/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/151008.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, October 8, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 201 Headlines A10 NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Filed Consolidated Class Action ADVANCED MICRO: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Product Information AISAN INDUSTRY: Sued Over Fuel Injection Systems-Price Fixing ALLERGAN PLC: Actos(R) Purchasers Class Actions Remain Pending ALLERGAN PLC: AndroGel(R) Purchasers Class Actions Remain Pending ALLERGAN PLC: Class Action by Asacol(R) Purchasers Filed ALLERGAN PLC: Filed Motion to Dismiss Botox(R) Litigation ALLERGAN PLC: Cipro(R) Litigation Remains Pending in State Courts ALLERGAN PLC: Continues to Defend Doryx (R) Litigation ALLERGAN PLC: Continues to Defend Against Lidoderm(R) Litigation ALLERGAN PLC: Continues to Defend v. Loestrin (R) 24 Litigation ALLERGAN PLC: Direct Purchasers Dismissed Namenda(R) Litigation ALLERGAN PLC: Filed Answer to Zymar(R)/Zymaxid(R) Class Action ALLERGAN PLC: Bid to Dismiss Celexa/Lexapro Case Granted in Part ALLERGAN PLC: Settlement in Forest Labs Securities Suit Approved ALLERGAN PLC: Settlement in Furiex Securities Litigation Approved ALLERGAN PLC: Anda and Forest Defending TCPA Litigation ALLIANCE BANCORP: Defendants Entered Into MOU in Merger Suit AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Boston Suit Over Air Ticker-Price Fixing ASCENA RETAIL: Defendants Entered Into MOU in Merger Suit ATOSSA GENETICS: Hearing on Appeal Not Been Set BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Appraisers Overtime BARRAJA INC: "Mou" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay BAYER CORPORATION: Faces Pill Box Pines Suit Over TCPA Violations BLUE CROSS: Faces Graceland Suit Over Plan Asset Misappropriation BLUE CROSS: Faces Wynnestone Suit Over Assets Misappropriation BLYTH INC: Faces "Holyszko" Suit Over Proposed Carlyle Takeover BLYTH INC: Faces "Nguyen" Suit Over Proposed Carlyle Takeover BOUCHON BEVERLY HILLS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Unpaid Wages BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Alidad" Suit Over Inflated Prices CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: "Gould" Suit Challenges Altice Transaction CAESARS ACQUISITION: Deadline to Respond to Nevada Case Extended CAL-TEX PROTECTIVE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CALABEES INC: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Rodriguez" Suit Says CARDINAL LOGISTICS: "Silva" Suit Seeks to Claim Unpaid Wages CARDINAL LOGISTICS: "Silva" Suit Seeks to Claim Unpaid Wages CHATHAM LODGING: Affiliate Defending "Martinez" Class Action CHICKEN AND BURGERS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages DOLLAR TREE: Faces Suit Over Inaccurate Wage Statements EVENT INC: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Noriega" Suit Claims EXPRESS ENERGY SERVICES: "Normand" Suit Seeks Payment of OT EXTRA SUPERMARKET: "Stevenson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT FTD COMPANIES: No Hearing Yet on Final Settlement Approval Motion GARDA CL: Removed "Figuero" Class Suit to S.D. California GEM FINANCIAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Dalton" Suit Claims HERSHEY COMPANY: Faces "Dana" Action Over Alleged Child Labor HEWLETT-PACKARD: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims HYATT HOTELS: "Livi" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages IGNITE RESTAURANT: Settlement in S.D. Tex. Suit Has Final Okay IGNITE RESTAURANT: Discovery in W.D.N.Y. Case in Initial Stages IMAGE FIRST: "Campanelli" Suit Seeks Payment of OT and Wages INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Hearing Slated for December 5 INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Nov. 12 Settlement Final Approval Hearing IRON MOUNTAIN: Faces "Shurnicki" Suit Over Recall Acquisition JOHNSON'S LANDSCAPING: "Sandoval" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT KFC CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Provide Premium Wages KIRBY RENTALS: "Echevarria" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages LMK BATON ROUGE: "Morales" Suit Seeks to Recover OT & Unpaid Wage MARS INC: "Hodsdon" Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid Wages MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces "Rudd" Suit Over Data Breach MOBILEIRON INC: Defending Against "Panjwani" Stockholder Action MOHELA: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Abdolrasoul" Suit Claims MYLAN N.V.: Accrued $63.3MM Other Current Liabilities MYLAN N.V.: Trial Date Not Scheduled in Modafinil Antitrust Suit MYLAN N.V.: Two Actos and Actoplus Met Cases Held in Abeyance MYLAN N.V.: Defending Shareholder Class Actions MYLAN N.V.: Product Liability Lawsuits Still Pending NASHVILLE HOSPITAL: "Peavy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages NESTLE USA: Faces "McCoy" Suit in Cal. Over Child and Slave Labor QLOGIC CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports QUINN'S RENTAL: "Lindsey" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages RAYONIER ADVANCED: Discovery Stayed in Class Action RUSTIC TABLE LLC: "Azar" Suit Seeks to Recover OT & Minimum Wages SHILOH INDUSTRIES: Inflates Securities Prices, "Thomas" Suit Says SIENTRA INC: Inflates Price of Securities, "Flynn" Suit Says SLING MEDIA: Faces "Mann" Suit Over Alleged "Bait and Switch" STONE BRAZIL: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime STUDENT AID CENTER: Faces "Tarkoff" Action Over TCPA Violations TELEXELECTRIC LLP: Faces "Dos Santos" Suit Over Pyramid Schemes TEREX CORPORATION: Sued in Del. Over Proposed Konecranes Merger TOWNE PROPERTIES: Faces "Duggan" Suit Over ERISA Violations TURTLE BEACH: Class Action Remains Stayed UNITED PARCEL: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages UNITED STATES: OPM Faces "Sims" Suit Over Data Theft UNITED STATES: DOS Sued Over Unlawful Revised Visa Bulletin VEREIT INC: Plaintiffs Filed Response to Motions to Dismiss VEREIT INC: Not Yet Required to Respond to "Wunsch" Complaint VEREIT INC: Continues to Defend ARCT III Litigation VEREIT INC: No Subsequent Activity in "Tarver" Action VEREIT INC: Plaintiff in "Poling" Action Filed Notice of Appeal VEREIT INC: Appeal Pending in Maryland Cole Merger Action VEREIT INC: Suit by Realistic Partners Remains Pending VISTA CLINICAL: Faces "Gear" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Lucas" Suit Over Emission Scandal VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Dumont" Suit Over Emission Scandal VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Butler" Suit in Va. Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Heppard" Suit Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "McMillen" Suit Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Montano" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Device VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Paoli" Suit in Mon. Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Pergament" Suit Over Defeat Devices WAYNE L. HUDGENS: Sued Over Failure to Repair Defective Units WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Failure to Pay Deferred Compensation WESTERN FEDERAL: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime WHOLE FOODS: Falsely Advertises Meat Products, PETA Suit Says WPX ENERGY: New Class Action Stayed Pending First Lawsuit WPX ENERGY: Lawsuit by Royalty Interest Owners Remains Pending YOUSSEF HACHEM: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Medina" Suit Says ********* A10 NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Filed Consolidated Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- A10 Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the In re A10 Networks, Inc. Shareholder Litigation. The Company said, "On January 29, 2015, the Company, the members of our Board of Directors, our Chief Financial Officer, and the underwriters of our March 21, 2014 initial public offering were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. A10 Networks, Inc., et al., 1-15-CV-276207. Several substantially identical lawsuits were subsequently filed in the same court, bringing the same claims against the same defendants, captioned Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. A10 Networks, Inc., et al., 1-15-CV-278575 (filed March 25, 2015) and Kaveny v. A10 Networks, Inc., et al., 1-15-CV-279006 (filed April 6, 2015). On May 29, 2015, the aforementioned putative class actions were consolidated under the caption In re A10 Networks, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, 1-15-CV-276207." "On June 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint seeks to allege violations of the federal Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a putative class consisting of purchasers of our common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus for the initial public offering, and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. We intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits." ADVANCED MICRO: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Product Information ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jake Ha, derivatively and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-04485-KAW (N.D. Cal., September 29, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to implement necessary policies and protocols to ensure the accurate dissemination of material information to its shareholders and the broader investment community, concerning a Company product called Llano. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. is a corporation that designs and distributes technology for high-tech appliances such as personal computers, tablets and game consoles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Kara M. Wolke, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com kwolke@glancylaw.com AISAN INDUSTRY: Sued Over Fuel Injection Systems-Price Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------- Irving Levine Automotive Distributors, Inc., individually and behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aisan Industry Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-13423-TGB-MKM (E.D. Mich., September 29, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's alleged conspiracy to rig bids and fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of Fuel Injection Systems sold in the United States and elsewhere at supra-competitive levels. Aisan Industry Co., Ltd. is a Japanese corporation that manufactures and sells automotive parts. The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Fink, Esq. Darryl Bressack, Esq. FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW 38500 Woodward Ave, Ste. 350 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 971-2500 E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com - and - Gregory P. Hansel, Esq. Randall B. Weill, Esq. Jonathan G. Mermin, Esq. Michael S. Smith, Esq. PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP One City Center P.O. Box 9546 Portland, ME 04112-9546 Telephone: (207) 791-3000 E-mail: ghansel@preti.com rweill@preti.com jmermin@preti.com msmith@preti.com - and - Joseph C. Kohn, Esq. William E. Hoese, Esq. Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com whoese@kohnswift.com dabrahams@kohnswift.com - and - Steven A. Kanner, Esq. William H. London, Esq. Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com wlondon@fklmlaw.com mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com - and - Eugene A. Spector, Esq. William G. Caldes, Esq. Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com bcaldes@srkw-law.com jjagher@srkw-law.com jspector@srkw-law.com - and - Carl E. Person, Esq. 225 E. 36th Street - Suite 3A New York, N.Y. 10016-3664 Telephone: (212) 307- 4444 E-mail: carlpers2@gmail.com - and - Irwin B. Levin, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com - and - Manuel J. Dominguez, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (877) 515-7955 E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com - and - Solomon B. Cera, Esq. CERA LLP 595 Market St., Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-5189 E-mail: scera@cerallp.com ALLERGAN PLC: Actos(R) Purchasers Class Actions Remain Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that class actions are pending filed by purchasers of Actos(R). On December 31, 2013 two putative class actions, on behalf of putative classes of indirect purchaser plaintiffs, were filed in the federal court for the Southern District of New York against Actavis plc and certain of its affiliates alleging that Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s ("Watson" now known as Actavis, Inc.) 2010 patent lawsuit settlement with Takeda Pharmaceutical, Co. Ltd. related to Actos(R) (pioglitazone hydrochloride and metformin "Actos(R)") is unlawful. Several additional complaints have also been filed. Plaintiffs then filed a consolidated, amended complaint on May 20, 2014. The amended complaint generally alleges an overall scheme that included Watson improperly delaying the launch of its generic version of Actos(R) in exchange for substantial payments from Takeda in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and unspecified damages. Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint. In May 2015, two additional putative class action complaints, each of which makes similar allegations against the Company and Takeda, were filed by plaintiffs on behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims alleged. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLERGAN PLC: AndroGel(R) Purchasers Class Actions Remain Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that class actions are pending filed by purchasers of AndroGel(R). On January 29, 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the State of California filed a lawsuit in federal district court in California alleging that the September 2006 patent lawsuit settlement between Watson and Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Solvay"), related to AndroGel(R) 1% (testosterone gel) CIII is unlawful. The complaint generally alleged that Watson improperly delayed its launch of a generic version of AndroGel(R) in exchange for Solvay's agreement to permit Watson to co-promote AndroGel(R) for consideration in excess of the fair value of the services provided by Watson, in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaint sought equitable relief and civil penalties. On February 2 and 3, 2009, three separate lawsuits alleging similar claims were filed in federal district court in California by various private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain classes of similarly situated claimants. On April 8, 2009, the Court transferred the government and private cases to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The FTC and the private plaintiffs filed amended complaints on May 28, 2009. The private plaintiffs amended their complaints to include allegations concerning conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the "USPTO"), conduct in connection with the listing of Solvay's patent in the FDA "Orange Book," and sham litigation. Additional actions alleging similar claims have been filed in various courts by other private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain classes of similarly situated direct or indirect purchasers of AndroGel(R). The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") transferred all federal court actions then pending outside of Georgia to that district. The district court then granted the Company's motion to dismiss all claims except the private plaintiffs' sham litigation claims. After the dismissal was upheld by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the FTC petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear the case. On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a decision, holding that the settlements between brand and generic drug companies which include a payment from the brand company to the generic competitor must be evaluated under a "rule of reason" standard of review and ordered the case remanded (the "Supreme Court AndroGel Decision"). The case in now back in the district court in Georgia August 5, 2014 the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which the Company answered on September 15, 2014. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLERGAN PLC: Class Action by Asacol(R) Purchasers Filed -------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that two class action complaints were filed on June 22, 2015, in federal court in Massachusetts on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers. In each complaint plaintiffs allege that they paid higher prices for Warner Chilcott's Asacol(R) HD and Delzicol(R) products as a result of Warner Chilcott's alleged actions preventing or delaying generic competition in the market for Warner Chilcott's older Asacol(R) product in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages and/or attorneys' fees. All of the actions were consolidated in the federal district court. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLERGAN PLC: Filed Motion to Dismiss Botox(R) Litigation --------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on February 24, 2015, a class action complaint was filed in federal court in California. The complaint alleges unlawful market allocation in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1, agreement in restraint of trade in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act, unlawful maintenance of monopoly market power in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2 of the Sherman Act, violations of California's Cartwright Act, Section 16700 et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code., and violations of California's unfair competition law, Section 17200 et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 29, 2015. On June 29, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLERGAN PLC: Cipro(R) Litigation Remains Pending in State Courts ----------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Cipro(R) Litigation remain pending in various state courts, including California, Kansas, Tennessee, and Florida. Beginning in July 2000, a number of suits were filed against Watson and certain Company affiliates including The Rugby Group, Inc. ("Rugby") in various state and federal courts alleging claims under various federal and state competition and consumer protection laws. The actions generally allege that the defendants engaged in unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in connection with alleged agreements, entered into prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby from Sanofi Aventis ("Sanofi"), related to the development, manufacture and sale of the drug substance ciprofloxacin hydrochloride, the generic version of Bayer's brand drug, Cipro(R). The actions generally seek declaratory judgment, damages, injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf of certain purported classes of individuals and other entities. While many of these actions have been dismissed, actions remain pending in various state courts, including California, Kansas, Tennessee, and Florida. There has been activity in Tennessee and Florida since 2003. In the action pending in Kansas, plaintiffs' motion for class certification has been fully briefed. In the action pending in the California state court, following the decision from the United States Supreme Court in the Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis matter involving AndroGel(R), Plaintiffs and Bayer announced that they reached an agreement to settle the claims pending against Bayer and Bayer has now been dismissed from the action. Plaintiffs are continuing to pursue claims against the generic defendants, including Watson and Rugby. The remaining parties submitted letter briefs to the court regarding the impact of the Supreme Court AndroGel Decision and on May 7, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling, consistent with the Supreme Court AndroGel Decision, that the settlements between brand and generic drug companies which include a payment from the brand company to the generic competitor must be evaluated under a "rule of reason" standard of review. ALLERGAN PLC: Continues to Defend Doryx (R) Litigation ------------------------------------------------------ Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company continues to defend the Doryx (R) Litigation. In July 2012, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Mylan") filed a complaint against Warner Chilcott and Mayne Pharma International Pty. Ltd. ("Mayne") in federal court in Pennsylvania alleging that Warner Chilcott and Mayne prevented or delayed Mylan's generic competition to Warner Chilcott's Doryx(R) products in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws and tortiously interfered with Mylan's prospective economic relationships under Pennsylvania state law. In the complaint, Mylan seeks unspecified treble and punitive damages and attorneys' fees. Following the filing of Mylan's complaint, three putative class actions were filed against Warner Chilcott and Mayne by purported direct purchasers, and one putative class action was filed against by purported indirect purchasers. In addition, four retailers filed in the same court a civil antitrust complaint in their individual capacities against Warner Chilcott and Mayne regarding Doryx(R). In each of the class and individual cases the plaintiffs allege that they paid higher prices for Warner Chilcott's Doryx(R) products as a result of Warner Chilcott's and Mayne's alleged actions preventing or delaying generic competition in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages and/or attorneys' fees. All of the actions were consolidated in the federal district court. Warner Chilcott and Mayne's motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice by the court in June 2013. Thereafter, Warner Chilcott and Mayne reached agreements to settle the claims of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiff class representatives, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff class representatives and each of the individual retailer plaintiffs. Warner Chilcott and Mylan filed motions for summary judgment on March 10, 2014. On April 16, 2015, the court issued an order granting Warner Chilcott and Mayne's motion for summary judgment, denying Mylan's summary judgment motion and entering judgment in favor of Warner Chilcott and Mayne on all counts. Mylan is appealing the district court's decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company intends to vigorously defend its rights in the litigations. However, it is impossible to predict with certainty the outcome of any litigation and whether any additional similar suits will be filed. ALLERGAN PLC: Continues to Defend Against Lidoderm(R) Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company continues to defend against Lidoderm(R) Litigation. On November 8, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the federal district court against Actavis, Inc. and certain of its affiliates alleging that Watson's 2012 patent lawsuit settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. related to Lidoderm(R) (lidocaine transdermal patches, "Lidoderm(R)") is unlawful. The complaint, asserted on behalf of putative classes of direct purchaser plaintiffs, generally alleges that Watson improperly delayed launching generic versions of Lidoderm(R) in exchange for substantial payments from Endo in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. Additional lawsuits containing similar allegations have followed on behalf of other classes of putative direct purchasers and suits have been filed on behalf of putative classes of end-payer plaintiffs. The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the same or similar allegations may be filed. On April 3, 2014 the JPML consolidated the cases in federal district court in California. Defendants filed motions to dismiss each of the plaintiff classes' claims. On November 17, 2014, the court issued an order granting the motion in part but denying it with respect to the claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs then filed an amended, consolidated complaint on December 19, 2014. Defendants have responded to the amended consolidated complaint. On March 5, 2015, a group of five retailers filed a civil antitrust complaint in their individual capacities regarding Lidoderm(R) in the same court where it was consolidated with the direct and indirect purchaser class complaints. The retailer complaint recites similar facts and asserts similar legal claims for relief to those asserted in the related cases. The five retailers amended their complaint on July 27, 2015. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLERGAN PLC: Continues to Defend v. Loestrin (R) 24 Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company continues to defend against Loestrin (R) 24 Litigation. On April 5, 2013, two putative class actions were filed in the federal district court against Actavis, Inc. and certain affiliates alleging that Watson's 2009 patent lawsuit settlement with Warner Chilcott related to Loestrin(R) 24 Fe (norethindrone acetate/ethinyl estradiol tablets and ferrous fumarate tablets, "Loestrin(R) 24") is unlawful. The complaints, both asserted on behalf of putative classes of end-payors, generally allege that Watson and another generic manufacturer improperly delayed launching generic versions of Loestrin(R) 24 in exchange for substantial payments from Warner Chilcott, which at the time was an unrelated company, in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaints each seek declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. Additional complaints have been filed by different plaintiffs seeking to represent the same putative class of end-payors. In addition to the end-payor suits, two lawsuits have been filed on behalf of a class of direct payors. The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the same or similar allegations. After a hearing on September 26, 2013, the JPML issued an order transferring all related Loestrin(R) 24 cases to the federal court for the District of Rhode Island. On September 4, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs are appealing the district court's decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously including in the appeal of the district court's decision granting the Company's motion to dismiss. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLERGAN PLC: Direct Purchasers Dismissed Namenda(R) Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the putative class of direct purchasers voluntarily has dismissed its complaint related to Namenda(R). On September 15, 2014, the State of New York, through the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Forest is acting to prevent or delay generic competition to Forest's immediate-release product Namenda(R) in violation of federal and New York antitrust laws and committed other fraudulent acts in connection with its commercial plans for Namenda(R) XR. In the complaint, the state seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. On September 24, 2014, the state filed a motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Forest from discontinuing or otherwise limiting the availability of immediate-release Namenda(R) until the conclusion of the litigation. A hearing was held in November 2014 on the state's preliminary injunction motion. On December 11, 2014, the district court issued a ruling granting the state's injunction motion and issued an injunction on December 15, 2014. On May 22, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction. On June 5, 2015, Forest filed a petition with the Second Circuit for rehearing en banc. Forest's petition remains pending. On May 29, 2015, a putative class action was filed on behalf of a class of direct purchasers and on June 8, 2015 a similar putative class action was filed on behalf of a class of indirect purchasers. The class action complaints make claims similar to those asserted by the New York Attorney General and also include claims that Namenda(R) XR patent litigation settlements between Forest and generic companies also violated the antitrust laws. On June 12, 2015, the putative class of direct purchasers voluntarily dismissed its compliant without prejudice. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend both its brand and generic defendant entities vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLERGAN PLC: Filed Answer to Zymar(R)/Zymaxid(R) Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Allergan has filed an answer to the class action complaint related to Zymar(R)/Zymaxid(R). On February 16, 2012, Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. filed a complaint in the federal district court in Delaware Senju Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. ("Senju"), Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. ("Kyorin"), and Allergan, Inc. ("Allergan") alleging monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, conspiracy to monopolize, and unreasonable restraint of trade in the market for gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations, which includes Allergan's ZYMAR(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3% and ZYMAXID(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% products. On May 24, 2012, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss the complaint to the extent it seeks to impose liability for alleged injuries occurring prior to August 19, 2011, which is the date Apotex obtained final approval of its proposed generic product. Allergan and the other defendants also moved to dismiss. Defendants also filed a motion to stay the action pending resolution of related patent actions in the federal court in Delaware and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On February 7, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to stay the proceedings pending resolution of the appeal in the patent dispute and denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to renew. On September 18, 2014, defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the Apotex plaintiffs' complaint. On June 6, 2014, a separate antitrust class action complaint was filed in the federal district court in Delaware against the same defendants as in the Apotex case. The complaint alleges that defendants unlawfully excluded or delayed generic competition in the gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations market (generic versions of ZYMAR(R) and ZYMAXID(R)). On September 18, 2014, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and joined in co-defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court dismissed Allergan's motion on May 2, 2015. Thereafter, Allergan filed an answer to the complaint on June 1, 2015. ALLERGAN PLC: Bid to Dismiss Celexa/Lexapro Case Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court has issued a ruling on the motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part, in a class action lawsuit related to Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R). Forest and certain of its affiliates are defendants in three federal court actions filed on behalf of individuals who purchased Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) for pediatric use, all of which have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in an MDL proceeding in the federal district court Massachusetts (the "Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL"). These actions, two of which were originally filed as putative nationwide class actions, and one of which is a putative California-wide class action, allege that Forest marketed Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) for off-label pediatric use and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). The complaints assert various similar claims, including claims under the state consumer protection statutes and state common laws. Plaintiffs in the various actions sought to have certified California, Missouri, Illinois and New York state-wide classes. However, only the Missouri state class was certified. Forest subsequently reached an agreement with the MDL plaintiffs to settle the Missouri class claims, including claims by both individuals and third party payors that purchased Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) for use by a minor from 1998 to December 31, 2013, for $7.65 million with a potential to increase the amount to $10.35 million if settling plaintiffs meet certain thresholds. On September 8, 2014 the court granted final approval for the settlement. Additional actions relating to the promotion of Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) have been filed all of which have been consolidated in the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL. On May 3, 2013, an action was filed in federal court in California on behalf of individuals who purchased Lexapro(R) for adolescent use, seeking to certify a state-wide class action in California and alleging that our promotion of Lexapro(R) for adolescent depression has been deceptive. On March 5, 2014 the court granted Forest's motion to dismiss this complaint. Plaintiff then appealed the district court's decision to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and on February 20, 2015, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, ruling that Plaintiffs' California state law claims were preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). On November 13, 2013, an action was filed in federal court in Minnesota seeking to certify a nationwide class of third-party payor entities that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). Forest moved to dismiss the complaint and on December 12, 2014, the court issued a ruling dismissing plaintiff's claims under Minnesota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, but denying the remaining portions of the motion. On March 13, 2014, an action was filed in the federal court in Massachusetts by two third-party payors seeking to certify a nationwide class of persons and entities that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for use by pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, state consumer protection statutes, and state common laws, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). The court granted Forest's motion to dismiss this complaint in its December 12, 2014 ruling. On August 28, 2014, an action was filed in the federal district court in Washington seeking to certify a nationwide class of consumers and subclasses of Washington and Massachusetts consumers that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that Forest engaged in off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). Forest's response to the complaint was filed on December 19, 2014. On June 16, 2015, the court issued a ruling on the motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part. Forest and certain of its affiliates are named as defendants in two actions filed on behalf of entities or individuals who purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use pending in the Missouri state court. These claims arise from similar allegations as those contained in the federal actions described in the preceding paragraphs. One action, filed on November 6, 2009, was brought by two entities that purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R). The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. The other action, filed on July 22, 2009, was filed as a putative class action on behalf of a class of Missouri citizens who purchased Celexa(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. In October 2010, the court certified a class of Missouri domiciliary citizens who purchased Celexa(R) for pediatric use at any time prior to the date of the class certification order, but who do not have a claim for personal injury. The Company reached agreements with both sets of plaintiffs in the Missouri actions to resolve each matter for payments that are not material to the Company's financial condition or results of operations. ALLERGAN PLC: Settlement in Forest Labs Securities Suit Approved ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the court has approved the settlement agreement in the Forest Laboratories Securities Litigation. In February and March 2014, several putative stockholder class actions were brought against Forest, Forest's directors, Actavis plc, and certain of Actavis's affiliates. Four actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in New York State Supreme Court. The amended complaints in these actions seek, among other remedies, to enjoin Actavis's proposed acquisition of Forest or damages in the event the transaction closes. The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the members of the Forest Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Forest for inadequate consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process, and that the disclosure document fails to disclose allegedly material information about the transaction. The complaints also allege that Actavis, and certain of its affiliates, aided and abetted these alleged breaches. On May 28, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs to settle both actions. The parties entered into a definitive stipulation of settlement on February 6, 2015 and on June 25, 2015, the court approved the settlement agreement. ALLERGAN PLC: Settlement in Furiex Securities Litigation Approved ----------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the court has approved the settlement agreement in the Furiex Securities Litigation. In May 2014, four putative stockholder class actions were brought against Forest, Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Furiex"), and Furiex's board of directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in North Carolina state court. These actions alleged, among other things, that the members of the Furiex Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Furiex for inadequate consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process. These actions also alleged that Forest aided and abetted these alleged breaches. These actions sought class certification, to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Furiex, and an award of unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, experts' fees, and other costs. Two of the actions also sought rescission of the acquisition and unspecified rescissory damages if the acquisition was completed. On June 23, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs regarding a settlement of all actions, and on January 15, 2015, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement which is subject to court approval. On July 1, 2015, the court approved the settlement agreement. ALLERGAN PLC: Anda and Forest Defending TCPA Litigation ------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Anda and Forest are defending a Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation. A putative class action complaint against Anda, Inc. ("Anda"), a subsidiary of the Company, in Missouri state court alleging conversion and alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. An amended complaint alleges that by sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements, Anda misappropriated the class members' paper, toner, ink and employee time when they received the alleged unsolicited faxes, and that the alleged unsolicited facsimile advertisements were sent to the plaintiff in violation of the TCPA and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaint seeks to assert class action claims on behalf of the plaintiff and other similarly situated third parties. On May 19, 2011, the plaintiff's filed a motion seeking certification of a class of entities with Missouri telephone numbers who were sent Anda faxes for the period January 2004 through January 2008 but the court vacated the class certification hearing until the FCC Petition was addressed. On May 1, 2012, a separate action was filed in federal court in Florida, purportedly on behalf of the "end users of the fax numbers in the United States but outside Missouri to which faxes advertising pharmaceutical products for sale by Anda were sent." On July 10, 2012, Anda filed its answer and affirmative defenses. The parties filed a joint motion to stay the action pending the resolution of the FCC Petition which the court granted. In addition, in October 2012, Forest and certain of its affiliates were named as defendants, in a putative class action in federal court in Missouri. This suit alleges that Forest and another defendant violated the TCPA and was filed on behalf of a proposed class that includes all persons who, from four years prior to the filing of the action, were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of defendants, which did not display an opt-out notice compliant with a certain regulation promulgated by the FCC. On July 17, 2013, the district court granted Forest's motion to stay the action pending the administrative proceeding initiated by the pending FCC Petition and a separate petition Forest filed. In a related matter, in November 2010 Anda filed a petition with the FCC, asking the FCC to clarify the statutory basis for its regulation requiring "opt-out" language on faxes sent with express permission of the recipient (the "FCC Petition"). On May 2, 2012, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau of the FCC dismissed the FCC Petition. On May 14, 2012, Anda filed an application for review of the Bureau's dismissal by the full Commission, requesting the FCC to vacate the dismissal and grant the relief sought in the FCC Petition. The FCC did not rule on the application for review. On June 27, 2013, Forest filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling with the FCC requesting that the FCC find that (1) the faxes at issue in the action complied, or substantially complied with the FCC regulation, and thus did not violate it, or (2) the FCC regulation was not properly promulgated under the TCPA. On January 31, 2014, the FCC issued a Public Notice seeking comment on several other recently-filed petitions, all similar to the one Anda filed in 2010. On October 30, 2014, the FCC issued a final order on the FCC Petition granting Anda, Forest and several other petitioners a retroactive waiver of the opt-out notice requirement for all faxes sent with express consent. The litigation plaintiffs, who had filed comments on the January 2014 Public Notice, have appealed the final order to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Anda, Forest and other petitioners have moved to intervene in the appeal seeking review of that portion of the FCC final order addressing the statutory basis for the opt out/express consent portion of the regulation. Anda and Forest believe they have substantial meritorious defenses to the putative class actions brought under the TCPA, and intend to defend the actions vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLIANCE BANCORP: Defendants Entered Into MOU in Merger Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that defendants in a class action lawsuit have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs. On March 2, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement") with WSFS Financial Corporation ("WSFS") providing for, among other things, the merger of the Company with and into WSFS (the "Merger") and the merger of the Bank with and into Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, a federal savings bank and wholly owned subsidiary of WSFS. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each stockholder of the Company will be able to elect to receive, for each share of common stock of the Company, either 0.28955 shares of WSFS common stock or $22.00 in cash, subject to adjustment on a pro rata basis so that approximately 30% of the aggregate consideration paid to shareholders of the Company will be paid in cash and the remaining 70% will be paid in WSFS stock. The Merger is subject to customary closing conditions, including regulatory approvals and approval from the shareholders of the Company Three purported shareholder derivative and class action complaints relating to the Merger have been filed. The actions were filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania. The complaints name as defendants the Company, its directors and certain of its officers, and WSFS (the "defendants"). The complaints in the Merger litigation allege that the members of the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders by approving the Merger for inadequate consideration, approving the transaction in order to obtain benefits for Company's directors and officers that are not equally shared by other Company's shareholders, entering into the Merger agreement containing preclusive deal protection devices, and failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to the Company's shareholders. The complaints also allege claims against WSFS for aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs in this action seeks, among other things, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the Merger, rescission or rescissory damages in the event the Merger is consummated, damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other and further relief. On June 11, 2015, solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, Alliance Bancorp, WSFS and the other defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs ( the "Plaintiffs") regarding the settlement of the lawsuits. Pursuant to the MOU, Alliance Bancorp and WSFS have agreed to file with the SEC and make publicly available to shareholders of Alliance Bancorp the supplemental disclosures in a Current Report on Form 8-K, and the Plaintiffs have agreed to release Alliance Bancorp, WSFS and the other defendants from all claims related to the Merger Agreement and the proposed Merger, subject to approval of the Court. If the Court approves the settlement contemplated in the MOU, the lawsuits will be dismissed with prejudice, and all claims that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith will be released and barred. Under the terms of the MOU, counsel for the Plaintiffs and Defendants have agreed to negotiate in good faith in an effort to agree upon the award of Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Alliance Bancorp, its successor in interest and/or its insurer. In the event no agreement is reached among Plaintiffs and Defendants with respect to the award of attorneys' fees and expenses, then Plaintiffs have reserved the right to apply to the court for payment of their attorneys' fees and expenses. The amount of any fees and expense awarded will ultimately be determined and approved by the Court, and will not affect the amount of merger consideration to be paid by WSFS. In the MOU, the parties have agreed to negotiate in good faith to prepare a stipulation of settlement to be filed with the Court and other documentation as may be required to effectuate the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties ultimately will enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. The proposed settlement contemplated by the MOU will become void in the event that the parties do not enter into such stipulation or the Court does not approve the settlement. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Boston Suit Over Air Ticker-Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Boston Amateur Basketball Club, III, Ltd, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. American Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Continental Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-04459 (N.D. Cal., September 28, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets. The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Whitney E. Street, Esq. Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 520 Third Street, Suite 108 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (415) 968-8999 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: wstreet@blockesq.com lweaver@blockes.com - and - Erica G. Langsen, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: elangsen@blockesq.com - and - Peter Safirstein, Esq. Roger A. Sachar Jr., Esq. Domenico Minerva, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 28 West 44th Street, Suite 2001 New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 564-1637 Facsimile: (212) 564-1656 E-mail: PSafirstein@MorganSecuritiesLaw.com RSachar@MorganSecuritiesLaw.com DMinerva@Forthepeople.com ASCENA RETAIL: Defendants Entered Into MOU in Merger Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Ascena Retail Group, Inc. filed on August 6, 2015, a Current Report on Form 8-K pursuant to a memorandum of understanding regarding the settlement of certain litigation relating to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), dated as of May 17, 2015, by and among ANN INC., a Delaware corporation ("ANN"), Ascena Retail Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Ascena"), and Avian Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Ascena ("Merger Sub"). The Merger Agreement provides that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will merge with and into ANN, with ANN continuing as the surviving corporation (the "Merger"). As previously disclosed on page 75 of the Definitive Proxy Statement/Prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") by Ascena on July 20, 2015 (the "Definitive Proxy Statement/Prospectus"), ANN, its board of directors, Ascena and Merger Sub are named as defendants in a putative class action in the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the Merger. The suit was filed on May 27, 2015 and is captioned Vladimir Gusinsky Living Trust v. ANN, Inc., C.A. No. 11067-CB (the "Action"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that ANN's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell ANN through an unfair process and by failing to maximize the value of ANN. The complaint also alleges that ANN, Merger Sub and Ascena have aided and abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty. On July 2, 2015, the plaintiff amended its complaint to include allegations that ANN's preliminary proxy statement, filed as part of Ascena's registration statement, was materially misleading and incomplete. On August 6, 2015, the defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiff providing for the settlement of the Action. While ANN and Ascena believe that no supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws, in order to avoid the burden and expense of further litigation, ANN and Ascena have agreed, pursuant to the terms of the MOU, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger, all of which are set forth below. The MOU contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to ANN's stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Delaware Court of Chancery will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims by stockholders of ANN challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith, including in the Definitive Proxy Statement/Prospectus, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiff's counsel will file a petition in the Delaware Court of Chancery for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by ANN or its successor. The settlement is also contingent upon, among other things, the Merger becoming effective under Delaware law. There can be no assurance that the Delaware Court of Chancery will approve the settlement contemplated by the MOU. In the event that the settlement is not approved and such conditions are not satisfied, the defendants will continue to vigorously defend against the allegations in the Action. ATOSSA GENETICS: Hearing on Appeal Not Been Set ----------------------------------------------- Atossa Genetics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a hearing for the appeal in a class action lawsuit has not been set. The Company said, "On October 10, 2013, a putative securities class action complaint, captioned Cook v. Atossa Genetics, Inc., et al., No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM, was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against us, certain of our directors and officers and the underwriters of our November 2012 initial public offering. The complaint alleges that all defendants violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2), and that we and certain of our directors and officers violated Section 15, of the Securities Act by making material false and misleading statements and omissions in the offering's registration statement, and that we and certain of our directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions in the registration statement and in certain of our subsequent press releases and SEC filings with respect to our NAF specimen collection process, our ForeCYTE Aspirator Breast Health Test and our MASCT device. This action seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased our common stock between November 8, 2012 and October 4, 2013, inclusive, damages of an unspecific amount." "On February 14, 2014, the Court appointed plaintiffs Miko Levi, Bandar Almosa and Gregory Harrison (collectively, the "Levi Group") as lead plaintiffs, and approved their selection of co- lead counsel and liaison counsel. The Court also amended the caption of the case to read In re Atossa Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation. No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM. An amended complaint was filed on April 15, 2014. The Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on May 30, 2014. On October 6, 2014 the Court granted defendants' motion dismissing all claims against Atossa and all other defendants. On October 30, 2014, the Court entered a final order of dismissal. On November 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court and have appealed the Court's dismissal order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On February 11, 2015, plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief. Defendants filed an answering brief on April 13, 2015. On May 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed a reply brief in support of their appeal. A hearing for the appeal has not been set." BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Appraisers Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Richard W. Harris, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bank of America Corp., Landsafe, Inc., Landsafe Appraisal Services, Inc., and Does 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. 1:15-cv-07683 (S.D.N.Y., September 29, 2015) is brought against the Defendants to pay overtime wages to their Staff Appraisers in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate a financial company that does business throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michele R. Fisher, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: fisher@nka.com - and - Matthew C. Helland, Esq. Daniel S. Brome, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 277-7235 Facsimile: (415) 277-7238 E-mail: helland@nka.com dbrome@nka.com BARRAJA INC: "Mou" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Ching Lam Mou, Zenon Xochmitl, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Barraja Inc. Thalia Restaurant, Avi Camchi, Helan Kehati, Sam Erlich, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10 Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-07567 (S.D.N.Y., September 24, 2015), seeks to recover overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wage Payment Act. This action arises from the Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiffs, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. Defendant, Barraja Inc. owns and operates a restaurant in Manhattan located at 828 8th Avenue, New York, New York 10019. Defendant Avi Camchi is an owner, officer, director and/or managing agent of Barraja Inc. at 828 8th Avenue, New York, New York 10019 and participated in the day-to-day operations of Thalia Restaurant. Defendant Helan Kehati is an owner, officer, director and/or managing agent of Barraja Inc. at 828 8th Avenue, New York, New York 10019 and participated in the day-to-day operations of Thalia Restaurant. Defendant Sam Erlich is an owner, officer, director and/or managing agent of Barraja Inc. at 828 8th Avenue, New York, New York 10019 and participated in the day-to-day operations of Thalia Restaurant. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. 136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Tel: 718-353-8588 Email: jhang@hanglaw.com BAYER CORPORATION: Faces Pill Box Pines Suit Over TCPA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pill Box Pines West, LLC, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Bayer Corporation, Bayer Healthcare LLC, Defendants, Case No. 15-CV- 62042 (S.D. Fla., September 25, 2015), seeks to recover damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the Complaint, Defendants allegedly sent fax advertisements to Plaintiff in an attempt to market and sell its diabetic blood glucose monitoring equipment without the latter's consent. These wrongful acts have caused the Plaintiff to lose valuable time and material resources. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock BOCK & HATCH, LLC 134 N. La Salle St, Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312-658-5500 BLUE CROSS: Faces Graceland Suit Over Plan Asset Misappropriation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Graceland Fruit, Inc. and Graceland Fruit, Inc. Welfare Benefit Plan v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Case No. 2:15-cv- 13438-NGE-DRG (E.D. Mich., September 29, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's alleged misappropriation of self-insured employee benefit Plan assets in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is a Michigan non-profit health care corporation organized under the Nonprofit Health Care Corporation Reform Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron M. Phelps, Esq. VARNUM LLP Bridgewater Place, PO Box 352 Grand Rapids, MI, 49501-0352 Telephone: (616) 336-6000 Facsimile: (616) 336-7000 E-mail: amphelps@varnumlaw.com BLUE CROSS: Faces Wynnestone Suit Over Assets Misappropriation -------------------------------------------------------------- Wynnestone Communities Corporation f/k/a Amurcon Corporation and Amurcon Corporation Benefit Plan v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Case No. 2:15-cv-13405-RHC-RSW (E.D. Mich., September 28, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's alleged misappropriation of self-insured employee benefit Plan assets in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is a Michigan non-profit health care corporation organized under the Nonprofit Health Care Corporation Reform Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Perrin Rynders, Esq. Aaron M. Phelps, Esq. Kyle P. Konwinski, Esq. VARNUM LLP Bridgewater Place, PO Box 352 Grand Rapids, MI, 49501-0352 Telephone: (616) 336-6000 Facsimile: (616) 336-7000 E-mail: prynders@varnumlaw.com amphelps@varnumlaw.com kpkonwinski@varnumlaw.com BLYTH INC: Faces "Holyszko" Suit Over Proposed Carlyle Takeover --------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Holyszko and Russell Wittkopp, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Blyth, Inc., Case No. 11553 (Del. Ch., September 29, 2015) is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Blyth, Inc. against Blyth's Board of Directors, to enjoin a proposed transaction announced on August 31, 2015, pursuant to which Blyth will be acquired by The Carlyle Group LP and its affiliates for grossly inadequate consideration. Blyth, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that markets and manufactures candles, home fragrances, and home decor products. The Carlyle Group LP is a global alternative asset manager that provides investment advice to funds and other vehicles across a range of industries, geographies, asset classes, and investment strategies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com - and - Carl L. Stine, Esq. Fei-Lu Qian, Esq. Sean M. Zaroogian, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 E-mail: fqian@wolfpopper.com cstine@wolfpopper.com szaroogian@wolfpopper.com - and - Ann D. White, Esq. ANN D. WHITE LAW OFFICES, PC 101 Greenwood Ave, Fifth Floor Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 690-3858 E-mail: awhite@awhitelaw.com BLYTH INC: Faces "Nguyen" Suit Over Proposed Carlyle Takeover ------------------------------------------------------------- Heidi Nguyen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Blyth, Inc., et al., Case No. 11547 (Del. Ch., September 25, 2015) is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Blyth, Inc. against Blyth's Board of Directors, to enjoin a proposed transaction announced on August 31, 2015, pursuant to which Blyth will be acquired by The Carlyle Group LP and its affiliates for grossly inadequate consideration. Blyth, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that markets and manufactures candles, home fragrances, and home decor products. The Carlyle Group LP is a global alternative asset manager that provides investment advice to funds and other vehicles across a range of industries, geographies, asset classes, and investment strategies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th St. N.W., Suite 115 Washington, D.C. 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 BOUCHON BEVERLY HILLS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Gonzalez, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bouchon Beverly Hills, LLC, Bouchon Beverly Hills, LP, Bouchon, LLC, Bouchon, LP, and DOES 1 through SO, Defendants, Case No. 595877 (Cal., September, 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Orders. This action arises out of the Defendants' alleged failures to provide all rest periods or pay premium wages for workdays with proper rest periods, provide all meal periods or pay premium wages for workdays with one or more unprovided meal periods, provide accurate written wage statements, timely pay final wages upon termination of employment, and fairly compete. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Spivak, Esq. Patrick White HI, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 9454 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 303 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone (310) 499-4730 Facsimile (310)499-4739 Email: david@spivaklaw.com patrick@spivaklaw.com BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Alidad" Suit Over Inflated Prices ---------------------------------------------------- Nay Alidad, Galyna Andrusyshyn, Robert Benjamin, Barbara Buenning, Danielle Greenberg, Sheryl Haley, Lisa Hall, Tya Hughes, Marissa Jacobus, Gabrielle Kurdt, Erica Pruess, Seth Salenger, And Harold Stafford, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Starkist Company, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, And King Oscar, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-02173-WQH-BLM (S.D. Cal., September 29, 2015), seeks to secure equitable and injunctive relief under the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act. This antitrust action arises out of an alleged conspiracy among the Defendants who are the three largest producers of packaged seafood products in the United States to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for packaged seafood products within the United States, its territories, and the District of Columbia. Bumble Bee Foods LLC is a domestic corporation with its principal place of business located at 280 10th Avenue, San Diego, California 92101. Bumble Bee produces and sells packaged seafood products throughout the United States (including this District), its territories, and the District of Columbia. Bumble Bee is privately owned by Lion Capital, based in the United Kingdom. Defendant StarKist Company is a domestic corporation with its headquarters at 225 North Shore Drive, Suite 400, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15212. StarKist produces and sells packaged seafood products throughout the United States (including this District), its territories, and the District of Columbia. StarKist is privately owned by Dongwon Enterprise, based in South Korea. Defendant Tri-Union Seafoods LLC is a domestic corporation with its principal place of business located at 9330 Scranton Road, Suite 500, San Diego, California 92121. Tri-Union Seafoods LLC produces and sells packaged seafood products throughout the United States, its territories, and the District of Columbia, and markets these products under the brand name Chicken of the Sea. Defendant King Oscar, Inc. is a domestic corporation with its principal place of business at 3838 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 115, San Diego, California 92108. King Oscar produces and sells packaged seafood products throughout the United States (including this District), its territories, and the District of Columbia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis Stewart, Esq. Kirk B. Hulett, Esq. HULETT HARPER STEWART LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1133 Facsimile: (619) 338-1139 CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: "Gould" Suit Challenges Altice Transaction --------------------------------------------------------------- James R. Gould, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cablevision Systems Corporation, Charles F. Dolan, James L. Dolan, Brian G. Sweeney, Kristin A. Dolan, Patrick F. Dolan, Thomas C. Dolan, Deborah Dolansweeney, Marianne Dolan Weber, Paul J. Dolan, Rand V. Araskog, Edward C. Atwood, Frank J. Biondi, Joseph J. Lhota, Thomas V. Reifenheiser, John R. Ryan, Steven J. Simmons, Vincent Tese, Leonard Tow, Neptune Merger Sub Corp., and Altice N.V., Defendants, Case No. 11541 (Del. Ch., September 24, 2015), seeks to enjoin Defendants from consummating a proposed merger transaction between Cablevision and Altice. The Complaint argues that the deal is a product of a flawed process that is designed to ensure the sale of Cablevision to Altice on terms preferential to Altice, but detrimental to Plaintiff and to other public stockholders of Cablevision. A Wall Street Journal report said Altice confirmed it would buy Cablevision for about $10 billion. The report said Altice will pay $34.90 a share for Cablevision. Including Cablevision's debt the deal has an enterprise value of $17.7 billion. The deal will create the number four cable operator in the U.S. market, that report noted. Bloomberg News said the Altice's offer is a 22% premium over Cablevision's closing price of $28.54 on Sept. 16. Defendant Altice is a public company with limited liability under Dutch law. Altice, through its subsidiaries, operates as a cable, fiber, telecommunications, contents, and media company primarily in Western Europe, Israel, and internationally. Defendant Charles F. Dolan has served as a director of the Company since 1985, and as Chairman of the Board since 1985. Defendant J. Dolan has served as a director of the Company since 1991 and as CEO of the Company since October 1995. Defendant B. Sweeney has served as a director of the Company since 2005, and as President and Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") of the Company since March 2015. Defendant K. Dolan has served as a director of the Company since 2010, and as Chief Operating Officer of the Company since April 2014. Defendant P. Dolan has served as a director of the Company since 1991 and President of News 12 Networks of the Company since February 2002. Defendant T. Dolan has served as a director of the Company since 2007 and as Executive Vice President-Strategy and Development, Office of the Chairman since September 2008. Defendant Dolan-Sweeney has served as a director of the Company since 2008, director of Dolan Family Foundation since 1986, and director of Dolan Children's Foundation since 1997. Defendant Weber has served as a director of the Company since 2005. Defendant Paul Dolan has served as director of the Company since 2015. Defendant Rand V. Araskog has served as a director of the Company since 2005. Defendant Atwood has served as a director of the Company since May 2011. Defendant Frank J. Biondi has served as a director of the Company since 2005. Defendant Joseph J. Lhota has served as a director of the Company since 2014. Defendant Thomas V. Reifenheiser has served as a director of the Company since 2002. Defendant Vice Admiral John R. Ryan USN (Ret.) has served as a director of the Company since 2002, and as President and CEO of the Center for Creative Leadership in Greensboro, North Carolina since June 2007. Defendant Steven J. Simmons has served as a director of the Company since 2014, and as Chairman and CEO of Simmons Patriot Media & Communications, LLC, a management firm specializing in media and communications, since 2002. Defendant Vincent Tese has served as a director of the Company since 1996. Defendant Dr. Leonard Tow has served as a director of the Company since 2005, and CEO of New Century Holdings LLC, an outdoor advertising company, since January 2005. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-5310 CAESARS ACQUISITION: Deadline to Respond to Nevada Case Extended ---------------------------------------------------------------- Caesars Acquisition Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the deadline to respond to the Nevada class action lawsuit related to the so- called CAC-CEC Proposed Merger has been indefinitely extended by agreement of the parties. On December 30, 2014, Nicholas Koskie, on behalf of himself and, he alleges, all others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit (the "Nevada Lawsuit") in the Clark County District Court in the State of Nevada against CAC, CEC and members of the CAC board of directors Marc Beilinson, Philip Erlanger, Dhiren Fonseca, Don Kornstein, Karl Peterson, Marc Rowan, and David Sambur (the individual defendants collectively, the "CAC Directors"). The Nevada Lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the CAC Directors and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against CAC and CEC. It seeks (1) a declaration that the claim for breach of fiduciary duty is a proper class action claim; (2) to order the CAC Directors to fulfill their fiduciary duties to CAC in connection with the Proposed Merger, specifically by announcing their intention to (a) cooperate with bona fide interested parties proposing alternative transactions, (b) ensure that no conflicts exist between the CAC Directors' personal interests and their fiduciary duties to maximize shareholder value in the Proposed Merger, or resolve all such conflicts in favor of the latter, and (c) act independently to protect the interests of the shareholders; (3) to order the CAC Directors to account for all damages suffered or to be suffered by the plaintiff and the putative class as a result of the Proposed Merger; and (4) to award the plaintiff for his costs and attorneys' fees. It is unclear whether the Nevada Lawsuit also seeks to enjoin the Proposed Merger. CAC and the CAC Directors believe this lawsuit is without merit and will defend themselves vigorously. The deadline to respond to the Nevada Lawsuit has been indefinitely extended by agreement of the parties. CAL-TEX PROTECTIVE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jenifer Anderson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Cal-Tex Protective Coatings Inc. and Robert Pruitt, Case No. 5:15-cv-00846 (W.D. Tex., September 28, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Cal-Tex Protective Coatings Inc. develops, manufactures, and distributes chemical products for the automotive aftermarket industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Glenn D. Levy, Esq. GLENN D. LEVY, ATTORNEY AT LAW 906 West Basse Road, Suite 100 San Antonio, Texas 78212 Telephone: (210) 822-5666 Facsimile: (210) 822-5650 CALABEES INC: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Rodriguez" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Samuel Ysabel Rodriguez II, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Calabees, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC596053 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 28, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation in violation of the California Labor Code. Calabees, Inc. owns and operates a bar and restaurant in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Dalia R. Khalili, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: info@maternlawgroup.com CARDINAL LOGISTICS: "Silva" Suit Seeks to Claim Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Ruben Silva, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:15-cv-04424 (N.D. Cal., September 25, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages under the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. The lawsuit is filed on behalf of all drivers who were assigned to a Cardinal operating terminal in California and were residents of the State of California. Defendant, Barraja Inc. owns and operates a restaurant in Manhattan located at 828 8th Avenue, New York, New York 10019. Defendant Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation is a North Carolina corporation that runs several California terminals including terminals in Stockton, Ontario, Lathrop and Sacramento. DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, are now, and/or at all times mentioned in this Complaint were, licensed to do business and/or actually doing business in the State of California. Does 1 to 10 are sued under fictitious names for Plaintiffs are not certain of the true names and capacities of the same. However, DOES 1 to 5 are believed to be business entities who were also co-employers of Plaintiff and the members of the putative class. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. Christina A. Humphrey, Esq. Leslie H. Joyner, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 Email: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com chumphrey@marlinsaltzman.com ljoyner@marlinsaltzman.com - and - James A. Clark, Esq., Esq. TOWER LEGAL GROUP, PC 1510 J Street, Suite 125 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 361-6009 Facsimile: (916) 361-6019 Email: james.clark@towerlegalgroup.com CARDINAL LOGISTICS: "Silva" Suit Seeks to Claim Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Ruben Silva, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:15-cv-04424 (N.D. Cal., September 25, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages under the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. The lawsuit is filed on behalf of all drivers who were assigned to a Cardinal operating terminal in California and were residents of the State of California. Defendant, Barraja Inc. owns and operates a restaurant in Manhattan located at 828 8th Avenue, New York, New York 10019. Defendant Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation is a North Carolina corporation that runs several California terminals including terminals in Stockton, Ontario, Lathrop and Sacramento. DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, are now, and/or at all times mentioned in this Complaint were, licensed to do business and/or actually doing business in the State of California. Does 1 to 10 are sued under fictitious names for Plaintiffs are not certain of the true names and capacities of the same. However, DOES 1 to 5 are believed to be business entities who were also co-employers of Plaintiff and the members of the putative class. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. Christina A. Humphrey, Esq. Leslie H. Joyner, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 Email: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com chumphrey@marlinsaltzman.com ljoyner@marlinsaltzman.com - and - James A. Clark, Esq., Esq. TOWER LEGAL GROUP, PC 1510 J Street, Suite 125 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 361-6009 Facsimile: (916) 361-6019 Email: james.clark@towerlegalgroup.com CHATHAM LODGING: Affiliate Defending "Martinez" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Chatham Lodging Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that an affiliate of the Company is currently a defendant, along with Island Hospitality Management Inc. ("IHM"), in a class action lawsuit pending in the San Diego County Superior Court. The class actions were filed on April 25, 2012 and February 27, 2013, and were subsequently consolidated on November 8, 2013 under the title Martinez et al v. Island Hospitality Management, Inc., et al. Case No. 37-2012- 00096221-CU-OE-CTL. The class action relates to fifteen hotels operated by IHM in the state of CA and owned by affiliates of the Company, NewINK JV, Innkeepers JV, and/or certain third parties. Both complaints in the now consolidated lawsuit allege various wage and hour law violations including unpaid off-the-clock work, failure to provide meal breaks and failure to provide rest breaks. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, money damages, penalties, and interest. "We are defending the case vigorously. As of June 30, 2015, we have included $642,000 in accounts payable and other expenses, which represents an estimate of our exposure to the litigation and is also estimated as the maximum possible loss that the Company may incur," the Company said. CHICKEN AND BURGERS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Carlos Gonzalez v. Chicken and Burgers Los Angeles, LLC, Demetrios Pantazis, d/b/a Dino's Chicken and Burgers, Dino's #2, and Does 1- 50, inclusive, Case No. BC595750 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 25, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. The Defendants own and operate Dino's Chicken and Burgers restaurant located at 2575 Pico Blvd., Los Angeles, California 90006. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo Y. Merluza, Esq. BERMEO & MERLUZA, LLP 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2745 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 380-9888 Facsimile: (213) 380-5397 E-mail: ricardo@bermeomerluza.com DOLLAR TREE: Faces Suit Over Inaccurate Wage Statements ------------------------------------------------------- Araceli Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, Case No. 115-cv-286201 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 28, 2015) seeks to recover penalties for failing to properly itemize wage statements. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. is a Virginia corporation that operates retail discount stores in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq. Isam C. Khoury, Esq. Michael D. Singer, Esq. Kimberly D. Neilson, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 E-mail: ikhoury@ckslaw.com msinger@ckslaw.com kneilson@ckslaw.com - and - Sahag Majarian, II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN 18250 Ventura Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 EVENT INC: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Noriega" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Deyanira Noriega and Paola Enriquez Hermosillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Event, Inc. and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. RG15783377 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 26, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation in violation of the California Labor Code. Event, Inc. offers catering, event planning and design, and food services throughout California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Kim, Esq. Melanie Massey, Esq. MICHAEL H. KIM, P.C. 475 El Camino Real, Suite 30 Millbrae, CA 94030 Telephone: (650) 697-8899 Facsimile: (650) 697-8896 E-mail: michaelkimapc@gmail.com EXPRESS ENERGY SERVICES: "Normand" Suit Seeks Payment of OT ----------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Normand on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Express Energy Services GP, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-62042 (D.N.M., September 24, 2015), seeks to recover overtime pays under the Fair Labor Standards Act and under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. According to the Complaint, Defendant Express Energy Services GP, LLC required Plaintiff Brandon Normand to work more than 40 hours in a workweek without overtime compensation. Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers throughout the United States as exempt from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the corresponding laws of the other states where Defendant operates. Defendant has misclassified hundreds of other workers as exempt from overtime. Defendant Express Energy Services GP, LLC is a foreign limited liability company organized under the laws of Texas. Further, it is a well construction and well testing company active in all major hydrocarbon basins in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel M. Faber, Esq. 4620C Jefferson Lane NE Albuquerque, NM 87109 Tel: (505) 830-0405 Email: dan@danielfaber.com - and - Don J. Foty, Esq. John Neuman, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 711 W. Alabama St. Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 Email: Dfoty@kennedyhodges.com EXTRA SUPERMARKET: "Stevenson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas Stevenson v. Extra Supermarket Group, Inc., Carlos J. Ekmeiro, Jorge Negrin, and Paul R. Melean, Case No. 32518264 (11th Ct. Fla., September 25, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a grocery store in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Keri Lynda Horvat, Esq. TRUJILLO VARGAS ORTIZ & GONZALEZ,LLLP 815 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 3rd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 631-2528 Facsimile: (305) 631-2741 E-mail: LHorvat@tmjillovargas.com FTD COMPANIES: No Hearing Yet on Final Settlement Approval Motion ----------------------------------------------------------------- FTD Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the district court has not yet set the hearing date for the pending final settlement approval motion in the consumer class action lawsuits. Commencing on August 19, 2009, the first of a series of consumer class action lawsuits was brought against Provide Commerce, Inc. and co-defendant Regent Group, Inc. d/b/a Encore Marketing International ("EMI"). These cases were ultimately consolidated during the next three years into Case No. 09 CV 2094 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California under the title In re EasySaver Rewards Litigation. Plaintiffs' claims arise from their online enrollment in subscription based membership programs known as EasySaver Rewards, RedEnvelope Rewards, and Preferred Buyers Pass (collectively the "Membership Programs"). Plaintiffs claim that after they ordered items from certain of Provide Commerce's websites, they were presented with an offer to enroll in one of the Membership Programs, each of which is offered and administered by EMI. Plaintiffs purport to represent a putative nationwide class of consumers allegedly damaged by Provide Commerce's purported unauthorized or otherwise allegedly improper transferring of the putative class members' billing information to EMI, who then posted allegedly unauthorized charges to their credit or debit card accounts for membership fees for the Membership Programs. On February 22, 2010, Provide Commerce and EMI respectively filed motions to dismiss. On August 13, 2010, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motions. Between August 13, 2010, and December 2011, plaintiffs filed various amended complaints and added or dismissed certain named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed the fourth amended complaint on December 14, 2011. The fourth amended complaint is the operative complaint. Plaintiffs assert ten claims against Provide Commerce and EMI in the fourth amended complaint: (1) breach of contract (against Provide Commerce only); (2) breach of contract (against EMI only); (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) fraud; (5) violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (against EMI only); (8) invasion of privacy; (9) negligence; and (10) violations of the Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs assert their claims individually and on behalf of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs sought damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Provide Commerce and EMI filed motions to dismiss the claims of plaintiffs Lawler, Walters, Cox, and Dickey on January 24, 2012. The motions to dismiss were fully briefed as of February 23, 2012, but the court had not yet conducted a hearing or ruled on the motions. The parties participated in numerous settlement conferences and mediations throughout the case in an effort to resolve this matter. On April 9, 2012, the parties reached an agreement on the high level terms of a settlement, conditioned on the parties negotiating and executing a complete written agreement. In the weeks following April 9, 2012, the parties negotiated a formal written settlement agreement ("Settlement"). Upon reaching the Settlement, the hearing on the motions to dismiss was vacated, and Provide Commerce and EMI have not answered the fourth amended complaint in light of the Settlement. The court granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement on June 13, 2012. After notice to the class and briefing by the parties, the court conducted a final approval hearing (also known as a fairness hearing) on January 28, 2013, and took the matter under submission at the conclusion of the hearing. On February 4, 2013, the court entered its final order approving class action settlement, granting plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards, and overruling objections filed by a single objector to the Settlement. The court entered judgment on the settlement on February 21, 2013. The objector filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 4, 2013. After the completion of briefing, the Ninth Circuit set oral argument on the appeal for February 2, 2015. But on January 29, 2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an order deferring argument and resolution of the appeal pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in a matter captioned Frank v. Netflix, No. 12 15705+. The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Frank v. Netflix, No. 12 15705+ on February 27, 2015, affirming the district court's approval of a settlement between Walmart and a class of Netflix DVD subscribers. On March 19, 2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an order vacating the judgment in this matter and remanding it to the district court for further proceedings consistent with Frank v. Netflix. The Ninth Circuit's mandate issued on April 14, 2015, and the matter is now pending before the district court to consider final approval of the Settlement in light of Frank v. Netflix. On April 23, 2015, the district court entered an order reopening the case and ordering the parties to jointly submit a memorandum summarizing the import of the Frank v. Netflix decision and stating their intentions going forward. On May 4, 2015, such memorandum was filed by the parties and the objector also filed his own memorandum regarding these same topics on such date. After receiving the parties and objector's memoranda, the district court ordered supplemental briefing on the issue of final settlement approval on May 21, 2015. The parties filed their respective opening supplemental briefs on June 18, 2015, the objector filed his opposition supplemental brief on July 2, 2015, and the parties filed their respective reply supplemental briefs on July 16, 2015. The district court has not yet set the hearing date for the pending final settlement approval motion. GARDA CL: Removed "Figuero" Class Suit to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Robert Figuero v. Garda CL Southeast, Inc., Case No. 1:13-CV-23173-DPG, was removed from the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, County Court of Martin County, Small Claims Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-14337-RLR to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq. Christina J. Thomas, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 20 N. Orange Ave., Ste. 1600 Orlando, Florida 32801 Telephone- (407) 420-1414 E-mail: BMazaheri@forthepeople.com CThomas@forthepeople.com The Defendant is represented by: Jessica T. Travers, Esq. Scott Forman, Esq. Nicholas S. Andrews, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 S.E. 2nd Avenue Wells Fargo Center, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 400-7500 Facsimile: (305) 603-2552 E-mail: jtravers@littler.com sforman@littler.com nandrews@littler.com GEM FINANCIAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Dalton" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Dalton, Yovani Broadus, and Diori Johnson, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. Gem Financial Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05636-BMC (E.D.N.Y., October 1, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime premium compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a given workweek. Gem Financial Services, Inc. is engaged in the retail sale of used merchandise, antiques, and secondhand goods. The Plaintiff is represented by: George Vallas, Esq. Robert Ottinger, Esq. Ariel Y. Graff, Esq. THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C. 401 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 571-2000 Facsimile: (212) 571-0505 E-mail: george@ottingerlaw.com robert@ottingerlaw.com ari@ottingerlaw.com HERSHEY COMPANY: Faces "Dana" Action Over Alleged Child Labor ------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Dana, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Hershey Company, and Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-04453-JCS (N.D. Cal., September 28, 2015), seeks for restitution and injunctive relief under the Unfair Competition Law and the California's Business & Professions Code. This class action suit arises from the alleged failure of Defendants to disclose the use of child and slave labor in their supply chains to consumers, thereby deceiving the latter into buying products they would not have otherwise and thereby unwittingly supporting child and slave labor themselves through their product purchases. Defendant The Hershey Company is a global chocolate food products company. The Hershey Company is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Hershey, Pennsylvania. Defendant Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery Corporation is a subsidiary of The Hershey Company. The Hershey Chocolate & Confectionary Corporation is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Robinson, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Ashley A. Bede, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com ashleyb@hbsslaw.com - and - Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq. Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 203 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 Facsimile: (213) 330-7152 Email: elaine@hbsslaw.com christopherp@hbsslaw.com HEWLETT-PACKARD: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ P. Brian Peletta v. Hewlett-Packard Company and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 1-15-CV-284872 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 26, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation in violation of the California Labor Code. Hewlett-Packard Company owns and operates an information Technology Company with its principal place of business in the County of Santa Clara, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Becht, Esq. Michael Sachs, Esq. Mythily Sivarajah, Esq. ADAMS NYE BECHT LLP 222 Kearny Street, Seventh Floor San Francisco, CA 94108-4521 Telephone: (415) 982-8955 Facsimile: (415) 982-2042 E-mail: dbecht@adamsnyeemployment.com msachs@adamsnyeemployment.com msivarajah@adamsnyeemployment.com HYATT HOTELS: "Livi" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy Livi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hyatt Hotels Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-05371-CDJ (E.D. Penn., September 29, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Hyatt Hotels Corporation is a global hospitality company that develops, owns, operates, and manages a portfolio of properties including, a national chain of full service hotels and resorts under the trade names Park Hyatt, Andaz, Hyatt, Grand Hyatt, Hyatt Place, Hyatt Place House, and Hyatt Regency. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Goldich, Esq. SHELLER, P.C. 1528 Walnut Street, 4th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 790-7300 Facsimile: (215) 546-0942 E-mail: mgoldrich@sheller.com - and - Noah Axler, Esq. Michael D. Donovan, Esq. DONOVAN AXLER, LLC 1055 Westlakes, Drive, Suite 155 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 647-6067 Facsimile: (610) 647-7215 E-mail: naxler@donovanaxler.com IGNITE RESTAURANT: Settlement in S.D. Tex. Suit Has Final Okay -------------------------------------------------------------- Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2015, that the court has issued final approval of the settlement and termination of all proceedings in a class action complaint. The Company said, "On July 20, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against us following our announced intention to restate our financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 28, 2009, January 3, 2011 and January 2, 2012 and the related interim periods. The complaint lodged against us, certain of our current directors and officers and the underwriters in the initial public offering ("IPO") was based on allegations related to the Company's disclosures in its registration statement and prospectus for its IPO. On July 4, 2014, we reached a confidential agreement in principle to settle all pending claims, subject to submission and approval by the court. On January 30, 2015, the court issued preliminary approval of the settlement in the amount of $1.8 million of which $1.6 million is covered by insurance. On June 5, 2015, the court issued final approval of the settlement and termination of all proceedings in this matter." IGNITE RESTAURANT: Discovery in W.D.N.Y. Case in Initial Stages --------------------------------------------------------------- Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2015, that discovery as to all issues is now in the preliminary stages in the case in the United States District Court, Western District of New York. The Company said, "On August 28, 2013, in the United States District Court, Western District of New York, six former tipped employees of various Joe's Crab Shack locations filed a complaint against us and certain of our officers alleging that the employees were not paid the minimum wage required by federal law as well as the wage-hour laws of the respective states in which they worked. These former employees purport to represent a nationwide class of tipped employees on their federal claims and separate subclasses of tipped employees regarding their state law claims." "By order dated January 27, 2015, the court granted conditional certification to the class. We are vigorously contesting this matter and have answered and asserted affirmative defenses. Discovery as to all issues is now in the preliminary stages. At this early stage, we cannot predict with any certainty whether the former employees will prevail or the amount of damages they might recover were they to prevail." IMAGE FIRST: "Campanelli" Suit Seeks Payment of OT and Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Kyle L. Campanelli, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Image First Uniform Rental Service, Inc.; Image First Healthcare Laundry Specialists, Inc.; Image First Of California, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:15-cv- 04456-DMR (N.D. Cal., September 28, 2015), seeks to recover overtime pays and wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant-Employer, ImageFIRST, identified the following and various entities as the "Employer" of Campanelli in an "Employment Agreement," including, without limitation, "ImageFIRST Uniform Rental Service, Inc.," "ImageFIRST Healthcare Laundry Specialists, Inc.," "ImageFirst [sic] of North Carolina, LLC," "ImageFIRST Atlanta, LLC," "ImageFirst [sic] of California, LLC," "ImageFirst [sic] of Chicago, LLC," "ImageFIRST of Texas," "any franchisee of ImageFirst [sic] Health Care Laundry Specialists, Inc.," or "any company engaged in business activities which are the same as, similar to, or in competition with the business of Employer, of which at least 40% of the equity is owned by Joseph H. Berstein or his descendants." The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Brandi, Esq. Brian J. Malloy, Esq. THE BRANDI LAW FIRM 354 Pine Street, Third Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 989-1800 Facsimile: (415) 707-2024 Email: tjb@brandilaw.com - and - David C. Feola, Esq. HOBAN & FEOLA, LLC 34523 Upper Bear Creek Road Evergreen, CO 80439 Phone: 303-674-7000, Ext. 2 Facsimile: 303-382-4685 Email: David@Feolalaw.com INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Hearing Slated for December 5 ------------------------------------------------------------ Insys Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court has scheduled a settlement hearing for December 5, 2015, in the federal securities litigation. The Company said, "Between May 15 and May 19, 2014, two complaints (captioned Larson v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Case No. 14-cv- 01043-GMS) and (Li vs. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Case No 14-cv- 01077-DGC) were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, or Arizona District Court, against us and certain of our current officers. The complaints were brought as purported class actions, on behalf of purchasers of our common stock. In general, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making intentionally false and misleading statements regarding our business and operations, therefore artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief." "On July 14, 2014, several purported shareholders filed motions to consolidate the two cases, appoint a lead plaintiff, and appoint lead counsel. On August 29, 2014, the Arizona District Court issued an order consolidating the action, appointing Hongwei Li as lead plaintiff, and appointing the lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs complaint was filed on October 27, 2014. On December 11, 2014, we moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. "On March 19, 2015, the parties participated in a mediation and the parties subsequently agreed in principle, on April 14, 2015, to settle the action. On April 20, 2015, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement with the Court. On April 29, 2015, the Court ordered that the lawsuit be dismissed within 60 days, vacated all pending hearings, and denied all pending motions as moot. "On May 28, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement, which provided the terms of a settlement agreement. On June 2, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and the potential class members have been (or will be) notified of the proposed settlement and the procedure by which they can object to the settlement or request to be excluded from the class. The settlement remains subject to final approval by the Court and the Court has scheduled a settlement hearing for December 5, 2015. "Because we have met our retainage amount under the applicable policy, we believe that any potential obligations that may arise as result of the proposed settlement in this matter will be fully covered under our Directors and Officers insurance policy. Accordingly, we have not accrued for any contingencies in this matter into our operating results." INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Nov. 12 Settlement Final Approval Hearing -------------------------------------------------------------- Intralinks Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a U.S. court has set a date of November 12, 2015 for the final approval hearing of the settlement in a securities class action. On December 5, 2011, the Company became aware of a purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY" or the "Court") against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers (the "Securities Class Action"). The initial complaint (the "Wallace Complaint") alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements or omissions about the Company's business prospects, financial condition and performance in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages for the purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from February 17, 2011 through November 10, 2011 (the "Allegation Period"). On December 27, 2011, a second purported class action complaint, which makes substantially the same claims as, and is related to, the Wallace Complaint, was filed in the SDNY against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers seeking similar unspecified compensatory damages for the Allegation Period. On April 3, 2012, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, and also appointed lead counsel in the consolidated action ("Consolidated Class Action"). On June 15, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint ("Consolidated Class Action Complaint") that, in addition to the original allegations made in the Wallace Complaint, alleges that the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters in IntraLinks' April 6, 2011 stock offering issued a registration statement and prospectus in connection with the offering that contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted material information required to be stated therein in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the action on July 31, 2012. On May 8, 2013, the Court issued an opinion dismissing claims based on certain allegations in the complaint, but otherwise denied defendants' motions to dismiss. On June 28, 2013, defendants filed their answers to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On February 18, 2014, lead plaintiff filed its motion for class certification. On September 30, 2014, the Court issued an opinion certifying a class of all persons who purchased IntraLinks stock between February 17, 2011 and November 11, 2011 and a subclass of persons who purchased IntraLinks stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's April 6, 2011 offering. On October 14, 2014, the defendants filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for permission to appeal the September 30, 2014 opinion granting plaintiff's motion for class certification. On December 30, 2014, the Second Circuit denied defendants' petition. On March 12, 2015, the Court suspended the remaining deadlines in the current scheduling order pending mediation. On July 30, 2015, the Company and the other defendants entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement ("Settlement"), which was filed with the Court on July 31, 2015. The Settlement provides for the resolution of all of the pending claims in the Securities Class Action, without any admission or concession of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or the other defendants. The Company and the other defendants continue to maintain that they have meritorious defenses to all claims alleged in the Securities Class Action. The Company and the other defendants agreed to the Settlement to avoid further expense, inconvenience, and the distraction and inherent risks of burdensome and protracted litigation. Pursuant to the Settlement, the defendants will pay $14.0 million (the "Settlement Amount") for a full and complete release of all claims that were or could have been asserted against the Company or the other defendants in the Securities Class Action. As such, the Company recorded a liability of $14.0 million, which was included within "Accrued expenses and other liabilities" on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 30, 2015. The Company currently anticipates that the full Settlement Amount will be paid for and covered by the Company's insurers pursuant to the applicable insurance policies and, as such, has also recorded a receivable of $14.0 million, which was included within "Other current assets" on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 30, 2015. On July 31, 2015, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the Settlement and setting a date of November 12, 2015 for the final approval hearing. The Settlement is subject to final approval by the Court and certain other conditions. IRON MOUNTAIN: Faces "Shurnicki" Suit Over Recall Acquisition ------------------------------------------------------------- Roberta Shurnicki, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Iron Mountain, Inc., et al., Case No. 11549 (Del. Ch., September 28, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the stockholders of Iron Mountain, Inc. to enjoin Iron Mountain's proposed acquisition of Recall Holdings, Ltd. in a cash-and-stock transaction. Iron Mountain, Inc. is a records storage and information management company that, according to its most recent Form 10-K, "helps organizations around the world protect their information, lower storage rental costs, comply with regulations, enable corporate disaster recovery, and better use their information for business advantages, regardless of its format, location or lifecycle stage." Recall Holdings, Ltd. is an Australian company that trades on the Australian Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "REC." The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter B. Andrews, Esq. Craig J. Springer, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC 3801 Kennett Pike Building C, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 504-4967 Facsimile: (302) 397-2681 E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com cspringer@andrewsspringer.com - and - Jason M. Leviton, Esq. Joel A. Fleming, Esq. Jacob A. Walker, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON, LLP 155 Federal St Suite 400 Boston MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: jason@blockesq.com joel@blockesq.com jacob@blockesq.com JOHNSON'S LANDSCAPING: "Sandoval" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gerber Sandoval, Jose A. Mercado Lopez, Jesus J. Chavez, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, v. Johnson's Landscaping Service, Inc., Johnson's Landscaping Service, Limited Liability Company, Johnson Family Enterprises, LLC, James H. Johnson, III, James C. Johnson, Charles L. Johnson, Matthew T. Johnson, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-01561 (D.D.C., September 23, 2015), seeks to recover overtime pays under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant Johnson's Landscaping Service, Inc. is a Maryland Corporation registered to do home improvement contractor services and/or home improvement sales in the District of Columbia. Defendant Johnson's Landscaping Service is a Maryland limited liability company previously registered to do business in the District of Columbia. Defendant Johnson Family Enterprises, LLC is a Maryland limited liability company. Its principal place of business is 5011 Olney- Laytonsville Road, Olney, MD 20832. The Defendants, collectively known as "Johnson Companies", is a Maryland-based corporation that provides masonry, maintenance, landscaping, and carpentry services in the districts of Maryland and Columbia. Defendant James H. Johnson, III is an adult resident of Maryland who founded the enterprise known as "Johnson's Landscaping Service". Along with the other individual Defendants, he set, controlled, and oversaw Defendants' pay practices. Defendant James C. Johnson, son of Defendant James H. Johnson, III, is the "General Manager" of the Johnson Companies. He, along with the other individual Defendants, authorized and oversaw Defendants' practice of paying its employees a daily rate. Defendant Charles L. Johnson, son of Defendant James H. Johnson, III, is the "Production Manager" of the Johnson Companies. He, among the other Defendants, also controls the operations of the Johnson Companies. Defendant Matthew T. Johnson, son of Defendant James H. Johnson, III, is the "Operations and Sales Manager" of the Johnson Companies who also has control of the operations of the same. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Zelikovitz, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ZELIKOVITZ, PLLC 519 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Tel: (202) 803-6081 Fax: (202) 683-6102 E-mail: justin@dcwagelaw.com KFC CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Provide Premium Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Alyssa Reyes, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated v. KFC Corporation and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. RG15787350 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 25, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay premium wages for un- provided meal and rest periods. KFC Corporation operates a fast food restaurant chain that specializes in fried chicken. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Tuvia Korobkin, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, California 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com tuvia@setarehlaw.com KIRBY RENTALS: "Echevarria" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Echevarria, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v. Kirby Rentals, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-01620-GAP-KRS (M.D. Fla., September 29, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standard Act. Kirby Rentals, LLC is a Florida corporation that supplies tents and tent equipment, linen, and catering supplies on rent for various events. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3342 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com LMK BATON ROUGE: "Morales" Suit Seeks to Recover OT & Unpaid Wage ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brenda Morales, Griselda Figueroa, Gloria Vazquez, Rosa Maldonado, Eda Rauda, and Jaira Ruiz on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LMK Baton Rouge Construction, LLC, Landmark Construction, LLC, and Crouch & Western, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-00639 (M.D. La., September 23, 2015), to recover overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wage Payment Act. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants provided services and labor in furtherance of Defendants' construction business at The Standard at Baton Rouge. During the class period, plaintiffs claim that they were not paid overtime and minimum pays due them for an approximate four-week period. Furthermore, Defendants willfully misclassified Plaintiffs as independent contractors instead of employees. Defendant LMK Baton Rouge Construction, LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Louisiana, which may be served through its registered agent for service of process in 320 Somerulos Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802-6129. Defendant Landmark Construction, LLC is a foreign limited liability company and may be served through its registered agent for service of process in 3867 Plaza Towers Drive, 1st Floor, Baton Rouge, LA 70816. Defendant Crouch & Western, Inc. ("Crouch & Western"") is a foreign limited liability company and may be served through its registered agent for service of process in 5615 Corporate Blvd., Suite 400B, Baton Rouge, LA 70808. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher L. Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS LITIGATION, L.L.C. 639 Loyola Ave., Suite 1850 New Orleans, LA 70113 Tel: 504.308.1438 Fax: 504.308.1446 Email: chris@williamslitigation.com MARS INC: "Hodsdon" Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Robert Hodsdon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mars, Inc., and Mars Chocolate North America LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-04450 (N.D. Cal., September 28, 2015), seeks to recover monetary damages and injunctive relief under the Unfair Competition Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the False Advertising Law. This action arises out of the Plaintiff's allegation that Defendants are into unfair and deceptive marketing and sale of their chocolate products by allowing child labor in the production and supply of its cocoa beans used to make its goods. Defendant Mars, Inc. is a global food and beverage company. Mars, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business located at 6885 Elm Street, McLean, Virginia 22101. Defendant Mars Chocolate North America LLC is a subsidiary of Mars, Inc. that produces and markets chocolate products. Mars Chocolate North America LLC is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business located at 800 High Street, Hackettstown, New Jersey 07840. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman Ashley A. Bede Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com ashleyb@hbsslaw.com - and - Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq. Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 203 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 Facsimile: (213) 330-7152 Email: elaine@hbsslaw.com christopherp@hbsslaw.com MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces "Rudd" Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Mudd, and others similarly situated v. MEDICAL INFORMATICS ENGINEERING, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-00269 (N.D. Ind., September, 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure of providing adequate data security of the personal financial and protected health information of the plaintiff. Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc. is an Indiana software developer that provides technical solutions targeted to the healthcare industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. Vess A. Miller, Esq. Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Fax: (317) 636-2593 Email: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com vmiller@cohenandmalad.com ltoops@cohenandmalad.com - and - Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Tel: (602) 274-1100 Fax: (602) 274-1199 MOBILEIRON INC: Defending Against "Panjwani" Stockholder Action --------------------------------------------------------------- MobileIron, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed on May 1, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers, captioned Panjwani v. MobileIron, Inc., et al. The action is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between February 13, 2015, and April 22, 2015. It asserts claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously. "An estimate of a reasonably possible loss (or a range of loss) cannot be made in either the lawsuits that Good Technology has brought against us or the stockholder class action lawsuit at this time," the Company said. MOHELA: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Abdolrasoul" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Pouya Abdolrasoul, an individual, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated people v. MOHELA, a non-profit corporation; and Does 1-100, Case No. 3:15-cv-02167-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal., September 29, 2015) seeks put an end on the Defendants' practice of placing calls on consumers' cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system. MOHELA is generally engaged in the debt collection business and conducts debt collection activities on a nationwide basis. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas D. Rutledge, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS D. RUTLEDGE 3555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 203 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 886-7224 Facsimile: (619) 259-5455 E-mail: thomasrutledge@gmail.com - and - Alex Asil Mashiri, Esq. MASHIRI LAW FIRM 11251 Rancho Carmel Drive #500694 San Diego, CA 92150 Telephone: (858) 348-4938 Facsimile: (858) 348-4939 MYLAN N.V.: Accrued $63.3MM Other Current Liabilities ----------------------------------------------------- Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company at June 30, 2015, has accrued approximately $63.3 million in other current liabilities, which represents its estimate of the remaining amount of anticipated income tax benefits due to Merck KGaA related to the Pricing and Medicaid Litigation. Dey L.P. (now known as Mylan Specialty L.P. and herein as "Mylan Specialty"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, was named as a defendant in several class actions brought by consumers and third-party payors. Mylan Specialty reached a settlement of these class actions, which was approved by the court and all claims have been dismissed. Additionally, a complaint was filed under seal by a plaintiff on behalf of the United States of America against Mylan Specialty in August 1997. In August 2006, the Government filed its complaint-in-intervention and the case was unsealed in September 2006. The Government asserted that Mylan Specialty was jointly liable with a co- defendant and sought recovery of alleged overpayments, together with treble damages, civil penalties and equitable relief. Mylan Specialty completed a settlement of this action in December 2010. These cases all have generally alleged that Mylan Specialty falsely reported certain price information concerning certain drugs marketed by Mylan Specialty, that Mylan Specialty caused false claims to be made to Medicaid and to Medicare, and that Mylan Specialty caused Medicaid and Medicare to make overpayments on those claims. Under the terms of the purchase agreement with Merck KGaA, Mylan is fully indemnified for the claims in the preceding paragraph and Merck KGaA is entitled to any income tax benefit the Company realizes for any deductions of amounts paid for such pricing litigation. Under the indemnity, Merck KGaA is responsible for all settlement and legal costs, and, as such, these settlements had no impact on the Company's Consolidated Statements of Operations. At June 30, 2015, the Company has accrued approximately $63.3 million in other current liabilities, which represents its estimate of the remaining amount of anticipated income tax benefits due to Merck KGaA. Substantially all of Mylan Specialty's known claims with respect to this pricing litigation have been settled. MYLAN N.V.: Trial Date Not Scheduled in Modafinil Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that additional motions remain pending and a trial date has not been scheduled in the Modafinil Antitrust Litigation. Beginning in April 2006, Mylan and four other drug manufacturers have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits filed in or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by a variety of plaintiffs purportedly representing direct and indirect purchasers of the drug Modafinil and in a lawsuit filed by Apotex, Inc., a manufacturer of generic drugs. These actions allege violations of federal antitrust and state laws in connection with the generic defendants' settlement of patent litigation with Cephalon relating to Modafinil. Discovery has closed. On June 23, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment (and denied the corresponding plaintiffs' motion) dismissing plaintiffs' claims that the defendants had engaged in an overall conspiracy to restrain trade. On January 28, 2015, the District Court denied the defendants' summary judgment motions based on factors identified in the Supreme Court's Actavis decision. On July 27, 2015, the District Court granted the direct purchasers' motion for class certification. Additional motions remain pending and a trial date has not been scheduled. On March 24, 2015, Mylan reached a settlement in principle with the putative indirect purchaser class. The settlement will be submitted to the District Court for review and approval. At June 30, 2015, the Company has accrued approximately $16.0 million related to this settlement. On June 29, 2015, the City of Providence, Rhode Island filed suit against the same parties named as defendants in litigation pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, including Mylan, asserting state law claims based on the same underlying allegations. On July 10, 2015, the Louisiana Attorney General filed a complaint against Mylan and three other drug manufacturers asserting state law claims based on the same underlying allegations as those made in litigation pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. MYLAN N.V.: Two Actos and Actoplus Met Cases Held in Abeyance ------------------------------------------------------------- Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that two complaints filed by plaintiffs purporting to represent a class of direct purchasers of branded or generic Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R) have been held in abeyance. Beginning in December 2013, Mylan, Takeda, and several other drug manufacturers have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by plaintiffs which purport to represent indirect purchasers of branded or generic Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R). These actions allege violations of state and federal competition laws in connection with the defendants' settlements of patent litigation in 2010 relating to Actos and Actoplus Met(R). Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 22, 2014. Mylan and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on October 10, 2014 and a decision remains pending. Two additional complaints have subsequently been filed by plaintiffs purporting to represent a class of direct purchasers of branded or generic Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R). These complaints have been held in abeyance pending the District Court's ruling on the fully briefed Motion to Dismiss. MYLAN N.V.: Defending Shareholder Class Actions ----------------------------------------------- Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is defending tow shareholder class actions. On June 11, 2015, City of Riviera Beach General Employees Retirement System and Doris Arnold (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed a class action complaint against Mylan and Directors of Mylan Inc. (the "Directors") in the Washington County, Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas (the "Pennsylvania Court"), on behalf of certain former shareholders of Mylan Inc. The complaint alleges both breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the Directors and breach of contract by Mylan and the Directors relating to certain public disclosures made in connection with the EPD Transaction and the creation of, and Call Option Agreement with, the Foundation. Plaintiffs asked the Pennsylvania Court to: find that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties and that Mylan and the Directors breached the purported contract, rescind the vote of Mylan Inc.'s former shareholders approving the EPD Transaction, award compensatory damages and award Plaintiffs their costs relating to the lawsuit. On June 22, 2015, Mylan and the Directors removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the "District Court"). Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the District Court on July 10, 2015, that includes the same basic causes of action and requested relief, drops allegations against some of the Directors named in the original complaint and asserts the breach of contract claim not on behalf of a purported class of former shareholders of Mylan Inc. but on behalf of a purported subclass of such shareholders who held shares of Mylan continuously for a specified period following consummation of the EPD Transaction. The response is due on August 31, 2015. On July 21, 2015, a second class action complaint against the same defendants, asserting the same basic claims and requesting the same basic relief on behalf of the same purported class and subclass, was filed by a different plaintiff in the District Court. The response to this second complaint was due on September 21, 2015. "We believe that the claims in these lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously," the Company said. MYLAN N.V.: Product Liability Lawsuits Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------- Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is involved in a number of product liability lawsuits and claims related to alleged personal injuries arising out of certain products manufactured and/or distributed by the Company, including but not limited to its Fentanyl Transdermal System, Phenytoin, Propoxyphene and Alendronate. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these lawsuits and claims and is vigorously defending itself with respect to those matters. From time to time, the Company has agreed to settle or otherwise resolve certain lawsuits and claims on terms and conditions that are in the best interests of the Company. The Company had accrued approximately $14.6 million at June 30, 2015 and $13.4 million at December 31, 2014. "It is reasonably possible that we will incur additional losses above the amount accrued but we cannot estimate a range of such reasonably possible at this time. There are no assurances, however, that settlements reached and/or adverse judgments received, if any, will not exceed amounts accrued," the Company said. NASHVILLE HOSPITAL: "Peavy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Deanna Peavy, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. Hospital Authority of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County D/B/A Nashville General Hospital at Meharry, Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-01043 (M.D. Tenn., September 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtimes pays under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Defendant Hospital Authority of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County d/b/a Nashville General Hospital at Meharry is a domestic corporation with its principal place of business in Nashville, Tennessee. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Russell, Esq. GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Blvd, Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Telephone: (615) 354-1144 Email: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com NESTLE USA: Faces "McCoy" Suit in Cal. Over Child and Slave Labor ----------------------------------------------------------------- Elaine McCoy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Nestle USA, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-04451 (N.D. Cal., September 28, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to uphold their responsibility for ensuring the absence of child and slave labor in their supply chains. Nestle USA, Inc. is a nationwide manufacturer and distributor of food and beverage products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Ashley A. Bede, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com ashleyb@hbsslaw.com - and - Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq. Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 203 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 Facsimile: (213) 330-7152 E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com christopherp@hbsslaw.com QLOGIC CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports ---------------------------------------------------------- Phyllis Hull, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QLogic Corporation, Prasad L. Rampalli, and Jean Hu, Case No. 8:15-cv-01560-AG-SS (C.D. Cal., September 28, 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. QLogic Corporation designs and supplies server and storage networking infrastructure products that provide, enhance, and manage computer data communication. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Casey E. Sadler, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com rprongay@glancylaw.com csandler@glancylaw.com QUINN'S RENTAL: "Lindsey" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Lindsey and Joshua Martinez, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Quinn's Rental Services (USA), LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-02839 (S.D. Tex., September 29, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Quinn's Rental Services (USA), LLC is a Texas limited liability company that provides oilfield equipment rental services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2030 North Loop West, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 RAYONIER ADVANCED: Discovery Stayed in Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2015, that all discovery has been stayed in a class action lawsuit pending the court's ruling on the Company's forthcoming motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. On May 4, 2015 the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System vs. Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc., Paul G. Boynton, Frank A. Ruperto and Benson K. Woo. The case is a purported class action alleging securities laws violations, primarily related to claims that the Company failed to record adequate environmental reserves related to disposed operations which, the plaintiffs allege led to a drop in the Company's stock price between June 30, 2014 and January 28, 2015. The allegations are couched as violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. All discovery has been stayed pending the court's ruling on the Company's forthcoming motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. The Company strongly believes the complaint and its allegations to be baseless and without merit, and will continue to vigorously defend this action. RUSTIC TABLE LLC: "Azar" Suit Seeks to Recover OT & Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Pureco-Balt Azar, Alfonso Gironlopez, Alvaro Ramos, Juvencio Bazan, Victor Alvarez, Wull Ton Escobar, Eliceo Suarez, Cesar Rosales, Santos Sevilla, and Selvin Alvarenga, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Rustic Table LLC d/b/a The Quarter, Mehmet Hakan Aktas, and Jason Avery, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-07525 (S.D.N.Y., September 23, 2015), seeks to recover overtime pays and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law. According to the Complaint, Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and New York Labor Law by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiffs, minimum wages and overtime compensation for all hours worked above 40 in a workweek. The Quarter is a domestic restaurant organized under the laws of the State of New York. Defendants Mehmet Hakan Aktas and Jason Avery are joint owners, shareholders, officers, directors, supervisors, and managing agents of The Quarter who actively participate in the day-to-day operations of the restaurant. Jason Avery is also the executive chef of The Quarter restaurant. The Plaintiff is represented by: CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 209-3933 Fax: (212) 209-7102 SHILOH INDUSTRIES: Inflates Securities Prices, "Thomas" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Raymond Thomas, and all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Shiloh Industries, Inc., Ramzi Hermiz, and Thomas M. Dugan, Case No. 1:15-cv-07449 (S.D.N.Y., September 21, 2015), to recover damages and injunctive relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The antitrust class action arises out of an alleged conspiracy among the Defendants where they made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's financial report. The Complaint points out that the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission misleading financial statements, which valued the Shiloh securities at artificially high prices. The Plaintiffs allege they have incurred significant losses and damages due to the misleading information. Defendant Shiloh is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located at 880 Steel Drive, Valley City, Ohio 44280. It manufactures and distributes lightweighting, noise and vibration solutions to automotive, commercial vehicle and other industrial markets. The Company's products purportedly focus on successfully balancing the need to reduce cost, weight and part complexity with the need to enhance performance, safety and fuel efficiency. Defendant Ramzi Hermiz ("Hermiz") was, at all relevant times, President and CEO of Shiloh. Defendant Thomas M. Dugan ("Dugan") was at all relevant times Vice President of Finance and Treasurer of Shiloh. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Casey E. Sadler, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 - and - Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 SIENTRA INC: Inflates Price of Securities, "Flynn" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ John M. Flynn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SIENTRA, Inc., Hani Zeini, And Matthew Pigeon, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-07548 (C.D. Cal., September 25, 2015), seeks to recover monetary damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This is a federal securities class action arises out of the allegations that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Sientra's exclusive reliance on Silimed's Brazilian manufacturing facilities carried significant quality control risks; the manufacturing processes at the Silimed Rio de Janeiro manufacturing plant were contaminated; and as a result of the above, the Company's statements regarding quality control and other financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities. Plaintiff and the other members of the Class, relying on the materially false and misleading statements described herein, which the defendants made, issued or caused to be disseminated, or relying upon the integrity of the market, purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Sientra securities at prices artificially inflated by defendants' wrongful conduct. Defendant Sientra, a Delaware medical aesthetics company that develops and sells medical aesthetics products to plastic surgeons. Sientra offers silicone gel breast implants for use in breast augmentation and breast reconstruction procedures, as well as breast tissue expanders. Sientra also provides body contouring and other implants, including gluteal, pectoral, calf, facial, and nasal implants. Defendant Hani Zeini has served at all relevant times as the Company's President, Director, and Chief Executive Officer. Defendant Matthew Pigeon has served at all relevant times as the Company's Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (818) 532-6449 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - 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 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com mgorrie@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com SLING MEDIA: Faces "Mann" Suit Over Alleged "Bait and Switch" ------------------------------------------------------------- Rafael Mann, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sling Media, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-07603-UA (S.D.N.Y., September, 25, 2015), seeks to recover monetary damages under the California Business & Professions and the CA Consumers Legal Remedies Act. This action arises out of the alleged failure of Sling Media to disclose that the use of the product would be contingent upon and subject the purchaser to unrequested advertising from Defendant. As such, Slingbox has perpetuated a massive "bait and switch" upon thousands of unsuspecting consumers who now need to watch the Defendant's ads to use their devices as promised. Defendant Sling Media, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with principal offices in Foster City, California, and wholly owned by EchoStar Corporation, a leading provider of satellite operations and video delivery solutions. According to Sling Media's website, it offers "products and solutions that empower you to watch your home TV -- including 100% of the content you already pay for -- anywhere in the world, on any Internet-connected device." Sling Media designs, imports, manufactures, and/or distributes consumer electronics products, including the Slingboxes forming the subject matter of this action, which it caused to be placed into the stream of commerce in this District and throughout the United States. Sling Media also markets and sells advertising content, which it displays to class members during use of their Slingboxes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Gonnelli, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI 369 Lexington Avenue 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 Email: agonnelli@faruqilaw.com - and - Robert I. Lax, Esq. LAX LLP 380 Lexington Avenue, 31st Floor New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 818-9150 Facsimile: (212) 208-4309 Email: rlax@lax-law.com - and - Steven S. Siegel, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN S. SIEGEL, P.L.L.C 401 Franklin Avenue, Suite 300 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: 516-665-2800 Facsimile: 516-279-6376 Email: stevenssiegel@yahoo.com STONE BRAZIL: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Yuriem Garcia v. Stone Brazil, Inc. and Ricardo H. Freire, Case No. 32521288 (11th Ct. Fla., September 25, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Stone Brazil, Inc. is a stone supplier and does business 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 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com STUDENT AID CENTER: Faces "Tarkoff" Action Over TCPA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Tarkoff, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Student Aid Center, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:15-cv-61983 (S.D. Fla., September, 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Tarkoff brings this action for damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Student Aid Center, Inc. The Plaintiff alleges that SAC negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacted Tarkoff on his cellular telephone without his prior express consent within the meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 ("TCPA"). SAC is a self-described industry leader in the federal student loan debt relief industry. It employs hundreds at its 26,000 square foot headquarters located at 2500 NW 79th Avenue, Suite 190, Doral, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Milian, Esq. Frank S. Hedin, Esq. Ernesto M. Rubi, Esq. CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA, LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 372-7474 Facsimile: (305) 372-7475 E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com fhedin@careyrodriguez.com erubi@careyrodriguez.com TELEXELECTRIC LLP: Faces "Dos Santos" Suit Over Pyramid Schemes --------------------------------------------------------------- Rita Dos Santos, and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Telexelectric, LLP; Telex Mobile, Holdings, Inc.; James M. Merrill; Carlos N. Wanzeler; Steven M. Labriola; Joseph H. Craft, a/k/a Joe H. Craft; Craft Financial Solutions, LLC; Ann Genet; Carlos Costa; Katia Wanzeler; Sanderley Rodrigues De Vasconcelos; Santiago De La Rosa; Randy N. Crosby; Faith R. Sloan; Daniil Shoyfer; Scott Miller; Gerald P. Nehra, individually and doing business as Law Offices Of Nehra And Waak; Gerald P. Nehra Attorney at Law, PLLC; Richard W. Waak, individually and doing business as Law Offices Of Nerha And Waak; Richard W. Waak, Attorney at Law, PLLC; OPT3 Solutions, Inc.; Jason A. Borromei; Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP; Bank Of America, NA; TD Bank, NA; RSB Citizens, N.A.; Fidelity Co-Operative Bank, doing business as Fidelity Bank; John F. Merrill; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; Synovus Bank; Global Payroll Gateway Inc.; International Payout Systems, Inc.; Propay, Inc., doing business as propay.com; Base Commerce, LLC, doing business as Phoenix Payments; John Hughes; Vantage Payments, LLC; Dustin Sparman; Allied Wallet, Ltd; Doe Top Level Promoters; DOE Licensed Professionals; DOE Banks; DOE Payment Processing Services, Paralegal DOE, and a Defendant Class of Direct Victim Payment Recipients, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv- 02084 (D. Colo., September 22, 2015), seeks to recover monetary damages for unjust enrichment under the Massachusetts General Laws which prohibits pyramid schemes committed by the Defendants. This unjust enrichment action alleges that the Defendants and their related entities and individuals operated an illegal scheme whereby the Defendants sold "memberships" ostensibly paid "promoters" for placing advertisements for a "voice over internet protocol" ("VoIP") product, and in reality paid them to recruit other investors whose new membership fees kept the scheme afloat (the "TelexFree Program"). The Plaintiffs, the lawsuit alleges, were obligated to enter into the Defendants' Pre-March 9 TelexFree Contract to earn membership of the Defendant company, which contains numerous instances of promising payment merely for recruitment of new Participants, not requiring any meaningful sales or distributive activity by participants, and using coercive measures to prevent participant withdrawal from the scheme. Defendant TelexElectric, LLLP is a limited liability limited partnership organized and under the laws of the State of Nevada. Its registered agent is BWFC Processing Center, LLC, 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 500, Las Vegas, Nevada 89169. Defendant Telex Mobile, Holdings, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Nevada, and having its registered agent as BWFC Processing Center, LLC, 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 500, Las Vegas, Nevada 89169. James M. Merrill, Carlos N. Wanzeler, Carlos Roberto Costa are the founders of TelexElectric, LLLP. Steven M. Labriola is an individual with a last known usual place of abode of 21 Kiwanis Beach Road, in Upton, County of Worcester, Commonwealth of Massachusetts 01568. Labriola is a Principal and a member of TelexFree's Executive Office. Joseph H. Craft, also known as Joe H. Craft is an individual with a last known usual place of abode at 825 E. Main Street in Boonville, Indiana 47601-1885. Craft is a Principal and a member of TelexFree's Executive Office. Defendant Ann Genet served as TelexFree, LLC's Nevada agent, servant or employee, was a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada who served TelexFree's Executive Office and is an individual associated with Craft and Bridgeway Financial Corporation. Katia Wanzeler is an individual with a last known usual place of abode of 373 Howard Street, in Northborough, County of Worcester, Commonwealth of Massachusetts 01532. She served as an agent servant or authorized representative of TelexFree's Executive Office and is otherwise an individual associated with TelexFree's Founders, Principals, Executive Office, and Top Promoters. Sanderley Rodrigues de Vasconcelos has a last known usual place of abode of 100 Stockton Street, Apt. 49, in Chelsea, County of Suffolk, Commonwealth of Massachusetts 02150. Rodrigues is a TelexFree Top Level Promoter. Santiago de la Rosa is an individual with a last known usual place of abode of 189 Beacon Hill Avenue, Unit 2, in Lynn, County of Essex, Commonwealth of Massachusetts 01902. De La Rosa is a TelexFree Top Level Promoter. Randy N. Crosby has a last known usual place of abode of 30 Club Court, in Alpharetta, Georgia 30005. Crosby is a TelexFree Top Level Promoter. Scott Miller has a last known usual place of adobe of 973 Thornwood Drive, Greenwood, IN 46143. Miller is a TelexFree Top Level Promoter. Faith R. Sloan has a last known usual place of abode of 515 E. End Avenue, Unit 105, in Calumet City, Illinois 60409. Sloan is a TelexFree Top Level Promoter. Daniil Shoyfer has a last known usual place of abode of 123 Arbutus Avenue, in Staten Island, New York 10312. Shoyfer is a TelexFree Top Level Promoter. Defendant Gerald P. Nehra, Esq. is an individual who now resides or formerly resided at 1710 Beach Street, Muskegon, Michigan, 49441 and also maintains a second residence at 2149 Tall Oak Court, Sarasota, Florida 34232. Nehra is an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of Michigan. Defendant Gerald P. Nehra, Attorney at Law, PLLC is a professional limited-liability company engaged in the practice of law and duly organized and existing under the laws of Michigan, with offices located at 1710 Beach Street, Muskegon, Michigan, 49441. Nehra is its sole member, manager, and registered agent. Defendant Richard W. Waak is an individual who now resides or formerly resided at 11300 East Shore Drive, Delton, Michigan, 49046. Waak is an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of Michigan. Defendant Richard W. Waak, Attorney at Law, PLLC is a professional limited-liability company engaged in the practice of law and duly organized and existing under the laws of Michigan, with offices located at 11300 East Shore Drive, Delton, Michigan, 49046. Waak is its sole member, manager, and registered agent. Defendant Law Offices of Nehra and Waak is a general partnership formed between Defendants Nehra, Waak, Nehra Law Firm, and Waak Law Firm with primary offices located at 11300 East Shore Drive, Delton, Michigan, 49046, and a secondary office is located at 1710 Beach Street, Muskegon, Michigan. Defendant Opt3 Solutions, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, having its principal place of business at 120 Vantis, Suite 300, Alison Viejo, California. Defendant Jason A. Borromei served as president and authorized representative of Opt3. Defendant Craft is a certified public accountant who privately provided accounting services and financial advice to TelexFree and others before he served as the chief financial officer of TelexFree, Inc. and TelexFree, LLC. Defendant Craft Financial Solutions, LLC is a limited-liability company duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Indiana with a principal place of business located at 825 E. Main Street, Boonville, Indiana, 47601-1885. Craft Financial provided accounting services and financial advice to TelexFree and others. Craft is also the sole member and manager of Craft Financial. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP is a registered foreign limited liability partnership, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having a principal place of business in New York, New York, and having a place of business at 125 High Street, in Boston, County of Suffolk, Commonwealth of Massachusetts 02110. PwC provided accounting services and other professional services to TelexFree. TD Bank, N.A. is a national banking institution in the United States chartered and supervised by the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the "OCC") with its principal place of business at 15 Broad Street in Boston, County of Suffolk, Commonwealth of Massachusetts 02109. Bank of America, N.A. is a national banking institution in the United States chartered and supervised by the OCC with a principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina. Bank of America conducts business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts at, inter alia, 100 Federal Street, in Boston, County of Suffolk, Commonwealth of Massachusetts 02110. RSB Citizens, N.A. conducts business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts at 725 Canton St., Norwood, County of Norfolk, Commonwealth of Massachusetts 02062 and has a branch at 290 Turnpike Road, Westborough, County of Worchester, Commonwealth of Massachusetts 01581. Citizens Bank provided banking services, maintained accounts, and received and executed transfers of funds from or for the benefit of TelexFree. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a national banking institution in the United States chartered and is supervised by the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, with an address at P.O. Box 6995, Portland, Oregon 97228 and a branch at 800 North Magnolia Ave., Orlando, Florida. Wells Fargo conducts business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts at, inter alia, 201 Washington Street, in Boston, County of Suffolk, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Wells Fargo provided banking services, maintained accounts, and received and executed transfers of funds from or for the benefit of TelexFree. Fidelity Co-operative Bank, doing business as Fidelity Bank, is a Massachusetts Chartered Banking Institution, having its principal offices at 675 Main Street, in Fitchburg, County of Worcester, Commonwealth of Massachusetts 01420. John F. Merrill is an individual with a last known usual place of abode of 7 Kinnicutt Road, in Worcester, Massachusetts 01602. Synovus Bank is a Georgia Chartered Banking Institution, having its principal offices at 1148 Broadway, in Columbus, County of Muscogee, Georgia 31901. Global Payroll Gateway, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, having its principal offices at 18662 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 200, in Irvine, California 92612. International Payout Systems, Inc. also doing business as i-Payout, is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, having its principal offices at 2500 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Suite 800, Hallandale Beach, Florida 33009. Propay, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Utah with its principal offices at 3400 North Ashton Boulevard, Lehi, Utah 84043 and also does business as PROPAY.COM. Base Commerce, LLC formerly known as Phoenix Payment, LLC, is a limited liability company duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Arizona with its principal offices at 7910 S. Kyrene Road, Suite 106, Tempe, Arizona 85284, and also does business as Phoenix Payments. John Hughes is an individual with a last known usual place of abode of 6455 E. Rustic Drive, Mesa, Arizona 85215. Vantage Payments, LLC is a limited liability company duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Arizona, having its principal offices at 8300 N. Hayden Road #A207, Scottsdale, Arizona 85251. Dustin Sparman is an individual with a last known usual place of abode of 8702 E. Plaza Avenue 85610, Scottsdale, Arizona 85250. Allied Wallet, Ltd. is a limited company having its central office in the United Kingdom, and having its United States office at 900 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 820, West Hollywood, California 90069. Defendant Shoyfer is the proposed named representative for the Defendant Class. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven J. German, Esq. ADELMAN GERMAN, PLC 8245 N. 85th Way Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Telephone: 480-607-9166 Email: steve@adelmangerman.com TEREX CORPORATION: Sued in Del. Over Proposed Konecranes Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph A. Weinstock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et al., Case No. 11435 (Del. Ch., August 26, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of Terex Corporation to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Terex by Konecranes Plc through a flawed process and inadequate consideration. Terex Corporation manufactures a broad range of equipment serving customers in various industries, including the construction, infrastructure, manufacturing, shipping, transportation, refining, energy, utility, quarrying and mining industries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com - and - Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 733 Summer Street, Suite 304 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 TOWNE PROPERTIES: Faces "Duggan" Suit Over ERISA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- Connie J. Duggan, Plaintiff, v. Towne Properties Asset Management Co., Inc., Medical Benefits Administrators, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00623-MRB (S.D. Ohio, September 25, 2015), seeks for equitable relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. This action arises out of the alleged failure of Defendants to: 1) furnish Plaintiff with a copy of the summary health care plan description, 2) provide notification to an ERISA-governed plan participant of each adverse benefit determination, 3) give an ERISA Compliant Notice to Plaintiff, then denied her attempt to appeal by declaring that the limitations period on appeals had expired. Defendant Towne Properties Group Health Plan is a self-funded employee welfare benefit plan within the meaning of ERISA Sec. 3(1), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1002(1), and is therefore subject to ERISA's requirements. The Plan's sponsor and its designated administrator is Towne Properties. Defendant Medical Benefits Administrators, Inc. ("MedBen") is an Ohio corporation headquartered in Newark, Ohio. MedBen engages in the business of managing and administering health care plans, including those governed by ERISA. MedBen authors health care plan documents, sells its services to customers, and sends the MedBen- authored plan documents to its customers for signature. MedBen serves a fiduciary, as defined by ERISA, with respect to the Plan and the Plan's participants, because it exercises discretionary authority and control respecting management or disposition of the Plan's assets and has discretionary authority or responsibility respecting management and disposition of the Plan's assets. Defendant Towne Properties Asset Management Company, Inc. ("Towne Properties") is an Ohio corporation, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. Towne Properties is the Plan's sponsor and is a fiduciary of the Plan by reason of the Plan's designation of it as "plan administrator." Although labeled in the Plan as "plan administrator," that is a label in name only, as Towne Properties does not carry out any administration of the Plan but rather has allocated day-to-day claim adjudication, claim payment, administration, and other fiduciary functions to MedBen. The Plaintiff is represented by: William H. Blessing, Esq. The Blessing Law Firm 119 East Court Street, Suite 500 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 621-9191 Telecopier: (513) 621-7086 Email: bill@blessing-attorneys.com TURTLE BEACH: Class Action Remains Stayed ----------------------------------------- Turtle Beach Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a class action lawsuit has been permanently stayed until the Nevada Supreme Court completes its review. On August 5, 2013, VTB Holdings, Inc. ("VTBH") and the Company (f/k/a Parametric) announced that they had entered into the Merger Agreement pursuant to which VTBH would acquire an approximately 80% ownership interest and existing shareholders would maintain an approximately 20% ownership interest in the combined company. Following the announcement, several shareholders filed class action lawsuits in California and Nevada seeking to enjoin the Merger. The plaintiffs in each case alleged that members of the Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders by agreeing to a Merger that allegedly undervalued the Company. VTBH and the Company were named as defendants in these lawsuits under the theory that they had aided and abetted the Company's Board of Directors in allegedly violating their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs in both cases sought a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin closing of the Merger, which, by agreement, was heard by the Nevada court with the California plaintiffs invited to participate. On December 26, 2013, the court in the Nevada cases denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Following the closing of the Merger, the Nevada plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations and sought monetary damages as well as an order rescinding the Merger. The California plaintiffs dismissed their action without prejudice, and sought to intervene in the Nevada action, which was granted. Subsequent to the intervention, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations as prior complaints and sought monetary damages. On June 20, 2014, VTBH and the Company moved to dismiss the action, but that motion was denied on August 28, 2014. That denial is currently under review by the Nevada Supreme Court and briefing was completed on February 23, 2015. On May 20, 2015, the litigation was permanently stayed until the Nevada Supreme Court completes its review. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' claims against it are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in the litigation. As of June 30, 2015 and the date of this report, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss in regards to this matter; therefore, no litigation reserve has been recorded in the consolidated financial statements. UNITED PARCEL: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Mauricio Navarro, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. United Parcel Service, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC592098 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 26, 2015)is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the California Labor Code. United Parcel Service, Inc. owns and operates a package delivery company in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Yeremian, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230-8380 Facsimile: (818) 230-0308 E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com UNITED STATES: OPM Faces "Sims" Suit Over Data Theft ---------------------------------------------------- Derrick Sims, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. United States Of America, Office Of Personnel Management; and Keypoint Government Solutions, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-13426 (D. Mass., September, 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants to recover statutory damages and injunctive relief under the Privacy Act of 1974. This action alleges that the Defendants failed to adequately safeguard and secure the financial and other personally identifiable information including the names, addresses, fingerprints, and social security numbers of the Plaintiffs, which caused pecuniary losses, anxiety, and emotional distress of the latter. Defendant OPM is a United States agency with headquarters at 1900 E. Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20415. OPM handles many aspects of the federal employee recruitment process, including managing federal job announcements, conducting background investigations and security clearances, overseeing federal merit systems, managing personal retirement and health benefits, providing training and development programs, and developing government personnel policies. As part of the recruitment and hiring process, OPM collects and maintains federal applicants' and related non- applicants' records including PII, background investigations, and security clearance forms. OPM conducts more than two million background investigations annually, provides critical human resources services to other agencies, and audits agency personnel practices. Defendant KeyPoint describes itself as a "leading provider of investigative and risk mitigation services to government organizations, including the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Customs and Border Protection and Department of Homeland Security." KeyPoint provides OPM fieldwork services for background investigations. KeyPoint employs investigators in every state, and, as of December 2014, is reported to be the largest private clearance firm working for federal agencies. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Pastor, Esq. LEONARD LAW OFFICE, PC 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3d Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: 617-742-9700 Email: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com - and - Preston W. Leonard, Esq. 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3d Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: 617-329-1295 Email: pleonard@theleonardlawoffice.com UNITED STATES: DOS Sued Over Unlawful Revised Visa Bulletin ----------------------------------------------------------- Chintan Mehta, Soury Hazra, Venkata Shiva Ayyagari, Qi Wang, Quan Yuan, Ranjit Jain, Satyavan Panda, Ravi Gusain, Akshay Kawalae, Subnash Makkena, Haifeng Xiao, Aparna Mithal, Vanshaj Bindal, Ravi Vishnuvardhan, and Venkata Surapaneni, on behalf of themselves and a class of all individuals similarly situated v. U.S. Department of State, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01543 (W.D. Wash., September 28, 2015) seek declaratory and injunctive relief preventing the Defendants from enforcing the unlawfully issued Revised Visa Bulletin. U.S. Department of State is an executive agency of the United States with responsibility for oversight, management, and distribution of immigrant visas as well as the monthly publication of the Visa Bulletin. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Gibbs, Esq. Robert Pauw, Esq. GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW 1000 Second Ave., Suite 1600 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 682-1080 Facsimile: (206) 689-2270 E-mail: rgibbs@ghp-law.net - and - Gregory S. Siskind, Esq. SISKIND SUSSER, PC 1028 Oakhaven Road Memphis, TN 38119 Telephone: (901) 682-6455 Facsimile: (901) 339-9604 E-mail: GSiskind@visalaw.com - and - R. Andrew Free, Esq. Bank of America Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 244-4345 E-mail: Andrew@ImmigrantCivilRights.com VEREIT INC: Plaintiffs Filed Response to Motions to Dismiss ----------------------------------------------------------- VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that plaintiffs have filed their response to the motions to dismiss certain claims in the consolidated securities class action pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Between October 30, 2014 and January 20, 2015, the Company and certain of its former officers and current and former directors (in addition to the Company's underwriters for certain of the Company's securities offerings, among other individuals and entities) were named as defendants in ten putative securities class action complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY Actions"): Ciraulu v. American Realty Capital, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-8659 (AKH); Priever v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-8668 (AKH); Rubinstein v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-8669 (AKH); Patton v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-8671 (AKH); Edwards v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-8721 (AKH); Harris v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-8740 (AKH); Abadi v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-9006 (AKH); City of Tampa General Employees Retirement Fund v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-10134 (AKH); Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-0421 (AKH); and New York City Employees Retirement System v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-0422 (AKH). The Court subsequently consolidated the SDNY Actions under the caption In re American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation, No. 15-MC-00040 (AKH) (the "SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action") and appointed a lead plaintiff. Following the Company's issuance of its restated financials in March, 2015, on April 17, 2015 the lead plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint, which asserted claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, arising out of allegedly false and misleading statements in connection with the purchase or sale of the Company's securities. On May 29, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss certain claims in the SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action and the plaintiffs filed their response on July 17, 2015. VEREIT INC: Not Yet Required to Respond to "Wunsch" Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is not yet required to respond to the complaint in the Wunsch class action. On November 25, 2014, the Company and certain of its former officers and current and former directors were named as defendants in a putative securities class action complaint filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, captioned Wunsch v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 03-C-14- 012816 (the "Wunsch Action"). On December 23, 2014, the Company removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (Northern Division), under the caption Wunsch v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv- 4007 (ELH). On April 15, 2015, the Maryland court transferred the Wunsch Action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under the caption Wunsch v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-2934. The Wunsch Action asserts claims for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, arising out of allegedly false and misleading statements made in connection with the Company's securities issued in connection with the Cole Merger. The Company is not yet required to respond to the complaint in the Wunsch Action. VEREIT INC: Continues to Defend ARCT III Litigation --------------------------------------------------- VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company continues to defend the so-called ARCT III Litigation. After the announcement of the merger agreement with American Realty Capital Trust III, Inc. ("ARCT III") in December 2012 (the "ARCT III Merger Agreement"), a putative class action lawsuit was filed in January 2013 against the Company, the OP, ARCT III, ARCT III's operating partnership, members of the board of directors of ARCT III and certain subsidiaries of the Company in Supreme Court in the State of New York, captioned Quall v. American Realty Capital Properties, et al., No. 650329/2013. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the ARCT III board breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the transactions contemplated under the ARCT III Merger Agreement. In February 2013, the parties agreed to a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of the alleged class of ARCT III stockholders. The proposed settlement terms required certain additional disclosures related to the merger, which were included in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by ARCT III with the SEC on February 21, 2013, but did not include any monetary payment to plaintiff. The memorandum of understanding also provided that the parties would enter into a stipulation of settlement, which would be subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory discovery and court approval following notice to ARCT III's stockholders. If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, which has not yet occurred, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the court will approve any proposed settlement, or that any settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum of understanding. No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-Q Report. VEREIT INC: No Subsequent Activity in "Tarver" Action ----------------------------------------------------- VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that there has been no subsequent activity in the Tarver Action. Following the announcement of the merger agreement with CapLease in May 2013, a number of lawsuits were filed by CapLease stockholders, the following of which remain pending: On June 25, 2013, a putative class action and derivative lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the Company, the OP, CapLease, and members of the CapLease board of directors, among others, captioned Tarver v. CapLease, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-004176 (the "Tarver Action"). The complaint alleged, among other things, that the merger agreement was the product of breaches of fiduciary duty by the CapLease directors because the transaction purportedly did not provide for full and fair value for the CapLease shareholders and was not the result of a competitive bidding process, the merger agreement allegedly contained coercive deal protection measures and the merger was purportedly approved as a result of improper self-dealing by certain defendants who would receive certain alleged employment compensation benefits and continued employment pursuant to the merger agreement. The complaint also alleged that CapLease,the Company, the OP and others aided and abetted the CapLease directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. In August 2013, counsel in the Tarver Action filed a motion for a stay in the Baltimore Court, informing the court that the plaintiff had agreed to join and participate in the prosecution of other actions concerning the CapLease transaction then pending in a New York court (which were subsequently dismissed). The stay was granted by the Baltimore Court and there has been no subsequent activity in the Tarver Action. No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-Q Report. VEREIT INC: Plaintiff in "Poling" Action Filed Notice of Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Plaintiff in the Poling Action have filed a notice of appeal. Following the announcement of the merger agreement with CapLease in May 2013, a number of lawsuits were filed by CapLease stockholders, the following of which remain pending: In October 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the Company, the OP, CapLease, and members of the CapLease board of directors, among others, captioned Poling v. CapLease, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13- 006178 (the "Poling Action"). The complaint alleged that the merger agreement breached the terms of the CapLease 8.375% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock ("Series B") and the terms of the 7.25% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock ("Series C") and was in violation of the Series B Articles Supplementary and the Series C Articles Supplementary. The complaint alleged claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty against the CapLease entities and the CapLease board of directors, and that the Company, the OP and Safari Acquisition, LLC aided and abetted CapLease and the CapLease directors' alleged breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. In December 2013, all Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Poling Action, which was granted by the court in May 2015. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on June 4, 2015. No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-Q Report. VEREIT INC: Appeal Pending in Maryland Cole Merger Action --------------------------------------------------------- VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that an appeal is pending in the Consolidated Maryland Cole Merger Action. Two actions filed in March and April 2013 in United States District Court for the District of Arizona, assert shareholder class action claims under the Securities Act of 1933, along with claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, corporate waste, and unjust enrichment, among others, relating to the merger between a wholly owned subsidiary of Cole and Cole Holdings Corporation, pursuant to which Cole became a self-managed REIT; Schindler v. Cole Holdings Corp., et al., 13-cv-00712; and Carter v. Cole Holdings Corp., et al., 13-cv-00629. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss both complaints in January 2014. Both of those lawsuits have been stayed by the Court pursuant to a joint request made by all parties pending final approval of the Consolidated Maryland Cole Merger Action. To date, a number of lawsuits have been filed in connection with the Cole Merger, the following of which remain pending. Between October and November 2013, eight putative stockholder class action or derivative lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, captioned as: (i) Operman v. Cole, et al. ("Operman"); (ii) Branham v. Cole, et al. ("Branham"); (iii) Wilfong v. Cole, et al. ("Wilfong"); (iv) Polage v. Cole, et al. ("Polage"); (v) Corwin v. Cole, et al. ("Corwin"); (vi) Green v. Cole, et al. ("Green"); (vii) Flynn v. Cole, et al. ("Flynn") and (viii) Morgan v. Cole, et al. ("Morgan"). All of these lawsuits named the Company, Cole and Cole's board of directors as defendants, and certain of the actions also named CREInvestments, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cole, as a defendant. Each complaint generally alleged that the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to stockholders of Cole in connection with the Cole Merger, and that certain entity defendants aided and abetted those breaches. The breach of fiduciary duty claims asserted included claims that the Cole Merger did not provide for full and fair value for the Cole shareholders and was the product of an "inadequate sale process," that the Cole Merger Agreement contained coercive deal protection measures and that the Cole Merger Agreement and the Cole Merger were approved as a result of, or in a manner which facilitated, improper self-dealing by certain defendants. In addition, certain of the lawsuits claimed that the individual defendants breached their duty of candor to shareholders and/or asserted claims derivatively against the individual defendants for their alleged breach of fiduciary duties owed to Cole, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. Among other remedies, the complaints sought unspecified money damages, costs and attorneys' fees. In December 2013, the eight lawsuits were consolidated under the caption Polage v. Cole Real Estate Investments, Inc., et al., 24-c-13-006665 (the "Consolidated Maryland Cole Merger Action"). In January 2014, the parties to the Consolidated Maryland Cole Merger Action entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of the alleged class of Cole stockholders. The proposed settlement terms required Cole to make certain additional disclosures related to the Cole Merger, which were included in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by Cole with the SEC on January 14, 2014. The memorandum of understanding also contemplated that the parties would enter into a stipulation of settlement, subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory discovery and court approval following notice to Cole's stockholders. In August 2014, the parties in the Consolidated Maryland Cole Merger Action executed a Stipulation and Release and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement (the "Stipulation") and the Baltimore Circuit Court entered an Order on Preliminary Approval of Derivative and Class Action Settlement and Class Action Certification and scheduled a final settlement hearing. In December 2014, the parties in the Consolidated Maryland Cole Merger Action executed an Amended Stipulation and Release and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement (the "Amended Stipulation") modifying the Stipulation. In January 2015, the Baltimore Circuit Court issued an order approving the settlement pursuant to the terms of the Amended Stipulation. Under the terms of the approved settlement, defendants paid a settlement amount of $14.0 million, half of which was to be used for attorney's fees. Two objectors have since filed a notice of appeal of the settlement order. That appeal is pending. VEREIT INC: Suit by Realistic Partners Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------ VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the case, Realistic Partners v. American Realty Capital Partners, et al., remains pending. In December 2013, Realistic Partners filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and the then-members of its board of directors in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, captioned Realistic Partners v. American Realty Capital Partners, et al., No. 654468/2013. Cole was later added as a defendant. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the board of the Company breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the transactions contemplated under the Cole Merger Agreement and that Cole aided and abetted those breaches. In January 2014, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of the alleged class of the Company's stockholders. The proposed settlement terms required the Company to make certain additional disclosures related to the Cole Merger, which were included in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company with the SEC on January 17, 2014. The memorandum of understanding also contemplated that the parties would enter into a stipulation of settlement, which would be subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory discovery and court approval following notice to the Company's stockholders, and provided that the defendants would not object to a payment of up to $625,000 for attorneys' fees. If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, which has not occurred, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the court will approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum of understanding. VISTA CLINICAL: Faces "Gear" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Jenni M. Gear, Candese A. Hawkins, Shamika L. Pollard, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Vista Clinical Diagnostic, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00495-CEM-PRL (M.D. Fla., September 28, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Vista Clinical Diagnostic, LLC maintains and operates independent medical diagnostic and testing facilities at 44 different locations throughout thirteen Florida Counties. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Adams, Esq. N. Ryan Labar, Esq. LABAR & ADAMS, P.A. 2300 East Concord Street Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (407) 835-8968 Facsimile: (407) 835-8969 E-mail: sadams@labaradams.com rlabar@labaradams.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Lucas" Suit Over Emission Scandal ---------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Lucas, and Shaun Brandewie, Plaintiffs, v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-01988 (N.D. Ohio, September 24, 2015), seeks to recover monetary damages under the Clean Air Act and other applicable state and federal vehicle emission laws. According to the Complaint, The Volkswagen Defendants installed "defeat devices" in the defective vehicles in order to pass the EPA required emission testing, when in fact the Defective Vehicles emitted up to 40 times the pollution allowed by law. Worse still is that the Volkswagen Defendants heavily marketed the Defective Vehicles to consumers such as the Plaintiff and other Class Members as being "clean diesel" vehicles. The proposed class is defined as: "All persons or entities in the United States who purchased or leased one or more Defective Vehicles in the United States." The proposed subclass is defined as: "All persons or entities who purchased or leased one or more Defective Vehicles in the State of Ohio." Defendant Volkswagen AG is a foreign for-profit corporation with its principal place of business at 38436 Wolfsburg, Germany. Volkswagen AG, one of the world's largest car manufacturers, owns and controls the brand names Volkswagen, Rolls-Royce, Bentley, Audi, Lamborghini, Skoda and Seat. Volkswagen AG delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in every state in the United States. From January through June 2015, Volkswagen AG delivered 294,992 passenger vehicles to the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel J. Myers, Esq. MYERS LAW, LLC 610 Skylight Office Tower 1660 West Second Street Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel: (216) 236-8202 Fax: (216) 674-1696 E-mail: DMyers@MyersLawLLC.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Dumont" Suit Over Emission Scandal ----------------------------------------------------------- Dawn Dumont, for herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-00394 (D.N.H., September 28, 2015), seeks to recover monetary damages under the Clean Air Act regulations and other applicable state and federal vehicle emission laws. According to the Complaint, by manufacturing and selling cars with defeat devices that allowed for higher levels of emissions than were certified to EPA, Volkswagen violated the Clean Air Act, defrauded its customers, breached its contracts, violated warranties, and engaged in unfair and deceptive practices under state and federal law. The proposed class is defined as: "All persons or entities in New Hampshire who are current or former owners or lessees of an "Affected Vehicle." Affected Vehicles include, without limitation: MY 2009-2015 VW Jetta; MY 2009-2015 VW Beetle; MY 2009-2015 VW Golf; MY 2014-2015 VW Passat; and MY 2009-2015 Audi A3." Defendant Volkswagen AG is a foreign for-profit corporation with its principal place of business at 38436 Wolfsburg, Germany. Volkswagen AG, one of the world's largest car manufacturers, owns and controls the brand names Volkswagen, Rolls-Royce, Bentley, Audi, Lamborghini, Skoda and Seat. Volkswagen AG delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in every state in the United States. From January through June, 2015, Volkswagen AG delivered 294,992 passenger vehicles to the United States. Excluded from the Class are individuals who have personal injury claims resulting from the "defeat device" in the Clean Diesel system. Also excluded from the Class are Volkswagen and its subsidiaries and affiliates; all persons who make a timely election to be excluded from the Class; governmental entities; and the judge to whom this case is assigned and his/her immediate family. Plaintiff reserves the right to revise the Class definition based upon information learned through discovery. Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation doing business in all 50 states and is organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its principal place of business located at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171. Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted the affected vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names throughout the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward K. O'Brien, Esq. One Sundial Avenue, 5th Floor Manchester, NH 03103 Tel: (603) 672-3800 E-mail: eobrien@ekoblaw.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Butler" Suit in Va. Over Defeat Devices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeanine Butler, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group Of America Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 01245-LO-MSN (E.D. Va., September 28, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's alleged use of defeat devices in its 2009-2015 Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles to evade clean air standards. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components throughout the United States of America. The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Kyle McNew, Esq. Gary W. Kendall, Esq. M. Bryan Slaughter, Esq. J. Gregory Webb, Esq. MICHIE HAMLET PLLC 500 Court Square, Suite 300 PO Box 298 Charlottesville, VA 22902-0298 Telephone: (434) 951-7200 Facsimile: (434) 951-7257 E-mail: kmcnew@michiehamlett.com gkendall@michiehamlett.com bslaughter@michiehamlett.com gwebb@michiehamlett.com - and - Joseph F. Rice, Esq. Jodi Westbrook Flowers, Esq. Kevin R. Dean, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 Facsimile: (843) 216-9450 E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com jflowers@motleyrice.com kdean@motleyrice.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Heppard" Suit Over Defeat Devices ---------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey P. Heppard, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen, AG, Case No. 2:15-cv-07140-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., September 28, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged installation of sophisticated software, known as a "defeat device," in Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles sold in the United States that was designed to circumvent and artificially suppress the results of official vehicle emissions testing. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components throughout the United States of America. Volkswagen AG is a German multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in Wolfsburg, Lower Saxony, Germany. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlo Scaramella, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CARLO SCARAMELLA, LLC 10000 Lincoln Dr. East, Suite 201 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 914-0114 Facsimile: (856) 914-0117 E-mail: cs@lawofcs.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "McMillen" Suit Over Defeat Devices ----------------------------------------------------------- Jon McMillen, Christina McMillen, Mark McMillen, Ralph McMillen, Wahab Khan, Marc Gustafson and Peter Levitt, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-07615 (C.D. Cal., September 28, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged installation of defective diesel engine systems containing a "defeat device" in approximately 500,000 vehicles that were sold in the United States. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components throughout the United States of America. The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Mitchell, Esq. Rachel L. Jensen, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: davidm@rgrdlaw.com rachelj@rgrdlaw.com - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Mark Dearman, Esq. Alex Kruzyk, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com mdearman@rgrdlaw.com akruzyk@rgrdlaw.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Montano" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Device ----------------------------------------------------------------- Damian Montano, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07142-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., September 28, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged installation of defective diesel engine systems containing a "defeat device" in approximately 500,000 vehicles that were sold in the United States. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components throughout the United States of America. The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Marc L. Godino, Esq. Mark S. Greenstone, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com mgodino@glancylaw.com mgreenstone@glancylaw.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Paoli" Suit in Mon. Over Defeat Devices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Monica Conrad Paoli, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 9:15-cv-00127-DLC-JCL (D. Mon., September 28, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged installation of defective diesel engine systems containing a "defeat device" in approximately 500,000 vehicles that were sold in the United States. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components throughout the United States of America. The Plaintiff is represented by: William A. Rossbach, Esq. ROSSBACH LAW, P.C. 401 North Washington Street P. O. Box 8988, Hellgate Station Missoula, MT 59807-8988 Telephone: (406) 543-5156 Facsimile: (406) 728-8878 E-mail: bill@rossbachlaw.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Pergament" Suit Over Defeat Devices ------------------------------------------------------------ Danielle K. Pergament, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-05594-ARR-JO (E.D.N.Y., September 28, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's alleged installation of "defeat device" in at least the following diesel models of its vehicles: Model Year ("MY")2009-2015 VW Jetta; MY 2009-2014 Jetta Sportwagen; MY 2012- 2015 VW Beetle; MY 2012-2015 VW Beetle Convertible; MY 2010-2015 VW Golf; MY 2015 Golf Sportwagen; MY 2012-2015 VW Passat; and MY 2010-2015 Audi A3. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components throughout the United States of America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael E. Elsner, Esq. Joseph F. Rice, Esq. Jodi Westbrook Flowers, Esq. Kevin R. Dean, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 Facsimile: (843) 216-9450 E-mail: melsner@motleyrice.com jrice@motleyrice.com jflowers@motleyrice.com kdean@motleyrice.com WAYNE L. HUDGENS: Sued Over Failure to Repair Defective Units ------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffery Martinez v. Wayne L. Hudgens, Janice I. Hudgens and Does 1-30, Case No. RG15783401 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 26, 2015) is brought on behalf of the tenants who suffered emotional distress, physical injury, over-payment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the Defendants' failure and refusal to make repairs of the habitability defects to the subject premises. The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business in the County of Alameda, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Wolff, Esq. Chris Beatty, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC 1970 Broadway, Ste. 210 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 834-3300 Facsimile: (510) 834-3377 E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com chris@awolfflaw.com WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Failure to Pay Deferred Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------- Roger Connell and Richard Ashcroft, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, and Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network, LLC, and Does 1 thru 50, Case No. 4:15-cv-02841 (S.D. Tex., September 29, 2015) is brought on behalf of all of the Defendants' former and current Texas employees who did not receive money owed to them as deferred compensation, resulting from the Defendants' seizure of that money in reliance on contract terms that did not comport with Texas Business & Commerce Code. Headquartered in San Francisco, California, the Defendants operate a banking and financial service company throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas R. Ajamie, Esq. David Siegel, Esq. AJAMIE LLP Pennzoil Place - South Tower 711 Louisiana, Suite 2150 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 860-1600 Facsimile: (713) 860-1699 E-mail: tajamie@ajamie.com dsiegel@ajamie.com - and - Todd Slobin, Esq. Martin Shellist, Esq. SHELLIST | LAZARZ | SLOBIN 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net mshellist@eeoc.net WESTERN FEDERAL: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Josefa Gomez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Western Federal Credit Union and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC595925 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 25, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Western Federal Credit Union is a California limited liability company that operates banks throughout California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: lfj@lfjpc.com WHOLE FOODS: Falsely Advertises Meat Products, PETA Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals, Inc., and Leah Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., a Texas Corporation; Whole Foods Market California, Inc., a California Corporation; Mrs. Gooch's Natural Food Markets, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants, Case No 5:15-cv-04301 (N.D. Cal., September 21, 2015), to recover monies paid to Defendants as a result of unfair and deceptive business practices, under the California Consumer Protection Laws. Plaintiffs suffered injury, including the loss of money, as a result of Defendants' deceptive and misleading advertisement with their meat products. Plaintiff consumers alleged that they were deceived into paying a higher price for meat products of the Defendants that fail to offer the benefit they seek. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq. Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 203 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 Facsimile: (213) 330-7152 E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com christopherp@hbsslaw.com WPX ENERGY: New Class Action Stayed Pending First Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- WPX Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that parties in a royalty litigation have agreed to stay this new lawsuit pending resolution of the first lawsuit in the Colorado Court of Appeals. The Company said, "In September 2006, royalty-interest owners in Garfield County, Colorado, filed a class action suit in District Court, Garfield County, Colorado, alleging we improperly calculated oil and gas royalty payments, failed to account for proceeds received from the sale of natural gas and extracted products, improperly charged certain expenses and failed to refund amounts withheld in excess of ad valorem tax obligations. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of royalty interest owners, recover underpayment of royalties and obtain corrected payments related to calculation errors." "We entered into a final partial settlement agreement. The partial settlement agreement defined the class for certification, resolved claims relating to past calculation of royalty and overriding royalty payments, established certain rules to govern future royalty and overriding royalty payments, resolved claims related to past withholding for ad valorem tax payments, established a procedure for refunds of any such excess withholding in the future, and reserved two claims for court resolution. "We have prevailed at the trial court and all levels of appeal on the first reserved claim regarding whether we are allowed to deduct mainline pipeline transportation costs pursuant to certain lease agreements. The remaining claim related to the issue of whether we are required to have proportionately increased the value of natural gas by transporting that gas on mainline transmission lines and, if required, whether we did so and are entitled to deduct a proportionate share of transportation costs in calculating royalty payments. Plaintiffs had claimed damages of approximately $20 million plus interest for the period from July 2000 to July 2008. The court issued pretrial orders finding that we do bear the burden of demonstrating enhancement of the value of gas in order to deduct transportation costs and that the enhancement test must be applied on a monthly basis in order to determine the reasonableness of post-production transportation costs. "Trial occurred in December 2013 on the issue of whether we have met that burden. Following that trial, the court issued its order rejecting plaintiffs' proposed standard and accepting our position as to the methodology to use in determining the standard by which our activity should be judged. We have completed the accounting process under the standard and have obtained the court's approval. "However, as we continue to believe our royalty calculations have been properly determined in accordance with the appropriate contractual arrangements and Colorado law, we have appealed this matter to the Colorado Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs have now filed a second class action lawsuit in the District Court, Garfield County containing similar allegations but related to subsequent time periods. The parties have agreed to stay this new lawsuit pending resolution of the first lawsuit in the Colorado Court of Appeals." WPX ENERGY: Lawsuit by Royalty Interest Owners Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- WPX Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a lawsuit by royalty interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado remains pending. The Company said, "In October 2011, a potential class of royalty interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado filed a complaint against us in the County of Rio Arriba, New Mexico. The complaint presently alleges failure to pay royalty on hydrocarbons including drip condensate, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent concealment, conversion, misstatement of the value of gas and affiliated sales, breach of duty to market hydrocarbons in Colorado, violation of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act, and bad faith breach of contract. Plaintiffs sought monetary damages and a declaratory judgment enjoining activities relating to production, payments and future reporting. This matter was removed to the United States District Court for New Mexico." "In March 2015, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs have not timely filed an appeal of this denial. They have filed both a pending motion for reconsideration of the denial of class certification with the trial court which we oppose and a motion seeking to conduct additional discovery in order to attempt to redefine their proposed class, which has been denied. "In August 2012, a second potential class action was filed against us in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico by mineral interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado. Plaintiffs claim breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied duty to market both in Colorado and New Mexico and violation of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act, and seek declaratory judgment, accounting and injunction. "At this time, we believe that our royalty calculations have been properly determined in accordance with the appropriate contractual arrangements and applicable laws. We do not have sufficient information to calculate an estimated range of exposure related to these claims." YOUSSEF HACHEM: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Medina" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Elvira Medina and other similarly situated individuals v. Youssef Hachem Consulting Engineering Inc., Youssef Hachem, and Salam S. Hachem, Case No. 32525236 (11th Ct. Fla., September 25, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate an engineering 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 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552. * * * End of Transmission * * *