is responsible for administering 1,200 unique fees and taxes and that fees did not always match the names in the code, requiring judgment and creating a risk of error by workers. The report recommended that the BMV not only work with the Legislature to review, reduce and simplify the code structure, but also demonstrate a commitment to establish a workforce capable of supporting the agency's mission. BKD also recommended that agency management evaluate the effectiveness and proficiency of key leadership positions and "act as necessary to address shortcomings." "The current culture operates in a reactive mode versus proactively monitoring for instances of noncompliance or control failures," the report found. "Without an internal audit function, there is limited assurance as to the adequacy and effectiveness of management's internal control system and related processes." The report said that while the branch operations were independently audited on a consistent basis, the central office had not been subject to an internal audit for a number of years. BKD also found problems that allow "transactional errors to occur." For example, the report said the BMV has different fees for a "plate swap" and a "plate transfer" transaction, but doesn't clearly define when each applies. It also doesn't say when a registration should be treated as a new registration. Levin said he believes a court should oversee all the refunds, saying the BMV can't be trusted to pay back all the money it overcharged motorists. He has a second case pending against the BMV that alleges the agency drivers possibly as much as $38 million in excessive charges for a number of fees and services. Marion County Superior Court Judge John Hanley is scheduled to hear a motion on May 18 by the BMV, which is seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed. INSULET CORPORATION: Briscoe & Powers Taylor Launch Probe --------------------------------------------------------- Former United States Securities and Exchange Commission attorney Willie Briscoe, founder of The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC, and the securities litigation firm of Powers Taylor LLP announce that a federal class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Insulet Corporation and several officers and directors for acts taken during the period of February 27, 2013 to April 30, 2015. Based upon the allegations in the class action, the firms are investigating additional legal claims against the officers and Board of Directors of Insulet. If you are an affected Insulet shareholder and want to learn more about the lawsuit or join the action, contact Willie Briscoe at The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC via email at shareholders@thebriscoelawfirm.com, Patrick Powers at Powers Taylor LLP via email at shareholder@powerstaylor.com, or call toll free at (877) 728-9607. There is no cost or fee to you. In the complaint, the defendants are alleged to have violated certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that the company was experiencing weaker demand for its products and having problems with its sales and marketing efforts, which was causing Insulet's financial performance to be uneven. When the truth emerged the Company's stock fell significantly. The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC is a full service business litigation, commercial transaction, and public advocacy firm with more than 20 years of experience in complex litigation and transactional matters. Powers Taylor LLP is a boutique litigation law firm that handles a variety of complex business litigation matters, including claims of investor and stockholder fraud, shareholder oppression, shareholder derivative suits, and security class actions. INTERNATIONAL VITAMIN: Recalls Multivitamin Tablets --------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with International Vitamin Corporation (IVC), of Freehold, N.J., announced a voluntary recall of about 17,000 Multivitamin Women 50+ tablets. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The packaging is not child-resistant and senior friendly as required by the Poison Prevention Packaging Act. The multivitamin supplement tablets inside the bottle contain iron, which can cause serious injury or death to young children if multiple tablets are ingested at once. This recall involves "Well at Walgreens" Multivitamin Women 50+ tablets. The white plastic bottles contain 200 multivitamin tablets. "Well at Walgreens Multivitamin Women 50+" is printed on the bottle's white and silver label. A yellow band at the top of the label states "Value Size." UPC number 3-11917-17262-0 and one of the following lot numbers 000001 (EXP 9/2016), 000002 (EXP 12/2016) or 000003 (EXP 11/2016) are printed on the back of the bottles on a white label. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/x6KoaB The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at Walgreens drug stores nationwide from January 2015 through March 2015 for about $16. Consumers should immediately place recalled bottles out of the reach of children and contact International Vitamin Corp. for a free replacement child-resistant cap. JJRA22 LLC: "Fachin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Valeria Fachin, and other similarly situated individuals v. JJRA22 LLC d/b/a Vicolo, Flavio Santini and Pasqualino Loddi a/k/a Pascual Loddi, Case No. 1:15-cv-22114-CMA (S.D. Fla., June 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a Florida corporation that is engaged in interstate commerce. 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 JR POOL: "Valdez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Diosvany Valdez, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. JR Pool Plastering & Texas Gunite, Ltd. and Refugio Oyervidez, Case No. 4:15-cv-01499 (S.D. Tex., June 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a construction company in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef Franz Buenker, Esq. 2030 North Loop W, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com KARN ARJUN: Faces "Obenauf" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Obenauf and Caitlin Egan v. Karn Arjun Enterprise, LLC , Gayatri Management Corporation and Chhaya M. Joshi, Case No. 4:15- cv-01119 (N.D. Ohio, June 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate multiple Subway sandwich franchises within the Northern District of Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard T. Bush, Esq. GREEN HAINES SGAMBATI CO., L.P.A. 800 City Centre One Bldg. 100 Federal Plaza, E P.O. Box 849 Youngstown, OH 44501-0849 Telephone: (330) 743-5101 E-mail: rbush@green-haines.com L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Filed Motion to Dismiss S.D.N.Y. Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications Corporation said in theirt Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2015, that the Company filed a motion to dismiss the action on February 20, 2015, which was further amended and restated on April 24, 2015 in response to the amended and restated complaint. In August 2014, three separate, putative class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the District Court) against the Company and certain of its officers. These cases were consolidated into a single action on October 24, 2014. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in the District Court on December 22, 2014, which was further amended and restated on March 13, 2015. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws related to misconduct and accounting errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment, and seeks monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and fees and expenses. The Company believes the action lacks merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the action on February 20, 2015, which was further amended and restated on April 24, 2015 in response to the amended and restated complaint. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate any amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this matter because the proceedings are in their early stages. LEADING EDGE: Faces "Patton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Paula Patton and Laura Sonn v. Leading Edge Professional Services, P.A. and William Lanoue, Case No. 8:15-cv-01333-SDM-TGW (M.D. Fla., June 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Leading Edge Professional Services, P.A. is in the business of providing financial, accounting, and technology services to businesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Kemp Brinson, Esq. THE BRINSON FIRM PO Box 582 Winter Haven, FL 33882 Telephone: (863) 288-0234 Facsimile: (863) 508-7684 E-mail: kbrinson@brinsonfirm.com LIFELOCK INC: Response to Amended Ebarle Complaint Due ------------------------------------------------------ LifeLock, 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's response to that amended complaint filed by Napoleon Ebarle and Jeanne Stamm was due on May 12, 2015. The Company said, "on January 19, 2015, plaintiffs Napoleon Ebarle and Jeanne Stamm filed a nationwide putative consumer class action against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs allege that we have engaged in deceptive marketing and sales practices in connection with our membership plans in violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, and are seeking declaratory judgment under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act. The plaintiffs also seek certification of a nationwide class of consumers who are or were subscribers of our identity theft protection services since January 19, 2014, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. We were served with the complaint on January 22, 2015. On March 6, we filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 27, 2015. Our response to that amended complaint was due on May 12, 2015." LIFELOCK INC: Bid for Initial Approval of "Goldman" Deal Due ------------------------------------------------------------ LifeLock, 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 motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement in the case filed by Etan Goldman was scheduled to be filed on May 22, 2015. The Company said, "On January 29, 2015, plaintiff Etan Goldman filed a California putative consumer class action complaint against us in Santa Clara Superior Court in San Jose, California. The complaint alleges that we violated California's Automatic Renewal Law and Unfair Competition Law by failing to provide required disclosures concerning our auto renewal terms and cancellation policies. The complaint also seeks certification of a class consisting of all persons in California who have purchased subscriptions to identity theft protection services from us since December 1, 2010, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, restitution, and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 15, 2015, the parties participated in a mediation, and signed a Confidential Memorandum of Agreement for a Settlement Agreement. The motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement was currently scheduled to be filed on May 22, 2015." LIFELOCK INC: "Trax" Plaintiff Agreed to Dismiss Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- LifeLock, 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 Thomas A. Trax agreed to dismiss his class action lawsuit. The Company said, "On February 2, 2015, plaintiff, Thomas A. Trax, filed a class action complaint against us in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint asserted that we violated California's Automatic Renewal Law and Unfair Competition Law by failing to provide required disclosures concerning our auto renewal terms and cancellation policies. The complaint seeks certification of a class consisting of all persons in California who have purchased products and/or services from us as part of an automatic renewal plan or continuous service offer since February 2, 2011, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, restitution, a constructive trust and/or disgorgement, and attorneys' fees and costs. We have not yet been served with the complaint. On April 15, 2015, Mr. Trax agreed to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice and we expect that to occur shortly." LIFELOCK INC: Waiting for Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Bien" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- LifeLock, 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 is waiting for the court to rule on its motion to dismiss the class action filed by Dawn B. Bien. The Company said, "On March 3, 2014, Dawn B. Bien, representing herself and seeking to represent a class of persons who acquired our securities from February 26, 2013 to February 19, 2014, inclusive, filed a class action complaint in United States District Court for the District of Arizona alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against us, Todd Davis, and Chris Power. We refer to this complaint as the Bien Complaint. On March 10, 2014, Joseph F. Scesny also filed a class action complaint in the same court against the same parties that made substantively similar allegations and requested substantially similar relief as the Bien Complaint. We refer to this complaint as the Scesny Complaint." "On June 16, 2014, the court consolidated the Bien Complaint and Scesny Complaint into a single action captioned In re LifeLock, Inc. Securities Litigation. The court also appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On August 15, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, or the Consolidated Amended Complaint, against us, Mr. Davis, Mr. Power, and Hilary Schneider seeking to represent a class of persons who acquired our securities from February 26, 2013 to May 16, 2014, inclusive, or the Class Period. The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that we, along with Ms. Schneider and Messrs. Davis and Power, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making materially false or misleading statements, or failing to disclose material facts regarding certain of our business, operational, and compliance policies, including with regard to certain of our services, our data security program, and our and Mr. Davis' compliance with the FTC Order. The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that, as a result, certain public statements made by Ms. Schneider and Messrs. Davis and Power during the Class Period, and certain of our financial statements issued during the Class Period, were false and misleading. The Consolidated Amended Complaint sought certification as a class action, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. "On September 15, 2014, we, along with Ms. Schneider and Messrs. Davis and Power, filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. A hearing on our motion to dismiss was held on December 1, 2014. On December 17, 2014, the court dismissed the Consolidated Amended Complaint and gave the lead plaintiff 21 days to seek leave to amend. The lead plaintiff filed his Second Consolidated Amended Complaint, on January 16, 2015. The Second Consolidated Amended Complaint no longer names Ms. Schneider as a defendant, but otherwise makes substantively similar allegations as the Consolidated Amended Complaint. It alleges that we, along with Messrs. Davis and Power, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making materially false or misleading statements, or failing to disclose material facts regarding certain of our business, operational, and compliance policies, including with regard to certain of our services, our data security program, and our and Mr. Davis' compliance with the FTC Order. The Second Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that, as a result, certain public statements made by Messrs. Davis and Power during the Class Period, and certain of our financial statements issued during the Class Period, were false and misleading. The Second Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks certification as a class action, compensatory damages, and attorney's fees and costs. We, along with Messrs. Davis and Power, filed a motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint on January 30, 2015. A hearing on our motion to dismiss was held on March 16, 2015. We are waiting for the court to rule on our motion." LENDINGTREE INC: District Court Stayed "Dijkstra" Case ------------------------------------------------------ LendingTree, 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 district court has stayed the matter, Lijkel Dijkstra v. Harry Carenbauer, Home Loan Center, Inc. et al., No. 5:11-cv-152-JPB (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.WV), pending plaintiffs' investigation and subsequent report to the district court as to whether any class members will seek trials on individual damages. In November 2008, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia against Harry Carenbauer, HLC, HLC Escrow, Inc. et al. The complaint alleges that HLC engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in West Virginia by permitting persons who were neither admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia nor under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia to close mortgage loans. The plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory judgment, contempt, injunctive relief, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation or fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("CCPA"), violation of the West Virginia Lender, Broker & Services Act, civil conspiracy, outrage and negligence. The claims against all defendants other than Mr. Carenbauer, HLC and HLC Escrow, Inc. have been dismissed. The case was removed to federal court in October 2011. On January 3, 2013, the court granted a conditional class certification only with respect to the declaratory judgment, contempt, unjust enrichment and CCPA claims. The conditional class included consumers with mortgage loans in effect any time after November 8, 2007 who obtained such loans through HLC, and whose loans were closed by persons not admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia or by persons not under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia. In February 2014, the court granted and denied certain of each party's motions for summary judgment. With respect to the Class Claims, the court granted plaintiff's motions for summary judgment with respect to declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment and violation of the CCPA. The court granted HLC's motion for summary judgment with respect to contempt. In addition, the court denied HLC's motion to decertify the class. With respect to the claims applicable to the named plaintiff only (the "Individual Claims"), HLC's motions for summary judgment were granted with respect to conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and outrage. HLC and the plaintiff settled the remaining Individual Claims in June 2014. In July 2014, the court awarded damages to plaintiffs in the amount of $2.8 million. A reserve of $2.8 million has been established for this matter in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2015, of which some or all may be covered by insurance. HLC filed a notice of appeal in August 2014 and in September 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. In December 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit determined that the district court's order was not yet final, and, accordingly, HLC's appeal was dismissed. HLC intends to renew its appeal following the issuance of a final order by the district court. The district court has stayed this matter pending plaintiffs' investigation and subsequent report to the district court as to whether any class members will seek trials on individual damages. LIGHTINTHEBOX HOLDING: Securities Case Settlement Wins Final OK --------------------------------------------------------------- LightInTheBox Holding Co., Ltd., a global online retail company that delivers products directly to consumers around the world, disclosed that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has entered a final Order approving settlement of In re LightInTheBox Holding Co., Ltd. Securities Litigation, No. 13-cv-6016 (S.D.N.Y.), which was filed in 2013 on behalf of a class consisting of those persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's American Depository Receipts (ADRs) between June 6, 2013 and August 19, 2013. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Alan Guo, commented, "We are pleased to have received approval of the settlement, which we believe is in the best interest of the Company and its ADR holders. We look forward to continuing to focus on growing and strengthening our business." The Court's final Order, which directs that a judgment of dismissal be entered, concludes this litigation against the Company and certain current or former executive officers. There having been no objections to the settlement filed with the Court, the final Order will become non-appealable on June 8, 2015, and the settlement will become effective on June 9, 2015. About LightInTheBox Holding LightInTheBox is a global online retail company that delivers products directly to consumers around the world. LIVING SPACES: "Hill" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Hill, as individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Living Spaces Furniture, LLC and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 3:15-cv-01245-CAB-KSC (S.D. Cal., June 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages and penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Living Spaces Furniture, LLC owns and operates retail furniture stores in San Diego County, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN LLP 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2222 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 322-2220 Facsimile: (310) 322-2228 E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Removed "Bychkowski" Suit to N.J. Dist. Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Demetri Bychkowski and Sherry Bychkowski, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Lumber Liquidators Leasing, LLC, Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC and John Does (1-300), Case No. CAM L 1135 15, was removed from the Camden County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey (Camden). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-03305-RMB-JS to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleged marketing fraud. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfred Michael Anthony, Esq. WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER 90 Woodbridge Center Drive Woodbridge, NJ 07095 Telephone: (732) 855-6097 E-mail: aanthony@wilentz.com - and - Andrew P. Bell, Esq. James A. Barry, Esq. Michael A. Galpern, Esq. LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC 801 N. Kings Highway Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 663-8200 Facsimile: (856) 823-1551 E-mail: abell@lockslaw.com jbarry@lockslaw.com mgalpern@lockslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Brian M. Gerstein, Esq. HARKAVY GOLDMAN GOLDMAN & GERSTEIN 1129 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 214 West Caldwell, NJ 07006 Telephone: (973) 882-3555 Facsimile: (973) 882-8717 E-mail: bgerstein@harkavygoldman.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Insurers Want Out Amid Scandal -------------------------------------------------- Michelle Celarier, writing for New York Post, reports that Lumber Liquidators' fight against claims its China-sourced laminate flooring contained unsafe levels of formaldehyde could get a lot tougher. Many of the retailer's product liability insurance carriers are refusing to defend the company in class-action suits brought by unhappy customers -- forcing the company to file suit against the insurers, court papers filed in a Wisconsin state court reveal. If forced to defend and ultimately pay out on those claims, Lumber Liquidators would spend tens of millions of dollars, one class-action lawyer said. In an April 27 action, the Toano, Va., company sued Wausau Business Insurance, Liberty Mutual and other insurance companies for breach of contract. Lumber Liquidators told The Post that the insurers "are arguing that some of the fine print in those policies lets them off the hook." "This is a contract dispute . . . over how some of the terms should be construed or defined," the company said in a statement to The Post. "The insurers made a promise to defend Lumber Liquidators and they are now attempting to break that promise. " A Lumber Liquidator spokesman said the case has nothing to do with the merits of the class-action cases. The retail chain first came under fire for its China-made laminate flooring on March 1 when a "60 Minutes" segment claimed formaldehyde levels in the flooring exceeded levels deemed safe by California regulators, the only state that regulates the known carcinogen. The company said it would no longer sell the controversial flooring. The retailer is asking the court to declare that the insurers are "obligated to defend" the company and required to pay any judgments or settlements, according to court filings. It claims the insurers have promised to pay damages due to "bodily injury" or "property damage." Liberty Mutual is also asking Lumber Liquidators to pay a "retrospective premium" of more than $2,000 per claimant as compensation for sending denial letters to plaintiffs suing the retailer in the class-action suits, according to court documents. Liberty Mutual had already sued Lumber Liquidators in a Virginia federal court, claiming it has no duty to defend the company due to a "total pollution exclusion" clause in all the policies. Lumber Liquidators, in a recent regulatory filing, said it maintains "insurance against some forms of product liability claims, but such coverage may not be available or adequate for the liabilities actually incurred." MARRIOTT INT'L: Cross-Appealed on Statute of Limitations Grounds ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marriott 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 Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the Company has cross-appealed on statute of limitations grounds. The Company said, "On January 19, 2010, several former Marriott employees (the "plaintiffs") filed a putative class action complaint against us and the Stock Plan (the "defendants"), alleging that certain equity awards of deferred bonus stock granted to the plaintiffs and other current and former employees for fiscal years 1963 through 1989 are subject to vesting requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), that are in certain circumstances more rapid than those set forth in the awards. The action was brought in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt Division), and Dennis Walter Bond Sr. and Michael P. Steigman were the remaining named plaintiffs. Class certification was denied, and on January 16, 2015, the court granted Marriott's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and we have cross-appealed on statute of limitations grounds." MASTERCARD INC: Judge in Data Breach Case Won't Bar Target Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that the judge overseeing litigation over Target's epic 2013 data breach has serious qualms about Target's $19 million deal with MasterCard, which proposes to resolve claims by banks that issue MasterCard credit and debit cards. But in a ruling, U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson of St. Paul, Minnesota, said there's nothing he can do to stop it. He refused to enjoin Target and MasterCard from notifying banks of their right to participate in the proposed settlement, which requires the banks to release claims in the data breach litigation. Those banks have until May 20 to decide whether to accept the MasterCard deal or continue litigating in a class action in Magnuson's court. In the opinion, the judge reiterated concerns he first expressed at a hearing in April on a motion by class action lawyers to enjoin Target from sending banks notice of the MasterCard proposal. "At the very least, the way this issue has arisen is neither fair nor is it how the court expects attorneys to conduct themselves in litigating matters before the court," Judge Magnuson said in an opinion. "But the court cannot enjoin a proposed settlement in this situation because it suspects that neither the settlement nor the putative class's options are completely fair. The court may act only if there is 'misconduct of a serious nature.' Although the settlement may not 'pass the smell test,' as the saying goes, it is not serious misconduct." Lawyers for an uncertified class of banks that incurred expenses related to their customers' compromised credit and debit cards - through fraudulent purchases and the cost of replacing cards - had accused Target of circumventing the class action to settle the banks' claims on the cheap. Class counsel Charles Zimmerman of Zimmerman Reed and Karl Cambronne of Chestnut Cambronne claimed the deal was improper because Target didn't include them in its negotiations with MasterCard even though the proposed deal affects their clients. They also contended the notices Target sent to banks eligible to participate in the settlement were misleading because they misstated the percentage of costs banks would be able to recover. Finally, they argued eligible banks would feel pressured to accept the MasterCard deal for fear of endangering their relationship with MasterCard. Target counsel Douglas Meal of Ropes & Gray said at a hearing that under precedent from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Target and MasterCard have every right to offer a settlement to banks in the class action because the class has not yet been certified. Meal also said there's no evidence that banks will feel coerced, and every bank will be able to see MasterCard's calculation of the bank's fraud losses before banks decide whether to take the MasterCard deal. Class counsel had asserted that MasterCard estimated total fraud losses from the data breach for MasterCard issuing banks to be about $80 million. Meal said the actual estimate is more like $15 million. In the ruling, Judge Magnuson agreed with Target that under 8th Circuit precedent, Target was indeed free to negotiate and settle with potential class members without his oversight. He also ruled that the settlement notices Target sent to eligible banks are not misleading and that class counsel hadn't shown evidence of MasterCard attempting to strong-arm its issuing banks into taking the deal. Without signs of actual misconduct, the judge said, his hands are tied. "We're pleased that Judge Magnuson recognized it would not be appropriate to enjoin the settlement we reached with Target," a MasterCard representative said in an email statement. "Each impacted bank and credit union will review the terms and make an independent decision on whether to accept the settlement." A Target spokeswoman said, "We are pleased with the court's decision which we believe will allow us to resolve claims with participating MasterCard issuers and avoid protracted litigation with those issuers." In a statement, class counsel Zimmerman and Cambronne said the ruling was "a harsh indictment" of Target's deal with MasterCard that "should give financial institutions great pause before accepting this flawed and inadequate settlement." They are out of legal options to block banks from considering the offer but said they would continue to urge potential class members not to take Target's offer. Judge Magnuson's refusal to block the deal, however grudging, marks the third time a data breach defendant has resolved claims by financial institutions by settling with a credit care issuer. The previous two cases involved data breaches at T.J. Maxx, which in 2007 agreed to a $40 million deal with Visa; and Heartland deals in 2010 with Visa, MasterCard and American Express for more than $100 million. MCCALLUM GROUP: Removes "Moreno" Suit to Florida District Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Moreno, et al. v. McCallum Group Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 15-007284, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:15-cv-61124-KMW to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brody Max Shulman, Esq. Jason Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Courthouse Tower, Suite 2200 44 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com jremer@rgpattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Lee John Harang, Esq. FULLER HOLSONBACK & MALLOY PA 400 N Ashley Drive, Suite 1500 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 229-9119 Facsimile: (813) 229-3415 E-mail: lharang@gjtbs.com - and - Autumn Price George, Esq. GALLOWAY, JOHNSON, TOMPKINS, BURR & SMITH 620 East Twiggs Street, Suite 303 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 977-1200 Facsimile: (813) 977-1288 E-mail: ageorge@gjtbs.com MCCLURE AND STEVENSON: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Sanders, Ariana Thompson, Tanika Jones, Alexis Thompson, and Zacka Gomes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. McClure And Stevenson Investments, LLC and Felisha Stevenson, Case No. 1:15-cv-02007-SCJ (N.D. Ga., June 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are engaged in the business of collecting debts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles R. Bridgers Kevin D. Fitzpatrick, Jr. Matthew W. Herrington DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN, LLC 3100 Centennial Tower 101 Marietta Street Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 979-3171 Facsimile: (404) 979-3170 E-mail: kevin.fitzpatrick@dcbflegal.com charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com matthew.herrington@dcbflegal.com MCGILL HEALTH CENTRE: Sued Over Building Construction Noise ----------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Defrel, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that the newly-formed Neighbours of the Glen Campus has named as defendants in the court motion the McGill University Health Centre, design- build contractor SNC-Lavalin, the private consortium that will maintain the superhospital as well as one of the partners, Innisfree. "We were told there would be a solution in March and nothing came to pass," said York Ave. resident Marc Felgar, who has complained that the noise "sounds like you're on the tarmac of an airport." "This legal step was taken as a last resort after exhausting all other avenues." It's not just the residents who are upset. The city of Westmount has also criticized both the MUHC and SNC-Lavalin for not coming up with a satisfactory solution to eliminate the noise from the $1.3-billion superhospital. Felgar said tests by sound engineers in his bedroom at nighttime have recorded noise levels above 50 decibels -- well above the municipal bylaw. To cope with the problem, he has shut his windows and keeps a fan on all night. "From our perspective, there has been no improvement at all," he added. "I would welcome anybody to come to my backyard to tell me whether it's pleasant and peaceful." Julie Paquet, a spokesperson for the MUHC redevelopment, emailed the Montreal Gazette a statement saying that the hospital network is working "urgently" with its partner to solve the noise problem. "While the MUHC would naturally prefer that operational noise not be an issue, we recognize that it is a source of concern for our community," the statement said. "The MUHC is committed to working with our private partner, the Groupe Immobilier Sante McGill (GISM), to ensure that it acts urgently to respect its obligations and put in place a long-term solution that complies with regulatory requirements. "Major work to the main ventilation ducts and several parts of the air extraction system in Block E (the Research Institute) were conducted in January to enhance air circulation and reduce load and pressure on various components of the ventilation and air extraction systems," the statement added. "SNC-Lavalin, Pomerleau Verreault Consortium and Silentec experts have already begun a second phase of work, with a series of consultations, studies and computer simulations. The next step will be to conduct a variety of acoustic and mechanical readings to assess the improvements." Paquet was unable to specify when those readings will be conducted. Louis-Antoine Paquin, manager of media relations at SNC-Lavalin, released a statement saying that the engineering firm "received notification of this lawsuit [May 8] end of day. We are currently reviewing it and will not make any comments at this point." Questioned about the issue in November, an SNC-Lavalin official said in an email that the company "is looking into concrete and long-term solutions" that included attaching noise mufflers to the ventilation system. The motion, filed in Quebec Superior Court, seeks annual damages of $5,000 per person "for residents' lost use and enjoyment of their property and violation of their right to a healthful environment." The area covered by the court motion is bounded by C“te-St-Antoine Rd. to the north, Landsdowne Ave. to the east, Marlowe Ave. to the west in N.D.G. and Ste-Catherine St. and de Maisonneuve Blvd. to the south. MICREL INC: Ryan & Maniskas Launched Probe Over Sale to Microchip ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is investigating potential claims against the board of directors of Micrel Inc. concerning possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of law related to the Company's efforts to sell the Company to Microchip Technology Incorporated in a transaction valued at approximately $839 million. If you own shares of Micrel and would like to learn more about this class action or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or to sign up online, visit: http://www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/mcrl. You may also email Mr. Maniskas at -- rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com Under the terms of the agreement, shareholders of Micrel would receive $14.00 in cash for each share of Micrel they own. Our investigation concerns possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law by the Board of Directors of Micrel for not acting in the Company's shareholders' best interests in connection with the sale process. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide. MISSOURI: Atheist Prisoner Loses Bid to Represent Inmates --------------------------------------------------------- Dan Margolies, writing for KCUR, reports that a Missouri inmate who says he was denied parole because, as an atheist, he refused to participate in faith-based substance abuse programs has lost Round 2 of his fight against prison authorities. Randall Jackson, who was convicted of offenses related to driving while intoxicated, claims prison officials unlawfully conditioned his parole on his attendance in Alcoholics Anonymous, which requires participants to recognize and rely on a "higher power." In April 2012, U.S. District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan Jr. dismissed the class-action lawsuit Jackson had filed on behalf of other atheist inmates, but in 2014 the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated it. The appeals court ruled that, while inmates had no constitutional right to early parole, the requirement that Jackson attend a program with religious content violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The case was sent back to the trial court, and Gaitan refused to certify Jackson's lawsuit as a class action. This time he ruled that Jackson had failed to meet the "numerosity" requirement of a class action, or the idea that the class is so big that adding its members to an individual lawsuit would be impractical. Jackson had proposed a class of all prisoners in the Missouri Department of Corrections "who do not believe in a god." He also proposed a subclass of prisoners who do not believe in a god and "who are eligible for substance abuse treatment programs." Jackson reckoned that 1,710 of Missouri's 30,000 inmates are atheists or agnostics, extrapolating from a 2012 Pew Research poll that said that 5.7 percent of Americans self-identified as atheists or agnostics. He said that even if only 1 percent of the inmate population was atheist or agnostic, that still added up to 300 prisoners. Gaitan, however, said that Jackson had failed to demonstrate numerosity. He said it was unclear whether the Pew poll was reliable and whether the percentage of atheist or agnostic prisoners correlates with that of the U.S. population at large. Gaitan didn't slam the door entirely on Jackson, however. He said if Jackson were able to develop evidence supporting numerosity, "the Court may reconsider its position." MOBILEIRON INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, notifies investors in MobileIron, Inc. of the June 30, 2015 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action lawsuit filed against MobileIron and certain executives. A complaint has been filed in the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased MobileIron securities from February 13, 2015 through April 22, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws with respect to its disclosures concerning its business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the action alleges that during the Class Period, the Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that MobileIron had unrealistic expectations of meeting first quarter 2015 guidance as a result of not being able to close large customers and a continuing shift in the Company's customers using subscription services instead of perpetual licenses. On April 22, 2015, MobileIron announced lower revenue guidance due in part to the inability to close large deals and a shift by customers to monthly subscription offerings. The Company also announced the resignation of its Chief Financial Officer. Following this news, the price of MobileIron's stock declined by $2.39 per share, or over 25%, to close at $7.11 on April 23, 2015. Request more information now by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/MOBL. There is no cost or obligation to you. Take Action If you invested in MobileIron stock or options during the Class Period and would like to discuss your legal rights, visit www.faruqilaw.com/MOBL. You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at 877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.com. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding the Company's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP is a national law firm which represents investors and individuals in class action litigation. The firm is focused on providing exemplary legal services in complex litigation in the areas of securities, shareholder, antitrust and consumer litigation, throughout all phases of litigation. The firm has an experienced trial team which has achieved significant victories on behalf of the firm's clients. MOLYCORP INC: Deadline to Amend Complaint Has Expired ----------------------------------------------------- Molycorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit had until May 29, 2015 to amend their Complaint. The Company said, "In February 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Colorado Federal District Court against us and certain of our current and former executive officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. A Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed on July 31, 2012 also named most of our Board members and some of our stockholders as defendants, along with other persons and entities. On March 31, 2015, the Colorado Federal District Court granted our motion to dismiss that Complaint without prejudice. The plaintiffs have until May 29, 2015 to amend their Complaint. We believe that this lawsuit is without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims." MOLYCORP INC: Continues to Defend Against Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------- Molycorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against the claims in two purported class action lawsuits. The Company said, "In August 2013, two purported class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against us and certain of our current and former executive officers, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, filed on May 19, 2014, also named us and certain of our current and former executive officers. On March 12, 2015, the Federal Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice. On April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of certain portions of the dismissal order. Our response to the reconsideration motion is due May 13, 2015. We believe that this lawsuit is without merit, and we intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims." MONEY STORE: Borrowers Can't Pursue Class Suit Over Legal Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that borrowers accusing former mortgage lender the Money Store of fraud for allegedly charging them improper legal fees have lost their latest bid to pursue their case as a class. In a decision, a three-judge panel for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the borrowers' case, which was denied class action status by a lower court in February. Borrowers were represented by Paul S. Grobman, who could not immediately be reached for comment. NEBRASKALAND INC: Accused in New York of Violating FMLA and FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ahamad Karim v. Nebraskaland, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04079-AKH (S.D.N.Y., May 28, 2015) is brought to recover declaratory relief, monetary damages, injunctive, equitable and affirmative relief based upon the Defendant's alleged violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and other laws and regulations. Mr. Karim is a resident of the County of Queens, New York. He allegedly suffered from a "serious health condition." Throughout his entire employment with the Defendant, spanning approximately 12 years, he was employed as a truck driver. Nebraskaland, Inc. is a New York domestic business corporation with its principal place of business located in Bronx, New York. The Company is a meat distribution company in the New York Metropolitan area. The Plaintiff is represented by: William L. Teitler, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM L. TEITLER, ESQ. 45-18 Court Square, Suite 400 Long Island City, NY 11101 Telephone: (718) 392-3483 E-mail: williamlteitleresq@gmail.com NEW ORLEANS: Residents Question Payment to Special Master --------------------------------------------------------- Ricard A. Webster, writing for NOLA.com, reports that more than 5,000 people who lived and worked in a community the city of New Orleans allowed to be built on top of a toxic waste dump were recently awarded $14.2 million as part of a class action lawsuit. To help disburse the money, Orleans Civil District Court Judge Tiffany Chase appointed Paul Valteau in February 2014 to serve as special master, an individual the court typically hires to assist in complicated cases. Bourgeois Bennett CPAs was chosen as claims administrator. Valteau, with help from the Metairie accounting firm, reviewed thousands of claims forms from residents of the Agriculture Street Landfill, located on a 45-acre tract of land in the Upper 9th Ward. He determined who was eligible to be paid and how much they would receive. He also helped to establish administrative court costs and the fees for the five attorneys representing the residents. The attorneys, who worked the case for several decades, were given 40 percent of the judgment for an average of $1.1 million per lawyer. The court set aside 10 percent, or $1.4 million, to pay for its own administrative costs, which included compensation for Valteau. That left $7.1 million for more than 5,000 residents, some of who lived on the toxic dump for more than 30 years. Their settlement checks amounted to a few thousand dollars per person. Now, residents are raising questions about the fairness of the disbursement process after learning that Chase and Valteau have a longstanding relationship. Valteau served as Chase's campaign chairman in 2007 and has donated thousands of dollars to the judge's political campaigns over the years. That includes $3,100 in July 2014, five months after he was appointed special master. Valteau has also been referred to as Chase's "godfather." Shannon Rainey, who has lived on the landfill site since 1981, said Chase's appointment of Valteau looks like the judge was doing a special favor for a close friend, handing him an opportunity to make more than $1 million from a fund meant to compensate the residents for decades of hardship. "Everyone made a lot of money except the people who suffered," said Rainey who received $6,237.97 for property damage and emotional distress. "It doesn't look right." Chase referred a reporter's questions to Civil District Court spokesman Walt Pierce, who defended the appointment. "Valteau is uniquely qualified and was selected as a result of his . . . wealth of experience, knowledge of law as well as ability to apply the proper policies and procedures," Pierce said in an emailed response. "He was called upon many times during his tenure as Civil Sheriff by the judges of Civil District Court to assist on cases." Valteau, who didn't respond to requests for comment, served as Orleans Parish Civil Sheriff for 28 years. He chose not to run against Sheriff Marlin Gusman in 2010 after the civil and criminal sheriff's offices were consolidated into one agency. He is now a partner at the law firm Valteau, Harris, Koenig & Mayer. Pierce also added that Valteau is not Chase's actual godfather and is only referred to as such informally. "Judge Chase was raised in the Catholic Church and was not christened by Mr. Valteau," Pierce said. "He is not her godfather in the traditional Catholic sense of the term. He is a longtime friend of the Chase family." The controversy is just the latest to arise from the Agriculture Street Landfill. Between 1969 and 1980, the city and the Housing Authority of New Orleans built two residential communities, Press Park and Gordon Plaza, on the former site of the city's waste dump. They rented and sold homes without telling residents about the land's history, according to court documents. After the federal government in 1994 declared that the community was a Superfund site, one of the most contaminated in the country, the residents filed a class action lawsuit which they won in 2006. The court found the city, the Housing Authority of New Orleans and the Orleans Parish School Board, which built Moton Elementary School on the site, liable for property damage and emotional distress. They have denied responsibility and refused to pay the residents any compensation. The court has not yet established an amount owed by the city, HANO and the School Board but ordered former insurers of the housing authority to pay $14.2 million. Suzette Bagneris, one of five plaintiffs' attorneys who worked the landfill case, defended Chase and Valteau. The plaintiffs requested the court appoint a special master and had no objections when Valteau was selected, she said. "There has been nothing inappropriate, unethical or illegal about the court's appointment of Mr. Valteau to serve as a special master in this case," Bagneris wrote to Joshua Allen, a former resident of the landfill, after he raised questions about Chase and Valteau. "Additionally, he has served the court and the class in a highly professional manner. At all times, Mr. Valteau has evaluated the claims of class members in a fair and impartial manner." Bagneris ran against and lost to Chase in the 2007 election for the Civil District Court seat. At the time, she criticized Chase for being the candidate of a political machine headed by Valteau and Clerk of Court Dale Atkins, who also ran Chase's successful 2014 campaign. But now Bagneris says Chase and Valteau's ties are irrelevant because they are not related by blood. She cited an article in the Louisiana Civil Code that requires judges to recuse themselves if attorneys or parties appearing before them are their spouses, parents, children or immediate family members. "Assuming for argument's sake that Judge Chase is the 'godchild' of Paul Valteau that has no bearing in this case, and does not serve as a bar to his appointment as special master," Bagneris said. That's not entirely true, said Greg Smith, an ethics professor at Louisiana State University's Paul M. Hebert Law Center. He noted the Louisiana Code of Judicial Conduct states judges "shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary," and that judges "shall not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment." The code also states a "judge should avoid appointments which tend to create the appearance of impropriety. A judge shall not approve the compensation of appointees beyond the fair value of services rendered." While Chase might not have done anything illegal, her appointment of Valteau is on thin ethical grounds in that it created an appearance of impropriety, causing the residents to question the integrity of the court, Smith said. Smith pointed to the case of St. Charles Parish District Court Judge Kirk Granier, who the Louisiana Supreme Court censured in 2005 for hiring his girlfriend, Tanya LeBlanc, as an independent contractor to summarize medical records for 19 cases. LeBlanc, a registered nurse with 23 years of experience, was qualified for the job, but her hiring "brought the judicial office into disrepute," the court determined. Granier "allowed a social relationship to influence his judicial conduct" and violated the judicial code of ethics by creating the appearance of impropriety, the court stated in its censure ruling. "The judge was actually apologetic about it and said, 'I didn't realize this was going to look bad and I apologize for that,'" Smith said. "Nevertheless, the court said, 'Well, it did look bad so we're going to censure you.' The fact that you didn't intend to do evil is not the question. It just didn't look right. It didn't pass the smell test." Chase's appointment of Valteau treads similar ground, Smith said. "The code is telling us, 'Don't do things that look bad because we want the public to have confidence in the judiciary. We want the public to believe that justice is blind,'" Smith said. "Obviously, judges are human beings and they make errors, but you don't want to make decisions that are intended to benefit your family and friends and people you're close to. If you make an error, you make a legal error. You make a judgment error. But not an error to favor people." As for the $1.4 million paid to Valteau and his team for a year's work, Smith said, "Nice job when you can get it." Correction: The story initially stated that Paul Valteau was Judge Tiffany Chase's campaign manager. He was her campaign chairman. NEW YORK CAFETERIA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Belinda Romero-Barron, individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. New York Cafeteria Inc. d/b/a New York Deli and Kostas Kaloudis, Case No. 1:15-cv-03228 (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 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 restaurant located at 2109 and 2330 Borden Avenue, Flushing, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Gurrieri, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER 277 Broadway Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com NORTHLAND GROUP: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Norma I. Santiago, On behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Northland Group Inc., Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-03608-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., May 28, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave., 2nd Floor Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com NUCOR STEEL: Appeals Court Revives Class Action Claim ----------------------------------------------------- The Republic reports that a federal appeals court says black employees at a South Carolina steel mill can pursue a class-action lawsuit claiming racial discrimination in promotions. The lawsuit by black workers at Nucor Steel in Charleston raises claims of a racially hostile environment as well as discrimination in promotions. In a 2-1 decision on May 11, a panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond ruled that a judge improperly decertified the class on the promotions claim. The judge left the class intact on the hostile workplace claim. The appeals court said the judge erroneously relied on a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that more than half a million female employees of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. failed to prove they had enough in common to pursue a class-action sex discrimination suit. OLD DOMINION: Removed "Monge" Suit to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Luis Monge, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., Case No. BC578553, was removed from the Los Angeles 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-03631-DDP-SS to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Trush, Esq. TRUSH LAW OFFICES 695 Town Center Drive, Suite 700 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 384-6390 E-mail: jtrush@earthlink.net - and - Brennan S. Kahn, Esq. Todd H. Harrison, Esq. PERONA LANGER BECK SERBIN AND MENDOZA 300 East San Antonio Dr Long Beach, CA 90807-0948 Telephone: (562) 426-6155 Facsimile: (562) 490-9823 E-mail: brennankahn@plblaw.com toddharrison@plblaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq. Sylvia Jihae Kim, Esq. Matthew Charles Kane, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 315-8200 Facsimile: (310) 315-8210 E-mail: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com skim@mcguirewoods.com mkane@mcguirewoods.com PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS: To File Motion to Dismiss Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Pacira Pharmaceuticals, 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 intends to vigorously defend all claims asserted, including by filing a motion to dismiss in a class action lawsuit. On October 3, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and three of its current officers, Nicholas R. Lovallo v. Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06172-WHW- CLW. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and non- disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's business, operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class period of April 9, 2012 to September 24, 2014. The Company intends to vigorously defend all claims asserted, including by filing a motion to dismiss. Given the early stage of the litigation, at this time the Company is unable to reasonably estimate possible losses or form a judgment that an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote. It is not currently possible to assess whether or not the outcome of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company. PALI DESIGN: Recalls Children's Furniture Due to Injury Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Pali Design Inc., of Canada, announced a voluntary recall of about 18,000 Children's furniture in the U.S. and 2,160 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The plastic restraint strap used to attach armoires, combos, dressers and hutches to a wall can break and allow the unit to tip over. Falling furniture can result in a wide range of injuries to young children, from soft tissue bruising to broken bones, head injuries and death by suffocation when a child is pinned under a heavy piece of furniture. This recall involves Pali Design armoires, combos, dressers and hutches sold separately or in the following collections: Karla Collection, Mantova Collection, Milano Collection, Salerno Collection, Volterra Collection, Wendy Collection and West Point Collection. The recall also includes a separate bookcase/hutch available in finishes to match the collections. The recalled furniture was manufactured from January 2006 to September 2010. Combos combine drawers and a cabinet in one unit. The model number, product name and manufacture date are printed on a white sticker on the back of the units. The manufacture date is in the YYYY-MM-DD format. Units in the following collections, with the following model numbers and product names are being recalled: Collection Name Model Number/Product Name Colors --------------- ------------------------- ------ Milano Collection 101 Milano Combo Mocacchino, Natural/White 107 Milano Armoire Salerno Collection 201 Salerno Combo White, Mocacchino, Sienna 205 Salerno 5-Drawer Dresser 206 Salerno 5-Drawer Dresser West Point Collection 705 West Point 5-Drawer Vintage Dresser Cherry, White 706 West Point Double Dresser 707 West Point Armoire 709 West Point Hutch Wendy Collection 801 Wendy Combo Distressed Amber, Distressed White, Chocolate, Cognac 805 Wendy 5-Drawer Dresser 806 Wendy Double Dresser 807 Wendy Armoire 809 Wendy Hutch Mantova Collection 1004 Mantova 4-Drawer Chocolate, Dresser White 1006 Mantova Double Dresser Vintage Volterra Collection 1203 Volterra 3-Drawer Cherry, Dresser Mocacchino, White 1205 Volterra 5-Drawer Dresser 1206 Volterra Double Dresser Karla Collection 1504 Karla 4-Drawer Dresser Cherry 1506 Karla Double Dresser Bookcase/Hutch 5555 Bookcase/Hutch Vintage Cherry, Chocolate, Mocacchino, Sienna, White, Cognac The firm has received one report of a restraint strap on a Wendy Double Dresser breaking and allowing the unit to tip over. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/UpMJGH The recalled products were manufactured in Vietnam and sold at Independent specialty stores nationwide, at Pequeno Angelito in San Juan, Puerto Rico and online from January 2006 to September 2010 for between $420 and $750. The Karla collection was sold exclusively in Babies R Us stores. Consumers should immediately place the recalled armoires, combos, dressers or hutches out of the reach of young children and contact Pali Design for a free retrofit kit that contains newly designed restraint straps, mounting hardware and installation instructions. PITTSBURGH: Police Accused of Racial Bias, to Revamp Hiring ----------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Daley, writing for Reuters, reports that the Pittsburgh Police Department has agreed to revamp its hiring practices in order to settle a federal lawsuit that claimed discrimination against African-American job applicants, Mayor Bill Peduto said. The settlement of the class-action lawsuit also calls for the city to pay $985,000 in total to black applicants who were shut out of jobs open on the force between 2008 and 2014. The city also will pay legal fees of up to $600,000, said the city's lawyer Lourdes Sanchez-Ridge, who spoke to reporters at a press conference with the mayor and the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, which filed the legal action. In a city that is 66 percent white, according to the 2010 Census, the police force is currently 85 percent white, according to City Hall. About 19.5 percent of applicants who took recent Pittsburgh officer exams were African-American, but only 4 percent of new hires since 2001 have been black, said ACLU legal director Witold Walczak. Census figures show 26 percent of Pittsburgh residents are black. To remedy the situation, the department has agreed to work with outside experts to examine and revamp its hiring practices within 24 months, the mayor's office said. "We want to hire officers that reflect the diversity of the city of Pittsburgh," Peduto said. "If you see the issues that are flaring up in city after city, you realize . . . that it can't be solved after the fact." The settlement comes at a time of widespread concern over shootings by white police officers in confrontations with black suspects after such incidents in Missouri and North Carolina sparked a series of protests nationwide. Pittsburgh police in the past were more likely to hire white officers who had criminal records with minor offenses than to hire African-Americans with the same background or even a cleaner record, Walczak said. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of five black applicants who were denied jobs with the Pittsburgh force. Four of them have subsequently been hired to area police forces, including one newly hired by the Pittsburgh Police Department. Sanchez-Ridge encouraged black candidates to apply to the next police academy class by May 11. "We welcome you," the city lawyer said. PLASTIC2OIL INC: Court Gave Final Approval of Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Plastic2oil, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015, that on April 28, 2015, the court presiding over the previously reported class action lawsuit against the Company and Messrs. Bordynuik and Baldwin (both former officers of the Company) gave its final approval of the proposed settlement set forth in the previously reported stipulation agreement and dismissed the action. As previously reported, on August 8, 2013, the Company entered into a stipulation agreement (the "Stipulation Agreement") in potential settlement of the previously reported class action lawsuit filed by certain stockholders of the Company against the Company and Messrs. Bordynuik and Baldwin on behalf of a settlement class consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from August 28, 2009 through January 4, 2012. The terms of the Stipulation Agreement are summarized in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2013. Thereafter, on December 18, 2014, the Court filed and entered its Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice of Proposed Settlement (the "Preliminary Approval Order"). In its Preliminary Approval Order the Court preliminarily approved the settlement set forth in the Stipulation Agreement, and scheduled a hearing on April 27, 2015, to determine whether to give final approval of the settlement, and enter judgment accordingly. On April 28, 2015, following said hearing, the Court filed its Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, giving final approval of the settlement set forth in the Stipulation Agreement and dismissing the action. PRE-PAID LEGAL: June 26 Hearing in "Savetsky" Class Action Set -------------------------------------------------------------- In MICHAEL SAVETSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES, INC. d/b/a LegalShield, Defendant, CASE NO. 14-03514 SC, (N.D. Cal.), before the Court is LegalShield's motion to compel Mr. Savetsky to arbitrate his claims in this putative consumer class action. The motion is now fully briefed, however, because the parties have overlooked an important issue, District Judge Samuel Conti ordered supplemental briefing in a ruling entered May 22, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1GBI1YFfrom Leagle.com. The Court previously denied a motion to compel arbitration under LegalShield's membership agreement, finding that Mr. Savetsky never assented to the arbitration provision contained in that agreement. After the Court denied that motion, LegalShield discovered that even prior to becoming a member, Mr. Savetsky signed up to sell LegalShield memberships as a "sales associate." In becoming a sales associate, LegalShield contends Mr. Savetsky entered into an "associate agreement" containing a separate and enforceable arbitration provision. The parties apparently overlooked the very first line of the arbitration clause that is at the heart of this motion, which states that "[t]he Associate Agreement and Policies and Procedures," which contain the arbitration provision, "will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oklahoma," ruled Judge Conti. Accordingly, the Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs regarding the choice of law clause, its enforceability, and its applicability to the motion. Briefing will take place according to this schedule: * No later than Friday, June 5, 2015, LegalShield will file an opening brief of no more than 10 pages confined to these issues. * No later than Friday, June 12, 2015, Mr. Savetsky will file a responsive brief of no more than 10 pages confined to these issues. * No later than Friday, June 19, 2015, LegalShield may file a reply of no more than five pages confined to the issues raised in its opening and Mr. Savetsky's responsive briefs. * The hearing currently set for May 29, 2015 has been vacated, and the Court instead set a hearing for Friday, June 26, 2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1, 17th Floor, San Francisco Court House. Michael Savetsky, Plaintiff, represented by Ari Nathan Cherniak -- acherniak@hammondlawpc.com -- HammondLaw, PC, Julian Ari Hammond -- jhammond@hammondlawpc.com -- HammondLaw, PC, Todd Anthony Seaver -- tseaver@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio & Victor Santiago Elias -- velias@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio. Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Shannon Z. Petersen -- spetersen@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Thomas Blanchard Snyder -- thomas.snyder@crowedunlevy.com -- Crowe Dunlevy, David Edward Snyder -- dsnyder@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin LLP & Lai Lam Yip -- lyip@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton. PRECIPICE GLASS: Removes "Salgado" Class Suit to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Salgado v. Precipice Glass, Inc., et al., Case No. 2015008575 CA 01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-22001-JLK to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brody Max Shulman, Esq. Jason Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Courthouse Tower, Suite 2200 44 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com jremer@rgpattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Orion G. Callison, III, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALEXIS GONZALEZ, P.A. 3162 Commodore Plaza, Suite 3E Coconut Grove, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 223-9999 Facsimile: (305) 223-1880 E-mail: orion@aglawpa.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Removed "Pettit" Class Suit to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Jamie Pettit, an individual, on behalf of himself, the general public, and those similarly situated v. Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. CGC 15-545175, was removed from the California Superior Court for City of San Francisco to the U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15- cv-02150-EDL to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleged marketing fraud. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Adam Gutride, Esq. Kristen Gelinas Simplicio, Esq. Marie Ann McCrary, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 271-6469 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com adam@gutridesafier.com Kristen@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com The Defendant is represented by: Emily Johnson Henn, Esq. Cortlin Hall Lannin, Esq. Sonya Diane Winner, Esq COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 632-4700 E-mail: ehenn@cov.com clannin@cov.com winnersd@cov.com PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports ---------------------------------------------------------- Hsingching Hsu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., Alan H. Auerbach, and Charles R. Eyler, Case No. 8:15-cv-00865-AG-JCG (C.D. Cal., June 3, 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. Headquartered in Los Angeles, California, Puma Biotechnology, Inc. is a development stage biopharmaceutical company, focusing on the acquisition, development, and commercialization of products to enhance cancer care. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 285-5330 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. C. Dov Berger, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com cdberger@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Court Preliminarily Approved Celera Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Quest Diagnostics Incorporated 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 Celera and the director and officer defendants have reached an agreement to settle this action, which the court has preliminarily approved. In 2010, a purported class action entitled In re Celera Corp. Securities Litigation was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Celera Corporation and certain of its directors and current and former officers. An amended complaint filed in October 2010 alleges that from April 2008 through July 22, 2009, the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding Celera's business and financial results with an intent to defraud investors. The complaint was further amended in 2011 to add allegations regarding a financial restatement. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of Celera's stock during the period in which the alleged misrepresentations were made. The Company's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied. Celera and the director and officer defendants have reached an agreement to settle this action, which the court has preliminarily approved. The settlement is fully covered by insurance. RAMART LLC: Recalls Swing Chair Products Due to Fall Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Ramart LLC, of Tulsa, Okla., announced a voluntary recall of about 250 Swing chairs. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The swing chairs can tip over, posing a fall hazard to consumers. This recall involves green, apple-shaped swing chairs and brown, teardrop-shaped swing chairs. They hang from a chain connected to a metal stand with a circle-shaped base. The chairs are made from plastic rattan and have red cushions. The chairs measure about 42 inches in diameter and 43 inches tall with a 48 inch wide seat cushion. The stand measures about 77 inches tall. HomeGoods has received 11 reports of the swing chairs tipping over with consumers in them, including four reports of injuries to adults and a baby. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/MJoKtY The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at HomeGoods stores nationwide from March 2015 through May 2015 for about $400. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled swing chairs and return them to a HomeGoods store for a full refund. RBS HOLDINGS: Discovery Underway in Hopkins v. AECOM Case --------------------------------------------------------- RBS Holdings N.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 discovery is underway in the case, Hopkins v. AECOM. In 2005 RBS Group (Australia) Pty Ltd ("RBSGA"), previously ABN AMRO Australia Pty Limited, a member of RBSH Group, was a member of a consortium that appointed AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (formerly known as Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd) ("AECOM") to forecast traffic for the Clem7 Tunnel in Brisbane, Australia. Three sets of proceedings have been brought against AECOM. The first (Hopkins v AECOM) is a class action relating to the initial public offer of units to retail investors in the RiverCity Motorway Group, which operated the Clem7 Tunnel. The claim relates to allegations that the IPO disclosure was defective, particularly in relation to traffic volume forecasts by AECOM. The second and third proceedings (RiverCity v AECOM and Portigon v AECOM), involve claims of negligent misstatement and misleading or deceptive conduct in the issuance of traffic forecasts. In all three proceedings AECOM filed a number of cross-claims for contribution in the event it is found liable, including against RBSGA. On 18 July 2014, the court refused to allow the cross- claims to proceed, except in the case of Hopkins v AECOM. Discovery is underway. RBS HOLDINGS: Discovery Underway in CDS Antitrust Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ RBS Holdings N.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 discovery is underway in the Credit Default Swap Antitrust Litigation. Certain members of RBS Group, as well as a number of other financial institutions, are defendants in a consolidated antitrust class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs generally allege that defendants violated the U.S. antitrust laws by restraining competition in the market for credit default swaps through various means and thereby causing inflated bid-ask spreads for credit default swaps. On 4 September 2014, the Court largely denied the defendants' motion to dismiss this matter. Discovery is underway. RICELAND FOODS: Faces Class Action Over GMO Rice ------------------------------------------------ Law360.com reports that in a very meta turn, Riceland Foods Inc. found itself on the receiving end of a class action composed of class action counsel and plaintiffs from the genetically modified organism rice multidistrict litigation overseen by U.S. District Judge Catherine D. Perry of the Eastern District of Missouri. This state and federal litigation involved several thousand rice farmers (i.e., producers) and other businesses involved in the rice business (i.e., nonproducers) based upon the allegation that Bayer CropScience AG's genetically modified rice had tainted the U.S. rice supply. ROMO BLOCK: "Reyes" Suit Removed to Southern District of Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Plaza Contracting Company, LLC, and Katz Meltzer Construction, Co., removed the class action lawsuit entitled Reyes, et al. v. Romo Block Inc., et al., Case No. 14-01643-CA-01, from the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15- cv-22035-JLK to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brody Max Shulman, Esq. Jason Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Courthouse Tower, Suite 2200 44 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com jremer@rgpattorneys.com Defendants Plaza Contracting Company, LLC and Katz Meltzer Construction, Co., are represented by: Jennifer T. Williams, Esq. Laurie Martine Weinstein, Esq. AKERMAN SENTERFITT Suntrust International Center 1 SE 3rd Avenue, 25th Floor Miami, FL 33131-1714 Telephone: (305) 374-5600 Facsimile: (305) 374-5095 E-mail: jennifer.williams@akerman.com laurie.weinstein@akerman.com ROSS DRESS: Faces "Sitton" Class Suit Alleging Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------- John Sitton, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a Class Comprised of other Similarly Situated individuals v. Ross Dress for Less Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-00851-ACC-KRS (M.D. Fla., May 27, 2015) alleges job discrimination (race). The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com SANDISK CORP: Aug. 18 Case Mgmt Conference in "Glore" Case Set -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Vince Chhabria signed on May 22, 2015, a stipulation and order extending time to respond, and to file case management statement, and to continue the case management conference in TRENTON GLORE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SANDISK CORP., SANJAY MEHROTRA, and JUDY BRUNER, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:15-CV-01455-VC, (N.D. Cal.). On March 31, 2015, the Court entered an Order setting an initial Case Management Conference ("CMC") for June 30, 2015, and setting Rule 26(f), CMC, and ADR deadlines for June 9, 2015 and June 23, 2015. As of the date of this stipulation, at least one other plaintiff has filed a related action in the District: Glenn Bowers, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. SanDisk Corporation, Sanjay Mehrotra, and Judy Bruener, Case No. 3:15-cv- 02050. Defendants have not yet been served with the complaint in the Bowers Action. In light of the multiple complaints on file, the potential for additional complaints, and the nature of Plaintiff's allegations under the Reform Act, the Plaintiff has agreed that Defendants need not respond to the complaint pending the appointment of a lead plaintiff and the consolidation of any related actions, including but not limited to the Bowers Action. In light of the current procedural posture, and in particular, the fact that a lead plaintiff has not yet been appointed, the parties requested that the CMC and related CMC and ADR deadlines be continued. Hence, the stipulation, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1HxZxMnfrom Leagle.com, provides that: 1. Defendants need not respond to the complaint pending the appointment of a lead plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u- 4(a)(3)(B) and the consolidation of any related actions; 2. The CMC is continued pending the appointment of a lead plaintiff and the consolidation of any related actions. Likewise, the deadlines for filing a Joint Case Management Statement or ADR documents pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-4 are continued accordingly. A case management conference is scheduled for August 18, 2015. BORIS FELDMAN -- bbahns@wsgr.com -- KEITH E. EGGLETON -- keggleton@wsgr.com -- MICHAEL R. PETROCELLI -- mpetrocelli@wsgr.com -- ANNE S. AUFHAUSER -- aaufhauser@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, Professional Corporation, Palo Alto, CA, Attorneys for Defendants, SanDisk Corporation, Sanjay Mehrotra, and Judy Bruner. JEREMY LIEBERMAN -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP, New York, NY, Attorney for Plaintiff, Trenton Glore. SCOTT CONANT: Faces "Rivera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Evans Rivera, Dan Hrcsko, Mario Quimbay, John Bousante, and Vinicio Santos, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Scott Conant, Antonello Paganuzzi, Scarpetta, LLC, d/b/a Scarpetta, LDV Hospitality LLC, LUCKY 13 LLC and SCM Management, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-04276-RWS (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 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 restaurant in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey E. Goldman, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY E. GOLDMAN 501 Fifth Ave. Suite 1900 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-8999 Facsimile: (212) 691-2253 E-mail: jeff@jgoldmanlaw.com SELECT ENERGY: Faces "Coker" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Coker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Select Energy Services, LLC, and John Schmitz, Case No. 3:15-cv-00136 (S.D. Tex., June 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendants are engaged in providing oil and gas well monitoring services to energy companies nationwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 711 W. Alabama St. Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: Gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com SENGUPTA FOOD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Lazaro-Garcia, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Sengupta Food Services, LLC, d/b/a Soho Park Restaurant, Ashim Sengupta, and Shawn Sengupta, Case No. 1:15-cv- 04259-RA (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate Soho Park restaurant in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Giustino Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C. 708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com pcooper@jcpclaw.com SHO-ME POWER: KAMO-KPN Class Settlement Gets Court Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey approved a class settlement in the case captioned CHASE BARFIELD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SHO-ME POWER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 2:11-CV- 4321NKL, (W.D. Mo.). The KAMO Class Representatives, through Class Counsel, and Defendants KAMO Electric Cooperative, Inc. and K-PowerNet, LLC (collectively "KAMO-KPN") entered into the KAMO-KPN Class Settlement Agreement, as of December 4, 2014. Judge Laughrey held that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of KAMO Class Members, and is approved in all respects. The Court directed the parties to perform and satisfy the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement. Incentive awards to the KAMO Class Representatives in these amounts are reasonable and are approved: Chase Barfield: $8,000; and J. Carol and Rowena Hutchens: $8,000 jointly. All Communications Claims of any Class Member (and the successors in interest of all members of the KAMO Class) against KAMO-KPN are dismissed. Upon the Effective Date, the dismissal will be with prejudice. Upon the Effective Date, all Call Members (and the successors in interest of all members of the KAMO Class) will be barred and permanently enjoined from instituting, asserting, or prosecuting against KAMO-KPN or any other Released Party any and all Communications Claims they have, had, or may have in the future, against KAMO-KPN or any other Released Party, except any claims for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement. A copy of the Court's June 1, 2015 order and judgment is available at http://bit.ly/1QsSWITfrom Leagle.com. Michael D Biffle, Plaintiff, represented by Cecilia Fex -- fex@ackersonlaw.com -- Kathleen C Kauffman -- kauffman@ackersonlaw.com -- Ackerson Kauffman Fex, PC, Michael Amberg, Brad A. Catlin -- bcatlin@price-law.com -- Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC, F. Alexander O'Neill, Henry J. Price -- hprice@price-law.com -- Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC, Matthew A. Clement -- mclement@cvdl.net -- Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff & Landwehr, P.C., Ronald J. Waicukauski -- rwaicukauski@price-law.com -- Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC & Heidi Doerhoff Vollet -- hvollet@cvdl.net -- Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff & Landwehr, P.C. Gina Biffle, Plaintiff, represented by Cecilia Fex, Kathleen C Kauffman, Ackerson Kauffman Fex, PC, Michael Amberg, Brad A. Catlin, Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC, F. Alexander O'Neill, Henry J. Price, Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC, Matthew A. Clement, Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff & Landwehr, P.C., Ronald J. Waicukauski, Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC & Heidi Doerhoff Vollet, Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff & Landwehr, P.C. Dwight K Robertson, Plaintiff, represented by Cecilia Fex, Kathleen C Kauffman, Ackerson Kauffman Fex, PC, Michael Amberg, Ronald J. Waicukauski, Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC, Brad A. Catlin, Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC, Henry J. Price, Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC & Heidi Doerhoff Vollet, Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff & Landwehr, P.C. Sho-Me Power Electric Cooperative, Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Hohn -- chohn@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn, LLP, David L. Coffman -- dcoffman@thompsoncoburn.com -- Robert Joseph Wagner -- rwagner@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, W. Stanley Walch -- swalch@thompsoncoburn.com -- Dana L. Flora, Andereck, Evans, Widger, Johnson & Lewis LLC, Mark A. Mattingly -- mmattingly@thompsoncoburn.com -- Stephen A. D'Aunoy -- sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- & Terry M Evans -- tevans@LawOfficeMo.com -- Andereck, Evans, Widger, Johnson & Lewis, LLC. Sho-Me Technologies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Hohn, Thompson Coburn, LLP, David L. Coffman, Robert Joseph Wagner, Thompson Coburn LLP, W. Stanley Walch, Dana L. Flora, Andereck, Evans, Widger, Johnson & Lewis LLC, Mark A. Mattingly, Stephen A. D'Aunoy & Terry M Evans, Andereck, Evans, Widger, Johnson & Lewis, LLC. SOUTHERN SPECIALTIES: Removed "Jackson" Class Suit to S.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Robert L. Jackson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Southern Specialties Transportation, LLC, Case No. 15-00005-23,407, was removed from the 24th Judicial District Court of Dewitt County, Texas to the U.S. District Court Southern District of Texas (Victoria). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:15-cv-00038 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Greg S. Gober, Esq. BLAIES & HIGHTOWER LLP 421 W. 3rd Street, Suite 900 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 334-0800 Facsimile: (817) 334-0574 The Defendant is represented by: Corey Edward Devine, Esq. MUSKAT, MARTINEZ & MAHONY, LLP 1201 Louisiana, Suite 850 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 495-2329 Facsimile: (713) 987-7854 E-mail: cdevine@m3law.com SOUTHWEST CARPENTERS: 9th Cir. Reverses Ruling in "Leicht" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- In JOHN LEICHT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE SOUTHWEST CARPENTERS PENSION PLAN, an ERISA pension plan, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 13-55715, John Leicht appealed a district court order granting summary judgment to the Southwest Carpenters Pension Plan ("Plan"). According to the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in its memorandum dated June 1, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1Bkzwivfrom Leagle.com, "Where an ERISA plan grants discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan, we review the administrator's interpretation for abuse of discretion and the district court's application of this standard de novo . . . We review de novo whether the terms of an ERISA plan are plain or ambiguous . . . Because the Plan's interpretation of its provisions was "not grounded on any reasonable basis," see Tapley, 728 F.3d at 1139, we reverse." "[W]e conclude that the term is unambiguous and that the Plan abused its discretion when it arbitrarily construed the term to mean only publicly-employed building inspectors. . . The Plan provided no rational justification, either in its briefing or at oral argument, for interpreting the term to encompass only inspectors formally employed by a public entity. We must necessarily reject such an arbitrary interpretation," the Ninth Circuit added. "Accordingly," concluded the Ninth Circuit, "because the Plan abused its discretion when it arbitrarily interpreted the term "building inspector" and suspended Leicht's benefits on this basis, we reverse the district court's ruling and instruct it to enter judgment in favor of Leicht." Costs on appeal are awarded to Appellant. ST. FRANCIS MEDICAL: Refuses to Give ASL Interpreter, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Cole v. St. Francis Medical Center, Case No. 1:15-cv-00098 (E.D. Mo. May 28, 2015) arises from the Defendant's alleged refusal and failure to provide an American Sign Language interpreter to the Plaintiff. Ms. Cole, a resident of the state of Missouri, is profoundly deaf and primarily communicates in ASL. St. Francis Medical Center is a non-profit corporation organized and operating within the State of Missouri and maintaining its offices and principal place of business in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. SFMC is a place of public accommodation and is a recipient of and accepts federal funds, including Medicaid and Medicare funds. SFMC is a major hospital and provider of medical care and services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth M. Chackes, Esq. Daniel J. Kolde, Esq. CHACKES, CARLSON & GOROVSKY, LLP 906 Olive Street, Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314)872-8420 Facsimile: (314)872-7017 E-mail: kchackes@cch-law.com dkolde@cch-law.com - and - Eric Baum, Esq. Andrew Rozynski, Esq. EISENBERG & BAUM, LLP 24 Union Square East, Fourth Floor New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 353-8700 Facsimile: (212) 353-1708 E-mail: ebaum@eandblaw.com arozynski@eandblaw.com ST. LOUIS CARDINALS: Lawsuits Could Force Team Testimony -------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that concussion lawsuits filed by former St. Louis Cardinals receiver Roy Green, former Kansas City Chiefs defensive lineman Neil Smith and their teammates could force team officials to testify about claims they hid the risk of repeated head injuries. A Missouri judge ruled the Cardinals case should be heard separately and not decided on the federal level, where it could be combined with the recently settled federal class-action lawsuit that could cost the NFL $1 billion or more over the next several decades. By settling the class-action case, the league avoided having to offer testimony about its role in mitigating concussion injuries over the years. Green along with teammates J.T. Smith and Ed Scott sued their old franchise -- now in Arizona -- in 2013, at about the same time nearly two dozen former Chiefs, including Neil Smith and Albert Lewis, filed a similar lawsuit against their former team. Chiefs spokesman Ted Crews said the team didn't want to comment on pending litigation. The Cardinals did not respond to requests from The Associated Press for comment. All the players involved have opted out of the class-action lawsuit, in hopes of having their case heard in Missouri, where the state workers' compensation statute allows them to directly sue the teams. The Chiefs lawsuit is under jurisdiction of the judge who oversaw the class-action lawsuit, Anita Brody. She must rule on whether that can also be sent back to state court in Missouri. "The move is justified," plaintiffs' attorney Ken McClain said. "We've been proven right in doing it, because the federal settlement provides our players with absolutely nothing. They get no benefits." In the class-action lawsuit settlement, Brody agreed with a provision that could exclude future claims involving chronic traumatic encephalopathy -- the condition several players, including Junior Seau and Dave Duerson, were found to have after their brains were examined during autopsies. CTE cannot be definitively diagnosed in the living, though Brody called for the settlement to be revisited periodically to include the latest science. The settlement will pay players who suffer cognitive injuries, all of which have strong links to CTE, though not those who claim to suffer from CTE itself. According to both lawsuits, the plaintiffs have developed "post- concussion syndrome -- e.g. mood, behavior and cognitive dysfunction -- and neurological impairments/damage, such as CTE." McClain said when terms of the settlement were becoming clear, he sent all his clients to be evaluated about whether any of them would be eligible for benefits. "None qualified," he said. All the players in the lawsuits claim they endured concussions between late 1987 and early 1993 when there was no NFL collective bargaining agreement in place. STAPLES CONTRACT: "Rosales" Removed Class Suit to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Mike A. Rosales, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Staples Contract & Commercial, Inc., Case No. CIVDS1505146, was removed from the San Bernardino County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District Of California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00949-JLS-DTB to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg Lander, Esq. Kevin T. Barnes, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES 5670 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664 Telephone: (323) 549-9100 Facsimile: (323) 549-0101 E-mail: lander@kbarnes.com barnes@kbarnes.com - and - Sahag Majarian II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: sahagii@aol.com The Defendant is represented by: Amber D. Shubin, Esq. David Patrick Zins, Esq. Karen J. Kubin, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 892-5285 Facsimile: (213) 892-5454 E-mail: ashubin@mofo.com dzins@mofo.com kkubin@mofo.com STERLING JEWELERS: Court Tosses Tapia's Motion to Amend Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Edward J. Davila denied a plaintiff's motion for leave to file a first amended class action complaint in the case captioned KATHYA TAPIA, on behalf of herself and on behalf of a Class of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STERLING JEWELERS INC., an unknown business entity; SIGNET JEWELERS LTD, an unknown business entity, Defendants, CASE NO. 5:14-CV-00624-EJD, (N.D. Cal.). The Plaintiff seeks to file an amended complaint that includes successor liability allegations against Defendants' predecessor, Ultra Stores, Inc. ("Ultra Stores"). Moreover, Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to comport with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure since the operative complaint was originally filed in state court. "In sum, Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for modifying the deadline of October 6, 2014 to amend the pleadings," wrote Judge Davila in his May 22, 2015 order, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1L20o79from Leagle.com. "There is no indication of good cause that would warrant such modification, nor of Plaintiff's diligence since by at least May 2014, Plaintiff knew of the existence of Ultra Stores. Since the deadline to amend the complaint has passed, Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a first amended class action complaint is untimely." Kathya Tapia, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Edward Quintilone -- req@quintlaw.com -- II, Quintilone and Associates. Sterling Jewelers Inc., Defendant, represented by Jesse Carter Ferrantella -- jesse.ferrantella@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, Stewart, P.C., Timothy Lloyd Johnson -- tim.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart, P.C. & Spencer C. Skeen -- spencer.skeen@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak Stewart PC. Signet Jewelers Ltd., Defendant, represented by Jesse Carter Ferrantella, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, Stewart, P.C., Timothy Lloyd Johnson, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart, P.C. & Spencer C. Skeen, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak Stewart PC. SUN-MAID GROWERS: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathon Talavera, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. Sun-Maid Growers Of California and Does 1-50, Case No. 1:15-at-00453 (E.D. Cal., June 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Sun-Maid Growers of California is engaged in food processing business in Fresno County, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Cory G. Lee, Esq. THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC 9595 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (213) 291-3333 Facsimile: (610) 813-4579 E-mail: downeyjusticelee@gmail.com SWISHER HYGIENE: Bid to Pay $185,434 in Legal Fees Approved ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Graham C. Mullen issued an order approving a distribution plan, and authorizing distribution of a settlement fund in IN RE SWISHER HYGIENE, INC. SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, Division, NO. 3:12-MD-2384-GCM, (W.D. N.C.). The Court granted on August 6, 2014, final approval to the settlement of this class action and retained jurisdiction to authorize and approve the distribution of the settlement fund to eligible class members. Lead Plaintiffs have filed an Unopposed Motion for Approval of Distribution Plan for Net Settlement Fund asking the Court to (1) approve the administrative determinations of the Claims Administrator accepting and rejecting claims; (2) authorizing payment out of the Settlement Fund to the Claims Administrator for its fees and expenses; (3) directing distribution of the Net Settlement Fund consistent with the Claims Administrator's distribution plan; and (4) authorizing destruction of paper copies of the Proofs of Claim one year after final distribution of the Net Settlement Fund and destruction of electronic copies three years after final distribution. Judge Mullen's May 22, 2015 order, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1IML4hffrom Leagle.com, provides, among other things, that: * The Court finds that the procedures followed by A.B. Data, as set forth in the Walter Affidavit, in reviewing claim forms from Class Members are in conformity with the procedures set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement; the distribution plan for the Net Settlement Fund set forth in the Walter Affidavit is approved and A.B. Data's recommendation to pay Claimants identified in Exhibits E and F to the Walter Affidavit are approved; A.B. Data's recommendation to reject Proofs of Claim identified in Exhibit G to the Walter Affidavit are approved. * A.B. Data's recommendation to reject the claim identified in Exhibit D to the Walter Affidavit is approved. * A.B. Data's request to establish a reserve in the amount of $100,000, or 2.5% of the Swisher Net Settlement Fund, to adjust for any inadvertent errors in payments upon sufficient proof, the resolution of disputed claims consistent with Court orders, and/or to pay additional taxes, costs, and administrative fees associated with such matters is approved. * Lead Counsel's request to pay A.B. Data $185,434.62 in fees and expenses is approved. TAKATA CORP: "Johnson" Suit Consolidated in Airbag Products MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Johnson v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01112, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-21994-FAM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15- md-02599-FAM. The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris, resulting in injury or even death. The Plaintiffs allege that Takata and the various motor vehicle manufacturer defendants became aware of the defect years ago, but concealed their knowledge from safety regulators and the public. The Plaintiff is represented by: Henry Nicholas Didier, Jr., Esq. DIDIER LAW FIRM, P.A. 1203 N. Orange Avenue Orlando, FL 32804 Telephone: (407) 895-3401 Facsimile: (407) 895-3408 E-mail: didier@productsafetyattorneys.com hank@didierlaw.com THERATECHNOLOGIES INC: Osler Hoskin Discusses High Court Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence E. Ritchie, Laura Fric and Adam Hirsh at Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Theratechnologies Inc. v. 121851 Canada Inc. raises interesting questions about disclosure obligations that can be triggered by a regulator's inquiries, and resulting class action risk if disclosure is inadequate. The case arose as a proposed class action brought by shareholders of Theratechnologies Inc. ("Thera"). The plaintiff alleged that Thera failed to adequately disclose and respond to questions that it received from the FDA as part of the regulatory approval process for a new drug. The FDA questions were about side effects of a proposed new drug. When the questions were publicized externally, Thera's stock dropped by 58% that same day. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's claim at the leave stage, finding that the company had previously made adequate disclosure regarding the drug's potential side effects and about the FDA process. The Court found that the FDA's questions were a routine part of the regulatory process. However, on different facts the outcome may not have been as happy for the company. For example, if the FDA's questions had not been routine, would this have resulted in a material change to Thera's business that Thera would be compelled to disclose? The case does not answer the question, but it reinforces the inherent risk in navigating the regulatory process, as a regulator's inquiries can often raise larger issues regarding disclosure and potential investor liability. Factual Background In the spring of 2010, Thera was awaiting FDA approval of a new drug to reduce excess abdominal fat in HIV patients. As the application proceeded, Thera regularly informed its shareholders of the results of its clinical trials measuring the safety and efficacy of the drug. During the approval process, the FDA referred a number of questions about the drug, including its potential side effects, to an expert Advisory Committee, and made these questions public as part of the package of briefing materials on its website. These questions were then publicized by stock quotation enterprises, leading to a 58% decline in the price of Thera's shares. Thera did not respond publicly to the publication because it believed the briefing documents it had already provided to the FDA and the clinical trials it had already made public to its investors offered a comprehensive response to the specific questions that the FDA had posed. Thera shareholders commenced a class action, claiming that the FDA's questions amounted to a material change in Thera's business, operations or capital, and that Thera breached its obligation to make timely disclosure of those changes under s. 73 of the Quebec Securities Act. Finding The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff's claim, finding that the FDA's questions did not amount to a material change. In particular, the Court focused on the fact that the FDA's questions, and the package of briefing materials that were made public, were part of the regular and routine process through which the FDA assessed whether a new drug should be approved. The court held there was no new information that required disclosure. Moreover, the Court recognized that not every fact about a regulatory inquiry, or affecting a business generally, can or should be disclosed to shareholders. The Canadian Supreme Court agreed with this observation from the U.S. Supreme Court: "there are risks of excessive disclosure, which could 'simply . . . bury the shareholders in an avalanche of trivial information - a result that is hardly conducive to informed decision making" (TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. 426 U.S. 438 (1976))." Implications of the Decision Public issuers can take comfort from the fact that the Supreme Court recognized that it is not necessary to disclose each and every interaction with a regulator, particularly where these inquiries are routine. As well, the Court acknowledged the dangers of excessive disclosure. However, where the line can be drawn between routine aspects of a regulatory process and more unusual or atypical aspects will be a judgment call, based on the facts of each case. Whether non- routine queries must be disclosed will be another judgment call -- depending upon whether they represent a material change or not. The Thera case highlights that companies navigating a regulatory process must be mindful of the larger risks relating to disclosure and related civil liability. TIME WARNER: Parties Reached MOU in Comcast Merger Case ------------------------------------------------------- Time Warner Cable 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 parties to the litigation related to the Comcast merger entered into a memorandum of understanding reflecting the terms of an agreement, subject to final approval by the New York Supreme Court and certain other conditions, to settle all of the outstanding litigation challenging the merger. Following the announcement of the Comcast merger on February 13, 2014, eight putative class action complaints challenging the merger were filed on behalf of purported TWC stockholders, seven in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York and one in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. These complaints were captioned: Barrett v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Karl Graulich IRA v. Marcus, et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Wedeking v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Lassoff v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Thomas v. Marcus, et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Tangarone v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System v. Black, et al. (Del. Ch.); and Empire State Supply Corp. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.). On March 25, 2014, the plaintiff in Tangarone v. Time Warner Cable Inc. voluntarily discontinued the action in the New York Supreme Court and re-filed the action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware under the caption Tangarone v. Time Warner Cable Inc, et al. (Del. Ch.). Likewise, on March 26, 2014, the plaintiffs in Empire State Supply Corp. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. voluntarily discontinued the action in the New York Supreme Court, and re-filed the action on March 27, 2014 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware under the caption Empire State Supply Corp. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (Del. Ch.). On March 28, 2014, the plaintiffs in Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System v. Black, et al. (Del. Ch.) filed an amended complaint. On April 2, 2014, the Court orally granted a motion to consolidate the pending actions in the New York Supreme Court under the caption Barrett, et al. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), which the Court did formally by written order on April 15, 2014. On April 3, 2014, the plaintiffs in Barrett, et al. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) filed a consolidated amended complaint. The various complaints name as defendants the Company, the members of the Company's Board of Directors, Comcast and Tango Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"). The complaints assert that the members of the Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders during the Comcast merger negotiations and by entering into the Merger Agreement and approving the Comcast merger, and that Comcast and Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints also allege that the Company and its Board of Directors failed to disclose in the registration statement related to the Comcast merger material facts relating to the merger. The complaints seek, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the shareholder vote on the Comcast merger, unspecified declaratory and equitable relief, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and costs and fees. On July 22, 2014, the parties to the litigation entered into a memorandum of understanding reflecting the terms of an agreement, subject to final approval by the New York Supreme Court and certain other conditions, to settle all of the outstanding litigation challenging the merger. The Company believes that the claims asserted against it in the lawsuits are without merit and, if the settlement does not receive final approval by the New York Supreme Court or otherwise is not consummated, intends to defend against the litigation vigorously. TIME WARNER: Ruling in Set-Top Box Antitrust Case on Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- Time Warner Cable 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 plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit appealed a decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Company is the defendant in In re: Set-Top Cable Television Box Antitrust Litigation, ten purported class actions filed in federal district courts throughout the U.S. These actions are subject to a Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") Order transferring the cases for pretrial proceedings to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On July 26, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a third amended consolidated class action complaint (the "Third Amended Complaint"), alleging that the Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust laws and state unfair/deceptive trade practices statutes by tying the sales of premium cable television services to the leasing of set-top converter boxes. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to cease such alleged practices. On September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, which the court granted on April 8, 2011. On June 17, 2011, the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. TRANSDEV SERVICES: Court Lists Factors in Approving Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William Alsup issued a notice on May 28, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1G0HOc6from Leagle.com, regarding these factors to be evaluated for any proposed class settlement in SHAUNTAE WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC. AND VEOLIA TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., Defendant, NO. C 15-02180 WHA, (N.D. Cal.): 1. ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION 2. DUE DILIGENCE 3. COST-BENEFIT FOR ABSENT CLASS MEMBERS 4. THE RELEASE 5. EXPANSION OF THE CLASS 6. REVERSION 7. CLAIM PROCEDURE 8. ATTORNEY'S FEES 9. DWINDLING OR MINIMAL ASSETS 10. TIMING OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT. 11. A RIGHT TO OPT OUT IS NOT A CURE-ALL 12. INCENTIVE PAYMENT 13. NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS Shauntae Williams, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Norman B. Blumenthal -- norm@bamlawlj.com -- Blumentha, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Aparajit Bhowmik -- aj@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik & Kyle Roald Nordrehaug -- kyle@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. Transdev Services, Inc., a corporation, Defendant, represented by Brandyn E. Stedfield -- bstedfield@gleasonfavarote.com -- Gleason & Favarote LLP, Janet Sylvia Yavrouian -- jyavrouian@gleasonfavarote.com -- Gleason & Favarote, LLP & Torey Joseph Favarote -- tjf@gfemploymentlawyers.com -- Gleason & Favarote LLP. TRI-VISTA DESIGNS: Recalls Monogram Mugs Due to Fire Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Tri-Vista Designs Inc., of Deer, Ark., announced a voluntary recall of about 10,000Metallic Monogram Beverage Mugs. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. If used in the microwave, the metallic mugs can spark, posing a fire hazard. If used in the microwave, the metallic mugs can spark, posing a fire hazard. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/XiEP5S The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Kirkland's stores nationwide from March 2015 to May 2015 for about $7. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled mugs in the microwave, and return them to any Kirkland's store for a full refund. TRINIDAD DRILLING: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Moises Ceniceros, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Trinidad Drilling, LP, Case No. 2:15-cv-00183-J (N.D. Tex., June 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Trinidad Drilling, LP is in the business of providing drilling and well services in the oil and gas industry in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremi K. Young, Esq. Rachael Victoria Rustmann, Esq. THE YOUNG LAW FIRM 1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200 Amarillo, TX 79101 Telephone: (806) 331-1800 E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com rachael@youngfirm.com TRINITY INDUSTRIES: June 29 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bids ------------------------------------------------------------ The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, reminds purchasers of Trinity Industries Inc. securities from February 16, 2012 through April 21, 2015 of the important June 29, 2015 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Trinity Industries investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Trinity Industries class action, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-585.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 during the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Trinity Industries altered certain dimensions of the ET-Plus in 2005 without informing the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA"), which certifies the safety of roadside hardware; and (2) as a result, Trinity Industries' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 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-585.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. UBER TECH: "Sabatino" Case Stayed Pending Arbitration ----------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jon S. Tigar signed on May 29, 2015, a stipulation and order granting defendants' motion to stay proceedings in JACOB SABATINO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; RASIER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; RASIER-CA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; RASIER-DC, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; RASIER-PA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00363-JST, (N.D. Cal.). Defendants filed their Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration on March 23, 2015, on the basis that Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate pursuant to the Terms and Conditions that Plaintiff assented to as part of the Uber registration process. A hearing on the Motion is scheduled for June 11, 2015, while a a case management conference is scheduled for July 22 2015. The court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1TqYEKufrom Leagle.com, provides that the Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration is granted and the hearing on Defendants' motion and the case management conference are vacated. IRELL & MANELLA LLP, Andra Barmash Greene -- agreene@irell.com -- A. Matthew Ashley -- mashley@irell.com -- Newport Beach, California, Attorneys for Defendants. MLG AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, APLC, Kathryn Harvey, Attorneys for Plaintiff. UBER TECH: Rivals Upset by Preferential Treatment ------------------------------------------------- Chris Joseph, writing for BrowardPalmBeach.com, reports that Uber's competitors in Palm Beach County are upset over what they're saying is "special treatment" given to the ride-sharing company by county commissioners. So much so, that several transportation companies have banded together and filed a class- action lawsuit against Palm Beach County. Back in March, commissioners entered into a temporary agreement to allow Uber to operate in the county, at the behest of the Chamber of Commerce. In a 4-3 vote, commissioners agreed to allow the ride-sharing company to operate under the same regulations as cab companies, though there are certain regulations that they're not following that other companies have been forced to. "Uber is a large vehicle for hire company that has a history of coming into a particular city or county and attempting to obtain special treatment so that it need not comply with local and/or state regulations with which its competitors must comply," reads part of the 53-page suit. The plaintiffs, which include VTS Transportation, North County Transportation, A1A Airport, Prestige Limousines, and All Transit Solution, claim in the suit that the county's temporary operating agreement with Uber is "irrational" and "arbitrary." The suit says the agreement was made just to avoid a legal battle with Uber had the company been forced to follow the same regulations as other transportation companies. "Moreover, PBC's decision to do so was based on the payment of money from [Uber] to induce PBC from enforcing its rules, laws and codes applicable to both [the Plaintiffs and Uber]," the suit reads. The plaintiffs say that they have will continue to suffer direct damages and are seeking monetary damages from the county and for commissioners to change their ruling of allowing Uber to operate under a different set of rules. Aside from fairness, opponents of Uber have often pointed to safety being an issue for following specific regulations. "Uber is largely operating without regulations designed to keep consumers safe," Walter Dartland, executive director of the Consumer Federation of the Southeast, tells New Times. "Such regulations as background checks, insurance coverage, and vehicle maintenance requirements aren't unnecessary red tape -- they are practical policies designed first and foremost to keep the public safe." Back in March, Dennis Grady, CEO of the Palm Beach County Chamber of Commerce, sent Commissioner Steve Abrams a letter asking the commissioners to find a temporary solution and negotiate with Uber. In his letter, Grady said the financial gain that the county has seen since Uber arrived in Palm Beach, as well as the ride-sharing service's popularity with residents, as a reason to enter into the Temporary Operating Agreement. "[Uber] has connected hundreds of thousands of local people residing in and visiting our community with safe and reliable rides," part of Grady's letter reads. Meanwhile, Broward County commissioners recently enforced regulations on Uber. In response, Uber said it cannot do business in Broward under those regulations. UNITED STATES: New Orleans May Join Hurricane Flood Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Kevin McGill, writing for Times Union, reports that New Orleans officials are compiling information about hurricane damage to municipal property in the city's Lower 9th Ward, now that a federal judge has ruled the U.S. government bears liability for some of the flooding caused by Hurricane Katrina and other storms. City Attorney Sharonda Williams said that the information is being compiled as the city considers whether to join a St. Bernard Parish lawsuit filed in 2005 over storm damage blamed on a now- closed U.S-built ship channel -- the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet. Judge Susan Braden of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington ruled that the construction, operation and maintenance of the outlet caused environmental damage and wetlands loss as well as increased storm surge, contributing to flood damage by Hurricane Katrina and other storms in New Orleans' Lower 9th Ward and in neighboring St. Bernard Parish. Plaintiffs in the case are the St. Bernard government and several property owners. "We have been in contact with the plaintiffs' attorneys already," Williams said. Much remains unclear following Braden's ruling, including how much money is at stake and who might eventually be in line to receive it. The plaintiffs asked for the lawsuit to be certified as a class action that would cover many property owners in St. Bernard and the Lower 9th Ward. A ruling on that was pending. Federal lawyers and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which built the MRGO, have declined comment and it remains unclear whether they will appeal. A closed-door conference was held this week in New Orleans to determine whether the parties would agree to have damages worked out by a mediator, but nobody would comment about what went on in the meeting. Williams said the city could file to intervene in the suit or seek to take part as a member of the affected class. She said she hopes information on affected properties can be compiled in the next couple of weeks. How much the city might be due would rely on numerous factors, including payments that have already been received as aid or insurance. "There is the potential for some offset if we've already been paid for certain damage," she said. Katrina struck on Aug. 29, 2005, causing widespread damage on the Mississippi Gulf Coast and in southeast Louisiana. Levees in New Orleans failed and about 80 percent of the city flooded. The Lower 9th Ward and St. Bernard Parish were among the hardest hit areas. UNITED TRANZACTIONS: Suit Accused of Debt Collection Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- The Pennsylvania Record reports that a Pennsylvania man recently sued a Florida debt collection firm alleging consumer law violations in 2014. John C. Pawlowski Jr., of Southampton, brought a class action complaint against United Tranzactions LLC (UTA), of Miramar, Fla., and Janet Eden in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 28, alleging deceptive practices dating to August. Pawlowski purchased supplies from a Warrington home improvement store with a convenience check drawn from his Bank of America credit line on or about Aug. 20. The lawsuit states that the plaintiff had ample funds to cover the $1,821.90 transaction. According to the filing, the store contracts with UTA for check acceptance services. He received a phone call from Eden on or about Sept. 23, informing him that his check was written on insufficient funds, he says. Disputing the debt, the plaintiff states that he was advised by both the bank and the store that there was no issue. Eden continued to call daily, the lawsuit states, harassing and threatening him through October. Finally, the complaint says, the plaintiff received a form dunning letter, on Nov. 5, with a $30 "returned check fee" added to the bill. Pawlowski paid the total on or about Nov. 19, he says. The lawsuit states that UTA routinely sends such letters to consumers in violation of state law and seeks to reimburse all Pennsylvanians who have been subjected to UTA's returned check fee. Citing violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and alleging false representation and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and court costs. The plaintiff is represented by James Francis and John Soumilas of Francis and Mailman in Philadelphia. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Sale ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Silverstein, Ross Weintraub, and Booth Family Trust, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Mark A. Thierer, Steven D. Cosler, Peter J. Bensen, William J. Davis, Steven B. Epstein, Betsy D. Holden, Karen L. Katen, Harry M. Kraemer, Anthony R. Masso, UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, and 1031387 B.C. Unlimited Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:15- cv-04896 (N.D. Ill., June 3, 2015), is brought on behalf of the holders of common stock of Catamaran Corporation against, Catamaran's Board of Directors, UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, and 1031387 B.C. Unlimited Limited Liability Company to enjoin the Defendants from further violating the Securities Exchange Act in their pursuit of a sale of the Company to UnitedHealth for an unfair price and inadequate consideration. Catamaran Corporation is a provider of pharmacy benefit management services and healthcare information technology solutions to the healthcare benefit management industry. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated is a Minnesota corporation that provides health care coverage and benefits services. 1031387 B.C. Unlimited Limited Liability Company is an unlimited liability company incorporated under the laws of the Province of British Columbia, Canada and a wholly owned subsidiary of United Health. The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman Rifkind, Esq. Amelia S. Newton, Esq. LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD. 351 W. Hubbard Street, Suite 401 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 634-0057 Facsimile: (312) 634-0059 E-mail: rifkind@laskyrifkind.com newton@laskyrifkind.com - and - Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Stephen J. Oddo, Esq. Edward B. Gerard, Esq. Justin D. Rieger, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com soddo@robbinsarroyo.com egerard@robbinsarroyo.com jrieger@robbinsarroyo.com - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rigrodskylong.com gs@rigrodskylong.com - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Kelly Keenan, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP Times Square Plaza 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 Facsimile: (212) 682-3010 E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com kkeenan@weisslawllp.com US AIRWAYS: PBGC to Pay $5.25 Million to Retired USAir Pilots ------------------------------------------------------------- Hazel Bradford, writing for Pensions and Investment, reports that the PBGC will pay $5.25 million to a group of retired US Airways pilots whose lump-sum payments were delayed, under a class-action settlement approved by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The retired pilots' group first sued the airline in 2000 after lump-sum payments took longer, typically 45 days longer than their official benefit commencement date, than the payments made to retirees receiving monthly benefits. In the meantime, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. became trustee of the plan in March 2003 when US Airways sought bankruptcy protection. After multiple court decisions and reversals in other jurisdictions as well as the D.C. circuit, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer in Washington certified a class for pilots retiring between 1997 and 2003 and choosing a lump sum. The latest decision approved, on April 30, the final issue over what length of delay would be reasonable, and how much interest should be charged. The $5.25 million settlement was calculated on a 45- day administrative payment delay at 6% interest, plus attorneys' fees and costs. Payments will be made after 60 days. "It has been long and hard but it is gratifying to be near the end," plaintiffs' attorney J.C. Nickens of law firm McGuireWoods said in an interview. Mr. Nickens praised the persistence of the class representatives, and said he expected as many as 90% of the nearly 600 class members remaining would participate. VISA INC: Class Administrator Files Report in Interchange MDL ------------------------------------------------------------- Visa 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 in the Interchange Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), on January 14, 2015, following a court-approved process to give class members who previously opted out of the damages portion of the class settlement an option to rejoin it, the class administrator submitted a report stating that it had received 1,179 requests by merchants to rejoin the cash settlement class, some of which may include multiple merchants. VISA INC: Appeal Launched in Consumer Interchange Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ Visa 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 26, 2014, in the putative class action filed on behalf of an alleged class of Visa and MasterCard payment cardholders, the court dismissed plaintiffs' federal law claim and declined to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claim. Both sides have asked the court to reconsider aspects of its decision, and have filed notices of appeal. VISA INC: Court Set Sept. 21 Trial Date in Texas State Court Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Visa 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 set a trial date of September 21, 2015, in the Texas state court case filed by merchants. Beginning in May 2013, more than 40 opt-out cases have been filed by hundreds of merchants in various federal district courts, generally pursuing damages claims on allegations similar to those raised in MDL 1720. A number of the cases also include allegations that Visa has monopolized, attempted to monopolize, and/or conspired to monopolize debit card-related market segments, and one of the cases seeks an injunction against the fixed acquirer network fee. The cases name as defendants Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., Visa International, MasterCard Incorporated, and MasterCard International Incorporated, although some also include certain U.S. financial institutions as defendants. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and its subsidiaries filed an opt-out complaint that also added Visa Europe Limited and Visa Europe Services Inc. as defendants. Visa Europe Limited and Visa Europe Services Inc. filed a motion to dismiss Wal-Mart's claims against them. As of the date of filing this quarterly report, Visa has reached settlement agreements with a number of merchants representing approximately 24% of the Visa-branded payment card sales volume of merchants who opted out. On December 23, 2014, a similar case was filed in New Mexico state court by New Mexico's attorney general on behalf of the state, state agencies, and citizens of the state, generally pursuing claims on allegations similar to those raised in MDL 1720. If this case is transferred to or otherwise included in MDL 1720, it will be covered litigation for purposes of the retrospective responsibility plan. In the Texas state court case filed by merchants, which generally pursues claims on allegations similar to those raised in MDL 1720, on April 2, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment regarding standing and denied defendants' cross- motion. The court has set a trial date of September 21, 2015. VISA INC: Petition for Review Nixed in Credit Card Tying Cases -------------------------------------------------------------- Visa 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 in the "Indirect Purchaser" Actions, in early December 2014, objectors to the settlement in the consolidated Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases petitioned for review by the California Supreme Court, which the court denied on February 11, 2015. VISA INC: Webloyalty.com, GameStop, and Visa File Dismissal Bids ---------------------------------------------------------------- Visa 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 January 9, 2015, Webloyalty.com, GameStop, and Visa each filed motions to dismiss the second amended class action complaint in the Data Pass Litigation. WARNER BROS: Court Dismissed Claims in Piracy Case -------------------------------------------------- Eriq Gardner, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that a federal judge doesn't see anything wrong with how Rightscorp and its clients are using subpoenas to identify film and TV pirates and has dismissed a claim they are abusing the legal process. Rightscorp clients Warner Bros. and BMG Rights Management are facing a class-action lawsuit from John Blaha and others. The plaintiffs say they were bombarded with phone calls after their Internet service providers gave their information to the defendants. Blaha and others say they've faced demands to settle copyright infringement allegations lest they be pursued further in court. In response to a claim regarding their aggressive tactics in seeking to collect from those pirating The Shawshank Redemption, Gravity and The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Warners invoked California's anti-SLAPP statute, which is meant to deter frivolous litigation that impinges First Amendment rights on matters of public concern. "Plaintiff is attacking Defendants' right to petition courts in the Ninth Circuit to issue DMCA subpoenas to identify copyright infringers," argued the defendants. Blaha and others retorted that the subpoena procedure under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was not designed to let copyright holders file lawsuits against John Does so as to allow these copyright holders to quickly seek discovery of ISPs. But according to U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer, that doesn't rise to an abuse of process. "The first fatal deficiency in Plaintiff's abuse of process claim is that Plaintiff raises no ulterior motive in Defendants' use of the subpoenas," writes the judge in a memorandum released. "Whether or not Sec. 512(h) subpoenas should validly be issued under the circumstances in which Defendants sought them, there is no allegation and no evidence that Defendants sought to do anything other than what their subpoena requests indicated -- identify potential copyright infringers for the purpose of pursuing Defendants' rights under the Copyright Act." The plaintiffs attempted to avoid this outcome by arguing that California's anti-SLAPP statute and California's litigation privilege didn't apply on the issue of federal subpoenas. The judge basically says the plaintiffs have it backward. "The Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the idea of a federal common law tort of abuse of process," he writes. Later, Fischer concludes that litigation privilege -- pertaining to communications connected to the pursuit of advancing the interests of litigants -- also is a well-founded defense to the plaintiff's claim. As a result of Fischer's order, the claim in the ongoing lawsuit that the defendants have abused process has been stricken. The defendants are still facing an allegation they violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making automated calls to cellphones in pursuit of settlements. The latest ruling doesn't mean that copyright holders will always be successful in their use of DMCA subpoenas to identify ISP customers flagged for copyright abuse. A couple of ISPs have put up a fight, looking to quash subpoenas, and some judges have found merit to the argument that the copyright holders don't have enough of a basis to go on a fishing expedition. Other judges have been permissive. There's not much of a uniform standard across the nation at the moment. Rightscorp was represented by Sanford Michelman and Mona Hanna of Michelman & Robinson. The plaintiffs are represented by Morgan Pietz. WESTERN UNION: Plaintiffs Object to Report and Recommendation ------------------------------------------------------------- The Western Union Company 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 plaintiffs in the class action filed by City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System have filed objections to the report and recommendation by a magistrate judge. On December 10, 2013, City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against The Western Union Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer and a former executive officer of the Company, asserting claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Securities and Exchange Commission rule 10b-5 against all defendants. On September 26, 2014, the Court appointed SEB Asset Management S.A. and SEB Investment Management AB as lead plaintiffs. On October 27, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint, which asserts the same claims as the original complaint, except that it brings the claims under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act only against the individual defendants. The consolidated amended complaint also adds as a defendant another former executive officer of the Company. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that, during the purported class period, February 7, 2012 through October 30, 2012, defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to disclose adverse material facts known to them, including those regarding: (1) the competitive advantage the Company derived from its compliance program; (2) the Company's ability to increase market share, make limited price adjustments and withstand competitive pressures; (3) the effect of compliance measures under the Southwest Border Agreement on agent retention and business in Mexico; and (4) the Company's progress in implementing an anti- money laundering program for the Southwest Border Area. On December 11, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On January 5, 2015, plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On January 23, 2015, defendants filed a reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The Court referred the motion to a Magistrate Judge, who, on April 14, 2015, issued a report and recommendation, which recommends that the defendants' motion to dismiss be granted and that the consolidated amended complaint be dismissed in full. On April 28, 2015, plaintiffs filed objections to the report and recommendation. This action is in a preliminary stage and the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated with this action. The Company and the named individuals intend to vigorously defend themselves in this matter. WESTERN UNION: Insurance Carrier and Plaintiff Reached Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Western Union Company 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's insurance carrier and the plaintiff in the class action filed by Jason Douglas has reached an agreement. On March 12, 2014, Jason Douglas filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq., based on allegations that since 2009, the Company has sent text messages to class members' wireless telephones without their consent. During the first quarter of 2015, the Company's insurance carrier and the plaintiff reached an agreement, subject to the Court's approval, to create an $8.5 million settlement fund that will be used to pay all class member claims, class counsel's fees and the costs of administering the settlement. The agreement is subject to memorialization in a definitive agreement. The Company has accrued an amount equal to the retention under its insurance policy and believes that any amounts in excess of this accrual will be covered by the insurer. However, if the Company's insurer is unable to or refuses to satisfy its obligations under the policy or the parties are unable to reach a definitive agreement or otherwise agree on a resolution, the Company's financial condition and results of operations could be adversely impacted. YELP INC: Aug. 26 Case Mgmt. Conf. in "Curry" Case Vacated ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jon S. Tigar signed on May 29, 2015, a stipulation and order in the case captioned JOSEPH CURRY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. YELP INC., JEREMY STOPPELMAN, ROB KROLIK and GEOFFREY DONAKER, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-03547, (N.D. Cal.). The Defendants in the case intend to file a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. The parties to the case met and conferred concerning a briefing and hearing schedule that takes into account scheduling conflicts of counsel, personal medical issues and planned summer vacations. The parties agreed that in light of the foregoing concerns, the interest of judicial efficiency, administration of justice and conservation of judicial and private resources would be best served by establishing a schedule for briefing on Defendants' motion to dismiss and to defer the initial case management conference and related deadlines (including ADR deadlines) until the Court has ruled on Defendants' motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1Gr0rbnfrom Leagle.com, provides that: 1. Defendants must file and serve their motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on or before June 26, 2015; 2. Plaintiffs must file and serve their opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on or before July 31, 2015; 3. Defendants must file and serve their reply in support of their motion to dismiss on or before August 21, 2015; 4. The hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss is set for September 10, 2015, at 2:00 p.m.; and 5. The case management conference presently scheduled in the action for August 26, 2015, along with any associated deadlines under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules (including ADR deadlines), is vacated, and reset to a date after the Court rules on Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. GILBERT R. SEROTA -- Gilbert.Serota@aporter.com -- MARJORY GENTRY -- Marjory.Gentry@aporter.com -- RYAN KEATS -- Ryan.Keats@aporter.com -- ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendants, YELP INC., JEREMY STOPPELMAN, ROB KROLIK and GEOFFREY DONAKER. SHAWN WILLIAMS -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, Counsel for Plaintiff Joseph Curry. * Citicorp, JPMorgan, et al Agree to Parent-Level Guilty Pleas -------------------------------------------------------------- Five major banks -- Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Barclays PLC, The Royal Bank of Scotland plc and UBS AG -- on May 20 agreed to plead guilty to felony charges. Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Barclays PLC, and The Royal Bank of Scotland plc have agreed to plead guilty to conspiring to manipulate the price of U.S. dollars and euros exchanged in the foreign currency exchange (FX) spot market and the banks have agreed to pay criminal fines totaling more than $2.5 billion. A fifth bank, UBS AG, has agreed to plead guilty to manipulating the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and other benchmark interest rates and pay a $203 million criminal penalty, after breaching its December 2012 non-prosecution agreement resolving the LIBOR investigation. Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, Assistant Director in Charge Andrew G. McCabe of the FBI's Washington Field Office and Director Aitan Goelman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's Division made the announcement. "T[he] historic resolutions are the latest in our ongoing efforts to investigate and prosecute financial crimes, and they serve as a stark reminder that this Department of Justice intends to vigorously prosecute all those who tilt the economic system in their favor; who subvert our marketplaces; and who enrich themselves at the expense of American consumers," said Attorney General Lynch. "The penalty these banks will now pay is fitting considering the long-running and egregious nature of their anticompetitive conduct. It is commensurate with the pervasive harm done. And it should deter competitors in the future from chasing profits without regard to fairness, to the law, or to the public welfare." "The charged conspiracy fixed the U.S. dollar -- euro exchange rate, affecting currencies that are at the heart of international commerce and undermining the integrity and the competitiveness of foreign currency exchange markets which account for hundreds of billions of dollars worth of transactions every day," said Assistant Attorney General Baer. "The seriousness of the crime warrants the parent-level guilty pleas by Citicorp, Barclays, JPMorgan and RBS." "The five parent-level guilty pleas that the department is announcing today communicate loud and clear that we will hold financial institutions accountable for criminal misconduct," said Assistant Attorney General Caldwell. "And we will enforce the agreements that we enter into with corporations. If appropriate and proportional to the misconduct and the company's track record, we will tear up an NPA or a DPA and prosecute the offending company." "These resolutions make clear that the U.S. Government will not tolerate criminal behavior in any sector of the financial markets," said Assistant Director in Charge McCabe. "This investigation represents another step in the FBI's ongoing efforts to find and stop those responsible for complex financial schemes for their own personal benefit. I commend the special agents, forensic accountants, and analysts, as well as the prosecutors for the significant time and resources they committed to investigating this case." According to plea agreements to be filed in the District of Connecticut, between December 2007 and January 2013, euro-dollar traders at Citicorp, JPMorgan, Barclays and RBS -- self-described members of "The Cartel" -- used an exclusive electronic chat room and coded language to manipulate benchmark exchange rates. Those rates are set through, among other ways, two major daily "fixes," the 1:15 p.m. European Central Bank fix and the 4:00 p.m. World Markets/Reuters fix. Third parties collect trading data at these times to calculate and publish a daily "fix rate," which in turn is used to price orders for many large customers. "The Cartel" traders coordinated their trading of U.S. dollars and euros to manipulate the benchmark rates set at the 1:15 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. fixes in an effort to increase their profits. As detailed in the plea agreements, these traders also used their exclusive electronic chats to manipulate the euro-dollar exchange rate in other ways. Members of "The Cartel" manipulated the euro- dollar exchange rate by agreeing to withhold bids or offers for euros or dollars to avoid moving the exchange rate in a direction adverse to open positions held by co-conspirators. By agreeing not to buy or sell at certain times, the traders protected each other's trading positions by withholding supply of or demand for currency and suppressing competition in the FX market. Citicorp, Barclays, JPMorgan and RBS each have agreed to plead guilty to a one-count felony charge of conspiring to fix prices and rig bids for U.S. dollars and euros exchanged in the FX spot market in the United States and elsewhere. Each bank has agreed to pay a criminal fine proportional to its involvement in the conspiracy: Citicorp, which was involved from as early as December 2007 until at least January 2013, has agreed to pay a fine of $925 million; Barclays, which was involved from as early as December 2007 until July 2011, and then from December 2011 until August 2012, has agreed to pay a fine of $650 million; JPMorgan, which was involved from at least as early as July 2010 until January 2013, has agreed to pay a fine of $550 million; and RBS, which was involved from at least as early as December 2007 until at least April 2010, has agreed to pay a fine of $395 million. Barclays has further agreed that its FX trading and sales practices and its FX collusive conduct constitute federal crimes that violated a principal term of its June 2012 non-prosecution agreement resolving the department's investigation of the manipulation of LIBOR and other benchmark interests rates. Barclays has agreed to pay an additional $60 million criminal penalty based on its violation of the non-prosecution agreement. In addition, according to court documents to be filed, the Justice Department has determined that UBS's deceptive currency trading and sales practices in conducting certain FX market transactions, as well as its collusive conduct in certain FX markets, violated its December 2012 non-prosecution agreement resolving the LIBOR investigation. The department has declared UBS in breach of the agreement, and UBS has agreed to plead guilty to a one-count felony charge of wire fraud in connection with a scheme to manipulate LIBOR and other benchmark interest rates. UBS has also agreed to pay a criminal penalty of $203 million. According to the factual statement of breach attached to UBS's plea agreement, UBS engaged in deceptive FX trading and sales practices after it signed the LIBOR non-prosecution agreement, including undisclosed markups added to certain FX transactions of customers. UBS traders and sales staff misrepresented to customers on certain transactions that markups were not being added, when in fact they were. On other occasions, UBS traders and sales staff used hand signals to conceal those markups from customers. On still other occasions, certain UBS traders also tracked and executed limit orders at a level different from the customer's specified level in order to add undisclosed markups. In addition, according to court documents, a UBS FX trader conspired with other banks acting as dealers in the FX spot market by agreeing to restrain competition in the purchase and sale of dollars and euros. UBS participated in this collusive conduct from October 2011 to at least January 2013. In declaring UBS in breach of its non-prosecution agreement, the Justice Department considered UBS's conduct described above in light of UBS's obligation under the non-prosecution agreement to commit no further crimes. The department also considered UBS's three recent prior criminal resolutions and multiple civil and regulatory resolutions. Further, the department also considered that UBS's post-LIBOR compliance and remediation efforts failed to detect the illegal conduct until an article was published pointing to potential misconduct in the FX markets. Citicorp, Barclays, JPMorgan, RBS and UBS have each agreed to a three-year period of corporate probation, which, if approved by the court, will be overseen by the court and require regular reporting to authorities as well as cessation of all criminal activity. All five banks will continue cooperating with the government's ongoing criminal investigations, and no plea agreement prevents the department from prosecuting culpable individuals for related misconduct. Citicorp, Barclays, JPMorgan and RBS have agreed to send disclosure notices to all of their customers and counter-parties that may have been affected by the sales and trading practices described in the plea agreements. In connection with its FX investigation, the Federal Reserve also announced that it was imposing on the five banks fines of over $1.6 billion; and Barclays settled related claims with the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the United Kingdom's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for an additional combined penalty of approximately $1.3 billion. In conjunction with previously announced settlements with regulatory agencies in the United States and abroad, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA), today's resolutions bring the total fines and penalties paid by these five banks for their conduct in the FX spot market to nearly $9 billion. This investigation is being conducted by the FBI's Washington Field Office.This prosecution is being handled by the Antitrust Division's New York Office and other criminal enforcement sections and the Criminal Division's Fraud Section.The Justice Department appreciates the substantial assistance provided by the CFTC, OCC, FINMA, FCA, DFS, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve Board, and the U.K. Serious Fraud Office. The Criminal Division's Office of International Affairs and the U.S. Attorney's Office in the District of Connecticut have also provided assistance in this matter. ********* 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 * * *