/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150819.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 19, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 165 Headlines ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Suit AFNI INC: Faces "Berkovits" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation AK "N" ELI: "Ruiz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ALLTECH SYSTEMS: Texas Worker Sues for FLSA Violation AMERICAN AIRLINES: "De La Garza" Suit Asserts Ticket-Price Fixing AMERICAN EXPRESS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Suit ANTHONY MANCINI: Judge Nixes Move to Dismiss Class Action BARRY FREUNDELS: Mikvah Victims' Suit Moved to DC Super. Court BAYER: Reverse Payment Settlements Subject To Antitrust Challenge BEST BUY: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages BURNSVILLE, MN: Residents to File Suit Over Carports CANADA: Federal Court Refuses to Certify "Rae" Tax Class Action CANADA: Medical Pot Users' Class Suit Certified CASH CONVERTERS: Faces Class Suit Over Huge Brokerage Fees CHARMI LLC: "Conway" Suit in Ga. Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages CHICAGO, IL: Police Officers' OT Suit Heads to Trial CHICAGO, IL: Judge Throws Out Challenge to Red Light Camera Suit CHINA FINANCE: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit CIGNA CORP: Faces "Copelli" Suit Over Proposed Anthem Merger CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Sued Over Inaccurate Wages Statements CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over FDCPA Violation CRESTWOOD MISDTREAM: Faruqi LLP Files Securities Class Suit CVS HEALTH: Sued for Alleged Scheme to Defraud Customers DE CAPITAL: Faces "Negrin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime DIAGEO: Faces Class Suit Over Red Stripe Misleading Label DIRECT DIGITAL: 7th Circ. Rejects 'Ascertainability' Framework EAGLE ROCK: September 28 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline EBAY INC: Doesn't Timely Transmit Buyers' Money, "Chen" Suit Says EFT HOLDINGS: Locke Lord Dismissed in Pyramid-Scheme Suit ELETROBRAS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Fraud Class Suit EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Arnold" Suit Over FCRA Violation EVERBANK: Settles Nationwide Suit over Forced Insurance EZCORP INC: Sued in Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports FACEBOOK: Wins First Round in European Privacy Suit FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces $5.2BB Suit Over Defective Cars in Canada FIRST STEP: Faces "Fraylich" Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Gutman" Suit Over FDCPA Violation FOOD COURT: Faces "Costa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages GC SERVICES: Faces "Kausar" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation GENERAL MOTORS: JPMorgan Sued Over Mistake in Loan HEALTH NET: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit HERBALIFE LTD: Judge Dismisses 'Pyramid Scheme' Class Suit HOUSTON AMERICAN: Texas Court Dismisses Shareholder Class Suit ICONIX BRAND: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Class Suit JEFFERSON COUNTY, AL: Class Suit Filed Over One-Cent Sales Tax KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: Oct. 9 Hearing on $2.6-Mil. Settlement LENSINK AGENCY: Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Action Claims LIFELOCK INC: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit LIFELOCK INC: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Class Suit LUCA INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Misappropriation of Investor Funds MAGNETEK INC: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Class Suit MAKER'S MARK: Wins California Labeling Class Suit MANDALAY BAY: To Pat $100K to Settle Suit Filed by Poker Dealers MASSAGE ENVY: Objectors Want More Than Massages From Class Deal MAXSMART INC: Faces "Garner" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Faces Suit Over Black Pepper Products MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Sued Over Security Data Breach MIAMI-DADE, FL: Sued Over Unlawful Credit Card Receipt Printing MODERN HOSPITALITY: "Perez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation MONEYGRAM INT'L: GPM Files Securities Class Suit NAT'L HOCKEY: Ordered to Turn Over Injury and Concussion Data NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit NEW SOUTH WALES: Police Settles Illegal Detention Suit for $1.8MM NISSAN: Altima Floorboard Rust Leads to Class Suit OPTUMHEALTH BEHAVIORAL: Faces Suit Over Mental Health Insurance OTP BANK: ANPC Wins Class Action Against Lender PCI XII LINCOLN: Sued Over Failure to Repair Units' Defects PEARCE & DURICK: Faces Class Suit Over Housing Investment Scam PNC BANK: Appeals Court Clears Way for Class-Action Suit PROCTER & GAMBLE: Elk River Joins Class Suit Over Flushable Wipes QRX PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit SERVICESOURCE INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit SERVICESOURCE INT'L: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Suit SHAW ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces "Wrobel" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT SIKH CENTER: Illegally Refuses Members' Enrollment, Suit Says SILVER WHEATON: Sept. 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline SODEXO INC: Managers File Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime SRA ASSOCIATES: Faces "Yossef" Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation STANDARD & POOR'S: Settlement Share Used for Other Purposes TAURUS: Voluntarily Recalls Nearly 1MM Defective Firearms TOSHIBA CORP: Glancy Prongray Files Securities Class Suit TRANSALTA CORP: Energy Consultant Invites Biz to Join Class Suit UBER: Sued Over App's Price Claims, Free Ride Vouchers UCLA HEALTH: Faces "Brooks" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach UNION COMMUNITY: Sued Over Patients With Physical Disabilities UNIVITA HEALTH: "Olivier" Suit Alleges WARN Act Violation US BANK: Faces "Bakal" Suit Over Alleged Breach of Fiduciary Duty VASCO DATA: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Fraud Class Suit VASCO DATA: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit VERMONT: Reach Up Cuts to Disabled Recipients Held Off for 2 Mos. VISA INC: Merchants Challenge $6-Bil. Antitrust Suit Settlement WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Defective Flushable Wipes Design WEINBERG & ASSOCIATES: Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Says XBOX360: Suit Over Design Moving Forward XOMA CORP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Fraud Class Suit YELLOWJACKET OILFIELD: "Juarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT * Securities Class Action Filings Remain Below Historical Average ********* ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., securities from September 5, 2014 through July 14, 2015, all dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Advanced Drainage Systems investors under the federal securities laws. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Advanced Drainage Systems' inventory values and cost of sales were misstated; (2) Advanced Drainage Systems' transportation and equipment leases should be recorded as capital leases; and (3) as a result, Advanced Drainage Systems' financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 28, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-667.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Kevin Chan, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com kchan@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a national investor-rights law firm, advises investors of the September 28, 2015 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities fraud class action lawsuit filed against Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. ("Advanced Drainage" or "the Company"). If you have losses in Advanced Drainage securities during the Class Period contact Hagens Berman Partner Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation, by calling (510) 725-3000, emailing WMS@hbsslaw.com or visiting http://hb- securities.com/investigations/WMS. The lawsuit, pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, is filed on behalf of investors who purchased Advanced Drainage securities between September 5, 2014 and July 14, 2015, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). No class has been certified in this case. Advanced Drainage designs, manufactures, and markets thermoplastic corrugated pipes and related water management products for both residential, commercial, and agriculture customers in the United States and abroad. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period defendants mislead investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's inventory values and cost of sales were misstated; (2) Advanced Drainage's transportation and equipment leases should be recorded as capital leases; and (3) as a result, Advanced Drainage's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Investors learned the truth when on July 15, 2015, the Company announced that it had delayed the filing of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015. In its release, Advanced Drainage announced that any necessary adjustments to its previously issued earnings release for the fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2015 would be made with the filing of its Form 10-K. As a result of this news, shares of Advanced Drainage Systems fell $0.56 per share to close at $28.69 per share on July 15, 2015. If you were negatively impacted by your investment in Advanced Drainage between September 5, 2014 and July 14, 2015, and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, please contact us for your no- cost evaluation. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Advanced Drainage should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new SEC whistleblower program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at (510) 725-3000 or email WMS@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is headquartered in Seattle, Washington with offices in nine cities. The Firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the Firm and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. Read the Firm's Securities Newsletter at http://www.hb-securities.com/newsletter, and visit the blog at www.meaningfuldisclosure.com. For the latest news visit http://www.hbsslaw.com/newsroomor follow us on Twitter at @hagensberman. Reed Kathrein, Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel. (206) 623-7292 Fax. (206) 623-0594 http://www.hbsslaw.com/ AFNI INC: Faces "Berkovits" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Berkovits, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AFNI, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-06003-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., August 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (347) 526-4093 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com AK "N" ELI: "Ruiz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Anisis Ruiz v. AK "N" Eli, LLC d/b/a King of Diamonds and Kodrenyc, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-22944-JAL (S.D. Fla., August 5, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a well-known Gentlemen's Club in Miami, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com ALLTECH SYSTEMS: Texas Worker Sues for FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------- Carol Ostrow, writing for Southeast Texas Record, reported that a Texas worker is bringing a class action lawsuit against a limited partnership corporation for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Texas labor law in an effort to collect unpaid overtime wages and other damages. Leslie McColgin filed a lawsuit individually and on behalf of a putative class against AllTech Systems Inc. in the Galveston Division of the Southern District of Texas on July 24, claiming unlawful employment practices by the defendant in 2015. According to the suit, McColgin et al. worked for the defendant, a professional staffing firm, regularly logging many hours in excess of 40 per week. The complaint states that the plaintiff was provided with a written contract stipulating how he would be paid; and that the terms were clearly hourly rather than salary-based. As such, the suit states, he and other workers were never paid any overtime for hours regularly worked in excess of 40 in one workweek despite the hours being documented on time sheets. Documents indicate that the plaintiff seeks to collect the difference between actual pay and overtime pay allegedly owed; and that AllTech was aware of the discrepancy. The plaintiff seeks all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, expenses, and costs. The plaintiff is represented by Richard "Rex" Burch of Bruckner Burch in Houston. AMERICAN AIRLINES: "De La Garza" Suit Asserts Ticket-Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Guillermo De La Garza, Gail Wolfe, William B. Cottrell, Angelina Chandler, Charles G. Dibrell, III, and Michael Ohlstein 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. 1:15-cv-06858 (N.D. Ill., August 5, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of airline tickets through signaling one another how quickly they would add new flights, routes, and extra seats in order to limit the capacity, and limiting access to competitive fare information to keep the price of airfares artificially high. The Defendants operate the largest commercial airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward A. Wallace, Esq. Tyler J. Story, Esq. WEXLERWALLACE LLP 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com tjs@wexlerwallace.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON SCOTT LLP 830 Apollo Lane Houston, TX 77058 Telephone: (281) 488-8854 Facsimile: (281) 488-8867 E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com - and - David G. Scott, Esq. EMERSON SCOTT LLP 1301 Scott Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 907-2555 Facsimile: (501) 907-2556 E-mail: dscott@emersonfirm.com AMERICAN EXPRESS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of American Express Company ("AmEx") (NYSE: AXP) common stock during the period between October 16, 2014 and February 11, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint was filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/amex/. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges AmEx and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. AmEx, together with its subsidiaries, provides charge and credit payment card products and travel-related services to consumers and businesses worldwide. In addition to issuing its own proprietary cards, AmEx has entered into a series of co-branding relationships with travel providers and retailers. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information regarding AmEx's business and prospects, including the status of its negotiations with U.S. Costco to renew its co-branding agreement, which was set to expire on March 31, 2016, and the financial impact of that agreement on AmEx's business. As a result of these false and misleading statements and/or omissions during the Class Period, AmEx stock traded at artificially inflated prices, reaching a high of nearly $95 per share on December 29, 2014. Then on February 12, 2015, AmEx announced that it had lost the U.S. Costco co-branding relationship and that the financial impact of that loss would be severe. AmEx disclosed that the U.S. Costco co-branding agreement generated 8% of the Company's revenues in 2014, that one in ten U.S. AmEx cards had been issued pursuant to the U.S. Costco co-branding arrangement and that 20% of its outstanding loans had been made pursuant to that agreement. Finally, as a result of the loss of the U.S. Costco co-branding agreement, AmEx stated that the Company's 2015 and 2016 profits would suffer and that the Company would not be able to make any headway on its previous efforts to increase earnings per share until 2017 at the very earliest. In response to this announcement, the price of AmEx common stock fell from a close of $85.40 per share on February 11, 2015, to close at $77.53 per share on February 13, 2015, a decline of nearly $8 per share. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of AmEx common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller, with 200 lawyers in ten offices, represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history and was ranked first in both the amount and number of shareholder class action recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 report for 2014. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/amex/for more information. CONTACT: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 West Broadway Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 T: (619) 231-1058 or (800) 449-4900 F: (619) 231-7423 djr@rgrdlaw.com http://www.rgrdlaw.com/ ANTHONY MANCINI: Judge Nixes Move to Dismiss Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reported that a Chicago personal injury lawyer specializing in litigation involving motor vehicle accidents will need to answer allegations he violated federal privacy laws in allegedly using personal information on police traffic accident reports to solicit potential new clients, after a federal judge declined to dismiss a class action lawsuit against him over the alleged business practices. Earlier, Antonio and Karen Pavone sued the Law Offices of Anthony Mancini, of Chicago, alleging attorney Mancini and his firm had violated the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The case centers on a letter the Pavones alleged they received from Mancini about a week after they were involved in a traffic accident in Schaumburg on Jan. 15, 2015. The letter, which asked them to hire Mancini to represent them in any litigation or claims surrounding the accident, allegedly included an unredacted copy of the traffic crash report prepared by investigating police officers. That report included their names and personal information, as well as that of their minor son. The Pavones said the letter, and in particular the report with the personal information, left them "shocked and dismayed, very concerned their personal information and that of their child had been transmitted to someone they did not know and used to solicit them for legal representation." Initially, the Pavones brought the complaint individually. However, in March it was made a class action, as the Pavones, through their attorneys, alleged Mancini's actions in their case was a standard part of his firm's strategy for landing new clients. They alleged Mancini "obtains motor vehicle records . . . on a daily or weekly basis . . . in bulk for a fee" to mail advertisements and solicitation letters to people involved in the crashes reported. The complaint indicates the Pavones' attorneys believe the number of people who might have received such solicitations numbers "in the hundreds if not thousands." The complaint requests damages of at least $2.500 per plaintiff and class member, plus punitive damages. The Pavones are represented in the action by attorney Roger Zamparo Jr., of the Zamparo Law Group, of Rolling Meadows, and attorneys James A. Francis and John Soumilas, of the firm of Francis & Mailman, of Philadelphia. In moving to dismiss the case, Mancini had argued the complaint should fail "because crash reports do not constitute 'personal information'" under the Driver's Privacy law. He further argued crash reports are not "motor vehicle records," as mentioned in the federal law. U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly, however, disagreed, saying, while the law may exempt information about crashes from protection, it does not exempt "personal information" listed in the crash reports. That information could include the names of people involved in the crashes, as well as their addresses and driver identification numbers. The judge said precedent has held these requirements were put in place to protect those involved in crashes and listed in crash reports from stalkers, as well as to "protect against the states' common practice of selling personal information to businesses engaged in direct marketing and solicitation." Kennelly conceded crash reports are not necessarily true "motor vehicle records," akin to vehicle registrations and drivers license records. But he said the law protects information that is "obtained from a motor vehicle record." In this case, the judge said, the Pavones have "plausibly alleged that the information listed on the crash reports came from motor vehicle records produced by (Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White's office.)" "Even if that information is not directly supplied by the Secretary of State, it is plausible that officers who write the crash reports copy the name, license number and address from the driver's license, which is a motor vehicle record," Kennelly wrote. The judge ordered Mancini to reply to the Pavones' complaint by Aug. 13. A status hearing has been scheduled on the matter for Aug. 20. BARRY FREUNDELS: Mikvah Victims' Suit Moved to DC Super. Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Hundreds of Rabbi Barry Freundel's mikvah victims were able to successfully have their class action lawsuits moved back to the D.C. Superior Court, all against Freundel's wishes, according to a report in Courthouse News. Freundel is serving six and a half years in prison following his May 12 sentencing after he entered a guilty plea that he video recorded as many as 150 women in the mikvah since 2009. The former spiritual leader of Kesher Israel in Washington, D.C. for 25 years was arrested last October after a video recording device was found hidden inside a clock radio at the National Capital Mikvah. Freundel recorded women undressing and entering and leaving the shower. Some of them were his students or congregations members, others were not. After his arrest, two groups of women filed class action suits against the rabbi in D.C. Superior Court. The allegations of the two groups overlapped, but the legality of the proposed class action suits differed. One class action suit involved only women who were video recorded while the other includes any and all women who used the National Capital Mikvah during the rabbi's stewardship, according to the Courthouse News Service. It is expected that both suits will be combined. Freundel, however, had successfully petitioned the court to move the class actions to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act. That was, however, overruled as lead plaintiffs in both class actions asked that the case be moved to DC Superior Court. This decision was based on the Class Action Fairness Act's "interest of justice exception." This means that the federal courts can refuse to exercise jurisdiction over a dispute if that dispute is local and if between one third and two thirds of the proposed class members are citizens of the state where the suit was brought forward. In this case, it would involve the District of Columbia. BAYER: Reverse Payment Settlements Subject To Antitrust Challenge ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rita Yoon, Esq. -- ryoon@mwe.com -- at McDermott Will & Emery, in an article for Mondaq, reported that in a class action case assessing the implications of antitrust law in a patent infringement and validity settlement agreement, the Supreme Court of California held that reverse payment settlements are not immune from antitrust scrutiny under state law. In re Cipro Cases I & II, No. S198616, 2015 WL 2125291 (Cal. May 7, 2015). The California Supreme Court held that parties that engage in these reverse payment settlements without legitimate justification illegally restrain trade under California law. Bayer owns a patent on the active ingredient ciprofloxacin hydrochloride in the antibiotic Cipro(R). It subsequently obtained approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to market the drug in the United States. In 1991, 12 years before the expiration of the patent, defendant Barr Laboratories applied to market a generic version of Cipro. In its abbreviated new drug application (ANDA), Barr made a Paragraph IV certification that Bayer's patent is invalid or will not be infringed. In its certification, Barr contended that the patent was invalid double patent, was the product of inequitable conduct, and was obvious in light of prior art. Bayer responded with a patent infringement suit, and Barr counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity. In 1997, Bayer and Barr settled. As part of the settlement, Barr agreed to postpone marketing the generic version of Cipro until the patent expired and to a consent judgment affirming the patent's validity. In return, Bayer agreed to pay significant sums to Barr and to supply Cipro for licensed resale six months before the patent expired. From 1997 to 2003, Bayer paid Barr $398.1 million. Bayer's profits from Cipro exceed $1 billion. The settlement sparked numerous state and federal antitrust suits. The plaintiffs here -- buyers of the drug -- alleged that the settlement violated the Cartwright Act, unfair competition law and common-law prohibition against monopolies. The California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Bayer. Since the settlement restrained Barr only within the "scope of the patent," and the suit for its enforcement was not objectively baseless, the district court and Court of Appeals held the settlement lawful. This "scope of the patent" test presumes a patent's validity unless it was procured by fraud. So long as an agreement does not extend the patentee's monopoly beyond what the patent grants, the court concluded, the agreement survives antitrust scrutiny. In reversing the lower courts' holding, the California Supreme Court relied on the Supreme Court of the United States' decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. In Actavis, the Supreme Court rejected the "scope of the patent" test under federal law. While a valid patent allows the patentee to exclude others, "an invalidated patent carries with it no such right." Thus, a settlement which cuts short the resolution of a patent's validity should not establish that patent's legitimacy. The Supreme Court concluded in Actavis that, even if the terms of the reverse payment settlement falls within the patent's potential exclusionary scope, the settlement is not immune from antitrust attack. While Actavis is not dispositive on state law matters, "patent law is federal law." The Supreme Court is the "final arbiter" of patent law matters and the extent to which antitrust law interpretations and patent law requirements co-exist. Accordingly, the California Supreme Court applied Actavis to similarly reject the "scope of the patent" test under state law. The court also extended principles of the Cartwright Act to the patent arena, explaining "purchasing freedom from the possibility of competition, whether done by a patentee or anyone else, is illegal." The court adopted the "quick look rule of reason analysis" to assess reverse payment settlements. To establish a prima facie case that a reverse payment patent settlement is anti-competitive under California law, a plaintiff must show four elements: (1) The settlement includes a limit on the settling generic challenger's entry into the market; (2) the settlement includes cash or equivalent financial consideration flowing from the brand to the generic challenger; and the consideration exceeds (3) the value of goods and services other than any delay in market entry provided by the generic challenger to the brand, as well as (4) the brand's expected remaining litigation costs absent settlement. The burden then shifts to the defendant to offer legitimate justifications that the settlement is pro-competitive. If the plaintiff can dispel each justification, then the settlement is "condemned by the Cartwright Act" and is "an unlawful restraint of trade." BEST BUY: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Julio Cesar Lopez, and all others similarly-situated v. Best Buy Stores, L.P. dba Best Buy, Case No. 1:15-cv-22876 (S.D. Fla. Aug 02, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid back wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Best Buy Stores, L.P. is a specialty retailer of technology and entertainment products and services. The company was founded in 2009 and is based in Richfield, Minnesota. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot Ari Kozolchyk, Esq. Koz Law, P.A. 320 S.E. 9th street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Tel: (786) 924-9929 Fax: (786) 358-6071 E-mail: ekoz@kozlawfirm.com BURNSVILLE, MN: Residents to File Suit Over Carports ---------------------------------------------------- Pat Pheifer, writing for Star Tribune, reported that Don Paul and his wife, Judy, have lived in the Rambush Estates mobile home park in Burnsville for 13 years. Paul, who retired three years ago after 54 years in the roofing trade, keeps the small yard immaculate, festooned with garden sculptures, flowers, plants and a small wooden fence. The metal- roofed car port keeps their SUV out of the rain and snow and keeps precipitation off the stairs and landing leading to their front door. On June 12, though, the city of Burnsville sent notices to the Pauls and 21 other residents in the park who have carports saying the structures have to go because they violate state building code and city code. If residents don't comply within a certain number of days, they face steep reinspection fees. A few people have already removed their carports; some others are fighting back, attorney Valerie Sims said. Sims has served the city with a lawsuit, claiming, among other things, that Rambush Estates is private property and Burnsville does not have the authority to issue code violations there. "Manufactured homes are a completely different animal," Sims said. Minnesota law gives the state the "exclusive right" to do property inspections in mobile home parks, she said. The park also has its own extensive set of rules that govern what can and can't be on the lots. Residents who run afoul of the park's rules can be fined -- in the form of a rent increase -- or evicted. The lawsuit said that resident Kathryn Eich is suing "on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated residents of [the park]." The defendants, in addition to the city of Burnsville, are Ted Oakland and Christopher Forslund, both code inspectors for the city. Sims said that her next step is to file the lawsuit in Dakota County District Court and request a motion to certify it as a class action. Burnsville City Attorney Joel Jamnik said in an e-mail that the "case has been forwarded to the city's insurance provider, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust for review . . . and possible assignment of defense counsel." "Further comment at this time would be premature," he wrote. Notice of violations Eich, 69, has lived in Rambush Estates for the past 11 years. She is a single mother with a disabled son and takes care of her 99- year-old mother, Sims said. She got permission from the owners of Rambush Estates to have the carport installed. The large structure has room for at least two vehicles and helps her manage the snow shoveling in the winter, she said. Without it, she'd have to hire someone to plow her driveway. On May 22, Eich received a letter addressed to "Property Owner" and signed by Oakland, citing three violations. The first said, "An observation of your property noticed a nonconforming carport on your lot," and "Please have the carport removed." The second and third violations concerned a wheel barrow in the yard -- Eich said she was using it to tend her garden -- and trash cans in view. Eich and the other residents of Rambush Estates do not own the land their manufactured homes sit on -- the lot is rented from the park owner. Phone messages left with the management of Rambush Estates were not returned. On June 12, another letter came addressed to Eich and signed by Forslund. It said residents must prove that their carports meet the state building code and, if so, they may apply for a variance from the city code. The variance application fee, the letter said, is a nonrefundable $750, and a $1,000 escrow fund is required along with the application. Sims said Eich "lives on Social Security and pays half of that out for rent. She takes pride in her property. "She knows what's right is right. But she is very stressed out," the attorney said. Enforcement questions Sims said residents were never told what specific provision in the building code they were violating or given any reason the carport didn't comply. The lawsuit also said the city code violates residents' right to due process because it doesn't contain any process for the resident to fight it and the city codes conflict with both the park's rules and the state's rules for manufactured homes. Burnsville building official Chris Faste said he couldn't comment on pending litigation, but he said every property in the city must follow state and city codes. It doesn't matter whether it's a single-family home, a commercial property or a manufactured home park, he said. Don Paul, meanwhile, isn't sure what he's going to do with his carport. He did all of the improvements to the property himself and doesn't want to see them go, he said. When he built the carport, he specifically asked Rambush Estates whether he needed to pull a building permit and was told no, he said. CANADA: Federal Court Refuses to Certify "Rae" Tax Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Paterson, Esq. -- mpaterson@osler.com and Catherine Gleason- Mercier, Esq. -- cgleasonmercier@osler.com -- at Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, wrote that the Federal Court has recently reiterated the importance of both a properly defined class and a proper representative plaintiff at the certification stage. In Rae v Minister of National Revenue, 2015 FC 707, Justice St-Louis refused to certify a proposed class action on the basis that the class was too narrowly defined and the representative plaintiff would not fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. The Proposed Class Action In 2013, Ms. Rae, the proposed class representative, participated in a widely-marketed gifting tax shelter called Pharma Gifts International Inc. This gifting tax shelter was registered with the Minister and in 2013 the CRA undertook an audit of the gifting tax shelter. The CRA audit of Pharma Gifts resulted in Ms. Rae not receiving a Notice of Assessment for the 2013 taxation year. Moreover, Ms. Rae was informed that her 2013 income tax and benefit return could not be assessed until the audit was completed, which could take up to two years. The only recourse to a more timely assessment would be if Ms. Rae withdrew her donation claim and agreed to a proposed waiver agreement under which she would waive any right of objection or appeal related to the issue of her eligibility to the claim for the 2013 taxation year. Ms. Rae refused to agree to the waiver and instead brought a motion to the Federal Court to certify a class proceeding. The class proceeding sought a writ of mandamus requiring the Minister to assess Ms. Rae and the other class members' 2013 tax returns forthwith, issue a corresponding tax assessment and send a proper Notice of Assessment. The Certification Decision The Federal Court, noting that Ontario and British Columbia decisions may guide the Court in certifying class actions under Rule 334.16(1) of the Federal Courts Rules in respect of class actions, assessed each of the 5 criteria that must be satisfied in order to certify a class action: (1) Reasonable Cause of Action The parties submitted, and the Court agreed, that the threshold under this criterion is very low, and was satisfied in the case at bar. (2) Identifiable Class of Two or More Persons The proposed class was defined as: Any person who is not a non-resident of Canada, as defined by the Income Tax Act, who participated in a widely-marketed gifting tax shelter in 2013 and transmitted their 2013 income tax return to the Minister. Excluded from the class would be any taxpayer who otherwise meets the proposed definition but who has since accepted and/or acted on any waiver offered by the Minster, and any taxpayer who otherwise meets the proposed definition but who is assessed before the hearing of the application on the merits. The Court found that the proposed class was too narrowly defined. While over or under-inclusion is not fatal to certification, illogical or arbitrary class definitions are fatal. In this instance, the Court found that the exclusion of taxpayers assessed before the hearing of the merits is illogical or arbitrary since these taxpayers share the same interest in the resolution of the common issue regardless of whether or not they have received a Notice of Assessment. (3) Common Question of Law or Fact The Court found that the resolution of the common question -- receipt of a Notice of Assessment and a corresponding tax assessment -- was necessary to the resolution of each class members' claim, and each would benefit from the successful pursuit of the class action. (4) Preferable Procedure Since all taxpayers that would be affected by the common issue -- approximately 2,500 persons -- would have to bring this matter before the Court individually, the Court found that a class action would be the preferable procedure for the resolution of the common issue. (5) Appropriateness of the Representative Plaintiff The Court found that Ms. Rae's refusal to answer questions on cross-examination with regards to third-party funding raised concerns with regards to her appropriateness as representative plaintiff. Moreover, both the litigation plan and the fee arrangement submitted by Ms. Rae failed to satisfy the requirements set out in the jurisprudence. Going Forward Though this decision is fact specific, there are some key points that can be distilled: In contrast with a number of cases in the class actions context, the Court in Rae v Minister of National Revenue did not amend the proposed class definition so that it would satisfy the certification criteria. It will be interesting to monitor subsequent decisions from the Federal Court, as well as from various superior courts, to see if this refusal to re-draft a proposed class definition becomes a trend. It will also be interesting to monitor how third-party funding and the information about such funding that courts require to be disclosed impacts certification. Given the paucity of class actions arising in the tax context, this decision reminds potential representative plaintiffs of the importance of satisfying the certification criteria and defining the class appropriately. In what the court says is a highly individual area of law, it remains unclear when the court would be willing to certify a tax class action. CANADA: Medical Pot Users' Class Suit Certified ----------------------------------------------- Clare Mellor, writing for Hearald News, reported that the Federal Court of Canada has certified a class action lawsuit by medical marijuana users which alleges that Health Canada violated their privacy rights. Justice Michael Phelan heard the certification application in Federal Court in Halifax in June. The claim alleges that in November 2013, the federal department sent letters to about 40,000 participants in the medical marijuana access program in oversized envelopes that clearly stated they were from the program. Anyone seeing the envelopes would have known the recipient was either licensed to possess or grow marijuana for medical purposes, the claim alleges. "This is not over yet, but the thousands of affected program members should take some comfort that every legal claim we advanced on their behalf has been approved to go forward," David Fraser, a lawyer with McInnes Cooper said in a release. The Nova Scotia law firm is jointly representing plaintiffs, along with three others law firms -- two in Ontario, and one in British Columbia. Lawyers said about 1,800 people had registered with the class action, however, it is not necessary to "opt in," in order to be included. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada investigated the alleged privacy breach and ruled that Health Canada violated federal privacy laws when it sent out the envelopes. CASH CONVERTERS: Faces Class Suit Over Huge Brokerage Fees ---------------------------------------------------------- Maria Hatzakis, writing for ABC News, reported that law firm Maurice Blackburn filed documents alleging the breaches happened between July 30, 2009 and June 30, 2013, with special counsel Miranda Nagy saying about 30,000 Queenslanders had been affected. "People paid a lot more for their credit than they wanted to and that they should have," Ms. Nagy said. "But also it meant that many Cash Converters borrowers who were in a very difficult financial situation were put in a worse position. "Many of them who've spoken to us have told us that they ended up essentially in a debt spiral, they ended up needing to get loan after loan after loan, to repay the previous ones." Sean Lynch is the lead plaintiff in the case. "I went to Cash Converters because, like a lot of others doing it tough, I needed some help," Mr. Lynch said. "Instead of finding help I found I was left with huge fees that I couldn't cover that meant [I] ended up having to borrow a lot more just to cover my fee. "It led only to further problems when what I really needed was help." Ms. Nagy said the case alleged Cash Converters breached Queensland laws designed to protect consumers. "In mid-2008 Queensland laws took effect that imposed a cap of 48 per cent per annum interest that was payable on consumer credit loans," she said. "In response to these legislative changes Cash Converters introduced a new business model by which, in order to get access to credit, Queensland borrowers were forced to appoint a broker and were forced to pay quite substantial brokerage charges. "For example on a $600 loan, the brokerage charge would be $210. "The brokerage fees were required under these consumer credit laws to be included in calculating the real interest rate that applied to these contracts. "So rather than 48 per cent, which was already a very steep interest rate, the effect of these fees was to mean that the real interest rate on these loans was over 160 per cent per annum." Ms. Nagy said if the action was successful, damages could be up to $30 million. "In New South Wales, Maurice Blackburn has already settled two class actions against Cash Converters over similar legislation that operated in New South Wales," she said. "We expect the Queensland class action against Cash Converters will also demonstrate how Cash Converters tried to circumvent the law to charge vulnerable people quite exorbitant interest rates. "This Queensland class action does suggest that there have been concerted efforts by Cash Converters to find a way to avoid laws that were designed to bring down the cost of credit and to introduce effective protections for very vulnerable consumers." CHARMI LLC: "Conway" Suit in Ga. Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Conway and David Locke v. Charmi, LLC and Bahrat Patel, Case No. 2:15-cv-00110-LGW-RSB (S.D. Ga., August 5, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wages, declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a Days Inn hotel in Camden County, Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 29 North Orange Avenue Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com CHICAGO, IL: Police Officers' OT Suit Heads to Trial ---------------------------------------------------- Alexia Elejalde-Ruiz, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reported that Jeffrey Allen would answer his work BlackBerry during Thanksgiving dinner, during his son's soccer match, on any number. "I just saw it as part of the job," said Allen, 51, a Chicago police sergeant. But it was not a part of the job he was paid for, Allen alleges in a class-action lawsuit against the city of Chicago filed five years ago that heads to trial. He and about 50 officers who have joined the suit seek overtime pay for off-duty hours spent monitoring and responding to work emails and phone calls on their company-issued mobile devices. Anyone familiar with the ping of a late-night email, a weekend call from a boss or a mid-dinner glance at a text message has felt the inescapability of work in the age of smartphones. But while constant connectedness has become the norm, it has also become a source of overtime litigation -- and attorneys say that could increase under a proposal from the Obama administration to make millions more salaried Americans eligible for overtime, including many in managerial positions. The proposed overtime rulewould raise to $50,440 the minimum salary an employee must make before he or she can be classified as exempt from overtime, up from $23,660. The government estimates that would extend overtime pay to nearly 5 million salaried workers who currently are exempt under "white-collar" provisions. The salary threshold doesn't affect certain workers, including teachers, outside sales representatives and certain hourly computer professionals. The Labor Department plans to seek public comment on the use of smartphones to work off hours and could propose a new rule or guidance on the topic. CHICAGO, IL: Judge Throws Out Challenge to Red Light Camera Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- ABC7 News reported that the legal challenge of Chicago's red light cameras is moving forward despite the objections of city lawyers. A Cook County Judge threw out a bid from the City of Chicago to shut down a proposed class-action lawsuit over the city's red light cameras. A small group gathered outside Daley Plaza protesting the controversial program. Critics say the red light cameras don't have state approval. A similar lawsuit was thrown out by the Illinois Supreme Court as two justices recused themselves for unknown reasons. CHINA FINANCE: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors of China Finance Online, Co. ("China Finance" or the "Company") JRJC, +0.00% who purchased shares of China Finance between May 6, 2014 through June 3, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and have been damaged by the recent declines in the Company's stock price. China Finance investors must file a motion by August 4, 2015 for consideration as a class representative in this purported class action. The lawsuit concerns the Company's and its executives' alleged violations of securities laws, based on recent reports alleging that: (1) the most current Chinese government records show that Chairman and CEO Zhiwei Zhao suddenly resigned from his positions at three key Chinese VIE subsidiaries of China Finance over the past few months; (2) Chinese media reports exposing the detention of the Company's independent director Rongquan Leng prompted China Finance to announce his resignation, without addressing his alleged detention; and (3) Ling Wang, a former long-time China Finance director and associate of Zhao, fled China in 2014, leaving his company indebted to China Finance for $25 million. The complaint alleges that when the truth was finally revealed regarding the above Company matters, shares of China Finance fell $1.28 per share, to close on June 3, 2015 at $5.67, a one-day decline of 22% on volume of over 3 million shares thereby damaging investors. If you purchased shares of China Finance during the Class Period, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement, you are encouraged to contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com. CONTACT: Howard G. Smith, Esq. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Bensalem, PA 19020, United States 215-638-4847 888-638-4847 howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com www.howardsmithlaw.com CIGNA CORP: Faces "Copelli" Suit Over Proposed Anthem Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ Linda Copelli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cigna Corp., et al., Case No. 11373-CB (Del. Ch., August 6, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of Cigna Corp., to enjoin the proposed acquisition of the publicly owned shares of Cigna by Anthem, Inc., through a flawed process and inadequate consideration. Cigna Corporation is a global health services organization dedicated to a mission of helping individuals improve their health, well-being and sense of security. Anthem, Inc. is a health benefit company that offers a range of network-based managed care plans to large and small employer, individual, Medicaid and Medicare markets. The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Banko, Esq. Derrick B. Farrell, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 482-3182 E-mail: jbanko@faruqilaw.com dfarrell@faruqilaw.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Innessa S. Melamed,Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com imelamed@faruqilaw.com CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Sued Over Inaccurate Wages Statements ----------------------------------------------------------- Paul Bradley, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Continental Airlines, Inc. and Does 1-50 inclusive, Case No. BC590491 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to comply with the wage statement requirements of the California Labor Code. Continental Airlines, Inc. owns and operates an airline company that does business throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey C. Jackson, Esq. JACKSON HANSON, LLP 2790 Truxtun Rd., Suite 140 San Diego, CA 92106 Telephone: (619) 523-9001 Facsimile: (619) 523-9002 E-mail: atty@JacksonHanson.com CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over FDCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Litasha Thomas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Palisades Collection, LLC, and Galaxy International Purchasing, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv- 01823-JSM-TGW (M.D. Fla., August 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: James Salvatore Giardina, Esq. Kimberly Hamel Wochholz, Esq. THE CONSUMER RIGHTS LAW GROUP, PLLC Suite 200, 3104 W Waters Ave Tampa, FL 33614-2877 Telephone: (813) 413-5610 Facsimile: (866) 535-7199 E-mail: james@consumerrightslawgroup.com Kim@ConsumerRightsLawGroup.com CRESTWOOD MISDTREAM: Faruqi LLP Files Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, case no. 4:15-cv-2101, on behalf of unitholders of Crestwood Midstream Partners LP ("Crestwood Midstream" or the "Company") who held (and continue to hold) Crestwood Midstream securities acquired on or before May 5, 2015. On May 5, 2015, the Company entered into a Purchase Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") under which Crestwood Equity Partners LP ("Crestwood Equity") will acquire all of the outstanding units of Crestwood Midstream through a newly formed subsidiary of Crestwood Equity. The unit-for-unit transaction is valued at approximately $7.5 billion. The transaction and vote are expected to occur in the third quarter of 2015. The complaint charges Crestwood Midstream Partners LP, its Board of Directors, Crestwood Equity Partners LP, and affiliated corporate entities and individuals with violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, which was unanimously approved by the Company's Board of Directors (the "Board" or "Individual Defendants"), Crestwood Midstream unitholders will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 2.75 units of Crestwood Equity for each unit of Crestwood Midstream they own. Crestwood Midstream and Crestwood Equity claim that this exchange ratio amounts to a deal consideration of approximately $18.75 per Crestwood Midstream common unit, based on Crestwood Equity's closing price of $6.82 on May 5, 2015. However, Crestwood Equity units are currently trading at significantly lower prices, closing at $3.71 on July 28, 2015. Furthermore, the Merger Agreement includes no protective collar on the transaction's exchange ratio, and as a result, the implied dollar value of the Merger Consideration is susceptible to significant depreciation based upon the future performance of Crestwood Equity's stock. Significantly, since the Proposed Transaction was announced, Crestwood Equity's stock price has dropped approximately 38%, from $6.82 on May 5, 2015, to $4.23 on July 14, 2015. Thus, any premium Crestwood Midstream's unitholders were supposedly receiving has vanished in light of the significant decrease in the value of Crestwood Equity's stock price. The complaint alleges that the S-4 Registration Statement (the "S- 4") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on June 17, 2015 provided materially incomplete and misleading disclosures, thereby violating Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Registration Statement denies Crestwood Midstream's unitholders material information concerning the financial and procedural fairness of the Merger. The complaint also alleges that 2.75 units of Crestwood Equity for each unit of Crestwood Midstream is an inadequate exchange ratio, as Crestwood Midstream has experienced significant growth in recent months and has consistently exceeded management's revenue and earnings expectations. The offer price also fails to adequately value Crestwood Midstream's prospects for future growth. Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, and Pennsylvania. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Ave, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330 E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com CVS HEALTH: Sued for Alleged Scheme to Defraud Customers -------------------------------------------------------- Pharmacy customers of CVS Health Corporation (CVS) filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that CVS employed a fraudulent scheme to overcharge millions of customers across the country for generic prescription drugs. Attorneys from Hausfeld and Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone & Beato LLP represent the plaintiffs and filed the suit on their behalf. CVS is alleged to have implemented and maintained a false and deceptive pricing scheme affecting more than 400 generic drugs, forcing customers with health insurance to pay CVS copayments far higher than the usual and customary price CVS charged its cash- paying customers. "Consumers filled more than 935 million prescriptions at CVS, capturing nearly a quarter of the U.S. market. The potential scope of the harm alleged in the complaint is massive," said Robert B. Gilmore, a partner with Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone & Beato LLP. CVS generates approximately $67 billion in annual revenues from its retail pharmacy business, and plaintiffs allege that CVS' wrongful overcharging is a significant percentage of those revenues. "As alleged in the complaint, for seven years CVS has systematically been overcharging their insured consumers for prescriptions. The alleged scheme is especially harmful to those people with low or fixed incomes who use medications on a regular basis. Plaintiffs assert that the drug chain wrongfully has charged insured consumers inflated copayments on more than 400 generic medications, including some of the most commonly used drugs on the market. According to the complaint, millions of people have been affected by this misconduct," said Hausfeld partner Richard S. Lewis. The plaintiffs seek to represent all consumers who were participants in third-party healthcare plans and who filled their prescriptions for certain generic drugs at CVS between November 2008 and the present, and paid more than prices available under the CVS Health Savings Pass program. The plaintiffs are jointly represented by Washington, D.C.-based firms Hausfeld and Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone & Beato LLP, both of which carry substantial experience in class action, healthcare, and commercial litigation. A copy of the complaint is available on the Hausfeld firm site: www.hausfeld.com, and on the Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone & Beato LLP firm site: www.steinmitchell.com. Insured CVS pharmacy customers may contact the firms to learn more about their legal rights. For additional inquires, please contact Kristen Ward Broz (Hausfeld) at 202-540-7170 kward@hausfeld.com or Erin Clancy (Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone & Beato LLP) at 202- 661-0936. Customers can also email inquiries to cvs@steinmitchell.com. CONTACT: Hausfeld 165 Broadway Suite 2301 New York, NY 10006 646-357-1100 212-202-4322 fax http://www.hausfeld.com/ info@hausfeld.com DE CAPITAL: Faces "Negrin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Negrin and Ann Mondrone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. De Capital Mortgage, LLC, Preferred Empire Mortgage, Co., and Dottie Herman, Case No. 652754/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., August 6, 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 providing mortgage banking services to consumers in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Erik H. Langeland, Esq. ERIK H. LANGELAND, P.C. 733 3rd Avenue, 15 Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 354-6270 Facsimile: (212) 898-9086 E-mail: elangeland@langelandlaw.com DIAGEO: Faces Class Suit Over Red Stripe Misleading Label --------------------------------------------------------- Don Bauder, writing for San Diego Reader, reported that the San Diego law firm of Robbins Arroyo, representing two local plaintiffs, filed a suit in federal court in San Diego against Diageo, the big London alcoholic beverage firm. It is a putative class action suit on behalf of all drinkers of Red Stripe beer. The gist is that Red Stripe beer is not brewed in Jamaica. Diageo uses clever phrasing in its promotion. Red Stripe is called a "Jamaican Style Lager" that contains the "taste of Jamaica." For 80 years, "Red Stripe has embodied the spirit, rhythm and pulse of Jamaica and its people." The bottle structure is short, squat, and brown -- closely associated with Jamaican beer bottles, says the complaint. However, on the border of the labels are these words: "Brewed & Bottled by Red Stripe Beer Company, Latrobe, PA." The plaintiffs contend that this disclaimer is in "obscure white text," and the consumer can't see those words until after he or she has purchased a six-pack or twelve-pack. The suit, charging unfair and deceptive practices, was filed July 29 DIRECT DIGITAL: 7th Circ. Rejects 'Ascertainability' Framework -------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reported that class action lawyers may want to get up a petition to declare July 28 "Judge David Hamilton Day" because they could not have asked for a stronger defense of class actions -- and the existing federal rules governing class certification -- than they received in Hamilton's opinion for a three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Mullins v. Direct Digital. The 7th Circuit scrutinized the 3rd Circuit's controversial requirement of a "reliable and administratively feasible" way to ascertain class membership -- and wholly rejected it. According to Judge Hamilton and his panel colleagues, Judges William Bauer and Michael Kanne, the 3rd Circuit's 2013 ruling in Carrera v. Bayer upset the federal rules' carefully wrought framework for class certification. "The heightened ascertainability requirement," the opinion said, "gives one factor in the balance absolute priority, with the effect of barring class actions where class treatment is often most needed: in cases involving relatively low-cost goods or services, where consumers are unlikely to have documentary proof of purchase." The 7th Circuit's precedent, Judge Hamilton wrote, already requires trial courts to deny certification to proposed classes that are too vaguely defined, rely on subjective criteria such as someone's state of mind, or contain "fail safe" provisions that depend on the defendant's liability. And according to the 7th Circuit, that's enough. The court considered four policy justifications for a heightened ascertainability requirement: administrative convenience, unfairness to absent class members, unfairness to bona fide class members, and due process for defendants. According to the 7th Circuit, the procedural rules for class actions -- which don't specifically address ascertainability -- already take care of those concerns. Moreover, the 7th Circuit said (quite sensibly), it doesn't make any sense to refuse to certify classes to protect absent and bona fide class members under the theory that they may not get the recovery they're entitled to unless plaintiffs can show a way to weed out unqualified class members. Without certification, Judge Hamilton wrote, those class members will receive nothing. "In general, we think imposing this stringent version of ascertainability does not further any interest that is not already adequately protected by the (federal) rule's explicit requirements," the opinion said. "On the other side of the balance, the costs of imposing the requirement are substantial." Importantly, the 7th Circuit explicitly said affidavits from class members are an acceptable way to ascertain who is in a class -- a methodology the 3rd Circuit specifically ruled out in its Carrera decision. Judge Hamilton said that as long as defendants have an opportunity to challenge "self-serving affidavits from plaintiffs," ascertaining class membership through plaintiffs' testimony doesn't impinge on defendants' rights. After all, he said, "we are aware of only one type of case in American law where the testimony of one witness is legally insufficient to prove a fact" -- and that's prosecution for treason. "There is no good reason to extend that rule to consumer class actions," Hamilton wrote. The 7th Circuit said it agreed to consider Digital Direct's interlocutory appeal because it wanted to address what it called "the recent expansion of 'ascertainability.'" (The case involves allegedly deceptive labeling of a joint relief supplement called Instaflex.) The opinion meticulously traced that expansion, which began with a 2012 decision from the 3rd Circuit in a case against BMW and peaked in the 2013 Carrera decision, which a sharply divided 3rd Circuit declined to rehear en banc. That appellate court, as I've reported and the 7th Circuit has noted, seems to be easing up a bit on ascertainability, as evidenced by its 2015 opinion in Byrd v. Aaron's. But in the meantime, a slew of trial judges across the country, not only in the 3rd Circuit, have refused to certify classes that could only be ascertained by plaintiffs' affidavits. The 7th Circuit is the first appellate court to dissect the 3rd Circuit's ascertainability framework, which was previously cited with approval but not really analyzed in an unpublished 11th Circuit decision. So this opinion is hugely important, said Stewart Weltman of Boodell & Domanskis, who argued at the 7th Circuit for the plaintiffs suing Direct Digital. "This is one of the most thorough and intellectually honest opinions I've encountered," Weltman said. "One hopes that from the strength of this decision and its logic, the 3rd Circuit will realize it went off the tracks." Whenever one federal circuit decides another is flat-out wrong, you wonder if the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually have to resolve the split. I called and emailed Ari Rothman of Venable, who argued for Digital Direct at the 7th Circuit, to ask whether his client will seek Supreme Court review, but didn't hear back. EAGLE ROCK: September 28 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ---------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of investors who owned Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. ("Eagle Rock" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:EROC) common units on July 6, 2015. The complaint alleges that the Eagle Rock board of directors violated the federal securities laws and breached its fiduciary duties to shareholders by engaging in a flawed and unfair sales process in relation to the sale of the Company to Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC (NASDAQ:VNR). The complaint also alleges that the sales process ensures the sale of Eagle Rock without adequately informing shareholders of material information necessary in considering the approval of the sale of the Company. These breaches of fiduciary duties, if not resolved, will effectuate the sale of the Company to the detriment of public shareholder interest. If you suffered a loss in Eagle Rock you have until September 28, 2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972, or visit http://zlk.9nl.com/eagle-rock-energy. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm has extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in securities and shareholder lawsuits. CONTACT: Joseph Levi, Esq. Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 30 Broad Street - 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Toll Free: (877) 363-5972 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com EBAY INC: Doesn't Timely Transmit Buyers' Money, "Chen" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Theo Chen, et al. v. EBay, Inc. and PayPal, Inc., Case No. RG15780778 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to timely transmit monies obtained from buyers to their sellers. EBay, Inc. is the world's largest online marketplace. PayPal, Inc. provides online payment solutions for individuals and businesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony A. Ferrigno, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY A. GERRIGNO 1116 Ingleside Avenue Athens, TN 37303 Telephone: (423) 744-4041 Facsimile: (925) 945-8792 - and - J. David Franklin, Esq. FRANKLIN & FRANKLIN, APLC 402 West Broadway, Suite 1140 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 229-4441 - and - Pamela E. Havird, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PAMELA E. HA VIRD PO Box 375 La Jolla, CA 92038 Telephone: (619) 888-8090 Facsimile: (858) 815-7778 E-mail: pehavird@sbcglobal.net EFT HOLDINGS: Locke Lord Dismissed in Pyramid-Scheme Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reported that a federal judge booted Locke Lord off a federal pyramid scheme case, troubled by the fact that the victims of the alleged scheme are already suing the firm for malpractice in another court. Locke Lord "is not adequate class counsel," wrote U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer of the Central District of California. The firm is fighting a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court by alleged scheme victims who say lawyers at Edwards Wildman Palmer -- which merged with Locke Lord in January -- missed a crucial class certification deadline. Those plaintiffs are demanding the return of a $200,000 retainer and other damages. Locke Lord says it shouldn't be penalized for a "lone misstep" by lawyers no longer on the case. It also said that lawyers Ronie Schmelz and Edwin Larkin, who were on the original pleadings, left Edwards Wildman before the merger. But Fischer found the two lawsuits create the appearance of divided loyalties. "There may be an incentive for Locke Lord to downplay or attack the viability of this class action in the state court case in an attempt to show that the state court plaintiff there suffered no harm from the failure to certify the class," Fischer wrote. The Edwards Wildman lawyers sued nutritional product company EFT Holdings Inc. in 2013. The lawyers claimed plaintiffs were victims of a pyramid scheme, whereby they were recruited to sell nutritional products but made money only by recruiting additional salespeople. They also accused EFT Holdings of mislabeling its products. In one case, plaintiffs said the U.S. Food and Drug Administration sent the company a warning letter claiming at least one of its products contained lead, "a poisonous or deleterious substance," which was not indicated on the label. Edwards Wildman filed the suit as a class action, but then failed to move for class certification within the 90-day deadline. As a result, Fischer struck plaintiffs' class claims and ordered the lawyers to proceed with the case as an individual action. The judge shot down plaintiffs' request for a second chance, ruling that plaintiffs lawyers gave no good excuse for missing the deadline, and, to make matters worse, let months go by without seeking an extension. Different lawyers at Locke Lord, and their co-counsel at Howarth & Smith, tried again in January, filing a new class action complaint followed by a timely motion for class certification. In March, plaintiff Xiu Lin Wang sued Locke Lord in state court on behalf of nearly 7,300 EFT members who claim they intended to be part of the class action against the company and were harmed when their lawyers missed the deadline and forfeited their class claims. The members pooled their money to raise $200,475 toward Edwards Wildman Palmer's retainer fee, and now they claim the lawyers won't reimburse them. Ruling is a win for EFT's lawyers, led by Winston & Strawn partner Neal Marder, who argued there's a "grave ongoing conflict between Locke Lord and the putative class." Marder was out of the country and unavailable to comment. Winston & Strawn associate Ali Rabbani said his team is pleased the court found Locke Lord to be unfit as class counsel in this case. Locke Lord partner Stephen Tuggy and Howarth & Smith partner Suzelle Smith did not respond to calls or emails seeking comment. Fischer granted EFT Holding's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims, allowing plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by August 11. ELETROBRAS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Fraud Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the American Depository Shares ("ADSs") of Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras S.A. -- ELETROBRAS ("Eletrobras" or the "Company") (NYSE: EBR) between February 10, 2014 and April 29, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the "Complaint"). If you purchased ADSs of Eletrobras during the Class Period and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at (888) 969- 4242; by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com; or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/centrais-eletricas- brasileiras-sa-eletrobras-ebr. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations and prospects. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. According to the Complaint, on April 30, 2015, Eletrobras announced to investors that due to news reports about bribery taking place at its subsidiary, Eletrobras Termonuclear S.A. - Eletronuclear, the Company would not be filing its Form 20-F on time and needed the additional time to make sure the proper auditing procedures were being followed. On this news, ADSs in Eletrobras declined over 8%, closing at $2.45 per share on April 30, 2015, on heavy trading volume. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 21, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. CONTACT: Timothy J. MacFall, Esq. Peter Allocco, Esq. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. 825 E Gate Blvd #300 Garden City, NY, United States (888) 969-4242 (516) 683-3516 Fax: (302) 654-7530 info@rl-legal.com http://www.rigrodskylong.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Arnold" Suit Over FCRA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Brenda Arnold and Joyce Ridgley, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals v. Equifax Information Service, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00460-REP (E.D. Va., August 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew James Erausquin, Esq. CONSUMER LITGATION ASSOCIATES PC 1800 Diagonal Rd, Suite 600 Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (703) 273-7770 Facsimile: (888) 892-3513 E-mail: matt@clalegal.com - and - Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES 763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: srotkis@clalegal.com EVERBANK: Settles Nationwide Suit over Forced Insurance ------------------------------------------------------- Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reported that Florida-based EverBank and units of insurance company Assurant Inc have agreed to settle a nationwide class action accusing them of fraud for allegedly overcharging homeowners for insurance they were forced to buy, according to a court filing. The preliminary settlement calls for companies to pay homeowners 12.5 percent of the premiums they were charged and to end practices challenged in the lawsuit that allegedly raised insurance costs. The lawsuit was filed by lawyers at Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Podhurst Orseck, and Harke Clasby & Bushman. EZCORP INC: Sued in Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports ----------------------------------------------------------- Wu Huang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ezcorp, Inc., Stuart I. Grimshaw, and Mark E. Kuchenrither, Case No. 1:15-cv-00677-SS (W.D. Tex., August 5, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Ezcorp, Inc. delivers cash solutions to customers across channels, products, services and markets. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sammy Ford IV, Esq. ABRAHAM, WATKINS, NICHOLS, SORRELS, AGOSTO & FRIEND 800 Commerce Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 226-5157 Facsimile: (713) 225-0827 E-mail: sford@abrahamwatkins.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ, LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com FACEBOOK: Wins First Round in European Privacy Suit --------------------------------------------------- Natasha Ahmed, Esq. -- nahmed@lockelord.com -- and Alan Meneghetti, Esq. -- ameneghetti@lockelord.com -- at Locke Lord LLP, in an article for JD Supra, wrote that Facebook has won its latest class action case in a long-running legal battle involving 25,000 European Facebook users. The class action was led by Austrian law student and privacy campaigner Max Schrems, and alleged that Facebook breached European privacy laws. The Austrian court held that they lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, which sought EUR500 compensation for each claimant, totalling EUR12.5m. Mr Schrems alleges that Facebook illegally tracked its users' browsing habits via software installed on other web pages, and provided information to U.S. intelligence agencies, amongst other violations. Facebook has welcomed the rejection with their statement: "This litigation was unnecessary and we're pleased that the court has roundly rejected these claims." Yet the ruling is an isolated victory for the social network, which is facing lawsuits across Europe over the way it handles its users' personal data. Mr Schrems is undeterred by this ruling and plans to appeal against the decision. In a statement by Schrems' lawyer, Wolfram Proksch, he responded: "This finding by the court is really very strange. Unfortunately it seems like the court wanted to forward this hot potato to the higher courts." The court has thrown the case out on procedural grounds rather than on its material facts, referring it on to a higher tribunal. A further 55,000 people have registered to take part in a second round, if the lawsuit proceeds. FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces $5.2BB Suit Over Defective Cars in Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reported that Regina lawyer Tony Merchants' firm has launched a class action lawsuit for $5.2 billion against Fiat Chrysler. Earlier, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration fined the auto maker a record $105 million for poorly executing 23 vehicle safety recalls covering more than 11 million defective vehicles over several years. As part of that deal, Fiat Chrysler has been ordered to fix or buy back 500,000 Ram pickup trucks and 1.5 million Jeeps that that might be vulnerable in rear-end collisions. However, Merchant said that fine and recall doesn't affect vehicles in Canada. "The Canadian government once again is not on top of protecting consumers and Canadian car owners face the risk of Americans being protected both in terms of safety and financial loss, while on this side of the border, driving exactly the same vehicle, no protection arises," Merchant said in a news release. Ken Whitehurst, the executive director for Consumers Council of Canada, said Canadians often assume consumer protections are stronger here than in the more business-friendly U.S. in many areas, including vehicle safety, but the opposite is true. "Transport Canada doesn't have the powers to act forcefully the way we see in the United States," he said. "Canada depends quite a lot on companies for reciprocal action when it comes to recalls." Whitehurst said in the past, Canadian companies have mostly played by the rules and maintained a culture of responsibility, but the multinational corporations that play an increasingly important role in the Canadian economy are indifferent. A national class action has been issued regarding Chrysler Fiat from the Merchant Law Group Montreal office. The firm will be issuing claims in Ontario and B.C. and in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia. There are 25 categories of vehicles listed in the statement of claim, which contains allegations which have not been proven in court. FIRST STEP: Faces "Fraylich" Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- Sevi Fraylich, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. First Step Group, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv- 04597 (E.D.N.Y., August 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Gutman" Suit Over FDCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Brana Gutman, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, Case No. 1:15- cv-04598 (E.D.N.Y., August 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com FOOD COURT: Faces "Costa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alberto Cerqueira De Araujo Costa and all others similarly situated v. Food Court by Brazilian Depot, Inc., Denise V. De Oliveira and Erlocio De Oliveira, Case No. 0:15-cv-61613-WJZ (S.D. Fla., August 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in 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 GC SERVICES: Faces "Kausar" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Rukhsana Kausar, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GC Services Limited Partnership, Case No. 2:15-cv- 06027-ES-JAD (D.N.J., August 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Leyland Gentile, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA PC 110 Jericho Turnpike-Suite 100 Floral Park, NY 11001 Telephone: (201) 873-7675 E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com GENERAL MOTORS: JPMorgan Sued Over Mistake in Loan -------------------------------------------------- Ellen Rosen, writing for Bloomberg Business, reported that one of the participants in a $1.5 billion term loan that JPMorgan Chase & Co. made to General Motors Corp. before its bankruptcy is now suing the bank and its lawyers at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. The reason: a mistake in the recording of the security interest in the loan, initially made by an associate at Mayer Brown LLP but not caught by those reviewing the documents at both JPMorgan and Simpson Thacher. That mistake eradicated the security interest that would have paid the loan in full despite the carmaker's bankruptcy in 2009. The Employees' Retirement System of the City of Montgomery, Alabama, filed a class action on July 30 in federal court in Manhattan against the bank and Simpson Thacher. The pension fund wants to represent what it says are 400 participants in the term loan. Because the lawsuit could run up against the statute of limitations, the plaintiffs are saying that the bank hadn't notified the participants about the error. The pension fund claims it was unaware of the mistake until May, when it was served with a lawsuit to recover payments made on the loan. The retirement system is asserting claims for breach of contract and gross negligence against the bank as agent on the loan, and is suing Simpson Thacher for malpractice. The bank didn't immediately return a call seeking comment on the lawsuit. Simpson Thacher declined to comment. Mayer Brown wasn't named as a defendant in the suit. The lawsuit is Employees' Retirement System of the City of Montgomery v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, 15-6002, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). HEALTH NET: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All Persons or Entities who purchased Health Net, Inc. stock prior to July 2, 2015. You are hereby notified that a class action has been commenced in Delaware state court challenging the fairness of the sale of Health Net, Inc. HNT, +0.57% to Centene Corporation CNC, +0.29% for 0.622 shares of Centene common stock and $28.25 in cash for each share of Health Net common stock or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in securities lawsuits and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. For more information, please feel free to contact any of the attorneys listed below. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 30 Broad St., 24th FL New York, NY 10004 Toll free. 877-363-5972 T. 212-363-7500 F. 212-363-7171 jlevi@zlk.com HERBALIFE LTD: Judge Dismisses 'Pyramid Scheme' Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reported that a federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit accusing Herbalife Ltd (HLF.N) and its chief executive officer of misrepresenting the weight-loss and nutritional products maker's sales practices as legitimate when the company was "at its core" a pyramid scheme. U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer in Los Angeles, who dismissed a version of the complaint in March, said on the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System did not show the defendants defrauded shareholders by concealing the company's inability to track retail sales. The judge also said that CEO Michael Johnson's reducing his Herbalife stake by a net 12 percent over roughly one year, while "undeniably large," did not raise suspicions, nor did disclosures that top executives expected "some form of disciplinary action" over the company's business practices. "Herbalife openly disclosed that it was susceptible to legal challenge precisely because its practices occupy the gray area between legitimate multi-level marketing company and illegal pyramid scheme," Fischer wrote. The lawsuit seeks class-action status from Feb. 23, 2011 and March 10, 2014. Fischer said the plaintiff may file an amended complaint by Aug. 27. "We are disappointed with the ruling and will determine our next steps after consultation with the client," Maya Saxena, a lawyer for the Oklahoma fund, said in an email. Herbalife did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the ruling. It has denied wrongdoing. A pyramid scheme often occurs when participants earn more money by recruiting others to sell products than by selling the products. Billionaire hedge fund manager William Ackman has also accused Herbalife of being a pyramid scheme. He said in December 2012 that his firm, Pershing Square Capital Management LP, had made a $1 billion bet against Los Angeles-based Herbalife. In May, another federal judge granted final approval to Herbalife's $15 million settlement with distributors who said the company misled them. Herbalife shares added 0.1 percent to $50.66 in trading, and remained above levels at the time Ackman revealed his short bet. The case is In re: Herbalife Ltd Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, No. 14-02850. HOUSTON AMERICAN: Texas Court Dismisses Shareholder Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Houston American Energy Corp. (NYSE MKT: HUSA) announced that the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas has rendered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice in the company's previously pending shareholder class action lawsuit. The judgment approved the previously announced settlement of the suit pursuant to which the company's insurance company funded the full cost of settling the claims comprising the class action lawsuit. About Houston American Energy Corp. Based in Houston, Texas, Houston American Energy Corp is an independent energy company with interests in oil and natural gas wells and prospects. The Company's business strategy includes a property mix of producing and non-producing assets with a focus on Colombia, Texas and Louisiana. Additional information can be accessed by reviewing our Form 10-K and other periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. ICONIX BRAND: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, reminds investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in securities class litigation brought on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Iconix Brand Group, Inc. ("Iconix" or the "Company") (NasdaqGS:ICON) between February 20, 2013 and April 17, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased or otherwise acquired Iconix securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than August 24, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the action will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. Iconix investors who wish to learn more about the action and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358. The actions allege that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company had underreported the cost basis of its brands; (2) the Company engaged in irregular accounting practices related to the booking of its joint venture revenues and profits, free-cash flow, and organic growth; and (3) as a result, the Company's earnings and revenues were overstated. After the market closed on March 30, 2015, the Company announced that its Chief Financial Officer, Jeff Lupinacci, had resigned effective that day. On this news, the price of Iconix shares fell $2.72 per share, or 7.47%, to close at $33.67 per share on March 31, 2015, on elevated trading volume. On April 20, 2015, Roth Capital Partners published an Equity Research Note, criticizing the Company's alleged accounting irregularities concerning free-cash flow accounting, organic growth, and gains on licensing fees. On this news, the price of Iconix shares declined $6.62 per share, or 20.67%, to close at $25.41 per share on April 20, 2015, on extremely high trading volume. About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing investor rights and promoting corporate responsibility. For twelve years, the National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs' law firms in the nation. Best Lawyers and U.S. News have also named Lieff Cabraser as a "Law Firm of the Year" each year the publications have given this award to law firms, including in 2015. For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's representation of investors, please visit http://www.lieffcabraser.com. CONTACT: Sharon M. Lee, Esq. Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Phone: 415.956.1000 Fax: 415.956.1008 www.lieffcabraser.com/ JEFFERSON COUNTY, AL: Class Suit Filed Over One-Cent Sales Tax -------------------------------------------------------------- Sherea Harris, writing for Fox6 WBRC, reported that some Alabama lawmakers were blistering Jefferson County commissioners and fellow lawmakers over the proposed extension of the county's one- cent sales tax. This whole fight is heading to court because of a new lawsuit filed to try and stop the tax. State Representative John Rogers says the county illegally signed off on extending the one-cent sales tax. He says lawmakers should have never approved it because it's unconstitutional. The Committee to Save Jefferson County filed a class action lawsuit to stop the county from passing the planned extension. State Representatives John Rogers and Mary Moore held a news conference on about the matter. The 30 year extension of the sales tax would generate money for county services but Rogers says by law the sales tax money can only be used for public school purposes and he says that's what makes the tax extension illegal. "It's a shame," Rogers said. "I don't mind them doing it, but do it right. It's wrong what they're doing. They put us back for 30 years. It's a whole new tax on the backs of the poor in Jefferson County. Then on top of that the governor wants to raise taxes, all the other taxes. It's wrong. We intend to stop them." Rogers says voters should have decided on the sales tax extension. He says the sewer tax on top of the new one-cent sales tax are damaging to the Jefferson County economy. Rogers says commissioners are desperate for money and they're breaking laws to get it. KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: Oct. 9 Hearing on $2.6-Mil. Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that the United States District Court Southern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of securities of Keyuan Petrochemical, Inc. (OTCMKTS:KEYP): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED (A) KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS, INC. ("KEYUAN") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM AUGUST 16, 2010 THROUGH OCTOBER 7, 2011, INCLUSIVE AND/OR (B) KEYUAN SECURITIES PURSUANT TO THE CONFIDENTIAL PRIVATE OFFERING MEMORANDUM DATED MARCH 22, 2010 CONSISTING OF PURCHASERS IN THE FIRST TRANCHE THAT CLOSED ON APRIL 22, 2010 AND THE SECOND TRANCHE THAT CLOSED ON MAY 18, 2010. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a hearing will be held on October 9, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Paul A. Crotty, United States District Judge of the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 14C, New York, New York, 10007-1312 (the "Settlement Hearing") for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement consisting of the sum of $2,650,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application for an award of attorneys' fees of $883,333.33 or one-third of the Settlement Amount and reimbursement of expenses of not more than $70,000 and an incentive payment of no more than $20,000 to Lead Plaintiffs, should be approved; and (4) whether the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice. If you purchased (a) Keyuan common stock during the class period from August 16, 2010 through and including October 7, 2011, and/or (b) Keyuan securities pursuant to the confidential private offering memorandum dated March 22, 2010 consisting of purchasers in the first tranche that closed on April 22, 2010 and the second tranche that closed on May 18, 2010, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this action. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing to the Claims Administrator: Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc. Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 3, Media, PA 19063 (866-274-4004 (Tel) 610-565- 7985 (Fax); info@strategicclaims.net), or going to the website, www.strategicclaims.net. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release postmarked no later than September 28, 2015, establishing that you are entitled to recovery to the Claims Administrator. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Litigation whether or not you make a claim. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion received no later than September 9, 2015, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice to the Claims Administrator. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than September 19, 2015, to each of the following: If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel: Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, New York 10016 Tel.: 212-686-1060 Fax: 212-202-3827 pkim@rosenlegal.com kchan@rosenlegal.com LENSINK AGENCY: Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Action Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Byer Clinic of Chiropractic, Ltd., an Illinois corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly- situated persons v. Lensink Agency, Inc., Case No. 2015-CH-11752 (Ill. Cir. Ct., August 5, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of sending facsimiles without proper notice. Lensink Agency, Inc. owns and operates an insurance company with its principal place of business in Rolling Meadows, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. David M. Oppenheim, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: BWanca@andersonwanca.com Doppenheim@andersonwanca.com LIFELOCK INC: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of a class (the "Class") of purchasers of the securities LifeLock, Inc. ("LifeLock" or the "Company") between July 30, 2014 and July 20, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). LifeLock investors have until September 21, 2015 to file a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit. LifeLock provides identity theft protection services for consumers and fraud and risk solutions for enterprises. LifeLock's threat detection, proactive identity alerts, and comprehensive remediation services purportedly provide peace of mind for consumers amid the growing threat of identity theft. In 2010 the Company entered into a settlement order with the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") and purportedly changed its marketing and business practices in connection with this settlement. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among others: (1) that the Company had failed to establish and maintain a comprehensive information security program to protect its users' sensitive personal data, including credit card, social security, and bank account numbers; (2) that the Company falsely advertised that it protected consumers' sensitive data with the same high- level safeguards as financial institutions; (3) that the Company failed to meet the 2010 settlement order's recordkeeping requirements; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis If you purchased shares of LifeLock during the Class Period, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638- 4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com. CONTACT: Howard G. Smith, Esq. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 215-638-4847 888-638-4847 howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com www.howardsmithlaw.com LIFELOCK INC: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces that class action litigation has been brought on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of LifeLock, Inc. ("LifeLock" or the "Company") between July 30, 2014 and July 20, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased or otherwise acquired LifeLock securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than September 21, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the action will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. LifeLock investors who wish to learn more about the action and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358. Background on the LifeLock Securities Class Litigation The action charges LifeLock and certain of is senior executives with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. LifeLock purports to provide identity theft protection services for consumers and fraud and risk solutions for enterprises. The action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors: (1) that LifeLock had failed to establish and maintain a comprehensive information security program to protect its users' sensitive personal data, including credit card, social security, and bank account numbers; (2) that LifeLock falsely advertised that it protected consumers' sensitive data with the same high- level safeguards as financial institutions; (3) that LifeLock failed to meet recordkeeping requirements of its 2010 settlement with the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") and 35 state attorneys general concerning LifeLock's allegedly deceptive claims about its business and services; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, LifeLock's statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On July 21, 2015, the FTC announced that LifeLock had violated the 2010 settlement by "continuing to make deceptive claims about its identity theft protection services, and by failing to take steps required to protect its users' data." On this news, the price of LifeLock common stock dropped $7.91 per share, or nearly 50%, from its closing price on the previous trading day, to close at $8.15 per share on July 21, 2015, on extremely heavy trading volume. About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for twelve years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity." Best Lawyers and U.S. News have also named Lieff Cabraser as a "Law Firm of the Year" each year the publications have given this award to law firms, including in 2015. CONTACT: Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Phone: 415.956.1000 Fax: 415.956.1008 LUCA INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Misappropriation of Investor Funds ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jui Tsai Angel Wang, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Luca International Group, LLC, et al., Case No. BC590537 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 6, 2015), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' misappropriation of investor funds for personal purposes. Luca International Group, LLC is a California corporation that provides management services including the identification of oil and gas development prospects in exchange for management fees. The Plaintiff is represented by: Long Z. Liu, Esq. Yu Ching Tu, Esq. Tao Li, Esq. Paul P. Cheng, Esq. THE LIU LAW FIRM 529 E. Valley Blvd., Suite 208-A San Gabriel, CA 91776 Telephone: (626) 570-8820 Facsimile: (815) 331-0657 E-mail: office@theliulawfirm.com MAGNETEK INC: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The Law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that it is investigating potential claims against the Board of Directors of Magnetek, Inc. ("Magnetek" or "the Company") for possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law in connection with the sale of the Company to Columbus Mckinon Corporation Inc. ("Columbus"). Under the terms of the transaction, Magnetek shareholders will receive only $50.00 in cash for each share of Magnetek stock they own. The investigation concerns whether the Board of Magnetek breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders and whether Columbus is underpaying for Magnetek. The transaction may undervalue the Company given Magnetek recently announced positive financial results. Specifically, the Company announced for the first quarter of 2015 net sales of $26.6 million, a 10% increases year-over-year. It also reported improved gross margins and earnings per share from continuing operations. If you own shares of Magnetek and wish to discuss the legal ramifications of the investigation, or have any questions, you may e-mail or call the law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC who will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your questions. You may contact Jason L. Brodsky, Esquire or Evan J. Smith, Esquire at Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by visiting http://brodsky-smith.com/968- mag-magnetek-inc.html, or calling toll free 877-LEGAL-90. Brodsky & Smith, LLC is a litigation law firm with extensive expertise representing shareholders throughout the nation in securities and class action lawsuits. The attorneys at Brodsky & Smith have been appointed by numerous courts throughout the country to serve as lead counsel in class actions and have successfully recovered millions of dollars for our clients and shareholders. CONTACT: Jason L. Brodsky, Esq. Evan J. Smith, Esq. Brodsky & Smith, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 toll free 877-LEGAL-90 http://brodsky-smith.com MAKER'S MARK: Wins California Labeling Class Suit ------------------------------------------------- Shanken News Daily reported that Maker's Mark is toasting a victory in federal court, after Judge John Houston dismissed a class action case accusing the Beam Suntory Bourbon brand of false advertising. Plaintiffs Safora Nowrouzi and Travis Williams had charged that Maker's Mark's "handmade" label language was misleading, because the brand uses machines in its production process. Houston disagreed saying that no reasonable consumer could have been misled by Maker's Mark's labeling, and that the use of the term "handmade" does not mandate that no machines be employed in the brand's production. The thwarted challenge to Maker's marketing comes amidst a steady stream of class action labeling suits, in which spirits brands like Tito's, Templeton Rye and Maker's Mark portfolio mate Jim Beam have also been targeted. In May, Maker's beat back a similar case in Florida. Templeton agreed to settle a number of class- action suits questioning its "Iowa-made" positioning. MANDALAY BAY: To Pat $100K to Settle Suit Filed by Poker Dealers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Pempus, writing for Card Player, reported that the Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino on the Las Vegas Strip has agreed to pay $100,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by a group of poker dealers. The lawsuit stemmed from the dealers not getting paid for attending meetings and picking up and dropping off uniforms before and after work, according to reporting from Courthouse News Service. A total of 66 poker dealers will be compensated, according to the settlement. The casino didn't admit to any wrongdoing in the matter. MASSAGE ENVY: Objectors Want More Than Massages From Class Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a proposed class action settlement that provides massages to class members and nearly $8 million to attorneys is facing resistance. On June 29, 16 objections were filed in a 2012 case brought by plaintiffs Gail Hahn, Chaille Duncan and Alexis Hernandez against Massage Envy. The suit, filed in San Diego federal court, alleges the company wrongly would not honor monthly 50-minute massages that customers did not use before they cancelled their membership. Former members of Massage Envy would receive a six-month reinstatement of approximately 75 percent of the unused massages. One objector is Fumiko Robinson, who filed her own class action lawsuit against the company in late 2014 in Florida. Her lawsuit has been stayed while the court ponders the Hahn settlement. Robinson, who says she has five massages owed to her, is upset that there is no monetary relief for class members in the proposed settlement. "Class members should be entitled to reimbursement of their purchase price for all forfeited massages," wrote Robinson's attorneys, Benjamin Lopatin and Joshua Eggnatz of Eggnatz, Lopatin & Pascucci. "At the time the Hahn settlement was reached, there was a potential for monetary recovery -- as a result of the settlement, there is not. If the Hahn settlement is approved, it may eviscerate class members' rights nationwide to obtain financial relief." Class members should at least be able to choose a refund or the massages, Robinson feels. Her attorneys also wrote that 100 percent -- not 75 -- of the forfeited massages should be reinstated, and that class members should have seven -- not six -- months to use them. Robinson also objects to a provision that requires Massage Envy to make certain disclosures for two years. "There is no legitimate reason to agree for Massage Envy to be able to resume its unfair business practice that this Court has already granted summary judgment against after two years," Robinson's attorneys wrote. Another objector took issue with the amount of attorneys fees requested by the plaintiffs' counsel. Clifford Hardwick also filed his objection on June 29. He called it a "coupon settlement" that will disenfranchise Massage Envy clients who no longer want to transact any business with the company. "(T)he proposed settlement is not fair nor reasonable in that class members such as Mr. Hardwick who no longer wish to utilize the services of Massage Envy will get no benefit," wrote Hardwick's attorney, Steve Miller of Denver. Hardwick argues that the attorneys fees request of $7.8 million should be rejected because it isn't based on the number of vouchers that will actually be redeemed. The class action attorneys are claiming the value of the settlement is between $179 million and $225 million, which assumes nearly 100 percent of the vouchers are redeemed, Hardwick claims. "Class counsel boasts that its fee is less than three percent of the value of the settlement to the class," Hardwick's objection says. "Class counsel further argues that the percentage it seeks as fees is well below the 25 percent benchmark used in this circuit. "However, without actual data as to the percentage of former members who not only request reinstatement of unutilized massages but who also actually go into a Massage Envy location to take advantage of the reinstated massage, class counsel's valuation is nothing more than voodoo economics." Attorneys for the Hahn class -- Jeffrey Krinsk, Mark Knutson and William Restis - filed a response on Friday. Their response says there were 32 objectors out of 2.68 million class members who were provided notice of the proposed settlement. Their response says Hardwick's attorney is "a recognized serial objector." "Hardwick's objections boil down to a disagreement over the value of the class claims and the bona fides of the requested attorneys' fees," the response says. According to a website created by the class action firm Anderson + Wanca, Miller has objected to nine class action settlements as an attorney. The response of Krinsk and his colleagues also addressed Robinson's objections, claiming the settlement is fair and reasonable. "Here, despite claiming that the Representatives could have done better, none of the objectors state that the ability to redeem prepaid massages, three-fourths of which were previously forfeited to Massage Envy, is not a real and substantial benefit," the response says. "Indeed, this settlement provides former Massage Envy members with exactly what they paid for but failed to receive." The plaintiffs attorneys also filed a supplemental brief addressing the valuation of the settlement that defends its fees request. It says their approach to calculating their fees mirrors what is done in an ordinary common fund case. According to court records, Hahn recently passed away. MAXSMART INC: Faces "Garner" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Garner v. Maxsmart, Inc., d/b/a Premiere Event, Michael David Palance and Melanie Palance, Case No. 2:15-cv-01504-DKD (D. Ariz., August 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate Premiere Event, a weeklong child talent showcase which allows children the opportunity to meet directly with talent agents, managers, and industry professionals who specialize in children's programming. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean Christopher Davis, Esq. Trey A. R. Dayes III, Esq. PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM PC 3101 N Central Ave., Ste. 1500 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (800) 562-5297 Facsimile: (602) 288-1664 E-mail: SeanD@phillipsdayeslaw.com treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Faces Suit Over Black Pepper Products ---------------------------------------------------------- Deborah Esparza, and all others similarly-situated v. McCormick & Company, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-05823 (C.D. Cal., August 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendant in violation of California Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. and California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code sections 1750, et seq. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased a tin of McCormick Pure Ground Black Pepper, believing it was substantially filled to capacity. She subsequently learned that the product actually contained only approximately 3 ounces net weight of ground black pepper. The Plaintiff said she would not have purchased, or would not have paid what she did for the product, had she known that it was substantially underfilled. Headquartered in Sparks, Maryland, McCormick & Company, Inc. manufactures, markets, and distributes spices, seasoning mixes, condiments, and other flavor products to the entire food industry, including retail outlets, food manufacturers, and food services businesses. McCormick manufactures, supplies, markets, and distributes the pepper products at issue in the lawsuit. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher P. Ridout, Esq. RIDOUT MARKER & OTTOSON LLP 555 East Ocean Blvd., Ste. 500 Long Beach, CA 90802 Tel: (877) 500-8780 Fax: (877) 500-8781 E-mail: cpr@ridoutmarker.com - and - Bradley C. Burhow, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP 14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Ste. 145 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Tel: (480) 348-6400 Fax: (480) 348-6415 E-mail: brad.buhrow@zimmreed.com MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Sued Over Security Data Breach --------------------------------------------------- News Sentinel reported that an Indianapolis man filed a class action suit in U.S. District Court against a medical information storage company whose data was breached in May, according to court documents filed in the case. James Young is suing on behalf of himself and all others affected by a security breach of medical information from Medical Informatics Engineering (MIE), an electronic health records company headquartered in Fort Wayne, responsible for storing personal and financial information of their clients' patients. The breach took place between May 7 and 26, but MIE waited until June 10 to announce that it was the victim of a breach, and letters only were mailed within the and a half. Hackers received patients' personal information, such as mailing addresses, telephone numbers, usernames, hashed passwords, spousal information, date of birth and Social Security numbers. Medical information that was hacked included lab results, health insurance police information, diagnoses, disability codes, doctor's names, medical conditions, children's names and birth statistics. Young contends in the lawsuit that MIE failed to protect its data systems, failed to prevent and stop the breach from happening, failed to disclose to its customers the material facts that it did not have adequate security practices, and failed to provide timely notice of the breach, which has caused substantial consumer harm and injuries to consumers by exposing them to fraud and identity theft. Young also contends the lawsuit falls under the Class Action Fairness Act because more than 100 class members are involved and the amount of the controversy exceeds $5 million and man members of the class reside in different states from MIE. MIAMI-DADE, FL: Sued Over Unlawful Credit Card Receipt Printing --------------------------------------------------------------- Nataly Cano Lopez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Miami-Dade County and System Innovators, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-22943-MGC (S.D. Fla., August 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, specifically by printing more than the last five digits of the credit/debt card number or the expiration dates on receipts provided to all cardholders. Miami-Dade County is a government entity located within the State of Florida. System Innovators, Inc. develops and implements online cashiering and collections systems for local government agencies and utility companies across the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Milian, Esq. Frank S. Hedin, Esq. 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 372-7474 Facsimile: (305) 372-7475 E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com fhedin@careyrodriguez.com MODERN HOSPITALITY: "Perez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------- Armando Martinez Perez, and all others similarly-situated v. Modern Hospitality Group Corp. dba Jax Inn Diner, Peter Giannopoulos, Anastasios Giannopoulos, Antonios Giannopoulos, and John Does #1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-04469 (E.D.N.Y., July 31, 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 casual diner located in Jackson Heights, New York doing business as Jax Inn Diner. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd St., Ste 1110 New York, NY 10001 Tel: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com MONEYGRAM INT'L: GPM Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------ Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that a class action has been filed on behalf of investors of MoneyGram International Inc. (NASDAQ:MGI) ("MoneyGram" or "the Company") concerning the Company's and its officers' possible violations of federal securities laws. According to the lawsuit, the Company violated federal securities laws by misleading investors regarding its critical partner's, Wal-Mart Stores, decision to introduce a competing money transfer and financial services provider in all of its current wire transfer locations across the United States. On April 17, 2014, shortly after completing a secondary offering of MoneyGram shares, MoneyGram disclosed for the first time the decision by Wal-Mart to introduce competing products across the U.S., causing the value of MoneyGram shares to decline in one day by almost 30% to close on April 17, 2014 at $12.58 per share. If you purchased shares of MoneyGram pursuant to the Company's Secondary Offering on or around March 27, 2014, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Casey Sadler, of Glancy Prongay & Murray, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773- 9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. CONTACT: Lesley Portnoy, Esq Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP 1925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Toll-free: (888) 773-9224 Fax: (310) 432-1495 info@glancylaw.com NAT'L HOCKEY: Ordered to Turn Over Injury and Concussion Data ------------------------------------------------------------- Rick Westhead, writing for TSN, reported that the National Hockey League has been ordered by a judge to turn over reams of data about player injuries and concussions to lawyers representing former NHL players who are suing the league. The roughly 80 former players who are suing the NHL, including Bernie Nicholls, Gary Leeman and Butch Goring, allege NHL and team executives knew or ought to have known about the links between head trauma and long-term cognitive problems but failed to do enough to protect players, all the while profiting from the violence of hockey. The NHL has argued interested players could have read medical research and news reports on their own and put "two and two together" about the dangers of repeated head hits and concussions. In an order, U.S. Federal Court judge Susan Nelson agreed to some but not all of the requests for discovery filed by the former players' lawyers. "The Court finds that the (NHL's) blanket application of the physician-patient privilege -- protecting all medical data from disclosure -- is inapplicable here," the judge wrote in her ruling. "The clubs are ordered to produce any internal reports, studies, analyses and databases in their possession (whether initiated by the U.S. clubs, NHL, or retained researchers) for the purpose of studying concussions in de-identified form. The U.S. clubs shall produce any responsive correspondence and/or emails between themselves, themselves and the NHL, or with any research or other professional about the study of concussions." Players' names will be redacted from any data disclosed and lawyers for the former players have been ordered not to re- identify or "reverse engineer" any data to try to discern the identity of players. Since 2006, the NHL has maintained a so-called video analysis spreadsheet that includes video footage of particular players sustaining hits to the head. The NHL had argued the video clips should be privileged and not included in the data the league will have to turn over. "The Court disagrees that the video clips are privileged," the judge wrote. "They are several steps removed from the physician- patient privilege and statutory privileges." The former NHL players filed the suit in November 2013 after a group of nearly 4,500 former NFL players reached a settlement with the NFL over similar concussion-related complaints. The NHL case is being heard in Minnesota. The hockey lawsuit has not been certified as a class action. If a judge does grant the case class-action status, which some lawyers say is uncertain, the case could involve several thousand former NHL players, unless they opt out. Earlier, lawyers for the former players suing the NHL asked that the league be forced to turn over any records -- whether they be emails, reports, telegrams or phonographs -- that relate to head trauma records since 1967. In court filings, the players claim they are not seeking the "wholesale discovery of player medical files, but rather documents that simply relate to player concussions including data compilations, data analyses, internal memos, policies and emails between non-medical personnel. These documents, by nature, do not constitute private medical records." The NHL had earlier written in its own submissions that disclosing players' medical information would amount to a privacy violation. The league also said any disclosures might have a chilling effect on players' participation in the league's concussion program, and said players might be reluctant to disclose medical information to doctors if information were disclosed. The NHL has said even if a judge ordered the league to produce all of the relevant documents, compliance would be extremely difficult and expensive, totaling about $13.5 million for the 23 U.S.-based clubs involved with the court motion. The judge's ruling also detailed how contentious the legal battle between the NHL and its former employees has become - the two sides even battled over whether a player's native language and playing position should be disclosed or redacted in the concussion data turned over by the league and its teams. "Regarding language, the NHL likewise argues that because English and French are the most common language spoken by the players, a player's identity could be determined by revealing a specific language other than English or French," the judge wrote, adding that the NHL "therefore proposes to de-identify language data as 'other' for those languages in which there are fewer than 100 database entries. The Court orders that a player's position is not sufficiently 'identifying' to warrant redaction. With respect to language spoken, (the NHL's) proposal is acceptable." NHL commissioner Gary Bettman was deposed for eight hours in New York as part of the lawsuit. Stephen Grygiel, a Baltimore lawyer who also worked on the NFL concussion litigation, questioned him. Bettman's sworn testimony is under seal for now. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of shareholders (the "Class") who purchased shares of Nationstar Mortgage Holdings, Inc. ("Nationstar" or the "Company") common stock (the "Class") between February 27, 2014 and May 4, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Nationstar and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Nationstar is the nation's second largest non-bank subprime mortgage servicer. Nationstar began to grow its portfolio in early 2014 by purchasing mortgage servicing rights ("MSRs") from other non-bank sub-prime mortgage servicers and from bank entities who no longer wanted to service their own portfolios due to increased regulatory scrutiny. Nationstar failed to disclose deficiencies in management control and supervision necessary to ensure the Company's compliance with applicable laws and regulations in connection with the servicing of MSRs, and that Nationstar had been gouging mortgagors and illegally enhancing its profits through illicit practices, such as charging for repeated, unnecessary inspections, which resulted in additional late payment fees, and pressuring mortgagors to carry out expensive modifications and refinances on their mortgages. The complaint alleges that due to a series of partial disclosures starting in late 2014, the price of Nationstar common stock began to decline as the truth about the Company was slowly revealed to the market. Tellingly, Nationstar completed a $500 million stock offering in late March 2015 -- only weeks before the Company's stock imploded on May 5, 2015. On that day, Nationstar reported poor first quarter 2015 financial results -- caused largely by a $110 million ($0.77 per share) write-down on the value of the Company's MSRs. As a result, Nationstar stock plummeted from a May 4, 2015 close of $26.17 to close on May 5, 2015 at only $19.51. Investors lost millions of dollars as a result. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members who invested in Nationstar common stock during the Class Period. If you invested in Nationstar common stock as described above and lost money on the transactions, 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 3, 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. If you are interested in discussing your rights as a Nationstar shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com. Bernstein Liebhard LLP has pursued hundreds of securities, consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered over $3 billion for its clients. The National Law Journal has recognized Bernstein Liebhard for twelve consecutive years as one of the top plaintiffs' firms in the country. You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. CONTACT: Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. Esq. Bernstein Liebhard LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Tel. 212.779.1414 Fax 212.779.3218 Toll Free 877.779.1414 www.bernlieb.com NEW SOUTH WALES: Police Settles Illegal Detention Suit for $1.8MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Bibby, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported that the New South Wales police force has agreed to pay a total of $1.85 million to scores of young people across the state who have been wrongfully arrested, imprisoned and in some cases strip- searched due to errors in the police database. More than four years after a class action was launched in the NSW Supreme Court on behalf of the youths, lawyers for the police agreed to an in-principle settlement under which each person receives compensation according to the harm they have suffered. "It's been absolutely crystal clear that there was a major problem in the COPS database and that young people were being very, very badly affected by it," said Edward Santow, the CEO of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) which helped run the case. "There was both a moral and a legal obligation to resolve the problem and to assist those young people who were badly affected." As many as 100 people were victims of basic errors in the Computer Operational Policing System (COPS) in relation to bail status and conditions. The errors occurred when bail conditions were either dropped because a case was finalised, or varied to allow for work, study or family commitments, but this change was not added to the database. As a result the young people involved were wrongly arrested for breaching bail. One person involved in the class action, Musa Konneh, was wrongly arrested, handcuffed and then driven to the Penrith court cells where he was strip-searched and kept overnight. The next day the court was forced to apologise and immediately release him. "It certainly has made him fearful of the police, but it has also made it very hard for him to settle into a conventional life -- furthering his education, getting a job," Mr Santow said. "Given that his initial offence was riding on the train without a ticket it's a very unfortunate outcome." Criminology expert Melanie Schwartz said there was strong evidence to show that being wrongfully detained had a significant negative impact on how young people viewed the law and authority figures. "Generally a person will grow out of offending behaviour, but when there's an injustice bound up with their contact there can be an increase in tension between the young person and police which is ongoing," said Ms Schwartz, a senior lecturer at the University of NSW law school. During the class action the court heard that problems with COPS dated back to at least 2008. Numerous representations were made to the highest levels of the NSW government in an attempt to resolve the issues before the class action was launched in 2010 by PIAC and Sydney law firm Maurice Blackburn. The police have now accepted liability for the wrongful detention of many but not all the youth involved. While PIAC welcomed settlement, it expressed concern at the amount of time it had taken for the legal action to be resolved. "To allow the problem to fester for so many years has been devastating," Mr Santow said. "Working with the clients we've seen those negative effects accumulated." He also said the organisation was continuing to receive reports of issues with the database system and that it had seen "nothing indicating that it has been fixed". A spokesman for NSW police said that since the issues with COPS had first been identified significant work had been done to correct the central cause of the problem, namely the automatic transfer of bail variation details from the courts database to that of the police. It is understood that, in addition to the $1.85 million settlement pay out, NSW Police is also facing millions of dollars in legal bills. The number of young people entitled to compensation is also likely to increase in the coming months. They have until October 9 to register for the membership of the class action on the PIAC website. NISSAN: Altima Floorboard Rust Leads to Class Suit -------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Carlson, writing for ABC7 WXYZ, reported that investigators have learned there are hundreds of complaints with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or NHTSA from Nissan Altima owners concerned about rusting in their cars' floorboards. Some owners have had it so bad, they could see pavement. It's affected primarily 2002 to 2006 models. Now we've learned, a handful of class action lawsuits have been filed. "It's all up under here," says Brian Rayburn. He is just one of the drivers who has joined the suit, after noticing the damage to his 2005 Altima. He now faces thousands in repairs. Other face a similar fate. Despite complaints, NHTSA says the issue is not a safety hazard. There have been no deaths, so legal action seems to be the only remedy for folks with the corrosion. Auto safety expert Bill Williams sees things a little differently. "Putting their foot through the floor board, getting cut or stuck, not being able to apply the brake, there's carbon monoxide concerns," says Williams. "If you're getting into a frontal or rear collision you could potentially have your seat not supported properly, so there's a number of different safety concerns involved with this defect." "Although these vehicles are 10 to 14 years old, Nissan consumer affairs will review requests for repair on a case-by-case basis, considering a number of factors when deciding whether or not to compensate owners with goodwill payments." Experts recommend taking your older Altima to a trusted mechanic for an inspection to see if you have the problem and if so, just how bad it is. OPTUMHEALTH BEHAVIORAL: Faces Suit Over Mental Health Insurance --------------------------------------------------------------- Jenny Gold, writing for Kitsap Sun, reported that when Michael Kamins opened the letter from his insurer, he was enraged. His 20-year old son recently had been hospitalized twice with bipolar disorder and rescued from the brink of suicide, he said. Now, the insurer said he had improved and it was no longer medically necessary for the young man to see his psychiatrist two times a week. The company would pay for two visits per month. "There was steam coming out of my ears," Kamins recalled, his face reddening at the memory of that day in June 2012. "This is my kid's life!" His son again became suicidal and violent, causing him to be rehospitalized eight months later, said Kamins, a marketing professor at the State University of New York, Stony Brook. Kamins is suing the insurer, OptumHealth Behavioral Solutions, which disputes his version of events and denies that it left the young man without sufficient care. Seven years after Congress passed a landmark law banning discrimination in the treatment of mentally ill people, many families and their advocates complain it stubbornly persists, largely because insurers are subverting the law in subtle ways and the government is not aggressively enforcing it. The so-called parity law, which was intended to equalize coverage of mental and other medical conditions, has gone a long way toward eliminating obvious discrepancies in insurance coverage. Research shows, for instance, that most insurers have dropped annual limits on the therapy visits that they will cover. Higher copayments and separate mental health deductibles have become less of a problem. But many insurers have continued to limit treatment through other strategies that are harder to track, according to researchers, attorneys and other critics. Among the more murky areas is "medical necessity" review - in which insurers decide whether a patient requires a certain treatment and at what frequency. Kamins is among a small group of people around the country to file lawsuits alleging federal or state parity laws were violated when patients with mental illness were held to a stricter "medical necessity" standard than those with other medical conditions. "'Medical necessity' is the insurers' last hurrah," said Meiram Bendat, Kamins' attorney, who filed the lawsuit in New York State court. Bendat, who is seeking class-action status in the Kamins case and has filed other parity suits in New York, Illinois and California, said attorneys are acting because the government won't. Enforcement of parity laws is lax, he said, and companies are getting away with skirting their requirements. In fact, only a handful of states have dug into whether insurers are complying with parity laws. And in the seven years since the federal law was passed, the U.S. government has not taken a single public enforcement action against an insurer or employer for violating the law. Clare Krusing, a spokesperson for America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's main trade group, said it is "a misperception" that enforcement has been weak. Insurers are working closely with federal and state governments, she said, and "have taken tremendous steps to implement these changes and requirements in a way that is affordable to patients." Ensuring that mental health and other medical treatments are exactly on par is challenging, she said. "A treatment plan for diabetes or a chronic heart disease is very different from a treatment plan for a patient that's seeking care for depression or another mental illness," she said. "It's not a math formula." But Henry Harbin, former CEO of Magellan Health, a managed behavioral health care company, said insurers are taking advantage of minimal oversight. "They can micromanage care down to almost nothing," said Harbin, who also served as Maryland's mental health director before becoming a consultant. "The enforcement in this area is a joke." Great Expectations When it passed in 2008, the federal mental health parity law was seen as a major achievement for Americans with mental illnesses. Though some states already had their own parity laws on the books, there were serious gaps in the protections they offered. This law was to force insurers across the country to provide the same access to treatment as they do for cancer, diabetes and other conditions. At the time, Sen. Edward Kennedy called the law "historic," and praised his colleagues for finally ending "the senseless discrimination in health insurance coverage that plagues persons living with mental illness." But enforcement was not assigned to any one agency. Instead, it fell to the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Treasury, as well as state insurance commissioners. The Department of Labor, which is responsible for monitoring health insurance offered by large employers, set up a complaint line for consumers. Still, advocates say, most consumers don't know they have new rights, and those that do often don't know where to turn. "It gets very complicated for the average person," said Carol McDaid, who runs the Parity Implementation Coalition, an advocacy group created to make sure parity laws were properly enforced. "They're already in a [mental health] crisis, looking for help, and they don't know if they should write and complain to their state insurance commissioner, the Department of Labor, the health department. It gets very difficult." Since 2010, just 867 of the 1.5 million total health insurance inquiries made to the Department of Labor had to do with the parity law, most of which were not complaints, a spokesman for the department said in May. A total of 140 cases of alleged parity law violations were found, and they were resolved through "voluntary compliance," in which the employer agreed to pay for the patient's services, the spokesman said. He said that the investigators also requested that the insurers change their broader policies, when appropriate. Separately, HHS found 196 possible violations of parity law by insurers from September 2013 through September 2014, a spokeswoman said. In each case, she said, plans voluntarily made changes or told the agency they believed their plan was in compliance with the law. No action by a federal agency, however, resulted in a lawsuit, fine or public announcement. "Our problem is that these investigations are all kept secret," McDaid said. That means the decisions have no effect on what other employers or insurers do, and consumers don't learn what to look out for, she said. Former congressman Patrick Kennedy, one of the authors of the parity law, said timing was partly to blame for the administration's sparse enforcement record. "Parity got kicked down the track until the Obama administration could get the Affordable Care Act on track," he said. It took five years for the government to issue final rules explaining exactly what insurers had to do to comply. Enforcing laws against insurance companies, he added, was also a delicate undertaking. "Insurance companies were part of the coalition that helped bring the ACA to life, and the administration feels an enormous debt of gratitude," he said. "It's a challenge politically to then step on the toes of those that brought them to the dance." Meanwhile, research points to some continuing inequities in coverage. Data compiled on health plans in 2010, the first year of the national parity law's implementation, found that insurers frequently reviewed mental health treatment more strictly than other care. For instance, they more often required "preauthorization" for doctor visits or made patients "fail first" at one level of care before getting approval for another. A study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that a quarter of the plans sold on two state Obamacare exchanges appeared to violate the federal parity law in various ways, including requiring higher cost-sharing for mental health. The states, one large and one small, were not named. In a 2015 survey by the National Alliance on Mental Illness, an advocacy group for mentally ill people and their families, patients said they were denied payment because treatment was deemed "not medically necessary" twice as often for mental health as for other medical conditions. Without strong government enforcement, patients and families say they are left to their own devices. But demonstrating that an insurer has violated parity rules requires a detailed analysis of a plan's mental health and medical benefits. And though the law requires that insurers disclose those documents, critics say they often are not complying. The Parity Implementation Coalition in Washington D.C., has received hundreds of consumer complaints to its helpline, but McDaid said virtually none of the health plans have been willing to release the necessary documents to demonstrate that there has been a parity violation, she said. Krusing of the insurers' association insisted that documents are being made available to patients and providers. "Plans are committed to being transparent about their coverage decisions," she said. Decisions to deny treatment, she said, are based on ensuring that patients receive care based on the best medical evidence. "We are still at a point in the health system where patients face wide variation in the type of care they're receiving," she said. "Oftentimes we see tests and procedures done that are costly and unnecessary for the type of care that they're seeking or even help or benefit their condition." The federal government is considering whether to tighten disclosure rules for insurers. In the meantime, some consumers, including the Kamins family, are turning to the courts. Debating What's 'Medically Necessary' Kamins' son had always been a star, according to his father, who holds his power of attorney and asked that the young man's first name be withheld for privacy reasons. As a boy, he was a quiet but quick-witted jokester, who graduated fifth in his high school class in 2010, Kamins said. A few months after heading to an Ivy League college, however, he was overcome by depression, his father said. His grades slipped. He began experimenting with drugs. Then, in the spring of 2011, he tried to kill himself, according to Kamins and the lawsuit. His parents brought him home to Los Angeles, where the family lives while Kamins commutes back and forth to New York. The family has insurance through Kamins' job. But Kamins said OptumHealth Behavioral Solutions would not cover inpatient care before his son had tried an outpatient program that focused on drug addiction. That marked the first of several violations of parity law, according to Kamins' lawsuit, which seeks a change in Optum's policy and reimbursement for benefits denied, plus attorneys' fees. By requiring the young man to "fail first" at a lower level of care before paying for more expensive residential treatment, Optum, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, had created an illegal obstacle to mental health treatment, the lawsuit alleges. "Imagine someone going to a hospital and being told you can't get open-heart surgery in the midst of a heart attack because you haven't tried aspirin or nitroglycerin first. That's the absurdity of it," said Bendat, Kamins' lawyer. "It's just a way to discourage higher levels of care that we would never tolerate in the non-psychiatric context." After the addiction program, Optum paid for the young man to see a psychiatrist a few times a week. His father said he began showing signs of improvement and seemed on track to return to school back East. But in June 2012 - four months after the young man was hospitalized during a manic episode - the insurer's letter arrived saying it was no longer "medically necessary" for him to see his psychiatrist so frequently. That fall, the suit alleges, Kamins' son tried to return to his Ivy League school. He found a psychiatrist and began going twice a month as he had been authorized to do in the letter, Bendat said. Kamins said he tapped into his retirement fund to pay for extra visits, but his son spiraled downward. In court documents, Optum alleges that Kamins' son actually was entitled to more frequent visits with a new mental health provider, suggesting that the limitation on visits applied only to the psychiatrist he had been seeing in California. The insurer argues that his subsequent hospitalization in February had nothing to do with limitations put on visits in California. In a written statement, Optum officials said they "take the mental health needs of each of our members very seriously, and we are committed to helping them get care that has shown to be most effective in helping people overcome and live better with mental and emotional challenges." Kamins said that was not his experience. "The irony in all this is that Optum fights tooth and nail to dole out care for my son. But had they allowed him upfront to get the care he needed, he might not have ended up back in the hospital, which they had to pay for," he said. As for Kamins' son, he returned to college in the fall of 2013. His father's employer contracted with a new insurer, which Kamins said gave the young man greater access to care and helped him stabilize. Now 23, he is scheduled to graduate. Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. OTP BANK: ANPC Wins Class Action Against Lender ----------------------------------------------- Romania's National Consumer Protection Authority - ANPC has won a class action against local lender OTP Bank, in which the bank's customers claimed unfair terms in two type of loan contracts. The lawsuit was initiated by ANPC on behalf of five of the bank's customers, reports local Agerpres. The decision is not final, but if another court rules a final decision deeming the terms are unfair, they will be removed from all of the bank's similar contracts, in Romanian currency lei, Swiss franc or euro, according to ANPC. One of the controversial terms included in the contracts allows the bank to periodically revise the interest rate in accordance with its policy, for personal loans guaranteed by mortgages and mortgage loans, without notifying the customer. PCI XII LINCOLN: Sued Over Failure to Repair Units' Defects ----------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Slater v. PCI XII Lincoln Associates, Gallagher & Lindsey, LLC, Joseph Snell and Does 1-30, Case No. RG15780859 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 6, 2015), is brought on behalf of the tenants who suffered emotional distress, physical injury, over-payment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the Defendants' failure and refusal to make repairs of the habitability defects to the subject premises. The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business in the County of Alameda, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Wolff, Esq. Chris Beatty, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC 1970 Broadway, Ste. 210 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 834-3300 Facsimile: (510) 834-3377 E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com chris@awolfflaw.com PEARCE & DURICK: Faces Class Suit Over Housing Investment Scam -------------------------------------------------------------- Amy Dalrymple, writing for Grand Forks Herald, reported that a second class-action lawsuit alleges that a Bismarck law firm shares liability for a Bakken housing Ponzi scheme that cost investors $62 million. The latest complaint against Pearce & Durick filed in U.S. District Court names about 10 plaintiffs from various countries and alleges that the firm actively assisted North Dakota Developments in offering unregistered securities to the public. In May, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil complaint against North Dakota Developments and its owners, Robert L. Gavin and Daniel J. Hogan, alleging they had defrauded investors since 2012 for North Dakota oilfield housing projects that were never finished. Pearce & Durick, the escrow agent for North Dakota Developments, distributed money from investors to developers according to stages outlined in an agreement. The court complaint says the firm dispersed money early without verifying that the milestones, such as the manufacturing or installation of modular units, had been met. "I think Pearce & Durick is fooling themselves if they think they have no liability," said attorney Joshua Kons of Connecticut, one of the attorneys representing investors. "They were negligent, they breached their fiduciary duties and they definitely participated in these transactions." Richard Thomas, an Arden Hills, Minn., attorney representing the Bismarck firm, said the firm denies that it did anything improper. "Pearce & Durick has been victimized by these same developers who were victimizing these investors," Thomas said. "Everything that is alleged in the complaint results from the fact that developers were misleading us and misinforming us about the status of events, upon which we relied." The complaint names about 10 plaintiffs from countries including the United Kingdom and Australia, but Kons said the case could cover everyone who invested with North Dakota Developments. Investigative records indicate 980 investors from 66 countries invested more than $62 million in North Dakota Developments, according to the North Dakota Securities Department. "Many of these people were lured in through various online marketing websites and portals which touted the virtues of investing in these man camps and how they offered very high returns for low risk," Kons said. A separate class action complaint filed makes similar allegations but defines the plaintiffs as investors who paid legal fees to Pearce & Durick. Thomas said it will be up to a judge to decide how to proceed with the two cases, but typically a judge would want the plaintiffs' attorneys "to decide who's going to sail the ship." "You can't have two competing class actions at the same time. It doesn't make any sense," Thomas said. Both cases are assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Ralph Erickson. PNC BANK: Appeals Court Clears Way for Class-Action Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bowling, writing for Triblive, reported that an apparently weary appeals court upheld a federal judge's 2013 decision that about 22,000 borrowers can pursue a class-action claim of more than $1 billion against PNC Bank. The case centers on the dealings of Community Bank of Northern Virginia, which was based in Sterling, Va. PNC assumed the liability for the class-action lawsuit when it bought Mercantile Bankshares Corp. in 2006, a year after that Baltimore-based bank bought Community Bank. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005 and 2010 overturned proposed settlements in the case based on objections from a substantial number of the affected borrowers. U.S. District Judge Arthur Schwab in 2013 certified the class of borrowers who can take their claims to trial. PNC appealed that decision to the 3rd Circuit, which denied the appeal. "Thus ends the third and, one hopes, the last quinquennial presentation of class certification questions to this court in this case," appellate Judge Kent A. Jordan wrote at the end of the 62-page opinion. A PNC representative couldn't be reached for comment. The plaintiffs claim that Community Bank conspired with a mortgage brokerage firm that sent out direct mailings seeking people who wanted to take out a second mortgage. The firm referred the borrowers to the bank, the lawsuit says. The bank acted as if it handled the loans, but it kicked back most of the loan-related fees to the brokerage firm, the lawsuit says. The bank charged the borrowers excessive fees and, in some cases, fees for services it didn't provide, the lawsuit says. PROCTER & GAMBLE: Elk River Joins Class Suit Over Flushable Wipes ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joni Astrup, writing for Star News, reported that the city of Elk River has joined other cities in a class action lawsuit against the makers of flushable wet wipes. The Elk River City Council agreed July 20 to join the suit. The city of Wyoming had filed the federal class action lawsuit in April against the makers of several kinds of wet wipes, alleging that wipes billed as "flushable" were clogging the city's sewer system. Mayor John Dietz asked what the cost of joining the lawsuit would be to the city. Garrett Blanchfield of Reinhardt, Wendorf and Blanchfield in St. Paul, one of the firms involved in the litigation, said there is no cost to the city. "We bring these on a contingent fee basis," Blanchfield said. "So at the end of the day, if we're successful and we get a pot of money for all the cities that have been injured or damaged, we would go to the court and say we would like a percent of that amount." The suit also seeks a declaration that the wipes in question are not flushable and an order for the companies to stop advertising the wipes as flushable. Elk River is one of a number of area cities to join the class action suit. Among the others in addition to Wyoming are Princeton, Fergus Falls, Mankato and Perham in Minnesota and Holmen in Wisconsin. QRX PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces that the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of QRx Pharma, Ltd. (OTC:QRXPY) (OTC:QRXPF) American Depository Shares from January 24, 2011 through April 23, 2014, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for QRx Pharma investors under the federal securities laws. To join the QRx Pharma class action, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-654.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, the Company made false and/or misleading statements concerning the commercial prospects for its experimental drug Moxduo. Specifically, the Company failed to disclose that it received a "no agreement letter" from the FDA regarding its trials for Moxduo. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 24, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-654.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Kevin Chan, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 pkim@rosenlegal.com kchan@rosenlegal.com SERVICESOURCE INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of ServiceSource International, Inc. securities during the period from January 22, 2014 through May 1, 2014. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for ServiceSource investors under the federal securities laws. According the suit, ServiceSource made false and/or misleading statements concerning ServiceSource's true business condition enabling certain insiders to sell their ServiceSource shares at artificially-elevated prices. The suit claims that Mike Smerklo, President and CEO of ServiceSource, received millions of dollars in cash bonuses and other benefits as a consequence of this fraud. When these adverse facts were learned by the market, the complaint alleges that ServiceSource investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 8, 2015. If you wish to join the class action and recover your losses, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-680.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Kevin Chan, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: 212-686-1060 Toll Free: 866-767-3653 Fax: 212-202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com kchan@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com SERVICESOURCE INT'L: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of ServiceSource International, Inc. ("ServiceSource") (NASDAQ:SREV) between January 22, 2014 and May 1, 2014. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has commenced in the USDC for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of ServiceSource securities between January 22, 2014 and May 1, 2014, your rights may be affected by this action. To get more information go tohttp://zlk.9nl.com/servicesource-international-srevor contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and management which caused the stock price to inflate, allowing certain insiders to sell their ServiceSource stock at artificially-inflated prices and allowing Defendant Mike Smerklo, President and CEO of ServiceSource, to obtain millions of dollars in cash bonuses and other perks. If you suffered a loss in ServiceSource you have until September 8, 2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in securities and shareholder lawsuits. CONTACT: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 30 Broad St., 24th FL New York, NY 10004 Toll free. 877-363-5972 T. 212-363-7500 F. 212-363-7171 jlevi@zlk.com SHAW ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces "Wrobel" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Piotr Wrobel and Tomasz Stankiewicz, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure Engineering of New York, P.C., Biltmore General Contractors, Inc. and PMJ Electrical Corp., Case No. 652382/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., August 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the New York State Labor Law. The Defendants own and operate a construction company in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. Jack Newhouse, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad St, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com jnewhouse@vandallp.com SIKH CENTER: Illegally Refuses Members' Enrollment, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Mohinder Singh, et al. v. Sikh Center of New York, Inc., Hardev Singh Padda and Tirath Singh, Case No. 9566/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., August 6, 2015), seeks to restrain and enjoin the Defendants from engaging in an unauthorized termination or refusal to enroll members and qualified worshipers of Sikh Center of New York, Inc. Sikh Center of New York, Inc. operates the Hindu Temple Society of North America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Curran, Esq. 98-120 Queens Blvd Suite 1C Rego Park, NY 11374 Telephone: (718) 830-7741 SILVER WHEATON: Sept. 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline --------------------------------------------------- Morgan & Morgan reminds investors that securities class actions have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of Silver Wheaton Corp. ("Silver Wheaton" or the "Company") (NYSE:SLW) securities from March 30, 2011 through July 6, 2015, all dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Silver Wheaton investors under the federal securities laws. If you purchased Silver Wheaton securities during the Class Period, you may, no later than September 8, 2015, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you want more information about the Silver Wheaton Securities Class Action, contact Morgan & Morgan at 1(800) 732-5200 or email info@morgansecuritieslaw.com The complaints allege that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose that Silver Wheaton lacked adequate internal accounting controls over its financial reporting. Due to these inadequacies, the Company's financial statements contained errors concerning income tax owed from the income generated by its foreign subsidiaries. On July 6, 2015, the Company reported that it would be audited by the Canada Revenue Agency to reassess its earnings from foreign subsidiaries. The Company expects to pay approximately $150 million in taxes and another $57 million in penalties after the Agency has estimated that the Company's reported income from its foreign subsidiaries should have been $567 million higher for fiscal years 2005 through 2010. Following this announcement, the Company's share price dropped $2.08 per share, an 11.8% decline on heavy volume, to close at $15.46 per share on July 7, 2015. About Morgan & Morgan Morgan & Morgan is one of the nation's largest 200 law firms. In addition to shareholder rights, the firm also practices in the areas of antitrust, personal injury, consumer protection, overtime, and product liability. All of the Firm's legal endeavors are rooted in its core mission: provide investor and consumer protection and always fight "for the people." CONTACT: Peter Safirstein, Esq. Morgan & Morgan 28 West 44th Street Suite 2001 New York, NY 10036 1-800-732-5200 info@morgansecuritieslaw.com SODEXO INC: Managers File Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------- The Sacramento employment law lawyers at Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a putative class action lawsuit against Sodexo, Inc. alleging the company failed to pay their Clinical Nutrition Managers overtime wages for their time worked in excess of eight hours (8) in a workday and/or forty (40) hours in a workweek. The Sodexo class action lawsuit Case No. 39-2015-00324813-CU-OE-STK is currently pending in the San Joaquin Superior Court for the State of California. The putative class action lawsuit claims that the Plaintiff, who worked as a Clinical Nutrition Manager, spent most of her workday allegedly engaged in non-exempt work tasks, meaning tasks that allegedly should have entitled Plaintiff to overtime wages. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff and other Clinical Nutrition Managers engaged in the non-exempt tasks of providing day-to-day routine planning and development of patient diets in accordance with the attending physician's prescribed techniques, procedures, and specified standards. Additionally, the Complaint claims that the Plaintiff and other Clinical Nutrition Managers spent a vast majority of their day filling in pre-formatted checklists called "Gold Checks" and other templates that were provided by Sodexo. As a result, the Sodexo class action lawsuit alleges that the Plaintiff did not manage other employees and was therefore a "manager" in name only because she did not have managerial duties and should therefore have been paid overtime wages and provided with meal and rest periods in accordance with California law. According to the Complaint, Sodexo, Inc. is the largest private employer of dietitians and the leading food and facilities management service company in North America. The Sacramento labor law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik are dedicated to representing employees of large corporations in various lawsuits that include claims for unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest breaks, minimum wage violations, unpaid commissions, and wrongful termination. The firm has offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles and Riverside. Contact one of their experienced attorneys now for free California employment law advice by calling (866) 771-7099 SRA ASSOCIATES: Faces "Yossef" Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Benzion Yossef, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. SRA Associates, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04599 (E.D.N.Y., August 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com STANDARD & POOR'S: Settlement Share Used for Other Purposes ----------------------------------------------------------- Rick Brundrett, writing for The Nerve Center, reported that a nearly $1.4 billion settlement over alleged investor fraud involving the national credit-rating agency Standard & Poor's allowed South Carolina to use its $21.5 million share of the proceeds for consumer protection and education programs. But S.C. lawmakers didn't designate that money for any of those purposes in adopting a $24.9 billion state budget for the fiscal year that stated July 1. Instead, they appropriated $27.8 million in the state's "Litigation Recovery Account" with another $88.5 million in non-recurring funds through a budget proviso (118.14) for such things as: * $4 million toward paying off vendor debt at the financially troubled S.C. State University; * $3 million to the S.C. Department of Commerce's "closing" fund -- typically used to lure big companies to locate or expand in the state, and which grew by more than 800 percent from when Gov. Nikki Haley took office in 2011 through last fiscal year; and * $2 million to the state Department of Agriculture's "Certified SC" marketing program. It's not the first time that lawmakers have grabbed millions from lawsuit settlements involving the state for purposes not related to those suits. For fiscal 2013, for example, the Legislature earmarked $10 million from a national mortgage settlement for Commerce's closing fund -- a move criticized publicly by housing advocates. Contacted, Mark Powell, spokesman for S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson, told The Nerve that while the Attorney General's Office is involved with settlements involving the state, lawmakers decide how the proceeds are spent. "The Attorney General's Office sends funds received from fees, fines, recoveries and other cases to the general fund, or as specifically directed," Powell said in a written response. "The Attorney General's Office is the state's Chief Prosecutor, Chief Legal Officer, and Chief Securities officer. It is prohibited by the state constitution from handling the appropriation process. The General Assembly handles that, and does so with a balanced budget each and every year." For this fiscal year, legislators had a total of $27.8 million from the "Litigation Recovery Account" to allocate -- more than the total ratified budgets of at least 50 state agencies and divisions, including the Attorney General's Office, a review by The Nerve found. Powell said five defendant companies were involved in separate settlements last fiscal year totaling $27.8 million: Standard & Poor's, drug producers GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis, and liquid- crystal display manufacturers Chi Mei and Samsung. Powell couldn't immediately provide details of the individual cases, including the settlement amounts. The settlements are not listed on the attorney general's website. A review by The Nerve of court documents, media reports and other records found that since, South Carolina participated in multi- state settlements in at least three cases. The Palmetto State, for example, was part of a $177 million, seven-state settlement involving GlaxoSmithKline over allegations of deceptive advertising involving the diabetes drug Avandia, according to a press release from the Dallas-based law firm of Baron and Budd, which said it worked with attorneys general in the participating states. In the Novartis case, South Carolina was among six states that joined federal authorities in a $15 million settlement with BioScrip Inc., a provider of prescription drugs to Medicaid patients nationwide, the Washington State Attorney General's Office said in a press release. BioScrip allegedly received kickbacks from Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. to promote a Novartis drug known as Exjade, which was used to treat chronic iron problems resulting from blood transfusions, according to the release. Chi Mei and Samsung were among defendants in a group of class- action cases nationwide alleging that consumers who purchased flat-panel, electronic devices with liquid-crystal displays were victims of price fixing, according to media reports, which put the combined total settlement amount at more than $1 billion. The two companies also were named as defendants in a 2012 state lawsuit involving Wilson's office, court records show. In the case of Standard & Poor's Financial Services, the U.S. Department of Justice in a February press release said the national credit-rating agency "played a central role that devastated our economy by giving AAA ratings to mortgage-backed securities that turned out to be little better than junk." The total settlement between the agency, its parent company, McGraw Hill Financial Inc., and the federal government, 19 states -- including South Carolina -- and the District of Columbia, was $1.375 billion, half of which was a penalty to be paid to the federal government and the remainder to be divided among the participating states and the District of Columbia, records show. Under the settlement agreement reviewed by The Nerve, the state "may allocate such payment in the South Carolina Attorney General's sole discretion and in accordance with any and all obligations imposed by law for purposes including, but not limited to, a consumer protection enforcement fund, consumer education fund, consumer litigation fund, local consumer aid fund, or revolving fund . . . " But the agreement doesn't require the $21.5 million in proceeds to be used for those purposes, leaving S.C. lawmakers free to spend the money as they wish. TAURUS: Voluntarily Recalls Nearly 1MM Defective Firearms --------------------------------------------------------- Kent Faulk, writing for Al.com, reported that firearms manufacturer Taurus has agreed to a voluntary recall of nearly 1 million pistols as part of the settlement of a lawsuit that alleges nine handgun models had defects, including one that caused some to inadvertently fire when dropped. "This is not an anti-firearms lawsuit. This is a defective product lawsuit," said Birmingham attorney Todd Wheeles, co-lead counsel representing plaintiffs in the 2013 federal lawsuit. "This hopefully will help save lives by taking defective firearms off the street." The settlement affects customers who bought the following models sold between 1997 and 2013 in the U.S., Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam: PT-111 Millennium; PT-132 Millennium; PT-138- Millennium; PT-140 Millennium; PT-145 Millennium; PT-745 Millennium; PT-609; PT-640; and PT-24/7. Despite the voluntary recall, Taurus denied in a statement night that there are any design defects in the models. "Neither the settlement nor the allegations in the case include any of the popular Taurus G2 model pistols," according to the Taurus statement. Details concerning the nine pistols and how and when to submit a claim will be provided in the near future, according to the Taurus statement. "Claims will be handled by a Third Party Claims Administrator (TPA). Once the Claims Period opens, the Taurus Companies will provide notice through digital and print outlets. All claims should be made through the TPA." As of early 2013 the nine models were no longer manufactured and distributed in the United States. The company is headquartered in Brazil, but it has operations in Miami. A federal judge in Miami on preliminarily approved the settlement that calls basically for Taurus to do three things for customers: Provide an enhanced warranty to allow any owner -- even if it isn't the original owner and for the life of the pistol -- to submit the handgun for inspection and repair, if possible. If the defects can't be repaired Taurus will offer to replace the pistol with a similar new one. Normal inspection and shipping fees and labor costs will be waived. Produce on-line safety training videos for those customers who bought the pistols to show them how to handle and carry the pistols to avoid dropping them and how to ship them for warranty repairs. Allow customers who bought the pistols to send their pistols back for cash payments. The payments will vary up to $200, depending on how many pistols are returned. The lawsuit alleges that there were safety defects in the nine models that caused them to fire when the trigger is pulled even though the safety in the "on" or "safe" position and others when dropped or bumped, a notice that will be published and sent to customers states. The alleged defects are attributable to the lack of a "trigger safety blade" within the semi-automatic pistols, the lawsuit claims. Under the settlement total cash payments are capped at $30 million. According to court documents, the plaintiffs' attorneys also are seeking up to $9 million for fees, costs and expenses. The federal judge is to hold a hearing in January to determine whether to give final approval to the settlement. In the meantime the judge has set out deadlines for the company to publish notices and the safety videos. TOSHIBA CORP: Glancy Prongray Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the class action on behalf of investors of Toshiba Corporation ("Toshiba" or the "Company") (OTC: TOSYY) (OTC: TOSBF) who purchased securities between May 8, 2012 and May 7, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until August 3, 2015 to file a motion to be appointed as a lead plaintiff in this class action lawsuit. On May 8, 2015, the Company announced that it is withdrawing its earnings forecasts and will not pay a year-end dividend after finding improper accounting on infrastructure projects. The Company also announced that an independent committee has been formed to investigate the accounting problems. On this news the Company's shares declined sharply in value. The Complaint alleges that Toshiba committed securities fraud by misleading investors regarding the total amounts of costs for certain infrastructure projects; thereby manipulating the profits and losses for these infrastructure projects as well as misguiding investors regarding the timing in which such contract losses and provisions for contract losses were recorded; as a result, Toshiba's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The Complaint seeks to recover the damages caused to investors by the sharp decline in the stock price. If you purchased Toshiba shares prior to May 8, 2015, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Casey Sadler of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. CONTACT: Lesley Portnoy, Esq Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP 1925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Toll-free: (888) 773-9224 Fax: (310) 432-1495 info@glancylaw.com TRANSALTA CORP: Energy Consultant Invites Biz to Join Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Businesses are being invited by an Alberta electricity consultant to join a class-action lawsuit that he is organizing against TransAlta. David Gray, an electricity consultant in Edmonton and former director of Alberta's Utilities Consumer Advocate, is organizing the court action, but has not yet hired legal representation. He hopes to file the lawsuit by the end of August. He says he has already had in from more than 200 businesses interested in joining the lawsuit. "Basically anybody who was on the default commercial rate, they're all affected. Anybody who was on a flow-through rate through a retailer was affected," Gray said. "So we've got everybody from mom and pop shops up to manufacturing installations." The Alberta Utilities Commission released a report earlier this week that concluded TransAlta deliberately timed power outages at power plants at peak times in order to drive up electricity prices. "That hard part is already done. The part we are about to do now is account for each particular customer and go seeking some restitution," Gray said. The provincial regulator ruled TransAlta manipulated power prices during the winter of 2010 to 2011. The shutdowns by Canada's largest investor-owned power producer and wholesale marketer, cost consumers anywhere from 10 to 60 per cent more during this time. TransAlta timed power outages to drive up prices, says commission Gray estimates that depending on how much electricity was actually used, medium-sized businesses paid between $2,000 and $5,000 dollars more than they normally would have. A utilities commission report estimates that $100 million worth of damage was done, he said. "The real issue is the amount of damage they did to everyone who was buying from the market," he said. "Most directly [impacted] are commercial or industrial customers. Many of them are either on the default supply rate or on a rate that is whole or in part market based." Gray is hoping to get 20,000 companies involved in the lawsuit. UBER: Sued Over App's Price Claims, Free Ride Vouchers ------------------------------------------------------ Jessica Rice and John Cadiz Klemack, writing for NBC, reported that a Southern California man has filed a lawsuit against Uber for the ride-sharing app's price claims and regulation of free ride vouchers, which he hopes to make a class-action lawsuit. Sennett Devermont is the creator of Mr. Checkpoint, an app that notifies its users of DUI checkpoint locations. He said he has taken nearly 500 rides with Uber in the last two years, and regularly recommends the service through his app to encourage drunken drivers to get home safely. "I personally use Uber every day. I think it's a good service that can benefit people," Devermont said. "They just need to not mislead people and do what they promise." Devermont doesn't believe Uber's claim on their website that UBERx rides are cheaper than they would be in a taxicab. He has filed a lawsuit against the company that he and his attorney Michael Cohen hope will become a class-action lawsuit. The Uber Android app reads, "It's easier than a taxi and often cheaper!" while the iPhone app doesn't mention the price difference. Yet, Uber's website describes UBERx as, "Better, faster, and cheaper than a taxi." "If they tell me it's going to be cheaper than a cab, that is what needs to occur," Devermont said. Devermont has also found issue with the "free ride" vouchers granted for referring a new Uber user to the app, because he claims the app failed to notify users that the voucher expired in three months. Uber allegedly only notified the user that the voucher, for up to $20 toward a free Uber ride, could not be used for Uber Taxi, he said. "Lots of people tell their friends about Uber and share with their family for the free rides," Devermont said. "I don't think they know the rides expire." Devermont said he used to stock up on vouchers from his referrals because the emails containing his vouchers said nothing about an expiration date. But the emails he gets now include that the vouchers expire, he added. "If they say they're giving me a credit for getting a user, let me keep that credit," Devermont added. "If you're saying I'm going to get home cheaper than a cab, make sure I'm getting home cheaper than a cab." Devermont's attorney said their goal is to return money to other people who feel they have been cheated in a way similar to Devermont. "But ultimately the court will have to decide if it can be a class action," Cohen said. Until then, they are hoping more people will come forward so they can gather evidence toward the lawsuit. Whether or not it can be a class-action lawsuit will likely be decided on by the Los Angeles Superior Court in the next few months. "We've already had people come forward saying they've had the same experience as Mr. Devermont. And we'd like to have more," Cohen said. Uber officials said they don't comment on pending litigation. UCLA HEALTH: Faces "Brooks" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arthur Brooks, Michael Rhames, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated v. UCLA Health, The Regents of the University of California, and Does 1-50 inclusive, Case No. BC590534 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to keep safe their patients' sensitive private, financial, medical, and personal information safe from intrusion and for failure to timely notify customers that their sensitive and private information had been breached within a reasonable time. UCLA Health is made up of the following hospitals and medical centers: Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, UCLA Medical Center, Santa Monica, Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital at UCLA, Mattel Children's Hospital UCLA, the UCLA Medical Group, the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, and the Olive View-UCLA Medical Center. The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Bower, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 E-mail: dbower@faruqilaw.com UNION COMMUNITY: Sued Over Patients With Physical Disabilities -------------------------------------------------------------- Winnie Hu, writing for The New York Times, reported that a Bronx health center that serves many poor and minority patients was accused of discriminating against another group that often faces barriers to medical care: those with physical disabilities. Union Community Health Center, which serves about 37,000 patients at five locations in the Bronx, has repeatedly turned away people with disabilities seeking treatment at one of those sites, 2021 Grand Concourse, and failed to make numerous accommodations there that are required by federal, state and city disability laws, according to a class-action federal lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit was brought by Bronx Independent Living Services, a nonprofit group that works on behalf of people with disabilities and provides support services, and three of its employees including the executive director, Brett Eisenberg. The lawsuit stated that Union Community Health, 25 years after the federal Americans With Disabilities Act, "is still turning away many patients with disabilities and providing inferior care and treatment to those who make it in the door." The lawsuit contends that the center is "riddled with physical access barriers," including doorways and hallways too narrow for wheelchairs; an on-site pharmacy reachable only by climbing stairs; and a lack of medical equipment such as height-adjustable examination tables. It also stated the center failed to provide sign-language interpreters for deaf patients and did not make written materials accessible for those who are visually impaired. The lawsuit also names St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx, which has provided some funding and support services to Union Community Health, although the two are separate organizations. Michelle Caiola, the managing attorney for the New York office of Disability Rights Advocates, a nonprofit group that represents the plaintiffs, said that while disabled patients faced barriers at many hospitals and health centers, this particular Bronx health center had "numerous barriers of every kind affecting individuals with mobility, vision and hearing disabilities." In a statement, Union Community Health said that its lawyers had not yet fully reviewed the complaint, but that "we are confident that our services fully comply with all state, federal, and local laws and regulations. "Union Community Health Center has a long standing history of serving the entire Bronx community including people with a wide variety of disabilities." Mr. Eisenberg, 34, said in an interview that his group began receiving complaints in 2010 that Union Community Health's site on the Grand Concourse was not accessible to disabled patients. Mr. Eisenberg, who uses a wheelchair because of a brittle bone condition, said he would have liked the option to seek treatment himself at that center, which is near his office. "As a person with a significant physical disability myself, it's always troubling for me when we can't go to a health care facility, or any facility, and be treated equally and access the same services at the same level of care." Mr. Eisenberg said he and his staff members tried repeatedly to work with Union Community Health since 2010 to address these complaints, before finally seeking help from Disability Rights Advocates in the past year. Rodolfo Diaz, 32, a benefits adviser for Bronx Independent Living Services, who also uses a wheelchair, said in an interview that he had gone to the health center last fall to make a medical appointment and was told by a receptionist that he would have to return with someone who could assist in getting him into an examination bed. "I was frustrated because I'm used to being independent," said Mr. Diaz, adding that he did not return. "I've made other appointments in clinics. I never had that experience." UNIVITA HEALTH: "Olivier" Suit Alleges WARN Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Omar M. Olivier, and all others similarly-situated v. Univita Health, Inc. and Univita of Florida Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00671 (D. Del. Aug 02, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to serve a 60-day written notice of termination as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees seek to recover 60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to the WARN Act, from Defendants. Univita Health, Inc. provides home healthcare solutions to patients in the United States. It offers services in the areas of in-home care, wound care, infusion pharmacy, medical equipment, and re-admission reduction solutions. The company was founded in 2008 and is based in Miramar, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher D. Loizides, Esq. LOIZIDES & ASSOCIATES Legal Arts Building 1225 King Street, Ste 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 654-0248 E-mail: loizides@loizides.com - and - Jack A. Raisner, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 245-1000 US BANK: Faces "Bakal" Suit Over Alleged Breach of Fiduciary Duty ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Bakal, David and Sandra Visher, and ESM Fund I, L.P., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. U.S. Bank National Association, Case No. 652727/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., August 5, 2015), alleges that the Defendant breached its fiduciary obligations by failing to act prudently, or in the best interests of the Trust and Certificate-holders. Based in St. Paul, Minnesota, U.S. Bank National Association operates one of the largest banks in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Karin E. Fisch, Esq. ABBEY SPANIER, LLP 212 East 39" Street New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 889-3700 Facsimile: (212)684-5191 E-mail: kfisch@abbeyspanier.com - and - Deborah R. Gross, Esq. LAW OFFICES BERNARD M GROSS, P.C. 100 Penn Square East, Suite 450 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 561-3600 Facsimile: (215) 561-3000 E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com VASCO DATA: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Fraud Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of VASCO Data Security International, Inc. ("VASCO" or the "Company") (NASDAQ CM: VDSI) between February 18, 2014 and July 21, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the "Complaint"). If you purchased shares of VASCO during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold VASCO, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at (888) 969- 4242; by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com; or at: http://rigrodskylong.com/investigations/vasco-data-security- international-inc-vdsi. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations and prospects. As a result of defendants' alleged false and misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. According to the Complaint, on July 21, 2015, the Company filed a FORM 8-K with the SEC announcing "that certain of its products which were sold by a VASCO European subsidiary to a third-party distributor may have been resold by the distributor to parties in Iran, potentially including parties" subject to U.S. economic sanctions. On this news, shares in VASCO dropped over 3%, closing at $25.83 per share on July 22, 2015, on heavy trading volume. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 28, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. CONTACT: Timothy J. MacFall, Esq. Peter Allocco, Esq. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. 825 E Gate Blvd #300 Garden City, NY, United States (888) 969-4242 (516) 683-3516 Fax: (302) 654-7530 info@rl-legal.com http://www.rigrodskylong.com VASCO DATA: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of VASCO Data Security International, Inc. securities during the period from February 18, 2013 through July 21, 2015. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for VASCO investors under the federal securities laws. The lawsuit alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) VASCO's products were illegally sold to parties in Iran in violation of federal laws banning such transactions; (2) VASCO lacked sufficient internal controls; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, VASCO's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 21, 2015, after the market closed for trading, VASCO filed a Form 8-K with the SEC revealing "that certain of its products which were sold by a VASCO European subsidiary to a third party distributor may have been resold by the distributor to parties in Iran, potentially including parties" governed by U.S. economic sanctions. The suit claims investors were damaged when this adverse news entered the market. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Kevin Chan, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: 212-686-1060 Toll Free: 866-767-3653 Fax: 212-202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com kchan@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com VERMONT: Reach Up Cuts to Disabled Recipients Held Off for 2 Mos. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Galloway, writing for VTDigger.org, reported that the state will continue benefits for disabled Vermonters for 60 days while lawyers prepare for arguments in a discrimination case. The class-action lawsuit filed by Vermont Legal Aid on July 23 alleges that the reduction, which the Legislature approved in the fiscal year 2016 state budget, is unconstitutional and that it discriminates against households with family members with a disability. Sandy Paritz, Poverty Law Project director at Vermont Legal Aid, said cuts that were already made for the Aug. 1 distribution of benefits would be restored by the state. "These families are already experiencing severe economic distress and cannot afford to lose a dime," Paritz said in a statement. "The state did the right thing to continue their benefits." Christopher Curtis and Paritz, attorneys with the nonprofit legal group, are seeking to halt implementation of a $125 reduction in the monthly Reach Up benefit for 860 Vermont households with an adult who receives a monthly Supplemental Security Income benefit. The reduction, which Curtis has dubbed "a poor tax" would impact more than 15 percent of the homes that receive the program's cash benefits. The lawsuit is based primarily on federal laws and benefits, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and Social Security policy. According to a statement issued by Legal Aid, courts have halted similar cuts to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families grant programs in other states. Reach Up, Vermont's TANF program, helps some 5,200 households statewide. Funded partially by the state and partially by the federal government, the program aims to help families with children meet basic needs and services, the state website says. It includes a work requirement. Federal courts issued injunctions against policies in Washington and West Virginia that would have counted the SSI benefits of children as income, thereby reducing their TANF benefit. Vermont's law only counts the SSI benefits of adults, not children. The Vermont Attorney General's Office is handling the case for the Vermont Agency of Human Services. The two parties will return to court in early September. VISA INC: Merchants Challenge $6-Bil. Antitrust Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Robin Sidel, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reported that lawyers representing roughly 100 merchants late night formally notified MasterCard Inc. and Visa Inc. that they believe a $6 billion class-action antitrust settlement should be thrown out due to the discovery that opposing lawyers in the case exchanged confidential information, according to people familiar with the matter. The lawyers served the card networks with legal papers outlining their plans, setting in motion a process to potentially unravel the pact that was approved by a federal judge in late 2013. The Wall Street Journal reported on that merchants were hoping to scuttle the pact due to the lawyers' alleged conduct. According to court procedures, the papers served to the card networks won't be filed in court until the networks respond. The documents are expected to be filed under seal at that point, meaning they won't be available to the public. The challenge stems from communications discovered after Keila Ravelo, who represented MasterCard in the antitrust case when she was a partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, resigned from the firm in November. Shortly after she resigned, Ms. Ravelo and her husband, Melvin Feliz, were charged by the U.S. attorney's office in New Jersey with conspiracy to commit wire fraud by setting up two dummy companies to fraudulently obtain more than $5 million from Willkie Farr, law firm Hunton & Williams LLP -- where Ms. Ravelo also had worked -- and MasterCard, according to authorities and court filings. While investigating the alleged theft, Willkie Farr discovered emails and documents that were exchanged between Ms. Ravelo and Gary Friedman, who represented merchants through his own law firm Friedman Law Group LLC. Steve Sadow, a lawyer representing Ms. Ravelo, said "I'm not in a position to comment at this time" because he hasn't seen the legal papers. Samuel Issacharoff, a lawyer representing Mr. Friedman, said "we think the court papers speak for themselves." He declined further comment. In a conference call to discuss second-quarter earnings, MasterCard Chief Executive Ajay Banga on reiterated the company's position filed in previous court papers that it believes the conduct of the lawyers shouldn't affect the outcome in the case. Mr. Banga said the conduct exhibited by the lawyers was "disappointing," but also said they didn't play principal roles in the case. "We're pretty confident that the settlement will stand. We'll see how it goes," he said. A spokesman for Visa declined to comment. The case dates back to 2005 when large retailers, including Kroger Co., Safeway Inc. and Walgreen Co., began filing price-fixing suits against Visa and MasterCard. The lawsuits challenged Visa's and MasterCard's long-standing rules that prohibited merchants from charging customers more when they used a credit card over other forms of payment. Lawyers representing the merchants are also seeking to upend a pending $79 million similar settlement with American Express. In a court filing made, AmEx said that none of the communications between the lawyers "detracts from the conclusion that this settlement represents the best feasible settlement for the merchant class, and is fair and adequate by any measure." WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Defective Flushable Wipes Design ----------------------------------------------------------- Eugene and Victoria Richard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Rockline Industries, Case No. 1:15-cv-00677-SS (W.D. Tex., August 5, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' deceptive, improper or unlawful conduct in the design, marketing, manufacturing, distribution, and sale of flushable wipes. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a retail business offering a range of merchandise categories. Rockline Industries, a Wisconsin corporation, together with its subsidiaries and affiliates, designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes numerous consumer products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mark S. Reich, Esq. Sean T. Masson ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mreich@rgrdlaw.com smasson@rgrdlaw.com - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Mark Dearman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com mdearman@rgrdlaw.com WEINBERG & ASSOCIATES: Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JT's Frames, Inc., an Illinois corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Weinberg & Associates, Inc., et al., Case No. 2015-CH-11746 (Ill. Cir. Ct., August 5, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles. Weinberg & Associates, Inc. is an Illinois corporation that provides accounting, tax, and financial management services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: BWanca@andersonwanca.com Rkelly@andersonwanca.com XBOX360: Suit Over Design Moving Forward ---------------------------------------- Sheldon Jones, writing for GamesPresso, reported that most people with an Xbox 360 know the fear of bumping into the console while a disc is spinning. You cringe at the rattling of the disc, and pray to whatever god or gods you worship that you'll not need to make another trip to Best Buy or order another copy of the game from Amazon. This design flaw, in which the console can cause the disc to become scratched to the point of being unplayable, has been brought to court. Ars Technica reported that the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals set the table for Microsoft to potentially face a class-action lawsuit over the issues. Microsoft claims that the issue is only apparent in 0.4% of their consoles, and that the issue is not nearly widespread enough to warrant a court case. While the case has been pushed forward in court, this is not the first time the Xbox 360 has had hardware issues. In 2005, Microsoft was sued over a heating issue with the console. As well, the Xbox 360 had its Red Ring of Death issue that already cost Microsoft over $1 billion to fix. With the console selling over 86 million copies as of, however, it's hard to say whether these hardware issues had held back the system from being a strong competitor in the console market. XOMA CORP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Fraud Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of XOMA Corporation ("XOMA" or the "Company") (NASDAQ GM: XOMA) between November 6, 2014 and July 21, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the "Complaint"). If you purchased shares of XOMA during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold XOMA, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at (888) 969- 4242; by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com; or at: http://rigrodskylong.com/investigations/xoma-corporation-xoma. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations and prospects. As a result of defendants' alleged false and misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. According to the Complaint, on July 22, 2015, the Company revealed that the EYEGUARD-B study for its lead product candidate, gevokizumab, did not meet the primary endpoint of first acute ocular exacerbation. This revelation contradicted earlier statements from the Company that gevokizumab was "one exacerbation away from being able to close the EYEGUARD-B study database." On this news, shares in XOMA plummeted over 77%, closing at $1.00 per share on July 22, 2014, on heavy trading volume. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 22, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. CONTACT: Timothy J. MacFall, Esq. Peter Allocco, Esq. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. 825 E Gate Blvd #300 Garden City, NY, United States (888) 969-4242 (516) 683-3516 Fax: (302) 654-7530 info@rl-legal.com http://www.rigrodskylong.com YELLOWJACKET OILFIELD: "Juarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Johnathan Juarez, and all others similarly-situated v. Yellowjacket Oilfield Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00329 (S.D. Tex., July 31, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant is an oilfield services company providing a variety of services to the oilfield, including pressure control services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP 1150 Bissonnet Street Houston, TX 77005 Tel: (713) 751-0025 Fax: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com * Securities Class Action Filings Remain Below Historical Average ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs brought 85 new federal class action securities cases in the first half of 2015, according to Securities Class Action Filings -- 2015 Midyear Assessment, a report compiled by Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse. This represents a decrease from the second half of 2014, when plaintiffs filed 92 securities class actions. The number of filings in the first six months of 2015 remains 10 percent below the semiannual average of 94 observed between 1997 and 2014 -- the seventh consecutive semiannual period below the historical average. Despite this period of little overall change in filing activity, securities class actions against companies headquartered outside the United States increased in the first half of 2015. Twenty filings, or 24 percent of the total, targeted foreign firms. Asian firms were named in more than half of these cases. "Securities class actions continue to percolate at a relatively low level, whether measured by the number of cases filed or the dollar amounts at stake," observed Professor Joseph Grundfest, director of the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse and a former SEC Commissioner. "The interesting question is 'why?' Some observers point to high stock price valuations and the lack of volatility in equity markets. Others point to the fact that many of the major accounting scandals now appear to be happening abroad. A combination of both factors could well be at work." "Aggregate market capitalization losses in securities class actions continued to dip below historical averages in the first two quarters of 2015," said Dr. John Gould, senior vice president of Cornerstone Research. "Mega filings remained relatively rare, and on an annualized basis only 2.5 percent of S&P 500 company market capitalization was targeted by new filings during this period." Another notable development in the first half of 2015 was the surge in class actions in the Ninth Circuit, driven primarily by an increase in the Technology and Industrial sectors. Filings in the Ninth Circuit (much of the western United States) represented a 90 percent increase over the last six months of 2014. In the Second Circuit (Connecticut, New York, and Vermont) filings fell by one-third in comparison with the second half of 2014. This was due in strong part to the decline in suits related to financial, energy, and biotechnology and pharmaceutical firms. Key Trends * The total Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL), which calculates investor losses at the time that an alleged fraud is disclosed, remained at low levels. Aggregate DDL was $34 billion in the first half of 2015, 43 percent below the historical semiannual average of $60 billion. * The total Maximum Dollar Loss (MDL), a measure of the largest amount that plaintiffs might seek to recover, was $105 billion, an amount 65 percent below the historical semiannual average MDL of $304 billion. * Filing activity against companies with large market capitalizations, as represented by firms in the S&P 500, remained well below average. Only 1.6 percent of S&P 500 firms were the subject of class actions in the first half of 2015. * The median lag between the end of the alleged class period and the filing of the lawsuit declined to 11 days, the third lowest on record, suggesting intensifying competition for filings by the plaintiff bar. * Dismissals within the first three years of the filing of a class action peaked for 2010 and 2011 filing cohorts. In filing cohort years 2012, 2013, and 2014, early dismissals (those within the first year) have declined relative to 2010 and 2011 cohorts. * Reversing trends noted at year-end 2014, filing activity against Industrial and Technology firms increased to levels more consistent with historical averages, while filings against Energy companies declined to average historical levels. * Biotechnology, healthcare, and pharmaceutical companies (included in the Consumer Non-Cyclical sector) together accounted for 19 percent of total filings in the first half of 2015. Within this group, filings against pharmaceutical firms were the most common class action. About Cornerstone Research Cornerstone Research provides economic and financial consulting and expert testimony in all phases of complex litigation and regulatory proceedings. The firm works with an extensive network of prominent faculty and industry practitioners to identify the best-qualified expert for each assignment. Cornerstone Research has earned a reputation for consistent high quality and effectiveness by delivering rigorous, state-of-the-art analysis for over 25 years. The firm has more than 500 staff and offices in Boston, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, Menlo Park, New York, San Francisco, and Washington. http://www.cornerstone.com About the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse The Securities Class Action Clearinghouse (SCAC) is an authoritative source of data and analysis on the financial and economic characteristics of federal securities fraud class action litigation. The SCAC maintains a database of more than 3,900 securities class action lawsuits filed since passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The database also contains copies of more than 44,000 complaints, briefs, filings, and other litigation-related materials filed in these cases. http://securities.stanford.edu ********* 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 * * *