/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150727.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 27, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 148 Headlines ACCOUNT CONTROL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ACORN STAIRLIFTS: Recalls 34,500 Motorized Stair Lifts ACTAVIS PLC: Anda and Forest to Defend TCPA Litigation ACTAVIS PLC: Dismissal of Testosterone Class Action Sought ACTAVIS PLC: Parties in Sales Representatives Suit in Discovery ACTAVIS PLC: Warner Chilcott Facing 200 Actonel(R) Cases ACTAVIS PLC: Update on Alendronate Product Liability Suits ACTAVIS PLC: Defendant in 90 Actions Related to Benicar(R) ACTAVIS PLC: 2 Trials This Year Over Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) ACTAVIS PLC: 180 Actions Pending v. Forest Over Birth Defects ACTAVIS PLC: Defending Metoclopramide Litigation ACTAVIS PLC: Defendants to File Bid to Dismiss Propoxyphene Suits ACTAVIS PLC: Discovery in Testosterone Litigation in Early Stages AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Ieyoub" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Traut Wells Suit Over Airline Ticket AMERICLEAN BUILDING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages AUSTRALIA: Councils Seek to Claw Back GST Charges AVON PRODUCTS: Recalls Nut Choppers Due to Injury Risk AVX CORPORATION: Class Action Appeal Still Pending BASF: Cahill Accused of Conspiring to Destroy Asbestos Evidence BEBE STORES: Settlement of Worker's Suit Has Preliminarily Okay BEBE STORES: Discovery Ongoing in Class Action by Stylists BEBE STORES: Discovery Ongoing in Class Action by Customer BEBE STORES: Discovery Ongoing in Class Action by Customer BEXCO ENTERPRISES: Recalls DaVinci Cribs Due to Laceration Risk BG GROUP: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages BROOKFIELD DTLA: MOU Reached in Preferred Stock Actions CAFEPRESS INC: Settlement in Shareholder Case Remains Pending CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Responds to Securities Class Suits CHINA COMMERCIAL: Yun Group Case Transferred to New York Court CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Sued Over Failure to Pay Cash to Cardholders CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS: Sued Over Non-itemized Wages Statements CITY NATIONAL: Stipulation of Settlement Reached in Merger Case CLUB AT NORTH HALTON: Sued Over Inverse Pyramid Scheme Program COOPER LIGHTING: Recalls Lighting Fixtures Due to Fire Hazard COST PLUS: Recalls Bistro Chairs Due to Fall Hazard COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Trash Cans Due to Laceration Risk COUPONS.COM INC: Faces "Nguyen" Stockholder Class Action CRUNCH LLC: Sued Over Unauthorized Electronic Fund Transfers CTPARTNERS EXECUTIVE: Faces Stockholder Class Action CUSTOMER ENGINEERING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages DARA BIOSCIENCES: Faces "Edwards" Suit Over Midatech Merger DEWAAY FINANCIAL: Iowa High Ct. Declines to Take Up Investor Suit DOLLAR TREE: Suit by Assistant Store Manager Still Pending DOLLAR TREE: 2012 Case by Assist. Store Manager in Discovery DOLLAR TREE: March 2016 Trial Date in 2013 Class Action DOLLAR TREE: Discovery Has Not Commenced in 2014 Class Action DOLLAR TREE: Suit by Familary Dollar Sharheolders Ongoing DOLLAR TREE: Distribution Center Employee Filed Class Action DOLLAR TREE: California Manager Filed Class Action DOUBLE INSIGHT: Recalls Pressure Cookers Due to Shock Risk EAGLE MATERIALS: Summary Judgment Filed in Wallboard Litigation EASTERN HEALTH: Sued Over Employees' Privacy Breach EEE ENTERPRISES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Compensation ELAVON PUERTO RICO: Sued for Not Accommodating Mental Disability ELECTRONIC ARTS: To Seek Further Review of Ruling in "Davis" Case ELECTRONIC ARTS: Court Dismissed Shareholder Lawsuit ETSY INC: Faces "Altayyar" Securities Class Action EZCORP INC: Filed Motion to Dismiss Class Action by Jason Close FREDERICK J HANNA: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims FTS INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Breedlove" Suit Says GLADSTONE INVESTMENT: Noble Logistics Faces Employment Suit GLATFELTER INC: Faces $5-Mil. Suit Over Paper Mill Emissions GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Faces "Berliner" Suit Over Chambers Merger GULF COAST: Faces "Duffau" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime HCSB FINANCIAL: Plaintiff in Class Action Lawsuit Files Appeal HCSB FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Snyder Class Suit Pending HELPING HANDS: Fails to Pay Aides' Travel Time, Suit Claims HESKA CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Alleged TCPA Violations HOMEFRONT DELI: Faces "San Andres" Suit Over FLSA Violation HONDA MOTOR: "Dang" Wrongful Death Suit Included in Airbag MDL HOOPER HOLMES: Magistrate Judge Decision Pending INSITE VISION: Faces "McKinley" Suit Over Proposed QLT Merger JPMORGAN CHASE: Accused of Age Discrimination in N.D. Texas JP MORGAN: $388-Mil. MBS Settlement One of Largest Recoveries KEMET CORPORATION: Capacitors Antitrust Litigation Ongoing KEMET CORPORATION: Defendants in Canadian Class Actions KEMET CORPORATION: NEC TOKIN Defendants in US and Canadian Actions KIA CANADA: Quebec Court of Appeal Certifies "Martel" Suit KKR FINANCIAL: Delaware Supreme Court Appeal Remains Pending KWICK RENTALS: Faces "Blankenship" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT KYTHERA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Proposed Allergan Merger LA CHIMENEA MEXICAN: "Lopez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations LAKE PETROLEUM: Sued in Illinois Over Misleading Fuel Pump Labels LIBERTY SILVER: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held MACQUARIE LEASING: IMF Bentham to Seek Special Leave to Appeal MACQUARIE LEASING: Class Action for Late Payment Fees On Hold MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Dranove" Suit Over Sequential Merger MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Moore" Suit Over Planned Sequential Merger MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Terrell" Suit Over Sequential Merger MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Nguyen" Suit Over Sequential Merger MASTRO'S RESTAURANTS: "Murata" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages MIDLAND CREDIT: Sued in New York Over FDCPA Violation MIZRAHI GRILL: "Salay-Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT MOTORS LIQUIDATION: 108 Class Actions Filed Against New GM MURPHY OIL: 5th Circ. Rejects NLRB's En Banc Hearing Request NATIONAL MILK: Limits Availability of Raw Farm Milk, Suit Says NINETEEN TWENTY: Faces "Cano" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime NORTH OLMSTED, OH: Sued Over Invasion of Class Members' Property NVIDIA CORP: Sept. 18 Hearing in Graphics Chip Litigation NVIDIA CORP: Filed Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari NY PORT AUTHORITY: Suit Over Bridge Traffic Junked NY RENAISSANCE: Faces "Romero" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime OLYMPUS AMERICA: Recalls VG 170 Digital Cameras Due to Shock Risk PARAMOUNT GOLD: Defending Class Actions Related to Merger PAUL TRAMANTANA: "Cruz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages PLASMATECH BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Schmidt Case Sought PROCTER & GAMBLE: Falsely Marketed Tissue Products, Suit Claims PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Reports $5.9MM Settlement Liability Reserve RELIANCE WORLDWIDE: Recalls TAFR Devices Due to Injury Risk REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Suit by Warren Police SHENGDATECH LIQUIDATING: Discovery Stayed in Securities Case SINCERE CARE: Faces "Kazansky" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SLF SERIES G: "Dorsten" Suit Removed to Florida District Court SOLAZYME INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Recalls Pedal Axle Extenders STERICYCLE INC: Settled "Sawyer" Clas Action SUNRISE GLOBAL: Recalls GreenWorks Blower/Vacs Due to Fire Risk SYMANTEC CORP: Agreement in Principle Reached in Class Suit TARGET CORP: Recalls Circo Night Lights Due to Fire Hazard TEAVANA CORP: Recalls Glass Pitchers Due to Burn Hazards TOTAL HOMECARE: Faces "Jim" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages TOWERS WATSON: Faces NJ Building Suit Over Proposed Willis Merger TOWERS WATSON: Faces "Stein" Suit Over Proposed Willis Merger TOWERS WATSON: Faces Atlanta Firefighters Suit Over Willis Merger TRANSUNION CORP: Must Face Suit Over Terrorist List, Judge Says UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Texts Not Considered as Telemarketing UNITED STATES: OPM Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Data U.S. BANK: Wins in Two Missouri Mortgage Fees Class Suit V & J NATIONAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages Under FLSA VECTREN UTILITY: SIGECO Claimants File Class Action VERTEX REFINING: Unit Named as Defendant in Class Action VIVINT SOLAR: Says Settlement Approval to Occur in Late 2015 VIVINT SOLAR: Filed Answer to Technicians' Class Action VIVINT SOLAR: Filed Motion to Dismiss 2 Class Actions VOLTARI CORPORATION: Dismissal of Complaint Under Appeal VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Court Has Not Appointed Lead Plaintiff WEIGHT WATCHERS: Still Facing Securities Litigation WINDSOR CAFE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages WRIGHT MEDICAL: Second Restatement Bars Strict Liability Claims XOOM CORPORATION: Faces Booth Suit Over Proposed PayPal Merger YELP INC: Sued Over Failure to Distribute Delivery Drivers' Tips YIGAL-AZROUEL: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages ZZIM USA: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Sanchez" Suit Claims ********* ACCOUNT CONTROL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Nava Laniado, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Account Control Systems, Inc., Cypress Financial Recoveries, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:15-cv-03895-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., June 10, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS LAW LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 660-8169 E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com ACORN STAIRLIFTS: Recalls 34,500 Motorized Stair Lifts ------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Acorn Stairlifts Inc., of Orlando, Fla., announced a voluntary recall of about 34,500 Motorized stair lifts. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The stair lift's seat post can separate from the main seat support, posing a fall hazard. This recall involves Acorn brand motorized stair lifts with the model name Acorn Superglide 120. The stair lifts are mechanical chairs that are installed on residential staircases to transport people with reduced mobility up and down stairs. The following versions of the Acorn Superglide 120 are being recalled: Acorn 120 Stairlift, Acorn 120 Outdoor Stairlift, Acorn 120 Superglide Stairlift, Acorn Outdoor Stairlift, and Acorn Slimline Stairlift. The recalled stair lifts were manufactured between March 2007 and March 2011 and have serial numbers between 110101209781 and 110202352678. For all of the recalled stair lifts, the name "Acorn Superglide 120" and the serial numbers are located on a silver label on the stair lift's carriage body cover and on the underside of the steel footrest. Acorn received two reports of incidents of the seat post separating from the main seat support and resulted in deaths in the United Kingdom. There have been no reports of incidents or injuries in the United States. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/2ZsqkY The recalled products were manufactured in United Kingdom and sold at Acorn Stairlifts and Acorn Stairlifts' authorized dealers nationwide from March 2007 to December 2011 for about $3,400. Consumers should immediately contact Acorn for a free in-home repair. Until the stair lift is repaired, consumers should consider whether to continue using the stair lift based on their ability to safely use the stairs unaided. If a consumer is able to use the stairs safely, then he or she should not use the lift until it is repaired. ACTAVIS PLC: Anda and Forest to Defend TCPA Litigation ------------------------------------------------------ Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Anda Inc. and Forest Laboratories intend to defend the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation vigorously. A putative class action complaint against Anda, Inc. ("Anda"), a subsidiary of the Company, in Missouri state court alleging conversion and alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. An amended complaint alleges that by sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements, Anda misappropriated the class members' paper, toner, ink and employee time when they received the alleged unsolicited faxes, and that the alleged unsolicited facsimile advertisements were sent to the plaintiff in violation of the TCPA and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaint seeks to assert class action claims on behalf of the plaintiff and other similarly situated third parties. On May 19, 2011, the plaintiff's filed a motion seeking certification of a class of entities with Missouri telephone numbers who were sent Anda faxes for the period January 2004 through January 2008 but the court vacated the class certification hearing until the FCC Petition was addressed. On May 1, 2012, a separate action was filed in federal court in Florida, purportedly on behalf of the "end users of the fax numbers in the United States but outside Missouri to which faxes advertising pharmaceutical products for sale by Anda were sent." On July 10, 2012, Anda filed its answer and affirmative defenses. The parties filed a joint motion to stay the action pending the resolution of the FCC Petition which the court granted. In addition, in October 2012, Forest and certain of its affiliates were named as defendants, in a putative class action in federal court in Missouri. This suit alleges that Forest and another defendant violated the TCPA and was filed on behalf of a proposed class that includes all persons who, from four years prior to the filing of the action, were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of defendants, which did not display an opt-out notice compliant with a certain regulation promulgated by the FCC. On July 17, 2013, the district court granted Forest's motion to stay the action pending the administrative proceeding initiated by the pending FCC Petition and a separate petition Forest filed. In a related matter, in November 2010 Anda filed a petition with the FCC, asking the FCC to clarify the statutory basis for its regulation requiring "opt-out" language on faxes sent with express permission of the recipient (the "FCC Petition"). On May 2, 2012, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau of the FCC dismissed the FCC Petition. On May 14, 2012, Anda filed an application for review of the Bureau's dismissal by the full Commission, requesting the FCC to vacate the dismissal and grant the relief sought in the FCC Petition. The FCC did not rule on the application for review. On June 27, 2013, Forest filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling with the FCC requesting that the FCC find that (1) the faxes at issue in the action complied, or substantially complied with the FCC regulation, and thus did not violate it, or (2) the FCC regulation was not properly promulgated under the TCPA. On January 31, 2014, the FCC issued a Public Notice seeking comment on several other recently-filed petitions, all similar to the one Anda filed in 2010. On October 30, 2014, the FCC issued a final order on the FCC Petition granting Anda, Forest and several other petitioners a retroactive waiver of the opt-out notice requirement for all faxes sent with express consent. The litigation plaintiffs, who had filed comments on the January 2014 Public Notice, have appealed the final order to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Anda, Forest and other petitioners have moved to intervene in the appeal seeking review of that portion of the FCC final order addressing the statutory basis for the opt out/express consent portion of the regulation. Anda and Forest believe they have substantial meritorious defenses to the putative class actions brought under the TCPA, and intend to defend the actions vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ACTAVIS PLC: Dismissal of Testosterone Class Action Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Defendants have filed a joint motion to dismiss the Testosterone Replacement Therapy Class Action. On November 24, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class action complaint filed on behalf a class of third party payers in federal court in Illinois. The suit alleges that the Company and other named pharmaceutical defendants violated various laws including the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and state consumer protection laws in connection with the sale and marketing of certain testosterone replacement therapy pharmaceutical products ("TRT Products"), including the Company's Androderm(R) product. This matter was filed in the TRT Products Liability MDL, notwithstanding that it is not a product liability matter. Plaintiff alleges that it reimbursed third parties for dispensing TRT Products to beneficiaries of its insurance policies. Plaintiff seeks to obtain certain equitable relief, including injunctive relief and an order requiring restitution and/or disgorgement, and to recover damages and multiple damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims alleged and intends to vigorously defend the action. However, an adverse determination in the case could have an adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ACTAVIS PLC: Parties in Sales Representatives Suit in Discovery --------------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that parties in a class action brought by certain former company sales representatives and specialty sales representatives are beginning to work on discovery matters. In July 2012, Forest Laboratories and certain of its affiliates were named as defendants in an action brought by certain former company sales representatives and specialty sales representatives in the federal district court in New York. The action is a putative class and collective action, and alleges class claims under Title VII for gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions, as well as discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, and a collective action claim under the Equal Pay Act. The proposed Title VII gender class includes all current and former female sales representatives employed by the Company throughout the U.S. from 2008 to the date of judgment, and the proposed Title VII pregnancy sub-class includes all current and former female sales representatives who have been, are, or will become pregnant while employed by the Company throughout the U.S. from 2008 to the date of judgment. The proposed Equal Pay Act collective action class includes current, former, and future female sales representatives who were not compensated equally to similarly- situated male employees during the applicable liability period. The Second Amended Complaint also includes non-class claims on behalf of certain of the named Plaintiffs for sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII, and for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act. On August 14, 2014, the court issued a decision on the Company's motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part, striking the plaintiffs' proposed class definition and instead limiting the proposed class to a smaller set of potential class members and dismissing certain of the individual plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs had until May 15, 2015 to file a motion for conditional certification of the Equal Pay Act class. The litigation is still in its early stages and the parties are beginning to work on discovery matters. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this action. At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as a whole. ACTAVIS PLC: Warner Chilcott Facing 200 Actonel(R) Cases -------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Warner Chilcott is a defendant in approximately 200 cases and a potential defendant with respect to approximately 415 unfiled claims involving a total of approximately 627 plaintiffs and potential plaintiffs relating to Warner Chilcott's bisphosphonate prescription drug Actonel(R). The claimants allege, among other things, that Actonel(R) caused them to suffer osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ"), a rare but serious condition that involves severe loss or destruction of the jawbone, and/or atypical fractures of the femur ("AFF"). All of the cases have been filed in either federal or state courts in the United States. Warner Chilcott is in the initial stages of discovery in these litigations. In addition, Warner Chilcott is aware of four purported product liability class actions that were brought against Warner Chilcott in provincial courts in Canada alleging, among other things, that Actonel(R) caused the plaintiffs and the proposed class members who ingested Actonel(R) to suffer atypical fractures or other side effects. It is expected that these plaintiffs will seek class certification. Plaintiffs have typically asked for unspecified monetary and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees. Warner Chilcott is indemnified by Sanofi for certain Actonel claims pursuant to a collaboration agreement relating to the two parties' co-promotion of the product in the United States and other countries. In addition, Warner Chilcott is also partially indemnified by the Proctor & Gamble Company ("P&G") for ONJ claims that were pending at the time Warner Chilcott acquired P&G's global pharmaceutical business in October 2009. In May and September 2013, Warner Chilcott entered into two settlement agreements which will resolve a majority of the then-existing ONJ-related claims which are subject to the acceptance by the individual respective claimants. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and intends to defend these claims vigorously. Warner Chilcott maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ACTAVIS PLC: Update on Alendronate Product Liability Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited provided updates on product liability suits related to Alendronate in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. Beginning in 2010, approximately 130 product liability suits on behalf of approximately 175 plaintiffs have been filed against the Company and certain of its affiliates, including Cobalt Laboratories, as well as other manufacturers and distributors of alendronate for personal injuries including AFF and ONJ allegedly arising out of the use of alendronate. The actions are pending in various state and federal courts. Several of the cases were consolidated in an MDL proceeding in federal court in New Jersey. In 2012, the MDL court granted the Company's motion to dismiss all of the cases then pending against the Company in the New Jersey MDL. The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Any new cases against the Company filed in the MDL are subject to dismissal unless plaintiffs can establish that their claims should be exempted from the 2012 dismissal order. Other cases were consolidated in an MDL in federal court in New York, where the Company filed a similar motion to dismiss. The Court granted, in part, the motion to dismiss which has resulted in the dismissal of several other cases. The Company has also been served with nine cases that are part of a consolidated litigation in the California state court. In 2012, the California court partially granted a motion filed on behalf of all generic defendants seeking dismissal. Appeals in the California cases have been exhausted and the Company has not yet been able to determine how that will affect the cases filed against it. All cases pending in state courts in Kentucky and Missouri have been discontinued against the Company. The remaining active cases are part of a mass tort coordinated proceeding in New Jersey state court. In the New Jersey proceeding, the Court granted, in part, a motion to dismiss. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if our indemnification arrangements or insurance do not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ACTAVIS PLC: Defendant in 90 Actions Related to Benicar(R) ---------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is named in approximately ninety actions involving allegations that Benicar(R), a treatment for hypertension that Forest Laboratories co-promoted with Daiichi Sankyo between 2002 and 2008, caused certain gastrointestinal injuries. Under Forest's Co-Promotion Agreement, Daiichi Sankyo is defending the Company in these lawsuits. ACTAVIS PLC: 2 Trials This Year Over Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) --------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Forest Laboratories and its affiliates are defendants in approximately ten actions pending in various federal district courts involving allegations that Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) caused or contributed to individuals committing or attempting suicide, or caused a violent event. The Company was granted summary judgment in three cases, all of which are being appealed. Two other matters have been stayed pending a decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. At present, two trials are scheduled in 2015 with the possibility that additional cases could be set for trial in 2015 or 2016. ACTAVIS PLC: 180 Actions Pending v. Forest Over Birth Defects ------------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that approximately 180 actions are pending against Forest Laboratories and its affiliates involving allegations that Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) caused various birth defects. Several of the cases involve multiple minor-plaintiffs. The majority of these actions have been consolidated in state court in Missouri where one case is set for trial in November 2015. In addition, several matters are pending in federal district court in Missouri and three of those matters are set for trial in August 2016. Multiple additional actions were filed in New Jersey state court. None of the New Jersey cases are set for trial. There are birth defect cases pending in other jurisdictions but none currently are set for trial. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) cases and maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ACTAVIS PLC: Defending Metoclopramide Litigation ------------------------------------------------ Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is actively defending Metoclopramide Litigation. Beginning in 2009, a number of product liability suits were filed against certain Company affiliates, including legacy Actavis and Watson companies, as well as other manufacturers and distributors of metoclopramide, for personal injuries allegedly arising out of the use of metoclopramide. Approximately 1,500 cases remain pending against Actavis, Watson and/or its affiliates in state and federal courts, representing claims by multiple plaintiffs. Discovery in these cases is in the preliminary stages as the Company is actively moving to dismiss the suits and either initiating or defending appeals on such motions. The Company believes that, with respect to the majority of the cases against the legacy Watson companies, it will be defended in and indemnified by Pliva, Inc., an affiliate of Teva, from whom the Company purchased its metoclopramide product line in late 2008. With respect to the cases pending against the legacy Actavis companies, the Company is actively defending them. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if our indemnification arrangements or insurance do not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ACTAVIS PLC: Defendants to File Bid to Dismiss Propoxyphene Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the defendants in the Propoxyphene Litigation will file demurrers and motions to dismiss the remaining suits. Beginning in 2011, a number of product liability suits were filed against Watson and certain of its affiliates, as well as other manufacturers and distributors of propoxyphene, for personal injuries including adverse cardiovascular events or deaths allegedly arising out of the use of propoxyphene. Cases are pending against Watson and/or its affiliates in various state and federal courts, representing claims by approximately 1,400 plaintiffs. A number of the cases were consolidated in an MDL in federal district court in Kentucky. On June 22, 2012, the MDL court granted the generic defendants' joint motion to dismiss the remaining MDL cases. On June 27, 2014, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. Plaintiffs did not file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. In addition, approximately 35 cases were filed in California state court. These cases were removed to federal district courts and, after disputes over whether the cases should be remanded to state court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the removals to federal court were proper. Once the procedural matters are resolved, the defendants will file demurrers and motions to dismiss the remaining suits. In November 2014, one additional action was filed in Oklahoma state court. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ACTAVIS PLC: Discovery in Testosterone Litigation in Early Stages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that discovery is in the early stages in the Testosterone Litigation. Beginning in 2014, a number of product liability suits were filed against the Company and certain of its affiliates, as well as other manufacturers and distributors of testosterone products, for personal injuries including but not limited to cardiovascular events allegedly arising out of the use of Androderm(R) testosterone cypionate, AndroGel and/or testosterone enanthate. Actavis, Inc. and/or one or more of its subsidiaries have been served in approximately 130 currently pending actions, all of which are pending in federal court. These actions have been consolidated in an MDL in federal court in Illinois. The defendants have responded to the plaintiffs' master complaint. These cases are in the initial stages and discovery is in the early stages. The Company anticipates that additional suits will be filed. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Ieyoub" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard P. Ieyoub, Sr., both individually and on behalf of all v. Southwest Airlines Co., American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02300 (N.D. Tex., July 10, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets, specifically by constraining the seating capacity on flights within the United States, limiting the number of flights offered within the United States, and limiting the transparency of pricing information available to domestic airline ticket consumers regarding flights within the United States. The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mazin A. Sbaiti, Esq. STECKLER LLP 12720 Hillcrest Rd., Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 E-mail: Mazin@stecklerlaw.com - and - Arthur M. Murray, Esq. Stephen B. Murray Jr., Esq. Robin M. Primeau, Esq. MURRAY LAW FIRM 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150 New Orleans, LO 70130 Telephone: (504) 525-8100 Facsimile: (504) 584-5249 E-mail: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com rmyers@murray-lawfirm.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Traut Wells Suit Over Airline Ticket ------------------------------------------------------------- Steven M. Traut Wells, Inc. d/b/a/ Traut Wells, and Kent Busek, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Continental Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-0306 -DWF-LIB (D. Minn., July 10, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets, specifically by constraining the seating capacity on flights within the United States, limiting the number of flights offered within the United States, and limiting the transparency of pricing information available to domestic airline ticket consumers regarding flights within the United States. The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Michelle Looby, Esq. Joshua J. Rissman, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com mlobby@gustafsongluek.com jrissman@gustafsongluek.com AMERICLEAN BUILDING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Melba Moreira, Raul Moreira, Rafaela Leonor Ruiz, and all others similarly situated v. AmeriClean Building Maintenance, Inc. and James S. Johnson, Case No. 1:15-cv-22606-CMA (S.D. Fla., July 10, 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 janitorial service company that regularly transacts business within Palm Beach and Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM AUSTRALIA: Councils Seek to Claw Back GST Charges ------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Henson, writing for The Australian News, reported that about 50 councils from across Australia, mostly from NSW, are suing the government in the High Court of Australia in a bid to recoup all GST paid on council property since the tax was introduced 15 years ago. Tea Tree Gully Council estimates it would receive about AUD7.5 million, the amount it claims it had paid in GST, if the action was successful. A win could also pave the way for other SA councils to claw back hundreds of millions of dollars from the government for GST charges for items such as land, buildings, cars, trucks, graders and street sweepers. Tea Tree Gully councillors discussed the matter at their meeting and decided to commit to the class action, subject to a risk assessment. Audit Committee presiding member Brian Massey said the committee had already looked into the proposal and was confident there was little danger involved in suing the Federal Government. "We don't believe that it will pose a risk to the council because it's no win, no fee," Mr Massey said. Tea Tree Gully Mayor Kevin Knight told the Leader Messenger he understood the case could take 3-4 years to finalise and if the council received a refund, it would consider putting rate rises on hold in the future. "We would use it to reduce debt," Mr. Knight said. "It would be nice just to keep the status quo (in regards to rates), or at least minimal rises." Tea Tree Gully Council plans to increase its general rates by an average 3.7 per cent next -- financial year, which would result in the average rates bill increasing from AUD1,465 in 2014/15 to AUD1,519 in 2015/16. Adelaide City, Playford and Onkaparinga councils are also considering joining the lawsuit. These councils were approached directly by Sydney-based Genesis Accounting Chartered Accountants, who are leading the class action. Genesis Accounting Chartered Accountants basing their case on a 2011 Federal Court case involving Melton Shire Council in Victoria where the court declared the council was considered part of the state for the purposes of the GST. According to a report tabled at a Tea Tree Gully Council meeting, Genesis Accounting said s. 5 of the Goods and Services Tax Act 1999 outlines the GST cannot be imposed on property owned by the state. "In short, the basis of the class action will be that councils will claim that the Melton Shire Council case clearly provides a basis that our council is part of the state and that is unconstitutional to then impose (GST) on property," the report reads. The report also states Genesis Accounting have engaged lawyers to act on its behalf and there would be no cost to councils involved if the case was unsuccessful. If the lawsuit is successful, the firm would take 25 per cent of the revenue received from the claim as payment for its services. In a letter to the council, Genesis Accounting director Pat McCarthy said the firm was planning to lodge the case with the court after July 1. "Since GST started, councils have been paying GST on asset sales, including real estate, taxable fees and charges and some government grants," Mr McCarthy wrote. "In our project, councils have the opportunity to take the Melton decision to its next level (for example) to seek refunds of all GST paid on all sales and assets." A Local Government Association spokeswoman said the organisation had not been asked to assist councils with the matter and would not comment on individual council decisions. A spokeswoman for the ATO also declined to comment on the case or its potential implications. Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey refused to comment because the matter would soon be before the courts. AVON PRODUCTS: Recalls Nut Choppers Due to Injury Risk ------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Avon Products Inc., of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of about 27,000 Nut chopper (in addition, 5,100 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The tines of the grinding mechanism can break and these fragments can fall into the food being chopped, posing a risk of injury to consumers. This recall involves a nut chopper sold by Avon. The recalled nut chopper is 7 1/2 inches tall and has clear plastic upper and lower chambers connected by an orange plastic grinding mechanism. The grinding mechanism has metal tines and a metal crank arm with an orange plastic grip handle. The lower chamber has a removable orange base and markings that show it holds about 1 1/4 cup of materials. The upper chamber has orange plastic lid. The product identification number found on the outside of the Nut Chopper individual, corrugated box packaging was F3730731 and the brochure number was 978-044. Avon received seven reports of the chopper bending or breaking, including two instances in which the tine fragments were found in the food prepared by the consumer but not swallowed. There have been no reports of injury. Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at: http://is.gd/vPjcEG The recalled products were sold at Independent Avon sales representatives nationwide and online at Avon.com from June 2013 through December 2013 for between about $10 and $13. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled nut chopper and return it to Avon for a refund. AVX CORPORATION: Class Action Appeal Still Pending -------------------------------------------------- An appeal of one aspect of a class action lawsuit against AVX Corporation is still pending before the South Carolina Supreme Court, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015. On November 27, 2007, a suit was filed in South Carolina State Court by individuals as a class action with respect to property adjacent to the Company's Myrtle Beach, South Carolina factory claiming property values were negatively impacted by alleged migration of certain pollutants from the Company's property. The parties agreed to a $1.2 million settlement of the action, which was approved by the Court on December 15, 2014 and paid in January 2015. An appeal of one aspect of that class action is still pending before the South Carolina Supreme Court; if resolved against AVX, it may result in additional litigation. BASF: Cahill Accused of Conspiring to Destroy Asbestos Evidence --------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that after winning a high-profile appellate reversal last year, plaintiffs lawyers at Cohen, Placitella & Roth and Fox Rothschild have filed revamped allegations that Cahill Gordon & Reindel and BASF Catalysts conspired to destroy evidence in sprawling asbestos litigation. The plaintiffs lawyers, led by Christopher Placitella, lodged a 155-page amended complaint on July 16 in Newark, New Jersey, federal court, accusing Cahill and BASF of fraud. The filing marks the latest development in a proposed class action brought in 2011 by the relatives of people who allegedly died from exposure to asbestos-contaminated talc made by Engelhard Corp., which BASF acquired in 2006. As The American Lawyer detailed in a feature story last year, Cahill and BASF are accused of conspiring to destroy and conceal evidence relevant to separate litigation brought by alleged asbestos victims. The plaintiffs' fraud allegations against Cahill and BASF are sweeping, tracing back more than 25 years to a 1979 lawsuit over the death of a former Engelhard employee. After BASF, through lawyers at Cahill, settled that lawsuit in 1984, the plaintiffs allege that BASF began directing employees to discard documents that related to asbestos in the company's talc. "After first gathering up and concealing or destroying documents and evidence establishing BASF's talc contained asbestos, BASF and Cahill Gordon repeatedly lied to claimants and courts by denying BASF's talc contained asbestos and that there ever existed any proof to the contrary," the plaintiffs wrote in the July 16 amended complaint. "This class action is essentially one based upon fraud upon the court." U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler had initially dismissed the case in its entirety in 2012. Siding with Cahill's defense lawyers at Williams & Connolly, Judge Chesler found that the plaintiffs' fraud claims were barred by New Jersey's litigation privilege. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed that ruling last September, reviving the plaintiffs' case. In the appellate ruling, U.S. Circuit Judge Julio Fuentes wrote that the New Jersey litigation privilege "often immunizes lawyers and parties from recrimination based on their statements in judicial proceedings, but the privilege has never applied to shield systematic fraud directed at the integrity of the judicial process. Nor should it be." John Villa -- jvilla@wc.com -- of Williams & Connolly, who represents Cahill in the fraud case, declined to comment. Kirkland & Ellis' Eugene Assaf -- eugene.assaf@kirkland.com -- represents BASF. He wasn't immediately available to comment. BEBE STORES: Settlement of Worker's Suit Has Preliminarily Okay --------------------------------------------------------------- bebe stores, inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that a former employee filed a class action complaint against the Company on July 26, 2006, in San Mateo County Superior Court of California (Case No. CIV 456550). The complaint alleged violations of California wage and hour laws among other various claims and sought damages, penalties, declaratory and injunctive relief among other remedies. The parties have entered into a class action settlement agreement on behalf of California managerial employees consistent with amounts previously accrued. The Court granted preliminarily approval of the settlement in April 2015. BEBE STORES: Discovery Ongoing in Class Action by Stylists ---------------------------------------------------------- bebe stores, inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that a former employee filed a class action complaint on behalf of California stylists and sales employees against the Company on November 2, 2010 in San Bernardino County Superior Court in California (Case No. CIVRS1011823). The complaint alleged violations of California wage and hour laws among other various claims and sought damages, penalties, declaratory and injunctive relief among other remedies. The Company filed its answer and is vigorously defending the action. Discovery is ongoing. BEBE STORES: Discovery Ongoing in Class Action by Customer ---------------------------------------------------------- bebe stores, inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that a customer filed a class action complaint against the Company on January 16, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Civil Action No. 3:14-CV 00267 DMR). The complaint alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. Sections 227 et. seq.) arising from alleged unsolicited text messages and sought statutory damages and injunctive relief among other remedies. The Company filed its response and is vigorously defending the action. Discovery is ongoing. BEBE STORES: Discovery Ongoing in Class Action by Customer ---------------------------------------------------------- bebe stores, inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that a customer filed a class action complaint against the Company on April 29, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-01968). The Complaint alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. Sections 227 et. seq.) arising from alleged unsolicited text messages and sought statutory damages and injunctive relief among other relief. The Company filed its response and is vigorously defending the action. Discovery is ongoing. BEXCO ENTERPRISES: Recalls DaVinci Cribs Due to Laceration Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Bexco Enterprises Inc., of Montebello, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 11,660 DaVinci Cribs (in addition, 40 cribs were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. A metal bracket that connects the mattress support to the crib can break, creating an uneven sleeping surface or a gap. If this occurs, a baby can become entrapped in the crib, fall or suffer lacerations from the broken metal bracket. The recall includes DaVinci brand full-size cribs including the Reagan crib (model #M2801), the Emily crib, (model #M4791), the Jamie crib (model #M7301), and the Jenny Lind crib (model #M7391) manufactured from May 2012 through December 2012. The model number, serial number and manufacture date are printed on a label affixed to the bottom right hand side panel of the crib. Cribs included in the recall have serial numbers that begin with "N00," followed by one of the following numbers: Model Number and Name Serial Number (N00 + number below) --------------------- --------------------------------- M2801 Reagan 4959/ 5035/ 5109 M4791 Emily 4648/ 4669/ 4962 M7301 Jamie 4954/ 5029 M7391 Jenny Lind 4954/ 4620/ 4669/ 4758/ 4934/ 4994/ 5041/ 4648 The firm has received 10 reports of the mattress support brackets detaching. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at: http://is.gd/oEKztq The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Target and juvenile products stores nationwide and online at Amazon.com from May 2012 to December 2013 for between $150 and $250. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cribs and contact Bexco for a free replacement mattress support which includes replacement brackets. In the meantime, parents are urged to find an alternate, safe sleeping environment for the child, such as a bassinet, play yard or toddler bed depending on the child's age. BG GROUP: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages --------------------------------------------------------- Eli Daniels, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The BG Group, LLC, Case No. CACE15011891 (Fla. Cir. Ct., July 8, 2015), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The BG Group, LLC owns and operates a construction company with a principal place of business in Boca Raton, Palm Beach County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Camar R. Jones, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com BROOKFIELD DTLA: MOU Reached in Preferred Stock Actions ------------------------------------------------------- Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust Investor Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties in a class action lawsuit haveentered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") on March 30, 2015 memorializing the agreement to settle the Preferred Stock Actions. Following the announcement of the execution of the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of April 24, 2013, as amended (the "Merger Agreement"), seven putative class actions were filed against Brookfield Office Properties Inc. ("BPO"), Brookfield DTLA, Brookfield DTLA Holdings LLC, Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust Inc., Brookfield DTLA Fund Properties (collectively, the "Brookfield Parties"), MPG Office Trust, Inc., MPG Office, L.P., and the members of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors. Five of these lawsuits were filed on behalf of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s common stockholders: (i) two lawsuits, captioned Coyne v. MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. BC507342 (the "Coyne Action"), and Masih v. MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. BC507962 (the "Masih Action"), were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in Los Angeles County (the "California State Court") on April 29, 2013 and May 3, 2013, respectively; and (ii) three lawsuits, captioned Kim v. MPG Office Trust, Inc. et al., No. 24- C-13-002600 (the "Kim Action"), Perkins v. MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-002778 (the "Perkins Action") and Dell'Osso v. MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-003283 (the "Dell'Osso Action") were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland on May 1, 2013, May 8, 2013 and May 22, 2013, respectively (collectively, the "Common Stock Actions"). Two lawsuits, captioned Cohen v. MPG Office Trust, Inc. et al., No. 24-C-13-004097 (the "Cohen Action") and Donlan v. Weinstein, et al., No. 24-C-13-004293 (the "Donlan Action"), were filed on behalf of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s preferred stockholders in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland on June 20, 2013 and July 2, 2013, respectively (collectively, the "Preferred Stock Actions"). In each of the Common Stock Actions, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger by failing to maximize the value of MPG Office Trust, Inc. and ignoring or failing to protect against conflicts of interest, and that the relevant Brookfield Parties named as defendants aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The Kim Action further alleges that MPG Office, L.P. also aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty by MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors, and the Dell'Osso Action further alleges that MPG Office Trust, Inc. and MPG Office, L.P. aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty by MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors. On June 4, 2013, the Kim and Perkins plaintiffs filed identical, amended complaints in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. On June 5, 2013, the Masih plaintiffs also filed an amended complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California in Los Angeles County. The three amended complaints, as well as the Dell'Osso Action complaint, allege that the preliminary proxy statement filed by MPG Office Trust, Inc. with the SEC on May 21, 2013 is false and/or misleading because it fails to include certain details of the process leading up to the merger and fails to provide adequate information concerning MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s financial advisors. In each of the Preferred Stock Actions, which were brought on behalf of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s preferred stockholders, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that, by entering into the Merger Agreement and tender offer, MPG Office Trust, Inc. breached the Articles Supplementary, which governs the issuance of the MPG preferred shares, that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to a merger agreement that violated the preferred stockholders' contractual rights and that the relevant Brookfield Parties named as defendants aided and abetted those breaches of contract and fiduciary duty. On July 15, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Preferred Stock Actions filed a joint amended complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland that further alleged that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors failed to disclose material information regarding BPO's extension of the tender offer. The plaintiffs in the seven lawsuits sought an injunction against the merger, rescission or rescissory damages in the event the merger has been consummated, an award of fees and costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and other relief. On July 10, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, the Brookfield Parties and the other named defendants in the Common Stock Actions signed a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU"), regarding a proposed settlement of all claims asserted therein. The parties subsequently entered into a stipulation of settlement dated November 21, 2013 providing for the release of all asserted claims, additional disclosures by MPG concerning the merger made prior to the merger's approval, and the payment, by defendants, of an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount not to exceed $475,000. After a hearing on June 4, 2014, the California State Court granted plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement, and entered a Final Order and Judgment, awarding plaintiffs' counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $475,000, which was paid by MPG Office LLC on June 18, 2014. BPO is seeking reimbursement for the settlement payment from MPG's insurers. In the Preferred Stock Actions, at a hearing on July 24, 2013, the Maryland State Court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the tender offer. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on November 22, 2013 that added additional arguments in support of their allegations that the new preferred shares do not have the same rights as the MPG preferred shares. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on December 20, 2013, and briefing on the motion concluded on February 28, 2014. At a hearing on June 18, 2014, the Maryland State Court heard oral arguments on the defendants' motion to dismiss and reserved judgment on the decision. On October 21, 2014, the parties sent a joint letter to the Maryland State Court stating that since the June 18 meeting, the parties have commenced discussions towards a possible resolution of the lawsuit, requesting that the court temporarily refrain from deciding the pending motion to dismiss to facilitate the discussions, and stating that the parties will report to the court within 45 days of the October 21 letter regarding the status of their discussions. Counsel for the parties have reached an agreement to settle the Preferred Stock Actions on a class-wide basis and dismiss the case with prejudice in exchange for the payment of $2.25 per share of Series A preferred stock of accumulated and unpaid dividends to holders of record on a record date to be set after final approval of the settlement by the Maryland State Court, plus any attorneys' fees awarded by the Maryland State Court to the plaintiffs' counsel. The dividend will reduce the amount of accumulated and unpaid dividends on the Series A preferred stock, and the terms of the Series A preferred stock will otherwise remain unchanged. The agreement is subject to a number of conditions precedent, further documentation, and approval of the Maryland State Court, after notice to the class. The parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") on March 30, 2015 memorializing the agreement to settle the Preferred Stock Actions, which has been filed with the Maryland State Court. While the final outcome with respect to the Preferred Stock Actions cannot be predicted with certainty, in the opinion of management after consultation with external legal counsel, any liability that may arise from such contingencies would not have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or liquidity of Brookfield DTLA. CAFEPRESS INC: Settlement in Shareholder Case Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- CafePress Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Settlement in the Shareholder Litigation remains subject to court approval. The Company said, "On July 10, 2013, a complaint captioned Desmarais v. CafePress Inc., et al. CIV-522744 was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo naming the Company as defendants, along with certain of its directors, its chief executive officer, its chief financial officer and certain underwriters of our IPO." The lawsuit purports to be a class action on behalf of purchasers of shares issued in the IPO and generally alleges that the registration statement for the IPO contained materially false or misleading statements. The complaint purports to assert claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On July 14, 2013 a similar compliant making substantially identical allegations and captioned Jinnah v. CafePress Inc., et al. CIV-522976 was filed in the same court against the same defendants. On April 10, 2015, the Company entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Settlement"), reflecting the previously disclosed terms of the settlement of the class action securities lawsuits that were consolidated under the caption In re CafePress Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Master File No. CIV522744 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty.). The proposed Settlement calls for a payment of $8.0 million to the plaintiffs in resolution of all claims against the Company and its officers and directors. The Company will contribute $500,000 to the Settlement; the balance will be paid by the Company's directors and officers liability insurance. While the Company and the other defendants continue to deny each of the plaintiffs' claims and deny any liability, the Company agreed to the Settlement solely to resolve the disputes, to avoid the costs and risks of further litigation and to avoid further distractions to management. The Settlement remains subject to court approval. CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Responds to Securities Class Suits -------------------------------------------------------- Cellular Biomedicine Group Inc. a biomedicine firm engaged in the development of new treatments for degenerative and cancerous diseases, reminded its shareholders to read the Q&A posted in the Company's website regarding the class action law suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, its CEO and CFO. The lawsuit was filed by a shareholder who bought 100 shares of CBMG stock the day before an anonymous blogger, who professes to have had a short position in CBMG's stock, published a false and misleading article about the company. The Company states: "As often is the case, after the filing, eighteen (18) law firms sent out thirty-nine (39) advertisements in the last two months to recruit shareholders to serve as lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit. As of the June 22, 2015 deadline set by the Court, no other lawsuits had been filed, and only one other shareholder, who owned the stock for less than 2 weeks and sold the day the article was published, had come forward seeking to serve as lead plaintiff. We attribute the overall lack of response to the lawyers' notices to the positive support of the majority of our long-term shareholders. Dr. William (Wei) Cao, Chief Executive Officer of CBMG, commented: "We have received and reviewed the complaint. We believe this suit is without merit and filled with patently false information, and we will vigorously defend the Company and ourselves in the matter. We are delighted to report that our employees are remaining vigilantly focused on our fore running Knee Osteoarthritis program and diligently working on launching the cancer CAR-T clinical trials while absorbing the recently acquired vaccine program." About Cellular Biomedicine Group Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc. develops proprietary cell therapies for the treatment of certain degenerative diseases and cancers. Our developmental stem cell, progenitor cell, and immune cell projects are the result of research and development by scientists and doctors from China and the United States. Our flagship GMP facility, consisting of six independent cell production lines, is designed, certified and managed according to U.S. standards. To learn more about CBMG, please visit: www.cellbiomedgroup.com CHINA COMMERCIAL: Yun Group Case Transferred to New York Court -------------------------------------------------------------- China Commercial Credit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the class action filed by the Yun Group has been transferred to the Southern District of New York. On August 6, 2014, a purported shareholder Andrew Dennison filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court District of New Jersey (the "N.J. district court") relating to a July 25, 2014 press release about the Company's progress in recovering a significant portion of the $5.4 million the Company paid in the first quarter of 2014 on behalf of loan guarantee customers. The action is captioned Andrew Dennison v. China Commercial Credit, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:2014-cv-04956. The action alleges that the Company and its current and former officers and directors Huichun Qin, Long Yi, Jianming Yin, Jinggen Ling, Xiangdong Xiao, and John F. Levy violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting in prior public filings certain material facts about the risks associated with its loan guarantee business. On October 2, 2014, two purported shareholders Zhang Yun and Sanjiv Mehrotra (the "Yun Group") asserted substantially similar claims against the same defendants in a putative class action captioned Zhang Yun v. China Commercial Credit, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06136 (D. N.J.). Neither complaint states the amount of damages sought. On or about October 6, 2014, Dennison, the Yun Group and another purported shareholder, Jason Stark, filed motions to consolidate the cases, be appointed as lead plaintiff and to have their respective counsel appointed as lead counsel. On October 31, 2014, the N.J. district court entered an order consolidating the cases under the caption "In re China Commercial Credit Inc. Securities Litigation" and appointing the Yun Group as lead plaintiff and the Yun Group's counsel as lead counsel. On November 18, 2014, the Yun Group and the Company, which at that point was the only defendant served, entered into a stipulation to transfer of the case to the Southern District of New York. On December 18, 2014, Mr. Levy, who had by then been served, joined in the stipulation. On December 29, 2014, the N.J. district court entered an order transferring the action. The transfer was effected on January 22, 2015, and assigned docket number 1:15-cv- 00557-ALC (S.D.N.Y.). Under the schedule stipulated by the parties, the Yun Group was to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date that the transfer was effected, and the defendants' date to answer or move was within 60 days of that filing. The Company and Mr. Levy anticipated that they would file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Company believed that this lawsuit was without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. At the early stage of the proceedings, the Company was not able to estimate the probability of success or loss. Two purported shareholders Zhang Yun and SanjivMehrotra (the "Yun Group") filed on March 27, 2015, a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the "CACAC"). The CACAC adds three underwriters as defendants, Burnham Securities, Axiom Capital Management and ViewTrade Securities, Inc. The CACAC alleges that the Company engaged in a fraudulent scheme by engaging in undisclosed and improper lending practices and made misleading representations regarding its underwriting policies, the loan portfolio quality, the loan loss allowance, compliance with U.S. GAAP and its internal control systems. The defendants' date to answer or move was May 26, 2015, and the Company and Mr. Levy anticipated that they will file a motion to dismiss the CACAC. The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. At this early stage of the proceedings, the Company is not able to estimate the probability of success or loss. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Sued Over Failure to Pay Cash to Cardholders -------------------------------------------------------------- Betty Perez, on beha1fofhcrself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Does 1 through 500, inclusive, Case No. RG15777445 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 10, 2015), seeks to recover class and public-wide declaratory and permanent injunctive relief as a result of Defendant's failures to provide cash to gift cardholders wishing to redeem a gift card with a cash value less than $10. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. operates more than 1700 company-owned quick service restaurant 26 throughout the United States, with 325 restaurants in the State of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary D. Garcia, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GARY D. GARCIA 3333 Midway Drive, Suite 208 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 795-6580 Facsimile: (619) 795-6582 - and - Melvin B. Pearlston, Esq. Robert B. Hancock, Esq. PACIFIC JUSTICE CENTER 50 California Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco. CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 310-1940 Facsimile: (415) 354-3508 CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS: Sued Over Non-itemized Wages Statements ------------------------------------------------------------ Teresa Nieto, an individual, on behalf of the State of California, as a private attorney general v. CitiStaff Solutions Inc. and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2015-00797380 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in compliance with the California Labor Code. CitiStaff Solutions Inc. operates a staffing company located at 1111 W Town & Country Road, Suite 27, Orange, CA 92868. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric B. Kingsley, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Bl., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 990-8300 Facsimile: (818) 990-2903 E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com CITY NATIONAL: Stipulation of Settlement Reached in Merger Case --------------------------------------------------------------- City National Corporation and the other defendants to the class action lawsuit relating to a proposed merger have entered into a stipulation of settlement with the plaintiff providing for the settlement of the Action, City National said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 19, 2015. The Current Report on Form 8-K is being filed in connection with a stipulation of settlement regarding certain litigation relating to the proposed merger (the "merger") of City National Corporation ("City National" or the "Company") with and into RBC USA Holdco Corporation ("Holdco"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Royal Bank of Canada ("RBC"), pursuant to that certain agreement and plan of merger (the "merger agreement"), dated as of January 22, 2015, by and among City National, RBC and Holdco. The litigation to which the stipulation of settlement relates is a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Delman v. City National Corp. et. al. (the "Action"), filed on April 29, 2015 in California state court by a purported City National shareholder against City National and the members of its board of directors. The Action alleges that the directors of City National breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the proposed merger at an inadequate price and pursuant to an inadequate process that involved self-dealing, and by failing to disclose purportedly material information to stockholders in connection with the merger. On May 15, 2015, City National and the other defendants to the Action entered into a stipulation of settlement with the plaintiff providing for the settlement of the Action. The stipulation of settlement contemplates, among other things, that City National will make certain supplemental disclosures relating to the merger. Although the defendants deny the allegations made in the Action and believe that no supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws, in order to avoid the burden and expense of further litigation, City National agreed to make such supplemental disclosures pursuant to the terms of the stipulation. The stipulation of settlement is subject to confirmatory discovery and customary conditions, including court approval following notice to City National's stockholders. A hearing will be scheduled at which the California state court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims by stockholders of City National challenging any aspect of the proposed merger, the merger agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the court will approve the settlement contemplated by the stipulation of settlement. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the stipulation may be terminated and the defendants would continue to vigorously defend against the allegations in the Action. CLUB AT NORTH HALTON: Sued Over Inverse Pyramid Scheme Program -------------------------------------------------------------- TheIFP.ca reported that a class-action statement of claim has been filed in Ontario Superior Court against The Club at North Halton by a group of its shareholders who are looking to divest their ownership interests in the business. The lawsuit was filed by Peter Noble, the representative for a group of non-member shareholders, with the plaintiffs claiming that the legal action is based on a number of issues, including that the The Club at North Halton's current share exchange program is an "inverse pyramid scheme," resulting in economic loss and damage to the shareholders. The class action also asks the court that the ownership structure of The Club at North Halton, which operates a golf course, curling and dining facilities, be dissolved and its net assets distributed among all shareholders. The Club at North Halton general manager Kyle Stewart did not respond to a request for comment. COOPER LIGHTING: Recalls Lighting Fixtures Due to Fire Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Cooper Lighting LLC, of Peachtree City, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of about 1.62 million Cooper Lighting, Portfolio and Utilitech fluorescent lighting fixtures (in addition, 27,000 units were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The socket can overheat, arc and melt, posing a fire hazard. This recall involves indoor 2-light fluorescent light fixtures that range in size from 18 inches to 4 feet long. The fixtures were sold in white and can be mounted from heights between 8 and 12 feet. A date code between 182 11 (July 1, 2011) and 090 15 (March 31, 2015) is affixed to the fixture near the ballast in a DDD YY format. Catalogue and model numbers are located on the second line of a label affixed to the inside of the fixture. Catalogue and model numbers included in the recall: DLE217RLP, DLE217RLPB, DLE 232RLP, DLE232RLPB, SL232R, SL232R/1, SL232RPC, SL232RTP, SLNR232R, SLNR232R/1, SLNR232RCHR, SLW232R, SLW232R/1, SNF115R, SNF117R, SNF125R, SNF217R, SSF217R, WP217R, WP217RNKLLU, WP232R, WP232RLU, WP232RNKL, WP232RNKLLU and WP232RNKLRL. The firm received seven reports of sockets overheating, melting or arcing. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/8wDpS4 The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Ace Hardware, Lowe's, Menards, Mills Fleet Farm, True Value and other retail stores nationwide from July 2011 through April 2015 for between $13 and $67. Consumers should immediately stop using the light fixture and contact Cooper Lighting for a free replacement. COST PLUS: Recalls Bistro Chairs Due to Fall Hazard --------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Cost Plus Management Services Inc., of Oakland, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 9,200 Ronan Bistro Chairs. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The rear metal legs can bend unexpectedly and cause the chair to become unbalanced, posing a fall hazard to the user. This recall involves metal Ronan Bistro chairs intended for outdoor use. The chairs measure 35 inches tall, have a slatted seat, a two horizontal slat back and were sold in antique white, lagoon blue and Poinciana (red). SKU number 502281, 502282 or 502283 is printed on the UPC sticker attached to the sales tag at the time of purchase. The firm has received three reports of bent or fractured or torn rear chair legs. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at: http://is.gd/mUmbgJ The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Cost Plus World Market and World Market stores nationwide and online at www.worldmarket.com from February 2015 through May 2015 for about $60. Consumers should immediately stop using the Ronan Bistro chairs and return them to any Cost Plus World Market or World Market store for a full refund. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Trash Cans Due to Laceration Risk ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Costco Wholesale Corporation, of Issaquah, Wash., announced a voluntary recall of about 367,000 Trash cans. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The black plastic protective collar in the opening on the back of the trash receptacle can become dislodged and expose a sharp edge, posing a risk of laceration to the user. This recall involves EKO Sensible Eco Living motion sensor trash cans. The trash cans open when they detect motion nearby. The recalled trash cans are stainless steel, about 31 inches tall and about 14 inches square. They have the capacity to hold 21 gallons (80 liters) of trash and the lid operates with eight AA batteries. Model number EK9288BMT-80L is on a product identification label on the underside of the trash can lid. Incidents/Injuries EKO has received 13 reports of incidents in which the black plastic protective collar dislodged and exposed a sharp edge, resulting in laceration injuries. Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at: http://is.gd/ONrHHj The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Costco Wholesale stores nationwide and Costco.com between December 2013 and June 2015 for about $50. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled trash cans and return them to Costco for a full refund or contact EKO for a free repair kit with a redesigned black plastic protective collar and installation instructions. Costco is notifying consumers who purchased the trash cans directly. COUPONS.COM INC: Faces "Nguyen" Stockholder Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Coupons.com Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was filed on March 11, 2015, against the Company, the members of its board of directors, certain of its executive officers and the underwriters of its initial public offering ("IPO"): Nguyen v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. CGC-15-544654 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County). The Company said, "The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act and seeks unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who purchased stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus for our IPO. Plaintiff Nguyen requested and obtained a dismissal without prejudice of his San Francisco action and filed another complaint with substantially the same allegations in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, Nguyen v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278777 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Mar. 30, 2015). Three other complaints with substantially the same allegations have also been filed: O'Donnell v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278399 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Mar. 20, 2015); So v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278774 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Mar. 30, 2015); and Silverberg v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278891 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Apr. 2, 2015)." On May 7, 2015, the Santa Clara court consolidated the Nguyen, So and Silverberg actions with the O'Donnell action. "We intend to defend this litigation vigorously. Based on information currently available, we believe that the potential for liability for the above claims is remote," the Company said. CRUNCH LLC: Sued Over Unauthorized Electronic Fund Transfers ------------------------------------------------------------ Nicole Mihelich and Mark Moskowitz, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Crunch, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv- 01098 (C.D. Cal., July 10, 2015), is an action for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies as a result of the Defendant's illegal actions of debiting the Plaintiffs' and also the putative Class members' bank accounts on a recurring basis without obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers. Crunch, LLC owns and operates a gym with locations all around the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com CTPARTNERS EXECUTIVE: Faces Stockholder Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Several law firms have announced investigations into whether CTPartners Executive Search Inc. violated securities laws, and a purported class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period between February 26, 2014 and January 28, 2015 was filed against the Company on February 27, 2015 on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. The Company said, "Commencing in December 2014, we began receiving unfavorable publicity regarding a complaint submitted to the EEOC by a former employee. We also withdrew an announced public equity offering in December 2014. In January 2015, we announced preliminary fourth quarter results that fell short of our expectations and then subsequently revised those preliminary results downward. We also withdrew our first quarter and full year 2015 earnings guidance at that time. In light of that revision and withdrawal of guidance, we suspended marketing efforts for another announced public equity offering before completing a significantly downsized offering at the end of January 2015 for $4.2 million in net proceeds after underwriting discounts and expenses. Our stock price declined significantly in December 2014 and January 2015, and several research analysts covering our Company ceased coverage." "We believe these allegations have no merit," the Company said. CUSTOMER ENGINEERING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Robert Ostrander, and all others similarly situated v. Customer Engineering Services, LLC, James N. Fox and Mary Fox, Case No. 1:15-cv-01476 (D. Colo., July 13, 2015), seeks to recover all unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Customer Engineering Services, LLC ("CES") is a provider of technology services and support, including the installation and maintenance of technology-based equipment and products, and operates businesses within the state of Colorado and elsewhere across the nation. CES is headquartered in Colorado. James N. Fox is the chief operating officer and Mary Fox is a corporate officer of CES. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian David Gonzales, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC 123 North College Ave. #200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Tel: (970) 212-4665 Fax: (303) 539-9812 E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com - and - Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 233-1550 Fax: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: RStephan@stephanzouras.com DARA BIOSCIENCES: Faces "Edwards" Suit Over Midatech Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- Eric Edwards, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DARA BioSciences, Inc., et al., Case No. 11262-VCG (Del. Ch., July 8, 2015), is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of DARA BioSciences, Inc., to enjoin the proposed agreement to sell the Company to Midatech Pharma PLC for inadequate consideration. DARA BioSciences, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company primarily focused on the commercialization of oncology treatment and supportive care pharmaceutical products. Midatech Pharma PLC is a nanomedicine company focused on the development and commercialization of multiple, high-value, targeted therapies for major diseases with unmet medical need, including diabetes, rare cancers including brain (glioblastoma), ovarian, liver and pancreatic cancer and neurological and ophthalmologic conditions. 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 - Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Julia J. Sun, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 DEWAAY FINANCIAL: Iowa High Ct. Declines to Take Up Investor Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Patane, writing for The Des Moines Register, reported that the Iowa Supreme Court has declined to take up a case involving disgruntled investors and the financial services firm previously run by Donald DeWaay. The court's decision leaves in place an Iowa Court of Appeals ruling that rejects a $3 million class-action lawsuit and settlement request. The request would have helped to resolve a case against DeWaay Financial Network, a now-defunct Clive company. It's the latest step in a long fight between DeWaay and investors that goes back to before 2012. Lawsuits filed against DeWaay Financial argue that company officials misrepresented risks and allowed investors to put money in unsuitable investments. DeWaay's attorneys have argued the class-action status would have ensured that investors with complaints received some level of payment. Individual investors would not have been allowed to opt out and file their own lawsuits. Some investors intervened in the case and their attorney has said the class-action payments would have amounted to pennies on the dollar. The Supreme Court decision puts the next step of the dispute in question again. The Court of Appeals had sent the case back to district court for further proceedings. Steve Wandro, an attorney representing DeWaay, said his side is evaluating options. DOLLAR TREE: Suit by Assistant Store Manager Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that in 2011, an assistant store manager and an hourly associate filed a collective action against the Company alleging they were forced to work off the clock in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state law. A federal judge in Virginia ruled that all claims made on behalf of assistant store managers under both the FLSA and state law should be dismissed. The court, however, certified an opt-in collective action under the FLSA on behalf of hourly sales associates. Approximately 4,300 plaintiffs remain in the case. In March 2014, the court denied the Company's motion to decertify the collective action and the case is now continuing. DOLLAR TREE: 2012 Case by Assist. Store Manager in Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------ Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that in 2012, a former assistant store manager, on behalf of himself and those alleged to be similarly situated, filed a putative class action in a California state court, alleging the Company failed to provide rest breaks to assistant store managers. The alleged time period is July 13, 2008 to the present. Discovery is ongoing. The class has been certified and the case is proceeding to the liability phase. DOLLAR TREE: March 2016 Trial Date in 2013 Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that in 2013, a former assistant store manager on behalf of himself and others alleged to be similarly aggrieved filed a representative Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") claim under California law currently pending in federal court in California. The suit alleges that the Company failed to provide uninterrupted meal periods and rest breaks; failed to pay minimum, regular and overtime wages; failed to maintain accurate time records and wage statements; and failed to pay wages due upon termination of employment. Discovery has not commenced. A trial date has been set for March 21, 2016. DOLLAR TREE: Discovery Has Not Commenced in 2014 Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that in May 2014, a former assistant store manager filed a putative class action in a California state court for alleged failure to provide meal periods, overtime, timely payment of wages during employment and upon termination, failure to provide accurate wage statements, as well as for alleged failure to indemnify employees for business expenses in violation of California labor laws. This matter is in early stages of litigation. Discovery has not commenced and no trial date has been set. DOLLAR TREE: Suit by Familary Dollar Sharheolders Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that July and August 2014, several shareholders of Family Dollar Stores, Inc. ("Family Dollar") filed class actions, now consolidated into one class action, in Delaware chancery court against Family Dollar's CEO and board members alleging breach of fiduciary duty. Dollar Tree and Family Dollar were also named as defendants for allegedly aiding and abetting the other defendants. The claimed breach derives from the execution of the merger agreement dated July 27, 2014, between Dollar Tree and Family Dollar, which is alleged to offer unfair and inadequate consideration for Family Dollar stock. The class action, among other things, seek to prevent the merger, obtain higher merger consideration or seek monetary damages. The Delaware Chancery Court and appellate court refused to issue an injunction against the Family Dollar shareholder vote in favor of the merger. DOLLAR TREE: Distribution Center Employee Filed Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that in April 2015, a distribution center employee filed a class action in California state court with allegations concerning wages, meal and rest breaks, recovery periods, wage statements and timely termination pay. Additionally, the employee seeks to certify a nation-wide class of non-exempt distribution employees for overtime compensation. The Company recently removed this lawsuit to Federal Court. DOLLAR TREE: California Manager Filed Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that in April 2015, a former store manager filed a class action in California state court alleging store managers were improperly classified as exempt employees and, among other things, did not receive overtime compensation and meal and rest periods. DOUBLE INSIGHT: Recalls Pressure Cookers Due to Shock Risk ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Double Insight Inc., of Canada, announced a voluntary recall of about 1,000 Instant Pot "Smart" model pressure cooker (in addition, 140 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The thermal probe in the base can conduct electricity throughout the cooker, posing a risk of electric shock. This recall involves Instant Pot "Smart" and "Smart-60" electric pressure cookers. They are stainless steel with black molded plastic attachments, have a control panel/keypad on the front and measure about 12 inches in diameter and 12 inches tall. They are Bluetooth(R) enabled and can be controlled by an app. "Instant Pot" and "Smart" are printed on the front of the control panel. Serial numbers between 1410 and 1503 and manufacture dates between 12/1/2014 and 6/1/2015 are included in the recall. The serial numbers and dates are printed on a label on the bottom of the pressure cooker's base. The firm has received reports from three consumers of being shocked while using the pressure cooker. Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at: http://is.gd/IK0iUr The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Online at Instantpot.com and Amazon.com from November 2014 through May 2015 for about $250. Consumers should stop using the recalled product immediately and contact Instant Pot for instructions to receive a free replacement base, which consists of the entire bottom of the pressure cooker including the control panel. The firm is contacting all purchasers directly. EAGLE MATERIALS: Summary Judgment Filed in Wallboard Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Eagle Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 22, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that Defendants' motions for summary judgement were filed in the first quarter of fiscal 2016 in the Domestic Wallboard Antitrust Litigation. Since late December 2012, several purported class action lawsuits were filed in various United States District Courts, including the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Western District of North Carolina and the Northern District of Illinois, against the Company's subsidiary, American Gypsum Company LLC ("American Gypsum"), alleging that American Gypsum conspired with other wallboard manufacturers to fix the price for drywall sold in the United States in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in some cases related provisions of state law. The complaints allege that the defendant wallboard manufacturers conspired to increase prices through the announcement and implementation of coordinated price increases, output restrictions, and other restraints of trade, including the elimination of individual "job quote" pricing. In addition to American Gypsum, the defendants in these lawsuits include CertainTeed Corp., USG Corporation and United States Gypsum (together "USG"), New NGC, Inc., Lafarge North America, Temple Inland Inc. ("TIN") and PABCO Building Products LLC. On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JTML") transferred and consolidated all related cases to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated pretrial proceedings. On June 24, 2013, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed consolidated amended class action complaints. The direct purchasers' complaint added the Company as a defendant. The plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuits bring claims on behalf of purported classes of direct or indirect purchasers of wallboard from January 1, 2012 to the present for unspecified monetary damages (including treble damages) and in some cases injunctive relief. On July 29, 2013, the Company and American Gypsum answered the complaints, denying all allegations that they conspired to increase the price of drywall and asserting affirmative defenses to the plaintiffs' claims. On March 17, 2015, a group of homebuilders filed a complaint against the defendants, including American Gypsum, based upon the same conduct alleged in the consolidated class action complaints. On March 24, 2015, the JPML transferred this action to the multidistrict litigation already pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In 2014, USG and TIN entered into agreements with counsel representing the direct and indirect purchaser classes pursuant to which they agreed to settle all claims against them. On March 16, 2014, the court entered orders preliminarily approving USG and TIN's settlements with the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs. Initial discovery in this litigation is complete. "At this stage we are unable to estimate the amount of any reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses. American Gypsum denies the allegations in these lawsuits and will vigorously defend itself against these claims. Defendants' motions for summary judgement were filed in the first quarter of fiscal 2016," the Company said. EASTERN HEALTH: Sued Over Employees' Privacy Breach --------------------------------------------------- VOCM Local News Now reported that lawyer Bob Buckingham is spearheading a class action lawsuit for Eastern Health employees affected by the health authority's recent privacy breach. A USB went missing, containing personal information, including the social insurance numbers of 3300 employees, and the names and employee numbers of an additional 5,700 individuals. Eastern Health has offered to provide credit reports for affected individuals, but Buckingham says that's not enough. "I know that Eastern Health says they would pay for reports for people who get credit checks through TransUnion. Well, that's not the only credit checking facility out there, so I think they have to pay for any credit checking facility," says Buckingham. "Because of the breach, we'll be looking for some remuneration for people because of the breach itself. And thirdly, we'll be looking for a fund set up for people to be able to access when, and if there are breaches, so that they can receive financial assistance with respect to that." Buckingham says he's also looking for a long term plan to be put in place. "Credit checks are not the only thing here," says Buckingham. "It's the other uses to which this information can be used, such as setting up false identities. You're driving down the road one day, stopped for a legitimate reason, say a road check, and find out there's a warrant for your arrest in say, Northern B.C. We have to look at that type of circumstance and make sure that what's in place is a mechanism so that people can quickly address things if they happen." EEE ENTERPRISES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Woods, and all others similarly situated v. EEE Enterprises, Ltd. dba Friendswood Kwik Kar, EEE Alvin Ltd. dba Alvin Kwik Kar, Triple E-GP, Inc. and James Edwards, No. 3:15-cv- 00174 (S.D. Tex., July 13, 2015), seeks to recover all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants provide self and full service solutions for vehicles in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Ste 675 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: (713) 222-6775 Fax: (713) 222-6739 ELAVON PUERTO RICO: Sued for Not Accommodating Mental Disability ---------------------------------------------------------------- Antonio A. Rivera-Matos v. US Bank a/k/a US Bancorp, Elavon, Inc., Elavon Puerto Rico, Inc. and Bernardo Olmeda Morales, Case No. 3:15-cv-01783 (D.P.R., June 10, 2015) challenges the alleged unlawful failure of the Defendants to accommodate the Plaintiff's mental disability. Mr. Rivera-Matos was 43 year of age, and worked as a sales executive for the Defendants. According to the complaint, he is a seasoned sales professional that suffers from mental illness. Elavon Puerto Rico, Inc. is a domestic for-profit corporation registered with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Department of State. The Company provides merchants with transaction processing support for credit, charge and debit purchases. The Company was acquired and became a subsidiary of USB Americas Holdings Company, a subsidiary of U.S. Bank National Association. Elavon, Inc. is subsidiary of U.S. Bank and parent company and/or affiliate of Elavon Puerto Rico, Inc. Bernardo Olmeda Morales was the Plaintiff's immediate supervisor at all relevant times, and managed Elavon's sales initiatives. The Plaintiff is represented by: Humberto Cobo-Estrella, Esq. COBO-ESTRELLA H. Law, LLC PO Box 366451 San Juan, PR 00936-6451 Telephone: (787) 200-2715 Facsimile: (787) 529-7140 E-mail: hcobo@hcounsel.com ELECTRONIC ARTS: To Seek Further Review of Ruling in "Davis" Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Electronic Arts Inc. intends to seek further court review of the ruling in a class action filed by Michael Davis, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015. On July 29, 2010, Michael Davis, a former NFL running back, filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, alleging that certain past versions of Madden NFL included the images of certain retired NFL players without their permission. In March 2012, the trial court denied the Company's request to dismiss the complaint on First Amendment grounds. In January 2015, that trial court decision was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the case was remanded back to the district court. The Company intends to seek further court review. ELECTRONIC ARTS: Court Dismissed Shareholder Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- The court has granted the motion of Electronic Arts Inc. to dismiss a shareholder class action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015. On December 17, 2013, a purported shareholder 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 by an individual purporting to represent a class of purchasers of EA common stock. A second purported shareholder class action lawsuit alleging substantially similar claims was subsequently filed in the same court. These lawsuits have been consolidated into one action. The lawsuits, which assert claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, allege, among other things, that the Company and certain of its officers issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the rollout of the Company's Battlefield 4 game. "We filed a motion seeking dismissal of all claims on January 15, 2015 and on April 30, 2015, the court granted our motion to dismiss with prejudice," the Company said. ETSY INC: Faces "Altayyar" Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Etsy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 22, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on May 13, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint (Altayyar v. Etsy, Inc., et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-02785) was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and certain officers. The complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common stock from April 16, 2015 through and including May 10, 2015. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, merchandise for sale on the Company's website that may be counterfeit or constitute trademark or copyright infringement and actions taken by third-party brands against Etsy sellers for trademark or copyright infringement. The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees. The Company and the named officers intend to defend themselves vigorously against this action. EZCORP INC: Filed Motion to Dismiss Class Action by Jason Close --------------------------------------------------------------- EZCORP, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2015, the the defendants filed motions to dismiss and supporting briefs a class action lawsuit filed by Jason Close. On August 22, 2014, Jason Close, a purported holder of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, for himself and on behalf of other similarly situated holders of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York styled Close v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:14-cv-06834-ALC). "The complaint names as defendants EZCORP, Inc., Paul E. Rothamel (our former chief executive officer) and Mark Kuchenrither (our current chief financial officer and our chief operating officer) and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934," the Company said. In general, the complaint alleges that the implementation of certain strategic and growth initiatives were less successful than represented by the defendants, that certain of the Company's business units and investments were not performing as well as represented by the defendants and that, as a result, the defendants' disclosures and statements about the Company's business and operations were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 17, 2014, the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan, also purporting to be the holder of Class A Non-voting Common Stock and acting for itself and on behalf of other similarly situated holders of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the United Stated District Court for the Southern District of New York styled Automotive Machinists Pension Plan v. EZCORP, Inc., et al (Case No. 1:14-cv-8349-ALC). The complaint names EZCORP, Inc., Mr. Rothamel and Mr. Kuchenrither as defendants, but also names Mr. Cohen and MS Pawn Limited Partnership. The complaint likewise asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging generally that (1) EZCORP and the officer defendants (Mr. Rothamel and Mr. Kuchenrither) issued false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the business and prospects, and compliance history, of the Company's online lending operations in the U.K. and the nature of the Company's consulting relationship with entities owned by Mr. Cohen and the process the Board of Directors used in agreeing to it, and (2) Mr. Cohen and MS Pawn Limited Partnership, as controlling persons of EZCORP, participated in the preparation and dissemination of the Company's disclosures and controlled the Company's business strategy and activities. On October 21, 2014, the plaintiff in the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan action filed a motion to consolidate the Close action and the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan action and to appoint the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan as the lead plaintiff. On November 18, 2014, the court consolidated the two lawsuits under the caption In Re EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 1:14-cv-06834-ALC), and on January 16, 2015, appointed the lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On March 13, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging generally that: * EZCORP and the officer defendants (Mr. Rothamel and Mr. Kuchenrither) issued false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's online lending operations in the U.K. (Cash Genie) and Cash Genie's compliance history; * EZCORP and the officer defendants issued false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the nature of the Company's consulting relationship with Madison Park LLC (an entity owned by Mr. Cohen) and the process the Board of Directors used in agreeing to it; * EZCORP's financial statements were false and misleading, and violated GAAP and SEC rules and regulations, by failing to properly recognize impairment charges with respect to the Company's investment in Albemarle & Bond; and * Mr. Cohen and MS Pawn Limited Partnership, as controlling persons of EZCORP, were aware of and controlled the Company's alleged false and misleading statements and omissions. On April 27, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss and supporting briefs. "We cannot predict the outcome of the litigation, but we intend to continue to defend vigorously against all allegations and claims," the Company said. FREDERICK J HANNA: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Holly, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, P.C., Case No. 1:15- cv-02086-AT-AJB (N.D. Ga., June 10, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marques J. Carter, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARQUES J. CARTER 3400 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 100 Douglasville, GA 30135 Telephone: (888) 595-9111 Facsimile: (866) 842-3303 E-mail: mjclawllc@comcast.net FTS INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Breedlove" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Weston Breedlove, individually and for others similarly situated v. FTS International Services, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-01984 (S.D. Tex., July 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work far more than 40 hours a week. FTS International Services, LLC owns and operate an oil field service company in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com GLADSTONE INVESTMENT: Noble Logistics Faces Employment Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Gladstone Investment Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that a former portfolio company, Noble Logistics, Inc. ("Noble") is a defendant in employment law wage and hour and independent contractor misclassification claims in a purported class action seeking monetary damages, Maximo v. Aspen Contracting California LLC d/b/a/ Noble Logistics, et al., or Maximo. Noble is a debtor in a bankruptcy case under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy code, pending in federal bankruptcy court in Delaware. The claims against Noble asserted in the Maximo case have been stayed by the filing of Noble's bankruptcy case. The Company also said a lawsuit brought by plaintiffs Clarence and Sheila Walder against a customer of Noble is also pending in California based on similar facts relating to Noble and claims under California law. The Maximo and Walder plaintiffs have attempted to bring claims against the Company and other former investors in Noble based primarily on allegations that the Company and other investors controlled Noble and were responsible for the misclassification of Noble's workforce. To date, claims against the Company have been struck by a court or voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs in connection with the automatic stay arising in connection with the Noble bankruptcy. While neither the Company nor any of its portfolio companies (other than Noble) are currently defendants in these cases, they may in the future be subject to claims by these plaintiffs or other persons alleging similar claims, or may expend funds on behalf of Noble to defend claims. GLATFELTER INC: Faces $5-Mil. Suit Over Paper Mill Emissions ------------------------------------------------------------ Chris Balusik, writing for Chillicothe Gazette, reported that a Columbus law firm has filed a $5 million class action lawsuit against Glatfelter Inc. over claims from plaintiffs that emissions from the Chillicothe paper mill have damaged property and created a nuisance. The lawsuit, brought by South Hickory Street resident Teresa Ford, Ervin Avenue resident Jack Leach and Patton Hill Road resident Rhonda Leeson, claims the paper mill releases "noxious odors and air particulates onto Plaintiffs' property, causing property damage through trespass, negligence, gross negligence and nuisance," according to the complaint. As a class action suit, the lawsuit might end up representing as many as "hundreds, if not thousands" of potential plaintiffs, according to the suit, as it identifies the class as "all owner/occupants and renters of residential property residing within one and one-half miles of the facility's property boundary." In March, attorneys sent letters to area residents offering a free consultation and the opportunity to join a class action suit against the company. The lawsuit, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio's Eastern Division, states that the plaintiffs do not wish to close the paper mill but rather seek to stop practices that result in the release of odors. Glatfelter was mentioned as a possible source in four instances last fall and winter in which foul odors raised concerns among residents. The first, which took place Sept. 9, was looked into by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, but no connection between the smell and the plant was confirmed, and both Glatfelter and the EPA stated the plant was functioning normally at the time the smell was being reported. The second involved a Halloween discharge that took place when a mechanism designed to capture sulfur malfunctioned and a backup unit failed, requiring a temporary shutdown of an air handling unit to correct the problem. The Ohio EPA found in that incident that hydrogen sulfide and methyl mercaptan had been released into the air at levels that required reporting to the EPA. One of the chemicals is a byproduct of the pulping process, whereas the other is mainly an odorant that functions similarly to what is added to odorless natural gas in order to help detect leaks. In that instance, the EPA determined the amount of the discharge had the potential to cause minor health problems such as sore throats, watery eyes and nausea as far away as a mile. The odor, however, was the focus of several social media posts and some 911 calls from as far away as Columbus and Newark. The third was noted by the Ohio EPA on Dec. 16 and a fourth was noted on Jan. 7 and 8, according to a notice of violation sent to the company on Feb. 4. In that letter, the EPA was critical of the amount of time it took the company to report equipment malfunctions from the October and December incidents and stated that both the October and January situations involved emissions above acceptable levels that, under terms of the Ohio Administrative Code, qualify as a public nuisance. Following that letter, the company was given 30 days to submit a plan and schedule to get the mill back into compliance. "The plan should specify the corrective actions that will be taken, addressing in particular the timely reporting of malfunctions and prevention of odor-causing events, and the schedule should include a timeline for completing those corrective actions," the letter reads. In the lawsuit filed, the Columbus firm of Kitrick, Lewis & Harris Co., Columbus attorney Robert J. Wagoner, and Detroit firm Liddle & Dubin P.C. are listed as attorneys of record. The plaintiffs claim Glatfelter "intentionally, recklessly, willfully, wantonly, maliciously, grossly and negligently failed to construct, maintain and operate the facility" and, as a result, created a nuisance that caused a damage to the plaintiffs' properties as the odors and air particulates settled on their homes and properties. They also claim that the odors interfere with the enjoyment of their properties and have created "an unreasonable risk of harm" to residents. GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Faces "Berliner" Suit Over Chambers Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Ralph Berliner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Gramercy Property Trust Inc., et al., Case No. 652424/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 9, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public shareholders of Gramercy Property Trust Inc., to enjoin the proposed agreement to sell GPT to Chambers Street Properties, for an unfair price and inadequate consideration. Gramercy Property Trust Inc. is a Maryland corporation that maintains its principal executive offices at 521 5th Avenue, 30th Floor, New York, New York. GPT specializes in acquiring and managing single-tenant, net leased industrial and office properties. Chambers Street Properties is a Maryland corporation that maintains its principal executive offices at 47 Hulfish Street, Suite 210, Princeton, New Jersey. Chambers is a self-administered REIT focused on acquiring, owning, and managing net leased industrial and office properties leased to creditworthy tenants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert I. Harwood, Esq. Matthew M. Houston, Esq. Benjamin I. Sachs-Michaels, Esq. HARWOOD FEFFER LLP 488 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 935-7400 Facsimile: (212) 753-3630 E-mail: rharwood@hfesq.com mhouston@hfesq.com bsachsmichaels@hfesq.com GULF COAST: Faces "Duffau" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Cyndi Duffau, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Gulf Coast Medical Center, P.A. et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01625- CEH-TBM (M.D. Fla., July 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Gulf Coast Medical Center, P.A. operates a healthcare facility located at 11528 US Highway 19 Port Richey, FL 34668. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Melton, Esq. Jay P. Lechner, Esq. WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC 11020 Northcliffe Blvd Spring Hill, FL 34608 Telephone: (352) 683-2016 Facsimile: (352) 556-4839 E-mail: jason@thefllawfirm.com lechnerj@thefllawfirm.com HCSB FINANCIAL: Plaintiff in Class Action Lawsuit Files Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- HCSB Financial Corporation is defending against an appeal lodged before the South Carolina Court of Appeals by the plaintiff in a class action lawsuit, according to the Company's Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. On July 19, 2012, Robert Shelley, in his individual capacity and on behalf of a proposed class of other similarly situated persons, filed a lawsuit against the Company and the Bank in the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, County of Horry, Case No. 2012-CP-26-5546. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff and other similarly situated persons were contacted by employees of the Bank, that those employees solicited a sale of Bank stock, and that the Bank employees did not disclose material information about the Bank's financial condition prior to their respective purchases of stock. The complaint seeks the certification of a class action to include all purchasers of Bank stock solicited between July 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011. The plaintiff has asserted violations of the South Carolina Uniform Securities Act, negligence and civil conspiracy, and seeks actual, punitive and treble damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company and the Bank made a motion for summary judgment in March 2014, which the court granted on April 8, 2014. Robert Shelley subsequently filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied. Mr. Shelly subsequently filed a notice of appeal with the South Carolina Court of Appeals. Mr. Shelley's initial appeal brief was due to be filed on or before May 13, 2015. HCSB FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Snyder Class Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------- HCSB Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that defendants' motions to dismiss a class action lawsuit by Jan W. Snyder are still pending. Plaintiff Jan W. Snyder purchased $25,000 in subordinated debt notes in or around March 2010. After making three semi-annual interest payments, the Company was precluded from making further payments by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. On January 14, 2014, Mr. Snyder, on his behalf and as a representative of a class of similarly situated purchasers of subordinated debt notes, sued the Company, the Bank, and several current and former officers, directors and employees in the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifteenth Judicial District, State of South Carolina, County of Horry (Case No. 2014-CP-26-0204). An amended complaint was then filed by Mr. Snyder and two other subordinated debt purchasers, Acey Livingston and Mark Mark Josephs. The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages resulting from wrongful conduct associated with purchases of the subordinated debt notes, including fraud, violation of state securities statutes, and negligence. Separate counsel was retained for the former Board members and all defendants filed timely motions to dismiss, which are still pending. HELPING HANDS: Fails to Pay Aides' Travel Time, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Sonia Escorbor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Helping Hands Co., Inc., et al., Case No. SUCV2015- 02053 (Mass. Super. Ct., July 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to fully compensate home health care aides for intra-day travel time in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act. Helping Hands Co., Inc. operates a home health care agency with a principal place of business in Boston Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raven Moeslinger, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, PC 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617)338-9400 HESKA CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Alleged TCPA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Heska Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on March 12, 2015, a complaint was filed against the Company in the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois alleging its violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, as a class action. "Even if meritless, these disputes may require significant expenditures on our part and could entail a significant distraction to members of our management team or other key employees. We may have to use legal means to collect payment for goods shipped to third parties. A legal dispute leading to an unfavorable ruling or settlement could have significant material adverse consequences on our business," the Company said. HOMEFRONT DELI: Faces "San Andres" Suit Over FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Kleber San Andres, on behalf of others similarly situated v. Homefront Deli Inc. Sun Hwa, Inc., d/b/a Homefront Deli, William Oh, Jeff Doe, and Kevin Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-05376 (S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kleber San Andres PRO SE HONDA MOTOR: "Dang" Wrongful Death Suit Included in Airbag MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit styled Dang v. Honda Motor Company, Ltd., et al., Case No. 6:14-cv-02071, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-22197-FAM to the proceeding. The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 15-md- 2599-Moreno. The actions in the litigation, most of which are putative nationwide class actions, share factual questions arising from allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris resulting in injury or even death. The Plaintiff is represented by: Henry Nicholas Didier, Jr., Esq. DIDIER LAW FIRM, P.A. 1203 N. Orange Avenue Orlando, FL 32804 Telephone: (407) 895-3401 Facsimile: (407) 895-3408 E-mail: hank@didierlaw.com - and - Kevin R. Dean, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216-9161 Facsimile: (843) 216-9430 E-mail: kdean@motleyrice.com Defendants American Honda Motor Co. Inc. and Honda of America Mfg., Inc., are represented by: Frank David Hosley, Esq. Nhan T. Lee, Esq. SEIPP, FLICK & HOSLEY LLP 1064 Greenwood Blvd., Suite 212 Lake Mary, FL 32746 Telephone: (407) 804-6213 Facsimile: (407) 872-1227 E-mail: fhosley@seippflick.com nlee@seippflick.com - and - Mary T. Novacheck, Esq. BOWMAN & BROOKE 150 South 5th Street, Suite 3000 Minneapolis, MN 55402-4244 Telephone: (612) 339-8682 E-mail: mary.novacheck@bowmanandbrooke.com Defendant TK Holdings Inc. is represented by: Benjamin R. Barnett, Esq. DECHERT LLP 2929 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Telephone: (215) 994-2887 E-mail: ben.barnett@dechert.com - and - Frank David Hosley, Esq. Nhan T. Lee, Esq. SEIPP, FLICK & HOSLEY LLP 1064 Greenwood Blvd., Suite 212 Lake Mary, FL 32746 Telephone: (407) 804-6213 Facsimile: (407) 872-1227 E-mail: fhosley@seippflick.com nlee@seippflick.com Lena Marguerite Mirilovic, Esq. Michael Daniel Begey, Esq. William L. Kirk, Jr., Esq. RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, P.A. 300 South Orange Ave., Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 872-7300 Facsimile: (407) 841-2133 E-mail: lmirilovic@rumberger.com mbegey@rumberger.com bkirk@rumberger.com HOOPER HOLMES: Magistrate Judge Decision Pending ------------------------------------------------ On May 24, 2012, a complaint was filed against Hooper Holmes, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging, among other things, that the Company failed to pay overtime compensation to a purported class of certain independent contractor examiners who, the complaint alleges, should be treated as employees for purposes of federal law. The complaints seek award of an unspecified amount of allegedly unpaid overtime wages to certain examiners. The Company filed an answer denying the substantive allegations therein. On August 1, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation to conditionally certify the class of all contract examiners from August 16, 2010 to the present. On August 29, 2014, the Company submitted its objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. If the Magistrate's decision stands, notice will be sent to contractors who performed work for the Company within this time period, Hooper Holmes, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. The claim is not covered by insurance, and the Company is incurring legal costs to defend the litigation which are recorded in continuing operations. This matter relates to the former Portamedic service line for which the Company retained liability. INSITE VISION: Faces "McKinley" Suit Over Proposed QLT Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas McKinley, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Timothy Ruane, Timothy Mcinerney, Brian Levy, Robert O'Holla, Craig Tooman, Anthony J. Yost, QLT Inc., Isotope Acquisition Corp., and Insite Vision Incorporated, Case No. RG15777471 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 10, 2015), is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of InSite Vision Incorporated, to enjoin the Defendants' attempt to sell the Company to QLT Inc. by means of an unfair process and for inadequate consideration. Insite Vision Incorporated is an ophthalmic product development company advancing ophthalmic pharmaceutical products. QLT Inc. operates an ophthalmic medicine company with its headquarters located at 887 Great Northern Way, Suite 250, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan R. Plutzik, Esq. MichaelS. Strimling, Esq. BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER, LLP 2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Telephone: (925) 945-0200 Facsimile: (925) 945-8792 E-mail: aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com mstrimling@bramsonplutzik.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Accused of Age Discrimination in N.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------------- Katherine J. Montellano v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. 3:15-cv-01982-L (N.D. Tex., June 10, 2015) alleges violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended by the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, and the Texas Labor Code. Ms. Montellano is 52-year-old, Caucasian and female with over three and a half years of service with JPMorgan. Chase is a national bank headquartered in New York City, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Company, a publicly held corporation also headquartered in New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Hiram McBeth, Esq. MCBETH LAW OFFICE 6060 N. Central Expressway, Suite #560 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (972) 498-8702 Facsimile: (972) 680-4411 E-mail: hirammcbeth@hotmail.com JP MORGAN: $388-Mil. MBS Settlement One of Largest Recoveries ------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that when Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd announced a $388 million class action settlement with JPMorgan Chase & Co. on July 17, the plaintiffs firm described it as one of the largest recoveries for purchasers of allegedly shoddy residential mortgage-backed securities. For the Robbins Geller lawyers, who could earn close to $100 million in fees for their work, the deal must be all the sweeter since they first had to defeat JPMorgan's efforts to disqualify the firm from spearheading the case. The agreement, which is subject to approval by U.S. District Judge Paul Oetken in Manhattan, would resolve a 6-year old case brought by investors who claimed they suffered losses on mortgage-backed securities that JPMorgan sold prior to the 2008 financial crisis. In a statement on July 17, Robbins Geller hailed the settlement as the biggest yet in an MBS purchaser class action when compared with investor losses. At issue in the lawsuit were nine MBS offerings that JPMorgan issued in 2007, with a combined face value of around $10 billion. Investors first sued in New York state court in March 2009, but the case was removed to federal court the following month. After a shake-up among the named plaintiffs, Robbins Geller was approved as lead counsel in July 2012, and the case moved toward class certification. The plaintiffs' bid for class status set off a bitter fight over Robbins Geller's role. In a January 2014 brief, lawyers for JPMorgan at Sidley Austin contested the class certification motion, arguing in part that Robbins Geller was unfit to serve as class counsel. The bank's legal team accused the plaintiffs firm of misrepresenting testimony from a mortgage originator who served as a confidential witness. The defense also took aim at Robbins Geller's past representations, claiming that the firm had pursued securities claims against entities that would likely be part of the MBS purchaser class. Robbins Geller has been sanctioned before over its use of confidential witness testimony that didn't stand up to scrutiny. But in the JPMorgan case, Judge Oetken indicated last September that he didn't share the bank's concerns. The judge certified a class for liability purposes and appointed Robbins Geller class counsel, largely refusing to wade into the allegations about the confidential witness testimony and purported conflicts of interest. That ruling helped pave the way for talks that led to the $388 million settlement. In Robbins Geller's statement, partner Luke Brooks applauded two named plaintiffs -- pension funds for California-based labor unions -- for sticking with the case. "They committed themselves to the trial of this action, which allowed us to maximize the recovery for the class," said Brooks. Robbins Geller said in court papers on July 17 that it plans to ask the court for $97 million in attorney fees and nearly $5 million in expenses. One of JPMorgan's lead lawyers, Sidley Austin's Dorothy Spenner -- dspenner@sidley.com -- didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on July 20. Robert Sacks of Sullivan & Cromwell -- sacksr@sullcrom.com -- also represented JPMorgan in the lead-up to the July 17 deal, according to the July 17 settlement agreement. KEMET CORPORATION: Capacitors Antitrust Litigation Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- KEMET Corporation and KEC, along with more than 20 other capacitor manufacturers and subsidiaries, are defendants in a purported antitrust class action complaint, In re: Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD, filed on December 4, 2014 with the United States District Court, Northern District of California (the "U.S. Complaint"), KEMET said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 22, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015. The complaint alleges a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, for which it seeks injunctive and equitable relief and money damages. KEMET CORPORATION: Defendants in Canadian Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------- KEMET Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 22, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that KEMET Corporation and KEC, along with certain other capacitor manufacturers and subsidiaries, were named as defendants in several additional suits that were filed in Canada (collectively, the "Canadian Complaints"): Badashmin v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed August 6, 2014 in the Superior Court, Province of Quebec, District of Montreal; Herard v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed August 6, 2014 in the Superior Court, Province of Quebec, District of Montreal; Cygnus Electronics Corporation v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed August 6, 2014 in the Superior Court of Justice, Province of Ontario; LeClaire v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed August 6, 2014 in the Superior Court, Province of Quebec, District of Montreal; Taylor v Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed August 11, 2014 in the Superior Court of Justice, Province of Ontario; Ramsay v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed August 14, 2014 in the Supreme Court, Province of British Columbia; Martin v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed September 25, 2014 in the Superior Court, Province of Quebec, District of Montreal; Parikh v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed October 3, 2014 in the Superior Court of Justice, Province of Ontario; Fraser v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed October 3, 2014 in the Court of Queen's Bench, Province of Saskatchewan; Pickering v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed October 6, 2014 in the Supreme Court, Province of British Columbia; and McPherson v Panasonic Corporation et al., filed on November 6, 2014 in the Court of Queen's Bench, Province of Manitoba. The Canadian Complaints generally allege the same unlawful acts as in the U.S. Complaint, assert claims under Canada's Competition Act as well as various civil and common law causes of action, and seek injunctive and equitable relief and money damages. KEMET CORPORATION: NEC TOKIN Defendants in US and Canadian Actions ------------------------------------------------------------------ KEMET Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 22, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that NEC TOKIN and its subsidiary, NEC TOKIN America, Inc., are defendants in the U.S. Complaint and the Canadian Complaints as well as other purported class actions. In connection with such investigation, the European Commission regulators are evaluating any potential liability to which shareholders of NEC TOKIN, including KEC, may be subject. Beginning in March 2014, NEC TOKIN and certain of its subsidiaries have received inquiries, requests for information and other communications from government authorities in China, the United States, the European Commission, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Brazil concerning alleged anti-competitive activities within the capacitor industry. The investigations are continuing at various stages. In addition, beginning in July 2014, NEC TOKIN and its subsidiary, NEC TOKIN America, Inc., have been named, along with more than 20 other capacitor manufacturers and subsidiaries, as defendants in purported antitrust class action suits by direct and indirect purchasers in the United States and Canada. As of March 31, 2015, NEC TOKIN has recorded an accrual for approximately $30.0 million based on its estimation of losses likely to result from certain of the investigations and civil litigation. KEMET, under equity method accounting, has established an indemnity asset for the $25.0 million indemnity under the Stock Purchase Agreement to be paid by NEC to NEC TOKIN (KEMET's portion is $8.5 million). NEC TOKIN could not estimate the total losses likely to result from all of the investigations and civil litigation because NEC TOKIN does not have sufficient information to be able to estimate the amount of all such losses. KIA CANADA: Quebec Court of Appeal Certifies "Martel" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Emira Tufo of McCarthy Tetrault LLP, in an article for Lexology.com, said that on June 12th, in Martel c. KIA Canada inc. (2015 QCCA 1033), the Quebec Court of Appeal reversed a ruling of the Superior Court which had refused to authorize a class action against a vehicle manufacturer, KIA, for allegedly misrepresenting the frequency of servicing necessary for the proper maintenance of its vehicles. Looking for an economical vehicle, the Petitioner, Therese Martel, had purchased a KIA based on representations made in its official manual that servicing would be required only every 12,000 km. Having brought her vehicle in for its first inspection, however, Ms. Martel was informed by the dealer that more frequent servicing was required by Quebec's harsh climate. At her second inspection, she was informed that an oil change was required more frequently still. The Petitioner instituted a motion for the authorization of a class action on behalf of all purchasers of KIA vehicles who had been victims of false representations contained in the manufacturer's manual. While it did find that the facts alleged appeared to justify the conclusions sought, the Superior Court nevertheless refused to authorize the action, primarily due to the fact that the Petitioner had failed to carry out the necessary inquiry in order to ascertain whether other class members actually existed. In particular, the Superior Court found that the Petitioner had failed to prove that other buyers of KIA had, in fact, been misled by the manufacturer's manual. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, basing itself on the Supreme Court of Canada's rulings in Infineon Technologies (2013 SCC 59) and Vivendi ([2014] 1 S.C.R. 3 , pursuant to which a petitioner is absolved of the need for any such proof, requiring instead a simple demonstration of a defensible cause. The Court's role is simply to eliminate evidently frivolous actions. Recalling Vivendi, the Court of Appeal stressed that even where circumstances varied from one class member to another, a class action could be authorized as long as all shared at least one not insignificant question. The Court also stressed that the extent of inquiry necessary regarding other class members depended on the circumstances of a given case, and that it was not particularly useful to identify other class members in cases where it was evident that they existed. Finally, the Court emphasized that in the context of a prohibited practice under the Consumer Protection Act, the prejudice in question was to be evaluated objectively, and not subjectively in terms of the experience of each affected consumer. The question was essentially that of whether a false representation had been made and whether this constituted a prohibited practice. In the case at hand, the Court ruled that those who considered themselves to have been injured by the alleged false representation could bring forward a claim. The Respondent Kia was presumed to possess sufficient data to estimate the number of consumers concerned and was also better placed than anyone to identify them. The decision confirms the unfortunate ongoing trend toward leniency at the class action authorization stage in Quebec. Moving beyond (or, rather, beneath) the "one not insignificant question" threshold, the Court of Appeal has absolved the petitioner of the usual duty to identify a few others who share her woes. These woes can now seemingly be presumed from a given set of circumstances, just as the respondent can be presumed to possess sufficient data to estimate the number of consumers affected. Despite the fact that the authorization stage obeys to its own set of rules, the question that begs to be asked is whether these presumptions would constitute serious, precise and concordant presumptions as per the requirements of article 2849 of the Civil Code of Quebec. Without something a little more precise, it seems, woe is to the target of a prospective class action. KKR FINANCIAL: Delaware Supreme Court Appeal Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ KKR Financial Holdings LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware and the appeal is currently pending. From December 19, 2013 to January 31, 2014, multiple putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, the United States District Court of the District of Northern California, and the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by KFN shareholders against KFN, individual members of KFN's board of directors, KKR & Co., and certain of KKR & Co.'s affiliates in connection with KFN's entry into a merger agreement pursuant to which it would become a subsidiary of KKR & Co. The Merger Transaction was completed on April 30, 2014. The actions filed in California state court were consolidated, and prior to the filing or designation of an operative complaint for the consolidated action, the consolidated action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on December 1, 2014. The complaint filed in the California federal court action, which was never served on the defendants, was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on May 6, 2014. Of the Delaware actions, two were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, and the remaining Delaware actions were consolidated. On February 21, 2014, a consolidated complaint was filed in the consolidated Delaware action which all defendants moved to dismiss on March 7, 2014. On October 14, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice. On November 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware and the appeal is currently pending. The consolidated complaint in the Delaware action alleges that the members of the KFN board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to KFN shareholders by approving the proposed transaction for inadequate consideration; approving the proposed transaction in order to obtain benefits not equally shared by other KFN shareholders; entering into the merger agreement containing preclusive deal protection devices; and failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to the KFN shareholders. The Delaware action also alleges variously that KKR & Co., and certain of KKR & Co.'s affiliates aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and that KKR & Co. is a controlling shareholder of KFN by means of a management agreement between KFN and KKR Financial Advisors LLC, and KKR & Co. breached a fiduciary duty it allegedly owed to KFN shareholders by causing KFN to enter into the merger agreement. The relief sought in the Delaware action includes, among other things, declaratory relief concerning the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs and other relief. KWICK RENTALS: Faces "Blankenship" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Dylan Blankenship, Marco Gonzalez and Armando Vega, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Kwick Rentals, LLC and K&L Rentals, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00221-J (N.D. Tex., July 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are in the business of supplying and delivering rental equipment to oilfield production areas, including but not limited to, portable toilets, portable lighting and utility trailers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Channy F. Wood, Esq. WOOD LAW FIRM, LLP 1222 S. Fillmore St. Amarillo, TX 79101 Telephone: (806) 372-9663 Facsimile: (806) 372-9664 E-mail: cwood@woodlandfirm-tx.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St. Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com jbresler@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. Rex Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER LAW FIRM, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LO 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 E-mail: phil@bohrerlaw.com scott@bohrerlaw.com KYTHERA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Proposed Allergan Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Furr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 11266-CB (Del. Ch., July 8, 2015), is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., to enjoin the Kythera's Board of Directors' attempt to sell the Company to Allergan PLC for inadequate consideration and unfair price. Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of prescription products for the aesthetic medicine market in the United States and internationally. Allergan PLC is based in Dublin with U.S. headquarters in Parsippany, N.J. Allergan is a pharmaceutical company that provides treatments in dermatology, aesthetics, eye care and for cardiovascular disease. 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 - Peter Safirstein, Esq. Domenico Minerva, Esq. Elizabeth Metcalf, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 28 West 44th Street, Suite 2001 New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 564-1637 E-mail: psafirstein@forthepeople.com DMinerva@ForThePeople.com EMetcalf@MorganSecLaw.com - and - Robert L. Pratter, Esq. Alessandra C. Phillips, Esq. COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C. 2001 Market St Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (866) 291-7088 LA CHIMENEA MEXICAN: "Lopez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations --------------------------------------------------------- Brenda Lopez, and all others similarly-situated v. La Chimenea Mexican Restaurante, LLC and Christopher L. Greene, Case No. 2:15- cv-00842 (E.D. Wis., July 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Defendants own and operate La Chimenea Mexican Restaurante located in Germantown Wisconsin. The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry A. Johnson, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 222 East Erie, Suite 210 P.O. Box 442 Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442 Tel: (414) 271-8650 Fax: (414) 271-8442 E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com LAKE PETROLEUM: Sued in Illinois Over Misleading Fuel Pump Labels ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kim Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lake Petroleum Inc., Case No. 2015-CH-10517 (Ill. Cir. Ct., July 8, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendant's false, misleading, deceptive, and unfair marketing and labeling of the types of fuel available at particular pumps at the BP Station. Lake Petroleum Inc. owns and operates a BP gas station and is located at 31667 N. Highway 12, Volo, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Karl Leinberger, Esq. Paul Markoff, Esq. MARKOFF LEINBERGER LLC 134 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1050 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 726-4162 E-mail: karl@markleinlaw.com paul@markleinlaw.com LIBERTY SILVER: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held ------------------------------------------------------ Liberty Silver Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the settlement in a class action lawsuit is subject to approval by the Court, and the final settlement approval hearing was scheduled for July 17, 2015. On September 12, 2013, the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors (the "Liberty Silver Parties") were named as defendants in a proposed securities class action lawsuit filed against Robert Genovese, certain individuals alleged to have collaborated with Mr. Genovese, and an offshore investment firm allegedly controlled by Mr. Genovese (the "Action," Case No. 9:13- cv-80923-KLR, Stanaford v. Genovese et al.). The action contains various claims alleging violations of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rules thereunder relating to anomalous trading activity and fluctuations in the Company's share price from August through October 2012. The plaintiff purports to bring suit on behalf of all who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common shares from April 1, 2008, through and including October 5, 2012. An amended complaint was filed on September 27, 2013. On January 22, 2014, the Court appointed Jerald Todd Stanaford and Philip Hobel lead plaintiffs and approved Federman & Sherwood as Lead Counsel and Menzer & Hill, PA as Liaison Counsel. On March 24, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On May 8, 2014, the Liberty Silver Parties moved to dismiss the Complaint. On December 8, 2014, the Company had reached a settlement in principle regarding the consolidated securities class action filed in September 2013 in U.S. federal court in the Southern District of Florida pertaining to anomalous trading activity and fluctuations in the Company's share price from August through October 2012. The settlement, which is subject to final documentation as well as review by the court, provides for a payment of $1 million cash, to be paid by the Company's D&O insurance coverage. This settlement, without in any way acknowledging any fault or liability, would lead to a full and final dismissal with prejudice of all claims against Liberty Silver, Geoffrey Browne, and William Tafuri in the litigation. Although defendants continue to deny plaintiffs' allegations, the Company believes it is in the best interests of its stockholders to focus its attention on its business and put the matter behind it. The settlement is subject to approval by the Court, and the final settlement approval hearing was scheduled for July 17, 2015. MACQUARIE LEASING: IMF Bentham to Seek Special Leave to Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Macquarie Leasing Pty Limited said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, that IMF Bentham Limited has indicated that it intends to seek special leave to appeal the decision to the High Court of Australia in the bank fees litigation. Litigation funder IMF Bentham Limited commenced a class action against ANZ in 2010, followed by a second similar class action in March 2013. Together the class actions are claimed to be on behalf of more than 40,000 ANZ customers. The customers currently involved in these class actions are only part of ANZ's customer base for credit cards and transaction accounts. The applicants contended that the relevant exception fees (honour, dishonour and non-payment fees on transaction accounts and late payment and overlimit fees on credit cards) were unenforceable penalties (at law and in equity) and that various of the fees were also unenforceable under statutory provisions governing unconscionable conduct, unfair contract terms and unjust transactions. On 8 April 2015, the Full Federal Court delivered judgment in respect of appeals by both parties in the second class action. The Full Federal Court found in ANZ's favour in respect of all fees subject to appeal (in relation to both the penalty and statutory claims). IMF Bentham Limited has indicated that it intends to seek special leave to appeal the decision to the High Court of Australia. In the meantime, the first class action is in abeyance. MACQUARIE LEASING: Class Action for Late Payment Fees On Hold ------------------------------------------------------------- Macquarie Leasing Pty Limited said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, that in August 2014, IMF Bentham Limited commenced a separate class action against ANZ for late payment fees charged to ANZ customers in respect of commercial credit cards and other ANZ products (at this stage not specified). The action is expressed to apply to all relevant customers, rather than being limited to those who have signed up with IMF Bentham Limited. The action is at an early stage and has been put on hold. MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Dranove" Suit Over Sequential Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- Paul Dranove, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc., et al., Case No. 11261 (Del. Ch., July 8, 2015), is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., to enjoin the MSLO's Board of Directors' attempt to sell the Company to Sequential Brands Group, Inc. by means of a flawed process and for an inadequate price. Headquartered in New York, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. is a globally recognized lifestyle company committed to providing consumers with inspiring content and well-designed, high-quality products. Sequential Brands is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located at 5 Bryant Park, 30th Floor, New York, New York 10018. Sequential Brands owns, promotes, markets, and licenses a portfolio of consumer brands in the fashion, active, and lifestyle categories. 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 - Evan J. Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 667-6200 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com mackerman@brodsky-smith.com MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Moore" Suit Over Planned Sequential Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dorothy Moore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc., et al., Case No. 11260-VCN (Del. Ch., July 8, 2015), is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., to enjoin the MSLO's Board of Directors' attempt to sell the Company to Sequential Brands Group, Inc. by means of a flawed process and for an inadequate price. Headquartered in New York, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. is a globally recognized lifestyle company committed to providing consumers with inspiring content and well-designed, high-quality products. Sequential Brands is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located at 5 Bryant Park, 30th Floor, New York, New York 10018. Sequential Brands owns, promotes, markets, and licenses a portfolio of consumer brands in the fashion, active, and lifestyle categories. 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 - Peter Safirstein, Esq. Domenico Minerva, Esq. Elizabeth Metcalf, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 28 West 44th Street, Suite 2001 New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 564-1637 E-mail: psafirstein@forthepeople.com DMinerva@ForThePeople.com EMetcalf@MorganSecLaw.com MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Terrell" Suit Over Sequential Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- Cedric Terrell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., et al., Case No. 11260-CB (Del. Ch., July 8, 2015), is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., to enjoin the MSLO's Board of Directors' attempt to sell the Company to Sequential Brands Group, Inc. by means of a flawed process and for an inadequate price. Headquartered in New York, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. is a globally recognized lifestyle company committed to providing consumers with inspiring content and well-designed, high-quality products. Sequential Brands is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located at 5 Bryant Park, 30th Floor, New York, New York 10018. Sequential Brands owns, promotes, markets, and licenses a portfolio of consumer brands in the fashion, active, and lifestyle categories. 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 MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Nguyen" Suit Over Sequential Merger ---------------------------------------------------------- Phuc Nguyen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., et al., Case No. 11279 (Del. Ch., July 10, 2015), is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., to enjoin the MSLO's Board of Directors' attempt to sell the Company to Sequential Brands Group, Inc. by means of a flawed process and for an inadequate price. Headquartered in New York, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. is a globally recognized lifestyle company committed to providing consumers with inspiring content and well-designed, high-quality products. Sequential Brands is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located at 5 Bryant Park, 30th Floor, New York, New York 10018. Sequential Brands owns, promotes, markets, and licenses a portfolio of consumer brands in the fashion, active, and lifestyle categories. 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 MASTRO'S RESTAURANTS: "Murata" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Murata, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mastro's Restaurants, LLC, Case No. 2015-CH-10553 (Ill. Cir. Ct., July 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid compensation, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Mastro's Restaurants, LLC owns and operates a steakhouse restaurant and is located at 520 North Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas M. Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C. 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 726-3400 E-mail: tom@tomryanlaw.com - and - James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 201-0575 E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com cpsons@bormeslaw.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Sued in New York Over FDCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------- Lisa M. Goedtel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 604448/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc. is in the business of buying unpaid debts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq. 775 Park Avenue, Suite 255 Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (631) 355-1107 Facsimile: (631) 824-9328 E-mail: mpash@verizon.net MIZRAHI GRILL: "Salay-Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Salay-Martinez and Elmer Augusto Martinez, and all others similarly situated v. Mizrahi Grill, LLC, and Eliyahu Mizrahi, Case No. 1:15-cv-06137 (N.D. Ill., July 13, 2015), seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Defendants operate a restaurant called "Mizrahi Grill", located at Highland Park, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. Consumer Law Group, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Tel: (312) 800-1017 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com MOTORS LIQUIDATION: 108 Class Actions Filed Against New GM ---------------------------------------------------------- Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 22, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that as of April 20, 2015, 108 putative class actions have been filed against New GM. New GM disclosed that, since the beginning of 2014, New GM had recalled approximately 2.6 million vehicles to repair ignition switches or to fix ignition lock cylinders, or the Ignition Switch Recall, and had recalled an additional 33.4 million vehicles to address certain electrical and other safety concerns, including approximately 12.1 million vehicles to rework or replace ignition keys. New GM does not consider any of these 12.1 million vehicles to be a part of the Ignition Switch Recall. Many of the vehicles affected by the foregoing recalls were manufactured or sold prior to July 10, 2009, or the Closing Date, the date on which the sale of substantially all of the assets of Old GM pursuant to the MSPA was completed. In its quarterly report on Form 10-Q filed April 23, 2015, New GM also disclosed that, as of April 20, 2015, 108 putative class actions have been filed against New GM in various federal and state courts seeking compensatory and other damages for economic losses allegedly resulting from one or more of the recalls announced in 2014 and/or the underlying condition of vehicles covered by those recalls. Certain of these 108 cases, or the Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions, concern the Ignition Switch Recall; certain other cases, or the Other Economic Loss Actions, concern recalls other than the Ignition Switch Recall; and yet others concern both the Ignition Switch Recall and one or more other recalls. In addition, New GM disclosed that, as of April 20, 2015, 144 putative class actions have been filed against New GM in various federal and state courts seeking compensatory and other damages for personal injury and other claims allegedly arising from accidents that occurred as a result of the underlying condition of the vehicles subject to the recalls initiated by New GM, or the Personal Injury Actions. Certain of these 144 cases are Ignition Switch Personal Injury Actions. Since June 2014, 156 Recall-Related Actions have been transferred to the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York, or the MDL Court, and have been consolidated into a single case, case number 14-MD-2543 (JMF), or the MDL Proceeding. On October 14, 2014, the plaintiffs in certain Recall-Related Actions filed two amended and consolidated complaints in the MDL Proceeding that concern vehicles designed, manufactured or sold prior to the Closing Date. Concurrently with the proceedings before the MDL Court, New GM has taken steps in the Bankruptcy Court to enjoin claims in the Recall-Related Actions that concern vehicles designed, manufactured or sold prior to the Closing Date, except for Personal Injury Actions related to accidents that occurred after the Closing Date (or collectively, the Subject Recall-Related Actions). In that respect, beginning on April 21, 2014, New GM filed a series of motions with the Bankruptcy Court seeking to enjoin the Subject Recall-Related Actions and to enforce the Sale Order and Injunction entered on July 5, 2009, or the Sale Order (under which all product liability and property damage claims arising from accidents or incidents prior to the Closing Date were to remain with Old GM as general unsecured claims), or the Motions to Enforce. Beginning on May 16, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court entered a series of scheduling orders which identified a number of "threshold issues" to be resolved by the Bankruptcy Court, including (i) whether plaintiffs' procedural due process rights were violated in connection with the 363 Transaction, (ii) if such due process rights were violated, what is the appropriate remedy, (iii) whether any or all of the claims asserted in the Subject Recall- Related Actions are claims against Old GM and/or the GUC Trust, and (iv) whether any such claims against Old GM and/or the GUC Trust should be dismissed as equitably moot. The GUC Trust appeared as a party in interest with respect to New GM's Motions to Enforce and filed briefs in opposition thereto, asserting that none of the claims of the plaintiffs in the Subject Recall-Related Actions may be properly asserted against Old GM or the GUC Trust. On April 15, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court rendered a decision on the threshold issues and indicated that its holdings would be memorialized in a judgment to be entered by such court. As ordered by the Bankruptcy Court, the parties to the Motion to Enforce litigation met and conferred and ultimately submitted competing proposed forms of judgment on May 12, 2015. Following the meet-and-confer process, the GUC Trust understands the Bankruptcy Court's April 15 decision to have provided at least the following: (i) The plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions suffered a due process violation with respect to the Sale Order, whereas the plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Personal Injury Actions did not suffer a due process violation with respect to the Sale Order; (ii) As a result of the due process violation, the provisions of the Sale Order which purport to shield New GM from any liability associated with its independent post-Sale conduct can be modified, and the plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions may proceed against New GM with respect to its independent post- Sale conduct; (iii) Any claims asserted in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions and the Ignition Switch Personal Injury Actions that relate to the conduct of Old GM are enjoined from being pursued against New GM on successor liability grounds; (iv) While the plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions and the Ignition Switch Personal Injury Actions may seek authorization to file late claims in the bankruptcy cases of Old GM, any such claims as against the GUC Trust are "equitably moot" (that is, fashioning relief for the plaintiffs against the GUC Trust would be "impractical, imprudent and therefore inequitable"), and thus the assets of the GUC Trust cannot be used to satisfy such claims; and (v) The resolution of New GM's Motion to Enforce the Other Economic Loss Actions is deferred. Certain parties have also asserted that the decision defers judgment on New GM's Motion to Enforce those Personal Injury Actions that concern vehicles subject to recalls other than the Ignition Switch Recall, or the Non-Ignition Switch Personal Injury Actions. The Bankruptcy Court has not yet entered its judgment. The judgment, when and as issued by the Bankruptcy Court, could address part or all of the issues deferred or potentially deferred, and could otherwise modify or qualify the decision. Further, the Bankruptcy Court's decision may be appealed by any of the parties in interest, and New GM disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q filed April 23, 2015 that the plaintiffs intend to appeal the decision. If the Bankruptcy Court's decision is not overturned on appeal (or the equitable mootness holding is not appealed), the claims of the plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions and the Ignition Switch Personal Injury Actions have been determined to be equitably moot and, as a result, such claims (even if allowed by the Bankruptcy Court) may not dilute the recoveries of holders of Units in the GUC Trust. However, in the event that the decision is overturned with respect to the equitable mootness holding, it is possible that those plaintiffs could seek to assert claims against the GUC Trust, which claims (if allowed) could dilute the recoveries of holders of Units in the GUC Trust. Moreover, as discussed above, the Bankruptcy Court's April 15 decision defers judgment on New GM's Motion to Enforce the Other Economic Loss Actions (and potentially New GM's Motion to Enforce the Non-Ignition Switch Personal Injury Actions), and thus, the impact of the decision on claims asserted in those actions is uncertain. In addition, the GUC Trust has been named a defendant in two actions by individual plaintiffs with separate personal claims against Old GM (including one claimant who, in light of the recalls by New GM, is seeking (in the Bankruptcy Court where New GM has filed motions seeking to enjoin the Subject Recall-Related Actions, and in other jurisdictions) to overturn the terms of a previous settlement with Old GM for personal injuries/wrongful deaths that occurred prior to the Closing Date). Neither plaintiff has asserted a claim for specified monetary damages, but the GUC Trust intends to vigorously defend its position against such claimants. Accordingly, no assurance may be given that personal injury, property damage and other claims relating to New GM's recalls involving General Motors vehicles manufactured or sold prior to the Closing Date and/or settlements previously reached with certain plaintiffs who asserted personal injury, property damage or other claims due to incidents or accidents that occurred prior to the Closing Date, will not adversely affect the GUC Trust, its assets or the Plan. MURPHY OIL: 5th Circ. Rejects NLRB's En Banc Hearing Request ------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel B. Pasternak, writing for The Nationqal Law Review, reported that in its 2012 decision in D.R. Horton, Inc., the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) held that employers that require employees to agree to arbitrate employment-related claims, and to do so only on an individual basis, waiving the right to participate in class and collective action proceedings (in court or in arbitration), violate the guarantee in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act of employees' right to engage in protected concerted activity for mutual aid or protection. At bottom, the NLRB's positon is that the right to engage in concerted activity, such as class action litigation, embedded the NLRA trumps the federal policy expressed in the Federal Arbitration Act favoring arbitration as a means to resolve disputes and requiring that arbitration agreements be enforced. The NLRB's position on class and collective waivers, however, has been soundly and repeatedly rejected by the federal and state courts. Indeed, on appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied enforcement of the Board's decision in D.R. Horton. Most expected that the NLRB would appeal its defeat in D.R. Horton to the United States Supreme Court, which has over the past several terms addressed a number of arbitration-related cases (i.e., AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion; Oxford Health v. Sutter; Stolt-Nielsen v. Animalfeeds Int'l). However, rather than seeking a the final word from the Supreme Court on the issue, the NLRB declined to seek review and instead issued a second decision, Murphy Oil USA, Inc., in which the NLRB attempted to rehabilitate D.R. Horton and address the shortcomings therein identified by many courts, including the Fifth Circuit. Predictably, after the NLRB found that it violated the law by implementing an arbitration agreement with a class and collective action waiver -- which the Fifth Circuit (and other circuits) had held was lawful -- Murphy Oil appealed the NLRB's decision to, not surprisingly, the Fifth Circuit. Under the principal of horizontal stare decisis, one panel of a circuit court of appeals may not overrule a prior panel's decision. Rather, any change to precedent from a prior panel decision must come as a result of a decision issued by all of the judges in the circuit through what is referred to as an en banc proceeding. As the NLRB recognized that it could not win in Murphy Oil unless the Fifth Circuit decided to hear the matter en banc (that is, a panel in Murphy Oil could not find the class and collective action waiver in that case unlawful, as to do so would require that the panel effectively overrule the prior panel's decision in D.R. Horton), it petitioned for the full court to hear the case. On June 24, the Fifth Circuit denied the NLRB's petition for hearing en banc. In fact, it emphatically did so -- no judge on the court even asked that the court be polled on whether to hear the case en banc. What does this mean? Practically speaking, it means that it should be a mere formality for the Fifth Circuit to grant review and deny enforcement of the Board's Order in Murphy Oil, meaning that the NLRB will once again lose before that court. Then it will be up to the NLRB -- for the second time -- to decide whether to seek Supreme Court review. Hopefully, for the sake of everyone involved -- employers and employees alike -- it will do so this time, and thereby seek to resolve this issue, rather than continue to blindly charge employers with unfair labor practices based on a theory that has been rejected by every judge and court to have considered it. NATIONAL MILK: Limits Availability of Raw Farm Milk, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Piggly Wiggly Midwest, LLC and KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. National Milk Producers Federation, Cooperatives Working Together, Dairy Farmers Of America, Inc., Land O'Lakes, Inc., Dairylea Cooperative Inc., and Agri-Mark, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00750 (S.D. Ill., July 10, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to limit the production of raw farm milk through premature "herd retirements" that require participating dairy farmers to destroy all of the dairy cows in all of their herds and to reenter the dairy farming business for at least a year. The Defendants are the largest producers of raw milk, fluid milk and other manufactured dairy products in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Barrett, Esq. CHARLES BARRETT, P.C. 6518 Highway 100, Suite 210 Nashville, TN 37205 Telephone: (615) 515-3393 Facsimile: (615) 515-3395 E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com - and - Don Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095-0927 Telephone: (662) 834-9168 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Dianne M. Nast, Esq. Erin C. Burns, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 923-9300 Facsimile: (215) 923-9302 E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com dgallucci@nastlaw.com eburns@nastlaw.com - and - Michael Roberts, Esq. Debra Gaw Josephson, Esq. Stephanie E. Smith, Esq. Jana K. Law, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A. 20 Rahling Circle Mailing Address: P.O. Box 241790 Little Rock, AR 72223 Telephone: (501) 821-5575 Facsimile: (501) 821-4474 E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us debrajosephson@robertslawfirm.us stephanieegner@robertslawfirm.us janalaw@robertslawfirm.us - and - Joseph Kohn, Esq. Robert J. LaRocca, Esq. William E. Hoese, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 Facsimile: (215) 238-1968 E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com rlarocca@kohnswift.com whose@kohnswift.com - and - Arnold Levin, Esq. Michael D. Fishbein, Esq. Frederick S. Longer, Esq. LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: alevin@lfsblaw.com mfishbein@lfsblaw.com flonger@lfsblaw.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 570 Lexington Avenue, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 702-7054 Facsimile: (212) 681-0300 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com - and - Joseph Vanek, Esq. VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI P.C. 55 W. Monroe, Suite 3500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 224-1500 Facsimile: (312) 22-1510 E-mail: jvanek@vaneklaw.com NINETEEN TWENTY: Faces "Cano" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Rufino Cano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nineteen Twenty Four, Inc. d/b/a Roberta's Pizzeria, Brandon Hoy, Carlo Mirarchi, Christopher Parachini, and John Doe Corps. #1-10, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:15-cv-04082 (E.D.N.Y., July 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant and pizzeria in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. PELTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com NORTH OLMSTED, OH: Sued Over Invasion of Class Members' Property ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Connell, Rose Connell, Jeffery Liskay, Rebecca Liskay, Jeffrey Campbell and Elizabeth Campbell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. City of North Olmsted, et al., Case No. CV-15-848055 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, July 8, 2015), arises out of flooding and invasion of the class members' property by sewage, pollutants, water, feces, dirt, debris and noxious odors which caused, and continue to cause, material injury to class members' property through trespass, gross negligence, unconstitutional taking and nuisance. City of North Olmsted is a municipality located in the County of Cuyahoga, State of Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Paris, Esq. NURENBERG, PARIS, HELLER & MCCARTHY CO., L.P.A. 1370 Ontario Street, Suite 100 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 621-2300 Facsimile: (216) 771-2242 E-mail: dparis@nphm.com NVIDIA CORP: Sept. 18 Hearing in Graphics Chip Litigation --------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the NVIDIA GTX 970 Graphics Chip Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00760-CRB (N.D. Cal.), have agreed to extend the time: -- by which Defendants must respond to the first amended consolidated class action complaint to July 15, 2015; -- for Plaintiffs to file oppositions to any Rule 12 motions by August 14, 2015; and -- for Defendants to file any reply by September 4, 2015. The defendants are NVIDIA Corporation, Asus Computer International, Gigabyte Global Business Corporation d/b/a GigaByte Technology Co. Ltd. and TigerDirect, Inc. They are represented by Robert P. Varian, James N. Kramer, Stephen M. Knaster, Alexander K. Talarides, and Judy Kwan, Orrick, at Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. District Judge Charles R. Breyer approved the agreement on July 1, and said the hearing on the matter is set for September 18, 2015 at 10 a.m., or at the Court's earliest convenience. A copy of the Court's approval order is available at http://is.gd/CinaNpfrom Leagle.com. NVIDIA CORP: Filed Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nvidia Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended April 26, 2015, that, that the Company has filed an opposition to the petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court filed by the Plaintiffs in securities class action lawsuits. "In September 2008, three putative securities class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California arising out of our announcements on July 2, 2008, that we would take a charge against cost of revenue to cover anticipated costs and expenses arising from a weak die/packaging material set in certain versions of our previous generation MCP and GPU products and that we were revising financial guidance for our second quarter of fiscal year 2009," the Company said. The actions purport to be brought on behalf of purchasers of NVIDIA stock and assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act. On January 22, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, asserting claims for violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and seeking unspecified compensatory damages. "We moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint and on October 19, 2010, Judge Seeborg granted our motion with leave to amend," the Company said. "On December 2, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. We again moved to dismiss and on October 12, 2011, Judge Seeborg again granted our motion to dismiss, this time denying Plaintiffs leave to amend. On November 8, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument was held on January 14, 2014. On October 2, 2014, the Ninth Circuit issued an order affirming the dismissal. On October 16, 2014, Plaintiffs requested a rehearing or en banc review of the Ninth Circuit's opinion affirming the dismissal. Plaintiffs' request was denied on November 10, 2014. On February 9, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. On April 15, 2015, we filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' petition." NY PORT AUTHORITY: Suit Over Bridge Traffic Junked -------------------------------------------------- David Porter, writing for NBC New York, reported that a federal judge has dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed by people who were stuck in traffic when lanes leading to the George Washington Bridge were closed without warning in 2013. The judge's ruling posted faulted the plaintiffs for not describing what each defendant's role was in the scheme, but it gave the plaintiffs leeway to refile eight of the 11 claims contained in the complaint. Attorney Barry Epstein said that he planned to file an amended complaint on the eight counts. The consolidated class-action complaint is a combination of two lawsuits filed in early 2014, several months after the lane closings at the bridge caused massive gridlock in Fort Lee. An investigation into the lane closures led to the indictments of Bridget Kelly, former deputy chief of staff to Republican Gov. Chris Christie, and Bill Baroni, the former Christie-appointed deputy executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates the bridge. The indictment alleges the lane closures were orchestrated for political retribution against the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee for not endorsing Christie. David Wildstein, another former Port Authority official, has pleaded guilty and is expected to testify against Baroni and Kelly. Kelly, Baroni, Wildstein and former Christie campaign manager Bill Stepien are among the defendants in the lawsuit. Christie is not a defendant and has said he had no knowledge of the planning or execution of the lane closings until well afterward. A taxpayer- funded report by lawyers hired by Christie arrived at the same conclusions. A Democrat-controlled state legislative panel in an interim report on its inquiry didn't find any proof of a direct connection between the governor and the lane closures. The scandal has led to several resignations and firings and has dogged Christie, who announced he was running for president. The consolidated lawsuit charges the defendants with depriving them of constitutional rights to equal protection, racketeering, breach of contract and other violations. One lawsuit was filed by several people who said they were late for work because of the traffic jams; the other was filed by several limousine and taxi companies. "Despite the multitude of media coverage and governmental scrutiny about the facts and circumstances related to the incident giving rise to this action," U.S. District Judge Jose Linares wrote in his opinion, "Plaintiffs provide only conclusory allegations against Defendants as a group, failing to allege the personal involvement of any Defendant as is required." NY RENAISSANCE: Faces "Romero" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Romero and Rory Munoz, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. NY Renaissance Corp., Monique Delacroix and Dan Pirvulescu, Case No. 604495/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the New York Labor Law. The Defendants own and operate a construction company, with a headquarters and principal place of business located at 2079 Wantagh Ave, Suite 10, Wantagh, NY 11793. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 OLYMPUS AMERICA: Recalls VG 170 Digital Cameras Due to Shock Risk ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Olympus America Inc., of Center Valley, Pa., announced a voluntary recall of about 1,200 Olympus VG 170 Digital Cameras. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. An improperly installed part can touch the camera's circuit board, posing an electric shock risk to the user. The recall involves the Olympus VG-170 Digital Point-and-Shoot Cameras. The VG-170 measures about 4 x 2.5 x 1 inches, weighs 5.1 ounces and comes in white, black or red. "VG 170" is printed on the top of the camera, on the side opposite the shutter button. "Olympus" is printed on the upper right hand corner of the front of the camera,"5 X Wide" is printed on lower left hand corner of the front of the camera. The camera has a 3 inch digital LCD screen on the back. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at: http://is.gd/r0he8I The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at HHGregg Appliance Inc. stores and online at www.hhgregg.com from September 2013 to December 2014 for about $120. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled digital camera and contact Olympus for a free inspection and repair. PARAMOUNT GOLD: Defending Class Actions Related to Merger --------------------------------------------------------- Paramount Gold Nevada Corp. is defending class action lawsuits filed related to the merger of Paramount Gold and Silver Corp. ("PGSC") and Coeur Mining, Inc. ("Coeur"), the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 22, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. Since the announcement of the merger of PGSC and Coeur on December 17, 2014, the Company, PGSC, members of PGSC's board, Coeur, and Hollywood Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub") have been named as defendants in six putative stockholder class action suits brought by purported stockholders of PGSC, challenging the proposed Merger (the "Complaints"). The Complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware (Fernando Gamboa v. Paramount Gold and Silver Corp., et al., No.: 10499; Jerry Panning v. Paramount Gold and Silver Corp., et al., No.: 10507; Jonah Weiss v. Christopher Crupi, et al., No.: 10517; Justin Beaston v. Paramount Gold and Silver Corporation, et al., No.: 10538; Rob Byers v. Christopher Crupi, et al., No.: 10551; James H. Alston v. Paramount Gold and Silver Corp., et al., No.: 10531. The plaintiffs generally claim that the PGSC board members breached their fiduciary duties to PGSC stockholders by: (i) authorizing the merger with Coeur for what the plaintiffs assert is inadequate consideration and pursuant to an allegedly inadequate process, and (ii) failing to disclose sufficient information in its Form S-4 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission to allow the shareholders to make an informed vote. The plaintiffs also claim that the Company, PGSC, Coeur, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the other defendants' alleged breach of duties. In the Complaints, the plaintiffs seek, among other things, to enjoin the merger, rescind the transaction or obtain rescissory damages if the merger is consummated, obtain other unspecified damages and recover attorneys' fees and costs. The merger was consummated on April 17, 2015. "We, PGSC, members of PGSC board, Coeur, and Merger Sub deny any wrongdoing and are vigorously defending all of the actions," the Company said. PAUL TRAMANTANA: "Cruz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Julio C. Cruz, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Paul Tramantana Landscaping, Paul Tramantana and John Does 1-2, Case No. 3517/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the New York Labor Law. The Defendants are engaged in landscaping business and maintain a principal place of business at 15 Clayton Avenue Moral Park, NY 11001. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus Monteiro, Esq. MONTEIRO & FISHMAN, LLP 91 N. Franklin Street Hempstead, NY 11550 Telephone: (516) 280-4600 Facsimile: (516) 280.4530 E-mail: mmonteiro@mflawny.com PLASMATECH BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Schmidt Case Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- Plasmatech Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the PlasmaTech Defendants has filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the class action lawsuit filed by Alan Schmidt. Alan Schmidt ("Schmidt"), a former shareholder of Genaera Corporation ("Genaera"), and a former unitholder of the Genaera Liquidating Trust (the ''Trust''), filed a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in June 2012. "The lawsuit named thirty defendants, including PlasmaTech, MacroChem Corporation, which was acquired by us in February 2009, Jeffrey Davis, the then-CEO and currently a director of PlasmaTech, and Steven H. Rouhandeh and Mark Alvino, both of whom are our directors (the ''PlasmaTech Defendants'')," the Company said. With respect to the PlasmaTech Defendants, the complaint alleged direct and derivative claims asserting that directors of Genaera and the Trustee of the Trust breached their fiduciary duties to Genaera, Genaera's shareholders and the Trust's unitholders in connection with the licensing and disposition of certain assets, aided and abetted by numerous defendants including the PlasmaTech Defendants. Schmidt seeks monetary damages, disgorgement of any distributions received from the Trust, rescission of sales made by the Trust, attorneys' and expert fees, and costs. On December 19, 2012, Schmidt filed an amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint") which asserted substantially the same allegations with respect to the PlasmaTech Defendants. On February 4, 2013, the PlasmaTech Defendants moved to dismiss all claims asserted against them. On August 12, 2013 the court granted the PlasmaTech Defendants' motions to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of the PlasmaTech Defendants on all claims. On August 26, 2013, Schmidt filed a motion for reconsideration. On September 10, 2013 Schmidt filed a Notice of Appeal with the District Court. On September 17, 2013, Schmidt filed his appeal with the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Third Circuit"). On September 25, 2013, the District Court denied Schmidt's motion for reconsideration. On October 17, 2013, Schmidt amended his appeal to include the District Court's denial of his motion for reconsideration. On March 20, 2014, Schmidt filed his Brief and Joint Appendix. On May 22, 2014, the PlasmaTech Defendants filed their Oppositions to Schmidt's Brief. On May 29, 2014, Schmidt was granted an extension of time until June 23, 2014 to file his Reply Brief and filed his Reply Brief on that date. The Third Circuit held oral argument on September 12, 2014. On October 17, 2014, in a split decision, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's decision holding, among other things, that the District Court's determination that the Amended Complaint was time-barred on statute of limitations grounds was premature. The Third Circuit did not rule upon any of the other grounds for dismissal advanced in the District Court and on appeal. The Third Circuit remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On January 6, 2015, the District Court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs on all remaining arguments for dismissal, and further ordered that a hearing on the motions to dismiss would be held on February 3, 2015. On January 23, 2015, the PlasmaTech Defendants filed their Supplemental Brief. At the February 3, 2015 hearing, Schmidt sought and was granted leave to amend his complaint for a second time. Schmidt filed his Second Amended Complaint on February 3, 2015. The Second Amended Complaint asserts substantially the same factual allegations with respect to the PlasmaTech Defendants, but eliminates all causes of action against the PlasmaTech Defendants except for aiding and abetting the Genaera directors' and officers' purported breaches of fiduciary duties, a claim for "punitive damages" and a claim for rescission of a settlement agreement between the Trust and the PlasmaTech Defendants. On March 20, 2015, the PlasmaTech Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. "We intend to continue contesting the claims vigorously," the Company said. PROCTER & GAMBLE: Falsely Marketed Tissue Products, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Karla Ramcharitar, individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-00457-MRB (S.D. Ohio, July 10, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the consumers who purchased Charmin Freshmates(R) brand moist toilet tissue, that were falsely marketed by the Defendant as "flushable" and "safe for sewer and septic systems". The complaint says the products at issue are not sewer and septic safe. The wipes accumulate in the consumer's plumbing and end up clogging their sewer and septic systems. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart E. Scott, Esq. Daniel Frech, Esq. SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP 1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 696-3232 Facsimile: (216) 696-3924 E-mail: sscott@spanglaw.com dfrech@spanglaw.com - and - Lorenzo B. Cellini, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 L Street, NW, Suite 808 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: lcellini@tzlegal.com PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Reports $5.9MM Settlement Liability Reserve ---------------------------------------------------------------- Prosper Marketplace, Inc. and Prosper Funding LLC said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the reserve for class action settlement liability is $5.9 million in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2015. In 2008, plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Prosper and certain of its executive officers and directors in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, California. The suit was brought on behalf of all promissory note purchasers on the platform from January 1, 2006 through October 14, 2008. The lawsuit alleged that Prosper offered and sold unqualified and unregistered securities in violation of the California and federal securities laws. On July 19, 2013 solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the parties to the class action litigation agreed to enter into a settlement to resolve all claims related thereto (the "Settlement"). In connection with the Settlement, Prosper agreed to pay an aggregate amount of $10 million into a settlement fund, split into four annual installments of $2 million in 2014, $2 million in 2015, $3 million in 2016 and $3 million in 2017. The Settlement received final approval in a final order and judgment entered by the Superior Court on April 16, 2014. Pursuant to the final order and judgment, the claims in the class action were dismissed, and the defendants were released by the plaintiffs from all claims that were or could have been asserted concerning the issues alleged in the class action lawsuit. RELIANCE WORLDWIDE: Recalls TAFR Devices Due to Injury Risk ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Reliance Worldwide Corp. of Atlanta, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of about 26,000 Cash Acme Heatguard Temperature Actuated Flow Reducing (TAFR) Device. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The thermal element in the TAFR can fail to operate, causing users to come in contact with water that is hotter than expected. This poses a risk of scalding injury. This recall involves Cash Acme Heatguard(R) brand Temperature Actuated Flow Reducing (TAFR) devices. The Heatguard(R) TAFR is a metal, cylindrical-shaped thermostatic device used on lavatory faucets and showers. TAFR flow reducers sense high temperature water and reduce water flow if the temperature achieves 120 F (49 C). These devices may be used in private and public housing, child care centers, hospitals, hotels and motels. The following three TAFR models sold from December 2014 to May 2015 are included in the recall. TAFR Name Model Number --------- ------------ Shower Safe Assembly SD-LF #24718 Tap Safe Assembly TD-LF #24719 Shower Safe Assembly SD-01 #24110-0000 Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at: http://is.gd/JsGaxB The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at Plumbing retailers and wholesalers including: Antiscald, Inc., Best Plumbing Specialties, Coley Electrical and Plumbing Supply, Dutton Lainson Company, FEI, Grainger, HD Supply, M-One Specialties, Security Supply, The Alzheimer's Store, TM O'Donnell, and Westco Pipe and Supply from December 2014 through May 2015 for about $30. Consumers should use caution when turning on faucets and showers with the recalled TAFR device installed and immediately contact Reliance Worldwide to receive a free replacement TAFR. Consumers will be mailed a replacement TAFR device with step-by-step installation instructions, and a postage pre-paid envelope to return the recalled TAFR to Reliance Worldwide. REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Suit by Warren Police ------------------------------------------------- Revance Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of May 2015, the Company became subject to a legal compliant, captioned City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. Revance Therapeutics Inc., et al, CIV 533635, which was filed on behalf of City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System in the Superior Court for San Mateo County, California against the Company and certain of its directors and executive officers at the time of the follow-on public offering, and the investment banking firms that acted as the underwriters in the follow-on public offering. In general, the complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented the then- present status of the 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 at the time of the follow-on public offering. The complaint has been brought as a purported class action on behalf of those who purchased common stock in the follow-on public offering and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The Company accrues a liability for such matters when it is probable that future expenditures will be made and such expenditures can be reasonably estimated. At this time, neither the outcome of this matter, nor an estimate of the maximum potential exposure or the range of possible loss can be determined. The Company believes that the class action lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action. Nevertheless, this litigation, as any other litigation, is subject to uncertainty and there can be no assurance that this litigation will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial position or cash flows. SHENGDATECH LIQUIDATING: Discovery Stayed in Securities Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Shengdatech Liquidating Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that discovery is stayed in the In re ShengdaTech, Inc. Securities Litigation pending a decision on Plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) Motion. No trial date has been set. On October 28, 2013, Plaintiffs Schaul and Yaw, through lead counsel Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd L.L.P., filed their third amended putative class action complaint (the "Third Amended Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of ShengdaTech between May 6, 2008 and March 15, 2010, against (i) the Company, (ii) certain of the Company's former officers and directors including Messrs. Mudd and Saidman (the "Independent Directors"), and (iii) the Company's former auditor, KPMG HK. The Third Amended Complaint arises out of alleged misrepresentations in the Company's SEC filings and other public statements made during the class period and asserts a claim against the Company for the alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereon. While Plaintiffs claim damages against the defendants in an amount to be determined at trial, Plaintiffs' concede that any recovery against the Company under the Plan is limited to available insurance coverage and proceeds. On November 25, 2013, the Independent Directors and KPMG HK moved to dismiss ("Motions to Dismiss") the Third Amended Complaint on the grounds, among others, that it failed to state cognizable claims against them. The Motions to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint were fully briefed as of January 13, 2014. On July 1, 2014, the Court denied KPMG HK's Motion to Dismiss without prejudice to renewal. On August 12, 2014, the Court granted the Independent Directors' motion to dismiss the Third Amended and Consolidated Complaint. On October 24, 2014, Plaintiffs moved ("Plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) Motion") for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) and (2) and for leave to amend their complaint under Rule 15(a) and (d) against the Independent Directors. Defendants responded to Plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) Motion on January 9, 2015. Plaintiffs' replied in support of their Rule 60(b) Motion on January 16, 2015. The Court has not yet ruled on the Plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) Motion. On January 8, 2014, the Company filed its Answer to the allegations raised against it in the Third Amended Complaint. In its Answer, the Company denied all material allegations of wrongdoing against it and raised certain affirmative defenses. On March 27, 2015, Plaintiffs and KPMG HK executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation") to resolve all claims between them that were or could have been raised in the litigation. On April 22, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Partial Class Action Settlement (the "Motion for Preliminary Approval of Partial Settlement") and related papers including a memorandum in support, a form of notice and the Stipulation. On April 24, 2015, the Court entered an order setting the hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Partial Settlement for May 14, 2015. The Stipulation does not resolve Plaintiffs' complaint against the Company or its former officers or directors. Discovery is stayed pending a decision on Plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) Motion. No trial date has been set. SINCERE CARE: Faces "Kazansky" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roman Kazansky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sincere Care Agency, Inc., Case No. 508506/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the New York Labor Law. Sincere Care Agency, Inc. provides home health care to frail elderly individuals who live in New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, PC 2747 Coney Island Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 808-2224 Facsimile: (800) 789-9396 E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com SLF SERIES G: "Dorsten" Suit Removed to Florida District Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Bo Brower removes the lawsuit titled Dorsten, et al. v. SLF Series G, LLC, et al., Case No. CACE 13018807, from the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:15-cv-61235-BB to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $22 million in damages -- not including the demand for treble damages. The action seeks equitable and monetary relief for, among other things, non-payment on mortgage notes and rescission of sale based upon the alleged fraudulent conveyance, and violation of State and Federal Securities Laws. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ernest J. Myers, Esq. MARCUS & MYERS, P.A. 1515 Park Center Drive, Suite 2G Orlando, FL 32835 Telephone: (407) 447-2550 Facsimile: (407) 447-2551 E-mail: emyers@marcusmyerslaw.com Defendant SLF Series G, LLC, is represented by: Francis Xavier Sexton, Jr., Esq. LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER GROSSMAN 201 South Biscayne Blvd., 22nd Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 403-8788 Facsimile: (305) 403-8789 E-mail: fxs@lklsg.com - and - Marian Grace Kennady, Esq. VAN NEXX LAW FIRM 1239 E. Newport Center Drive, Suite 110 Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 Telephone: (954) 571-2031 Facsimile: (954) 571-2033 E-mail: mkennady@cfclaw.com Defendant Bo Brower is represented by: Jordan Scott Cohen, Esq. WICKER, SMITH, O'HARA, MCCOY & FORD, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 467-6405 E-mail: jcohen@wickersmith.com - and - Brandon Jay Hechtman, Esq. WICKER, SMITH, O'HARA, MCCOY & FORD, P.A. Regions Bank Building, Suite 800 2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 448-3939 Facsimile: (305) 441-1745 E-mail: bhechtman@wickersmith.com SOLAZYME INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Bernstein Liebhard LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers (the "Class") of Solazyme, Inc. ("Solazyme" or the "Company") securities during the period of February 27, 2014 and November 5, 2014 (the "Class Period"), including those traceable to either of Solazyme's two registered public offerings on March 27, 2014 (the "Offerings"), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and/or the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company and certain of its officers (the "Complaint"). Solazyme is a San Francisco-based bio-products company that produces sustainable oils from microalgae. The Company uses an industrial fermentation process to transform plant-based sugars into triglyceride oils, which are used in a wide range of products On March 25, 2014, Solazyme filed a Registration Statement with the SEC for the Offerings. On March 27, 2014, Solazyme filed a Prospectus in connection with the offering of $149.5 million in convertible notes paying 5% interest and scheduled to mature in 2019 (the "Notes"). On the same day, Solazyme filed a Prospectus for the offering of 5.75 million shares of stock at $11 per share for aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $63.25 million. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, and in the Registration Statements and Prospectuses for the Offerings, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information about Solazyme's construction progress, development and production capacity at its renewable oils production facility located in Moema, Brazil (the "Moema Facility"). Specifically, the Complaint alleges defendants' statements were false and misleading because they failed to disclose that the Moema Facility was experiencing construction delays due to insufficient access to electricity and steam utility services, and that these challenges would prohibit the Moema Facility from scaling its capacity production as projected. As a result of these false and misleading statements and/or omissions, Solazyme securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. On November 5, 2014, Solazyme acknowledged significant construction delays at the Moema Facility and revealed for the first time that it would "narrow [its] production focus to smaller volumes of higher value products at . . . Moema" and would be "prioritizing cash management and product margin over a rapid capacity ramp." On this news, the price of the Company's stock declined $4.35 per share, over 58%, on November 6, 2014, and the market price of Solazyme's Notes declined by $235.00 per Note, over 30%, on November 7, 2014, the next session in which the Notes traded. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members who purchased Solazyme notes or shares during the Class Period. If you purchased Solazyme securities as described above, and either lost money on the transaction or still hold the security, you may wish to join in this action to serve as lead plaintiff. In order to do so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate papers no later than August 24, 2015. A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Bernstein Liebhard LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Recalls Pedal Axle Extenders ------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Specialized Bicycle Components Inc., of Morgan Hill, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 6,500 Pedal Axle Extenders (in addition about 380 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The Pedal Axle Extenders can break, and the rider can lose control, posing a fall hazard. This recall involves Specialized Body Geometry Pedal Axle Extenders that are used to extend the outward reach of the pedals. They are sold in pairs and mount directly into the bicycle crank arms. Pedal extenders are made of stainless steel and fit a 9/16 inch pedal thread. They are labeled with an "L" and an "R". There have been 10 reports of the pedal extenders breaking, including two reports of minor injuries, involving scrapes and bruises. Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at: http://is.gd/U1dGBt The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at Authorized Specialized retailers and online at www.specialized.com from January 2009 to June 2015 for about $40. Consumers should stop using the recalled pedal extenders immediately and return them to an authorized Specialized retailer for a full refund. STERICYCLE INC: Settled "Sawyer" Clas Action -------------------------------------------- Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2015, that on May 20, 2015, the Company entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all claims made against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in Sawyer v. Stericycle, et al., Case No. 2015 CH 07190 (the "TCPA Action"), a class action complaint pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (the "Court"). The Company said, "The TCPA Action is the successor lawsuit to the class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case 1:14-cv-02070) that we have previously disclosed and that was dismissed pursuant to the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal. The TCPA Action alleges that from 2010 to 2014 we violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, by sending facsimile advertisements to plaintiffs or putative class members that either were unsolicited and/or did not contain a valid opt-out notice. We have denied all liability for the claims made in the TCPA Action but have agreed to settle to avoid the expense, burden and inherent risk and uncertainty of litigation." "Under the terms of the settlement agreement entered into with the two class representatives, we agreed to make available a fund of $45.0 million (the "Settlement Fund") to pay class members who submit a valid claim form within a 90-day period, to pay an incentive award to each of the class representatives, to pay attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' attorneys, and to pay fees and costs of a third-party settlement administrator (the "Settlement"). The plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking attorneys' fees of one-third of the Settlement Fund, plus out-of-pocket expenses, to be paid from the Settlement Fund. As part of the Settlement, we do not admit to any of the allegations in the TCPA Action and will be completely released from any claims related to faxes sent by us or on our behalf from March 25, 2010 through April 30, 2015. "The Settlement is subject to preliminary and final approval by the Court. We anticipate that preliminary approval will be granted sometime in June 2015, at which time notice of the Settlement and the accompanying claim form will be sent to members of the settlement class. Final approval of the Settlement is expected to occur approximately 120 days after the notice and claim forms are distributed to class members. In view of the Settlement, we have recorded a pre-tax accrual of $45.0 million in accrued liabilities on our consolidated balance sheet and a pre-tax charge of $45.0 million in selling, general and administrative expenses on our consolidated statement of income for the quarter ending June 30, 2015. We anticipate making payments from the Settlement Fund as described above sometime in the fourth quarter of 2015." SUNRISE GLOBAL: Recalls GreenWorks Blower/Vacs Due to Fire Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Sunrise Global Marketing LLC, of Mooresville, N.C., owns the GreenWorks brand, announced a voluntary recall of about 14,000 GreenWorks blower/vacs. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The blower/vac's motor can catch fire, posing fire and burn hazards. This recall involves GreenWorks 12 amp electric blower/vacs. The blower/vacs have a green motor housing and a black blower tube and restrictor nozzle. They measure 12 inches high and 34 inches long. Recalled blower/vacs have model number 24022 with a serial number between GWS0350001 through GWS2280500 or model number 24072 with a serial number between GWR1310001 through GWS2281100. The model number, serial number, "greenworks" and "ELECTRIC BLOWER/MULCHER WITH BAG" are printed on the side of the motor housing. Model 24022 has a two-speed switch. Model 24072 has a variable speed switch. Sunrise Global Marketing has received three reports of the blower/vacs catching fire. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at: http://is.gd/BIJHFO The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Menards, Magic Mart and Mowtown stores nationwide and online at Amazon.com, atgstores.com, blishmize.com, build.com, chp.com, cpooutlets.com, globalindustrial.com, Greenworktools.com, hayneedle.com, homedepot.com, johnelandis.com, Kmart.com, Lowes.com, magicmartstores.com, maxtools.com, Menards.com, mowtownusa.com, overstock.com, powerequipmentdirect.com, reisshardware.com, samsclub.com, scotsco.com, Sears.com, seventhavenue.com, smithssc.com, Target.com, thehardwarecity.com, unbeatablesale.com,Walmart.com, wayfair.com and 123greetings.com from February 2012 through June 2015 for between $30 and $70. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled blower/vacs and contact Sunrise Global Marketing for a full refund. SYMANTEC CORP: Agreement in Principle Reached in Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Symantec Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company reached agreement in principle with the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit under which the Company will pay the plaintiffs $30 million. On January 24, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and its previous e-commerce vendor Digital River, Inc. The lawsuit alleged violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, the California Legal Remedies Act and unjust enrichment related to prior sales of Extended Download Service (EDS) and Norton Download Insurance (NDI). On March 31, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota certified a class of all people who purchased these products between January 24, 2005, and March 10, 2011. "In April 2015, we reached agreement in principle with the plaintiffs under which the Company will pay the plaintiffs $30 million. As we consider this settlement amount now estimable and probable, we have recorded it as an offset to revenue during the year ended April 3, 2015. The Company's management excluded this item when evaluating its ongoing operating performance, and therefore excluded this loss when presenting non-GAAP financial measures," the Company said. TARGET CORP: Recalls Circo Night Lights Due to Fire Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Target Corp., of Minneapolis, Minn., announced a voluntary recall of about 143,000 Circo Night Lights. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The battery can overheat and cause the night light to melt, posing a fire hazard. This recall involves battery-operated night lights with an AC adapter included. The night light collection includes a pink hedgehog, a blue bird, a yellow rocket, an orange dino egg, a white soccer ball and a green shark. The model numbers are printed on the bottom side of the night lights. Name Model Number Color Size ---- ------------ ----- ----- Hedgehog 060-02-1397 Pink 3.5"(h)x 5.5"(w) Bird 060-02-1398 Blue 4.0"(h)x6.5"(w) Rocket 060-02-1399 Yellow 6.0"(h)x4.75"(w) Dino Egg 060-02-1400 Orange 6.0"(h)x4.75"(w) Soccer Ball 060-02-1401 White 5.0"(h)x5.25"(w) Shark 060-02-1402 Green 3.5"(h)x6.9"(w) Target has received two reports of the night lights overheating, including one report of a fire that damaged a consumer's dresser, wall and plug-in. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at: http://is.gd/QOT2b0 The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Target stores nationwide and Target.com from October 2014 through May 2015 for about $15. Consumers should immediately stop using, unplug and return the recalled night lights to any Target store for a full refund. TEAVANA CORP: Recalls Glass Pitchers Due to Burn Hazards -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Teavana Corp., of Seattle, Wash., announced a voluntary recall of about 52,400 Tristan glass pitchers (in addition, 4,400 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The glass pitchers can break or leak, posing laceration and/or burn hazards to consumers if filled with hot tea. This recall involves 64 oz. Tristan glass pitchers for hot or cold tea. They have a glass handle, stainless steel infuser and a lid and base that are made of flexible black silicone. The pitchers measure about 12 inches tall and 4 inches in diameter. The Teavana logo is printed on the bottom. Style #30593000064 and SKU#11034874 are printed on the pitchers' box. Teavana has received 50 reports of the glass pitchers breaking or leaking, including three reports of lacerations and two minor burns. Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at: http://is.gd/3Nqneh The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Teavana stores nationwide and online at www.Teavana.com from May 2012 through June 2015 for about $50. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled glass pitchers and return them to a Teavana store location (except for two stores: Columbia Mall, Columbia, Maryland, and Dallas-Fort Worth Airport, Texas) or contact Teavana for a free replacement 66 oz. infusion tea pitcher plus a $25 Teavana gift card or for a Teavana gift card for the purchase price plus tax. TOTAL HOMECARE: Faces "Jim" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Fredericka Jim v. Total Homecare Solutions, LLC and THS Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00456-MRB (S.D. Ohio, July 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing supportive homecare at private homes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Joseph F. Scott, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 815 Superior Ave., E. Ste. 1325 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (440) 498-9100 Facsimile: (216) 621-1094 E-mail: rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com jfscld@yahoo.com TOWERS WATSON: Faces NJ Building Suit Over Proposed Willis Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- New Jersey Building Laborers' Statewide Annuity Fund and New Jersey Building Laborers' Statewide Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., Case No. 11270-CB (Del. Ch., July 9, 2015), is brought on behalf of all stockholders of Towers Watson & Co., to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Towers by Willis Group Holdings plc, for an fair price and inadequate consideration. Towers Watson & Co. is a leading global professional services company that helps organizations improve performance through effective people, risk, and financial management. Willis Group Holdings plc provides a broad range of insurance brokerage, reinsurance, and risk management consulting services to clients worldwide. 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 - Gregory Mark Nespole, Esq. Anita B. Kartalopoulous, Esq. Gloria Kui Melwani, Esq. Correy A. Kamin, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 E-mail: nespole@whafh.com Kartalopoulous@whafh.com melwani@whafh.com Kamin@whafh.com TOWERS WATSON: Faces "Stein" Suit Over Proposed Willis Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Shiva Stein, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., Case No. 11271-CB (Del. Ch., July 9, 2015), is brought on behalf of all stockholders of Towers Watson & Co., to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Towers by Willis Group Holdings plc, for an fair price and inadequate consideration. Towers Watson & Co. is a leading global professional services company that helps organizations improve performance through effective people, risk, and financial management. Willis Group Holdings plc provides a broad range of insurance brokerage, reinsurance, and risk management consulting services to clients worldwide. 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 TOWERS WATSON: Faces Atlanta Firefighters Suit Over Willis Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- The City Of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., Case No. 11275-CB (Del. Ch., July 10, 2015), is brought on behalf of all stockholders of Towers Watson & Co., to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Towers by Willis Group Holdings plc, for an fair price and inadequate consideration. Towers Watson & Co. is a leading global professional services company that helps organizations improve performance through effective people, risk, and financial management. Willis Group Holdings plc provides a broad range of insurance brokerage, reinsurance, and risk management consulting services to clients worldwide. 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 - Joseph E. White, III, Esq. Jonathan M. Stein, Esq. Adam Warden, Esq. SAXENA WHITE, P.A. 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601 Boca Raton, FL 33486 Telephone: (561) 206-6713 Facsimile: (888) 458-9055 E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com jstein@saxenawhite.com awarden@saxenawhite.com TRANSUNION CORP: Must Face Suit Over Terrorist List, Judge Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reported that TransUnion, a leading U.S. consumer reporting agency, must face a class action accusing it of violating federal law by mistakenly reporting that thousands of individuals were on a government list of potential terrorists, a federal judge ruled. In an order, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler said the sheer number of consumers reported as potential terrorists makes it likely that a significant number were inaccurately tagged. The consumers are represented by lawyers at Francis & Mailman and the Evans Law Firm. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Texts Not Considered as Telemarketing -------------------------------------------------------- Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that for the second time this year, a federal judge in San Francisco has determined that Uber Technologies Inc. is a transportation company, not a pure technology company in the software business. Lawyers for Uber have staunchly maintained that its primary business is a software platform linking customers and drivers, as they've sought to fend off employment litigation and new regulations. But in a decision allowing a text-spamming suit to move forward against Uber, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern District of California on July 17 found that Uber sells "transportation services" rather than software. In the 17-page order, Judge Tigar adopted the reasoning previously laid out by his Northern District colleague Edward Chen, who found that Uber's use of an app and software made it no more of a technology company than Yellow Cab's use of CB radios made it one. Judge Tigar wrote that he agreed "with Judge Chen's reasoning" that Uber "is not a technology company that primarily sells software." In this case, the determination could help Uber, which claims the text messages at issue in the suit should be considered recruiting materials, not telemarketing, and therefore don't require written consent by the recipient. Judge Tigar's ruling is not a complete win for Uber and its legal team at Locke Lord as it allows claims to move forward on behalf of four plaintiffs who started but didn't complete online applications to become Uber drivers. They claim that Uber bombarded them with unsolicited texts with messages such as "Get on the road ASAP." Judge Tigar dismissed claims brought by lead plaintiff Kerry Reardon, who completed her application. Plaintiffs attorney Hassan Zavareei had tried to capitalize on litigation positions taken by Uber in response to a proposed class action challenging the company's decision to treat drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. That case is pending before Judge Chen. Mr. Zavareei argued in a filing earlier this year that Uber shouldn't be allowed to argue its drivers are software "customers" in one courtroom while claiming in another that they are recruits. Mr. Zavareei maintained that Uber had admitted in the employment suit that its text messages weren't employment offers but instead were "marketing to [drivers] to entice them to license its lead-generation service." But Judge Tigar wrote that his agreement with Chen's take on Uber's business model only reinforces Uber's argument that the text messages weren't telemarketing under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). "The texts from Uber seeking to recruit drivers were not attempts to promote 'a good' (its application) to those drivers, but instead was an attempt to recruit drivers so that those potential drivers could provide services to riders," Judge Tigar wrote. Under the law, telemarketing texts require "prior express written consent" from recipients while employment solicitations don't require consent to be in writing. Mr. Zavareei didn't immediately respond to messages on July 20. Locke Lord's Susan Welde -- swelde@lockelord.com -- who represents Uber in the suit, didn't respond to a voicemail message. A company spokesperson said in an email that the company was pleased that "an entire category of plaintiffs" was dismissed from the suit. "We believe that individualized inquiries into the status of each of the remaining plaintiffs will demonstrate that this case has no merit as a class-action suit," she said. Also on July 17, Judge Tigar allowed a separate false-advertising suit brought by a group of California taxi companies to move forward against Uber. The cab companies sued Uber in March over the company's claims that it offered the "safest rides on the road." Judge Tigar knocked out claims related to certain statements Uber officials made about safety in the media finding they were protected speech under the First Amendment. He also found that the cab companies lacked standing to sue under California's Unfair Competition Law, since they didn't allege that they personally relied on the statements. But the judge allowed the cab companies' core Lanham Act claim to move forward. A reasonable consumer, he wrote, could falsely conclude from Uber's statements "that an Uber ride is objectively and measurably safer than a ride provided by a taxi or other competitor service." Benjamin Shiftan of Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, who represents the cab companies in the false-advertising case, said on July 20: "We're definitely pleased that the Lanham claim is still alive and we're going to get a chance to litigate the case and conduct discovery." An Uber spokesperson said the company was pleased that Judge Tigar dismissed "a substantial portion of the claims" in the false- advertising suit. Uber's innovative technology allows it to focus on safety for riders and driver-partners before, during and after a ride in a way most alternatives cannot," the spokesperson said. Lawyers from Irell & Manella represent Uber in the false-advertising case. UNITED STATES: OPM Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Data ------------------------------------------------------- John Robeiro, writing for Computerworld.com, reported that a federal employees' union has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, its leadership and a contractor, alleging that their negligence led to a data breach that compromised the personal information of millions of current, former and prospective government employees and contractors. Since at least 2007, the OPM has been warned by its Office of Inspector General of significant deficiencies in its cyber security protocol, according to the proposed class-action suit filed by the American Federation of Government Employees in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. However, OPM failed to take measures to correct these issues, despite handling massive amounts of federal applicants' private, sensitive and confidential information, it added. The data handled by the OPM included a 127-page form, called Standard Form 86, which requires applicants for security clearances to answer questions on their financial histories and investment records, children's and relatives' names, foreign trips and contacts with foreign nationals, past residences and names of neighbors and close friends, according to the filing. The lawsuit names the OPM, its director, Katherine Archuleta, and its chief information officer, Donna Seymour. Also charged is KeyPoint Government Solutions, a provider of investigative and risk mitigation services to the OPM. The federal personnel agency announced on June 4 that it had been the victim of a massive cyberattack that could have compromised the personally identifiable information of up to 4 million persons. It said that as the investigation was ongoing, other exposures of personal information could come to light. Some accounts have put the figure of people that could be affected as high as 18 million. When KeyPoint, which handled the majority of federal background checks, announced in December that it had faced a computer network breach, a spokeswoman of the OPM said there was "no conclusive evidence to confirm sensitive information was removed from the system" but that the OPM would notify 48,439 federal workers that their information may have been exposed, according to the complaint. But after the OPM hack became public, Archuleta and the OPM identified the misuse of a KeyPoint user credential as the source of the breach, it added. Despite knowing about the KeyPoint breach and explicit warnings about shortcomings in its cybersecurity protocol and the dangers associated with those deficiencies, the OPM leaders chose not to shut down the agency's software systems, according to the employees. "The combination of KeyPoint's cybersecurity weaknesses and the OPM's cybersecurity failures caused the massive scope of the OPM Breach," according to the filing by the AFGE jointly with one current and another former employee of the federal government, who had both received notifications that their personal identifiable information may have been exposed in the OPM data breach. The petition asks the court for certification of the case as a class action and appropriate relief to the plaintiffs and class members, including actual and statutory damages. It also wants a ruling that KeyPoint "breached its duty to implement reasonable security measures to safeguard and protect" the personally identifiable information of the plaintiffs and the class members that was compromised in the OPM breach. The employees have asked for a jury trial. KeyPoint and OPM could not be immediately reached for comment. The woes of the OPM continue to mount after it was reported that a second breach compromised a database containing copies of Standard Form 86 questionnaires that's used by people seeking a national security clearance. The agency has come under scathing criticism from lawmakers and experts over its handling of the crisis. On, OPM said it was temporarily suspending its E-QIP system, a Web-based platform used to complete and submit background investigation forms, as a proactive security measure after a vulnerability was found in the system. The OPM said there was no evidence that the vulnerability had been exploited. U.S. BANK: Wins in Two Missouri Mortgage Fees Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- James Dornbrook, writing for Kansas City Business Journal, reported that two rulings by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will make life more difficult for certain class-action suits under Missouri law. The two cases upheld a successful defense by Leslie Greathouse, a partner at Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP in Kansas City, for some of the nation's largest banks and mortgage companies. In Thomas v. U.S. Bank and Wong v. U.S. Bank, the plaintiffs argued that they were charged improper mortgage fees. Both cases obtained class-action status, bringing in hundreds of other plaintiffs and creating several more defendants. Overall, the defendants could have faced damages exceeding $100 million in each case. However, the district court dismissed both, a ruling the 8th Circuit affirmed. Greathouse said the cases could have been exceptionally damaging to her clients. She was pleased that the appeals court upheld the decision and said the two cases created important precedents. In the Wong case, the appeals court said plaintiffs couldn't bring a class action against the banks in question because they didn't directly cause the injury and there was no proof of conspiracy or a concerted scheme to cause harm. In the Thomas case, the appeals court ruled that the statute of limitations had expired, based on how the 8th Circuit interpreted "tolling," which is a pause in the statute of limitations while a case is underway. The appeals court ruled that tolling applies only as outlined by a state legislature, and Missouri has no rules governing tolling for class actions. "So you can see how that's a big deal for the purposes of class actions in Missouri," Greathouse said. "It's a very discrete issue of law but a really important one for parties in litigation and lawyers involved in these cases." Ms. Greathouse may be reached at: Leslie Greathouse, Esq. SPENCER FANE BRITT & BROWNE LLP 1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1400 Kansas City, MO 64106-2140 Tel: (816) 474-8100 Fax: (816) 474-3216 Email: lgreathouse@spencerfane.com V & J NATIONAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Perry, on behalf of herself and all other employees similarly situated v. V & J National Enterprises, LLC; V & J United Enterprises, LLC; V & J Holding Companies, Inc.; V & J Employment Service, Inc.; Valerie Daniels Carter, and John Daniels, Jr., Case No. 6:15-cv-06353-MAT (W.D.N.Y., June 10, 2015) seeks to recover minimum wages, injunctive relief and declaratory relief to redress the alleged deprivation of rights secured to the Plaintiff and the class under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate restaurants in the state of New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Mullin, Esq. FERR & MULLIN, P.C. 7635 Main Street Fishers Po Box 440 Fishers, NY 14453-0440 Telephone: (585) 869-0210 E-mail: rlmullin@FerrMullinLaw.com VECTREN UTILITY: SIGECO Claimants File Class Action --------------------------------------------------- During the third quarter of 2014, Vectren Utility Holdings, Inc. was notified of claims by a group of current and former SIGECO employees ("claimants") who participated in the Pension Plan for Salaried Employees of SIGECO ("SIGECO Salaried Plan"). That plan was merged into the Vectren Corporation Combined Non-Bargaining Retirement Plan ("Vectren Combined Plan") effective July 1, 2000. The claims relate to the claimants' election for benefits to be calculated under the Vectren Combined Plan's cash-balance formula rather than the SIGECO Salaried Plan formula in effect prior to the formation of Vectren. Vectren Utility Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on March 12, 2015, certain claimants filed a Class Action Complaint against the Vectren Combined Plan and the Company in federal district court requesting that a class be certified and for various relief including that the Combined Plan be reformed and benefits thereunder be recalculated. The Company denied the allegations set forth in the Complaint. The Company is unable to quantify any potential impact of the claims. The Company does not expect, however, the outcome would have a material adverse effect on the Company's liquidity, results of operations or financial condition. VERTEX REFINING: Unit Named as Defendant in Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Vertex Refining LA, LLC, the wholly-owned subsidiary of Vertex Operating, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vertex Energy, Inc., was named as defendant in a lawsuit filed in the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District For the Parish of Jefferson Louisiana on January 6, 2015, Vertex Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 19, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. Pursuant to the lawsuit, Stacy Davis, Becky Vallee and James A. Block (the "Plaintiffs") made certain allegations against Vertex Refining LA, LLC, Omega Refining and the manager of the Marrero, Louisiana facility (the "Defendants"). The claims are structured as class actions relating to certain operations performed at our newly acquired re-refinery located in Marrero, Louisiana, including the alleged emission of noxious and harmful substances. The Plaintiffs allege they are part of a valid class due to the fact that they live and work near the facility. The lawsuit relates to alleged actions and inactions related to the facility between 2012 to present and includes allegations relating to violations of various Louisiana statutes, allegations relating to the misrepresentation of information to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, allegations relating to violations of hourly permitted emission limits, and alleged failure to report an un-permitted point-source. The suit seeks damages for physical and emotional injuries, pain and suffering, medical expenses and deprivation of the use and enjoyment of Plaintiffs' homes. The Plaintiffs further allege that there are estimated to be over 1,000 class members to the suit, provided that the proposed class is yet to be certified. "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations made in the complaint, provided that at this stage of the litigation, the Company has no basis of determining whether there is any likelihood of material loss associated with the claims and/or the potential outcome of the litigation," the Company said. VIVINT SOLAR: Says Settlement Approval to Occur in Late 2015 ------------------------------------------------------------ Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company anticipates that approval of the settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit to occur sometime in late 2015. In December 2013, one of the Company's former sales representatives, on behalf of himself and a purported class, filed a complaint for unspecified damages, injunctive relief and restitution in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Diego against Vivint Solar Developer, LLC, one of the Company's subsidiaries, and unnamed John Doe defendants alleging violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code and seeking penalties of an unspecified amount, interest on all economic damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. In January 2014, the Company filed an answer denying the allegations in the complaint and asserting various affirmative defenses. In late 2014, the parties agreed to terms of settlement to resolve this case, depending on class participation. Based on the Court's initial review of the settlement agreement, the parties are discussing modifications relative to class participation and other terms. Any final settlement agreement is subject to court approval, which the Company anticipates to occur sometime in late 2015. The Company has recorded a $0.4 million reserve related to this proceeding in its consolidated financial statements. VIVINT SOLAR: Filed Answer to Technicians' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company has filed an answer to the amended complaint, denying liability and asserting a number of defenses, in the class action filed by two former installation technicians. In September 2014, two former installation technicians of the Company, on behalf of themselves and a purported class, filed a complaint for damages, injunctive relief and restitution in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Diego against the Company and unnamed John Doe defendants. The complaint alleges certain violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code based on, among other things, alleged improper classification of installer technicians, installer helpers, electrician technicians and electrician helpers, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to provide wages on termination. In December 2014, the original plaintiffs and three additional plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with essentially the same allegations. On February 5, 2015, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint, denying liability and asserting a number of defenses. The Company believes that it has strong defenses to the claims asserted in this matter, and the Company intends to defend the case vigorously. Although the Company cannot predict with certainty the ultimate resolution of this suit, it does not believe this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. VIVINT SOLAR: Filed Motion to Dismiss 2 Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------- Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company has filed a motion to dismiss two putative class action lawsuits. In November and December 2014, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, its directors, certain of its officers and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering of common stock alleging violation of securities laws and seeking unspecified damages. In January 2015, the Court ordered these cases to be consolidated into the earlier filed case, Hyatt v. Vivint Solar, Inc. et al., 14-cv-9283 (KBF). The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in February 2015. On May 6, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the case vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that could result were there to be an adverse final decision. If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in this case, it is possible that the impact could be material to the Company's results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes probable and estimable. VOLTARI CORPORATION: Dismissal of Complaint Under Appeal -------------------------------------------------------- Voltari Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that an appeal on the dismissal of a third amended complaint in a securities class action is pending. "We previously announced that Joe Callan filed a putative securities class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Motricity between June 18, 2010 and August 9, 2011 or in Motricity's initial public offering," the Company said. "Motricity, which was our predecessor registrant, is now our wholly-owned subsidiary and has changed its name to Voltari Operating Corp. The defendants in the case were Motricity, certain of our current and former directors and officers, including Ryan K. Wuerch, James R. Smith, Jr., Allyn P. Hebner, James N. Ryan, Jeffrey A. Bowden, Hunter C. Gary, Brett Icahn, Lady Barbara Judge CBE, Suzanne H. King, Brian V. Turner; and the underwriters in Motricity's initial public offering, including J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., RBC Capital Markets Corporation, Robert W. Baird & Co Incorporated, Needham & Company, LLC and Pacific Crest Securities LLC. "The complaint alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, (the "Securities Act") and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by all defendants and under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act by Motricity and those of our former and current officers who are named as defendants. The complaint sought, inter alia, damages, including interest and plaintiff's costs and rescission. "A second putative securities class action complaint was filed by Mark Couch in October 2011 in the same court, also related to alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On November 7, 2011, the class actions were consolidated, and lead plaintiffs were appointed pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. "On December 16, 2011, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint which added a claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act to its allegations of violations of the securities laws and extended the putative class period from August 9, 2011 to November 14, 2011. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 11, 2012 and a second amended complaint on July 11, 2012. "On August 1, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which was granted on January 17, 2013. A third amended complaint was filed on April 17, 2013. "On May 30, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, which was granted by the Court on October 1, 2013. On October 31, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On April 25, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief and on July 24, 2014 we filed our answering brief." VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Court Has Not Appointed Lead Plaintiff ---------------------------------------------------------- Voxx International Corporation said in its Form 10-K Annual for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2015, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, that the Court has not entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff in a securities class action suit filed by Brian Ford. On July 8, 2014, a purported class action suit, styled Brian Ford vs. VOXX International Corporation, et al., was filed against us and two of our present executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The suit alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements between May 15, 2013 and May 14, 2014 regarding our earnings guidance for Fiscal 2014 and the anticipated future performance of our business. The plaintiff claims that these statements artificially inflated the price of our stock and that purchasers of our stock during the relevant period were damaged when the stock price later declined. The plaintiff seeks the award of unspecified amount of damages on behalf of the alleged class, counsel fees and costs. We believe we have meritorious legal positions and defenses and will continue to represent our interests vigorously in this matter. On September 8, 2014, three members of the alleged class moved to be appointed the lead plaintiff in the action. To date, the Court has not entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff. WEIGHT WATCHERS: Still Facing Securities Litigation --------------------------------------------------- Weight Watchers International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that the Company intends to defend the case, In re Weight Watchers International, Inc. Securities Litigation. In March 2014, two substantially identical putative class action complaints alleging violation of the federal securities laws were filed by individual shareholders against the Company, certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors, and the Company's controlling shareholder, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints were purportedly filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock, no par value per share, between February 14, 2012 and October 30, 2013, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaints allege that, during the Class Period, the defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or concealed material adverse facts. The complaints allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages on behalf of the class members. In June 2014, the Court consolidated the cases and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On August 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that, among other things, reduced the Class Period to between February 14, 2012 and February 13, 2013 and dropped all current officers and certain directors previously named as defendants. On October 14, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on November 24, 2014 and the defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss on December 23, 2014. The Company continues to believe that the suits are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously. WINDSOR CAFE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Martin Romero Luna, and all others similarly situated v. Windsor Cafe Inc. dba Windsor Cafe, George Politis and Heaculis Kontoyiannis, Case No. 1:15-cv-04098 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the New York Labor Law. The Defendants own, operate and control a diner in Brooklyn, New York, under the name of Windsor Cafe. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Ste. 2020 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com WRIGHT MEDICAL: Second Restatement Bars Strict Liability Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a federal judge has ruled the Restatement (Second) of Torts bars strict liability claims for medical devices, even though the treatise does not specifically say so. U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon of the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed most of plaintiff Roy R. Cogswell's claims in his suit against Wright Medical Technology Inc., the maker of Mr. Cogswell's hip implant. Mr. Cogswell alleged a Wright Hip System installed during his hip replacement was defective and caused him to suffer serious medical complications. Wright argued Mr. Cogswell's strict liability claims were barred under the Second Restatement. Mr. Cogswell retorted the Second Restatement -- specifically Comment k, which states that some products are "unavoidably unsafe" -- only bars strict liability claims relating to prescription drugs, not medical devices. While the Pennsylvania court system has been silent on whether medical devices are considered unavoidably unsafe products, Judge Bissoon said it was safe to assume that because there was no exception to the Second Restatement to cover devices, the state Supreme Court did not intend for devices to be exempt. "Had the Pennsylvania Supreme Court intended an exception to the strict liability rule, it presumably would have articulated one," Judge Bissoon said. "Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not spoken directly to the issue of whether a strict-liability manufacturing defect claim encompassed by Comment k is barred by Pennsylvania law, precedent indicates that it would reach the conclusion that such a claim is barred. And, because medical devices fall within the bounds of Comment k, just as prescription drugs do, plaintiff's manufacturing defect claim will be dismissed for failure to state a claim." Judge Bissoon also pointed to the state Superior Court case of Creazzo v. Medtronic, in which the court ruled there was no reason that the same rationale in Comment k relating to prescription drugs could not be applied to medical devices. Judge Bissoon said federal district courts have also applied the same standard to medical devices. Mr. Cogswell also argued that even if Comment k applies, it does not bar him from making a manufacturing defect claim. "There is currently a split among federal district courts applying Pennsylvania law on the application of strict liability to manufacturing defect claims," Judge Bissoon said. Some have ruled that strict liability for manufacturing defects would incentivize manufacturers to ensure quality control, Judge Bissoon said, while others have dismissed such claims. But pointing to the lack of precedent from the state Supreme Court, Judge Bissoon said manufacturing defect claims fell within the bounds of Comment k. Judge Bissoon said the federal courts are also split on express warranty claims for medical devices, one of Mr. Cogswell's additional claims. Mr. Cogswell cited Doughtery v. C.R. Bard, in which the Eastern District court held that breach of express warranty claims against manufacturers of prescription drugs and medical devices are not barred under Pennsylvania law because of their contractual nature, Judge Bissoon said. "Numerous other courts, however, have barred express warranty claims, relying on the statement in Hahn [v. Richter] that 'where the adequacy of warnings associated with prescription drugs is at issue . . . the manufacturer's negligence is the only recognized basis of liability,'" Judge Bissoon said. She added, "This court will follow the majority of Pennsylvania federal courts and dismiss plaintiff's claim for breach of express warranty for failure to state a claim as a matter of law." Despite the dismissal of the majority of the plaintiff's claims, the case was allowed to proceed with claims of loss of consortium, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence. Mr. Cogswell's attorney, Doug J. Olcott of Dallas W. Hartman P.C. in New Castle, Pennsylvania, did not return a call seeking comment. Kenneth M. Argentieri -- kmargentieri@duanemorris.com -- of Duane Morris in Pittsburgh represented Wright and did not return a call seeking comment. XOOM CORPORATION: Faces Booth Suit Over Proposed PayPal Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- The Booth Family Trust on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Xoom Corporation, et al., Case No. 11263-VCG (Del. Ch., July 8, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of Xoom Corporation, to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Xoom by PayPal Inc., through an inadequate consideration and unfair price. Xoom Corporation is a Delaware corporation that is engaged in the digital consumer-to-consumer international money transfer business. PayPal Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides digital money transfer services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Bennett, Esq. COOCH & TAYLOR PA 1000 W St 10th Fl. Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 984-3889 Facsimile: (302) 984-3939 E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com - and - Cullin A. O'Brien, Esq. CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A. 6541 N.E. 21st Way Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308 Telephone: (561) 676-6370 E-mail: cullin@cullinobrien.com YELP INC: Sued Over Failure to Distribute Delivery Drivers' Tips ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Kay and Esteban Polonski, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Yelp Inc. and Eat24, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-03228-JSC (N.D. Cal., July 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for unlawfully collecting, taking, or receiving tips for the delivery of food and other items and failing to distribute these tips to delivery drivers. The Defendants operate a food ordering website and mobile platform that covers about 20,000 restaurants throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Schrag, Esq. Andre M. Mura, Esq. Steve A. Lopez, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP One Kaiser Plaza, Ste. 1125 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: mls@classlawgroup.com amm@classlawgroup.com sal@classlawgroup.com YIGAL-AZROUEL: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Katherine Daskas and Natasha Garner, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. Yigal-Azrouel Inc., Case No. 652450/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 10, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the New York Labor Law. Yigal-Azrouel Inc. owns and operates a women's clothing store with a headquarters and principal place of business located at 225 West 39th Street, New York, New York 10018. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd Ambinder, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com - and - Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com ZZIM USA: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Sanchez" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeronimo Pablo Sanchez and Manuela Gonzalez Ramirez, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. ZZIM USA, Inc., d/b/a Spa World or Long Life Spa World, and Sang K. Lee, Case No. 1:15-cv-00893 (E.D. Va., July 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a Korean Style spa with its place of business in Virginia at 13830-A10 Braddock Road, Centreville, VA 20121. The Plaintiff is represented by: Hyunkweon Ryu, Esq. RYU & RYU PLC 301 Maple Ave West, Suite 620 Vienna, VA 22180 Telephone: (703) 319-0001 Facsimile: (703) 562-0787 E-mail: michaelryu@ryulawgroup.com ********* 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. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, 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 * * *