/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150928.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, September 28, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 193 Headlines ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Moved to Dismiss "Hughes" Case ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Still Defending "Church" Case ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Still Defending "Anger" Case ACCRETIVE HEALTH: "Cassale" Case Settled in April ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Motion to Consolidate Actions Withdrawn ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Faces Employment Action Before Maine Commission AMERICAN WATER: Mediation Scheduled for September 30 ASPEN FOODS: Recalls Breaded Chicken Products Due to Salmonella BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Laborers Local 100 Files Class Suit in N.Y. BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Jerusalem Bank Files Class Action BLK BRANDS: Falsely Marketed Alkaline Water Products, Suit Claims BOSCH SECURITY: Recalls Wireless Smoke Alarms Due to Fire Hazard BP WEST COAST: Persian Gulf Suit Removed to S.D. California BRADSHAW IN'L: Recalls Roasting Pans Due to Laceration Hazard BUMBLE BEE: Faces A-1 Diner Suit Over PSP-Price Manipulation BUMBLE BEE: Faces Central Suit Over PSP-Price Manipulation BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Fragoso" Suit Over PSP-Price Manipulation BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Kennedy" Suit Over PSP-Price Manipulation C&J JAMES: "Ramirez" Suit Alleges False Advertisement CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Defending Against Securities Class Action CLEGGPROMO: Recalls Power Banks Due to Fire Hazard COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties DELTA AIR: "Lopez" Class Suit Moved to Central Dist. California DI STEFANO: Recalls Boneless Ham Products Due to Noncompliance DOC ABLE'S: Faces "Esquivel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Still Defending v. C.D. Cal. Investors Suit DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Still Defending v. N.D. Cal. Antitrust Suit ENDOCYTE INC: Discovery Stayed Pending Motion to Dismiss ENDOCYTE INC: Continues to Defend Hage Litigation ETHICON INC: Falsely Marketed Morcellator Products, Suit Claims EVERCORE PARTNERS: ETC Indemnified by J.C. Penney in Class Action FILM STAGE: Accused of Violating TCPA and Ill. Consumer Fraud Act FIRST SECURITY: Hearing Held on Motions to Dismiss FIRST SOLAR: Expert Discovery Scheduled to Commence in Smilovits FIRST SOLAR: Faces Maverick Fund Complaint FUEL SYSTEMS: Faces Suit Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties FUJITSU AMERICA: Recalls Notebook Computer Battery Packs GENWORTH FINANCIAL: To Defend Against Securities Litigation GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Defending Against City of Hialeah Action GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Class Actions Against Subsidiary Settled GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Court Dismissed Claims in Goodman and Brown GT LANDSCAPING: Faces "Garibay" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime GRAMERCY PROPERTY: 2 Class Actions Filed on Proposed Merger GULF INTERSTATE: Faces "Sloane" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime HERBALIFE LTD: Reconsideration of Final Settlement Order Sought HERBALIFE LTD: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation HW WORLDWIDE: "Stravrev" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Mandatory Mediation Conference Scheduled JUICECO LLC: "Prado" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages JURATOYS US: Recalls Fishing Games Due to Choking Hazard KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Faces Suit Over "Natural" Diapers and Wipes LACORR PACKAGING: Faces "Dinkins" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT LAND OF NOD: Recalls Mobile Products Due to Strangulation Hazard LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Data Privacy Litigation LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Securities Class Action Appeal Remains Pending LENDINGTREE INC: HLC Intends to Renew Appeal LIBERTY LIFE: Sued Over Denial of LT Disability Benefits LIFELOCK INC: Parties in Ebarle & Stamm Suit Exchange Information LIFELOCK INC: Court Tentatively Approved Deal in "Goldman" Case LIFELOCK INC: "Trax" Plaintiff Filed Notice of Dismissal LIFELOCK INC: Anticipates Filing Motion to Dismiss "Avila" Case LOS ANGELES, CA: LAFCU Sued Over Illegal Overdraft Fees LOTA USA: Recalls Kitchen Faucets Due to Fire and Burn Hazards LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Removes "Pierce" Class Suit to W.D. Missouri MAGICMIND INC: Faces "Barach" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MARKWEST ENERGY: Unitholder Class Action Complaint Filed MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Farno" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Limbacher" Suit Over Financial Reports MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Pacelli" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Simmons" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Suit Claims MICHAEL G. BARRETT: Chen Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Sued Over Gender Discriminatory Practices NABORS INDUSTRIES: Shareholder Class Action Remains Pending NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Pizza Pie Suit Over Sunday NFL Games NEW ORLEANS, LA: Faces "Cain" Suit Over Alleged Illegal Detention NIKKEI AMERICA: Faces "Iwasawa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Sued Over Failure to Pay Reporting Time Pay PHILIPS LIGHTING: Recalls Halogen Bulbs Due to Laceration Hazard PIPER JAFFRAY: Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Case Still Pending PRICE SELF: Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims PRIDE FAMILY: Recalls Hammock Stands Due to Fall Hazard PROPETRO SERVICES: "Crow" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages PROVIA DOOR: Removes "Jacobs" Suit to Minnesota District Court RED ROBIN: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Washington REGIONS FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs' Class Action Still Appeal REGIONS FINANCIAL: Sept. 2015 Hearing to Approve Settlement RICE BRICKELL: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages RINGS: CHILD WORKS: Recalls Trapeze Rings Due to Fall Hazard SAN PASQUAL: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Breach of Fiduciary Duty SANTANAS CONCRETE: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT SEGWAY INC: Recalls Off-Board Chargers for Personal Transporters SR 60: "Teixeira" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SYMANTEC CORP: "Zeichick" Suit Claims Unjust Enrichment SYNAPTICS INCORPORATED: Sued Over Pacinian Merger Agreement TRANSOCEAN LTD: Oral Argument Held in Securities Class Action UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Partial Certification of Drivers' Suit WISHBONE DESIGN: Recalls Recycled Edition Bikes XENCOR INC: Court Consolidated 205 Petition with Class Action ZAGG INC: Tenth Circuit Appeal Remains Pending ZAK DESIGNS: Recalls Water Bottles Due to Choking Hazard ********* ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Moved to Dismiss "Hughes" Case ------------------------------------------------ Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company moved to dismiss the case, Hughes v. Accretive Health, Inc. et al. On May 17, 2013, the Company, along with certain of its directors, former directors and former officers, was named as a defendant in a putative securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Hughes v. Accretive Health, Inc. et al.). The primary allegations, relating to its March 8, 2013 announcement that the Company would be restating its prior period financial statements, are that its public statements, including filings with the SEC, were false and/or misleading with respect to its revenue recognition and earnings prospects. On November 27, 2013, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Company's directors and former directors (other than Mary Tolan). On January 31, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 25, 2014, the Court granted the Company motion to dismiss without prejudice, however the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on October 23, 2014. On November 10, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. While that motion was still pending, on January 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the second amended complaint, seeking to add allegations regarding the recently issued Restatement. On April 22, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend, and a third amended complaint was filed on May 13, 2015. The Company moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on June 3, 2015. The Company continues to believe it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself, Mary Tolan, and its former officers against these claims. The outcome is not presently determinable. ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Still Defending "Church" Case ----------------------------------------------- Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on February 11, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama (Church v. Accretive Health, Inc.). The primary allegations are that the Company attempted to collect debts without providing the notice required by the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA") and attempted to collect debts after they were discharged in bankruptcy. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. The outcome is not presently determinable. ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Still Defending "Anger" Case ---------------------------------------------- Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on July 22, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Anger v. Accretive Health, Inc.). The primary allegations are that the Company attempted to collect debts without providing the notice required by the FDCPA. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss which is fully briefed and pending decision. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. The outcome is not presently determinable. ACCRETIVE HEALTH: "Cassale" Case Settled in April ------------------------------------------------- Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on February 6, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Cassale v. Accretive Health, Inc.). The primary allegations are that the Company attempted to collect debts without complying with the provisions of the FDCPA. The case was settled in April 2015. ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Motion to Consolidate Actions Withdrawn --------------------------------------------------------- Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on February 24, 2015 (amended Feb. 25, 2015), the Plaintiff in the Church action filed a motion with the Joint Panel for Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate the Church, Anger and Cassale actions for pretrial purposes in the Southern District of Alabama where the Church case is currently pending. That motion was withdrawn in May 2015. ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Faces Employment Action Before Maine Commission ----------------------------------------------------------------- Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in April 2015, the Company was named among other defendants in an employment action brought by a former employee before the Maine Human Rights Commission ("MHRC") alleging that she was improperly terminated in retaliation for uncovering alleged Medicare fraud. The Company filed its response with the MHRC on May 19, 2015 seeking that the Company be dismissed entirely from the action. On June 23, 2015, the MHRC issued its Notice of Right to Sue and decision to terminate its process with respect to all charges asserted by the former employee. The Plaintiff has filed a parallel qui tam action in the District of Maine (Worthy v. Eastern Maine Healthcare Systems) in which she makes the same allegations. The U.S. Department of Justice declined to intervene in the federal court action, and the case was unsealed in April 2015 but process has not been served on any defendant. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to both the potential employment law action for which the MHRC has granted the Notice of Right to Sue letter and the federal qui tam case, and intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. The outcomes are not presently determinable. AMERICAN WATER: Mediation Scheduled for September 30 ---------------------------------------------------- American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the action related to the West Virginia Elk River Freedom Industries' Chemical Spill, the court has directed the parties to the Federal action to attend mediation scheduled for September 30, 2015. Four of the cases pending before the federal district court were consolidated for purposes of discovery, and an amended consolidated class action complaint for those cases ("Federal action") was filed on December 9, 2014 by several plaintiffs who allegedly suffered economic losses, loss of use of property and tap water or other specified adverse consequences as a result of the Freedom Industries spill, on behalf of a purported class of all persons and businesses supplied with, using, or exposed to water contaminated with crude 4-methylcyclohexane methanol ("MCHM") and provided by West Virginia-American Water Company ("WVAWC") in Logan, Clay, Lincoln, Roane, Jackson, Boone, Putnam, and Kanawha Counties and the Culloden area of Cabell County, West Virginia as of January 9, 2014. The amended consolidated complaint names several individuals and corporate entities as defendants, including American Water Works Service Company, Inc. ("AWWSC"), WVAWC and the Company. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for alleged business or economic losses; unspecified damages or a mechanism for recovery to address a variety of alleged costs, loss of use of property, personal injury and other consequences allegedly suffered by purported class members; punitive damages and certain additional relief, including the establishment of a medical monitoring program to protect the purported class members from an alleged increased risk of contracting serious latent disease. On April 9, 2015, the court in the Federal action denied a motion to dismiss all claims against the Company for lack of personal jurisdiction. A separate motion to dismiss filed by AWWSC and WVAWC (and joined by the Company) asserting various legal defenses in the Federal action was resolved by the court on June 3, 2015. The court dismissed three causes of action but denied the motion to dismiss with respect to the remaining causes of actions and allowed the plaintiffs to continue to pursue the various claims for damages alleged in their amended consolidated complaint. On July 6, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification of a class defined to include persons who resided in dwellings served by WVAWC's Kanawha Valley Treatment Plant ("KVTP") on January 9, 2014, persons who owned businesses served by the KVTP on January 9, 2014, and hourly employees who worked for such businesses. The plaintiffs seek a class-wide determination of liability against the American Water defendants, among others, and of damages to the three groups of plaintiffs as a result of the "Do Not Use" order issued after the Freedom Industries spill. This motion remains pending. On July 22, 2015, the court directed the parties to the Federal action to attend mediation scheduled for September 30, 2015. It is expected that the plaintiffs in the 53 state court cases, which were removed to federal court and are presently subject to stayed motions to remand to state court, will also participate in this mediation. ASPEN FOODS: Recalls Breaded Chicken Products Due to Salmonella --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is alerting consumers that frozen, raw, stuffed and breaded chicken products produced by Aspen Foods, a division of Koch Poultry Company, a Chicago, Ill. establishment have been confirmed as having the same Salmonella Enteritidis outbreak strain which was part of a July 15, 2015 recall. Following the July 15th recall, FSIS has been conducting intensified sampling at this establishment to ensure that the hazard responsible for the initial contamination has been controlled by Aspen Foods. Results from FSIS sampling revealed twelve positive results that match the outbreak strain of Salmonella Enteritidis to Aspen Foods products. Three illnesses were epidemiologically linked to the original recall on July 15, 2015. FSIS continues to work with public health partners including the Minnesota Departments of Health and Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on this ongoing investigation. FSIS is concerned about all frozen, raw, stuffed and breaded chicken products produced by Aspen Foods between July 30, 2015 and September 17, 2015. The twelve positive samples collected during FSIS' intensified sampling efforts alerted FSIS to a systemic problem at the establishment. FSIS cannot have confidence in the safety of any products produced after July 30, 2015. In addition to issuing this Alert, FSIS has directed its personnel to detain products covered by this Alert that they find in commerce because the company has refused to recall the products. The frozen, raw, stuffed and breaded chicken items may include the following brands and be labeled as "chicken cordon bleu," "chicken Kiev" or "chicken broccoli and cheese" and bear the establishment number "P-1358" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These products were shipped to retail location and food service locations nationwide. --- Acclaim --- Antioch Farms --- Buckley Farms --- Centrella Signature --- Chestnut Farms --- Family Favorites --- Kirkwood --- Koch Foods --- Market Day --- Oven Cravers --- Rose --- Rosebud Farm --- Roundy's --- Safeway Kitchens --- Schwan's --- Shaner's --- Spartan --- Sysco These products were labeled with instructions identifying that the product was uncooked (raw) and included cooking instructions for preparation. As stated in the July 15, 2015 Recall Release, some case-patients reported following the cooking instructions on the label and using a food thermometer to confirm that the recommended temperature was achieved. Therefore, FSIS advises consumers not to eat these products. Special attention should be paid by the food service industry and food handlers. Using a food thermometer to properly cook these products will not protect the health of the consuming public. Consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can cause salmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial foodborne illnesses. The most common symptoms of salmonellosis are diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and fever within 12 to 72 hours after exposure to the organism. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days. Most people recover without treatment. In some persons, however, the diarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to be hospitalized. Older adults, infants, and persons with weakened immune systems are more likely to develop a severe illness. Individuals concerned about an illness should contact their health care provider. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. FSIS is concerned that some product may be in consumers' freezers. Although the products included in this Alert may appear to be cooked, this product is in fact uncooked (raw) and should be handled carefully to avoid cross-contamination in the kitchen. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Laborers Local 100 Files Class Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Laborers Local 100 and 397 Health and Welfare Fund and Laborers Local 100 and 397 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-07385 (S.D.N.Y., September 17, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' unlawful combinations, agreements and conspiracies to manipulate the market for U.S. Treasury bills, notes, bonds, and related debt instruments issued by the United States Treasury Department and financial products benchmarked to Treasury security rates. Bank of Nova Scotia is a New York-based branch of a Canadian financial services and banking company with its principal place of business at 250 Vesey Street, New York, New York 10080. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Vincent M. Serra, Esq. 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 vserra@rgrdlaw.com - and - Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. David W. Mitchell, Esq. Brian O. O'Mara, Esq. Randi D. Bandman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: patc@rgrdlaw.com davem@rgrdlaw.com bomara@rgrdlaw.com randib@rgrdlaw.com BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Jerusalem Bank Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Bank of Jerusalem, Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-07390 (S.D.N.Y., September 17, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' unlawful combinations, agreements and conspiracies to manipulate the market for U.S. Treasury bills, notes, bonds, and related debt instruments issued by the United States Treasury Department and financial products benchmarked to Treasury security rates. Bank of Nova Scotia is a New York-based branch of a Canadian financial services and banking company with its principal place of business at 250 Vesey Street, New York, New York 10080. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Justin S. Nematzadeh, 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 jnematzadeh@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1792 Bell Tower Lane, Suite 203 Weston, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 315-3454 Facsimile: (954) 315-3455 E-mail: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com BLK BRANDS: Falsely Marketed Alkaline Water Products, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Schott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLK. Brands LLC and BLK. Enterprises LLC, Case No. 32180876 (Fl. 11th Cir., September 17, 2015), arises out of the alleged unfair, deceptive, and unlawful business practices of the Defendants with respect to the marketing, advertising, labeling, and sales of Blk. Premium Alkaline Water. BLK. Brands LLC and BLK. Enterprises LLC are both privately held New York corporations, headquartered in New Jersey. The Defendants distribute, market, advertise, and sell distilled water in Florida and throughout the rest of the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jared H. Beck, Esq. Elizabeth Lee Beck BECK & LEE TRIAL LAWYERS Corporate Park at Kendall 12485 SW 137th Ave., Suite 205 Miami, FL 33186 Telephone: (305) 234-2060 Facsimile: (786) 664-3334 E-mail: jared@beckandlee.com elizabeth@beckandlee.com - and - Antonino G. Hernandez, Esq. ANTONINO G. HERNANDEZ P.A. 4 SE 1st Street, 2nd Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 282 3698 Facsimile: (786) 513 7748 E-mail: Hern8491@bellsouth.net - and - Cullin O'Brien, Esq. CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A. 6541 NE 21st Way Fort Lauderdale, FL 33108 Telephone: (561)676-6370 Facsimile: (561) 320-0285 E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com BOSCH SECURITY: Recalls Wireless Smoke Alarms Due to Fire Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Bosch Security Systems Inc., Fairport, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of about 950 Radion wireless smoke alarms. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The alarms can fail to alert consumers to a fire, posing a fire hazard. This recall involves Bosch's Radion wireless round smoke alarms installed as part of Bosch security systems. Bosch security alarm systems use a control keypad labeled "Bosch" on the front surface. The alarms are made of white plastic and measure 5.6 inches across and 2.4 inches high. The alarms have a Bosch label on the back with "RFSM-A," a bar code with "F01U263962" and a 17-digit serial number starting with 0922320XXX. The XXX in the 8th through 10th positions of the serial number designates the date code. Only alarms with date codes 001 through 458 are included in the recall. Bosch has received two reports that alarms failed to sound during installation testing. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/LzadFH The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Security system dealers nationwide from November 2013 through October 2014 for about $125. Consumers should immediately contact their dealer/installer for a free replacement alarm. Bosch has contacted dealers and installers directly. BP WEST COAST: Persian Gulf Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Chevron U.S.A. Inc. removed the class action lawsuit styled Persian Gulf Inc. v. BP West Coast Products LLC, et al., Case No. 37-2015-00022430-CU-A-CTL, from the Superior Court of the State of California, San Diego County (Central Division), to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01749- L-BGS to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that the putative class consists of "[a]11 persons or entities that purchased gasoline directly from a defendant during the Class Period (February 1, 2012 to present) and were damaged thereby." The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. David W. Mitchell, Esq. Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq. Carmen A. Medici, Esq. Jennifer N. Caringal, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 E-mail: patc@rgrdlaw.com davidm@rgrdlaw.com xanb@rgrdlaw.com cmedici@rgrdlaw.com jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com Defendant Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is represented by: Daniel G. Swanson, Esq. Steven E. Sletten, Esq. William E. Thomson, Esq. David Han, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 E-mail: dswanson@gibsondunn.com ssletten@gibsondunn.com wthomson@gibsondunn.com dhan@gibsondunn.com Defendant Alon USA Energy, Inc. is represented by: Ronald F. Wick, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR The Army and Navy Building 1627 I Street, N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 912-4874 E-mail: rwick@cozen.com - and - Erik Jackson, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 601 S. Figueroa St., Suite 3700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 892-7961 E-mail: ejackson@cozen.com Defendant BP West Coast Products LLC is represented by: Mark Holstein, Esq. BP LEGAL 501 Westlake Park Blvd. Houston, TX 77079 Telephone: (281) 366-8895 E-mail: Mark.Holstein@bp.com Defendant ConocoPhillips is represented by: Peter H. Mason, Esq. Josh D. Lichtman, Esq. John C. Gray, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 555 South Flower Street, 41st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 892-9200 E-mail: peter.mason@nortonrosefulbright.com joshua.lichtman@nortonrosefulbright.com john.gray@nortonrosefulbright.com - and - Layne E. Kruse, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1301 McKinney, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77010-3095 Telephone: (713) 651-5194 E-mail: layne.kruse@nortonrosefulbright.com Defendant Equilon Enterprises LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products US is represented by: Kent M. Roger, Esq. Colin C. West, Esq. Susan J. Welch, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 E-mail: kroger@morganlewis.com colin.west@morganlewis.com susan.welch@morganlewis.com Defendant ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company is represented by: Charles C. Lifland, Esq. Dawn Sestito, Esq. Laura C. Abrahamson, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-6000 E-mail: clifland@omm.com dsestito@omm.com labrahamson@omm.com - and - M. Randall Oppenheimer, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-6700 E-mail: roppenheimer@omm.com - and - M. Randall Oppenheimer, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 728-5674 E-mail: roppenheimer@omm.com - and - Frederick W. Kosmo, Jr., Esq. Robin A. Wofford, Esq. WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1050 San Diego, CA 92101-3532 Telephone: (619) 236-9600 E-mail: fkosmo@wilsonturnerkosmo.com rwofford@wilsonturnerkosmo.com Defendant Kern Oil & Refining Co. is represented by: William J. Brown, Esq. Mathew K. Wegner, Esq. BROWN WEGNER MCNAMARA LLP 2603 Main Street, Suite 1050 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 705-0080 E-mail: bill@bwmllp.com mwegner@bwmllp.com Defendant Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC is represented by: Robert A. Mittelstaedt, Esq. David C. Kiernan, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th FL San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 875-5710 Telephone: (415) 875-5745 E-mail: ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com dkiernan@jonesday.com Defendant Valero Energy Corporation is represented by: Robert C. Phelps, Esq. Adam Friedenberg, Esq. GLYNN & FINLEY, LLP One Walnut Creek Center 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 210-2800 E-mail: bphelps@glynnfinley.com afriedenberg@glynnfinley.com BRADSHAW IN'L: Recalls Roasting Pans Due to Laceration Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Bradshaw International Inc., of Rancho Cucamonga, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 146,000 Roasting pan. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The roaster rim is incorrectly finished and can have sharp edges, posing a laceration hazard. This recall involves Good Cook Jumbo Roaster roasting pans. The recalled pans are oval and gray have the dimensions 21 inches by 15 inches on the outside and 17 inches by 13 1/2 inches on the inside. Each pan is stamped from a single piece of metal to form built-in handles. Each handle has a series of indentations and the interior of the pan has ridges in the bottom. The roasters were sold individually in packages labeled "Jumbo Roaster." Bradshaw International Inc. and Universal Product Code (UPC) number 0- 76753-04315-1 or 0-41220-32403-3 were on the back of the package. Bradshaw International has received three reports of roasters with sharp edges causing cuts on the users' fingers. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/5rxaBa The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Grocery stores nationwide from August 2014 through October 2014 for between $6 and $10. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled roasting pans and contact Bradshaw International for a free replacement pan. BUMBLE BEE: Faces A-1 Diner Suit Over PSP-Price Manipulation ------------------------------------------------------------ A-1 Diner, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, TriUnion Seafoods LLC, and Starkist Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-02068-L-JLB (S.D. Cal, September 17, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices for packaged seafood products ("PSPs") within the United States. The Defendants are the largest producers of packaged seafood products in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1675 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 226-1015 Facsimile: (202) 789-1819 E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com - and - Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. Joel Davidow, Esq. Daniel M. Cohen, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 507 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 589-1813 E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com joel@cuneolaw.com danielc@cuneolaw.com - and - Taylor Asen, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 16 Court Street, Suite 1012 Brooklyn, NY 11241 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 589-1813 E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com - and - Robert Edmond Mittel, Esq. MITTELASEN, LLC PO Box 427 Portland, ME 04112 Telephone: (207) 775-3101 Facsimile: (207) 871-0683 E-mail: rmittel@mittelasen.com BUMBLE BEE: Faces Central Suit Over PSP-Price Manipulation ---------------------------------------------------------- Central Grocers, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, f/k/a Bumble Bee Seafoods, LLC, Triunion Seafoods, LLC, d/b/a Chicken of the Sea International, Starkist Company, and King Oscar, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-04241 (N.D. Cal., September 17, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to raise, fix, stabilize, or maintain prices, allocate customers, and restrict capacity in the market for shelf-stable packaged seafood, including tuna, clam, crab, mackerel, oyster, salmon, sardines, and shrimp sold in the United States. The Defendants are the largest producers of packaged seafood products in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Solomon B. Cera, Esq. Thomas C. Bright, Esq. Louis A. Kessler, Esq. CERA LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-2230 Facsimile: (415) 777-5189 E-mail: scera@cerallp.com tbright@cerallp.com lakessler@cerallp.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Andrew M. Purdy, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC. 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com apurdy@saverilawfirm.com mweiler@saverilawfirm.com BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Fragoso" Suit Over PSP-Price Manipulation ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Fragoso, Jason Wilson, Samuel Seidenberg, Janelle Albarello, and Michael Coffey, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, Triunion Seafoods, LLC, and Starkist Co., Case No. 3:15-cv-02072-DMS-WVG (S.D. Cal., September 17, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices for packaged seafood products ("PSPs") within the United States. The Defendants are the largest producers of packaged seafood products in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq. Paula M. Roach, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com proach@bholaw.com - and - Peter Safirstein, Esq. Roger Sachar, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.C. 28 W. 44th Street, Suite 2001 New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 564-1637 Facsimile: (212) 564-1807 E-mail: PSafirstein@MorganSecuritiesLaw.com RSachar@MorganSecuritiesLaw.com BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Kennedy" Suit Over PSP-Price Manipulation ------------------------------------------------------------ Dwayne Kennedy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Starkist Company, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, and King Oscar, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02073-AJB-JMA (S.D. Cal., September 17, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices for packaged seafood products ("PSPs") within the United States. The Defendants are the largest producers of packaged seafood products in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk B. Hulett, Esq. Dennis Stewart, Esq. HULETT HARPER STEWART LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1133 Facsimile: (619) 338-1139 E-mail: khulett@hulettharper.com dstewart@hulettharper.com - and - Marvin A. Miller, Esq. Andrew Szot, Esq. Matthew E. Van Tine, Esq. MILLER LAW LLC 115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 332-3400 Facsimile: (312) 676-2676 E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com aszot@millerlawllc.com mvantine@millerlawllc.com - and - Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com C&J JAMES: "Ramirez" Suit Alleges False Advertisement ----------------------------------------------------- Daniel Ramirez, and all others similarly situated v. C&J James Automotive Group, Inc. dba Toyota of Whittier and adba Scion of Whittier and Does 1 through 500, Case No. BC594353 (Cal. Super., September 10, 2015), seeks injunctive and declaratory relief for Defendants' alleged violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq., Unlawful Acts or Practices and section 17500, et seq., Untrue, False and/or Misleading Advertisement. C&J James Automotive Group, Inc. is engaged in the business of buying, repairing and re-selling used vehicles to the general public and taking vehicles in trade. Its principal place of business is in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Liberty, Esq. LIBERTY, OTTO & GUILLEN 553 Pilgrim Drive, Suite A-1 Foster City, CA 94404 Tel: (650) 341-0300 Fax: (650) 341-0302 CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Defending Against Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Castlight Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on April 2, April 16, April 29, and May 4, 2015, purported securities class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of its current and former directors, executive officers, significant stockholders and underwriters associated with its initial public offering. The Company said, "The lawsuits, which were consolidated on July 22, 2015, were brought by purported stockholders of our company seeking to represent a class consisting of all those who purchased our stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with our IPO. The lawsuits assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seek unspecified damages and other relief. We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously." CLEGGPROMO: Recalls Power Banks Due to Fire Hazard -------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with CleggPromo, announced a voluntary recall of about 1,500 Power bank. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The power bank can overheat, explode and catch fire. This recall involves CleggPromo CPB-100 power banks, catalog item number 625401, which are used to provide emergency charging for portable electronic equipment. The recalled power banks are rectangular in shape with rounded corners and are about 3 1/2 inches long by 1 3/4 inches wide by 3/4 inches deep. The power banks are cream colored and have a silver panel on the top side with a white power button, four circles and the word "POWERBANK." The left end of the power bank has a standard USB port with the word "Out" above it and a power indicator LED light. The front side has a micro USB port with the word "In" below it. Input, output and capacity information are also on the front side. There is one reported incident of the power bank overheating, exploding and catching fire, resulting in fire damage. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/n6Z5He The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at the recalled power banks were not sold at retail but were promotional items given as handouts at corporate events, meetings, trade shows and conventions from January 2014 to April 2015. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled power bank and contact CleggPromo to receive a free set of executive pens as a replacement product. CleggPromo will send consumers a prepaid shipping box and instructions on how to return the power bank free of charge. COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties -------------------------------------------------------------- John Wilhelm, and all others similarly-situated v. Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., John F. Brock, Jan Bennick, Calvin Darden, L. Phillip Humann, Orrin H. Ingram II, Thomas H. Johnson, Suzanne B. Labarge, Veronique Morali, Andrea L. Saia, Gary Watts, Curtis R. Welling, Phoebe A. Wood, Orange U.S. Holdco, LLC, Orange MergeCo, LLC, and The Coca-Cola Company, Case No. 11492 (Del. Ch., September 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for alleged breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed buyout of Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. ("CCE") by Coca-Cola Iberian Partners SA and Coca-Cola Erfrischungsgetranke AG, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Coca-Cola Company, which will, under the terms of the definitive merger agreement, form a new company, Coca-Cola European Partners Plc., as announced on August 6, 2015 ("Proposed Transaction"). The stockholder class action seeks equitable relief compelling the Board to properly exercise its fiduciary duties to the Company's public stockholders, to conduct a thorough, proper, and unbiased sales process, and to enjoin the close of the Proposed Transaction until the Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties and related misconduct are addressed. CCE is a Delaware corporation with its principal office at 2500 Windy Ridge Parkway, Atlanta GA 30339. The Company's common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol CCE. The Individual Defendants are officers and/or directors of CCE. The Coca-Cola Company ("KO") is a Delaware corporation with its principal office at One Coca-Cola Plaza, Atlanta GA 30313, United States of America. Its common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol KO. Orange U.S. Holdco, LLC is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of Delaware. Orange MergeCo, LLC is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of Delaware. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carmella P. Keener, Esq. ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A. 919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401 Citizens Bank Center P.O. Box 1070 Wilmington, DE 19899-1070 Tel: (302) 656-4433 E-mail: ckeener@rmgglaw.com - and - Kent A. Bronson, Esq. MILBERG LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Tel: (212) 594-5300 DELTA AIR: "Lopez" Class Suit Moved to Central Dist. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Reynaldo Lopez, Eunice Delgadillo, Umberto Mendoza, and Aveia Tautolo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC586813, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv- 07302-SVW-SS to the proceeding. The Complaint alleges eleven causes of action: failure to provide required meal periods; failure to provide required rest periods; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to timely pay wages; failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees; failure to maintain required records; failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of duties; unfair and unlawful business practices; and penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. The Defendant is represented by: Robert Jon Hendricks, Esq. Andrew P. Frederick, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 E-mail: rhendricks@morganlewis.com afrederick@morganlewis.com - and - Hien Nguyen, Esq. Kathy Gao, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-2500 Facsimile: (2130 612-2501 E-mail: hnguyen@morganlewis.com kgao@morganlewis.com DI STEFANO: Recalls Boneless Ham Products Due to Noncompliance -------------------------------------------------------------- Di Stefano Cheese Co., a Pomona, Calif., establishment, is recalling approximately 1,280 pounds of Parma Boneless Ham produced in Italy that were not presented at the U.S. point of entry for inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. Without the benefit of full inspection, a possibility of adverse health consequences exists. The following products are subject to recall: --- 15 lb. cases of "Ruliano Collezione Regale" Parma boneless ham with case code 14260 --- 15 lb. cases of "Ruliano 24" Parma boneless ham with a sell by date of 08-02-2016 These products were sent to distributors in the California. The problem was discovered by routine record verification in the Public Health Information System (PHIS). FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Sasia Mellinger, Human Resources Manager, at (909) 865-8301. Media with questions about the recall can contact Stefano Bruno, Vice President, at (909) 865-8301. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/SGISbr DOC ABLE'S: Faces "Esquivel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus Esquivel, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Doc Able's Auto Clinic, Inc., and Steve Georgoulio, Case No. 1:15-cv-08141 (N.D. Ill., September 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate an auto repair business located at 936 Chicago Ave., Evanston, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 800-1017 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Still Defending v. C.D. Cal. Investors Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company intends to vigorously defend against shareholder class action lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws. In August 2014, two putative shareholder class action lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws were filed against the Company and several of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. These lawsuits have been consolidated and generally assert that, between October 29, 2013 and July 29, 2014, the Company and certain of its officers and directors made alleged material misstatements and omissions regarding the financial performance of Turbo. The consolidated lawsuit seeks to recover damages on behalf of shareholders as well as other equitable and unspecified monetary relief. On April 1, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action lawsuit and the case was dismissed with prejudice on May 19, 2015. On June 18, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this consolidated lawsuit. At this time the Company is unable to reasonably predict the ultimate outcome of this consolidated lawsuit, nor can it reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Still Defending v. N.D. Cal. Antitrust Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company intends to vigorously defend against an antitrust class action. In September and October 2014, three putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws were filed against the Company and various other companies in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. These lawsuits have been consolidated and generally assert that the defendants agreed to restrict competition through non-solicitation agreements and agreements to fix wage and salary ranges. The lawsuits seek to recover damages on behalf of all persons who worked for the defendants at any time from 2004 to the present. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. At this time the Company is unable to reasonably predict the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits, nor can it reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. ENDOCYTE INC: Discovery Stayed Pending Motion to Dismiss -------------------------------------------------------- Endocyte, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that discovery in a class action lawsuit is stayed pursuant to provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") pending resolution of a motion to dismiss. On June 24, 2014, a complaint in a securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and one of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under the following caption: Tony Nguyen, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Endocyte, Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Nguyen Litigation"). On July 13, 2014, a nearly identical complaint in a securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and one of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under the following caption: Vivian Oh Revocable Trust, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Endocyte, Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Oh Litigation"). On September 22, 2014, the court named a lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and consolidated the Nguyen Litigation and the Oh Litigation under the following caption: Gopichand Vallabhaneni v. Endocyte, Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Vallabhaneni Litigation"). On November 17, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended securities class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint") against the Company, P. Ron Ellis, Beth Taylor, Michael A. Sherman, John C. Aplin, Philip S. Low, Keith A. Brauer, Ann F. Hanham, Marc Kozin, Peter D. Meldrum, Fred A. Middleton, Lesley Russell (the "Individual Defendants" and collectively with the Company, the "Endocyte Defendants"), and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (the "Underwriter Defendants"). Lead Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the Endocyte Defendants made false and misleading statements relating to the efficacy of vintafolide and violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The putative class related to these allegations consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between March 21, 2014 and May 2, 2014. Lead Plaintiff also alleged in the Amended Complaint that the Endocyte Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), by, among other things, making or allowing the Company to make false and misleading statements regarding positive opinions about vintafolide issued by the European Medicines Agency's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use in the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on March 25, 2014, preliminary prospectus filed on March 26, 2014, and final prospectus filed on March 28, 2014. The putative class related to these allegations consists of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities pursuant to or traceable to the Company's April 2, 2014 public offering. Lead Plaintiff seeks the designation of the Vallabhaneni Litigation as a class action, an award of unspecified damages, interest, costs, expert fees and attorneys' fees, and equitable/injunctive relief or other relief as the court may deem just and proper. Pursuant to a December 9, 2014 order, all Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 6, 2015. Lead Plaintiff filed a motion in opposition on April 6, 2015 to which Defendants replied on April 20, 2015. Discovery in this matter is stayed pursuant to provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") pending resolution of that motion to dismiss. The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and has defended, and intends to continue to defend, itself vigorously against the allegations made in the Amended Complaint. ENDOCYTE INC: Continues to Defend Hage Litigation ------------------------------------------------- Endocyte, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has defended, and intends to continue to defend, itself vigorously against the allegations made in the Hage litigation. On November 6, 2014, a complaint was filed against the Company, two of its executive officers, Merck and one of Merck's officers in the Superior Court of Tippecanoe County, Indiana under the following caption: Mohamad Hage and Jamele Hage v. Endocyte, Inc., P. Ron Ellis, Mike A. Sherman, Eric Rubin and Merck & Co., Inc. (the "Hage Litigation"). The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants: made false and misleading statements about the efficacy of vintafolide and the likelihood that it would be approved for sale; employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud; made untrue statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made about the Company and its business operations not misleading; and breached fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs. The complaint alleged that as a result of the alleged fraudulent misrepresentations, non-disclosures and schemes of the defendants, plaintiffs have suffered pecuniary losses. The plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified actual, compensatory, consequential, incidental and punitive damages, reasonable costs, expert fees and attorneys' fees, and such equitable/injunctive or other relief as the court may deem just and proper. The Company believes that it may have an obligation to indemnify Merck and its named officer in connection with the Hage Litigation, depending on certain factors. On January 9, 2015, the defendants filed a Motion to Stay the Proceeding or in the Alternative to Stay Discovery (the "Motion to Stay"). A hearing on the Motion to Stay was held on February 19, 2015. On March 20, 2015, the court ruled to stay the case pending final resolution of the Vallabhaneni case. The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory appeal to which the Company opposed. On May 22, 2015, the court denied the interlocutory appeal motion. The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and has defended, and intends to continue to defend, itself vigorously against the allegations made in the complaint. ETHICON INC: Falsely Marketed Morcellator Products, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Ghidella, et al. v. Ethicon, Inc., et al., Case No. L- 3518-15 (D.N.J., September 16, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendants' and their corporate predecessors' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and sale of Gynecare Laparoscopic Power Morcellators. Ethicon, Inc.is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, supplying, marketing, designing, and distributing minimally invasive gynecological surgical products, with a principal place of business at 737 U.S. Highway 22, Bridgewater, New Jersey 08807. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Capotorto, Esq. LEYDEN, CAPOTORTO, RITACCO & CORRIGAN, P.C. 250 Washington Street, Suite D Toms River, NJ 08753 Telephone: (732) 573-6096 Facsimile: (732) 349-6917 - and - Sean Patrick Tracey, Esq. Rebecca B. King, Esq. Andrew Rubenstein, Esq. TRACEY & FOX 440 Louisiana, Suite 1901 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 495-2333 Facsimile: (866) 709-2333 EVERCORE PARTNERS: ETC Indemnified by J.C. Penney in Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Evercore Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Evercore Trust Company, N.A. ("ETC") is indemnified by J.C. Penney in a class action lawsuit. In January 2015, Donna Marie Coburn filed a proposed class action complaint against Evercore Trust Company, N.A. ("ETC") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in which she purports to represent a class of participants in the J.C. Penney Corporation Inc. Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan (the "Plan") whose participant accounts held J.C. Penney stock at any time between May 15, 2012 and the present. The complaint alleges that ETC breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by causing the Plan to invest in J.C. Penney stock during that period and claims the Plan suffered losses of approximately $300 million due to declines in J.C. Penney stock. The plaintiff seeks the recovery of alleged Plan losses, attorneys' fees, other costs, and other injunctive and equitable relief. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against these claims and intends to vigorously defend against them. ETC is indemnified by J.C. Penney, and ultimately the Plan, for reasonable attorneys' fees and other legal expenses, which would be refunded should ETC not prevail. FILM STAGE: Accused of Violating TCPA and Ill. Consumer Fraud Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Davies d/b/a Davies Home Services, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Film, Stage & Showbiz Expo LLC, Zach Lezberg, and John Does 1-12, Case No. 1:15-cv-08161 (N.D. Ill., September 17, 2015) seeks to put an end on the Defendants' practice of faxing unsolicited advertisements. The case involves common fact questions about the Defendants' alleged fax campaign and common legal questions under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Film, Stage & Showbiz Expo LLC is a New York limited liability company with its principal place of business located in New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. James M. Smith, Esq. BOCK & HATCH, LLC 134 N. La Salle St,, Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312-658-5500 E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com robert@bockhatchllc.com FIRST SECURITY: Hearing Held on Motions to Dismiss -------------------------------------------------- First Security Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a hearing had been held on the motions to dismiss two putative shareholder class action lawsuits. Two putative shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed in connection with the merger. Knutson v. First Security Group, Inc. et al., filed April 15, 2015 in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County, Tennessee, names First Security, the members of its board of directors, and Atlantic Capital as defendants. Meade v. Kramer, et al., filed April 24, 2015 in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County, Tennessee, names First Security, the members of its board of directors, FSGBank, N.A., Atlantic Capital and Atlantic Capital Bank as defendants. Each of these complaints alleges, among other things, that the First Security directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the negotiation and approval of the merger agreement and that the other named defendants aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Among other relief, the plaintiffs seek injunctive relief preventing parties from consummating the merger, rescission of the transactions completed by the merger agreement, an award of attorney's fees and expenses for plaintiffs and other forms of relief. On June 1, 2015, the Chancery Court entered an order consolidating these two suits under the caption In re First Security Group, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 15-0212. On June 25, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated class action complaint in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County, Chattanooga. The amended complaint repeats many of the same allegations of the original complaints but also makes additional allegations with respect to disclosures contained in the joint proxy statement/prospectus. First Security believes that these lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. First Security has not accrued a liability for these claims. On July 24, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. A hearing on the motions to dismiss had been scheduled for August 31, 2015. FIRST SOLAR: Expert Discovery Scheduled to Commence in Smilovits ---------------------------------------------------------------- First Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that expert discovery is scheduled to commence after the motions for summary judgment have been resolved in the case, Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc. On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555- DGC, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (hereafter "Arizona District Court") against the Company and certain of our current and former directors and officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012 (the "Class Action"). The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial performance and prospects. The action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees to the putative class. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and will vigorously defend this action. On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order appointing as lead plaintiffs in the Class Action the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme (collectively, "Pension Schemes"). The Pension Schemes filed an amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012. On December 17, 2012, the court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss. On October 8, 2013, the Arizona District Court granted the Pension Schemes' motion for class certification, and certified a class comprised of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of the Company between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012 and were damaged thereby, excluding defendants and certain related parties. Merits discovery closed on February 27, 2015. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 27, 2015, and plaintiffs filed a cross motion for partial summary judgment on the same day. Briefing on the motions for summary judgment concluded on May 27, 2015. Oral argument on the motions for summary judgment occurred on July 22, 2015. Expert discovery is scheduled to commence after the motions for summary judgment have been resolved. Given the pending motions for summary judgment, possible expert discovery, and the uncertainties of trial, we are not in a position to assess whether any loss or adverse effect on our financial condition is probable or remote or to estimate the range of potential loss, if any. FIRST SOLAR: Faces Maverick Fund Complaint ------------------------------------------ First Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a suit titled Maverick Fund, L.D.C. v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01156- ROS, was filed on June 23, 2015, in Arizona District Court by putative stockholders that opted out of the Class Action. The complaint names the Company and certain of our current and former directors and officers as defendants, and alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and violated state law, by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial performance and prospects. The action includes claims for recessionary and actual damages, interest, punitive damages, and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and costs. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and will vigorously defend this action. The complaint has not yet been served, and the defendants have not responded to the complaint. "Accordingly, we are not in a position to assess whether any loss or adverse effect on our financial condition is probable or remote or to estimate the range of potential loss, if any," the Company said. FUEL SYSTEMS: Faces Suit Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties ---------------------------------------------------------- Pamela Peck, and all others similarly-situated v. Fuel Systems Solutions, Inc., Mariano Costamagna, James W. Nall, Marco Di Toro, Joseph E. Pompeo, Troy A. Clarke, Anthony Harris, Colin S. Johnston, Steven R. Becker, Westport Innovations Inc., and Whitehorse Merger Sub Inc., Case No. 11495 (Del. Ch., September 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties arising out of their attempt to merge Fuel Systems Solutions, Inc. with Westport Innovations Inc. for inadequate consideration. Fuel Systems is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. It maintains its principal executive offices at 780 Third Avenue, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10017. Fuel Systems designs, manufactures, and supplies alternative fuel components and systems for transportation, industrial, and refueling applications worldwide. The Company was founded in 1958, and is listed on the Nasdaq Global Select under the symbol "FSYS." Mariano Costamagna has served as a director of Fuel Systems since June 2003, and on January 1, 2005, he became the Company's CEO. Marco Di Toro has served as a director of the Company since April 1, 2005. James W. Nall has served as a director of Fuel Systems since May 2008, and has been the Chairman of the Board since October 29, 2014. Bill Hunter has served as a director of the Company since December 2009. Michael G. Kauffman has served as a director of the Company since June 2006. W. James O'Shea has served as a director of the Company since June 2007. Westport is a British Columbia corporation with its headquarters located at 1750 West 75th Avenue, Suite 101, Vancouver, British Columbia V6P 6C2. Westport provides low-emission engine and fuel system technologies utilizing gaseous fuels. The Company is listed on NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker symbol "WPRT." Whitehorse Merger Sub Inc. is a Delaware corporation, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Westport, and a party to the Merger Agreement. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-5310 - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th St. N.W., Suite 115 Washington, D.C. 20007 Tel: (202) 524-4290 FUJITSU AMERICA: Recalls Notebook Computer Battery Packs -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Fujitsu America Inc., of Sunnyvale, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 300 Fujitsu notebook computer battery packs (in addition, about 5 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The battery packs can overheat, posing a fire hazard. This recall involves Fujitsu lithium ion battery packs sold or provided as replacement battery packs for the following Fujitsu notebook computers: Celsius H720 and LIFEBOOK E752, P701, P702, P770, P771, P772, S752, S762 and T580. The battery packs were also sold separately. The black battery packs measure about 8 inches long, 2 inches wide and about 0.8 inches high. Model number CP556150-1 including all serial numbers, and model number CP556150-2 with serial number range Z120102 through Z120512 are included in this recall. The model and serial numbers are printed on the white battery label. The notebook computer's model number is printed on a label on the bottom of the notebook. Fujitsu has received three reports of the battery packs catching fire, including two in Japan and one in China and causing fire damage to rugs, bedding, a desk and other furniture. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/pnJ0aY The recalled products were manufactured in Japan and sold Online at www.shopfujitsu.com and other Web retailers from August 2012 through July 2015 for about $150. Consumers should immediately turn off their Fujitsu notebook computer, remove the battery pack and contact Fujitsu for a free replacement battery pack. Consumers can continue to use their Fujitsu notebook computer without the battery pack by plugging in the AC adapter and power cord. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: To Defend Against Securities Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit, In re Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation. In August 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief executive officer and its current chief financial officer were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Manuel Esguerra v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff alleged securities law violations involving certain disclosures in 2013 and 2014 concerning Genworth's long-term care insurance reserves. The lawsuit sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. In October 2014, a putative class action lawsuit captioned City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This lawsuit names the same defendants, alleges the same securities law violations, seeks the same damages and covers the same class as the Esguerra lawsuit. Following the filing of the City of Pontiac lawsuit, the Esguerra lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice allowing the City of Pontiac lawsuit to proceed. In the City of Pontiac lawsuit, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia appointed Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta and Fresno County Employees' Retirement Association as lead plaintiffs and designated the caption of the action as In re Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation. On December 22, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. "On February 5, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. On March 9, 2015, plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law in opposition to our motion to dismiss. On March 24, 2015, we filed our reply memorandum of law in further support of our motion to dismiss. The Court heard argument on our motion to dismiss the complaint on April 28, 2015. On May 1, 2015, the court denied the motion to dismiss. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit," the Company said. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Defending Against City of Hialeah Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit filed by the City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System. In April 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its former chief executive officer and its current chief financial officer were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff alleges securities law violations involving certain disclosures in 2012 concerning Genworth's Australian mortgage insurance business, including our plans for an initial public offering of the business. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, costs and attorneys' fees and such equitable/injunctive relief as the court may deem proper. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York appointed City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System and New Bedford Contributory Retirement System as lead plaintiffs and designated the caption of the action as In re Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation. On October 3, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On December 2, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint, which motion was fully briefed as of March 4, 2015. On March 25, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the motion but entered an order dismissing the amended complaint with leave to replead. On April 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and on June 16, 2015, the court denied the motion to dismiss. We intend to vigorously defend this action. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Class Actions Against Subsidiary Settled ------------------------------------------------------------ Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company's U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiary and all named plaintiffs in the class action lawsuits have entered into a settlement agreement that has resulted in the dismissal of all actions as to the subsidiary. The Company said, "Beginning in December 2011 and continuing through January 2013, one of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries was named along with several other mortgage insurance participants and mortgage lenders as a defendant in twelve putative class action lawsuits alleging that certain "captive reinsurance arrangements" were in violation of RESPA. Those cases are captioned as follows: Samp, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., United States District Court for the Central District of California; White, et al., v. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Menichino, et al. v. Citibank NA, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; McCarn, et al. v. HSBC USA, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; Manners, et al., v. Fifth Third Bank, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Riddle, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Rulison et al. v. ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. et al., United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; Barlee, et al. v. First Horizon National Corporation, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Cunningham, et al. v. M&T Bank Corp., et al., United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; Orange, et al. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., et al., United States District Court for the Central District of California; Hill et al. v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and Moriba Ba, et al. v. HSBC USA, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania." "Plaintiffs allege that "captive reinsurance arrangements" with providers of private mortgage insurance whereby a mortgage lender through captive reinsurance arrangements received a portion of the borrowers' private mortgage insurance premiums were in violation of RESPA and unjustly enriched the defendants for which plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and unspecified monetary damages, including restitution. The McCarn case was dismissed by the court with prejudice as to our subsidiary and certain other defendants on November 9, 2012. "On July 3, 2012, the Rulison case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. The Barlee case was dismissed by the court with prejudice as to our subsidiary and certain other defendants on February 27, 2013. "The Manners case was dismissed by voluntary stipulation in March 2013. In early May 2013, the Samp and Orange cases were dismissed with prejudice as to our subsidiary. Plaintiffs appealed both of those dismissals, but have since withdrawn those appeals. The White case was dismissed by the court without prejudice on June 20, 2013, and on July 5, 2013 plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint again naming our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiary as a defendant. The Menichino case was dismissed by the court without prejudice as to our subsidiary and certain other defendants on July 19, 2013. "Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint again naming our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiary as a defendant and we moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. In the Riddle, Hill, Ba and Cunningham cases, the defendants' motions to dismiss were denied, but the court in the Riddle, Hill and Cunningham cases limited discovery to issues surrounding whether the case should be dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. "In the Hill case, on December 17, 2013, we moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The court granted our motion, and in July 2014, the Hill plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In the Riddle case, in late November 2013, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted our motion for summary judgment dismissing the case. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. "In October 2014, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the Riddle action. On January 30, 2015, our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiary and all named plaintiffs in the cases still pending as of such date entered into a settlement agreement that has resulted in the dismissal of all actions as to our subsidiary. This settlement had no impact on our financial position or results of operations." GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Court Dismissed Claims in Goodman and Brown --------------------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York has entered a final order dismissing with prejudice all claims against the defendants in the case, Michael J. Goodman and Linda Brown v. Genworth Financial Wealth Management, Inc. et al. The Company said, "In December 2009, one of our former non- insurance subsidiaries, one of the former subsidiary's officers and Genworth Financial, Inc. (now known as Genworth Holdings, Inc.) were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Michael J. Goodman and Linda Brown v. Genworth Financial Wealth Management, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege securities law and other violations involving the selection of mutual funds by our former subsidiary on behalf of certain of its Private Client Group clients. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. "In response to our motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, the court granted the motion to dismiss the state law fiduciary duty claim and denied the motion to dismiss the remaining federal claims. The District Court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify a class on April 15, 2014. "On April 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to appeal the District Court's denial of their motion to certify a class, which we opposed. On July 9, 2014, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' motion. "Pursuant to a joint stipulation of the parties, on March 20, 2015, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered a final order dismissing with prejudice all claims against the defendants." GT LANDSCAPING: Faces "Garibay" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Pablo Garibay, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. G.T. Landscaping, LLC, and Gilberto Toledo, Case No. 1:15-cv-08162 (N.D. Ill., September 17, 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 landscaping, maintenance, and snowplowing services. The Plaintiff is represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd. Suite 840 Chicago, IL, 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 - and - Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq. FARMWORKER & LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 784-3541 E-mail: asossa@flapillinois.org GRAMERCY PROPERTY: 2 Class Actions Filed on Proposed Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- Gramercy Property Trust Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that two putative class action lawsuits challenging the proposed Merger between Gramercy and Chambers Street, or the Merger, have been filed in New York Supreme Court, New York County. The actions are captioned Berliner v. Gramercy Property Trust, et al., Index No. 652424/2015 (filed July 9, 2015) and Gensler v. Baum, et al., Index No. 157432/2015 (filed July 22, 2015). A third putative class action has been filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, captioned Jobin v. DuGan, et al., Case No. 24-C-15-003942 (filed July 27, 2015). The complaints allege, among other things, that the directors of Gramercy breached their fiduciary duties to Gramercy shareholders by agreeing to sell Gramercy for inadequate consideration and agreeing to improper deal protection terms in the Merger Agreement. In addition, the lawsuits allege that Chambers Street and certain of its affiliates aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The Jobin complaint also names Gramercy as a nominal defendant and asserts a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the directors of Gramercy. The lawsuits seek, among other things, an injunction barring the Merger, rescission of the Merger to the extent it is already implemented, declaratory relief, and an award of damages. The defendants believe the lawsuits are without merit. GULF INTERSTATE: Faces "Sloane" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Sloane, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Gulf Interstate Field Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15- cv-01208-NBF (W.D. Penn., September 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Gulf Interstate Field Services, Inc. provides a broad range of services to the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: scarson@bm.net sschalman-bergen@bm.net apiazza@bm.net - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. James A. Jones, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com jjones@brucknerburch.com HERBALIFE LTD: Reconsideration of Final Settlement Order Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- Herbalife Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that objectors have filed a motion for reconsideration of the final judgment approving the settlement in the case, Bostick, et al., v. Herbalife Int'l of Am., Inc., et al. On April 8, 2013, Herbalife Ltd. and certain of its subsidiaries were named as defendants in a suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, challenging Herbalife's marketing practices and business structure under California laws prohibiting "endless chain schemes," unfair and deceptive business practices, and false advertising, as well as federal RICO statutes. On July 7, 2014, the complaint was amended to add additional plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought damages in an unspecified amount. The federal RICO claim was dismissed. While the Company continues to believe the suit was without merit, and without in any way admitting liability or wrongdoing, the Company and the plaintiffs reached a settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company would (i) pay $15 million into a fund to be distributed to qualified claimants and (ii) accept up to a maximum amount of $2.5 million in product returns from qualified claimants. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on December 2, 2014 and conditionally certified a class. The court granted final approval of the settlement on May 14, 2015 and the final judgment was entered June 19, 2015. As of June 30, 2015 these amounts were adequately reserved for in the Company's financial statements. The settlement class consists of approximately 1.5 million persons who were Members in the United States during the period from April 1, 2009 through and including December 2, 2014. The settlement amounts were more than sufficient to cover the claims. The objectors have filed a motion for reconsideration of the final judgment approving the settlement, which motion was scheduled to be heard on August 24, 2015. The Company intended to oppose the motion. The Company has transferred $15 million to an escrow account which was included in prepaid expenses and other current assets within its condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2015. HERBALIFE LTD: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation -------------------------------------------------------- Herbalife Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company continues to vigorously defend the purported class action suit, In re Herbalife, Ltd. Securities Litigation (formerly captioned Awad v. Herbalife Ltd., et al.). On April 14, 2014, Herbalife Ltd. and certain of its officers were named as defendants in a purported stockholder class action, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleged that the Company and certain officers made material misstatements concerning the Company's finances and business practices, and contended that the Company is operating a pyramid scheme. The initial complaint sought to represent a class of investors that had purchased shares of the Company's common stock between May 4, 2010 and April 11, 2014. On July 30, 2014, the Court approved the appointment of different shareholders as lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of counsel. On September 18, 2014, these lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws against the Company, and certain of its officers. The Amended Complaint brings claims for unspecified damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, alleges that the defendants made material misstatements that "fundamentally misrepresented the nature, scope and legality of the Company's business and operations to consumers and investors alike," and further alleges that the Company is one of "the most sophisticated pyramid schemes in history." The lead plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons or entities that purchased shares of the Company's common stock between February 23, 2011 and July 29, 2014. On March 16, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss all claims in the Amended Complaint with leave to file an amended complaint and dismissed one of the shareholders as lead plaintiff. On May 8, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws against the Company and one of its officers. The lead plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons or entities that purchased shares of the Company's common stock between February 23, 2011 and March 10, 2014. On July 28, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with leave to file an amended complaint by August 27, 2015. The Company continues to vigorously defend this purported class action suit. The Company has not recognized a loss as it does not believe a loss is probable. Further, the Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of loss. HW WORLDWIDE: "Stravrev" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Jordan Stravrev, and other similarly situated individuals v. HW Worldwide, LLC and Harold Williams, Case No. 1:15-cv-23498-FAM (S.D. Fla., September 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a trucking company in Miami Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Mandatory Mediation Conference Scheduled ------------------------------------------------------------- InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a mandatory mediation conference is being scheduled in the securities class action lawsuit against the Company and Francis Reynolds, its former Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. On July 31, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and Mr. Reynolds, as defendants (the "Securities Class Action"). The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements related to the timing and completion of the clinical study of the Company's Neuro-Spinal Scaffold. The plaintiff seeks class certification for purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from April 5, 2013 through August 26, 2013 and unspecified damages. On April 3, 2015, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the plaintiff's claim with prejudice. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of this decision on May 4, 2015. A mandatory mediation conference is being scheduled. JUICECO LLC: "Prado" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lauro R. Prado, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Juiceco, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-14323-JEM (S.D. Fla., September 16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Juiceco, LLC is engaged in the business of distributing single- strength not from concentrated fresh juice products to food service and to retail and consumer channels throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew P. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 600 N. Pine Island Road, Ste. 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 327-3017 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com JURATOYS US: Recalls Fishing Games Due to Choking Hazard -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Juratoys U.S. of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., announced a voluntary recall of about 14,000 Sardines Fishing Game and Starfish Fishing Game (In addition, about 200 were sold in Canada). The plastic worm at the end of the fishing pole line can separate, producing small parts that pose a choking hazard to children. Additionally, the small magnet inside the worm can liberate. Swallowing multiple magnets can result in serious internal injury. This recall involves two models of the Juratoys fishing game, Sardines and Starfish. The fishing game user picks up a toy fish using a play fishing rod with a magnetic worm. The Sardine fishing game has a red and white sardine with a yellow eye painted on a sardine-shaped tin and has product number J08152 printed on the bottom of the container at the tail, and on the back of one of the fish pieces. The Starfish fishing game has an orange starfish painted on a starfish-shaped tin with a product number J08153 printed on the bottom of the container and on the back of one of the fish pieces. Each set comes with two wooden fishing rods and several wooden fish with a magnetic button in the middle. The lid of each tin package contains the word "Janod(R)." The firm has received about 417 reports of the plastic worm at the end of the fishing pole line separating and releasing small parts, including four reports of children ingesting a small part. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/RZSCLG The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Online at www.citruslane.com, www.burrogoods.com, www.terratoys.com, www.patinastores.com; numerous retail stores including Patina, Burro, and Terra Toys; and at Juratoys trade shows from April 2015 through August 2015 for approximately $15 to $20. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled games and keep them out of the reach of young children. Consumers should contact Juratoys for a prepaid shipping envelope to return the game. Juratoys will then send a $15 refund check for the Sardines game and a $20 refund check for the Starfish game. Consumers who paid more should include a receipt in the return to receive a full refund. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Faces Suit Over "Natural" Diapers and Wipes ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christina Franjul and Veronica Brenner, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation; Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc.; and Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-06200 (S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2015) is brought on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express and implied warranties, violations of the consumer protection laws of New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and California, and unjust enrichment. Kimberly-Clark Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Neenah, Wisconsin. Kimberly-Clark manufactures Huggies(R) "pure & natural" Diapers and Huggies(R) "Natural Care" Wipes and distributes them to retailers nationwide for sale to consumers. The Plaintiffs allege that the Diapers are neither pure nor natural because they contain unnatural and potentially harmful ingredients, including polypropylene and sodium polyacrylate. Likewise, the Wipes are not natural because they contain unnatural and potentially harmful ingredients such as sodium methylparaben and methylisothiazolinone. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 989-9113 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: scott@bursor.com jmarchese@bursor.com ndeckant@bursor.com ykopel@bursor.com LACORR PACKAGING: Faces "Dinkins" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Lamont Dinkins, as an individual and on behalf of all similarly situated employees v. LACORR Packaging, LLC and Does 1 through 50, Case No. BC594886 (D. Cal., September 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. LACORR Packaging, LLC own and operates a packaging supply store located at 13890 Nelson Ave E, City of Industry, CA 91746. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Treana L. Allen, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562. 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: kmahonev@mahonev-law.net LAND OF NOD: Recalls Mobile Products Due to Strangulation Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with The Land of Nod, announced a voluntary recall of about 400 Mobiles. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The yarn from the sheep figures can unravel, posing an entanglement and strangulation hazard to young children. This recall involves The Land of Nod Follow the Herd mobile. The recalled mobile is made of white wool felt and has five sheep figures made of white wool yarn. The sheep have black felt eyes and brown felt ears. The mobile is about 24 inches tall, 10 inches wide and 10 inches deep. SKU number 198234 is on a label attached to the body of the mobile. Incidents/Injuries The Land of Nod has received three reports of the sheep's yarn unraveling. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/OgTj88 The recalled products were manufactured in Nepal and sold at The Land of Nod stores nationwide and online at www.landofnod.com from September 2013 through May 2015 for about $50. Consumers should immediately put the recalled mobiles out of the reach of children and contact The Land of Nod for a full refund. LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Data Privacy Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ Leidos Holdings, Inc. and Leidos, Inc. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 3, 2015, that the Company continues to defend a Data Privacy Litigation. The Company was previously a defendant in a putative class action, In Re: Science Applications International Corporation ("SAIC") Backup Tape Data Theft Litigation, which was a Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") action in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia relating to the theft of computer back-up tapes from a vehicle of a company employee. In May 2014, the District Court dismissed all but two plaintiffs from the MDL action. In June 2014, Leidos and its co-defendant, TRICARE, entered into settlement agreements with the remaining two plaintiffs who subsequently dismissed their claims with prejudice. On September 20, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action, Martin Fernandez, on Behalf Of Himself And All Other Similarly Situated v. Leidos, Inc. in the Eastern District Court of California, related to the same theft of computer backup tapes. The recent complaint includes allegations of violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and other claims. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Securities Class Action Appeal Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Leidos Holdings, Inc. and Leidos, Inc. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 3, 2015, that an appeal a securities class actions remains pending. Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three putative securities class actions. One case was withdrawn and two cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in In re SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation. The consolidated securities complaint names as defendants the Company, a former chief financial officer, two former chief executive officers, a former group president and the former program manager on the CityTime program, and was filed purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock from April 11, 2007 through September 1, 2011. The consolidated securities complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that the Company and individual defendants made misleading statements or omissions about the Company's revenues, operating income and internal controls in connection with disclosures relating to the CityTime project. The plaintiffs sought to recover from the Company and the individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages class members allegedly incurred by buying Leidos' stock at an inflated price. On October 1, 2013, the District Court dismissed many claims in the complaint with prejudice and on January 30, 2014, the District Court entered an order dismissing all remaining claims with prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiffs moved to vacate the District Court's judgment or obtain relief from the judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint. On September 30, 2014, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motions. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on October 30, 2014 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit where the appeal remains pending. LENDINGTREE INC: HLC Intends to Renew Appeal -------------------------------------------- LendingTree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, Lijkel Dijkstra v. Harry Carenbauer, Home Loan Center, Inc. et al., No. 5:11-cv-152-JPB (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.WV), HLC intends to renew its appeal. In November 2008, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia against Harry Carenbauer, HLC, HLC Escrow, Inc. et al. The complaint alleges that HLC engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in West Virginia by permitting persons who were neither admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia nor under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia to close mortgage loans. The plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory judgment, contempt, injunctive relief, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation or fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("CCPA"), violation of the West Virginia Lender, Broker & Services Act, civil conspiracy, outrage and negligence. The claims against all defendants other than Mr. Carenbauer, HLC and HLC Escrow, Inc. have been dismissed. The case was removed to federal court in October 2011. On January 3, 2013, the court granted a conditional class certification only with respect to the declaratory judgment, contempt, unjust enrichment and CCPA claims. The conditional class included consumers with mortgage loans in effect any time after November 8, 2007 who obtained such loans through HLC, and whose loans were closed by persons not admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia or by persons not under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia. In February 2014, the court granted and denied certain of each party's motions for summary judgment. With respect to the Class Claims, the court granted plaintiff's motions for summary judgment with respect to declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment and violation of the CCPA. The court granted HLC's motion for summary judgment with respect to contempt. In addition, the court denied HLC's motion to decertify the class. With respect to the claims applicable to the named plaintiff only (the "Individual Claims"), HLC's motions for summary judgment were granted with respect to conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and outrage. HLC and the plaintiff settled the remaining Individual Claims in June 2014. In July 2014, the court awarded damages to plaintiffs in the amount of $2.8 million. HLC filed a notice of appeal in August 2014 and in September 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. In December 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit determined that the district court's order was not yet final, and, accordingly, HLC's appeal was dismissed. In July 2015, the district court awarded attorneys' fees to Plaintiffs consisting of one-third of the class damages award plus an additional $389,500. The judge also awarded prejudgment interest to Plaintiffs. A reserve of $3.2 million has been established for this matter in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2015, of which some or all may be covered by insurance. On July 30, 2015, the district court judge entered a final judgment order in this matter; HLC intends to renew its appeal. LIBERTY LIFE: Sued Over Denial of LT Disability Benefits -------------------------------------------------------- Troy McVay, individually and on behalf of other members of the Comcast Disability Plan v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, Case No. 1:15-cv-02027 (D. Colo., September 16, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's unlawful denial and refusal to provide Plan members with long-term disability benefits, in violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston is a Colorado corporation that administers and issues Comcast employee benefit plan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Bulger, Esq. SILVERN & BULGER, P.C. 4800 Wadsworth Boulevard, Suite 307 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Telephone: (303) 292-004 LIFELOCK INC: Parties in Ebarle & Stamm Suit Exchange Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the parties in the class action filed by plaintiffs Napoleon Ebarle and Jeanne Stamm continue to informally exchange information in connection with the mediation. The Company said, "On January 19, 2015, plaintiffs Napoleon Ebarle and Jeanne Stamm filed a nationwide putative consumer class action against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs allege that we have engaged in deceptive marketing and sales practices in connection with our membership plans in violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, and are seeking declaratory judgment under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act. In their Complaint, the plaintiffs also sought certification of a nationwide class of consumers who are or were subscribers of our identity theft protection services since January 19, 2014, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs." "On March 6, we filed a motion to dismiss. Rather than respond to our motion to dismiss, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 27, 2015. The amended complaint dramatically expanded the scope of the claims and the size of the asserted class, which was expanded to include any LifeLock members since January 19, 2009. Pursuant to the parties' joint stipulation, on May 4, 2015, the Court stayed the matter to allow the parties to participate in a private mediation on July 1, 2015, before Justice Howard Weiner. Following the July 1, 2015, mediation, the parties agreed to participate in a second mediation session on August 18, 2015. On July 8, 2015, also pursuant to the parties' joint stipulation, the Court further stayed this matter pending the second mediation session on August 18, 2015. The parties continue to informally exchange information in connection with the mediation. LIFELOCK INC: Court Tentatively Approved Deal in "Goldman" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Court has tentatively approved the class Settlement Agreement in the case filed by Etan Goldman. The Company said, "On January 29, 2015, plaintiff Etan Goldman filed a California putative consumer class action complaint against us in Santa Clara Superior Court in San Jose, California. The complaint alleges that we violated California's Automatic Renewal Law and Unfair Competition Law by failing to provide required disclosures concerning our auto renewal terms and cancellation policies. The complaint also seeks certification of a class consisting of all persons in California who had purchased subscriptions to identity theft protection services from us since December 1, 2010, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, restitution, and attorneys' fees and costs." "On May 15, 2015, the parties executed a class-wide Settlement Agreement and Release. On June 4, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class Settlement Agreement. On July 10, 2015, the Court tentatively approved the class Settlement Agreement, continued the hearing on plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval until July 24, 2015 and requested that plaintiff submit, by July 21, 2015, additional information concerning the amount of monthly subscription fees paid by class members." LIFELOCK INC: "Trax" Plaintiff Filed Notice of Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------- LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that plaintiff, Thomas A. Trax, filed on February 2, 2015, a class action complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The Company said, "The complaint asserted that we violated California's Automatic Renewal Law and Unfair Competition Law by failing to provide required disclosures concerning our auto renewal terms and cancellation policies. The complaint sought certification of a class consisting of all persons in California who have purchased products and/or services from us as part of an automatic renewal plan or continuous service offer since February 2, 2011, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, restitution, a constructive trust and/or disgorgement, and attorneys' fees and costs. On May 11, 2015, plaintiff filed a voluntary notice of dismissal without prejudice." LIFELOCK INC: Anticipates Filing Motion to Dismiss "Avila" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company, along with its CEO and CFO anticipate filing a motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Miguel Avila at a time yet to be determined. The Company said, "On July 22, 2015, Miguel Avila, representing himself and seeking to represent a class of persons who acquired our securities from July 30, 2014 to July 20, 2015, inclusive, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. His complaint alleges that our CEO, our CFO, and we violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act by making materially false or misleading statements, or failing to disclose material facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including with regard to our information security program, advertising, recordkeeping, and our compliance with the FTC Order. The complaint seeks certification as a class action, compensatory damages, and attorney's fees and costs. We, along with our CEO and CFO anticipate filing a motion to dismiss the complaint at a time yet to be determined." LOS ANGELES, CA: LAFCU Sued Over Illegal Overdraft Fees ------------------------------------------------------- Mary Gray, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Los Angeles Federal Credit Union, and Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-07266 (C.D. Cal., September 16, 2015), arises from the Defendants' practice of charging improper overdraft fees barred by federal regulation and the terms of its account agreement with its credit union members. Los Angeles Federal Credit Union is a federally chartered credit union with its headquarters in Los Angeles California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard D. McCune, Esq. Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, Esq. McCUNEWRIGHT LLP 2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216 Redlands, CA 92374 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com jkk@mccunewright.com - and - Taras Kick, Esq. James Strenio, Esq. Thomas A. Segal, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC 201 Wilshire Boulevard Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 395-2988 Facsimile: (310) 395-2088 E-mail: taras@kicklawfirm.com thomas@kicklawfirm.com thomas@kicklawfirm.com LOTA USA: Recalls Kitchen Faucets Due to Fire and Burn Hazards -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Lota USA, of Los Angeles, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 4,500 Glacier Bay and Schon kitchen faucets. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The battery box used to power the faucet's sensor can short circuit, overheat and/or melt, posing fire and burn hazards to consumers. This recall involves Glacier Bay and Schon brand touchless kitchen faucets that allow the user to waive a hand in front of a sensor to start and stop the flow of water, a pull-down sprayer head with a white LED light and a single handle to manually turn the water on and off. The touchless feature is powered by four 1.5V batteries installed into a battery box connected to the faucet. The Glacier Bay faucets include a matching soap dispenser. Glacier Bay is printed on the base of the Glacier Bay faucets. Schon is printed on the base of the Schon faucets. The Glacier Bay faucets were sold in chrome, Mediterranean bronze and stainless steel. The Schon faucets were sold in chrome and stainless steel. The model number and the manufacturing date are printed on the faucet's black piping that connects the faucet to the kitchen's water pipe under the sink. Manufacturing dates are the YY-MM-DD format, e.g. 14-10-29 was manufactured on October 29, 2014. The faucets have the following model numbers and manufacturing dates: Model Number Manufacturing Brand Description ------------ Date ----- ----------- ------------- 67536-1001 14-10-29 through Glacier Bay Touchless 15-04-14 single-handle Pull-down sprayer kitchen faucet with LED light (chrome) 67536-1027H2 14-10-29 through Glacier Bay Touchless 15-04-14 single-handle Pull-down sprayer kitchen faucet with LED light (Mediterranean bronze) 67536-1008D2 14-10-29 through Glacier Bay Touchless 15-04-14 single-handle Pull-down sprayer kitchen faucet with LED light (stainless steel) 67558-0101 14-10-29 through Schon Schon modern 15-04-14 kitchen modern sensor pulldown (chrome) 67558-0108D2 14-10-29 through Schon Schon modern 15-04-14 kitchen sensor pulldown (stainless steel) The firm has received six reports of the faucet's battery box overheating, melting and/or smoking, including one report of a fire in the box and one report of a burn to a consumer's thumb. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/Z6oJAo The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at The Home Depot stores nationwide and online at www.homedepot.com from March 2015 through May 2015 for about $225. Consumers should immediately unplug and remove batteries from the faucet's battery box and contact Lota USA for a replacement battery box for the faucet. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Removes "Pierce" Class Suit to W.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Pierce, et al. v. Lumber Liquidators Inc., Case No. 1516-CV07171, was transferred from the Missouri Circuit Court, Jackson County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00593-DGK to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated in the state of Missouri, who purchased flooring products from "defendant Lumber Liquidators that exceeded the California Air Resources Board standard for formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products and currently own a home within the State of Missouri with the flooring products at issue installed within that home." The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth B. McClain, Esq. Kevin D. Stanley, Esq. Lauren E. McClain, Esq. HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & MCCLAIN, P.C. 221 West Lexington, Suite 400 Independence, MO 64050 Telephone: (816) 836-5050 Facsimile: (816) 836-8966 E-mail: kbm@hfmlegal.com kds@hfmlegal.com lem@hfmlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew J. Martone, Esq. Matthew B. Robinson, Esq. HESSE MARTONE, PC 13354 Manchester Road, Suite 100 St. Louis, MO 63131 Telephone: (314) 862-0300 Facsimile: (314) 862-7010 E-mail: andymartone@hessemartone.com mattrobinson@hessemartone.com MAGICMIND INC: Faces "Barach" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Barach, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Magicmind, Inc. and Zhongdan Zhao, Case No. 6:15-cv-1527-ORL-31-TBS (M.D. Fla., September 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a vacation home management and maintenance business in Orlando, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZELL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 337-7992 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com jriley@wfclaw.com MARKWEST ENERGY: Unitholder Class Action Complaint Filed -------------------------------------------------------- Markwest Energy Partners, L.P. on July 11, 2015, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with MPLX LP ("MPLX"), MPLX GP LLC, the general partner of MPLX ("MPLX GP"), Sapphire Holdco LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of MPLX ("Merger Sub" and, together with MPLX and MPLX GP, the "MPLX Entities"), and, for certain limited purposes set forth in the Merger Agreement, Marathon Petroleum Corporation, the parent of MPLX GP ("MPC"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Partnership (the "Merger"), with the Partnership surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of MPLX. After the Merger, the Partnership's common units will cease to be publicly traded. Markwest Energy Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on July 24, 2015, a putative unitholder class action complaint was filed by a single plaintiff who purports to be a unitholder of the Partnership in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware (Case No. 11332- VCG) against the individual members of the General Partner's board of directors (the "Board"), the General Partner, MPLX, MPC and Merger Sub. The complaint, styled Katsman v. Frank M. Semple, et al., (the "Complaint") alleges that the Board breached its duties in approving the Merger with MPLX. Generally, the Complaint alleges that the Board breached its duties to the Partnership's common unitholders because the Merger does not provide the Partnership's common unitholders with adequate consideration, the Board did not seek to maximize value for the benefit of the Partnership's common unitholders, certain members of the Partnership's management team will remain executive officers of MPLX after the consummation of the Merger and the Merger Agreement contains preclusive deal protective devices and does not provide for appraisal rights. The Complaint also alleges that MPC, MPLX and Merger Sub aided and abetted in such breaches. The Complaint seeks, among other relief, to enjoin the Merger, or in the event the Merger is consummated, rescission of the Merger or monetary damages. The Partnership intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. However, one of the conditions to the completion of the Merger is that no law, order, decree, judgment or injunction of any court, agency or other governmental authority shall be in effect that enjoins, prohibits or makes illegal consummation of any of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the Merger, and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the Merger. An adverse judgment for rescission or for monetary damages could have a material adverse effect on the Partnership and MPLX following the Merger. MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Farno" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Farno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd., Sehat Sutardja, Michael Sashkin, and Sukhi Nagesh, Case No. 1:15-cv-07300 (S.D.N.Y., September 16, 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. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd., a Bermuda corporation, is a fabless semiconductor company, and ships over one billion chips a year. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Marc Gorrie, 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 mgorrie@pomlaw.com - and - Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Steven P. Harte, Esq. Bradley Vettraino, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: Jeff@blockesq.com Steven@blockesq.com Bradley@blockesq.com MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Limbacher" Suit Over Financial Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Limbacher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd., Sehat Sutardja, Michael Sashkin, and Sukhi Nagesh, Case No. 1:15-cv- 07304 (S.D.N.Y., September 16, 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. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd., a Bermuda corporation, is a fabless semiconductor company, and ships over one billion chips a year. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Marc Gorrie, 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 mgorrie@pomlaw.com - and - Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Steven P. Harte, Esq. Bradley Vettraino, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: Jeff@blockesq.com Steven@blockesq.com Bradley@blockesq.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Pacelli" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Michele Pacelli v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-02786-JFM (D. Md., September 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Simmons" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Bettye Simmons v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-02791 (D. Md., September 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Terri Greulich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc., Case No. 3:15- cv-01750-L-MDD (S.D. Cal., August 6, 2015) seeks redress for MIE's alleged failure to secure and safeguard its users' Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information. On June 10, 2015, MIE disclosed a data breach involving the exposure of Personal Information of tens of thousands of individuals from around the United States. The Plaintiff contends that MIE's security failures enabled intruders to access and seize the Personal Information from within MIE's systems. Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc. is an Indiana corporation headquartered in Fort Wayne, Indiana. MIE operates a health information exchange software platform that allows for the electronic movement of information among disparate health care information systems while maintaining the integrity and meaning of the information being exchanged. As part of its business, MIE stores vast amounts of Personal Information of individuals throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Thomas J. O'reardon II, Esq. Paula M. Roach, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com proach@bholaw.com - and - Willliam B. Federman, Esq. Carin L. Marcussen, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com clm@federmanlaw.com MICHAEL G. BARRETT: Chen Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kien Chen, and all others similarly-situated v. Michael G. Barrett, Patrick J. Kerins, Robert P. Goodman, Thomas R. Evans, Ross B. Levinsohn, Wenda Harris Millard, James A Tholen, AOL Inc., and Mars Acquisition Sub, Inc., Case No. 11496 (Del. Ch., September 10, 2015), seeks to enjoin Defendants from further breaching their fiduciary duties in their pursuit of a sale of Millennial Media, Inc. at an unfair price through an unfair process that was tilted in favor of AOL. The Plaintiff alleged that the Proposed Acquisition is designed to unlawfully divest Millennial's public stockholders of the Company's valuable assets for grossly inadequate consideration and allow Individual Defendants to reap the benefits of accelerated vesting of unvested stock and deferred compensation. To remedy defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties and other misconduct, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief preventing consummation of the Proposed Acquisition, unless and until the Company adopts and implements a procedure or process to obtain a transaction that provides the best possible terms for stockholders, or in the event the Proposed Acquisition is consummated, to recover damages. Michael G. Barrett is Millennial's President, CEO, and a director and has been since January 2014. Patrick J. Kerins is Millennial's Chairman of the Board and has been since at least February 2014; lead director and has been since November 2013; and a director and has been since November 2009. Robert P. Goodman is a Millennial director and has been since June 2009. Thomas R. Evans is a Millennial director and has been since February 2014. Ross B. Levinsohn is a Millennial director and has been since February 2014. Wenda Harris Millard is a Millennial director and has been since May 2009. James A. Tholen is a Millennial director and has been since May 2011. AOL Inc. is a Delaware corporation with principal executive offices at 770 Broadway, New York, New York. Defendant AOL is a global media technology company with a worldwide audience and a suite of digital brands, products, and services that it offers to consumers, advertisers, publishers, and subscribers. Mars Acquisition Sub, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of defendant AOL. Upon completion of the Proposed Acquisition, defendant Merger Sub will merge with and into Millennial and cease its separate corporate existence. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter B. Andrews, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC 3801 Kennett Pike, Building C, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Tel: (302) 504-4957 - and - Brian J. Robbins, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 525-3990 - and - Deborah R. Gross, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BERNARD M. GROSS, P.C. 100 Penn Square East, Suite 450 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Tel: (215) 561-3600 MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Sued Over Gender Discriminatory Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Katherine Moussouris, on behalf of herself and a class of those similarly situated v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv- 01483 (W.D. Wash., September 16, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's policy, pattern and practice of sex discrimination against female employees in technical and engineering roles with respect to performance evaluations, pay, promotions, and other terms and conditions of employment. Microsoft Corporation is a global provider of software and software-related services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sharon M. Lee, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1900 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (206) 739-9059 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: slee@lchb.com - and - Kelly M. Dermody, Esq. Anne B. Shaver, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: kdermody@lchb.com ashaver@lchb.com - and - Adam T. Klein, Esq. Cara E. Greene, Esq. Ossai Miazad, Esq OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (212) 977-4005 E-mail: ATK@outtengolden.com CEG@outtengolden.com OM@outtengolden.com - and - Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. Katrina L. Eiland, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com keiland@outtengolden.com NABORS INDUSTRIES: Shareholder Class Action Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- The shareholder class action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware remains pending, Nabors Industries Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. The Company said, "On July 30, 2014, we and Red Lion, along with C&J Energy and its board of directors, were sued in a putative shareholder class action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court of Chancery"). The plaintiff alleges that the members of the C&J Energy board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, and that Red Lion and C&J Energy aided and abetted these alleged breaches. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with or consummating the Merger and the C&J Energy stockholder meeting for approval of the Merger and, to the extent that the Merger was completed before any relief was granted, to have the Merger rescinded." "On November 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, and, on November 24, 2014, the Court of Chancery entered a bench ruling, followed by a written order on November 25, 2014, that (i) ordered certain members of the C&J Energy board of directors to solicit for a 30 day period alternative proposals to purchase C&J Energy (or a controlling stake in C&J Energy) that were superior to the Merger, and (ii) preliminarily enjoined C&J Energy from holding its stockholder meeting until it complied with the foregoing. C&J Energy complied with the order while it simultaneously pursued an expedited appeal of the Court of Chancery's order to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Supreme Court"). "On December 19, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court overturned the Court of Chancery's judgment and vacated the order. This case remains pending." NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Pizza Pie Suit Over Sunday NFL Games ------------------------------------------------------------- Pizza Pie & Wing Co. LLC individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Football League, Inc., NFL Enterprises LLC, DirecTV, LLC, and DirecTV Holdings LLC, and Does 1 through 50, Case No. 2:15-cv-07305 (C.D. Cal., September 17, 2015), seeks to enjoin the ongoing unreasonable restraint of trade that Defendants have implemented through DirecTV's exclusive arrangement to broadcast all Sunday afternoon out-of-market games. National Football League, Inc. is an unincorporated association of 32 American professional football teams in the United States. NFL Enterprises, LLC was organized to hold the broadcast rights of the 32 NFL teams and license them to providers and other broadcasters. DirecTV Holdings, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company and has its principal place of business at 2230 East Imperial Highway, El Segundo, California. DirecTV is a direct broadcast satellite service provider and broadcaster. DirecTV, LLC is a California Limited Liability Company that has its principal place of business at 2230 East Imperial Highway, El Segundo, California. DirecTV, LLC issues bills to its subscribers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory E. Woodard, Esq. Shawn M. Larsen, Esq. LARSEN WOODARD LLP 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 4500 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 769-6602 Facsimile: (949) 769-6603 E-mail: gwoodard@larsenwoodard.com slarsen@larsenwoodard.com - and - Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Richard A. Lockridge, Esq. Heidi M. Silton, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: 612-596-4097 Facsimile: 612-339-0981 E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com ralockridge@locklaw.com hmsilton@locklaw.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: 412-322-9243 Facsimile: 412-231-0246 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com - and - Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1792 Bell Tower Lane, Suite 203 Weston, Florida 33326 Telephone: 954 315-3454 Facsimile: 954-315-3455 E-mail: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com NEW ORLEANS, LA: Faces "Cain" Suit Over Alleged Illegal Detention ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alana Cain, Ashton Brown, Reynaud Variste, Reynajia Variste, Thaddeus Long, Vanessa Maxwell, et al. v. City Of New Orleans, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-04479 (E.D. LA., September 17, 2015), arises from the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court officials' alleged illegal, unconstitutional, and unjust use of jail and threats of jail to collect court debts from thousands of the City's poorest people. The City of New Orleans is a municipal government entity, organized under the laws of the State of Louisiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: William P. Quigley, Esq. 7214 St. Charles Ave. Campus Box 902 New Orleans, LA 70118 Telephone: (504) 710-3074 Facsimile: (504) 861-5440 E-mail: quigley77@gmail.com - and - Anna Lellelid-Douffet, Esq. PO Box 19388 New Orleans, LA 70179 Telephone: (504) 224-9670 E-mail: lellelid.law@gmail.com - and - Alec Karakatsanis, Esq. EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW 916 G Street, NW Suite 701 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202)-681-2409 E-mail: alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org NIKKEI AMERICA: Faces "Iwasawa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hideki Iwasawa v. Nikkei America, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC594636 (D. Cal., September 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Nikkei America, Inc. is an online newspaper publisher that markets and sells subscriptions and advertising to consumers and retailers in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee D. Lubin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LEE DAVID LUBIN 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1175 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 728-0712 Facsimile: (818) 995-7335 E-mail: lee.lubin@lubinlaw.net PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Sued Over Failure to Pay Reporting Time Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Shayna Broadstone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., d/b/a Pacsun, Pacific Sunwear Stores Corp. and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC594799 (D. Cal., September 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the employees required reporting time pay. The Defendants own and operate retail stores in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick McNicholas, Esq. Michael J. Kent, Esq. McNICHOLAS & McNICHOLAS, LLP 10866 Witshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90024-4338 Telephone: (310)474-1582 Facsimile: (310)475-7871 E-mail: - and - Jason M. Frank, Esq. Scott H. Sims, Esq. EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP 520 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1400 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949)706-7000 Facsimile: (949)706-7050 - and - Richard K. Bridgford, Esq. Michael H. Artinian, Esq. BRIDGFORD GLEASON & ARTINIAN 26 Corporate Plaza, Suite 250 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949)831-6611 Facsimile: (949)831-6622 E-mail: Richard.Bridgford@bridgfordlaw.com Mike.Artinian@bridgfordlaw.com PHILIPS LIGHTING: Recalls Halogen Bulbs Due to Laceration Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Philips Lighting North America Corporation, of Somerset, N.J., announced a voluntary recall of about 370,000 Halogen Bulbs. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The lens of the bulb can shatter in the lamp or the lens can fall and shatter, posing a laceration and burn hazard. This recall involves Philips 60W PAR 16 120V halogen bulbs manufactured from November 2013 to March 2015. Date codes that represent the month and year of production are painted on the bulb glass along with "PHILIPS Halogena PAR 16," "China" and "60W/120/V." Recalled bulb date codes include: Affected Date Codes: 2013 2014 2015 ---- ---- ---- 3L, 3M 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 5A, 5B, 5C 4E, 4F, 4G, 4H, 4J, 4K, 4L, 4M Philips has received 13 reports of the lens of the bulb shattering, including five reports of property damage totaling about $700 and two laceration injuries. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/THVpJQ The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Home Depot stores and professional distributors nationwide and online at www.Amazon.com from November 2013 through March 2015 for about $10. Consumers should immediately stop using these recalled bulbs, remove them from any fixtures and contact Philips to request packaging materials and instructions for returning the recalled bulbs at no cost. Philips will provide free replacement bulbs. PIPER JAFFRAY: Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Case Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Piper Jaffray Companies said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the class action entitled In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1950 (Master Docket No. 08-2516), remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Several class action complaints were brought on behalf of a purported class of state, local and municipal government entities in connection with the bidding or sale of municipal guaranteed investment contracts and municipal derivatives directly from one of the defendants or through a broker, from January 1, 1992, to the present. The complaints, which have been consolidated into a single nationwide class action entitled In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1950 (Master Docket No. 08-2516), allege antitrust violations and are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the multi-district litigation rules. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified treble damages under the Sherman Act. Several California municipalities also brought separate class action complaints in California federal court, and approximately eighteen California municipalities and two New York municipalities filed individual lawsuits that are not as part of class actions, all of which have since been transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated for pretrial purposes. All three sets of complaints assert similar claims under federal (and for the California and New York plaintiffs, state) antitrust claims. |No loss contingency has been reflected in the Company's consolidated financial statements as this contingency is neither probable nor reasonably estimable at this time," the Company said. Management is currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss for these matters because alleged damages have not been specified, the proceedings remain in the early stages, and there are significant factual issues to be resolved. PRICE SELF: Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------- Eric Mendez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Price Self Storage Holdings, LLC, and Does 1-10, Case No. 3:15-cv-02077-AJB-JLB (S.D. Cal., September 17, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of systematically continuing to send text messages to cellular telephones after consumers have expressly revoked their consent to receive such messages and to obtain redress for all persons injured. Price Self Storage Holdings, LLC is a real estate developer doing business within the State of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Lozeau, Esq. Rebecca Davis, Esq. LOZEAU DRURY LLP 410 12th Street, Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 836-4200 Facsimile: (510) 836-4205 E-mail: michael@lozeaudrury.com rebecca@lozeaudrury.com - and - Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. Woodrow & Peluso, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com PRIDE FAMILY: Recalls Hammock Stands Due to Fall Hazard ------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Pride Family Brands, Inc., of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., announced a voluntary recall of about 13,900 Destination Summer Hammock Stands (an additional 55 units sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Z-shaped hooks that attach the hammock to the hammock stand can bend or break, resulting in a consumer falling to the ground. The recalled hammock stand was sold under the Bed Bath & Beyond Destination Summer private label. The bronze-colored heavy gauge steel hammock stand with enamel finish measures 15 feet long by 3.5 feet wide by 4 feet high. The firm has received 13 reports of the z-shaped hooks bending or breaking, resulting in consumers falling to the ground and injuring various body parts. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/E3Cd0u The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Bed Bath & Beyond stores nationwide and online at www.bedbathandbeyond.com from March 2014 through July 2015 for about $100. Consumers should immediately stop using the product, dispose of the Z-shaped hooks and contact Pride Family Brands to obtain a free set of heavier-gauged, S-shaped replacement hooks. PROPETRO SERVICES: "Crow" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Zachary Crow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Propetro Services, Inc., Case No. 7:15-cv-00149 (W.D. Tex., September 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Propetro Services, Inc. provides oil and gas well drilling, stimulation, cementing, and coiled tubing services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS &JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com jbresler@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com PROVIA DOOR: Removes "Jacobs" Suit to Minnesota District Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Jacobs, et al. v. ProVia Door, Inc., et al., was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:15-cv-03230-DWF-TNL to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kelly A. Lelo, Esq. Shawn M. Raiter, Esq. T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq. LARSON KING, LLP 30 E 7th St., Suite 2800 St. Paul, MN 55101-4922 Telephone: (651) 312-6500 Facsimile: (651) 312-6618 E-mail: klelo@larsonking.com sraiter@larsonking.com jsnodgrass@larsonking.com Defendant ProVia Door, Inc. is represented by: Michael S. Rowley, Esq. Sean J. Mickelson, Esq. TERHAAR ARCHIBALD PFEFFERLE & GRIEBEL LLP 100 N 6th, Suite 600A Minneapolis, MN 55403 Telephone: (612) 573-3007 Facsimile: (612) 573-3030 E-mail: mrowley@tapg-law.com smickelson@tapg-law.com RED ROBIN: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Washington -------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Lieberg and Brent King, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01242-TSZ (W.D. Wash., August 6, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Deborah M. Nelson, Esq. Jeffrey D. Boyd, Esq. NELSON BOYD PLLC 411 University Street, Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 971-7601 E-mail: nelson@nelsonboydlaw.com boyd@nelsonboydlaw.com REGIONS FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs' Class Action Still Appeal -------------------------------------------------------- Regions Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a plaintiffs' appeal in a class action lawsuit remains pending. In July 2006, Morgan Keegan and a former Morgan Keegan analyst were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed by a Canadian insurance and financial services company and its American subsidiary in the Circuit Court of Morris County, New Jersey. Plaintiffs alleged claims under a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") statute and claims for commercial disparagement, tortious interference with contractual relationships, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and common law conspiracy. Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a multi-year conspiracy to publish and disseminate false and defamatory information about plaintiffs to improperly drive down plaintiffs' stock price, so that others could profit from short positions. Plaintiffs allege that defendants' actions damaged their reputations and harmed their business relationships. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for a number of categories of alleged damages, including lost insurance business, lost financings and increased financing costs, increased audit fees and directors and officers insurance premiums and lost acquisitions. In September 2012, the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal. This matter is subject to the indemnification agreement with Raymond James, Regions Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-Q Report. REGIONS FINANCIAL: Sept. 2015 Hearing to Approve Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Regions Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a hearing for final approval of the settlement in a class-action lawsuit filed by Regions' stockholders is scheduled for September 2015. In October 2010, a class-action lawsuit was filed by Regions' stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (the "District Court") against Regions and certain former officers of Regions (the "2010 Claim"). In May 2015, Regions entered into a settlement agreement to settle the 2010 Claim for $90 million, all of which had been previously reserved. The settlement agreement was preliminarily approved by the court on May 27, 2015, and Regions was subsequently reimbursed in full by its insurance providers. As a result, a $90 million recovery was recognized during the second quarter of 2015. A hearing for final approval of the settlement is scheduled for September 2015. RICE BRICKELL: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joel I. Rodriguez, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Rice Brickell, LLC and Esmaeil Shabani, Case No. 1:15-cv-23505-CMA (S.D. Fla., September 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Franklin Antonio Jara, Esq. JARA & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 19 West Flagler Street, Suite 504 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 372-0290 Facsimile: (305) 675-0383 E-mail: info@jaralaw.com RINGS: CHILD WORKS: Recalls Trapeze Rings Due to Fall Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Rings: Child Works, of Carollton, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of about 121,000 Plastic Trapeze pairs of rings in the United States (in addition about 6,500 were sold in Canada and about 5,500 in Mexico). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The rings can unexpectedly crack or break during use, posing a fall hazard to children. This recall involves only the yellow plastic trapeze rings. They are triangular in shape with rounded sides and have a loop at the top. They measure about 81/2 inches high by 61/2 inches wide. The yellow rings come as a pair and were connected to a trapeze bar. They were sold either as a separate component or as an attachment on the following Rainbow(R)-branded residential wooden playsets: All-American, Backyard Circus, Carnival, Fiesta, King Kong, Monster, Sunray, Sunshine and Rainbow. All of these playsets have an aluminum plate located on the front of the wooden swing beam with the following name stamped on it, "Playgrounds America," "Rainbow Play Systems Inc.," or "Sunray Premium Playgrounds." Rainbow has received more than 100 reports of the rings cracking or breaking including 15 with reports of injuries consisting of bumps, bruises, lacerations, concussion and one broken finger. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/7cUwjG The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at Rainbow dealers nationwide from January 2007 through December 2011 and at several mass merchandisers including Sam's Club, Toys R Us and Walmart from January 2009 through December 2009. The playsets retailed for between $900 and $10,000. Consumers should immediately stop children from using the recalled rings, contact Rainbow for ring removal instructions, then remove the rings from the playset and receive a $10 gift card. SAN PASQUAL: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Breach of Fiduciary Duty --------------------------------------------------------------- Pamela Carter, Deborah Martin, Christine Morales, Stanley Caraker, Stanley Nicks, Michaela Vecht, Bert Schorling, Jeanette Breiten, Raymond Bachar, individually and as Representatives of the Participants and Beneficiaries of the Fleet Card Fuels Employees Stock Ownership Plan v. San Pasqual Fiduciary Trust Company, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01507 (S.D. Cal., September 17, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary duty to secure and obtain the best price reasonable under the circumstances for the benefit of the Plaintiffs and the other vested Fleet Card Fuels Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP") participants in connection with the class action settlement in a case in which Fleet Card Fuels should not have been liable. San Pasqual Fiduciary Trust Company is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. San Pasqual is the "Independent Fiduciary" of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony W. Trujillo, Esq. Alexander H. Winnick, Esq. TRUJILLO & WINNICK, LLP 2919 1/2 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (310) 210-9302 Facsimile: (310) 921-5616 E-mail: atrujillo@trujillowinnick.com awinnick@trujillowinnick.com SANTANAS CONCRETE: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Pablo Alba Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Santanas Concrete, Inc. and Santana Diaz, Case No. 4:15-cv-02700 (S.D. Tex., September 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Santanas Concrete, Inc. is a concrete and masonry contractor doing business within the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 SEGWAY INC: Recalls Off-Board Chargers for Personal Transporters ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Segway Inc., of Bedford, N.H., announced a voluntary recall of about 17 Off-Board Charger for Segway Personal Transporter (PT). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. A wire inside the charger can detach and touch the side of the charger, posing a shock hazard. This recall involves Segway PT Off-Board Chargers manufactured from November 2012 to November 2014 with part number 23288-00001. The chargers are black, box-shaped and measure 8 inches wide by 13.75 inches deep by 4 inches high. Two wires used to connect the unit to Segway PT batteries extend from one end. The Segway brand name is on the charger above these wires. Chargers with the following serial numbers are being recalled: 13240C000265, 13240C000266, 13240C000268, 13240C000269, 13240C000272, 14205C000275, 14205C000278, 14205C000280, 14205C000295, 14205C000296, 14205C000297, 14205C000298, 14205C000302, 14209C000313, 14209C000314, 14209C000321 and 14209C000324. The serial number and part number are on a silver data plate attached to the bottom of the charger. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/ImAzLU The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at authorized Segway dealers and distributors and directly from Segway Inc. from November 2012 through September 2015 for about $920. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chargers, unplug and contact Segway or the Segway dealer from whom it was purchased to receive a free replacement power cord equipped with a ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI). Segway is contacting consumers directly. SR 60: "Teixeira" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Adelino Teixeira, Maria Ines Henriques and other similarly situated individuals v. SR 60 Shell Inc. and Ram Presad Ghimire, Case No. 2:15-cv-14324-RLR (S.D. Fla., September 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. SR 60 Shell Inc. is an enterprise owned or controlled by Ram Presad Ghimire, having their main place of business in Indian River County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. Joshua H. Sheskin, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, Florida 33180 Telephone: (305) 503.5131 Facsimile: (888) 270.5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com JSheskin@SaenzAnderson.com SYMANTEC CORP: "Zeichick" Suit Claims Unjust Enrichment ------------------------------------------------------- David Zeichick and all others similarly situated v. California State Board of Equalization (SBE), Symantec Corporation, and Does 1-100, Case No. BC594229 (Cal. Super., September 10, 2015), seeks injunctive and equitable relief to prevent unjust enrichment of the State of California. The Plaintiff alleged that Symantec engages in a routine and customary practice of charging its customers amounts represented as sales tax or reimbursement of sales tax on transactions involving the sale of its computer software programs purchased over the Internet where the customer downloads the program from Symantec's website. Such transactions are not taxable under California state law because they are not transactions for "tangible personal property," a prerequisite for taxability. Symantec Corporation provides security, storage and systems management solutions to help businesses and consumers secure and manage their information. Defendant SBE is a division of the State of California in charge of administering taxes, including the sales tax. The SBE is sued in order to avoid the unjust enrichment of the State that will occur if the disputed sales taxes at issue in this action are not refunded. The Plaintiff is represented by: Taras Kick, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC 201 Wilshire Blvd Santa Monica, CA 90401 Tel: (310) 395-2988 Fax: (310) 395-2088 - and - Carmen A. Medici, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego,CA 92101 Tel: (619) 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 SYNAPTICS INCORPORATED: Sued Over Pacinian Merger Agreement ----------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder Representative Services, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company in its capacity as the Stockholders' Representative for the Effective Time Equityholders of Pacinian Corporation v. Synaptics Incorporated and PCAC Acquisition Corporation, Case No. 11509 (Del. Ch., September 16, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the stockholders of Time Equityholders of Pacinian Corporation to enjoin the merger agreement, whereby Synaptics Incorporated, via its wholly owned subsidiary PCAC Acquisition Corporation, acquired Pacinian, including rights to Pacinian's Haptic and ThinTouch technologies and Pacinian Intellectual Property Rights. Pacinian Corporation creates and develops various innovative engineering and design applications in the field of keyboard and input device technology. Synaptics Incorporated develops human interface solutions based on touch, display and biometrics technologies for a large range of mobile computing, PC, entertainment and other consumer electronic devices. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley P. Lehman, Esq. REGER RIZZO & DARNALL LLP Brandywine Plaza East 1523 Concord Pike, Suite 200 Wilmington, DL 19803 Telephone: (302) 477-7100 Facsimile: (302) 652-3620 E-mail: blehman@regerlaw.com TRANSOCEAN LTD: Oral Argument Held in Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Transocean Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that oral argument had been set for August 18, 2015, in a federal securities class action. The Company said, "On September 30, 2010, a proposed federal securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming us, former chief executive officers of Transocean Ltd. and one of our acquired companies as defendants. In the action, a former shareholder of the acquired company alleged that the joint proxy statement relating to our shareholder meeting in connection with the merger with the acquired company violated Section 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff claimed that the acquired company's shareholders received inadequate consideration for their shares as a result of the alleged violations and sought compensatory and rescissory damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the plaintiff and the proposed class members. In connection with this action, we are obligated to pay the defense fees and costs for the individual defendants, which may be covered by our directors' and officers' liability insurance, subject to a deductible." On March 11, 2014, the District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the claims as time-barred. Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Oral argument had been set for August 18, 2015. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Partial Certification of Drivers' Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Uber Technologies, Inc., filed a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal pursuant to Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure an order by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granting, in part, two current drivers' motion for class certification. The appeal raises the following issues: (1) Whether the fact that large numbers of absent class members signed arbitration agreements containing class waivers precludes class certification. (2) Whether the district court manifestly erred in finding that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) were satisfied despite intractable conflicts of interest among the class, the individualized nature of the Plaintiffs' claims and Uber's defenses, and the arbitrariness of the Plaintiffs' proposed damages methodology. The appeals case is Douglas O'connor, Thomas Colopy, Matthew Manahan, and Elie Gurfinkel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant-Petitioner, Case No. 15-80169 (9th Cir.). Uber Technologies, Inc. developed and licenses a software application that generates leads and seamlessly permits transportation providers to arrange trips with riders. WISHBONE DESIGN: Recalls Recycled Edition Bikes ----------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Wishbone Design Studio Limited of Yardville, N.J., announced a voluntary recall of about 400 Recycled Edition Bikes (an additional 4,600 were sold outside the United States). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The handlebar can pinch fingers placed at the center where the handlebar connects to the bike frame. The Wishbone Recycled (RE) Bikes are made from recycled black plastic materials with 12-inch, air-filled white rubber tires. The adjustable seat height ranges from 9 to 20 inches. The bikes weigh about 10 pounds. The two recalled bikes include one 3-in-1 model, which is adjustable as a 3-wheeler or 2-wheeler with a high seat or low seat; and one 2-wheeler model, which is adjustable with a high or low seat. The date codes for production appear in a round dial on the front frame of the bikes under the seat. Date codes are either December 2013 or May 2014. The year appears in the center of the dial and the arrow points to the month. There is also a Wishbone logo embossed on each bike fork. The firm received reports of four incidents, including two injuries. One required stitches and one required restorative surgery. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/0f1hsf The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Independent toy and bike stores nationwide and online at www.amazon.com from July 2014 through June 2015 for about $200 for the 2-wheeler and $230 for the 3-in-1. Consumers should immediately stop using the bike, take it away from children and contact Wishbone or the store where the bike was purchased for a free neoprene cover for the handlebar. XENCOR INC: Court Consolidated 205 Petition with Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Xencor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Court has consolidated the 205 Petition with the class action, joined the Company as a defendant and ordered it to file the claims in the 205 Petition as counter-claims in the class action, which the Company has done. On March 3, 2015, a verified class action complaint, captioned DePinto v. John S. Stafford, et al., C.A. No. 10742, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain of the Company's current and former directors alleging cause of action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Invalidity of Director and Stockholder Consents. In general, the complaint alleged that the plaintiff and the class he seeks to represent were shareholders of the Company during the recapitalization and certain related transactions that the Company underwent in 2013 and that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in the course of approving that series of transactions. It also challenged as invalid certain corporate acts taken in the 2013 time period. On June 10, 2015, the Company filed a Verified Petition for Relief under Del. C. Section 205 (the "205 Petition") related to the corporate acts challenged in the complaint. The defendants filed an answer to the class action complaint on June 22, 2015. On July 9, 2015, the Court consolidated the 205 Petition with the class action, joined the Company as a defendant and ordered it to file the claims in the 205 Petition as counter-claims in the class action, which the Company has done. The Company intends to vigorously defend the action. Based on the preliminary nature of the claim, the Company believes that it is not possible to estimate a potential loss related to the claim. ZAGG INC: Tenth Circuit Appeal Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------- Zagg Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, has not yet entered a decision on the appeal related to the cases, James H. Apple, et al. v. ZAGG Inc, et al., U.S. District Court, District of Utah, 2:12-cv-00852; Ryan Draayer, et al. v. Zagg Inc, et al., U.S. District Court, District of Utah, 2:12-cv-00859. On September 6 and 10, 2012, two putative class action lawsuits were filed by purported Company shareholders against the Company, Randall Hales, Brandon O'Brien, and Cheryl Larabee, as well as Robert G. Pedersen II, the Company's former Chairman and CEO, and Edward Ekstrom and Shuichiro Ueyama, former members of the Company's Board of Directors. These lawsuits were subsequently amended by a complaint filed on May 6, 2013. The plaintiffs seek certification of a class of purchasers of the Company's stock between October 15, 2010 and August 17, 2012. The plaintiffs claim that as a result of Mr. Pedersen's alleged December 2011 margin account sales, the defendants initiated a succession plan to replace Mr. Pedersen as the Company's CEO with Mr. Hales, but failed to disclose either the succession plan or Mr. Pedersen's margin account sales, in violation of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a), and SEC Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). On March 7, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (the "Court") consolidated the Apple and Draayer actions and assigned the caption In re: Zagg, Inc. Securities Litigation, and on May 6, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On July 5, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On February 7, 2014, the Court entered an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On February 25, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. On June 17, 2014, plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief appealing the Courts decision with respect to some of their claims. The U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on January 22, 2015. The U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, has not yet entered a decision on the appeal. ZAK DESIGNS: Recalls Water Bottles Due to Choking Hazard -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Zak Designs Inc., of Airway Heights, Wash., announced a voluntary recall of about 178,000 26-ounce water bottles. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The inner plastic straw in the flip-top portion of the twist-off cap can break, posing a choking hazard. The recall involves Zak Designs 26-ounce plastic water bottles. The 10 inch tall water bottles have a flip-top spout on a twist- off cap with colored inner plastic straws in clear, blue, gray, green, light purple or red. The water bottles were sold exclusively at Target stores in a "Back-to-College" promotion. The water bottles have popular characters on the front and come in a variety of colors including clear, gray, navy blue, pink, teal blue, gray with colored caps in red, blue pink and yellow. Characters include Captain America, a Batman design, Minions, My Little Pony, Spiderman, Star Wars aircraft, a Superman logo, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Thor and Wonder Woman. Mold number "14158" and "Zak Designs(R)" are embossed on the bottom of the bottles in the recall. Bottles with a black inner straw and black twist-off cap are not included in the recall. Zak Designs has received nine reports of the inner plastic straw in the flip-top portion of the cap breaking, including seven reports of plastic fragments spit out by children using the bottle. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/63UVt3 The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Target stores during the "Back-to-College" promotion nationwide from June 2015 through July 2015 for about $10. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled water bottles and contact Zak Designs for instructions on receiving a free replacement cap with straw. ********* 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 * * *