/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150626.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 26, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 127 Headlines 7-ELEVEN INC: Faces "Banisaid" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ABC INC: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages AIG INC: Individual Class Member Appeals Securities Case Accord AIG INC: Filed Motions to Dismiss 2 Securities Actions AIG INC: Filed Complaint for Declaratory Relief AIG INC: Preliminary Approval of ERISA Case Settlement Sought AIG INC: No Merits Discovery in Canadian Securities Class Action AIG INC: Parties Completed Post-Trial Briefing in Starr Case AIG INC: Caremark Class Action Returns to Trial Court ALTERA CORPORATION: Faces "Braunstein" Suit Over Intel Merger ALTERA CORPORATION: Faces "Reinauer" Suit Over Intel Merger AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Final Approval Hearing Set for July 13 ANSCHUTZ ENTERTAINMENT: Court Rejects Petition for Writ of Mandate AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: 4 Class Actions Filed Over Fire BANCORPSOUTH INC: Class Action by Arkansas Customer Remanded BANCORPSOUTH INC: No Class Certified in M.D. Tenn. Lawsuit BANKRATE INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Johnson" Suit Claims BATESVILLE CASKET: Arkansas Court Affirms Clayton Case Dismissal BRENNTAG PACIFIC: Faces "Rangel" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: "Hohnbaum" Class Action Finalized BROADCOM CORPORATION: Faces "Yassian" Suit Over Avago Merger CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Aug. 17 Return Date for Certification Motion CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Expert Discovery Proceeding in Consumer Suit CALIX INC: Court Vacated April Trial Date in Merger Suit CAPITAL ALLIANCE: Has Sent Unsolicited Faxes, "Brodsky" Suit Says CATAMARAN CORPORATION: "Beeman" Case Still in Early Stages CATAMARAN CORPORATION: Facing 4 Shareholder Class Actions CHANNELADVISOR CORP: Evaluating Claims in "Dice" and "Gracia" CHICKEN EXPERTS: Faces "Villa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST: Court Dismisses "Johnson" Case CLAYTON WILLIAMS: Case Against Single Plaintiff Continues in 2015 COLLEGE BOARD: Sued in Fla. Over Improper SAT Test Administration COMCAST CORP: Court Grants Bid to Decertify "Elder" Suit COSTCO WHOLESALE: Summary Judgment Bid on "Sasaki" Claim Granted DELTA AIR LINES: Court Won't Revive "Opper" Airfare Case DIMENSIONS MANAGEMENT: Faces "Arthur" Suit Over Rental Agreement DOW CHEMICAL: High Court to Decide on Writ Petition by Month End DOW CHEMICAL: Quebec Case Stayed Pending Outcome of Ontario Case EMULEX CORPORATION: Faces "Tullman" Class Action EMULEX CORPORATION: Faces "Varjabedian" Class Action EXPRESSWAY MOTORCARS: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Sued Over Defective Ventilation Products GREENSOURCE LANDSCAPE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages GRAFTECH INT'L: Faces "Daeda" Suit Over Brookfield Merger GRAFTECH INT'L: Faces "Grinberger" Suit Over Brookfield Sale GYPSOPHILA NAIL & SPA: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss IGNITE RESTAURANT: Class Action Settlement Has Initial Approval IGNITE RESTAURANT: Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification INWELL INC: Faces "Lawrence" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime LABORATORY CORPORATION: Will Defend Against Yvonne Jansky Lawsuit LABORATORY CORPORATION: Sandusky Wellness Plaintiff Files Appeal LABORATORY CORPORATION: Will Defend v. Bohlander & Andres Cases LABORATORY CORPORATION: Will Defend Against Rabanes Lawsuit LABORATORY CORPORATION: Will Defend Against Legg Lawsuit LABORATORY CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in LipoScience Case LABORATORY CORPORATION: Delaware Plaintiffs Entered Into MOU LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: La. Court Stays "Loehn" Case Proceedings MAC PROPERTY: Faces "Buckner" Suit Over Unlawful Rental Agreement MCDONALD'S CORP: Court Denies Motion to Strike in "Ochoa" Suit MED DIRECT: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Autodialed Solicitation Call MERU NETWORKS: Faces "Middleton" Suit Over Fortinet Merger MIAMI ANGEL: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages MICHIGAN: 6th Cir. Remands "King" Suit v. Prison Officials MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Trims "Grochowski" Action MOBILEIRON INC: Faces "Panjwani" Class Action in N.D. Cal. MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Faces Iron Workers Fund's Class Action MOODY'S CORPORATION: NY Appeals Court to Hear Certified Question NABORS INDUSTRIES: Shareholder Class Action Remains Pending NCB MANAGEMENT: Faces "Sergeeva" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Complaint v. DOH NORTEK INC: Unit Named as Defendant in "Harris" and "Bauer" Suits NUVASIVE INC: Wants 3rd Amended Securities Complaint Dismissed PACPIZZA LLC: CA Affirms Denial of Petition to Compel Arbitration PENNYMAC MORTGAGE: Court Denies Class Certification Bid PFS GROUP: Faces "Safdieh" Suit in D.N.J. Over FDCPA Violation PHARMACYCLICS INC: Judicial Review of MOU in 2nd Half 2015 PHILLIPS & COHEN: Faces "Huseynov" Suit Over FDCPA Violation PLAINS ALL: Faces "Hicks" Suit Over Santa Barbara Oil Spill PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Sued Over Transactions With Major Investor RAYONIER ADVANCED: Faces Class Action in M.D. Florida REALOGY HOLDINGS: "Bararsani" Case in Discovery Phase REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Warren City Police Files Class Action RIYAL HOLDINGS: "Abreu" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages SIEMENS USA: Court Grants Motion to Enforce Settlement SINGER ENTERTAINMENT: Court Grants Motion to Stay Discovery SOVRAN SELF: Faces Class Action in New Jersey Superior Court STARJEM RESTAURANT: Faces "Briones" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT STEWART INFORMATION: Trial on Non-Settling Plaintiff Claims Held SUB TENDER: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages TENET HEALTHCARE: Payment for Undisputed Claims in August 2015 TOWN OF ROCKPORT: Sued Over Breach of Quiet Enjoyment US INSTALLATION: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime UNO RESTAURANTS: Removed "Whittington" Suit to C.D. Maryland VAN RU CREDIT: Faces "Ehrnfeld" Suit Over FDCPA Violation VARANDA'S CAFETERIA: "Lorenzo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT VERIZON NEW YORK: Court Remands Proceedings to Kingsley County VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Heard on Motion to Dismiss VIRGINIA: Court Denies Inmate's Motion for Class Certification VISTA TOWER: Sued Over Failure to Pay Equipment Rental Balance WENTWORTH PAOLI: Jury Judgment in Ex-Employee's Case Upheld WEST MARINE: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held in May WEST MARINE: To Defend Class Action in Calif. Superior Court Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Ct. Directed to Vacate "Greenberg" Ruling ASBESTOS UPDATE: GRC Allowed to Present Fibro Claims at Trial ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in Md. PI Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Appeals Ct. Flips "Casey" Summary Ruling ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Favors Insurers in THAN Audit Right Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Libby School Worker's Claim Barred ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Int'l. Continues to Defend Fibro Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Has 3,400 Product Liability Cases ********* 7-ELEVEN INC: Faces "Banisaid" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sufian Ali Mohammad Banisaid v. 7-Eleven, Inc. d/b/a 7-Eleven, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03468-FB-CLP (E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. 7-Eleven, Inc. owns and operates a convenience store engaged in selling food items and goods to the public. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andreas G. Geroulakis, Esq. GEROULAKIS LAW, P.C. 225 Broadway, Suite 1901 New York, New York New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 323-6999 Facsimile: (914) 462-4259 E-mail: ageroulakis@gmail.com ABC INC: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Eduardo Cruz, Domingo Clemente Sapon Garcia and Alfredo Vasquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABC Inc. d/b/a Fresco Tortillas Taco and Yitong Liu, Case No. 1:15-cv- 04645-JMF (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 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 Fresco Tortillas Taco restaurant located at 536 Ninth Avenue, New York, New York 10018. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lizabeth Schalet, Esq. LIPMAN & PLESUR, LLP 500 North Broadway, Ste. 105 Jericho, NY 11753-2131 Telephone: (516) 931-0050 Facsimile: (516) 931-0030 E-mail: schalet@lipmanplesur.com AIG INC: Individual Class Member Appeals Securities Case Accord --------------------------------------------------------------- American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that an individual class member/objector has filed a notice of appeal of the final order approving the AIG Settlement in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation. Between May 21, 2008 and January 15, 2009, eight purported securities class action complaints were filed against AIG and certain directors and officers of AIG and AIGFP, AIG's outside auditors, and the underwriters of various securities offerings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the Southern District of New York), alleging claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), or claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act). On March 20, 2009, the Court consolidated all eight of the purported securities class actions as In re American International Group, Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation (the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation). On May 19, 2009, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of purchasers of AIG Common Stock during the alleged class period of March 16, 2006 through September 16, 2008, and on behalf of purchasers of various AIG securities offered pursuant to AIG's shelf registration statements. The consolidated complaint alleges that defendants made statements during the class period in press releases, AIG's quarterly and year-end filings, during conference calls, and in various registration statements and prospectuses in connection with the various offerings that were materially false and misleading and that artificially inflated the price of AIG Common Stock. The alleged false and misleading statements relate to, among other things, the Subprime Exposure Issues. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act. On August 5, 2009, defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint, and on September 27, 2010, the Court denied the motions to dismiss. On April 26, 2013, the Court dismissed all claims against the outside auditors in their entirety, and it also reduced the scope of the Securities Act claims against AIG and defendants other than the outside auditors. On July 15, 2014, lead plaintiff and all defendants except AIG's outside auditors accepted a mediator's proposal to settle the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation for a cash payment by AIG of $960 million (the AIG Settlement). On August 1, 2014, lead plaintiff and AIG's outside auditors accepted a mediator's proposal to resolve the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation for a cash payment by the outside auditors (the Auditor Settlement and, collectively with the AIG Settlement, the Settlement). On October 7, 2014, the Court granted lead plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Approval of Notice to the Class and scheduled a final settlement approval hearing for March 20, 2015. The deadline for parties to exclude themselves from the Settlement passed on January 5, 2015. On October 22, 2014, AIG made a cash payment of $960 million, which is being held in escrow pending final, non-appealable, approval of the AIG Settlement and until all funds are distributed pursuant to the AIG Settlement. The Court entered a final order approving the AIG Settlement on March 20, 2015; however, on April 14, 2015, an individual class member/objector filed a notice of appeal of the final order approving the AIG Settlement. AIG INC: Filed Motions to Dismiss 2 Securities Actions ------------------------------------------------------ American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that AIG has filed motions to dismiss the claims in whole, or in part, asserted in two securities actions. Between November 18, 2011 and September 16, 2013, nine separate, though similar, securities actions were filed asserting claims substantially similar to those in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation against AIG and certain directors and officers of AIG and AIGFP (one such action also names as defendants AIG's outside auditor and the underwriters of various securities offerings). Two such actions have been voluntarily dismissed; the remainder are now pending in the Southern District of New York. On January 20, 2015, AIG and other defendants filed motions to dismiss some or all of the claims asserted in all such actions pending as of that date. On February 2, 2015, and February 9, 2015, two additional securities actions were filed in the Southern District of New York asserting claims substantially similar to those in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation against AIG (one of the two actions also names as defendants certain directors and officers of AIG and AIGFP, AIG's outside auditor and certain of AIG's underwriters during the relevant period). On March 25, 2015 and April 3, 2015, AIG filed motions to dismiss the claims in whole, or in part, asserted in the two additional securities actions. AIG INC: Filed Complaint for Declaratory Relief ----------------------------------------------- American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on March 27, 2015, an additional securities action was filed in state court in Orange County, California asserting a claim against AIG pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act that is substantially similar to those in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation and the nine individual securities litigations pending in the Southern District of New York. On April 29, 2015, AIG filed a complaint for declaratory relief in the Southern District of New York seeking a declaration that the Section 11 claims filed in Orange Country, California are time-barred. On April 30, 2015, AIG removed the action from state court in Orange County, California to federal court in the Central District of California. AIG INC: Preliminary Approval of ERISA Case Settlement Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on April 23, 2015, lead plaintiffs' counsel filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement in the ERISA actions, certification of a settlement class, approval of notices of settlement, approval of the plan of allocation, and setting of a fairness hearing. Between June 25, 2008 and November 25, 2008, AIG, certain directors and officers of AIG, and members of AIG's Retirement Board and Investment Committee were named as defendants in eight purported class action complaints asserting claims on behalf of participants in certain pension plans sponsored by AIG or its subsidiaries. The Court subsequently consolidated these eight actions as In re American International Group, Inc. ERISA Litigation II. On December 19, 2014, lead plaintiffs' counsel filed under seal a third consolidated amended complaint. The action purports to be brought as a class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), on behalf of all participants in or beneficiaries of certain benefit plans of AIG and its subsidiaries that offered shares of AIG Common Stock. In the third consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary responsibilities to plan participants and their beneficiaries under ERISA, by continuing to offer the AIG Stock Fund as an investment option in the plans after it allegedly became imprudent to do so. The alleged ERISA violations relate to, among other things, the defendants' purported failure to monitor and/or disclose certain matters, including the Subprime Exposure Issues. On January 6, 2015, the parties informed the Court that they had accepted a mediator's proposal to settle the action for $40 million. On April 23, 2015, lead plaintiffs' counsel filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, certification of a settlement class, approval of notices of settlement, approval of the plan of allocation, and setting of a fairness hearing. The entirety of the $40 million settlement is expected to be paid by AIG's fiduciary liability insurance carriers. AIG INC: No Merits Discovery in Canadian Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has not determined whether it has jurisdiction or granted plaintiff's application to file a statement of claim, no merits discovery has occurred and the action has been stayed in the Canadian Securities Class Action - Ontario Superior Court of Justice. On November 12, 2008, an application was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for leave to bring a purported class action against AIG, AIGFP, certain directors and officers of AIG and Joseph Cassano, the former Chief Executive Officer of AIGFP, pursuant to the Ontario Securities Act. If the Court grants the application, a class plaintiff will be permitted to file a statement of claim against defendants. The proposed statement of claim would assert a class period of March 16, 2006 through September 16, 2008 and would allege that during this period defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions in quarterly and annual reports and during oral presentations in violation of the Ontario Securities Act. On April 17, 2009, defendants filed a motion record in support of their motion to stay or dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and forum non conveniens. On July 12, 2010, the Court adjourned a hearing on the motion pending a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in a pair of actions captioned Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda 2012 SCC 17. On April 18, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the standard for determining jurisdiction over foreign and out-of- province defendants, such as AIG, by holding that a defendant must have some form of "actual," as opposed to a merely "virtual," presence to be deemed to be "doing business" in the jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Canada also suggested that in future cases, defendants may contest jurisdiction even when they are found to be doing business in a Canadian jurisdiction if their business activities in the jurisdiction are unrelated to the subject matter of the litigation. The matter has been stayed pending further developments in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation. Plaintiff has not yet moved to lift the stay. In plaintiff's proposed statement of claim, plaintiff alleged general and special damages of $500 million and punitive damages of $50 million plus prejudgment interest or such other sums as the Court finds appropriate. As of May 4, 2015, the Court has not determined whether it has jurisdiction or granted plaintiff's application to file a statement of claim, no merits discovery has occurred and the action has been stayed. As a result, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation. AIG INC: Parties Completed Post-Trial Briefing in Starr Case ------------------------------------------------------------ American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties have completed post-trial briefing and closing arguments took place on April 22, 2015 in the Starr International Litigation. On November 21, 2011, Starr International Company, Inc. (SICO) filed a complaint against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims (the Court of Federal Claims), bringing claims, both individually and on behalf of the classes defined below and derivatively on behalf of AIG (the SICO Treasury Action). The complaint challenges the government's assistance of AIG, pursuant to which AIG entered into a credit facility with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (the FRBNY, and such credit facility, the FRBNY Credit Facility) and the United States received an approximately 80 percent ownership in AIG. The complaint alleges that the interest rate imposed on AIG and the appropriation of approximately 80 percent of AIG's equity was discriminatory, unprecedented, and inconsistent with liquidity assistance offered by the government to other comparable firms at the time and violated the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Takings Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. In rulings dated July 2, 2012 and September 17, 2012, the Court of Federal Claims largely denied the United States' motion to dismiss in the SICO Treasury Action. In the SICO Treasury Action, the only claims naming AIG as a party (as a nominal defendant) are derivative claims on behalf of AIG. On September 21, 2012, SICO made a pre-litigation demand on our Board demanding that we pursue the derivative claims or allow SICO to pursue the claims on our behalf. On January 9, 2013, our Board unanimously refused SICO's demand in its entirety and on January 23, 2013, counsel for the Board sent a letter to counsel for SICO describing the process by which our Board considered and refused SICO's demand and stating the reasons for our Board's determination. On March 11, 2013, SICO filed a second amended complaint in the SICO Treasury Action alleging that its demand was wrongfully refused. On June 26, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims granted AIG's and the United States' motions to dismiss SICO's derivative claims in the SICO Treasury Action and denied the United States' motion to dismiss SICO's direct claims. On March 11, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims in the SICO Treasury Action granted SICO's motion for class certification of two classes with respect to SICO's non-derivative claims: (1) persons and entities who held shares of AIG Common Stock on or before September 16, 2008 and who owned those shares on September 22, 2008; and (2) persons and entities who owned shares of AIG Common Stock on June 30, 2009 and were eligible to vote those shares at AIG's June 30, 2009 annual meeting of shareholders. SICO has provided notice of class certification to potential members of the classes, who, pursuant to a court order issued on April 25, 2013, had to return opt-in consent forms by September 16, 2013 to participate in either class. 286,908 holders of AIG Common Stock during the two class periods have opted into the classes. Trial in the SICO Treasury Action began in the Court of Federal Claims on September 29, 2014, and witness testimony concluded on November 24, 2014. SICO argued during trial that the two classes are entitled to a total of approximately $40 billion in damages, plus interest. The parties have completed post-trial briefing and closing arguments took place on April 22, 2015. While AIG is no longer a party to the SICO Treasury Action, the United States has alleged, as an affirmative defense in its answer, that AIG is obligated to indemnify the FRBNY and its representatives, including the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the United States (as the FRBNY's principal), for any recovery in the SICO Treasury Action, and seeks a contingent offset or recoupment for the value of net operating loss benefits the United States alleges that we received as a result of the government's assistance. On November 8, 2013, the Court denied a motion by SICO to strike the United States' affirmative defenses of indemnification and contingent offset or recoupment. AIG believes that any such indemnification obligation would arise only if: (a) SICO prevails on its claims at trial and receives an award of damages and prevails through any appellate process; (b) the United States commences an action against AIG seeking indemnification; and (c) the United States is successful in such an action through any appellate process. If SICO prevails on its claims and the United States seeks indemnification from AIG, AIG intends to assert defenses thereto. A final determination that the United States is liable for damages, together with a final determination that AIG is obligated to indemnify the United States for any such damages, could have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial condition and results of operations. AIG INC: Caremark Class Action Returns to Trial Court ----------------------------------------------------- American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the class action related to Caremark Rx, Inc. will return to the trial court for general discovery (which has not yet commenced) and adjudication of the merits. AIG and certain of its subsidiaries have been named defendants in two putative class actions in state court in Alabama that arise out of the 1999 settlement of class and derivative litigation involving Caremark Rx, Inc. (Caremark). The plaintiffs in the second-filed action intervened in the first-filed action, and the second-filed action was dismissed. An excess policy issued by a subsidiary of AIG with respect to the 1999 litigation was expressly stated to be without limit of liability. In the current actions, plaintiffs allege that the judge approving the 1999 settlement was misled as to the extent of available insurance coverage and would not have approved the settlement had he known of the existence and/or unlimited nature of the excess policy. They further allege that AIG, its subsidiaries, and Caremark are liable for fraud and suppression for misrepresenting and/or concealing the nature and extent of coverage. The complaints filed by the plaintiffs and the intervenors request compensatory damages for the 1999 class in the amount of $3.2 billion, plus punitive damages. AIG and its subsidiaries deny the allegations of fraud and suppression, assert that information concerning the excess policy was publicly disclosed months prior to the approval of the settlement, that the claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and that the statute cannot be tolled in light of the public disclosure of the excess coverage. The plaintiffs and intervenors, in turn, have asserted that the disclosure was insufficient to inform them of the nature of the coverage and did not start the running of the statute of limitations. On August 15, 2012, the trial court entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and on September 12, 2014, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that order. AIG and the other defendants' petition for rehearing of that decision was denied on February 27, 2015. The matter will return to the trial court for general discovery (which has not yet commenced) and adjudication of the merits. AIG is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation. ALTERA CORPORATION: Faces "Braunstein" Suit Over Intel Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Edward A. Braunstein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. John P. Daane, Blaine Bowman, Elisha W. Finney, Kevin McGarity, T. Michael Nevens, Krish A. Prabhu, Shane Robison, John Shoemaker, Thomas Waechter, Altera Corporation, Intel Corporation, and 615 Corporation, Case No. 11146-VCG (Del. Ch., June 15, 2015), is brought on behalf of the public shareholders of Altera Corporation, to enjoin the agreement and plan of sale of Altera to Intel Corporation for an unfair price and inadequate consideration. Altera Corporation supplies programmable solutions for leading- edge electronic systems, and has been supplying the industry with access to the latest programmable logic, process technologies, IP cores and development tools for more than 30 years. Intel Corporation is a Delaware corporation that designs and builds the essential technologies that serve as the foundation for the world's computing devices. The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH & TAYLOR PA-WILMINGTON 1000 W St 10th Fl Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 984-3889 Facsimile: (302) 984-3939 E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com ALTERA CORPORATION: Faces "Reinauer" Suit Over Intel Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- Robert Reinauer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Altera Corporation, et al., Case No. 11144- VCG (Del. Ch., June 15, 2015), is brought on behalf of the public shareholders of Altera Corporation, to enjoin the agreement and plan of sale of Altera to Intel Corporation for an unfair price and inadequate consideration. Altera Corporation supplies programmable solutions for leading- edge electronic systems, and has been supplying the industry with access to the latest programmable logic, process technologies, IP cores and development tools for more than 30 years. Intel Corporation is a Delaware corporation that designs and builds the essential technologies that serve as the foundation for the world's computing devices. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter B. Andrews, Esq. Craig J. Springer, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC 3801 Kennett Pike Building C, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 504-4967 Facsimile: (302) 397-2681 E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com cspringer@andrewsspringer.com - and - Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 733 Summer Street, Suite 304 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Final Approval Hearing Set for July 13 ------------------------------------------------------------ Ameriprise Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has preliminarily approved the settlement, and set a final approval hearing for July 13, 2015. In October 2011, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Roger Krueger, et al. vs. Ameriprise Financial, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against the Company, certain of its present or former employees and directors, as well as certain fiduciary committees on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Ameriprise Financial 401(k) Plan. The alleged class period is from October 1, 2005 to the present. The action alleges that Ameriprise breached fiduciary duties under ERISA, by selecting and retaining primarily proprietary mutual funds with allegedly poor performance histories, higher expenses relative to other investment options and improper fees paid to Ameriprise Financial or its subsidiaries. On March 26, 2015, the parties submitted to the Court for approval a settlement in the amount of $27.5 million that would result in full and final dismissal of all claims. On April 6, 2015, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement, and set a final approval hearing for July 13, 2015. The settlement, net of insurance recovery, has no impact to the Company's consolidated results of operations. ANSCHUTZ ENTERTAINMENT: Court Rejects Petition for Writ of Mandate ------------------------------------------------------------------ Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG) contracted with Levy Premium Foods to manage the food and beverage services at several entertainment venues located in southern California. Levy contracted with Canvas Corporation to provide laborers who sold food and beverages at AEG venues. In 2013, several vendors filed a wage and hour class action against AEG, Levy and Canvas for failure to pay minimum wage and willfully misclassifying them as independent contractors in violation of Labor Code section 226.8. AEG and Levy filed motions for summary judgment arguing in part that they were entitled to summary adjudication of plaintiffs' section 226.8 claim because the undisputed evidence showed Canvas was the entity that had classified the vendors as independent contractors. Although the trial court denied the motions for summary judgment, it agreed that plaintiffs could not pursue a section 226.8 claim against AEG or Levy because neither entity had made the alleged misclassification decision. Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandate and AEG and Levy, in return, argued for the first time that even if the trial court erred in interpreting section 226.8, the writ should be denied because the statute did not provide a private right of action. Justice Laurie D. Zelon of the Court of Appeals for the Second District of California in the Order dated June 1, 2015 available at http://bit.ly/1M7Af7bfrom Leagle.com, denied Plaintiff's Writ of Mandate finding that, contrary to the trial court's interpretation, section 226.8 was not limited to employers who make the misclassification decision, but also extended to any employer who was aware that a co-employer willfully misclassified their joint employees and failed to remedy the misclassification. However, Judge Zelon further concluded that section 226.8 could not be enforced through a direct private action and denied the plaintiffs' writ on that basis. The appellate case is, YVETTE NOE, et al. Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent. LEVY PREMIUM FOODSERVICE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al. Real Parties in Interest, Case No. B259570. Plaintiff is represented by: Lee R. Feldman, Esq. Alicia Olivares, Esq. FELDMAN BROWNE OLIVARES 10100 Santa Monica Blvd #2490 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 552-7812 - and - Altshuler Berzon, Esq. Michael Rubin, Esq. Peder J. Thoreen, Esq. PINE & PINE AND NORMAN PINE 141456 Magnolia Blvd., Suite 200 Sherman Oaks, CA 91423 Tel: (818) 379-9710 AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: 4 Class Actions Filed Over Fire ------------------------------------------------------ Avalonbay Communities, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that four putative class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of Edgewater residents and others who may have been harmed by the fire. In addition, 14 lawsuits representing over 100 individual plaintiffs have been filed against the Company. In January 2015, a fire occurred at the Company's Avalon at Edgewater apartment community located in Edgewater, New Jersey ("Edgewater"). Edgewater consisted of two residential buildings. One building, containing 240 apartment homes, was destroyed. The second building, containing 168 apartment homes, suffered minimal damage and has been repaired. The Company is still assessing the direct losses resulting from the fire as well as its potential liability to third parties who incurred damages as a result of the fire. The Company is also evaluating whether to rebuild and replace the building that was destroyed and does not believe that the outcome of this decision will have a material impact on the Company's financial condition or results of operations. As of March 31, 2015, Edgewater was encumbered with a fixed rate secured mortgage note with an effective interest rate of 5.95% that had an outstanding principal balance of $74,718,000 that will be due in May 2019 (the "Edgewater Mortgage"). After discussions with the lender, the Company believes that it will be permitted to pay off the entire outstanding principal balance of the note at par, which the Company currently expects to do. The Company believes that the fire was caused by sparks from a torch used during repairs being performed by a Company employee who was not a licensed plumber. The Company's insurers have begun to negotiate and settle claims made by third parties who incurred property damage and other losses. Four putative class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of Edgewater residents and others who may have been harmed by the fire. In addition, 14 lawsuits representing over 100 individual plaintiffs have been filed against the Company. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the extent of damages claimed. Additional lawsuits arising from the fire may be filed. Following the fire, the Company received a civil citation for "failure to notify Fire Department of an active fire" from Bergen County, New Jersey. The Company is appealing this citation. The Company believes that additional governmental investigations are or may be ongoing, which could include a review of the state of compliance of the construction and operation of Edgewater with building codes and other legal requirements and the materiality of any defenses related thereto. The Company is unable to evaluate the nature and potential materiality of any such investigations or actions. While the Company currently believes that all of its liability to third parties resulting from the fire will be substantially covered by its insurance policies, subject to applicable deductibles and a self-insured amount equal to 12% of the first $50,000,000 of property damage, the Company can give no assurances in this regard and continues to evaluate this matter. BANCORPSOUTH INC: Class Action by Arkansas Customer Remanded ------------------------------------------------------------ Bancorpsouth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the class action lawsuit filed by an Arkansas customer has been remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida for further proceedings. On May 18, 2010, the Bank was named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed by an Arkansas customer of the Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The suit challenges the manner in which overdraft fees were charged and the policies related to posting order of debit card and ATM transactions. The suit also makes a claim under Arkansas' consumer protection statute. The plaintiff is seeking to recover damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief. The case was transferred to pending multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida wherein an order was entered certifying a class in this case. The consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district litigation court have concluded and the case has been remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida for further proceedings. There are significant uncertainties involved in any purported class action litigation. Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability with respect to this litigation, management is currently of the opinion that the outcome of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, consolidated financial position or results of operations. However, there can be no assurance that an adverse outcome or settlement would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated results of operations for a given fiscal period. BANCORPSOUTH INC: No Class Certified in M.D. Tenn. Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Bancorpsouth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that no class has been certified in a purported class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's common stock. On July 31, 2014, the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer were named in a purported class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's common stock. The complaint has subsequently been amended to add the former President and Chief Operating Officer. The complaint alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's procedures, systems and process related to certain of its compliance programs. The plaintiff seeks class certification, an unspecified amount of damages and awards of costs and attorneys' fees and such other equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper. No class has been certified and, at this stage of the lawsuit, management cannot determine the probability of an unfavorable outcome to the Company. Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability with respect to this litigation, management is currently of the opinion that the outcome of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, consolidated financial position or results of operations. BANKRATE INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Johnson" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Pamela Lynn Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bankrate, Inc., Case No. 9:15-cv-80854-KLR (S.D. Fla., June 16, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls to the Plaintiff's and other class members' cellular telephones through the use of an auto-dialer and artificial or pre-recorded voice message. Bankrate, Inc. operates a financial services company, which maintains its principle mailing address at 11760 U.S. Highway 1, Suite 200, North Palm Beach, Florida 33408. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin H. Crumley, Esq. CRUMLEY & WOLFE, PA 2254 Riverside Ave. Jacksonville, FL 32204-4620 Telephone (904) 374-0111 Facsimile (904) 374-0113 E-mail: ben@cwbfl.com - and - W. Craft Hughes, Esq. Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120 Galleria Tower I Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 995-3335 E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com jarrett@hughesellzey.com BATESVILLE CASKET: Arkansas Court Affirms Clayton Case Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Brandon J. Harrison of the Court of Appeals of Arkansas affirmed the ruling of the circuit court in the case captioned, GARRY CLAYTON AND ZELMA MAGBY, Appellants, v. BATESVILLE CASKET COMPANY, INC., AND HUMPHREY FUNERAL SERVICE, INC, Appellees, Case No. CV-13-819 2015 ARK APP 361. A casket bearing the remains of Frank Clayton lies buried in a Newton County cemetery, where it has been interred for almost 20 years. The casket was manufactured by appellee Batesville Casket Company and was sold in 1996 to Frank's widow, appellant Zelma Magby, and his son, appellant Garry Clayton, by appellee Humphrey Funeral Service. In 2010, Clayton and Magby sued Batesville and Humphrey based on a belief that the casket's seal had been breached by water. Their complaint contained over a dozen counts and alleged similar problems with other Batesville caskets. Batesville and Humphrey moved to dismiss, citing the statute of limitation and the complaint's failure to plead damages caused by a defect in the Clayton casket. The circuit court dismissed all causes of action with prejudice. Clayton and Magby appealed. Judge Harrison, in the Order dated June 3, 2015 available at http://is.gd/a242pQfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the ruling of the circuit court, concluding that some causes of action in the case had actually been dismissed more than once, and could have been dismissed with prejudice earlier; and that the final dismissal with prejudice was correct under the two-dismissal rule. Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles Phillip Boyd, Jr., Esq. THE BOYD LAW FIRM 900 S Gay St #705 Knoxville, TN 37902 Tel: (865)246-1800 Defendants are Jess Askew III, Esq. -- Jess.Askew@KutakRock.com, Teresa Wineland, Esq. -- Teresa.Wineland@KutakRock.com -- KUTAK ROCK LLP, Alex G. Street, Esq. -- ags@streetlawfirm.com -- James A. Street, Esq. -- jas@streetlawfirm.com -- and Robert M. Veach, Esq. -- rmv@streetlawfirm.com -- THE STREET LAW FIRM BRENNTAG PACIFIC: Faces "Rangel" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Saul Rangel, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act v. Brenntag Pacific, Inc. and Does 1-100 inclusive, Case No. BC585066 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Brenntag Pacific, Inc. is a distributor of specialty and industrial chemicals with headquarters in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, P.C. 410 West Arden Ave., Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-102 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: "Hohnbaum" Class Action Finalized -------------------------------------------------------- Brinker International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that during the second quarter of fiscal 2015, the class action lawsuit styled as Hohnbaum, et al. v. Brinker Restaurant Corp., et al. was finalized resulting in an additional charge of approximately $5.8 million to adjust our previous estimate of the final settlement amount. BROADCOM CORPORATION: Faces "Yassian" Suit Over Avago Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ Farshid Yassian and Farshid Yassian as Custodian for Remy Yassian And Ryan Yassian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Broadcom Corporation, et al., Case No. 30-2015-00793360-CU-SL-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., June 15, 2015), is a class action brought on behalf of the shareholders of Broadcom Corporation to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Broadcom Corporation by Avago Technologies Limited for grossly inadequate consideration and through a flawed sales process. Broadcom Corporation is a California corporation that makes semiconductors that are used in smartphones, wireless networks, streaming video and music and connecting information to the cloud. Avago Technologies Limited designs, develops and markets semiconductor devices in four primary product categories: wireless communications, enterprise storage, wired infrastructure and industrial. The Plaintiff is represented by: Leigh A. Parker, Esq. WEISSLAWLLP 1516 South Bundy Drive, Suite 309 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 208-2800 Facsimile: (310) 209-2348 E-mail: lparker@weisslawllp.com CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Aug. 17 Return Date for Certification Motion ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the case, Marchese, et al. v. Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC, the plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification and the return date for the motion is August 17, 2015. The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by several present and former Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a class of iO video subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and New York. After three versions of the complaint were dismissed without prejudice by the District Court, plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tying the sale of interactive services offered as part of iO television packages to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed by Cablevision, and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly seeking to monopolize the distribution of Cablevision compatible set-top boxes. Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary damages, attorney's fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. On September 23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. On January 10, 2012, the District Court issued a decision dismissing with prejudice the Section 2 monopolization claim, but allowing the Section 1 tying claim and related state common law claims to proceed. Cablevision's answer to the third amended complaint was filed on February 13, 2012. Discovery is proceeding. On January 9, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The return date for the motion is August 17, 2015. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously. While a loss is reasonably possible, the Company is currently unable to estimate a range of possible loss. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Expert Discovery Proceeding in Consumer Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that expert discovery is proceeding in the Cablevision Consumer Litigation. Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16, 2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems. On October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and carriage was restored. Several purported class action lawsuits were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming. Those lawsuits were consolidated in an action before the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and a consolidated complaint was filed in that court on February 22, 2011. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion to dismiss, denying the motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, but granting it with regard to the remaining claims, which were dismissed. On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a claim only for breach of contract. The Company's answer was filed on May 2, 2012. On October 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and on December 13, 2012, a motion for partial summary judgment. On March 31, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. On May 5, 2014, the Court directed that expert discovery commence. Expert discovery is proceeding. On May 30, 2014, the Court approved the form of class notice, and on October 7, 2014, approved the class notice distribution plan. The class notice distribution has been completed, and the opt-out period expired on February 27, 2015. The Company believes that this claim is without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. CALIX INC: Court Vacated April Trial Date in Merger Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Calix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2015, that the Court has vacated the April 20, 2015 trial date in a class action lawsuit and indicated it would set a new trial date after ruling on the motion requesting leave to add additional parties. On September 16, 2010, the Company, two direct, wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, and Occam entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement"). In response to the announcement of the Merger Agreement on October 6, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed by stockholders of Occam in the Delaware Court of Chancery: Steinhardt v. Howard- Anderson, et al. (Case No. 5878-VCL). On November 24, 2010, these stockholders filed an amended complaint (the "amended Steinhardt complaint"). The amended Steinhardt complaint named Occam (which has since been merged into Calix) and the members of the Occam board of directors as defendants. The amended Steinhardt complaint did not name Calix as a defendant. The amended Steinhardt complaint sought injunctive relief rescinding the merger transaction and an award of damages in an unspecified amount, as well as plaintiffs' costs, attorney's fees, and other relief. The merger transaction was completed on February 22, 2011(the "Effective Date"). On January 6, 2012, the Delaware court ruled on a motion for sanctions brought by the defendants against certain of the lead plaintiffs. The Delaware court found that lead plaintiffs Michael Steinhardt, Steinhardt Overseas Management, L.P., and Ilex Partners, L.L.C., collectively the "Steinhardt Plaintiffs," had engaged in improper trading of Calix shares, and dismissed the Steinhardt Plaintiffs from the case with prejudice. The court further held that the Steinhardt Plaintiffs are: (i) barred from receiving any recovery from the litigation, (ii) required to self-report to the SEC, (iii) directed to disclose their improper trading in any future application to serve as lead plaintiff, and (iv) ordered to disgorge trading profits of $0.5 million, to be distributed to the remaining members of the class of former Occam stockholders. The Delaware court also granted the motion of the remaining lead plaintiffs, Herbert Chen and Derek Sheeler, for class certification, and certified Messrs. Chen and Sheeler as class representatives. The certified class is a non- opt-out class consisting of all owners of Occam common stock whose shares were converted to shares of Calix on the date of the merger transaction, with the exception of the defendants in the Delaware action and their affiliates. Chen and Sheeler, on behalf of the class of similarly situated former Occam stockholders, continue to seek an award of damages in an unspecified amount. Fact discovery in the case closed on April 30, 2013. On June 11, 2013, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ("Second Amended Complaint"). The Second Amended Complaint adds Occam's former CFO as a defendant, and alleges that each of the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to attempt to obtain the best purchase price for Occam and failing to disclose certain allegedly material facts about the merger transaction in the preliminary proxy statement and prospectus included in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on November 2, 2010. On July 17, 2013, attorneys representing all of the defendants named in the Second Amended Complaint filed Defendants' Opening Brief in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that all defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all counts of the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' answering brief to the motion for summary judgment was filed on September 3, 2013, and defendants' reply brief was filed on October 4, 2013. A hearing on the motion for summary judgment was held on December 6, 2013. On April 8, 2014, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware issued an Opinion granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The court granted summary judgment in favor of those defendants who served solely as directors of Occam with respect to all claims alleging improper actions in connection with the Occam sale process. The ruling also granted summary judgment on all claims as to Occam, the corporate entity. The court left in place process-based claims against Occam's former CEO and CFO, and also declined to grant summary judgment on separate claims that the director and officer defendants breached their fiduciary duties by issuing a proxy statement for Occam's stockholder vote that allegedly contained misleading disclosures and had material omissions. On June 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Defendants and Jefferies & Company, Inc. ("Jefferies") and For Sanctions Against Defendants. This motion sought additional documents from defendants and from Jefferies, Occam's former advisor, and requested that the court impose severe sanctions, up to and including a finding of liability against defendants. Defendants have rejected the suggestion that any additional documents should be produced and vigorously opposed the imposition of any sanctions. On September 3, 2014, the court denied the motion without prejudice as to defendants, directed counsel for the defendants to provide an affidavit clarifying the prior conduct of discovery, and ordered discovery into defendants' document collection and review methodologies. The court also ordered Jefferies to produce additional documents. Those proceedings are ongoing, but the plaintiffs have indicated that they do not intend to seek any sanctions against the defendants at this time. Instead, plaintiffs have filed a motion requesting leave to amend their complaint to add Jefferies and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., former defense counsel in this lawsuit, as defendants. That motion was heard by the Court on March 23, 2015, and the court has not yet ruled on it. At the hearing the Court vacated the existing April 20, 2015 trial date and indicated it would set a new trial date after ruling on the motion requesting leave to add additional parties. The Company continues to believe that the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously contest the action as it moves forward toward trial. However, there can be no assurance that the defendants will be successful in defending this ongoing action. In addition, the Company has obligations, under certain circumstances, to hold harmless and indemnify each of the former Occam directors and officers against judgments, fines, settlements and expenses related to claims against such directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted under Delaware law and Occam's bylaws and certificate of incorporation. Such obligations may apply to this lawsuit and may ultimately result in the payment of indemnification amounts by the Company, and the Company currently expects that, if the case proceeds to trial, defense costs are likely to exceed available Directors & Officers liability insurance coverage. In addition, under the engagement letter between Occam and Jefferies, the Company has obligations, under certain circumstances, to hold harmless and indemnify Jefferies against judgments, fines, settlements and expenses related to Jefferies' engagement by Occam, and Jefferies has demanded that the Company indemnify Jefferies in connection with this litigation under this agreement. The Company has begun to pay fees and expenses of Jefferies in connection with this matter, and expects that it will make additional payments as the matter proceeds, though at this time the Company is not able to estimate the amount of any future payments. Following Jefferies' demand for indemnification the Company notified Occam's insurance carriers, and such carriers have advised in writing that they do not believe the Jefferies indemnification obligations are covered by the Company's insurance. Thus, the Company's indemnification obligations to Jefferies that apply to this lawsuit may not be covered by insurance. The plaintiffs have not communicated any specific demand for damages. However, the plaintiffs' valuation expert has opined that the fair value of Occam's common stock on the Effective Date exceeded the merger consideration by between $7.77 and $9.65 per share. Defendants' valuation expert has opined that the fair value of Occam's common stock on the Effective Date was less than the merger consideration. The Company estimates that as of the Effective Date, the class held approximately 15,147,085 shares of Occam's common stock. In addition to the difference between the fair value of Occam's common stock on the Effective Date and the merger consideration, the plaintiffs also seek an award of attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment interest relating back to the Effective Date, and post-judgment interest. At this time, the Company is unable to quantify its indemnification risk. The Company may have indemnity obligations that are in excess of its insurance coverage, particularly if there is an adverse result at trial. Any such costs could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, operating results or financial condition. CAPITAL ALLIANCE: Has Sent Unsolicited Faxes, "Brodsky" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Brodsky, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Capital Alliance Group d/b/a BankCapital Direct, Capital Alliance Partners LLC, narin Charanvattanakit and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-05303 (N.D. Ill., June 16, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles. The Defendants own and operate a financial services company, with their principal place of business in Santa Anna, CA. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com CATAMARAN CORPORATION: "Beeman" Case Still in Early Stages ---------------------------------------------------------- Catamaran Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the case, Beeman, et al. v. Anthem Prescription Management, Inc., et al., is still in its early stages. A purported class action lawsuit was filed in February 2004 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against a number of pharmacy benefit managers, including current subsidiaries of the Company, by several California pharmacies. Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to comply with statutory obligations under California Civil Code Section 2527 to conduct studies of pharmacy dispensing fees and provide the results to third party payors in California, and seek money damages. Because the lawsuit was stayed by appeals, including a challenge to the constitutionality of the statute, for nearly its entire history and was remanded back to the District Court in 2014, it is still in its early stages. As of March 31, 2015, based on currently available information, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a potential impact in this matter. CATAMARAN CORPORATION: Facing 4 Shareholder Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------- Catamaran Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in April 2015, four purported shareholders of the Company filed four putative class action complaints in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, each on behalf of a purported class of shareholders. Each of the lawsuits names the Company, each of the Company's directors and UnitedHealth Group as defendants. The lawsuits allege, among other things, the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to take steps to ensure that the putative class members will obtain adequate and fair consideration under the circumstances. The lawsuits allege that UnitedHealth Group aided and abetted our directors' breach of fiduciary duties. Based on these allegations, the lawsuits seek, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the proposed Acquisition or, in the alternative, damages in the event the Acquisition is consummated. These lawsuits are in a preliminary stage. CHANNELADVISOR CORP: Evaluating Claims in "Dice" and "Gracia" ------------------------------------------------------------- ChannelAdvisor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is currently evaluating the claims asserted in the cases, Dice v. ChannelAdvisor Corporation et al. and Gracia v. ChannelAdvisor Corporation et al. The Company said, "On January 23, 2015, plaintiff Justin Dice filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the federal securities laws against us and certain of our executive officers. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the price of our common stock by making false and misleading statements to investors concerning our financial guidance for the fourth quarter of 2014. On January 26, 2015, plaintiff David Gracia also filed a purported class action complaint in in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which Plaintiff brings the same claims, against the same named defendants, as in the action brought by Mr. Dice. The complaint names us and certain of our executive officers. We are currently evaluating the claims asserted in these two matters." CHICKEN EXPERTS: Faces "Villa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Villa, and other similarly situated line cooks v. Chicken Experts, LLC, Case No. 2015-013294-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., June 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Chicken Experts, LLC owns and operates a restaurant in Miami Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST: Court Dismisses "Johnson" Case ------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the United States District Court for District of Columbia dismissed Plaintiff's complaint in the case captioned, ANDRE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of more than 50 other Credentialed Delegates of the General Assembly of the Church of God in Christ, Inc., Plaintiff, v. JAMES W. HUNT, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-8986 (D.D.C.). In 2009, District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) Chancellor Michelle Rhee decided to fire 233 school teachers pursuant to a purported Reduction in Force (RIF) that Rhee maintained was necessary due to budget constraints and poor performance. Plaintiff Willie Brewer was a former DCPS music teacher and WTU member who retired after receiving notice that his position was being eliminated due to the 2009 RIF. He brought suit against the District of Columbia, current DCPS Chancellor Kaya Henderson in her official capacity, former DCPS Chancellor Michelle Rhee in her individual capacity, and former DCPS Chief Financial Officer Noah Wepman in his individual capacity. Brewer's argued that DCPS's employment action in 2009 was not actually a valid RIF and, instead, was a pretext for age discrimination, and that even if it was a valid RIF, Defendants failed to implement the various procedural protections for RIF-separated teachers that D.C.'s municipal regulations require. He further argued that Defendants unlawfully breached Brewer's own employment contract, and that Defendants fraudulently misrepresented both the reasons why DCPS made the terminations generally and the reasons for Brewer's termination in particular. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, that the District of Columbia and Henderson have filed, and a motion to dismiss the complaint that has been submitted by individual defendants Wepman and Rhee. Judge Jackson, in the Memorandum Opinion dated May 22, 2015 available at http://is.gd/9g0uaYfrom Leagle.com, granted Defendants' motions and dismissed the case. The Court concluded that Brewer's complaint precluded Brewer from relitigating whether or not the 2009 DCPS employment action was, in fact, a RIF and that Brewer chose to retire when the RIF announcement was made and as a result, Brewer lacked standing to challenge Defendants' alleged failure to implement post-RIF procedural protections for the benefit of RIF-separated teachers. Plaintiff is represented by: Kerry J. Davidson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KERRY J. DAVIDSON 4626 Wisconsin Ave. NW Washington, DC 20013 Tel: (202) 244-4411 Defendants are represented by Joseph Alfonso Gonzalez, Esq. -- OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL CLAYTON WILLIAMS: Case Against Single Plaintiff Continues in 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Clayton Williams Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that all settlement funds were paid to plaintiffs' counsel in January 2015. The case against the single plaintiff will continue in 2015. Southwest Royalties, Inc. ("SWR"), is a defendant in a suit filed in April 2011 in the Circuit Court of Union County, Arkansas where the plaintiffs initially sought in excess of $8 million for the costs of environmental remediation to a lease on which operations were commenced in the 1930s. In June 2013, the plaintiffs, SWR and the remaining defendants agreed to a settlement of $0.8 million, of which SWR would pay $0.7 million. To accomplish the settlement, the case was converted to a class action, and each member of the class was offered the right to either participate or opt out of the class and continue a separate action for damages. One plaintiff opted out and will be subject to all previous rulings of the court, including an order dismissing certain claims on the basis that such claims were time barred. A loss on settlement of $0.7 million was recorded for the year ended December 31, 2013 in connection with this proposed settlement. The settlement was entered by the Court on December 19, 2014, and all settlement funds were paid to plaintiffs' counsel in January 2015. The case against the single plaintiff will continue in 2015. COLLEGE BOARD: Sued in Fla. Over Improper SAT Test Administration ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Pataky and Debra Rubin Pataky v. College Board and Educational Testing Service, Case No. 3:15-cv-00723-HLA-JBT (M.D. Fla., June 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to properly review and administer the SAT test materials uniformly and consistently. The Defendants are in the business of administering college entrance examinations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. Lantinberg, Esq. Norwood S. Wilner, Esq. THE WILNER FIRM 444 East Duval Street, 2d Floor Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Telephone: (904) 446-9817 Facsimile: (904)446-9825 - and - Janine Pollack, Esq. Thomas H. Burt, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN &HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4710 Facsimile: (212) 545-4677 E-mail: Pollack@whafh.com Biirt@whafli.com COMCAST CORP: Court Grants Bid to Decertify "Elder" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge James F. Holderman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Comcast Corp.'s motion to decertify the FLSA collective class in the case captioned, ISIAH ELDER, DONALD HART, and TIMOTHY ELDER, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. COMCAST CORPORATION and COMCAST CABLE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 12 C 1157 (N.D. Ill.). The Judge denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify three classes covering all Comcast service technician. Plaintiffs Isiah Elder, Donald Hart, and Timothy Wharton were former service technicians at Comcast Corp. and Comcast Cable Management, LLC. They sued Comcast alleging that Comcast violated three statutes -- the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL) and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWCPA) by failing to pay service technicians for all of the time they were required to work, including overtime. On October 9, 2012, pursuant to a joint motion by the parties, the court conditionally certified an FLSA collective class of Comcast service technicians who have been employed at Comcast's South Chicago facility since October 4, 2009. The case proceeded through the close of discovery and 74 additional service technicians have opted into the suit. Plaintiffs argued that each of the proposed classes satisfy the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). Judge Holderman, in the Memorandum and Order dated June 1, 2015 available at http://is.gd/7WzWERfrom Leagle.com, denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification and granted Comcast's Motion for FLSA Decertification. Plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements of Rule 23(a) amd Rule 23(b)(3). The case was decertified as a collective action and the claims of the opt- in plaintiffs and unnamed class members were dismissed without prejudice. The case was set for status on June 18, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Teresa M. Becvar, Esq. STEPHAN, ZOURAS, LLP 205 N Michigan Ave #2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312)233-1550 - and - Leah M. Farmer, Esq. Noelle Christine Brennan, Esq. NOELLE BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 20 S Clark St # 1530 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312)422-0001 Defendants are represented by Sari M. Alamuddin, Esq. -- salamuddin@morganlewis.com -- Alexandra S. Tuffuor, Esq. -- atuffuor@morganlewis.com -- Allison Nugent Powers, Esq. -- apowers@morganlewis.com -- Gregory P. Abrams, Esq. -- gabrams@morganlewis.com -- Michael L. Banks, Esq. -- mbanks@morganlewis.com -- and Ritu Srivastava, Esq. -- rsrivastava@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP COSTCO WHOLESALE: Summary Judgment Bid on "Sasaki" Claim Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned, SHIRLEY "RAE" ELLIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. C-04-3341-EMC (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Elaine Sasaki asserted two claims against Defendant Costco Wholesale Corp.: (1) a claim for disparate treatment based on gender and (2) a claim for retaliation. The thrust of Ms. Sasaki's disparate treatment claim was that she was not promoted from the position of Assistant General Manager (AGM) to General Manager (GM) because of her gender. The thrust of Ms. Sasaki's retaliation claim was that, after making an internal complaint about gender discrimination in promotions, filing her DFEH complaint based on disparate treatment, and joining in the instant lawsuit, she was retaliated against again, by not being promoted. Defendant Costco moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for partial summary judgment because part of each claim was time barred. Judge Chen, in the Order dated May 22, 2015 available at http://bit.ly/1BLRwxefrom Leagle.com, granted in part Defendant's motions for summary judgment and the motion to seal. Claims for (1) disparate treatment claim and (2) retaliation claim but only with respect to failures to promote that took place 300 days prior to the DFEH charge for retaliation specifically and not disparate treatment. Plaintiffs are represented by: Bill Lann Lee, Esq. LEWIS FEINBERG LEE & JACKSON, P.C. 476 9th St Oakland, CA 94607 Tel: (510)839-6824 - and - Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq. Kelly M. Dermody, Esq. LEIFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP E-mail: dhutchinson@lchb.com kdermody@lchb.com - and - Robert Loren Schug, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER LLP - and - Elizabeth A. Lawrence, Esq. Eve Hedy Cervantez, Esq. James M. Finberg, Esq. DAVIS COWELL & BOWE ALTSHULER BERZON LLP E-mail: eal@dcbsf.com ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com jfinberg@atlshulerberzon.com Defendant is represented by Jocelyn Dion Larkin, Esq., at IMPACT FUND, David B. Ross, Esq. -- dross@seyfarth.com -- Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. Esq. -- gmaatman@setfarth.com -- Lorie E. Almon, Esq. -- lalmon@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP DELTA AIR LINES: Court Won't Revive "Opper" Airfare Case -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CARLA OPPER, Plaintiff, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-C-962 (E.D. Wis.), Plaintiff has moved to reconsider the Court's dismissal of the complaint Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Delta Airlines based on Delta's allegedly misleading "best price" guarantee. Given the fact that the guarantee was explicitly comparative, Judge Griesbach concluded that it did not matter how Delta computed its fares, so long as the fares it offered on its own website were the same or better than fares a customer could find on competing websites. In seeking reconsideration, the Plaintiff repeated her argument that the guarantee was much simpler than the phrase quoted. She wanted to amend the complaint to make clear that she never read any disclaimers or any fine print, or even the basic substance of the guarantee. Instead, she assered that all she saw on Delta's website were the words "best fare guarantee," and from those three modest words she jumped to the conclusion that Delta was warranting that the fares it offered on flights with connections would be the same price as the fares offered to customers who purchased individual legs of the same flight. District Judge William C. Griesbach of the District Court for Eastern District of Wisconsin in the Decision and Order dated May 22, 2015 available at http://is.gd/y0en9cfrom Leagle.com, denied Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. The Court found that even if somehow the "best fare guarantee" were itself the guarantee, rather than merely a description of the guarantee, it could not reasonably be interpreted in the fashion Plaintiff asserted. Plaintiffs are represented by Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Jeffrey D Kaliel, Esq. -- hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP; - and - James C. Shah, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLC 735 North Water Street, Suite 1222 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Tel: (414)-226-9900 Defendants are represented by Gabor Balassa, Esq. -- gabor.balassa@kirkland.com -- and Renee D. Smith, Esq. -- renee.smith@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP DIMENSIONS MANAGEMENT: Faces "Arthur" Suit Over Rental Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lindsey Arthur, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Dimensions Management Corp., & Unknown Beneficiaries of Chicago Title Land Trust Co. Trust Numbered 4477 Dated 9-26- 1991, Case No. 2015-CH-09370 (Ill. Cir. Ct., June 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, specifically by failure to disclose landlord's obligations and foreclosure policies in its rental agreement. The Defendants own and operate buildings with multiple dwelling units in Chicago. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Silverman, Esq. MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD. 225 W. Washington, #2200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 775-1015 Facsimile: (312) 256 2055 DOW CHEMICAL: High Court to Decide on Writ Petition by Month End ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Dow Chemical Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Supreme Court may issue a decision on Dow's Writ Petition by the end of June 2015. On February 16, 2006, the Company, among others, received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") as part of a previously announced antitrust investigation of manufacturers of polyurethane chemicals, including methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, toluene diisocyanate, polyether polyols and system house products. The Company cooperated with the DOJ and, following an extensive investigation, on December 10, 2007, the Company received notice from the DOJ that it had closed its investigation of potential antitrust violations involving these products without indictments or pleas. In 2005, the Company, among others, was named as a defendant in multiple civil class action lawsuits alleging a conspiracy to fix the price of various urethane chemical products, namely the products that were the subject of the above described DOJ antitrust investigation. These lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (the "District Court") or have been tolled. On July 29, 2008, the District Court certified a class of purchasers of the products for the six-year period from 1999 through 2004. Shortly thereafter, a series of "opt-out" cases were filed by a number of large volume purchasers; these cases are substantively identical to the class action lawsuit, but expanded the time period to include 1994 through 1998. In January 2013, the class action lawsuit went to trial in the District Court with the Company as the sole remaining defendant, the other defendants having previously settled. On February 20, 2013, the jury returned a damages verdict of approximately $400 million against the Company, which ultimately was trebled by the District Court under applicable antitrust laws - less offsets from other settling defendants - resulting in a judgment entered in July 2013 in the amount of $1.06 billion. The Company appealed this judgment to the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ("Tenth Circuit" or "Court of Appeals"), which heard oral arguments on the matter on May 14, 2014. On September 29, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the District Court judgment. On October 14, 2014, the Company filed a petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc (collectively the "Rehearing Petition") with the Court of Appeals, which the Circuit Court denied on November 7, 2014. On March 9, 2015, the Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari ("Writ Petition") with the U.S. Supreme Court ("Supreme Court"), seeking judicial review by the Supreme Court and requesting that the Supreme Court ultimately correct fundamental errors in the Circuit Court opinion. While it is unknowable whether or not the Supreme Court will accept the Writ Petition for review, there are several compelling reasons why the Supreme Court should grant the petition for writ of certiorari, and if the petition for writ of certiorari is accepted, the Company believes it is likely that the District Court judgment will be vacated. Specifically, it is the Company's position that the Tenth Circuit decision violates the law as expressed by the Supreme Court as set out in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013). The Tenth Circuit also did not follow accepted law from other federal circuits on dispositive case issues, including legal precedent from the U.S. First, Second, Third, Fifth, Ninth and D.C. Circuit Courts. Finally, the erroneous law applied by the Tenth Circuit is not supported by any other circuit court. In April 2015, six amici filed Amicus Briefs in support of Dow's Writ Petition. The class plaintiffs' opposition brief was due May 11, 2015, and pursuant to the current Supreme Court schedule, it is reasonably anticipated the Supreme Court may issue a decision on the Writ Petition by the end of June 2015. The Company has consistently denied plaintiffs' allegations of price fixing and the Company will continue to vigorously defend this litigation. As with any litigation and based on various factors, the Company may from time to time pursue confidential settlement negotiations to resolve the matter. As part of the Company's review of the jury verdict, the resulting judgment and the Court of Appeals' opinion, the Company assessed the legal and factual circumstances of the case, the trial record, the appellate record, and the applicable law including clear precedent from the Supreme Court. Based on this review and the reasons stated above, the Company believes the judgment and decision from the Court of Appeals are not appropriate. As a result, the Company has concluded it is not probable that a loss will occur and, therefore, a liability has not been recorded with respect to these matters. While the Company believes it is not probable a loss will occur, the existence of the jury verdict, the Court of Appeals' opinion, and subsequent denial of Dow's Rehearing Petition indicate that it is reasonably possible that a loss could occur. The estimate of the possible range of loss to Dow is zero to the $1.06 billion judgment (excluding post-judgment interest and possible award of class attorney fees). On September 30, 2014, the "opt-out" cases that had been consolidated with the class action lawsuit for purposes of pre- trial proceedings were remanded from the District Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. DOW CHEMICAL: Quebec Case Stayed Pending Outcome of Ontario Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Dow Chemical Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that there are two separate but inter-related matters in Ontario and Quebec, Canada. In March 2014, the Superior Court of Justice in London, Ontario, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Dow filed its Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal in March 2014, which was subsequently denied. The Quebec case has been stayed pending the outcome of the Ontario case. The Company has concluded it is not probable that a loss will occur and, therefore, a liability has not been recorded with respect to the opt-out litigation or the Canadian matters. EMULEX CORPORATION: Faces "Tullman" Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Emulex Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that on March 3, 2015, two putative shareholder class action complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Emulex, its directors, Avago Technologies Limited and Purchaser, captioned as follows: James Tullman v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case No. 10743-VCL (Del. Ch.); Moshe Silver ACF/Yehudit Silver U/NY/UTMA v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case No. 10744-VCL (Del. Ch.). On March 11, 2015, a third complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Hoai Vu v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case No. 10776-VCL (Del. Ch.). The complaints allege, among other things, that Emulex's directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement, and that Avago and Purchaser aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek, among other things, either to enjoin the proposed transaction or to rescind it should it be consummated, as well as damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees. The Delaware Court of Chancery has entered an order consolidating the three Delaware actions under the caption In re Emulex Corporation Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10743-VCL. Management is unable to determine whether any loss will occur or to estimate the range of such loss, therefore, no amount of loss has been accrued. EMULEX CORPORATION: Faces "Varjabedian" Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Emulex Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that on April 8, 2015, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, entitled Gary Varjabedian, et al. v. Emulex Corporation, et al., No. 8:15-cv- 554-CJC-JCG. The complaint names as defendants Emulex, its directors, Avago Technologies Limited and Purchaser, and purports to assert claims under Sections 14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that the Board failed to provide material information and/or omitted material information from the Statement. The complaint seeks to enjoin the Offer as well as certain other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. Management is unable to determine whether any loss will occur or to estimate the range of such loss, therefore, no amount of loss has been accrued. EXPRESSWAY MOTORCARS: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Alfonso Lopez and other similarly situated individuals v. Expressway Motorcars, Inc. d/b/a Toyota of South Florida, Case No. 2015-013273-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., June 12, 2015), seeks to recover to recover unpaid overtime compensation, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Expressway Motorcars, Inc. is a Toyota Dealer in Miami Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Sued Over Defective Ventilation Products --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Brandes Newsom, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Goodman Manufacturing Company, L.P., Goodman Global, Inc., Goodman Company, L.P. Case No. 1:15-cv-00943-WTL-DKL (S.D. Ind., June 16, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the residents and entities who purchased air conditioners, air handlers, and heat pumps manufactured by the Defendants, with leak refrigerant because the copper coils used in the Products are defective and prematurely corrode, which caused holes and cracks in the coils. The Defendants are manufacturers of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment for residential and light commercial use in North America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. Vess Allen Miller, Esq. COHEN & MALAD LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com ltoops@cohenandmalad.com rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com vmiller@cohenandmalad.com GREENSOURCE LANDSCAPE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Alejandro Jose Cabrera and all others similarly situated v. GreenSource Landscape and Sports Turf, Inc., Jason Wingate, Susan Npres Wingate a/k/a Nicki Wingate, Case No. 1:15-cv-22278-UU (S.D. Fla., June 16, 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 landscape company that regularly transacts business within Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Julia M. Garrett, Esq. Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: jgarrett.jhzidellpa@gmail.com ZABOGADO@AOL.COM GRAFTECH INT'L: Faces "Daeda" Suit Over Brookfield Merger --------------------------------------------------------- Charles Daeda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Graftech International Ltd., et al., Case No. 11145- VCL (Del. Ch., June 15, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the holders of the common stock of GrafTech International Ltd., to enjoin the acquisition of the publicly owned shares of GrafTech common stock by Brookfield Asset Management Inc., for an unfair price and inadequate consideration. Graftech International Ltd. is a global company that offers innovative graphite material solutions for its customers in a wide range of industries and end markets, including steel manufacturing, advanced energy applications and latest generation electronics. Brookfield Asset Management Inc. is a global alternative asset manager, with over $200 billion in assets under management, engaged in managing and making investments in property, renewable energy, infrastructure and private equity. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com - and - Brian C. Kerr, Esq. BROWER PIVEN 475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 501-9000 E-mail: kerr@browerpiven.com GRAFTECH INT'L: Faces "Grinberger" Suit Over Brookfield Sale ------------------------------------------------------------ Abraham Grinberger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Graftech International Ltd., et al., Case No. 11148- VCL (Del. Ch., June 15, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the holders of the common stock of GrafTech International Ltd., to enjoin the acquisition of the publicly owned shares of GrafTech common stock by Brookfield Asset Management Inc., for an unfair price and inadequate consideration. Graftech International Ltd. is a global company that offers innovative graphite material solutions for its customers in a wide range of industries and end markets, including steel manufacturing, advanced energy applications and latest generation electronics. Brookfield Asset Management Inc. is a global alternative asset manager, with over $200 billion in assets under management, engaged in managing and making investments in property, renewable energy, infrastructure and private equity. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. Kelly C. Keenan, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com mrogovin@weisslawllp.com kkeenan@weisslawllp.com GYPSOPHILA NAIL & SPA: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss ----------------------------------------------------- Defendants failed in their bid to dismiss the case captioned, SHU LAN CHEN, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GYPSOPHILA NAIL & SPA INC., "SHERRY W" DOE, and JOHN DOES and JANE DOES #1-10, Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-2520 (JPO)(S.D.N.Y.). Shu Lan Chen brought a putative collective and class action against Gypsophila Nail & Spa Inc. and several other unidentified defendants designated as John Does and Jane Does #1-10 for violations of federal and state wage and hour laws. Plaintiffs were employees allegedly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Some worked as cashiers, nail technicians, or beauticians; others served as cleaners or bookkeepers. Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that upon information and belief, during the times relevant to the Complaint, Defendants employed more than thirty employees and have an annual gross volume of sales of not less than $500,000. Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the complaint failed to plead that either enterprise or individual coverage applied. District Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in the Opinion and Order dated June 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/Naln3Xfrom Leagle.com, held that the complaint adequately pleads coverage under the FLSA. Plaintiffs are respresented by Jian Hang, Esq. -- jhang@hanglaw.com & William Michael Brown, Esq. -- wbrown@hanglaw.com -- HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC Defendants are represented by Simon Shih-Min Chang, Esq. IGNITE RESTAURANT: Class Action Settlement Has Initial Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2015, that the Court has issued preliminary approval of the class action settlement in the amount of $1.8 million of which $1.6 million is covered by insurance. The Company said, "On July 20, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against us following our announced intention to restate our financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 28, 2009, January 3, 2011 and January 2, 2012 and the related interim periods. The complaint lodged against us, certain of our current directors and officers and the underwriters in the initial public offering ("IPO") was based on allegations related to the Company's disclosures in its registration statement and prospectus for its IPO. On July 4, 2014, we reached a confidential agreement in principle to settle all pending claims, subject to submission and approval by the court. On January 30, 2015, the court issued preliminary approval of the settlement in the amount of $1.8 million of which $1.6 million is covered by insurance. We expect final court approval of the settlement and termination of all proceedings in this matter in the second quarter of 2015." IGNITE RESTAURANT: Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2015, that the Court has granted conditional certification to the class in the lawsuit filed by six former tipped employees. The Company said, "On August 28, 2013, in the United States District Court, Western District of New York, six former tipped employees of various Joe's Crab Shack locations filed a complaint against us and certain of our officers alleging that the employees were not paid the minimum wage required by federal law as well as the wage-hour laws of the respective states in which they worked. These former employees purport to represent a nationwide class of tipped employees on their federal claims and separate subclasses of tipped employees regarding their state law claims. By order dated January 26, 2015, the court granted conditional certification to the class. We are vigorously contesting this matter and have answered and asserted affirmative defenses. Discovery as to all issues is now in the preliminary stages. At this early stage, it is impossible to predict with any certainty whether the former employees will prevail or the amount of damages they might recover were they to prevail." INWELL INC: Faces "Lawrence" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Lawrence and Andrew Lawrence, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Inwell, Inc. and MWD Services (Mgmt), Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01714 (S.D. Tex., June 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants fir failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. The Defendants operate an oilfield service company with significant operations in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP 1150 Bissonnet Street Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com LABORATORY CORPORATION: Will Defend Against Yvonne Jansky Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit by Yvonne Jansky. On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. The complaint alleges that the Defendants committed unlawful and unfair business practices, and violated various other state laws by changing screening codes to diagnostic codes on laboratory test orders, thereby resulting in customers being responsible for co-payments and other debts. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees, and legal expenses. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. LABORATORY CORPORATION: Sandusky Wellness Plaintiff Files Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit by Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC. On August 24, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., et al., filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The lawsuit alleges that on or about February 21, 2012, the defendants violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending unsolicited facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without the recipients' prior express permission or invitation. The lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005 for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief. In September 2014, Plaintiff's Motion for class certification was denied. In January of 2015, the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment on the remaining individual claim was granted. Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. LABORATORY CORPORATION: Will Defend v. Bohlander & Andres Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company will vigorously defend the lawsuits by Christine Bohlander and Jemuel Andres. The Company was a defendant in two separate putative class action lawsuits, Christine Bohlander v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., and Jemuel Andres, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, et al., related to overtime pay. After the filing of the two lawsuits on July 8, 2013, the Bohlander lawsuit was consolidated into the Andres lawsuit, and the consolidated lawsuit is now pending in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. In the consolidated lawsuit, the Plaintiffs allege on behalf of similarly situated phlebotomists and couriers that the Company failed to pay overtime, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, and committed other violations of the California Labor Code. The complaint seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, costs, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. The parties have reached a tentative class settlement, which is subject to Court approval. The Court held a hearing on the merits of the settlement terms on February 26, 2015 and requested further briefing on the settlement terms. Another hearing was scheduled for May 14, 2015. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. LABORATORY CORPORATION: Will Defend Against Rabanes Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit by Rachel Rabanes. The Company is a defendant in two additional putative class action lawsuits alleging similar claims to the Bohlander/Andres consolidated lawsuit. The lawsuit Rachel Rabanes v. California Laboratory Sciences, LLC, et al., was filed in April 2014 in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, and the lawsuit Rita Varsam v. Laboratory Corporation of America DBA LabCorp, was filed in June 2014 in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego. In these lawsuits, the Plaintiffs allege on behalf of similarly situated employees that the Company failed to pay overtime, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, and committed other violations of the California Labor Code. The complaints seek monetary damages, civil penalties, costs, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. The Company will vigorously defend these lawsuits. LABORATORY CORPORATION: Will Defend Against Legg Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit by Christopher W. Legg. On July 9, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Christopher W. Legg, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act by allegedly providing credit card expiration date information on an electronically printed credit card receipt. The lawsuit seeks damages of not less than $0.0001 but not more than $0.01 per violation, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. LABORATORY CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in LipoScience Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a settlement has been reached in the case by stockholders of LipoScience. Prior to the consummation of the Company's acquisition of LipoScience, Inc., purported stockholders of LipoScience filed four putative class action lawsuits against LipoScience, members of the LipoScience board of directors, the Company and Bear Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, in the Delaware Court of Chancery and, with respect to one of the lawsuits, in the Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina. The lawsuits alleged breach of fiduciary duty and/or other violations of state law arising out of the proposed acquisition. Each suit sought, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the merger. On October 23, 2014, the case in North Carolina was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the Plaintiff. On October 29, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the four actions under the caption In re LipoScience, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10252-VCP (the "Consolidated Action"). On November 7, 2014, the Consolidated Action plaintiffs entered into a memorandum of understanding with the defendants regarding a settlement of the Consolidated Action. In connection with the settlement, the parties agreed that LipoScience would make certain additional disclosures to its stockholders. Subject to the completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel, entry by the parties into a stipulation of settlement and customary conditions, including court approval, the settlement will resolve all of the claims that were or could have been brought, including all claims relating to the merger. LABORATORY CORPORATION: Delaware Plaintiffs Entered Into MOU ------------------------------------------------------------ Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Plaintiffs in the Delaware case entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Defendants regarding a settlement. On November 19, 2014, the Company entered into a definitive merger agreement to acquire Covance for approximately $6,200.0 in cash and Company common stock. The transaction closed on February 19, 2015. Prior to the closing of the transaction, purported stockholders of Covance filed two putative class action lawsuits. One of the lawsuits, captioned Berk v. Covance Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10440-VCL, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on December 9, 2014. The other lawsuit, captioned Ojeda v. Herring et al., No. MER-C-92-14, was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Mercer County, New Jersey, on November 12, 2014. Both suits named as defendants Covance, members of the Covance board of directors, the Company and Neon Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company that was merged out of existence in connection with the Acquisition. The lawsuits alleged breach of fiduciary duty and/or other violations of state law arising out of the proposed acquisition. Each suit sought, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the merger. On January 21, 2015, the case in New Jersey was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the Plaintiff. On February 9, 2015, the Plaintiffs in the Delaware case entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Defendants regarding a settlement. In connection with the settlement, the parties agreed that Covance would make additional disclosures to its stockholders. Subject to the entry by the parties into a stipulation of settlement and customary conditions, including court approval, the settlement will resolve all the claims that were or could have been brought, including all claims relating to the merger. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: La. Court Stays "Loehn" Case Proceedings ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendant moved to Stay Pending MDL Determination in the case captioned, THOMAS E. AND RACHEL M. LOEHN, v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, SECTION "L" (5), Case No. 15-01088 (E.D. La.). On December 30, 2014, Thomas and Rachel Loehn filed an action for redhibition and damages against Lumber Liquidators, Inc. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company in Louisiana state court. The complaint alleged that Lumber Liquidators, Inc. (LLI) recommended and sold to them an inappropriate underlayment for their flooring and that LLI was a Bad Faith seller who knew or should have known of these defects and failed to warn Plaintiffs. LLI filed a motion to stay the proceedings pending the MDL panel's decision of whether to transfer the case, arguing that having to defend the same issues in multiple fora would cause them hardship. The Loehns opposed the motion, arguing that they filed a Motion to Remand and that they dismissed all allegations asserting a class action in their latest filing with the Court. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in the Order and Reasons dated June 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/viLkFWfrom Leagle.com, granted for 60 days LLI's Motion to Stay Pending MDL Determination. The Court said it is wise to wait for the MDL panel to decide whether the claim did fall within the proposed MDL. Granting a short stay was unlikely to prejudice the Loehns' case or cause them undue hardship. In contrast, denying the stay creates the risk of inconsistent pretrial rulings which could greatly burden the Defendants. Additionally, granting the stay was in the interest of judicial economy. Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas Edward Loehn, Esq. BOGGS, LOEHN & RODRIGUE 2324 Severn Avenue, Suite 100 Metairie, LA 70001 Tel: (504) 437-1699 Defendants are represented by H. Minor Pipes, III, Esq. -- mpipes@barrassousdin.com -- Erica A. Therio, Esq. -- etherio@barrassousdin.com -- BARRASSO, USDIN, KUPPERMAN, FREEMAN & SARVER, LLC MAC PROPERTY: Faces "Buckner" Suit Over Unlawful Rental Agreement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arlene Buckner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MAC Property Management, LLC, Case No. 2015-CH-09371 (Ill. Cir. Ct., June 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, specifically by failure to disclose landlord's obligations and foreclosure policies in its rental agreement. MAC Property Management, LLC owns and operates buildings with multiple dwelling units in Chicago. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Silverman, Esq. MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD. 225 W. Washington, #2200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 775-1015 Facsimile: (312) 256 2055 MCDONALD'S CORP: Court Denies Motion to Strike in "Ochoa" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Three of the defendants, all various McDonald's corporate entities, moved to strike 106 of the 161 changes plaintiffs made to the deposition transcripts of the four named plaintiffs by means of errata sheets in the case captioned, STEPHANIE OCHOA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MCDONALD'S CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-02098-JD (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs invoked Rule 30(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allowed the deponent to review the deposition transcript or recording within 30 days of notice of availability and make changes in form or substance by signing a statement listing the changes and the reasons for making them. District Judge James Donato of the Northern District of California in the Order dated June 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/TtTYbG from Leagle.com, denied the motion to strike and allowed Defendants to renew their motion to strike if Plaintiffs relied on the modified testimony in the course of any future summary judgment briefing to try to establish a dispute of material fact. Plaintiffs are represented by Abigail Evans Shafroth, Esq. -- ashafroth@cohenmilstein.com -- Joseph Marc Sellers, Esq. - jsellers@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Matthew J. Murray, Esq. -- mmurray@altshulerberzon.com, Michael Rubin, Esq. -- mrubin@altshulerberzon.com -- Barbara Jane Chisholm, Esq. -- bchisholm@althshulerberzon.com -- Patrick Casey Pitts, Esq. -- ppitts@atlahulerberzon.com -- ALSTHULER BERZON LLP Defendants are represented by Brent D. Knight, Esq. -- bdknight@jonesday.com -- Jonathan M. Linus, Esq. -- jlinus@jonesday.com -- Lawrence C. DiNardo, Esq. -- ldinardo@jonesday.com -- Allison B. Moser, Esq. -- amoser@jonesday.com -- Catherine Suzanne Nasser, Esq. -- csnasser@jonesday.com -- Elizabeth B. McRee, Esq. -- emcree@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY MED DIRECT: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Autodialed Solicitation Call --------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Med Direct Capital, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-04569-DDP- GJS (C.D. Cal., June 16, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of placing autodialed solicitation call to consumers' cellular telephone. Med Direct Capital, LLC is engaged in the business of lending business capital loans to business owners throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: G. Thomas Martin, III, Esq. Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq. MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC 6464 W. Sunset Blvd., Ste. 960 Los Angeles, CA 90028 Telephone: (323) 940-1700 Facsimile: (323) 238-8095 E-mail: Tom@mblawapc.com Nick@mblawapc.com MERU NETWORKS: Faces "Middleton" Suit Over Fortinet Merger ---------------------------------------------------------- Tim Middleton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Meru Networks, Inc., Bami Bastani, Barry Cox, Stephen Domenik, John Kurtzweil, Sudhakar Ramakrishna, Fortinet, Inc., and Malbrouck Acquisition Corp., Case No. 11143-VCP (Del. Ch., June 12, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of Meru Networks, Inc., to enjoin the agreement to sell the Company to Fortinet, Inc. through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Malbrouck Acquisition Corp., for an unfair price and inadequate consideration. Meru Networks, Inc. provides intelligent wireless LAN solutions that optimize the network to deliver the highest performance, reliability, and operational simplicity. Fortinet, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is a worldwide provider of network security appliances and the market leader in unified threat management (UTM). The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. The Brandywine Building 1000 West Street, 10th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3800 E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylot.com - and - W. Scott Holleman, Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP 99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 602-1592 E-mail: ScottH@JohnsonandWeaver.com MIAMI ANGEL: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fanny Lopez, and other similarly situated employees v. North Miami Angel Gardens ALF, Inc. and Norma Leon-Aristide, Case No. 2015- 013249-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., June 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an assisted living facility in Miami Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com MICHIGAN: 6th Cir. Remands "King" Suit v. Prison Officials ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen Nelson Moore of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment in, and remanded for further proceedings, the case captioned, KEVIN KING, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. CHUCK ZAMIARA, CURTIS CHAFFEE, SHARON WELLS, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Case No. 13- 1766, 13-1777 (6th Cir.). King filed suit against Chuck Zamiara, Curtis Chaffee, Sharon Wells, and other prison officials under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. He alleged that after he participated in a class-action lawsuit designed to challenge personal property policies at MDOC facilities (the Cain litigation), prison officials transferred him to a prison with a higher security classification and more restrictive conditions. The Sixth Circuit previously held that Zamiara, Chaffee, and Wells were liable for retaliating against King for his First Amendment- protected conduct, namely participating in the Cain litigation and assisting other petitioners to file grievances. The Sixth Circuit remanded the case back to the district court, and that court granted compensatory damages and awarded attorney fees, but denied punitive damages and injunctive relief. Both parties appealed. In the Opinion dated June 1, 2015 available at http://is.gd/XXyiKC from Leagle.com, the Sixth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. The Court held that the district court abused its discretion. Plaintiff is respresented by Gregory N. Longworth, Esq. -- glongworth@clarkhill.com -- CLARK HILL PLC Defendant is represented by Kevin R. Himebaugh, Esq., OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Trims "Grochowski" Action ----------------------------------------------- LISA GROCHOWSKI, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL N. GORDON, P.C., and MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. C13-343 TSZ (W.D. Wash.), was commenced on February 22, 2013, against the Gordon Firm and Midland Funding, LLC asserting one or more claims under each of five different subsections of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and two claims under Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA). Plaintiff obtained a loan from Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. on which she defaulted. Capital One "charged off" the debt, in the amount of $5,025.54, and sold it to Equable Ascent Financial, LLC. Equable unsuccessfully attempted to collect $5,025.54 from plaintiff and then sold the debt to Midland. MCM, acting on behalf of Midland, also failed to collect from plaintiff, and then turned to the Gordon Firm for assistance. MCM's correspondence with plaintiff indicated that the accrued interest was $0 and the interest rate was 0%. In contrast, the Gordon Firm's "dunning letter" to plaintiff indicated that the amount due was $6,325.85, which included interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of Capital One's "charge off" of the debt, which was July 30, 2010. The Court had granted Midland's motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiff had provided no evidence to support either direct or vicarious liability on the part of Midland. The Court also granted in part the Gordon Firm's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Count IV of the Complaint, which alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692f(1), as well as portions of each of the other five counts of the Complaint. Plaintiff's and MCM's motion for preliminary approval of class settlement, was denied without prejudice. In an Order dated May 26, 2015 available at http://is.gd/wGKP3s from Leagle.com, District Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part MCM's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in which the Gordon Firm joined. The motion was granted as to plaintiff's theory that Equable waived or was equitably estopped from charging interest at the statutory rate, and plaintiff's FDCPA claim was dismissed with prejudice to the extent it was premised on such theory. The motion to dismiss was otherwise denied. Plaintiff's motion for class certification, as revised, was denied in part with prejudice and denied in part without prejudice. Plaintiff is represented by Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. -- aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com -- GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC, - and - Mathew J. Cunanan, Esq. DC LAW GROUP NW LLC 101 Warren Ave N Seattle, WA 98109 Tel: (206)494-0400 - and - Jon N. Robbins, Esq. -- jrobbins@attorneysforconsumers.com -- THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC Defendants are represented by: J. Kurt Kraemer, Esq. Katie Jo Johnson, Esq. McEWEN GISVOLD LLP Standard Plaza Building 1100 SW 6th Ave #1600 Portland, OR 97204 Tel: (503)226-7321 MOBILEIRON INC: Faces "Panjwani" Class Action in N.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------- MobileIron, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on May 1, 2015, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers, captioned Panjwani v. MobileIron, Inc., et al. The action is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between February 13, 2015, and April 22, 2015. It asserts claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Faces Iron Workers Fund's Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- MoneyGram International, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on April 15, 2015, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, County of New Castle, against MoneyGram, all of its directors, certain of its executive officers, THL, Goldman Sachs and the underwriters of the secondary public offering of the Company's common stock that closed on April 2, 2014 (the "2014 Offering"). The lawsuit was brought by the Iron Workers District Council of New England Pension Fund seeking to represent a class consisting of all purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's registration statement and prospectus, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, issued in connection with the 2014 Offering. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading statements in connection with the 2014 Offering and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the lawsuit. MOODY'S CORPORATION: NY Appeals Court to Hear Certified Question ---------------------------------------------------------------- Moody's Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the New York Court of Appeals has agreed to hear the certified question, and argument is scheduled for June 2015. On August 25, 2008, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank filed a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting numerous common-law causes of action against two subsidiaries of the Company, another rating agency, and Morgan Stanley & Co. The action related to securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance (the "Cheyne SIV") and sought, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. The central allegation against the rating agency defendants was that the credit ratings assigned to the securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and misleading. In early proceedings, the court dismissed all claims against the rating agency defendants except those for fraud and aiding and abetting fraud. In June 2010, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification, and additional plaintiffs were subsequently added to the complaint. In January 2012, the rating agency defendants moved for summary judgment with respect to the fraud and aiding and abetting fraud claims. Also in January 2012, in light of new New York state case law, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that reasserted previously dismissed claims against all defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and related aiding and abetting claims. In May 2012, the court, ruling on the rating agency defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissed all of the reasserted claims except for the negligent misrepresentation claim, and on September 19, 2012, after further proceedings, the court also dismissed the negligent misrepresentation claim. On August 17, 2012, the court ruled on the rating agencies' motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' remaining claims for fraud and aiding and abetting fraud. The court dismissed, in whole or in part, the fraud claims of four plaintiffs as against Moody's but allowed the fraud claims to proceed with respect to certain claims of one of those plaintiffs and the claims of the remaining 11 plaintiffs. The court also dismissed all claims against Moody's for aiding and abetting fraud. Three of the plaintiffs whose claims were dismissed filed motions for reconsideration, and on November 7, 2012, the court granted two of these motions, reinstating the claims of two plaintiffs that were previously dismissed. On February 1, 2013, the court dismissed the claims of one additional plaintiff on jurisdictional grounds. Trial on the remaining fraud claims against the rating agencies, and on claims against Morgan Stanley for aiding and abetting fraud and for negligent misrepresentation, was scheduled for May 2013. On April 24, 2013, pursuant to confidential settlement agreements, the 14 plaintiffs with claims that had been ordered to trial stipulated to the voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of these claims as against all defendants, and the Court so ordered that stipulation on April 26, 2013. The settlement did not cover certain claims of two plaintiffs, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System ("PSERS") and Commerzbank AG ("Commerzbank"), that were previously dismissed by the Court. On May 23, 2013, these two plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Second Circuit, seeking reversal of the dismissal of their claims and also seeking reversal of the trial court's denial of class certification. According to pleadings filed by plaintiffs in earlier proceedings, PSERS and Commerzbank AG seek, respectively, $5.75 million and $69.6 million in compensatory damages in connection with the two claims at issue on the appeal. In October 2014, the Second Circuit affirmed the denial of class certification and the dismissal of PSERS' claim but reversed a ruling of the trial court that had excluded certain evidence relevant to Commerzbank's principal argument on appeal. The Second Circuit did not reverse the dismissal of Commerzbank's claim but instead certified a legal question concerning Commerzbank's argument to the New York Court of Appeals. The New York Court of Appeals subsequently agreed to hear the certified question, and argument is scheduled for June 2015. After the New York Court of Appeals has ruled on the certified question, the case will be returned to the Second Circuit for a final decision on Commerzbank's appeal. NABORS INDUSTRIES: Shareholder Class Action Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Nabors Industries Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a putative shareholder class action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware remains pending. The Company said, "On July 30, 2014, we and Red Lion, along with C&J Energy and its board of directors, were sued in a putative shareholder class action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court of Chancery"). The plaintiff alleges that the members of the C&J Energy board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, and that Red Lion and C&J Energy aided and abetted these alleged breaches. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with or consummating the Merger and the C&J Energy stockholder meeting for approval of the Merger and, to the extent that the Merger was completed before any relief was granted, to have the Merger rescinded. On November 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, and, on November 24, 2014, the Court of Chancery entered a bench ruling, followed by a written order on November 25, 2014, that (i) ordered certain members of the C&J Energy board of directors to solicit for a 30 day period alternative proposals to purchase C&J Energy (or a controlling stake in C&J Energy) that were superior to the Merger, and (ii) preliminarily enjoined C&J Energy from holding its stockholder meeting until it complied with the foregoing. C&J Energy complied with the order while it simultaneously pursued an expedited appeal of the Court of Chancery's order to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Supreme Court"). On December 19, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court overturned the Court of Chancery's judgment and vacated the order. This case remains pending." NCB MANAGEMENT: Faces "Sergeeva" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA ------------------------------------------------------------- Galina Sergeeva, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. NCB Management Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03459 (E.D.N.Y., June 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Complaint v. DOH -------------------------------------------------------- Mindy Backer appealed from an order by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf of the Eastern District of New York, dismissing her complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The complaint alleges violations under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The appeal is captioned, MINDY BACKER, by her guardian and next friend Gay Lee Freedman, Plaintiff-Appellant, FANNIE MAE WILLIAMS, by her guardian and next friend United Guardianship Services, ANNIE L. KELLY, by her guardian and next friend United Guardianship Services, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NIRAV R. SHAH, M.D., M.P.H., in his capacity as the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 14-1367-CV (2nd Cir.). Appellant is incapacitated and resides in a nursing home. She receives Medicaid benefits. Medicaid covers part or all of the costs of nursing home facility services for qualified beneficiaries. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1396d(a)(4)(A). Such beneficiaries are required to contribute their available income to the cost of their institutional care. Appellant's sister, Gay Lee Freedman, was appointed by the New York Supreme Court to be appellant's guardian. The guardianship order stated that the income appellant deposited in her guardianship account would be considered unavailable income for purposes of calculation of her net available monthly income. DOH determined that appellant could not deduct the guardianship fees and was required to contribute approximately $1,800 per month in NAMI toward her nursing home costs. That ruling left her without funds to pay the guardianship fees. Relying on the terms of the guardianship order, Freedman challenged DOH's decision in state court, but the court upheld DOH's decision on the ground that it had a rational basis. The court also noted that New York's Medicaid regulations did not authorize the deduction of guardianship fees and expenses from the amount required to be contributed toward nursing home costs. Freedman filed a putative class action in the Eastern District of New York. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, alleging that DOH violated the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1396a(a)(19), 1396a(q)(1), 1396d, by refusing to deduct guardianship expenses from required Medicaid contributions. Backer alleged she was being damaged because of the failure of DOH to permit the deduction of the guardianship fees from her available assets. DOH successfully moved to dismiss the action. The district court held that appellant lacked constitutional standing to bring the claim and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Backer appealed. Circuit Judge Ralph K. Winter of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the Order dated June 3, 2015 available at http://is.gd/6am6HJfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) concluding that Backer had standing but nevertheless failed to state a valid Section 1983 claim. Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph P. Garland, Esq. Michael Korsinsky, Esq. KORSINSKY & KLEIN, LLP 2926 Ave., L. Brooklyn, NY 11210 Tel: (212)495-8133 Defendants are represented by Bethany A. Davis Noll, Esq. -- ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL; Barbara D. Underwood,Esq. -- SOLICITOR GENERAL; Anisha S. Dasgupta, Esq., DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL NORTEK INC: Unit Named as Defendant in "Harris" and "Bauer" Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nortek Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2015, that Nortek Global HVAC LLC ("Nordyne"), the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, is the defendant in a putative class action lawsuit in Florida, Harris, et al. v. Nordyne, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-21884-BB, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In addition, Nortek, Inc., Nortek Global HVAC LLC and Nortek Global HVAC Latin America, Inc. are the defendants in a putative class action lawsuit in Tennessee, Bauer, et al. v. Nordyne, LLC et al., Case No. 3:14-cv- 01940, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The Company said, "These lawsuits allege that evaporator and condenser coils in Nordyne's residential heating and cooling products are susceptible to a type of potential corrosion of the copper tubing in the units that can result in coil leaks and/or failure of the units. The Florida action was initiated on May 21, 2014 and seeks compensatory damages associated with Nordyne's alleged wrongdoing, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Tennessee action was initiated on October 3, 2014 and seeks damages associated with repairing, retrofitting and/or replacing the allegedly defective products, the loss of value due to the alleged defect, property damages associated with the alleged defect, injunctive relief, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. No arguments or ruling with respect to class action status have occurred to date in either of these actions. "While these actions are in their initial stages, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses against these complaints. At this time, the Company believes that the likelihood of a material loss in such matters is remote and has not recognized a loss or liability in these actions; however, it is possible that events could occur that would change the likelihood of a material loss, which could ultimately have a material impact on our business. The Company will continue to assess the likelihood of a material loss as the actions progress." NUVASIVE INC: Wants 3rd Amended Securities Complaint Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Nuvasive, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company has filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint in the Securities Litigation. On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California naming the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers for allegedly making false and materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results, specifically relating to the purported improper submission of false claims to Medicare and Medicaid. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from October 22, 2008 to July 30, 2013. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. On February 13, 2014, the lead plaintiff ("Plaintiff") filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. In March 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. On August 19, 2014, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and ordered Plaintiff to amend its complaint. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on September 8, 2014. The Company once again moved to dismiss the complaint on September 22, 2014 and that motion was granted on December 9, 2014. On December 23, 2014 Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on January 9, 2015. While the Company's motion was pending, Plaintiff sought leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint and the motion is pending. At March 31, 2015, the probable outcome of this litigation cannot be determined, nor can the Company estimate a range of potential loss. In accordance with authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, the Company has not recorded an accrual related to this litigation. PACPIZZA LLC: CA Affirms Denial of Petition to Compel Arbitration ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff appealed the trial court's decision denying the petition to compel arbitration in the case, JULIO OREGEL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PACPIZZA, LLC, Defendant and Appellant, Case No. A141947 (Cal. App. Ct.). Julio Oregel filed a class action against his former employer, defendant PacPizza, LLC for failure to fully reimburse delivery drivers for necessary expenses associated with using their personal vehicles to deliver pizza on PacPizza's behalf. It asserted two causes of action (1) failure to reimburse expenses in violation of Labor Code section 2802 and (2) for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law PacPizza petitioned to compel arbitration of Oregel's claims. Plaintiff sought compensatory and special damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement, attorney fees, and costs. The trial court denied the petition, finding PacPizza waived its right to enforce a purported arbitration agreement between the two parties. PacPizza appealed, primarily contending the court erred in denying the petition, and also asserting that Oregel "conceded" the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and it was improper for Judge Flinn to "pocket" the order denying its petition. Justice James A. Richman of the Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two, in the Decision and Order dated June 1, 2015 available at http://is.gd/dRU9Uifrom Leagle.com, affirmed the order denying PacPizza's petition to compel arbitration finding that the bad faith or willful misconduct of a party may constitute a waiver and thus justify a refusal to compel arbitration. Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Andrew Grover, Esq. Steven Lee Miller, Esq. KELLER GROVER 1965 Market St San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415)543-1305 - and - Ellen Lake, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ELLEN LAKE 4230 Lakeshore Ave Oakland, CA 94610 Tel: (510)272-9393 Defendants are represented by Michael Robert Bodzin, Esq. -- rbodzin@burnhambrown.com -- BURNHAM BROWN PENNYMAC MORTGAGE: Court Denies Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied Plaintiff's motions and granted Defendant's motion in the case captioned, CHRISTIE ADEMILUYI, Plaintiff, v. PENNYMAC MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST HOLDINGS I, LLC n/k/a PENNYMAC HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. ELH-12-00752 (D. Md.). PennyMac attempted to collect Christie Ademiluyi's delinquent mortgage debt without a debt collection license, allegedly in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), as well as the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act (MCALA) and Sec. 7-301 of the Business Regulation Article (BR). Plaintiff initially filed her Complaint in March 2012, as a putative class action seeking statutory damages as well as attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with a supporting memorandum of law and a Motion to Certify a Class and Defendant filed a motion to oppose both motions. Judge Hollander, in the Memorandum Opinion dated May 22, 2015 available at http://bit.ly/1dOCz8jfrom Leagle.com, denied Plaintiff's motion for class certification and summary judgment and granted Defendant's opposition. Plaintiff is respresented by April Teniade Ademiluyi, Esq., at THE LAW OFFICE OF APRIL ADEMILUYI Defendants are represented by Edward Win-Teh Chang, Esq. -- Echang@BlankRome.com -- Harris N. Cogan, Esq. -- Hcogan@BlankRome.com -- James Robert Billings Kang, Esq. - JKang@BlankRome.com; and Laura E. Vendzules, Esq. -- Lvendzules@BlankRome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP PFS GROUP: Faces "Safdieh" Suit in D.N.J. Over FDCPA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- Sally Safdieh, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PFS Group a/k/a Patient Financial Services and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-04032-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., June 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS LAW LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 660-8169 E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com PHARMACYCLICS INC: Judicial Review of MOU in 2nd Half 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------- Pharmacyclics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company currently anticipates that the Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") in class action lawsuits will undergo judicial review for approval during the second half of 2015. In March 2015, four putative class action lawsuits were filed against the members of the Pharmacyclics board of directors and certain others (the Defendants) in the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County. Each alleges generally that the members of the Pharmacyclics board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with AbbVie's offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Pharmacyclics and the Mergers by, among other things, (i) failing to maximize the value of Pharmacyclics to its public stockholders, (ii) ignoring or failing to protect against conflicts of interests and (iii) agreeing to unreasonable deal protection devices (see Note 14 for a brief discussion of AbbVie's offer and the Mergers). The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, equitable relief to enjoin consummation of the offer and the Mergers, rescission of the offer and the Mergers and/or rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 16, 2015, all parties to the shareholder suits entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") to settle these lawsuits. The Defendants in the MOU have denied, and continue to deny, that any of them has committed, threatened to commit, or aided and abetted in the commission of, any wrongdoing, violations of law or breaches of duty to the plaintiffs, the class or anyone else in connection with the settled claims. The Company currently anticipates that the MOU will undergo judicial review for approval during the second half of 2015. PHILLIPS & COHEN: Faces "Huseynov" Suit Over FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Azar Huseynov, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd., Case No. 1:15-cv-03458 (E.D.N.Y., June 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com PLAINS ALL: Faces "Hicks" Suit Over Santa Barbara Oil Spill ----------------------------------------------------------- Mark Hicks, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Plains All American Pipeline, LP, Plains Pipeline, L.P., and John Does 1 through 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-04573 (C.D. Cal., June 16, 2015), , injunctive relief, and any and all other relief, as proximate result of the Defendant's failure to adhere to statutory guidelines, failure to meet the requisite standard of care, and negligence which resulted in the release, disposal, and exfiltration, of petroleum and petroleum byproducts, at and near Santa Barbara County, which continues to spread, exacerbate, and contaminate previously uncontaminated areas, negatively impacting the local economy, particularly that which is reliant on tourism. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. owns and operates a pipeline system, which transported crude oil, obtained from ExxonMobil's Santa Ynez fields at Las Flores Canyon to Gaviota Pump Station in Santa Barbara County. The Plaintiff is represented by: Juli Farris, Esq. Matthew J. Preusch, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1129State Street, Suite 8 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805)456-1496 Facsimile: (805)456-1497 E-mail: jfarris@kellerrohrback.com mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com - and - Robert Lawrence Lieff, Esq. Robert Nelson, Esq. Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415)956-1000 Facsimile: (415)956-1000 E-mail: rlieff@lchb.com rnelson@lchb.com ecabraser@lchb.com PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Sued Over Transactions With Major Investor -------------------------------------------------------------- Haverhill Retirement System, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated v. The Providence Service Corporation, et al., Case No. 11149-VCL (Del. Ch., June 15, 2015), arises from breaches of fiduciary duty by the Providence Board in connection with a series of transactions designed to improperly benefit Coliseum Capital Management, LLC, the company's largest stockholder. The Providence Service Corporation provides and manages government sponsored human services, innovative global employment services, comprehensive assessment and care management services, and non- emergency. Coliseum Capital Management, LLC is a Stamford, Connecticut-based hedge fund. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christine S. Azar, Esq. Ned Weinberger, Esq. Ralph N. Sianni, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1340 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-2540 E-mail: cazar@labaton.com nweinberger@labaton.com rsianno@labaton.com - and - Christopher J. Keller, Esq. Eric J. Belfi, Esq. Michael W. Stocker, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com ebelfi@labaton.com mstocker@labaton.com RAYONIER ADVANCED: Faces Class Action in M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, that a lawsuit has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc. (the "Company") and certain current and former officers of the Company. The complaint, which was served on the Company on May 4, 2015, purports to be a class action and alleges federal securities laws violations. The primary allegations are that certain environmental-related reserves recorded by the Company were understated and materially false and misleading. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. It is possible additional lawsuits making similar or related allegations may be filed against the Company and/or its current and/or former officers. The Company strongly believes the complaint and its allegations to be baseless and without merit, and will vigorously defend this action. REALOGY HOLDINGS: "Bararsani" Case in Discovery Phase ----------------------------------------------------- Realogy Holdings Corp. and Realogy Group LLC said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the case, Bararsani v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company, is now in the discovery phase. On November 15, 2012, plaintiff Ali Bararsani filed a putative class action complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court, California, against Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company ("CBRBC") alleging that CBRBC had misclassified current and former affiliated sales associates as independent contractors when they were actually employees. The complaint, as amended, further alleges that, because of the misclassification, CBRBC has violated several sections of the California Labor Code including one for failing to reimburse the plaintiff and purported class for business related expenses and a second for failing to keep proper records. The amended complaint also asserts an Unfair Business Practices claim for misclassifying the sales associates. The Plaintiff, on behalf of a purported class, seeks the benefit of the California labor laws for expenses and other sums, plus asserted penalties, attorneys' fees and interest. The Company believes that CBRBC has properly classified the sales associates as independent contractors and that it has and continues to operate in a manner consistent with applicable law, and longstanding, widespread industry practice for many decades. On July 31, 2013, CBRBC filed a Demurrer with the Court seeking to dismiss the amended complaint. The Demurrer asserted that the claims raised by the plaintiff were without basis under California law because the California Business and Professions Code sets out the applicable three-part test for classification of real estate sales associates as independent contractors and all elements of the test have been satisfied by CBRBC and the affiliated sales associates. Plaintiff filed an Opposition on August 12, 2013 and a hearing was held on August 28, 2013. The Court denied the Demurrer and stated that it would look to the more complex multi- factor common law test to determine whether the plaintiff was misclassified. CBRBC filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandate with the California Court of Appeal seeking its discretionary review of that decision on September 30, 2013 and on November 8, 2013, the Court of Appeal denied the Petition. On March 25, 2014, the Court denied plaintiff's ex parte application which sought, in part, to invalidate, for purposes of this litigation, arbitration clauses with class action waivers in independent contractor agreements executed by some putative members of the class following the commencement of the litigation. Plaintiffs filed a Writ of Mandate with the California Court of Appeal seeking its discretionary review of the Court's decision to deny plaintiff's application. On June 2, 2014, the Court of Appeal summarily denied the petition. The case is now in the discovery phase. The first mediation session was currently scheduled for May 5, 2015. The parties have not held any pre- mediation discussions nor exchanged demands. The Company said, "The case raises significant classification claims that potentially apply to the real estate industry in general and that have not been previously challenged in any significant manner in California or many other jurisdictions. As with all class action litigation, the case is inherently complex and subject to many uncertainties. We believe that CBRBC has properly classified the current and former affiliated sales associates. There can be no assurance, however, that if the action continues and a large class is subsequently certified, the plaintiffs will not seek a substantial damage award, penalties and other remedies. Given the stage of this case, the novel claims and issues presented and the great uncertainties regarding which sales associates, if any, may be part of a class, if one is certified, we cannot estimate a range of reasonably potential losses for this litigation. The Company believes it has complied with all applicable laws and regulations and will vigorously defend this action." REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Warren City Police Files Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Revance Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, that on May 1, 2015, a complaint, captioned City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement Systems v. Revance Therapeutics Inc., et al, CIV 533635, was filed in the Superior Court for San Mateo County, California against Revance Therapeutics, Inc. (the "Company"), the Company's directors and executive officers at the time of the Offering (defined below), and the investment banking firms that acted as the underwriters in the Offering. In general, the complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented the Company's then-present status of its RT001 clinical program and made false and misleading statements regarding the formulation, manufacturing and efficacy of its drug candidate, RT001, for the treatment of lateral canthal lines, known as crow's feet lines, at the time of the Company's June 19, 2014 follow-on public offering of common stock (the "Offering"). The complaint has been brought as a purported class action on behalf of those who purchased the Company's common stock in the Offering and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The Company believes that the class action lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action. RIYAL HOLDINGS: "Abreu" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Sandra Abreu and other similarly situated individuals v. Riyal Holdings Corporation and Melvin H. Stoutfnburg, Case No. 2015- 013281-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., June 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Riyal Holdings Corporation is a Florida corporation that sells and markets its services and goods to customers from throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com SIEMENS USA: Court Grants Motion to Enforce Settlement ------------------------------------------------------ Siemens moved to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement in the case captioned, JARRID J. WHITLEY, on behalf of himself, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC., also doing business as and referred to as SIEMENS USA, SIEMENS CORPORATION, and SIEMENS, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:14-CV-00099-MCE-DAD (E.D. Cal.). Jarrid Whitley filed a putative class action for alleged wage and hour claims against his former employer, Defendant Siemens Industry, Inc. He asserted that Siemens: 1) failed to provide meal and rest periods in accordance with California Labor Code Sections 226.5 and 512; 2) failed to furnish accurate wage statement in violation of California Labor Code Sec. 226; 3) conversion; and 4) unfair business practices in contravention of California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200. In the interests of timely resolution and conservation of resources on the part of all involved, the Parties decided to engage in early mediation with a voluntary exchange of documents and information. Decl. of Gregory Iskander, Michael Dickstein, an experienced mediator with extensive experience in employment cases, and in particular wage and hour class actions, was selected to mediate. On May 6, 2014, the parties attended a voluntary mediation with Mr. Dickstein in San Francisco. Both Plaintiff and his counsel, Anthony Perez, Jr., were present at the resulting mediation, which lasted about twelve hours. Although no final resolution was reached at that session, the parties made substantial progress and agreed to continue to discuss settlement through Mr. Dickstein. On June 30, 2014, both Plaintiff and Mr. Perez signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Following execution of the MOU, counsel for Siemens agreed to draft a Formal Stipulation of Class Action Settlement to file with this Court, as contemplated by the MOU. Plaintiff's counsel agreed that the Stipulation was acceptable and accurately reflected the terms of the MOU. Consistent with that representation, Plaintiff's counsel filed a Notice of Settlement with this Court on July 3, 2014. Plaintiff subsequently refused to sign either the Stipulation of Class Action Settlement or the corresponding Settlement Agreement as to his personal claims. Siemens moved to enforce the terms of the Settlement. Chief District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. of the United States District Court for Eastern District of California in the Order dated June 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/ylK9tKfrom Leagle.com, granted Defendant's Motion to Enforce Settlement in its entirety. Given the fact that Plaintiff entered into a binding settlement as to both his class-based and individual claims, the Court declined Plaintiff's suggestion that his individual claims be severed and permitted to proceed. Plaintiff's second Opposition was stricken as untimely. Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony M. Perez, Jr., Esq. PEREZ LAW OFFICES 455 Capitol Mall # 225 Sacramento, CA 95814 Tel: (916)441-0500 - and - David Harmik Yeremian, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 535 N Brand Blvd #705 Glendale, CA 91203 Tel: (818)230-8380 Defendants are represented by Gregory G. Iskander, Esq. -- giskander@littler.com -- Alexa L. Woerner, Esq. -- awoerner@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. SINGER ENTERTAINMENT: Court Grants Motion to Stay Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------- Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Discovery in the case captioned, GOLDEN PALM INVESTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DANIEL AZOURI, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-336-KJD-VCF (D. Nev.). Marvin Lipschultz commenced the securities fraud action under state and federal law against Defendants. Private securities fraud actions were governed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, (PSLRA). The Act was passed to restrict perceived abuses in securities class-action litigation by testing the sufficiency of a plaintiff's complaint before discovery begins. The defendants include Azouri, Singer Joseph and Singer Entertainment Group LLC. On March 27, 2015, Defendant Azouri moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' action. Under the PSLRA this triggered an automatic discovery stay. On May 6, 2015, Defendant Azouri moved to enforce the automatic stay. Plaintiff did not assert that discovery should proceed; rather he filed a limited opposition, which reserved the right to seek a lift of the stay should circumstances change. Magistrate Judge Kam Ferenbach of the United States District Court for District of Nevada in the Order dated June 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/qQiQu1from Leagle.com, granted Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery because the PSLRA mandated a stay under these circumstances, and the parties did not dispute that a stay should be entered. All discovery was stayed pending resolution of Defendants' motions to dismiss. If Defendants' motions to dismiss are denied, discovery automatically recommences on the date Defendants' motions to dismiss are denied. Plaintiffs are respresented by Kimberly P. Stein, Esq. -- KStein@howardandhoward.com -- Robert W. Hernquist, Esq. -- RHernquist@howardandhoward.com -- HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC Defendants are represented by Kurt R. Bonds, Esq., at ALVERSON TAYLOR MORTENSEN, ET AL., Severin A. Carlson, Esq. -- scarlson@kcnvlaw.com -- KAEMPFER CROWELL & Shawn A. Mangano, Esq. -- shawn@manganolaw.com -- SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD. SOVRAN SELF: Faces Class Action in New Jersey Superior Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Sovran Self Storage, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company intends to vigorously defend the class action filed against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division Burlington County. On or about August 25, 2014, a putative class action was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division Burlington County. The action seeks to obtain declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for a class of consumers based upon alleged violations by the Company of the New Jersey Truth in Customer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Insurance Producer Licensing Act. On October 17, 2014, the action was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division Burlington County to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Company intends to vigorously defend the action, and the possibility of any adverse outcome cannot be determined at this time. STARJEM RESTAURANT: Faces "Briones" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Wellington Briones and Luis Julian Rayon, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Starjem Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Fresco by Scotto, Marion Scotto and Anthony Scotto, Case No. 1:15-cv-04646 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for the hours work over 40 per week. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 34 East 52nd Street, New York, NY 10022. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com STEWART INFORMATION: Trial on Non-Settling Plaintiff Claims Held ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stewart Information Services Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a trial of the claims of the remaining non-settling plaintiffs was scheduled to start on May 11, 2015. In January 2009, an action was filed by individuals against Stewart Title Guaranty Company (Guaranty), Stewart Title of California, Inc., Cuesta Title Company and others in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Luis Obispo alleging that the plaintiffs had suffered damages relating to loans they made through Hurst Financial Corporation to an individual named Kelly Gearhart and entities controlled by Gearhart. Thereafter, several other lawsuits making similar allegations, including a lawsuit filed by several hundred individuals, were filed in San Luis Obispo Superior Court, and one such lawsuit was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, which was dismissed and then refiled in San Luis Obispo Superior Court. The defendants vary from case to case, but Stewart Information Services Corporation, Stewart Title Company and Stewart Title Insurance Company were also each sued in at least one of the cases. Following several years of discovery and other pretrial proceedings, the Court conducted a bellwether jury trial of the claims of eight of the plaintiffs, four selected by plaintiffs and four selected by defendants, starting on August 5, 2013. The eight plaintiffs in the bellwether jury trial each asserted claims against Cuesta Title Company, Stewart Title of California, and Guaranty. One plaintiff in the bellwether jury trial also asserted claims against Stewart Title Company; the Court granted Stewart Title Company's motion for directed verdict after the close of plaintiffs' case. On October 8, 2013, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Cuesta Title Company, Stewart Title of California, and Guaranty on every one of every plaintiff's claims against them. On January 30, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for new trial. On February 28, 2014, plaintiffs filed their notices of appeal from the verdict in the bellwether jury trial. Rather than incur additional time and expenses associated with these actions, the Company announced on June 11, 2014, the settlement with approximately 500 plaintiffs representing more than 90 percent of the total number of plaintiffs, pursuant to which it agreed to pay $10.53 million. The settlement agreement involved no admission of liability or violation of law by the defendants and bars the plaintiffs from pursuing further associated claims against the defendants. A small number of plaintiffs have not settled. A trial of the claims of two non-settling plaintiffs started on January 5, 2015. On April 17, 2015, the Court issued its Statement of Decision in favor of all defendants on the claims of both plaintiffs. A trial of the claims of the remaining non-settling plaintiffs was scheduled to start on May 11, 2015. Although the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these actions with the remaining plaintiffs, it will vigorously defend itself and does not believe that the ultimate outcome relating to the remaining plaintiffs will be material to its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. SUB TENDER: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rafael Lopez, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. Sub Tender, Inc., d/b/a Submarine Tender, Gregory Liveris, and John Liveris, Case No. 1:15-cv-05286 (N.D. Ill., June 16, 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 Submarine Tender restaurant in Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com TENET HEALTHCARE: Payment for Undisputed Claims in August 2015 -------------------------------------------------------------- Tenet Healthcare Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the payment for all undisputed individual damages claims is expected to be made in August 2015. The Company said, "in October 2014, we received court approval of a final agreement to settle a previously disclosed class action lawsuit captioned Doe, et al. v. Jo Ellen Smith Medical Foundation, which was filed in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in Louisiana in March 1997. The plaintiffs pursued a claim for tortious invasion of privacy due to the fact that in April 1996 patient identifying records from a psychiatric hospital we closed in 1995 were temporarily placed in an unsecure location while the hospital was undergoing renovations. The court certified a class of over 5,000 persons; however, only eight individuals (in addition to the two plaintiffs) were identified in the class certification process. The plaintiffs have asserted each member of the class is entitled to common damages under a theory of presumed "common damage" regardless of whether or not any members of the class were actually harmed or even aware of the incident. In an effort to avoid protracted litigation, the parties settled this matter in June 2014 for a maximum potential payment of $32.5 million, subject to the number and type of claims asserted by the class members. We made an initial deposit of $5.5 million into an escrow account in late November 2014. The payment for all attorneys' fees and costs and undisputed common damages claims is expected to be made in the near term. The payment for all undisputed individual damages claims is expected to be made in August 2015. Based on low class participation as of March 31, 2015 (the end of the claims period), management reduced the reserve previously established for this matter from $11.5 million at December 31, 2014 to $8.0 million, recorded in discontinued operations, to reflect our current estimate of probable liability." TOWN OF ROCKPORT: Sued Over Breach of Quiet Enjoyment ----------------------------------------------------- Stephen G. Sheehan, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Town of Rockport, Case No. ESCV2015-00997 (Mass. Super. Ct., June 15, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendant's breach of the covenant quiet enjoyment. Town of Rockport is a town organized under the laws of the Commonwealth, and has a principal place of business located at Town Office Building, 34 Broadway, Rockport, Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: William H. Sheehan III, Esq Thomas J. Flannagan, Esq. MACLEAN HOLLOWAY DOHERTY ARDIFF & MORSE, P.C. 8 Essex Center Drive Peabody, MA 01960 Telephone: (978) 774-7123 E-mail: wsheehan@mhdpc.com tflannagan@mhdpc.com US INSTALLATION: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vulfrano Perez and James Mercado, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. U.S. Installation Group, Inc. and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Does 1 Through 100, inclusive, Case No. RG15774021 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. U.S. Installation Group, Inc. is in the business of selling and installing carpet and other flooring material at the retail level. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is a retailer of home improvement and construction products and services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Arns, Esq. Jonathan E. Davis, Esq. Kevin M. Osborne, Esq. THE ARNS LAW FIRM 515 Folsom St., 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94109 Telephone: (415) 495-7800 Facsimile: (415) 495-7888 E-mail: rsa@arnslaw.com jed@arnslaw.com kmo@arnslaw.com UNO RESTAURANTS: Removed "Whittington" Suit to C.D. Maryland ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit entitled Tiera Whittington, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Uno Restaurants, LLC, Case No. 13-C-15-103016 OC, was removed from the Circuit Court of Maryland for Howard County to the U.S. District Court District of Maryland (Baltimore). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01759-ELH to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradford W. Warbasse, Esq. BRADFORD WARBASSE ATTORNEY AT LAW 401 Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 337-5411 Facsimile: (410) 938-8668 E-mail: warbasselaw@gmail.com - and - Howard Benjamin Hoffman, Esq. HOWARD B HOFFMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW 600 Jefferson Plz Ste 304 Rockville, MD 20852 Telephone: (301) 251-3752 Facsimile: (301) 251-3753 E-mail: HHoffman@hoholaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher T. Vrountas, Esq. VROUNTAS AYER AND CHANDLER PC 250 Commericial Street Ste 4004 Manchester, NH 03101 Telephone: (603) 782-8444 Facsimile: (603) 518-7617 E-mail: cvrountas@vaclegal.com - and - Edward J. Gilliss, Esq. James Lindsay Shea Jr., Esq. ROYSTON MUELLER MCLEAN AND REID LLP The Royston Building, Suite 600 102 W Pennsylvania Avenue Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 823-1800 Facsimile: (410) 828-7859 E-mail: egilliss@rmmr.com jshea@rmmr.com VAN RU CREDIT: Faces "Ehrnfeld" Suit Over FDCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Pearl Ehrnfeld, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Van Ru Credit Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv- 03457 (E.D.N.Y., June 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com VARANDA'S CAFETERIA: "Lorenzo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Marilin Lorenzo and Marisol Lorenzo and other similarly situated individuals v. Varanda's Cafeteria, Inc. d/b/a Varanda's Rrasil Cafe and Paula Yousef, Case No. 2015-013284-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., June 12, 2015), seeks to recover to recover unpaid overtime compensation, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Miami Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com VERIZON NEW YORK: Court Remands Proceedings to Kingsley County -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs moved to remand in the case captioned, MENDEL WEIDER, YOSSI LEVITIN, BOWLING GREEN ASSOCIATES, L.P., 111 JOHN REALTY CORP., GEM NET INC., and MADISON TITLE AGENCY, LLP, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VERIZON NEW YORK INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-CV- 7378(FB)(JO)(E.D.N.Y.). On November 18, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Defendant Verizon New York Inc. in New York Supreme Court, Kings County. Plaintiffs Verizon residential and business subscribers alleged that Verizon unlawfully assessed a Municipal Construction Surcharge (the Surcharge) on its New York State accounts in violation of an order of the New York Public Service Commission (the PSC Order). Plaintiffs further maintained that Verizon misled them into thinking that the Surcharge was a government-mandated tax so that they would not challenge its imposition. Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a putative class asserted nine claims under New York law, including: (1) deceptive acts and practices under New York General Business Law Sec. 349; (2) false advertising under New York General Business Law Sec. 350; (3) fraud and deceit; (4) negligent misrepresentation; (5) breach of warranty; (6) breach of contract; (7) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (8) promissory estoppel; and (9) unjust enrichment and imposition of a constructive trust. On December 18, 2014, Verizon removed this suit to the Court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)(2)(A). Plaintiffs moved to remand. Plaintiffs contended that Verizon failed to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction under CAFA. In the alternative, Plaintiffs maintained that remand was warranted under either CAFA's mandatory local controversy and home state exceptions, see 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)(4)(A) and (d)(4)(B), or CAFA's discretionary interests of justice exception. Senior District Judge Frederick Block, in the Memorandum and Order dated June 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/wGKP3sfrom Leagle.com, granted Plaintiffs' motion and the case was remanded to New York Supreme Court, Kings County finding that discretionary remand was warranted under Sec. 1332(d)(3). Plaintiff is represented by Joseph H. Weiss, Esq. -- jweiss@weisslawllp.com -- Mark D. Smilow, Esq. -- msmilow@weisslawllp.com -- WEISSLAW LLP Defendants are represented by Philip R. Sellinger, Esq. -- sellingerp@gtlaw.com -- Rebecca Garibotto, Esq. -- garbottor@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Heard on Motion to Dismiss ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit on March 6, 2015 and took the motion under advisement. On May 28, 2014, a purported shareholder class action Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Plan & Trust v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors as defendants. The lawsuit alleged that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the Company's disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012 through May 29, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The purported class consists of all persons (excluding defendants) who purchased the Company's common stock between May 7, 2012 and May 29, 2012. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees as well as disgorgement of the proceeds from certain individual defendants' sales of the Company's stock. On October 8, 2014, the Court approved Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff, and Scott and Scott LLP as lead counsel for the plaintiff and the putative class. On February 23, 2015, the Company filed a reply to the plaintiffs' opposition to its motion to dismiss. The court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss on March 6, 2015 and took the motion under advisement. The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. As of March 31, 2015, the Company has not recorded any reserves for this purported class action. VIRGINIA: Court Denies Inmate's Motion for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Glen E. Conrad of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case captioned, KRISTOPHER GUPTON, Plaintiff, v. B. WRIGHT, ET AL., Defendant(s), Case No. 7:15CV00214 (W.D. Va.). Christopher Gupton, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and submitted a motion for class certification stating his intention to vindicate the religious rights of a group of inmates incarcerated with him. Judge Conrad, in the Order dated May 22, 2015 available at http://is.gd/to9BbJfrom Leagle.com, directed the Clerk of Court to send copy of his order to Plaintiff denying motion for class certification. It is plain error to permit imprisoned litigant who was unassisted by a counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action, the Court said. VISTA TOWER: Sued Over Failure to Pay Equipment Rental Balance -------------------------------------------------------------- Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Vista Tower Condominium, The Board of Managers of Vista Tower Condominium, Sinclair C. Haberman and Brook A. Haberman, Case No. 602552/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 12, 2015), arises from the Defendants' breach of the Rental Agreement, specifically by failure to pay the remaining balance of $104,399.85 due and owing to Sunbelt from Vista and the Board for the equipment it rented, and supplies and services it received. Vista Tower Condominium is a residential condominium development located at 143-51 Roosevelt Avenue, Flushing, New York. The Board of Managers of Vista Tower Condominium manages and operates the Vista on behalf of its residential condominium unit owners. The Plaintiff is represented by: Parshhueram T. Misir, Esq. FORCHELLI, CURTO, DEEGAN, SCHWARTZ, MINEO & TERRANA, LLP Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Ste. 1010 Uniondale, NY 11553 Telephone: (516) 248-1700 E-mail: pmisir@forchellil.com WENTWORTH PAOLI: Jury Judgment in Ex-Employee's Case Upheld ----------------------------------------------------------- Justice Raymond J. Ikola of the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, affirmed judgment of jury in the case captioned, CLARICE J. LETIZIA, Cross-complainant and Appellant, v. WENTWORTH, PAOLI, & PURDY, LLP, Cross-defendant and Respondent, Case No. G049384 (Cal. App. Ct.). Around January 2008, WPP hired Letizia as a salaried associate attorney. There was no written contract . At a meeting on October 12, 2011, two WPP partners, Court Purdy and Theodore Wentworth, told Letizia they "were going to have to let her go, effective that day. Letizia filed a complaint with the labor commission alleging WPP failed to pay her wages. For reasons not explained in the record, according to Letizia, the Labor Board claim was never adjudicated. In July 2012, WPP filed a declaratory relief action against Letizia, seeking a judicial determination of the value of WPP's services in the cases Letizia took from the firm. A jury found in favor of cross-defendant WPP and against cross-complainant Letizia on her first and second causes of action for nonpayment of wages and for a waiting time penalty, respectively. The jury awarded Letizia $1,165 on her third cause of action for unreimbursed travel expenses. Letizia timely appealed. In her appeal, Appellant contended that the special verdict form was fatally defective, the jury did not properly deliberate on the special verdict form's third question, and the court abused its discretion by denying two of her motions in limine. Judge Ikola, in the Order dated May 22, 2015 available at http://is.gd/LRl2xXfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the judgment of the jury finding that there was no prejudicial error. The Court further ordered that WPP should recover its cost on appeal. Appellant is represented by: Jon B. Miller, Esq. Scott A. Johnson, Esq. MILLER JOHNSON LAW 100 W Michigan Ave #200 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Tel: (269)226-2950 Defendant is represented by: William M. Delli Paoli, Esq. PAOLI & PURDY 18851 Bardeen Ave Irvine, CA 92612 Tel: (949)752-7711 WEST MARINE: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held in May ---------------------------------------------------------- West Marine, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that the District Court granted the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, with the hearing for final approval scheduled for May 21, 2015. On October 23, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by two California former hourly employees. The complaint sought unspecified damages for alleged violations of the California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as civil penalties and attorney's fees under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. The complaint alleged that the Company miscalculated and failed to pay overtime for employees off-the-clock work and certain selling incentive bonuses (or "spiffs"), issued inaccurate wage statements, failed to provide adequate rest and meal periods and other labor-related complaints. In January 2015, the Company entered into a settlement and release agreement for all remaining class and individual claims, without admission of any wrongdoing, and the District Court granted the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, with the hearing for final approval currently scheduled for May 21, 2015. The Company recorded a charge of approximately $0.4 million in 2014 for the estimated payments, including attorneys' fees, costs and administrative expenses, in connection with this settlement liability. Such amount had no material impact on the Company's financial statements. WEST MARINE: To Defend Class Action in Calif. Superior Court ------------------------------------------------------------ West Marine, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that on October 8, 2014, a putative class action was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, by a California former hourly employee claiming violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and attorney's fees, alleging the Company's failure to pay overtime to hourly store employees who earned bonus wages or commissions during pay periods in which they worked overtime, and the derivative claims of failure to provide accurate wage statements and all wages owed upon termination of employment. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously and the outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Ct. Directed to Vacate "Greenberg" Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- David and Gloria Greenberg asserted products liability claims against real party in interest Hennessy Industries, Inc., alleging that a brake lining arcing machine manufactured by its predecessor in interest released asbestos dust that caused David Greenberg's mesothelioma. The trial court granted summary judgment in Hennessy's favor on petitioners' claims, concluding that Hennessy was not liable for injury caused by asbestos dust from brake linings its predecessor in interest neither manufactured nor distributed. The Petitioners seek a writ directing the trial court to vacate the grant of summary judgment and to enter a new order denying Hennessy's motion for summary judgment or adjudication. The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four, in an opinion dated June 18, 2015, granted the petition for writ of mandate. The California Court of Appeals directed the respondent trial court to vacate its order granting Hennessy's motion for summary judgment, and enter a new order denying summary judgment and summary adjudication. The case is DAVID GREENBERG et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; HENNESSY INDUSTRIES, INC., Real Party in Interest, NO. B262432 (Cal. App.). A full- text copy of the Decision dated June 18, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/va4HSffrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: GRC Allowed to Present Fibro Claims at Trial ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY v. FIRST STATE INSURANCE CO., et al., CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-3509 (E.D. Pa.), Judge L. Felipe Restrepo of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued the following rulings: * The motion filed by defendant Travelers Casualty and Surety Company to preclude evidence at trial of any underlying asbestos- related claim for which GRC sues to recover insurance benefits is denied. At trial, Travelers may challenge GRC's proof with admissible, material evidence that presents a genuine dispute for the jury to resolve as to the reasonableness of the settlements and payments made in the underlying asbestos-related claims. Travelers' evidence and argument will be limited strictly to the question of whether those settlements and payments were reasonable "in view of the size of possible recovery and degree of probability of claimant's success against the insured." A full- text copy of Judge Restrepo's memorandum dated June 11, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/NRuN2Cfrom Leagle.com. * The legal question of estoppel and waiver presented by GRC's motion for an order declaring that Travelers' policies (1) "do not exclude GRC's liabilities relating to claims for exposure to its asbestos-containing products"; (2) "Travelers has waived any defenses to coverage for claims on the Queue"; and (3) "Travelers is required to pay its full limits plus interest," because GRC's insured damages far exceed the limits of liability of Travelers' policies, is reserved for decision until the close of the evidence at the trial scheduled to begin July 13, 2015, upon GRC's motion under Rule 50(a) for judgment as a matter of law. A full-text copy of Judge Restrepo's memorandum dated June 11, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/0DBGpafrom Leagle.com. * GRC moves for an order precluding Travelers from arguing at trial that GRC must establish actual payment of the underlying asbestos-related claims asserted against GRC, which actual payment exhausts the specified limits of liability of the insurance policies directly underlying Travelers' policies, before Travelers must begin to pay insurance proceeds under its policies to GRC. Travelers does not oppose a ruling. Judge Restrepo's memorandum dated June 11, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/b1INg9from Leagle.com. A full-text copy of the Order accompanying the June 11 memoranda is available at http://is.gd/8sqEdhfrom Leagle.com. GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY, Plaintiff, Counter Defendant, represented by MARK E. GOTTLIEB, OFFIT KURMAN PA, MEGHAN K. FINNERTY, OFFIT KURMAN PA, MICHAEL CONLEY, OFFIT KURMAN PA & WILLIAM H. PILLSBURY, OFFIT KURMAN PA. CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by KAREN H. MORIARTY, COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP & KEVIN E. WOLFF, COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL INS. CO., Defendant, represented by AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL INS. CO.. ST. PAUL TRAVELERS, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by SAMUEL J. ARENA, JR., STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG, DANIEL T. FITCH, STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG LLP & WILLIAM T. MANDIA, STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in Md. PI Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Mohamed R. Dashtizadeh has brought an action against Honeywell International, Inc., as successor to Bendix Corporation, and Earl's Discount Auto Parts, Inc. The Plaintiff originally asserted a variety of claims against the defendants. The only claims that he is now pursuing are those for strict liability and negligence. Discovery has been completed, and the defendants have moved for summary judgment. In a memorandum dated June 12, 2015, Judge J. Frederick Motz of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted the motions for summary judgment, holding that: (1) To the extent that the brakes to which the plaintiff was exposed manufactured by Bendix and sold by Earl's contained asbestos. The brakes did not give rise to any viable claim because they contained a warning about the dangers of asbestos that fully complied with the applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements. (2) The plaintiff cannot establish, by direct or circumstantial evidence, that brakes manufactured by Bendix and sold by Earl's constituted "a substantial factor" to his asbestosis. It is undisputed that by the time that the plaintiff was exposed to any such brakes Bendix manufactured brakes, some of which contained asbestos and some of which did not. The Plaintiff has presented absolutely no evidence that the brakes manufactured by Bendix and sold by Earl's contains asbestos. The case is MOHAMED R. DASHTIZADEH v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL., CIVIL NO. JFM-14-553 (D. Md.). A full-text copy of Judge Motz's Decision is available at http://is.gd/yUPfccfrom Leagle.com. Mohamed R. Dashtizadeh, Plaintiff, represented by Edward Patrick Monaghan, Law Offices of Peter G Angelos, Fredrick Hugh Durst, Law Offices of Peter G Angelos & Patrick Alexander Ciociola, Law Offices of Peter Angelos. Honeywell International Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Alicia N Ritchie, Esq. -- aritchie@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles and Stockbridge PC, Bruce T Bishop, Esq. -- bbishop@wilsav.com -- Wilcox and Savage PC, Jack Roy Reiter, Esq. -- jack.reiter@gray-robinson.com -- Gray Robinson, P.A., Jonathan James Huber, Esq. -- jhuber@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles & Stockbridge P.C., Matthew Thomas Wagman, Esq. -- mwagman@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles and Stockbridge PC & Michael Alan Brown, Esq. -- mbrown@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles and Stockbridge PC. Earl's Auto Parts, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher C Jeffries, Esq. Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLC. Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Pamela Thomas Broache, Esq. -- pbroache@smsm.com -- Segal McCambridge Singer and Mahoney & Jeannie Pittillo Kauffman, Esq., Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney. Union Carbide Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Danielle Grilli Marcus, Esq. -- dmarcus@wtplaw.com -- Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP & Thurman W Zollicoffer, Jr, Esq. -- tzollicoffer@wtplaw.com -- Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Appeals Ct. Flips "Casey" Summary Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Casey, Catherine Grabinksi and Jessica Casey appeal from the entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendant Dynalectric Company on the plaintiffs' negligence claims. The Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that John Casey, decedent, was injured and later died as a result of his injuries, after negligent conduct by the defendant's employees caused Casey to be exposed to asbestos-containing dust. The trial court found that the defendant did not owe Casey a duty of care with respect to his injury because the undisputed facts established that the defendant did not know and should not have known that the materials to which it exposed Casey contained asbestos. The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Three, in an opinion dated June 17, 2015, concluded, however, that the "General Industry Safety Orders" promulgated by the California Department of Industrial Relations imposed a duty on defendant to exercise reasonable care with respect to the exposure of decedent to significant levels of industrial dust, irrespective of whether defendant knew or should have known the dust contained asbestos. Accordingly, the California Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Favors Insurers in THAN Audit Right Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In 2009, AIU Insurance Company and other insurance companies (collectively "AIG") entered into a settlement agreement with T H Agriculture & Nutrition, L.L.C., and Philips Electronics North America Corporation to resolve then-pending insurance coverage litigation. Because the insurance companies' settlement payments would be based on future disbursements by T H Agriculture & Nutrition L.L.C. Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, the insurance companies negotiated for a prospective right to audit those payments and distributions. A current litigation is focused on the parties' differing interpretations of the nature of the insurance companies' audit right. The insurance companies believe that THAN and PENAC have violated their rights by barring an audit unless they consent to certain limitations. THAN and PENAC argue that because the insurance companies' audit right is limited, it has not been impaired. Both sides have moved for summary judgment regarding the extent of the insurance companies' audit rights. Related breach of contract and tortious interference counts are also subject to various motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment. In a memorandum opinion dated June 4, 2015, the Court of Chancery of Delaware ruled that AIG is entitled to declaratory judgment on the scope of its audit right. AIG, according to the Court, may audit the payments and distributions of the Trust at its own expense, no more than once per year. While the Settlement Agreement restricts AIG's use of information obtained through an audit, the agreement does not limit the proper purposes for its investigation. The case is AIU INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, BIRMINGHAM FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA, GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, and NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, Plaintiffs, v. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, T H AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION L.L.C., and THE T H AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION L.L.C. ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST, Defendants, C.A. NO. 9852-VCN (Del. Ch.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/n0nW3rfrom Leagle.com. Marc S. Casarino Esquire -- casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com -- of White and Williams LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, and John S. Favate Esquire, and Henry T. M. LeFevre-Snee, Esquire of Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto P.A., Springfield, New Jersey, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. David J. Baldwin, Esquire -- dbaldwin@potteranderson.com -- Jennifer C. Wasson, Esquire -- jwasson@potteranderson.com -- and Andrew H. Sauder Esquire -- asauder@potteranderson.com -- of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, and Kenneth H. Frenchman, Esquire -- kfrenchman@kasowitz.com -- and Alana S. Klein Esquire -- asklein@kasowitz.com -- of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendants Philips Electronics North America Corporation and T H Agriculture & Nutrition L.L.C. Daniel K. Hogan Esquire, and Garvan F. McDaniel Esquire, of The Hogan Firm, Wilmington, Delaware, and Sander L. Esserman, Esquire -- esserman@sbep-law.com -- Steven A. Felsenthal, Esquire -- felsenthal@sbep-law.com -- and David A. Klingler Esquire -- klingler@sbep-law.com -- of Stutzman, Bromberg, Esserman & Plifka, A Professional Corporation, Dallas, Texas, Attorneys for Defendant The T H Agriculture & Nutrition, L.L.C. Asbestos Personal Injury Trust. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Libby School Worker's Claim Barred ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge David M. Sandler of the Workers' Compensation Court of Montana, in a June 10, 2015, order granted Montana Schools Group Insurance Authority's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Phillip Spencer, who worked for the Libby School District, did not file his asbestos-related occupational disease claim within one year, as required by Section 39-71-601(3), MCA, and that he did not file his Petition for Hearing within two years of the day MSGIA denied liability for his occupational disease claim, even taking into account the time the statute of limitations was tolled, as required by Section 39-71-2905(2), MCA. The case is PHILLIP SPENCER, Petitioner, v. MONTANA SCHOOLS GROUP INS. AUTHORITY, Respondent/Insurer, WCC NO. 2014-3490 (MTWCC). A full-text copy of Judge Sandler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/sysxgvfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- Graham Corporation continues to defend itself against lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in its products, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015. The Company states: "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in our products. We are a co-defendant with numerous other defendants in these lawsuits and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims. The claims are similar to previous asbestos lawsuits that named us as a defendant. Such previous lawsuits either were dismissed when it was shown that we had not supplied products to the plaintiffs' places of work or were settled by us for immaterial amounts. "As of March 31, 2015, we are subject to the claims, as well as other legal proceedings and potential claims that have arisen in the ordinary course of business. Although the outcome of the lawsuits to which we are a party cannot be determined and an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be made, we do not believe that the outcomes, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material effect on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows." Graham Corporation designs, manufactures and sells critical equipment for the energy, defense and chemical/petrochemical industries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Int'l. Continues to Defend Fibro Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Navistar International Corporation continues to defend itself against an increased number of asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2015. The Company states: "Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we have been subject to an increased number of asbestos-related claims in recent years. In general, these claims relate to illnesses alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure from component parts found in older vehicles, although some cases relate to the alleged presence of asbestos in our facilities. In these claims, we are generally not the sole defendant, and the claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of a wide variety of products allegedly containing asbestos. We have strongly disputed these claims, and it has been our policy to defend against them vigorously. Historically, the actual damages paid out to claimants have not been material in any year to our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. It is possible that the number of these claims will continue to grow, and that the costs for resolving asbestos related claims could become significant in the future." Navistar International Corporation (NIC) is a holding company, whose principal operating subsidiaries are Navistar, Inc. and Navistar Financial Corporation (NFC). The Company is a manufacturer of International brand commercial and military trucks, MaxxForce brand diesel engines, IC Bus (IC) brand school and commercial buses, as well as a provider of service parts for trucks and diesel engines. It also provides retail, wholesale, and lease financing of trucks and parts. The Company operates in four reporting segments, which comprises: North America Truck, North America Parts, Global Operations (collectively referred to as Manufacturing operations), and Financial Services. Its principal products and services include Trucks, Parts, Engines and Financial Services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joy Global Has 3,400 Product Liability Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- Joy Global Inc., is involved in 3,400 asbestos and silica-related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended May 1, 2015. The Company states: "We and our subsidiaries are involved in various unresolved legal matters that arise in the normal course of operations, the most prevalent of which relate to product liability (including approximately 3,400 asbestos and silica- related cases), employment and commercial matters. We and our subsidiaries also become involved from time to time in proceedings relating to environmental matters and litigation arising outside the ordinary course of business." Joy Global Inc., is a manufacturer and servicer of high productivity mining equipment for the extraction of coal and other minerals and ores. The Company manufactures and market original equipment and aftermarket parts and services for both underground and surface mining and certain industrial applications. The Company's equipment is used in major mining regions throughout the world to mine coal, copper, iron ore, oil sands, gold and other minerals. The Company operates in two business segments: Underground Mining Machinery and Surface Mining Equipment. The Company is a manufacturer of underground mining machinery for the extraction of coal and other bedded minerals and offer service locations near major mining regions worldwide. The Company is a major producer of surface mining equipment for the extraction of ores and minerals and provides extensive operational support for many types of equipment used in surface mining. ********* 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 * * *