/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/151103.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, November 3, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 219 Headlines ABC CORP: "Romero" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ADOLF'S MEAT: Recalls Assorted Meat Products Due to Listeria ALBEMARLE CORP: Delaware Chancery Court Terminating Class Action ALLIED OIL: "Gonzales" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA ALPHA & OMEGA: Faces "Marshall" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime AMERIANA BANCORP: Faces "Stein" Class Action in Indiana AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Kellam" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Harvey" Securities Class Suit in N.J. ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Appeal Case Dismissal ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Dismiss "Montalbano" Case ATMEL CORPORATION: Faces "Tsantes" Suit Over Dialog Merger Plans AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Filed Motion to Dismiss New Complaint BARRETT BUSINESS: No Discovery Yet in W.D. Wash. Class Actions BEST LUCK: "Juarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages BIOSCRIP INC: Chancery Court Approves Settlement, Atty. Fees BROTHERS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Heath" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT BUILD-A-BEAR: Recalls Stuffed Animals Due to Choking Hazard BURLEY DESIGN: Recalls Child Bicycle Trailers Due to Crash Hazard CALISTA SUPERFOODS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CANADA: Nov. 30 Day Scholar Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set CINEMARK USA: "Amey" Case in Pretrial Discovery CITRIX SYSTEMS: Faces "Bethell" Class Action in Florida CLAYTON WILLIAMS: Lawsuit Involving Opt-Out Plaintiff Continues CLIFTON AVE: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Espinoza" Suit Says CMPC TISSUE: Faces Suit Over Alleged Tissue Paper Price Collusion CONCREATIONS OF COLORADO: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages DEALERTRACK TECHNOLOGIES: Hoff Complaint Withdrawn DEALERTRACK TECHNOLOGIES: Parties in Reiferson Suit Inks MOU DS SERVICES: "Hamilton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ENCORE CAPITAL: Class Action Settlement Remains Pending EXPERIAN HOLDINGS: Faces "Davis" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach FAIRWAY MANAGEMENT: Faces "Harger" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT FANDUEL INC: "Genchanok" Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Dismissal of Shareholder Actions Sought GENCO SHIPPING: Plaintiffs Withdrew Appeal in Class Action GENERAL MOTORS: Sued in Cal. Over Sierra Vehicle Design Defects GFI GROUP: Oral Argument in "Gross" Case Held H2S HOLDINGS: "Cortes-Mendoza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages HC2 HOLDINGS: Class Suit Over Tender Offer Remains Pending HARVEST NATURAL: Dismissal of Consolidated Class Action Sought HOWARD SOLOCHEK: "Gibeau" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation IMPAX LABORATORIES: Bid to Dismiss Solodyn Suit Still Pending IMPAX LABORATORIES: No Oral Argument Yet on Opana Case Dismissal IMPAX LABORATORIES: Settlement in Securities Case Has Final OK IMPAX LABORATORIES: Settlement in Aruliah Case Awaits Final OK INFOCISION MANAGEMENT: "Wajert" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation INNERWORKINGS INC: Bid to Dismiss Van Noppen Complaint Pending INNOPOWER INC: Recalls Climbing Sticks Due to Fall Hazard J2 GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Paldo Sign Case J2 GLOBAL: Briefing on Appeal in Multi-District Litigation Stayed J2 GLOBAL: Discovery on Case filed by LEO and Dancel Ongoing JAKKS PACIFIC: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Still Pending JAY-JAY CABARET: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Racey" Suit Says JEFFERSON CAPITAL: "Tesch" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation JOSEPH EPSTEIN: Recalls Meatball Products Due to Misbranding KRUD KUTTER: Recalls Adhesive Removers Due to Noncompliance L.L. BEAN: Recalls Hunting Knives Due to Laceration Hazard LAROSE INDUSTRIES: Recalls Flying Ace Toys Due to Choking Hazard LIGHTHOUSE CHRISTIAN: Recalls Ceramic Mugs Due to Burn Hazard LIQUID FORCE: Recalls Kiteboard Control System Due to Injury Risk LIVE NATION: Accrued $34.9MM Related to Ticketing Fee Settlement LONESTAR RESOURCES: "Gonzales" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation LOS ANGELES, CA: Feb. 25 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: Class Action Notice Sent to Class Members MAELI ROSE: Recalls Girl's Hoodies Due to Strangulation Hazard MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Automated Calls MARTEL'S FAMILY: Faces "Escobar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXLINEAR INC: Entropic Merger Case Subject to Negotiation MDC PARTNERS: Faces Class Suit by Firefighters Pension Plan MICHAEL KORS: Faces "Hyseni" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages MINNESOTA: Faces "Kamara" Suit Over FLSA Violation MODEL N: Discovery in Securities Action Ongoing MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Class Action Remains Subject to Court Approval MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Cases by Foam Products Purchasers Still Open MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Settles Claims by Canadian Plaintiffs NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Illegally Collects Debt, "McCoy" Suit Claims NEW ENGLAND FITNESS: Sued in New Jersey Over TCCWNA Violation PACIFIC PREMIER: Bank Unit Dismissed from "Baker" Class Action PANASONIC CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Antitrust Law Violations PATRICK W. LAWLOR: Sui Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages PELMEN FOODS: Recalls Dumpling Products Due to Non-Inspection PHL VARIABLE: Court Granted Preliminary Approval of Settlement PLY GEM: Deal Reached with Objectors to Vinyl Clad Settlement PLY GEM: "Memari" Case in South Carolina Court Dismissed PLY GEM: No Class Certification Ruling in "Pagliaroni" Case PLY GEM: Court Has Not Yet Rule on Appeal in "Muhler" Case PLY GEM: Strathclyde Securities Litigation Dismissed POTTERY BARN: Recalls Water Bottles Due to Lead PRA GROUP: Court Lifted Stay in TCPA Litigation QUALITY BICYCLE: Recalls Bicycles & Cranksets Due to Fall Hazard QUANTA SERVICES: "Benton" Action Seeks $21MM for Damages, Fees REDBACK ENERGY: "Reynolds" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ROVINI CONCRETE: "Figueroa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime RUSTICO FOODS: Recalls Soup Products Due to Non-Inspection SAM'S WEST: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Costumer Refund SHAN NAMKEEN: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SHULER MEATS: Recalls Turkey Products Due Non-Inspection SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Lawsuits on Premature Corrosion Resolved SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Class Cert. Bid in "Nishimura" Pending SKECHERS U.S.A.: Trials Expected in Early to Mid-2016 SKECHERS U.S.A.: Trial Dates Set for First 2 Bellwether Cases SKECHERS U.S.A.: Jan. 4 Trial Set in Missouri State Court Case SKECHERS U.S.A.: Settlements Being Negotiated with Several Groups SKECHERS U.S.A.: "Grabowski" Deal to Resolve 2 Other Suits SKECHERS U.S.A.: Distribution of Funds to "Angell" Class Pending SOLAZYME INC: Norfolk County Retirement System Case Filed SOUTHWEST BANCORP: Cohen Entered Appearance as Co-Counsel SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Proceedings in "Perry" Action Stayed STEEL DYNAMICS: Class Certification Bid Remains Under Advisement SUPREME SERVICE: "Gomez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages SYATT FRANCHISING: "Fuller" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls Turkey Meatloaf Products Due to Misbranding TESCO CORP: Participating in Arbitration to Settle Labor Rift TMCD CORPORATION: "Long" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages TRADE STREET: Defending Class Action in Baltimore Circuit Court TRE AMICI: Faces "Carrillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TTM TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Settlement Remains Pending UGI CORPORATION: Notice of Appeal Filed by Direct Customers UNITED STATES STOVE: Recalls Pellet Heater/Stove Products USPACK LOGISTICS: Faces "Easterday" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT VERSACE USA: Sued in New York Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages VOLKSWAGEN AG: "Rochford" Suit Alleges RICO Violation VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Brown" Suit in Ga. Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Clark" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Gentry" Suit Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hayden" Suit Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Henderson" Suit Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hoag" Suit Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Joseph" Suit Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Landau" Suit Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Levy" Suit in Tenn. Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Linnee" Suit Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Rogers" Suit Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Suit Over Fraud by Concealment VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Fisher" Suit Over Breach of Contract VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Gibson" Suit Alleges Fraudulent Representation W2007 GRACE: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held WALTER INVESTMENT: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit WELLS FARGO: January 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Curry Chicken Salad Products Due to Listeria WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Settlement Approved for Immaterial Amount XPO LOGISTICS: Intermodal Drayage Claims in Initial Stages XPO LOGISTICS: "Molina" Action in Initial Stages of Discovery ********* ABC CORP: "Romero" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Jose Romero, and all others similarly-situated v. ABC Corp. dba Nassau Fire Apparatus, ABC Corp. dba North Eastern Fire & Rescue, Andrew M. Buglione, Robert Buglione and John Does 1-2, Case No. 2:15-cv-05861 (E.D.N.Y., October 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages for overtime work performed, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants is a rescue vehicle and equipment distributor specializing in a wide variety of rescue products for companies in New York & Vermont. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus Monteiro, Esq. MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP 91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108 Hempstead, NY 11550 Tel: (516) 280-4600 Fax: (516) 280-4530 Email: mmonteiro@mflawny.com ADOLF'S MEAT: Recalls Assorted Meat Products Due to Listeria ------------------------------------------------------------ Adolf's Meat Products, a Hartford, Conn. establishment, is recalling approximately 224 pounds of assorted meat that may be adulterated with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The following items, produced on Oct. 20, 2015, are subject to recall: --- 14-lb. of Smoked Kielbasa --- 100-lb. of Hams --- 40-lb. of Canadian Bacon --- 30-lb. of Bone-In Pork Loins --- 50-lb. of Liverwurst The smoked kielbasa products bear establishment number "EST. 34651" inside the USDA mark of inspection, while other products were sold without labels from behind a deli counter. All recalled products were sold at the company's store, Adolf's Meat & Sausage Kitchen, located in Hartford, Connecticut. The problem was discovered during routine FSIS sample testing. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Consumption of food contaminated with L. monocytogenes can cause listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects older adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women and their newborns. Less commonly, persons outside these risk groups are affected. Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck, confusion, loss of balance and convulsions sometimes preceded by diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms. An invasive infection spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract. In pregnant women, the infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths, premature delivery or life-threatening infection of the newborn. In addition, serious and sometimes fatal infections in older adults and persons with weakened immune systems. Listeriosis is treated with antibiotics. Persons in the higher-risk categories who experience flu-like symptoms within two months after eating contaminated food should seek medical care and tell the health care provider about eating the contaminated food. FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be frozen and in consumers' freezers. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. FSIS advises all consumers to reheat ready-to-eat product until steaming hot. Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact Joseph Gorski, President, at (860) 522-1588. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. ALBEMARLE CORP: Delaware Chancery Court Terminating Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Albemarle Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Delaware Chancery Court has issued an Order dismissing with prejudice the Delaware consolidated action, thereby terminating the shareholder class action litigation. On July 22, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Chancery Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County ("Superior Court of New Jersey") relating to the Merger. On July 24, 2014, an additional putative class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey relating to the Merger. Both suits named the same plaintiff but were filed by different law firms. On August 1, 2014 and August 12, 2014, three additional putative class action complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware ("Delaware Chancery Court") relating to the Merger. The lawsuits filed in New Jersey, Thwaites v. Rockwood Holdings Inc., et al. ("Thwaites I"), Thwaites v. Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et al. ("Thwaites II"), and the lawsuits filed in Delaware, Rudman Partners, L.P. v. Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et al., Riley v. Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et al., and North Miami Beach Police Officers & Firefighters' Retirement Plan v. Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et al., each named Rockwood, its former directors, and Albemarle as defendants. Thwaites II and the cases filed in Delaware also named Albemarle Holdings Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Albemarle, as a defendant. The lawsuits, which contained substantially similar allegations, included allegations that Rockwood's former board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger by failing to ensure that Rockwood shareholders would receive the maximum value for their shares, failing to conduct an appropriate sale process and putting their own interests ahead of those of Rockwood shareholders. Rockwood and Albemarle are alleged to have aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches. The lawsuits sought a variety of equitable relief, including enjoining the former Rockwood board of directors from proceeding with the proposed Merger unless they acted in accordance with their fiduciary duties to maximize shareholder value and rescission of the Merger to the extent implemented, in addition to damages arising from the defendants' alleged breaches and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 12, 2014, the plaintiff in Thwaites I filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice as to all defendants. On August 27, 2014, the Delaware Chancery Court ordered the three Delaware cases consolidated and appointed co-lead counsel. The court also ordered that no response to the complaints would be due until after plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. On September 19, 2014, the plaintiff in Thwaites II filed an amended complaint which included allegations that the registration statement failed to disclose material information. Plaintiffs in Thwaites II and in the Delaware consolidated action subsequently coordinated their litigation efforts, and the Delaware consolidated action was stayed pending the outcome of the Thwaites II litigation. In Thwaites II, the parties (including the Delaware plaintiffs) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on November 6, 2014, provisionally settling all claims in the pending actions and declaring the parties' intent to submit a settlement agreement for the court's approval within 90 days. On December 2, 2014, the parties submitted a joint stipulation to extend the defendants' time to respond to the amended complaint in Thwaites II until February 4, 2015. The parties executed a final Stipulation of Settlement and Release ("Stipulation") on February 4, 2015. In addition to extinguishing the current claims, the Stipulation contemplates broad releases of any and all actual and potential claims, whether known or unknown, by any member of the putative shareholder class against the defendants relating to or arising out of the Merger, the Merger Agreement, or the registration statement. On February 26, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, which was unopposed. The Superior Court of New Jersey granted the motion on March 31, 2015, and scheduled the final settlement hearing for July 30, 2015. In accordance with the terms of the Stipulation and the Court's Order preliminarily approving the settlement, notice of the settlement and final hearing date was provided to former Rockwood stockholders on April 14, 2015. On April 28, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of the settlement. On July 16, 2015, defendants filed a letter with the Court in support of the pending motion for final approval filed by plaintiffs' counsel and requested that the proposed settlement be approved by the Court. The deadline for objections to the settlement to be postmarked and filed with the Court was also July 16, 2015. No such objections were filed. On July 20, 2015, defendants filed an Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of Class Notice prepared by Donlin, Recano & Company, Inc., ("DRC") with the Court, delineating the steps taken by defendants and DRC to disseminate the Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement and Settlement Hearing and confirming that notice had in fact been provided to the class members. On July 30, 2015, the final settlement hearing was held before the Superior Court of New Jersey, which issued a Final Order and Judgment approving the settlement. On August 4, 2015, pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, plaintiffs in the Delaware actions filed a notice of dismissal of the pending consolidated action with prejudice. On August 5, 2015, the Delaware Chancery Court issued an Order dismissing with prejudice the Delaware consolidated action, thereby terminating the shareholder class action litigation. ALLIED OIL: "Gonzales" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------- Larry Gonzales, and all others similarly-situated v. Allied Oil & Gas Services, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00883 (W.D. Tex., October 13, 2015), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants provide products and services in the oil and gas industry, throughout the United States in those areas in which fracking is a viable business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AK 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com ALPHA & OMEGA: Faces "Marshall" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Marshall, Lawrence Gates and Earl Hensley, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. Alpha & Omega Transit Network, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-09243 (N.D. Ill., October 19, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Alpha & Omega Transit Network, Inc. operates a medical service transportation company in Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Terrence Buehler, Esq. TOUHY, TOUHY, & BUEHLER, LLP 55 West Wacker Drive Suite 1400 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 372-220929 E-mail: info@touhylaw.com - and - Peter Lubin, Esq. Vincent DiTommaso, Esq. DITOMMASO-LUBIN P.C. The Oak Brook Terrace Atrium 17W220 22d Street, Suite 200 Oak Brook Terrace, IL 60181 E-mail: psl@ditommasolaw.com vdt@ditommasolaw.com AMERIANA BANCORP: Faces "Stein" Class Action in Indiana ------------------------------------------------------- Ameriana Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a class action complaint, captioned Shiva Stein v. Ameriana Bancorp, et al., was filed on July 8, 2015, under Case No. 49D01-1507-PL-022566 in the Marion Circuit Court, Indiana, against the Company, its directors and First Merchants Corporation challenging the merger of the Company with and into First Merchants. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its stockholders by agreeing to the proposed merger at an unfair price and by agreeing with First Merchants to unreasonable deal protection provisions that discourage other bidders. The plaintiff further alleges that the Company's directors and officers were not independent or disinterested with respect to the merger. The plaintiff also alleges that First Merchants aided and abetted the Company directors' breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks, among other things, an order enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger, as well as attorneys' and experts' fees and certain other damages. The Company, its directors, and First Merchants believe this action is without merit and intend to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Kellam" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Kellam, and Andrew Nemit, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. American Airlines Group, Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Delta Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Continental Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01725 (D. Colo., October 19, 2015) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices for Domestic Airfare in the United States. The Defendants operate the largest commercial airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Briskin, Esq. MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC 1250 Connecticut Ave. NW., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 822-5100 E-mail: cbriskin@findjustice.com - and - Barbara Hart, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C. One North Broadway, Suite 509 White Plains, NY 10601-2301 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: bhart@lowey.com AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Harvey" Securities Class Suit in N.J. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael R. Harvey, and all others similarly-situated v. Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. and John F. Crowley, Case No. 3:15-cv-07448 (D.N.J., October 13, 2015), seeks damages for Defendants' alleged violation of the Exchange Act. This is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Defendant Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. common stock between September 15, 2015 through October 1, 2015. The Plaintiff alleged that on the same day that Amicus met with the United States Food and Drug Administration to discuss the development of its new drug, migalastat, Amicus and its Chief Executive Officer, John F. Crowley, and together with Amicus, issued a false and misleading press release describing that meeting and its outcome to Amicus investors. Defendant Amicus Therapeutics, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Cranbury, New Jersey. Amicus trades on the NASDAQ stock exchange under the ticker symbol "FOLD," and claims that it is a "biotechnology company at the forefront of therapies for rare and orphan diseases," with "a robust pipeline of advanced therapies for a broad range of human genetic diseases." Defendant John F. Crowley is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Amicus. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Tel: (973) 623-3000 Fax: (973) 623-0858 E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Appeal Case Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------- ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the plaintiffs in a shareholder litigation filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit from a district court decision granting motions to dismiss. On October 10, 2013, October 17, 2013, December 3, 2013 and December 6, 2013, purported shareholder class actions, styled Jimmy Wang v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., James L. Burch v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, and Nabil Elmachtoub v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "District Court"), naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. The lawsuits allege that the defendants made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding clinical and safety data for Iclusig in its public disclosures during the period from December 12, 2011 through October 8, 2013 or October 17, 2013, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On January 9, 2014, the District Court consolidated the actions and appointed lead plaintiffs. On February 18, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint as contemplated by the order of the District Court. The amended complaint extends the class period for the Securities Exchange Act claims through October 30, 2013. In addition, plaintiffs allege that certain of the Company's officers, directors and certain underwriters made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding clinical and safety data for Iclusig in connection with the Company's January 24, 2013 follow-on public offering of common stock in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees. On April 14, 2014, the defendants and the underwriters filed separate motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 10, 2014, the District Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss. On March 24, 2015, the District Court granted the defendants' and the underwriters' motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint in these consolidated actions. On April 21, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the District Court's decision to grant the motions to dismiss with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Dismiss "Montalbano" Case ------------------------------------------------------ A court has granted, in part, a motion to dismiss a product liability lawsuit involving ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Company revealed in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. On March 11, 2015, a product liability lawsuit, styled Thomas Montalbano, Jr. v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida naming the Company as defendant. The lawsuit alleges that the Company's cancer medicine Iclusig was defective, dangerous and lacked adequate warnings when the plaintiff used it from July to August 2013. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, punitive damages and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees. On May 18, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in this action. On July 31, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida heard oral argument on the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. On August 4, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with respect to the plaintiff's cause of action for punitive damages and denied the remainder of the Company's motion to dismiss. ATMEL CORPORATION: Faces "Tsantes" Suit Over Dialog Merger Plans ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Tsantes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Atmel Corporation, et al., Case No. 1-15-CV-286958 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 16, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of Atmel Corporation to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Atmel by Dialog Semiconductor PLC, through a flawed process and inadequate consideration. Atmel Corporation designs, develops, manufactures, and sells semiconductor integrated circuit products primarily in the United States, Asia, Europe, South Africa, and Central and South America. Dialog Semiconductor PLC is a company incorporated in England and Wales, which creates and markets mixed signal integrated circuits for personal portable, short-range wireless connectivity, LED solid state lighting, and automotive applications. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Filed Motion to Dismiss New Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------- Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has filed a new motion to dismiss a new complaint in the securities litigation, Aveo said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. Two purported shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against AVEO and certain of our former officers and present and former directors (Tuan Ha-Ngoc, David N. Johnston, William Slichenmyer and Ronald DePinho). The cases were consolidated as In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:13-cv- 11157-DJC, and in an amended complaint filed on February 3, 2014 the lead plaintiffs alleged that AVEO made false and/or misleading statements concerning the development of the drug tivozanib and its prospects for FDA approval. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. "We moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and after briefing and oral argument, on March 20, 2015, the Court granted our motion and dismissed the case without prejudice," the Company said. "The lead plaintiffs were allowed to amend and refile their complaint, and they filed a second amended complaint bringing similar allegations. We filed a new motion to dismiss this new complaint on July 17, 2015, and the plaintiffs filed an opposition to that motion on July 31, 2015." "We intend to continue to deny any allegations of wrongdoing and to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, there is no assurance that we will be successful in our defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action. Moreover, we are unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time." BARRETT BUSINESS: No Discovery Yet in W.D. Wash. Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- Barrett Business Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that discovery has not been undertaken in the consolidated class actions pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On November 6, 2014, plaintiffs in Michael Arciaga, et al. v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al., filed an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against BBSI and Michael L. Elich and James D. Miller, BBSI's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively. The action purports to be a class action brought on behalf of all Company shareholders alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The claims arise from the decline in the market price for BBSI common stock following announcement of a charge for increased workers compensation reserves expense. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages (in an amount to be determined at trial), plus interest, and costs and expenses (including attorney fees and expert fees). On November 13, 2014, a second purported shareholder class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, entitled Christopher P. Carnes, et al. v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Carnes complaint names the same defendants as the Arciaga case and asserts similar claims for relief. Similarly, on November 17, 2014, a third purported shareholder class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, entitled Shiva Stein, et al. v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Stein complaint names the same defendants as the Arciaga and Carnes cases and asserts similar claims for relief. On February 25, 2015, the court ordered consolidation of the three cases, and any new or other cases involving the same subject matter, into a single action for pretrial purposes. The court also appointed the Painters & Allied Trades District Council No. 35 Pension and Annuity Funds as the lead plaintiff. On April 29, 2015, the plaintiffs in the class action filed a consolidated amended complaint that asserts the same legal claims as the original lawsuits. On June 12, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. A hearing on the motion to dismiss the lawsuits was scheduled for early September 2015. Discovery has not been undertaken as it is automatically stayed under the federal Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. BEST LUCK: "Juarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Irene Juarez and Maria Villagran, on behalf of themselves and others similar1y situated v. Best Luck BNY Laundry Inc. d/b/a B.N. Y. Cleaners, and Chong Zhang, Case No. 1:15-cv-08210 (S.D.N.Y., October 19, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post- judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a laundry shop with a principal place of business at 272 East Third Street, New York, New York 10009. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER PLLC 708 Third A venue - 61th floor New York NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com BIOSCRIP INC: Chancery Court Approves Settlement, Atty. Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ BioScrip, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Delaware Court of Chancery has issued an order approving a class action settlement and awarded $750,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiff's counsel. On April 9, 2015, two separate putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Delaware Court") by purported stockholders Lawrence Cline and Roger Rubin ("Plaintiffs"), respectively, in connection with the Purchase Agreement with the PIPE Investors, against the Company, Directors of the Company and the PIPE Investors. Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, the Company issued and sold to the PIPE Investors in a private placement (as defined above, the "PIPE Transaction") an aggregate of (a) 625,000 shares of Series A Preferred Stock, (b) 1,800,000 PIPE Class A Warrants, and (c) 1,800,000 PIPE Class B Warrants. As disclosed in the Company's definitive proxy materials relating to the 2015 Annual Meeting, the Company sought Stockholder Approval to remove certain conversion and voting restrictions affecting the Series A Preferred Stock and exercise restrictions affecting the PIPE Warrants (as defined above, the "Stockholder Approval"). Until Stockholder Approval was obtained, the terms of the Series A Preferred Stock and the PIPE Warrants contained caps on the conversion of the Series A Preferred Stock into Common Stock and on the exercise of the PIPE Warrants to purchase Common Stock (the "Conversion Caps") and a cap on voting power (the "Voting Cap" and, together with the Conversion Caps, the "Caps") that prevented the issuance of Common Stock if a single holder would own or vote more than 19.99% of the Common Stock or have more than 19.99% of the voting power. If the Company did not receive Stockholder Approval before September 30, 2015, then the Caps would have remained in effect and the dividend rates on the Series A Preferred Stock would have increased (the "Dividend Rate Adjustment"). The Plaintiffs asserted, among other things, that the Dividend Rate Adjustment was invalid, that the Board had breached their fiduciary duties and that the stockholder vote on the Stockholder Approval scheduled for the 2015 Annual Meeting was coercive and based on inadequate disclosure. The Plaintiffs' complaint sought a preliminary and permanent injunction, enjoining the vote on Stockholder Approval at the 2015 Annual Meeting, additional disclosures, certain declaratory relief, and costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. On April 17, 2015, the two separate class action lawsuits were consolidated by order of the Delaware Court as In re BioScrip, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. 10893-VCG (the "Delaware Action"). On April 30, 2015, the Company entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding") to settle the Delaware Action. The parties entered into a stipulation of settlement on May 11, 2015 (the "Stipulation of Settlement"). In consideration for the full settlement and release of the Delaware Action (the "Settlement"), the Stipulation of Settlement provided for, among other things, agreement that if Stockholder Approval was obtained, causing the Caps to be removed and the Dividend Rate Adjustment to never go into effect, the Delaware Action will be dismissed with prejudice, subject to court approval. The Stipulation of Settlement also provided for an award of no more than $750,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiffs' counsel, subject to court approval. Stockholder Approval was obtained at the 2015 Annual Meeting on May 11, 2015, and, therefore, subject to court approval of the Settlement, the Delaware Action will be dismissed with prejudice by the Delaware Court in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement. The Delaware Court held a hearing on July 29, 2015, to consider the fairness of the Settlement and award of Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. The order approving the Settlement and award of $750,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiff's counsel was issued on July 29, 2015. "The Company carries insurance coverage in such amounts as we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances, which will cover a certain percentage of the attorneys' fees award," the Company said. "We believe the action may implicate one or more indemnification agreements between the Company and certain defendants, for which there may be no insurance coverage. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we believe that the final resolution of this action is not likely to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources." BROTHERS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Heath" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alexandria Heath v. Brothers Entertainment Group, LLC d/b/a Teasers, Case No. 2:15-cv-00530 (S.D. Ala., October 19, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked over 40 hours per week. The Defendant owns and operates an adult entertainment lounge featuring dancers at 14634 W U.S., Newton, Alabama 36352. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Arciniegas Robert J. Camp WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER, & GOLDFARB LLC The Kress Building 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 314-0500 Facsimile: (205) 254-1500 E-mail: dea@wigginschilds.com rcamp@wigginschilds.com BUILD-A-BEAR: Recalls Stuffed Animals Due to Choking Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Build-A-Bear Workshop Inc, of St. Louis, Mo., announced a voluntary recall of about 33,600 Starbrights Dragon stuffed animals (an additional 1,000 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The satin seam of the stuffed animal can open, allowing the stuffing material to be exposed, posing a choking hazard for young children. Starbrights Dragon is covered in a blue furry fabric with silver satin tummy, feet pads, wings and horns. The horns light up and the toy makes a musical sound when the hand is squeezed. The stuffed animal is about 17 inches high. The tracking label ending with 9333 or 9334 for USA and 9337 or 9459 for Canada can be found on the label sewn on the backside of the leg. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/6z8qYw The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Build-A-Bear Workshop stores and online at www.buildabear.com between April 2015 and August 2015 for about $25. Consumers should immediately take the recalled stuffed animal away from children and return it to any Build-A-Bear Workshop store to receive a coupon for any Build-A-Bear stuffed animal. BURLEY DESIGN: Recalls Child Bicycle Trailers Due to Crash Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Burley Design LLC, of Eugene, Ore., announced a voluntary recall of about 34,000 Child bicycle trailers (in addition about 820 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Trailers with black plastic tow bar receivers can separate from the tow bar when they appear to be connected, posing a crash hazard to the child in the trailer. This recall involves seven models of Burley Design child bicycle trailers manufactured from 2009 to 2015. The trailers allow cyclists to tow children behind their bicycles while riding. The trailers are connected to the bicycle by a tow bar, which attaches to the rear axle of the bicycle on one end and to a tow bar receiver on the trailer at the other end. The tow bar receiver is on the front left side of the trailer as it faces the rear wheel of the bicycle. Recalled trailers have a black plastic tow bar receiver with an integrated wheel guard. Recalled trailers can be identified by the first four characters of the serial numbers on the trailer. The serial number is on a sticker in the rear cargo area behind the seat of the trailer on the left inside frame bar. The following seven trailer models and serial numbers are being recalled: Model Serial Numbers ---- -------------- Cub K943 Rental Cub K943 D'Lite and D'Lite ST D948 and K948 Encore K942 Solo and Solo ST D939, K939 and KK939 Trailers with aluminum tow bar receivers are not included in the recall. Burley Design has received 35 reports of trailers with black plastic tow bar receivers separating from the tow bar, including two incidents that resulted in abrasions to a child. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/1IPlA8 The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Burley Design LLC, of Eugene, Ore. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycle trailers and contact Burley for a free safety strap kit with tools and instructions for installation and a coupon for a 20 percent discount on the purchase of any Burley accessory. Consumers should also inspect the black plastic tow bar receiver. If it appears to be cracked or damaged, consumers should also request a free replacement tow bar receiver. CALISTA SUPERFOODS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Ricardo Callejas, on behalf of himself, and other similarly situated employees v. Calista Superfoods, Inc., or any other business entity doing business as "Calista Superfoods", Case No. 1:15-cv-08217 (S.D.N.Y., October 19, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post- judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Calista Superfoods, Inc. operates a restaurant/gourmet and healthy foods located at 1217 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10028. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third A venue - 61st Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com CANADA: Nov. 30 Day Scholar Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE (SURVIVOR AND DESCENDENT CLASSES) To Anyone Who Attended an Indian Residential School or is the Child of Someone Who Did A Class Action Lawsuit May Affect Your Rights. A court authorized this notice. You are not being sued. You could be affected by a class action lawsuit involving the Kamloops and Sechelt Indian Residential Schools and additional Indian Residential Schools (the "Schools") (see attached list at Appendix 'A' for the additional Schools). A Court has approved the lawsuit as a class action that includes anyone who attended at any Indian Residential School, for any times they attended as a "Day Scholar" (i.e. non-resident student), as well as their children and potentially the bands within communities that contained a Residential School. The Plaintiffs in the class action are suing the Government of Canada ("Canada") claiming that it is responsible for damages arising from attendance at the Schools. Attached to this Notice is a copy of the June 18, 2015 Court Order of Justice Harrington. This Order, and all other decisions related to this lawsuit can also be found on the Federal Court website at: http://is.gd/aSr990 This claim is different from the Residential Schools Class Action Settlement entered into by Canada. In that settlement, only those who lived at an Indian Residential School were compensated for the fact of having gone to the Schools. This claim is for compensation relating to time spent attending, but not living in, the Schools. The Court has not decided whether Canada did anything unlawful, and the case is currently planned to go to a trial. There is no money available now and no guarantee there will be. However, your rights are affected, and you have a choice to make now. YOUR OPTIONS AT THIS STAGE Do Nothing Stay in this lawsuit. Await the outcome. Share in possible money and benefits. Give up certain rights. By doing nothing, you keep the possibility of getting money or other benefits that may come from a trial or settlement. But, you give up any rights to sue Canada, or any religious organizations, on your own about the same legal claims in this lawsuit. Remove Yourself (Opt Out) Get out of this lawsuit. Get no money or benefits from it. Keep rights. If you ask to be removed (opt out) and money or benefits are later awarded, you won't share in that money or benefits. But, you keep any rights to sue Canada, or any religious organization, on your own about the same legal claims in this lawsuit. Lawyers must prove the claims against Canada at a trial. If money or benefits are obtained you will be notified about how to ask for a share. Your options are explained in this notice. To be removed, you must act by November 30, 2015. QUESTIONS? CALL TOLL-FREE 1-844-558-5538 OR VISIT WWW.JUSTICEFORDAYSCHOLARS.COM CINEMARK USA: "Amey" Case in Pretrial Discovery ----------------------------------------------- The case, Joseph Amey, et al. v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No. 3:13cv05669, In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, is in pretrial discovery, Cinemark USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. The case presents putative class action claims for damages and attorney's fees arising from employee wage and hour claims under California law for alleged meal period, rest break, reporting time pay, unpaid wages, pay upon termination, and wage statements violations. The claims are also asserted as a representative action under the California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"). The Company denies the claims, denies that class certification is appropriate and denies that a PAGA representative action is appropriate, and is vigorously defending against the claims. The case is in pretrial discovery, no class action has been certified, and no representative action has been quantified or recognized. The Company denies any violation of law and plans to vigorously defend against all claims. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of the litigation or the range of potential loss, if any; however, the Company believes that its potential liability with respect to such proceeding is not material, in the aggregate, to its financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Accordingly, the Company has not established a reserve for loss in connection with this proceeding. CITRIX SYSTEMS: Faces "Bethell" Class Action in Florida ------------------------------------------------------- Gary Bethell filed a putative class action against Citrix Systems, Inc., its directors, and Bank of America in Florida state court. Citrix Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the complaint, filed in June 2015, alleges that "the director-defendants breached their fiduciary duties when we entered into a credit agreement with Bank of America, N.A., as administrative agent, and the other lenders party thereto from time to time that included an allegedly improper change of control provision. The complaint seeks to void the change of control provision, and seeks an award of attorney's fees and costs. We believe that there are meritorious defenses to these allegations and that it is not reasonably possible that the ultimate outcome of this suit will materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. CLAYTON WILLIAMS: Lawsuit Involving Opt-Out Plaintiff Continues --------------------------------------------------------------- Clayton Williams Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the lawsuit involving a single plaintiff who opted out of a class action settlement will continue in 2015. Southwest Royalties, Inc. ("SWR"), a wholly owned subsidiary of CWEI, is a defendant in a suit filed in April 2011 in the Circuit Court of Union County, Arkansas, where the plaintiffs initially sought in excess of $8 million for the costs of environmental remediation to a lease on which operations were commenced in the 1930s. In June 2013, the plaintiffs, SWR and the remaining defendants agreed to a settlement of $0.8 million, of which SWR would pay $0.7 million. To accomplish the settlement, the case was converted to a class action, and each member of the class was offered the right to either participate or opt out of the class and continue a separate action for damages. One plaintiff opted out and will be subject to all previous rulings of the court, including an order dismissing certain claims on the basis that such claims were time barred. A loss on settlement of $0.7 million was recorded for the year ended December 31, 2013 in connection with this proposed settlement. The settlement was entered by the Court on December 19, 2014, and all settlement funds were paid to plaintiffs' counsel in January 2015. The case against the single plaintiff will continue in 2015. CLIFTON AVE: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Espinoza" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jose A. Espinoza, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Clifton Ave. Bagels, Inc. d/b/a Hot Bagels Abroad, and Anthony Dimarco, Case No. 2:15-cv-07560-CCC-JBC (D.N.J., October 19, 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 Hot Bagels restaurant located at 849 Clifton Avenue, Clifton, New Jersey 07013. The Plaintiff is represented by: Giustino (Justin) Cilenti, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com CMPC TISSUE: Faces Suit Over Alleged Tissue Paper Price Collusion ----------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Andres Henao, writing for The Associated Press, reports that two forestry companies colluded for more than a decade to control the prices of toilet paper and other products following a meeting at a golf course to end a price war, according to Chile's competitive practices regulator. Economy Minister Luis Felipe Cespedes said on Oct. 29 that the collusion between the market's biggest players was outrageous and affected the poorest Chileans the most. Chilean President Michelle Bachelet called the alleged collusion by companies that control 90 percent of the toilet paper market "extremely serious." The regulator said on Oct. 28 that an antitrust court accepted its filing accusing the companies of colluding to control prices of toilet paper, napkins, absorbent towels and other products from 2000 to 2011. "It's one of the biggest collusion cases ever uncovered in the country," the agency said in a statement, adding that the companies have combined annual sales of about $400 million. CMPC Tissue SA, however, will not be fined because the company acknowledged the anticompetitive conduct earlier this year. The regulation agency asked the court to sanction SCA Chile SA, but the company is expected to get a reduced fine because it also acknowledged wrongdoing. CMPC Chile said that it had fired the general manager of its tissue division and other company executives involved in the collusion scheme. "The fact that some of our executives carried out acts that go against free competition is illegal and also deeply affects our way of acting as a company, our corporate policies and our organizational culture," CMPC said in a statement. Swedish-owned SCA could not be reached for comment. The regulator said that a price war for toilet paper broke out between the competing paper giants in 2000. The collusion apparently began with the then-manager of CMPC began meeting with the owner of PISA -- a company that was bought in 2012 by SCA -- at a Golf Club in the Chilean capital. In the following years, other executives were involved in the scheme using fake email accounts and pre-paid phones. "This sort of abuse harms people, the economy and the image of our country," Ms. Bachelet said. CONCREATIONS OF COLORADO: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Irigoyen-Morales, and all others similarly-situated v. Concreations of Colorado, Inc. and Eddie Romero, Case No. 1:15-cv- 02272 (D. Colo., October 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a concrete construction business in Firestone, Colorado. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew H. Turner, Esq. BUSECHER, KELMAN, PERERA & TURNER, P.C. 600 Grant Street - Suite 450 Denver, CO 80203 Tel: (303) 333-7751 Fax: (303) 333-7758 E-mail: aturner@laborlawdenver.com DEALERTRACK TECHNOLOGIES: Hoff Complaint Withdrawn -------------------------------------------------- Dealertrack Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Hoff complaint related to the pending Cox Automotive acquisition has been withdrawn. Following the announcement that the company had entered into the Merger Agreement on June 12, 2015, on July 6, 2015, Jeremy Hoff, a purported stockholder of the company, filed a putative stockholder class action complaint (Hoff Complaint) in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the members of the Board of Directors, the company, Cox Automotive and Runway. The Hoff Complaint alleges that, among other things, (i) each member of the Board of Directors breached his or her fiduciary duties to the company's stockholders in connection with the Merger and related transactions and (ii) Runway and Cox Automotive allegedly aided and abetted those breaches. The suit seeks, among other things, declaration as a class action, an order enjoining the Offer, rescission of the Offer if it has already been consummated or the award of rescissory damages, an accounting by defendants to plaintiff and other members of the class for all damages allegedly caused by them and an award of the costs related to the action, including attorneys' and experts' fees. On July 15, 2015, the Hoff Complaint was withdrawn. DEALERTRACK TECHNOLOGIES: Parties in Reiferson Suit Inks MOU ------------------------------------------------------------ Dealertrack Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Henry L. Reiferson, a purported stockholder of the company, filed a putative stockholder class action complaint (Reiferson Complaint) in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the members of the Board of Directors, the company, Cox Automotive and Runway. The substantive allegations contained in the Reiferson Complaint are identical to those set forth in the Hoff Complaint. On July 18, 2015, the parties named in the Reiferson Complaint entered into a memorandum of understanding (Memorandum of Understanding) to settle the Reiferson Complaint. The Memorandum of Understanding provides that, among other things, the company would make supplemental disclosures concerning the circumstances leading up to the Offer. Such additional disclosures are contained in Amendment No. 3 to the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 filed by the Company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2015. DS SERVICES: "Hamilton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Hamilton, and all others similarly-situated v. DS Services of America, Inc., Costco Wholesale Corporation; and Does 1-10, Case No. 3:15-cv-04735 (N.D. Calif., October 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate in interstate commerce by, among other things, selling water and other products in multiple states. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel S. Brome, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 277-7235 Fax: (415) 277-7238 E-mail: dbrome@nka.com ENCORE CAPITAL: Class Action Settlement Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------- Encore Capital Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the settlement in a class action lawsuit remains pending. On November 2, 2010 and December 17, 2010, two national class actions entitled Robinson v. Midland Funding LLC and Tovar v. Midland Credit Management, respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaints allege that certain of the Company's subsidiaries violated the TCPA by calling consumers' cellular phones without their prior express consent. The complaints seek monetary damages under the TCPA, injunctive relief, and other relief, including attorney fees. On May 10, 2011 and May 11, 2011 two class actions entitled Scardina v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding LLC and Encore Capital Group, Inc. and Martin v. Midland Funding, LLC, respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaints allege on behalf of a putative class of Illinois consumers that certain of the Company's subsidiaries violated the TCPA by calling consumers' cellular phones without their prior express consent. The complaints seek monetary damages under the TCPA, injunctive relief, and other relief, including attorney fees. On July 28, 2011, the Company filed a motion to transfer the Scardina and Martin cases to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California to be consolidated with the Tovar and Robinson cases. On October 11, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the Company's motion to transfer. All four of these cases, along with a number of additional cases brought against the Company that allege violations of the TCPA, are now pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in a multi-district litigation titled In re Midland Credit Management Inc. Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 11, 2012. The Company has vigorously denied the claims asserted against it in these matters, but has agreed to a proposed class settlement to avoid the burden and expense of continued litigation. The proposed class settlement is intended to resolve all cases involved in multi-district litigation, and all claims against the Company for alleged violations of the TCPA that occurred before August 31, 2014, other than those of persons who exclude themselves from class settlement. The settlement agreement, which is subject to court approval, would require the Company to contribute $2.0 million to a settlement fund, to be disbursed among eligible class members, and to set aside $13.0 million in debt forgiveness to be allocated among eligible class members. In addition, the settlement agreement provides that the Company will pay plaintiffs' attorney fees in an amount to be determined by the court, and not to exceed $2.4 million, and for the costs associated with administering the class relief. EXPERIAN HOLDINGS: Faces "Davis" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Jamal Davis and Adam Matschullat, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Experian Holdings, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02371-JAH-BLM (S.D. Cal., October 19, 2015) arises out of the massive hack on Experian's servers that compromised the sensitive data of T-Mobile's customers and individuals who applied for credit with T-Mobile. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is an Ohio corporation which provides, among other things, credit check services to corporations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Betsy C. Manifold, Esq. Rachele R. Rickert, Esq. Marisa C. Livesay, Esq. Brittany N. Dejong, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 Facsimile: (619) 234-4599 E-mail: manifold@whafh.com rickert@whafh.com livesay@whafh.com dejong@whafh.com - and - Thomas Burt, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 545-4653 E-mail: burt@whafh.com - and - Theodore B. Bell, Esq. Carl Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC One South Dearborn St., Suite 2122 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (312) 212-4401 E-mail: tbell@whafh.com malmstrom@whafh.com FAIRWAY MANAGEMENT: Faces "Harger" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Suzanna Harger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fairway Management, Inc., FWM Payroll Clearing, Inc., and Bear Holdings, Inc., d/b/a JES Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:15- cv-04232-NKL (W.D. Mo., October 19, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate a national property management company with its principal place of business in Columbia, Missouri. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Hodgson, Esq. Kristi L. Kingston, Esq. GROUP OF KANSAS CITY, LLC 3699 SW Pryor Road Lee's Summit, MO 64082 Telephone: (816) 945-2122 FANDUEL INC: "Genchanok" Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud ---------------------------------------------------- Artem Genchanok, and all others similarly-situated v. FanDuel, Inc. and DraftKings, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-05127 (E.D. La., October 13, 2015), seeks compensatory, punitive and statutory damages, injunctive relief for Defendants' alleged violation of the consumer fraud and protection statutes and deceptive trade practices statutes. The Defendants operate daily fantasy sports websites. DFS is a non-regulated industry where individuals compete against other individuals in fantasy sports games. Defendant FanDuel, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New York. Defendant DraftKings, Inc., is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Dugan, II, Esq. THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC One Canal Place 365 Canal Street, Suite 1000 New Orleans, LA 70130 Tel: (504) 648-0180 Fax: (504) 648-0181 E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com - and - Jeremy Schafer, Esq. MILLER LEGAL, LLP 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20004 Tel: (202) 769-0007 GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Dismissal of Shareholder Actions Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- Galectin Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has filed a motion to dismiss the shareholder class actions. Between July 30, 2014, and August 6, 2014, three putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the "Nevada District Court") against the Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock between January 6, 2014 and July 28, 2014. By order entered August 22, 2014, the Nevada District Court consolidated the three cases, relieved the defendants of any obligation to respond to the complaints then on file, and provided that defendants may respond to a consolidated amended complaint to be filed following appointment of a lead plaintiff(s) pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. By order dated January 5, 2015, the Nevada District Court granted the defendants' motion to transfer the consolidated action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the "Court"). On March 24, 2015, the Court appointed Glyn Hotz as the lead plaintiff ("Plaintiff"). Plaintiff filed his Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint") on May 8, 2015. The Complaint asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between October 25, 2013 and July 28, 2014. The Complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and directors (the "Class Action Individual Defendants") violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5 through allegedly false or misleading statements in certain SEC filings, press releases and other public statements. The Complaint further alleges that the Class Action Individual Defendants and one of the Company's shareholders face liability for the alleged Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 violations pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint seeks class certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The Company disputes the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on June 26, 2015. GENCO SHIPPING: Plaintiffs Withdrew Appeal in Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Genco Shipping & Trading Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Plaintiffs have withdrawn an appeal from a class action ruling. In April 2015, six class action complaints were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, styled Erol Sarikaya v. Peter C. Georgiopoulos et al., Index No. 651244/2015, filed on April 15, 2015, voluntarily dismissed, and refiled as Joshua Bourne v. Peter C. Georgiopoulos et al., Index No. 651429/2015, filed on April 28, 2015, Justin Wilson v. Baltic Trading Ltd., et al., Index No. 651241/2015, filed on April 15, 2015, Sangeetha Ganesan v. Baltic Trading Limited et al., Index No. 651279/2015, filed on April 17, 2015, Edward Braunstein v. Peter C. Georgiopoulos et al., Index No. 651368/2015, filed on April 23, 2015, Larry Williams v. Baltic Trading Ltd., et al., Index No. 651371/2015, filed on April 23, 2015, and Larry Goldstein and Bernhard Stomporowski v. John C. Wobensmith et al., Index No. 651407/2015, filed on April 27, 2015. All six complaints purport to be brought by and on behalf of the Baltic Trading's shareholders. The plaintiff in each action alleges the proposed merger does not fairly compensate Baltic Trading's shareholders and undervalues Baltic Trading. Each lawsuit names as defendants some or all of the Company, Baltic Trading, the individual members of Baltic Trading's board, the Company's and Baltic Trading's President, and the Company's merger subsidiary. The claims generally allege (i) breaches of fiduciary duties of good faith, due care, disclosure to shareholders, and loyalty, including for failing to maximize shareholder value, and (ii) aiding and abetting those breaches. Among other relief, the complaints seek an injunction against the merger, declaratory judgments that the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties, rescission of the merger agreement, and unspecified damages. On May 26, 2015, the six above described actions were consolidated under the caption In Re Baltic Trading Ltd. Stockholder Litigation, Index No. 651241/2015, and a consolidated class action complaint was filed on June 10, 2015 (the "Consolidated Complaint"). On June 30, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its entirety; that motion is pending. On July 9, 2015, plaintiffs in that action moved to enjoin the merger vote, scheduled to take place on July 17, 2015. The motion was thereafter fully briefed and argued on July 15, 2015. The motion to enjoin the vote was denied. Plaintiffs sought an emergency injunction and temporary restraining order from the New York State Appellate Division, First Department the following day, on July 16, 2015. The Appellate Division denied the request, and the vote, and subsequent merger, proceeded as scheduled on July 17, 2015. Plaintiffs thereafter withdrew the appeal. GENERAL MOTORS: Sued in Cal. Over Sierra Vehicle Design Defects --------------------------------------------------------------- Armando J. Becerra, and Guillermo Ruelas, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. General Motors LLC and Does 1 through 100, Case No. 3:15-cv-02365-WQH-JMA (S.D. Cal., October 19, 2015) is brought on behalf of similarly situated persons or entities, who purchased, own or leased GMC Sierra 1500, model year 2014 and 2015 and GMC Sierra 2500HD and 3500HD, model year 2015, with safety design defect that causes the vehicles to generate insufficient light for safe night-time travel. General Motors LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in Detroit, Michigan. GM is in the business of designing, engineering, manufacturing, testing, marketing, supplying, selling, and distributing Vehicles in the United States, including California. The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Bower, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: dbower@faruqilaw.com - and - Adam Gonnelli, Esq. 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: agonnelli@faruqilaw.com - and - Bonner Walsh, Esq. Walsh PLLC 21810 Pine Crest Dr. Bly, Oregon 97622 Telephone: (541) 359-2827 Facsimile: (866) 503-8206 Email: bonner@walshpllc.com - and - Steven L. Marchbanks, Esq. PREMIER LEGAL CENTER, A.P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 1095 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 235-3200 Facsimile: (619) 235-3300 E-mail: steve@premierlegalcenter.com - and - Craig M. Patrick, Esq. PATRICK LAW FIRM, P.C. 6244 E. Lovers Lane Dallas, TX 75214 Telephone: (214) 390-3343 Facsimile: (469) 914-6565 E-mail: craigpatrick@att.net GFI GROUP: Oral Argument in "Gross" Case Held --------------------------------------------- GFI Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that oral argument in the "Gross" case was scheduled for October 30, 2015. Following the announcement of the CME Merger, nine putative class action complaints challenging the CME Merger were filed on behalf of purported stockholders of GFI (one of which also purported to be brought derivatively on behalf of GFI), two in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, six in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, and one in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints were captioned Coyne v. GFI Group Inc., et al., Index No. 652704/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed September 4, 2014), Suprina v. GFI Group, Inc., et al., Index No. 652668/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed August 29, 2014), Brown v. GFI Group Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 10082-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 3, 2014), Hughes v. CME Group, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 10103-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 8, 2014), Al Ammary v. Gooch, et al., Civil Action No. 10125-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 11, 2014), Giardalas v. GFI Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 10132-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 15, 2014), City of Lakeland Employees' Pension Plan v. Gooch, et al., Civil Action No. 10136-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 16, 2014), Michocki v. Gooch., et al., Civil Action No. 10166-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 25, 2014) and Szarek v. GFI Group Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-8228 (S.D.N.Y., filed October 14, 2014). On September 26, 2014, the Court of Chancery granted voluntary dismissal of the Giardalas action. On October 6, 2014, a consolidation order was entered by Vice Chancellor Laster, consolidating the Delaware cases into the Consolidated Delaware Action. The consolidation order designated the complaint filed in City of Lakeland Employees' Pension Plan v. Gooch, et al., Civil Action No. 10136-VCL (Del. Ch.) as the operative complaint in the Consolidated Delaware Action. The complaints named as Defendants various combinations of the Company, GFI Holdco Ltd. ("IDB Buyer"), the members of the Company's board of directors, GFI managing director Nick Brown, CME, Commodore Acquisition Corp., Commodore Acquisition LLC, Cheetah Acquisition Corp., Cheetah Acquisition LLC, JPI and New JPI Inc. ("New JPI"). The complaints generally alleged, among other things, that the members of the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders during merger negotiations by entering into the CME Merger Agreement and approving the CME Merger, and that the Company, CME, Commodore Acquisition Corp., Commodore Acquisition LLC, IDB Buyer, Cheetah Acquisition Corp., Cheetah Acquisition LLC, JPI, and New JPI aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints further alleged, among other things, (i) that the merger consideration provided for in the CME Merger Agreement undervalued the Company, (ii) that the sales process leading up to the CME Merger was flawed due to the members of the Company's board of directors' and Jefferies' conflicts of interest, and (iii) that certain provisions of the CME Merger Agreement inappropriately favored CME and precluded or impeded third parties from submitting potentially superior proposals. In addition, the Hughes complaint asserted a derivative claim on behalf of the Company against the members of the Company's board of directors for breaching their fiduciary duties of loyalty and care to the Company by negotiating and agreeing to the CME Merger and against Defendants Gooch and Heffron for usurping a corporate opportunity. The Michocki complaint alleged that the CME Merger is not a solitary transaction but a series of related transactions and further alleged that the IDB Transaction must be approved by an affirmative two-thirds vote of the Shares pursuant to the terms of the Charter. The complaints sought, among other relief: (i) certification of the class, (ii) injunctive relief enjoining the CME Merger, (iii) a declaration that the members of the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties and that certain provisions of the CME Merger Agreement are unlawful, (iv) a directive to the members of the Company's board of directors to execute their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction in the best interest of the Company's stockholders, (v) rescission of the CME Merger to the extent already implemented, (vi) granting of rescissory damages and an accounting of all of the damages suffered as a result of the alleged wrongdoing, (vii) and reimbursement of fees and costs. The Coyne and Suprina Plaintiffs also demanded a jury trial. Certain Defendants moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay the Coyne and Suprina actions in favor of the Consolidated Delaware Action. A hearing was held on December 15, 2014 on (i) the Defendants' motions to dismiss or stay the Coyne and Suprina actions; (ii) the Plaintiffs' motion by order to show cause for consolidation and appointment of a leadership structure; and (iii) Plaintiff Suprina's motion by order to show cause to compel and expedite discovery. In an order filed on January 30, 2015, the Court ordered the Suprina and Coyne cases consolidated as In re GFI Group Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Index No. 652668/2014. In another order filed that same day, the Court denied Plaintiff Suprina's motion to compel and expedite discovery. On March 26, 2015, the Court issued a decision and order granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Coyne and Suprina actions on forum non conveniens grounds and in favor of the Consolidated Delaware Action. The decision and order were entered in the office of the Clerk of the County of New York on March 27, 2015. The Court's judgment dismissing the Coyne and Suprina complaints was entered in the office of the Clerk of the County of New York on April 29, 2015. On November 18, 2014, the Delaware court entered a Revised Order Setting Expedited Discovery Schedule in the Consolidated Delaware Action. On December 19, 2014, the court entered a Further Revised Scheduling Order scheduling a preliminary injunction hearing for January 16, 2015. On December 29, 2014, Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, and a brief in support thereof, seeking to enjoin enforcement of Article V of the Support Agreement and preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote on the CME Merger until (i) certain additional disclosures were made and (ii) the Company's stockholders were provided the opportunity to vote on the CME Merger, the JPI Merger and the IDB Transaction. On January 8, 2015, the parties agreed to move the preliminary injunction hearing from January 16, 2015 to January 20, 2015. On January 15, 2015, the preliminary injunction hearing (scheduled for January 20) was taken off the court's calendar. On January 15, 2015, Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action filed a Supplement to the Verified Class Action Complaint. On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Second Supplement to the Verified Class Action Complaint. On February 4, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Expedited Proceedings and a brief in support thereof. On February 6, 2015, the Court scheduled a merits hearing for February 17 and 18, 2015. On February 7, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Third Supplement to the Verified Class Action Complaint, seeking certain additional injunctive and declaratory relief. On February 11, 2015, the Court, with the consent of the parties, moved the merits hearing (scheduled for February 17 and 18, 2015) to the first available dates on the Court's schedule after March 4, 2015. On February 20, 2015, Plaintiffs informed the Court that an expedited merits hearing was no longer necessary. On February 26, 2015, March 17, 2015, and March 18, 2015, the Court granted stipulations and orders extending the time for certain Defendants to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the operative complaint. On April 16, 2015, the Court granted a stipulation and order pursuant to which certain of the Defendants did not need to respond to the operative complaint or the supplements thereto and would have thirty days from the filing of an amended complaint to answer, move against, or otherwise respond to it. On May 20, 2015, the Court entered a third scheduling order, pursuant to which Plaintiffs would file an amended complaint by June 26, 2015; fact depositions will be completed by July 31, 2015; expert discovery will be completed by September 11, 2015; pre-trial briefs will be filed on October 30, 2015; a pre-trial conference will be held on November 2, 2015; and a trial will be held on November 9, 10, 12, and 13, 2015. By agreement of the parties, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 13, 2015. The amended complaint asserts causes of action against Messrs. Gooch and Heffron, Ms. Cassoni, and CME, but not Messrs. Brown, Fanzilli, and Magee, the Company, IDB Buyer, Commodore Acquisition Corp., Commodore Acquisition LLC, Cheetah Acquisition Corp., Cheetah Acquisition LLC, JPI, or New JPI. Plaintiffs allege Messrs. Gooch and Heffron breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders by, among other things, (i) placing their interests ahead of stockholders' interests, (ii) rejecting BGC's offer to acquire the Company for $6.20 per share, (iii) entering into certain employment and non-competition agreements with BGC, (iv) delaying Board meetings to discuss recommendations made by the Special Committee concerning BGC's offer, (v) disparaging BGC, and (vi) issuing false and misleading statements to stockholders. Plaintiffs allege Ms. Cassoni favored the interests of Messrs. Gooch and Heffron over stockholders' interests and that CME aided and abetted the individual Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty. In the New York Szarek action, the Court scheduled an initial pretrial conference for December 16, 2014, which the Court adjourned upon application of the parties until March 12, 2015 and adjourned again upon application of Plaintiff until May 21, 2015. On May 13, 2015, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his action without prejudice. In addition to the foregoing litigation, on November 26, 2014, a putative class action complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws, captioned Gross v. GFI Group, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint named the Company, Colin Heffron, Michael Gooch and Nick Brown as Defendants. The complaint sought, among other relief: (i) certification of the class, (ii) compensatory damages for Defendants purported wrongdoing and (iii) reimbursement of costs and expenses. On February 20, 2015, the Court in Gross v. GFI Group, Inc. granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approved his selection of co-lead counsel on behalf of the putative class. The Court also extended Defendants' time to respond to the complaint from February 23, 2015 to March 25, 2015; granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by March 16, 2015; and rescheduled the initial pre-trial conference to March 27, 2015. On March 10, 2015, Plaintiff requested additional time to file his amended complaint. On March 13, 2015, the Court extended Plaintiff's deadline to file an amended complaint from March 16, 2015 to May 15, 2015; set a June 5, 2015 deadline for Defendants to respond to the amended complaint; and rescheduled the initial pre-trial conference for June 19, 2015. On May 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint named GFI Group Inc. and Messrs. Gooch and Heffron -- but not Mr. Brown -- as defendants. On June 5, 2015, the remaining Defendants requested a pre-motion conference in anticipation of a motion to dismiss. On June 15, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' request and added Defendants' proposed motion to dismiss to the agenda for the pre-trial conference on June 19, 2015. At the pre-trial conference, the Court gave Plaintiff permission to file a second amended complaint and gave Defendants permission to file a motion to dismiss. On June 22, 2015, the Court entered a scheduling order, pursuant to which Plaintiff was to file his second amended complaint by July 8, 2015; Defendants shall file their motion to dismiss by August 19, 2015; Plaintiff's motion to dismiss opposition papers were due on September 30, 2015; Defendants' reply papers in further support of their motion to dismiss were due on October 14, 2015; and oral argument will be held on October 30, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint on July 8, 2015. Like Plaintiff's first amended complaint, the second amended complaint alleges certain violations of the federal securities laws against GFI Group Inc. and Messrs. Gooch and Heffron. Defendants believe that the claims asserted against them are without merit and intend to defend the litigation vigorously. H2S HOLDINGS: "Cortes-Mendoza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arturo Cortes-Mendoza, and all others similarly-situated v. H2S Holdings, LLC, Here to Serve Restaurants, Inc., Big Fish Enterprises, Inc., Oasis Outsourcing, Inc., Leigh Catherall, and Thomas Catherall, Case No. 1:15-cv-03623 (N.D. Ga., October 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate restaurants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher B. Hall, Esq. HALL & LAMPROS, LLP 1230 Peachtree St. NE Suite 950 Atlanta, GA 30309 Tel: (404) 876-8100 Fax: (404) 876-3477 E-mail: chall@hallandlampros.com - and - Mary E. Olsen, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C. Post Office Drawer 3103 Mobile, AL 36602 Tel: (251) 433-8100 Fax: (251) 433-8181 HC2 HOLDINGS: Class Suit Over Tender Offer Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- HC2 Holdings, Inc. continues to defend a putative stockholder class action complaint challenging the tender offer by which HC2 Holdings, Inc. acquired approximately 721,000 of the issued and outstanding common shares of Schuff International, Inc., HC2 disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint challenging the tender offer by which HC2 Holdings, Inc. acquired approximately 721,000 of the issued and outstanding common shares of Schuff International, Inc. ("Schuff International") was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Mark Jacobs v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., and Schuff International, Inc., Civil Action No. 10323 (the "Complaint"). On November 17, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Arlen Diercks v. Schuff International, Inc. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 10359. On February 19, 2015, the court consolidated the actions (now designated as Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation) and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel. The currently operative complaint is the November 6, 2014 Complaint filed by Mark Jacobs. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection with the tender offer, the individual members of the Schuff International board of directors and HC2 Holdings, the controlling stockholder of Schuff, breached their fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff class. The Complaint also purports to challenge a potential short-form merger based upon plaintiff's expectation that the Company would cash out the remaining public stockholders of Schuff International following the completion of the tender offer. Such a short-form merger has never been formally proposed or acted upon and as of June 30, 2015, approximately 342 thousand shares of Schuff International remain in public hands, representing approximately 9% of the outstanding shares of Schuff International. The Complaint seeks rescission of the tender offer and/or compensatory damages, as well as attorney's fees and other relief. The defendants filed answers to the Complaint on July 30, 2015. "We believe that the allegations and claims set forth in the Complaint are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously," the Company said. HARVEST NATURAL: Dismissal of Consolidated Class Action Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- Harvest Natural Resources, Inc. have filed a motion to dismiss consolidated class action lawsuits, Harvest Natural said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. The following related class action lawsuits were filed on the dates specified in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas: John Phillips v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (March 22, 2013) ("Phillips case"); Sang Kim v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston, Stephen C. Haynes, Stephen D. Chesebro', Igor Effimoff, H. H. Hardee, Robert E. Irelan, Patrick M. Murray and J. Michael Stinson (April 3, 2013); Chris Kean v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 11, 2013); Prastitis v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 17, 2013); Alan Myers v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 22, 2013); and Edward W. Walbridge and the Edward W. Walbridge Trust v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 26, 2013). "The complaints allege that the Company made certain false or misleading public statements and demand that the defendants pay unspecified damages to the class action plaintiffs based on stock price declines. All of these actions have been consolidated into the Phillips case. The Company and the other named defendants have filed a motion to dismiss and intend to vigorously defend the consolidated lawsuits," the Company said. HOWARD SOLOCHEK: "Gibeau" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------ Kristina Gibeau, and all others similarly-situated v. Howard, Solochek & Weber, S.C. and Liberty Credit Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01224 (E.D. Wis., October 13, 2015), seek damages for Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Defendant Howard, Solochek & Weber, S.C. is a Wisconsin law firm with a principal place of business located at 1845 N Farwell Ave, Ste 301, Milwaukee, WI 53202. Howard collects debts, allegedly owed to Liberty Credit Services, Inc. Defendant Liberty is a foreign corporation with its principal place of business located at 15010 Glazier Ave #200, Apple Valley, MN 55124. The Plaintiff is represented by: Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Tel: (414) 482-8000 Fax: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: dmorris@ademilaw.com IMPAX LABORATORIES: Bid to Dismiss Solodyn Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the defendants' motion to dismiss in the Solodyn(R) Antitrust Class Actions remains under submission. From July 2013 to April 2015, 15 class action complaints were filed against manufacturers of the brand drug Solodyn(R) and its generic equivalents, including the Company. On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, this Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on August 30, 2013, re-filed the same complaint in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff Heather Morgan, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode Island, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 7, 2013, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On February 25, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred to the District of Massachusetts for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation. On March 26, 2015, Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On April 8, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. On April 16, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On May 1, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The consolidated amended complaints allege that Medicis engaged in anticompetitive schemes by, among other things, filing frivolous patent litigation lawsuits, submitting frivolous Citizen Petitions, and entering into anticompetitive settlement agreements with several generic manufacturers, including the Company, to delay generic competition of Solodyn(R) and in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. Oral argument on defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints took place on March 12, 2015, and the motion remains under submission. IMPAX LABORATORIES: No Oral Argument Yet on Opana Case Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that oral argument on the motions to dismiss the Opana ER(R) Antitrust Class Actions has not been scheduled. From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 class action complaints were filed against the manufacturer of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and the Company. On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Value Drug Company, a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 26, 2014, this Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on July 16, 2014, re- filed the same complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff Massachusetts Bricklayers, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff Meijer Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On November 17, 2014, Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United Stated District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Kim Mahaffay, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. On January 27, 2015, the Defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re Opana ER Antitrust Litigation. On March 26, 2015 Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On April 23, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an anticompetitive settlement agreement with the Company to delay generic competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. Consolidated amended complaints were filed on May 4, 2015. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaints on July 3, 2015. Plaintiffs' oppositions to the motions to dismiss were due August 14, 2015. Oral argument on the motions to dismiss has not been scheduled. IMPAX LABORATORIES: Settlement in Securities Case Has Final OK -------------------------------------------------------------- Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court has granted final approval of the settlement in the securities class actions. On March 7, 2013 and April 8, 2013, two class action complaints were filed against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors of the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by Denis Mulligan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and Haverhill Retirement System, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, respectively ("Securities Class Actions"), alleging that the Company and those named officers and directors violated the federal securities law by making materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts to the public in connection with manufacturing deficiencies at the Hayward, California manufacturing facility, including but not limited to the impact the deficiencies would have on the Company's ability to gain approval from the FDA for the Company's branded product candidate, RYTARY(R) and its generic version of Concerta(R). These two Securities Class Actions were subsequently consolidated, assigned to the same judge, and lead plaintiff has been chosen. The plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint was filed on September 13, 2013. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on November 14, 2013. On April 18, 2014, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss. On September 22, 2014, the Company, together with certain current and former officers and directors of the Company, agreed to settle this consolidated securities class action, without any admission or concession of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or the other defendants. Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will pay $8.0 million for a full and complete release of all claims that were or could have been asserted against the Company or other defendants in this action. On January 16, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and on July 23, 2015, the Court granted final approval of the settlement. The Company did not take any charges for the settlement as the settlement amount was paid for and covered by the Company's insurance policies. The settlement does not resolve the related shareholder derivative litigations. IMPAX LABORATORIES: Settlement in Aruliah Case Awaits Final OK -------------------------------------------------------------- Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the settlement in the Aruliah class action remains subject to final court approval and certain other conditions. On August 13, 2014, a class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors of the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by Linus Aruliah, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated ("Aruliah Class Action"). The complaint alleged that the Company and those named officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts to the public in connection with manufacturing deficiencies at the Company's Taiwan manufacturing facility, including but not limited to the impact the deficiencies would have on the Company's ability to gain approval from the FDA for the Company's then branded product candidate, RYTARY(R) (which was subsequently approved by the FDA on January 7, 2015). On January 13, 2015, the Company, together with certain current and former officers and directors of the Company, agreed to settle this securities class action, without any admission or concession of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or the other defendants. Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will pay $4.75 million for a full and complete release of all claims that were or could have been asserted against the Company or other defendants in this action. On June 22, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The Company will not be taking any charges for the settlement as the settlement amount will be paid for and covered by the Company's insurance policies. The settlement remains subject to final court approval and certain other conditions and does not resolve the related shareholder derivative litigations. INFOCISION MANAGEMENT: "Wajert" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Wajert, and all others similarly-situated v. InfoCision Management Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-01325 (W.D. Pa., October 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Defendant is a privately held teleservices company. In this capacity, it operates call centers in Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. One of these call centers is located in New Castle, PA. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twinning Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Tel: (215) 884-2491 INNERWORKINGS INC: Bid to Dismiss Van Noppen Complaint Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- InnerWorkings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company's and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss the Van Noppen complaint is currently pending. In February 2014, shortly following the Company's announcement of its intention to restate certain historical financial statements, an individual filed a putative securities class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled Van Noppen v. InnerWorkings et al. The complaint, as amended in July 2014, alleges that the Company and certain executive officers violated federal securities laws by making materially false or misleading statements or omissions, and by engaging in a scheme to defraud purchasers of securities, relating to the Company's financial results and prospects. The purported misstatements and scheme relate to the Company's inside sales initiative and the Productions Graphics business based in France. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company and individual defendants dispute the claims and intend to vigorously defend the matter. On September 29, 2014, the Company and individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, and this motion is currently pending. INNOPOWER INC: Recalls Climbing Sticks Due to Fall Hazard --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Innopower, Inc. (owner of the Hawk brand), of Frankenmuth, Mich., announced a voluntary recall of about 730 Climbing Sticks. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Folding steps can bend or break during use, posing a fall hazard. This recall includes 2014 and 2015 Hawk 2085 RAZOR 3PK (32 inches long), the 2085-1 RAZOR 1PK (32 inches long), and the 2015 Hawk 2084 RAZOR SHORTMAX 4PK (20 inches long) and 2084-1 RAZOR SHORTMAX 1PK (20 inches long) climbing sticks. The aluminum sticks, which have a gray finish, tie with nylon strap to tree trunks and provide steps for consumers to climb. Recalled steps have three rectangular holes cut in the bottom of them, which differentiate them from non-recalled steps, which have circular holes. Model 2085 and 2085-1 have two 32-inch long metal poles with steps and a tree V-bracket to contact the tree. Model 2084 and 2084-1 have two 20-inch long metal poles with steps and a tree V-bracket to contact the tree. The model number is on the black and gray sticker located on the back side of the vertical post. The firm has received reports of five incidents of steps breaking. Only minor injuries, including scratches and bruises, have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/1c2jvD The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at A-1 Archery, Camofire LLC, Cinnamon Creek Ranch Archery, DNW Outdoors, Eunice Archery Range, Franks Great Outdoors, GameMasters, Grabow Archers, Hunter's Refuge, & Gear, Innovations of Home, Jay's Sporting Goods, Jon's Sports Shop, Long Range Archery, Mack's Sport Shop, RackFan Addicts, Simmons Sporting Goods and Woodbury Outfitters from June 2014 to August 2015 for between $38 and $130. Consumers should immediately stop using the climbing sticks and contact Innopower for information on returning the folding steps for a free replacement. J2 GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Paldo Sign Case ----------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the case filed by Paldo Sign and Display Co., j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. On January 18, 2013, Paldo Sign and Display Co. ("Paldo") filed an amended complaint adding two j2 Global affiliates and a former employee as additional defendants in an existing purported class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ("Northern District of Illinois") (No. 1:13- cv-01896). The amended complaint alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and common law conversion, arising from an indirect customer's alleged use of the j2 Global affiliates' systems to send unsolicited facsimile transmissions. On August 23, 2013, a second plaintiff, Sabon, Inc. ("Sabon"), was added. The j2 Global affiliates filed a motion to dismiss the ICFA and conversion claims, which was granted. The Northern District of Illinois also dismissed the former employee for lack of personal jurisdiction. Discovery is ongoing. J2 GLOBAL: Briefing on Appeal in Multi-District Litigation Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------------- j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that briefing on the appeal in a multi-district litigation has been stayed. On October 16, 2013, a j2 Global affiliate entered an appearance as a plaintiff in a multi-district litigation pending in the Northern District of Illinois (No. 1:12-cv-06286). In this litigation, Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC ("UMS"), a company with rights to assert certain patents owned by the j2 Global affiliate, has asserted five j2 Global patents against a number of defendants. While claims against some defendants have been settled, other defendants have filed counterclaims for, among other things, non-infringement, unenforceability, and invalidity of the patents-in-suit. On December 20, 2013, the Northern District of Illinois issued a claim construction opinion and, on June 13, 2014, entered a final judgment of non-infringement for the remaining defendants based on that claim construction. UMS and the j2 Global affiliate filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 27, 2014 (No. 14-1611). Briefing on the appeal has been stayed, pending the Northern District of Illinois's resolution of the defendants' motion to declare the case exceptional. J2 GLOBAL: Discovery on Case filed by LEO and Dancel Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Discovery on the case filed by LEO and Dancel is ongoing, j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. On June 23, 2014, Andre Free-Vychine ("Free-Vychine") filed a purported class action against a j2 Global affiliate in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles ("Los Angeles Superior Court") (No. BC549422). The complaint alleges two California statutory violations relating to late fees levied in certain eVoice(R) accounts. Free-Vychine is seeking, among other things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of himself and a purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons. On August 26, 2014, Law Enforcement Officers, Inc. ("LEO") and IV Pit Stop, Inc. ("IV Pit Stop") filed a separate purported class action against the same j2 Global affiliate in Los Angeles Superior Court (No. BC555721). The complaint alleges three California statutory violations, negligence, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and various other common law claims relating to late fees levied on any of the j2 Global affiliate's customers, including those with eVoice(R) and Onebox(R) accounts. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and a purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons. On September 29, 2014, the Los Angeles Superior Court ordered both cases related and consolidated for discovery purposes. On March 13, 2015, a third amended complaint was filed in this action, which no longer included IV Pit Stop as a plaintiff but added Christopher Dancel ("Dancel") as a plaintiff. On or around June 26, 2015, the case filed by Free-Vychine was dismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement. Discovery on the case filed by LEO and Dancel is ongoing. JAKKS PACIFIC: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- JAKKS Pacific, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company's motion to dismiss a class action has been taken on submission and a decision will be issued. On July 25, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California captioned Melot v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No. CV13-05388 (JAK) against Stephen G. Berman, Joel M. Bennett (collectively the "Individual Defendants"), and the Company (collectively, "Defendants"). On July 30, 2013, a second purported class action lawsuit was filed containing similar allegations against Defendants captioned Dylewicz v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No. CV13-5487 (OON). The two cases (collectively, the "Class Action") were consolidated on December 2, 2013 under Case No. CV13-05388 JAK (SSx) and lead plaintiff and lead counsel appointed. On January 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint (the "First Amended Complaint") against Defendants which alleged that the Company violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and/or misleading statements concerning Company financial projections and performance as part of its public filings and earnings calls from July 17, 2012 through July 17, 2013. Specifically, the First Amended Complaint alleged that the Company's forward looking statements, guidance and other public statements were false and misleading for allegedly failing to disclose (i) certain alleged internal forecasts, (ii) the Company's alleged quarterly practice of laying off and rehiring workers, (iii) the Company's alleged entry into license agreements with guaranteed minimums the Company allegedly knew it was unable to meet; and (iv) allegedly poor performance of the Monsuno and Winx lines of products after their launch. The First Amended Complaint also alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by Messrs. Berman and Bennett. The First Amended Complaint sought compensatory and other damages in an undisclosed amount as well as attorneys' fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on February 17, 2014, and the motion was granted, with leave to replead. A Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") was filed on July 8, 2014 and it set forth similar allegations to those in the First Amended Complaint about discrepancies between internal projections and public forecasts and the other allegations except that the claim with respect to guaranteed minimums that the Company allegedly knew it was unable to meet was eliminated. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the SAC and that motion was granted with leave to replead. A Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") was filed on March 23, 2015 with similar allegations. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the TAC and that motion was argued on July 22, 2015; after argument it was taken on submission and a decision will be issued. "We believe that the claims in the Class Action are without merit, and we intend to defend vigorously against them. However, because the Class Action is in a preliminary stage, we cannot assure you as to its outcome, or that an adverse decision in such action would not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations," the Company said. JAY-JAY CABARET: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Racey" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Racey, Kevin McDonald, Gary Williams and Alex Abreu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jay-Jay Cabaret Inc. d/b/a Flash Dancers, et al., Case No. 1:15- cv-08228 (S.D.N.Y., October 19, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime premium pay for hours worked over 40 hours in a given workweek. Jay-Jay Cabaret Inc. owns and operates an adult entertainment club located at 1674 Broadway, New York, NY 10019. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com graham@peltonlaw.com JEFFERSON CAPITAL: "Tesch" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Tesch, and all others similarly-situated v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01208 (E.D. Wis., October 12, 2015), seeks damages for the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Defendant is a collection agency, using the mails and telephone to collect consumer debts originally owed to others. The Plaintiff is represented by: Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Tel: (414) 482-8000 Fax: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: dmorris@ademilaw.com JOSEPH EPSTEIN: Recalls Meatball Products Due to Misbranding ------------------------------------------------------------ Joseph Epstein Food Enterprises, Inc., an East Rutherford, N.J. establishment, is recalling approximately 190 pounds of turkey meatball products due to misbranding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The label declares the product as "gluten-free," a false negative claim. The Mama Mancini's gluten-free turkey meatball items were produced on Oct. 19, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: --- 22-oz. cartons of "Mama Mancini's Slow Cooked Italian Style Sauce and Turkey Meatballs - Gluten Free." The products subject to recall bear establishment number "P-21734" inside the USDA mark of inspection, product code 4740 and expiration date "Use by 12/10/15." These items were shipped to retail locations in New Jersey. The problem was discovered during the establishment's third party laboratory testing; the product was found to contain an excess of the maximum allowable 20 ppm of gluten. The establishment notified FSIS of the problem. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Mr. Matt Brown, President, at (917) 705-7514. Media with questions about the recall can contact Mr. Carl Wolf at (973) 985-0280. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/xzUmE6 KRUD KUTTER: Recalls Adhesive Removers Due to Noncompliance ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Krud Kutter Inc. of Cumming, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of about 85,000 Adhesive removers. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The packaging is not child resistant as required by the Poison Prevention Packaging Act and the labeling on the product violates the Federal Hazardous Substances Act because it does not warn of the hazard presented. The adhesive remover contains petroleum distillates, which pose aspiration and poisoning hazards if swallowed. This recall involves Krud Kutter Decal & Adhesive Remover and Krud Kutter Ultra Power Specialty Adhesive Remover. The decal adhesive remover came in a clear plastic eight-ounce bottle with a purple flip-open top. The front of the bottle has a yellow and purple label with the Krud Kutter Earth Friendly logo and the words "Safe on Clearcoats!," "Removes adhesive, asphalt, decals, road tar & more," "Decal & Adhesive Remover" and "Biodegradable." An image of a black sports car with a flame decal on it are also on the label. The specialty adhesive remover came in 8-ounce, 16-ounce and 32- ounce clear plastic bottles. The 8-ounce bottle has a purple flip- open top. The two larger bottles have purple trigger spray tops. The front of the bottles have a purple and yellow label with the Krud Kutter Earth Friendly logo and the words "Professional Strength," "Krud Kutter," Ultra Power Special Adhesive Remover," "Removes Adhesive, Caulk, Foam, Mastic, Silicone, Roofing Tar & More" and "Biodegradable." The recalled adhesive removers have product numbers PU08, UP08, UP16 and UP32 and were manufactured from October 2014 to July 2015. The product numbers can be found on the product label on the back of the product under the Krud Kutter Inc. contact information. The date codes are printed on the back of the bottle in black ink above the label. Krud Kutter adhesive removers with the following product numbers and date codes are being recalled: Product Name Product Numbers Date Code(s) ----------- --------------- ------------ Krud Kutter(R) PU08 PW4O271 001, Decal & Adhesive PW4O281 001, Remover PW4N181 002, (8 oz flip-top) PW54111 002, PW5413 003 Krud Kutter(R) UP08 PW4N191 002, Ultra Power PW4N201 002, Specialty Adhesive PW57141 005, Remover PW57151 006, (8 oz. flip-top) PW57161 006, PW57171 006 Krud Kutter(R) UP16 PW4O231 001, Ultra Power PW4N181 002, Specialty Adhesive PW4D091 004, Remover PW56151 004, (16 oz. spray) PW56161 004, PW57141 005 Krud Kutter(R) UP32 PW55041 003, Ultra Power PW55051 003 Specialty Adhesive Remover (32 oz. spray) No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/BkemFe The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at The Home Depot and other paint and hardware stores nationwide and online at krudkutter.com between October 2014 and September 2015 for $5 to $20 each. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled adhesive removers and return them to the store where purchased for a full refund. L.L. BEAN: Recalls Hunting Knives Due to Laceration Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with L.L. Bean Inc., of Freeport, Maine, announced a voluntary recall of about 300 Hunting Knives with Sheath. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The knife can cut through the sheath, posing a laceration hazard. The recall includes the L.L. Bean GTO Hunting Knife with Sheath with product identification number 296435 printed on the product's packaging. The knife measures 8 inches long including a 4 inch blade. The handle is made of G10 synthetic. L.L. Bean is printed on the blade and an outline of a mountain is printed on the blade. The sheath is made of black ballistic cloth, embroidered with "L.L. Bean" and an outline of mountains. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/Xq4oIL The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at L.L. Bean retail stores nationwide, catalog and online at www.LLBean.com from June 2015 through September 2015 for about $90. Consumers should immediately stop using the knife sheath and contact the firm to receive a free replacement sheath. LAROSE INDUSTRIES: Recalls Flying Ace Toys Due to Choking Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with LaRose Industries, of Randolph, N.J., announced a voluntary recall of about 11,000 Peanuts Flying Ace Ride-On Toys. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The toy's blue hubcaps can detach from the wheel's axle, posing a choking hazard to young children. This recall involves Peanuts Flying Ace ride-on toys modeled after older style airplanes. The toys are intended for children ages 12 months to 2 years. The body of the plane is red, the steering wheel, propeller and wings are yellow and the hubcaps are blue. "Snoopy Flying Ace" is printed on the front of the toy airplane and Snoopy characters are printed on each wing and on the front. The ride-on toys measure 19 inches long by 19 « inches wide (wing span) by 13 inches high. A hang tag attached to the product at purchase has "#38126" printed on it and one of the following date codes: --- BCHTAR616A13-0515 --- BCHTAR614A13-0515 --- BCHTAR615A11-0515 --- BCHTAR684A20-0515 --- BCHTAR682A05-0615 --- BCHTAR683A05-0615 No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/jeJRbt The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Target stores nationwide from July 2015 through August 2015 for about $40. Consumers should immediately take the recalled ride-on toys away from children and return the product to any Target store for a full refund. LIGHTHOUSE CHRISTIAN: Recalls Ceramic Mugs Due to Burn Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Lighthouse Christian Products Co., of Schaumburg, Ill., announced a voluntary recall of about 4,400 Ceramic Mugs. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Hot liquids can seep through hairline cracks, posing a burn hazard. The two recalled ceramic mugs are the Pastor's Wife model #18208, and the Serve with Gladness model #18209. The Pastor's Wife mug is cream color on the outside and teal on the inside with the phrase "Pastor's Wife" on one side and "We Always Thank God and Pray For You" on the other side. The Serve with Gladness mug is cream color inside and outside with the phrase "Serve with Gladness" on one side and "Anyone who loves is a child of God" inside a multicolored floral arrangement on the other side. Model number 18208 or 18209 is printed on a UPC sticker on the bottom of the mug. The firm received a report of one incident. No injuries. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/94UPDL The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Family Christian Stores, Lifeway Christian Stores, Mardel, many smaller Christian bookstores and online at www.christianbook.com from July 2015 through October 2015 for between $10 and $13. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled mugs and return them to the store where they were purchased or call Lighthouse for a full refund. LIQUID FORCE: Recalls Kiteboard Control System Due to Injury Risk ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Liquid Force, of Encinitas, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 2,050 Liquid Force Response Kiteboard control systems (in addition, about 40 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The chicken loop release system, which is used to depower the kite, can stick and fail to open, posing a risk of injury to the kiteboarder. This recall involves Liquid Force Response kiteboard control systems from model year 2015. The control systems are comprised of a light-weight control bar to control and depower the kite, a set of flying lines and a harness loop (chicken loop)/quick release mechanism. Recalled units have a solid orange release hood and the words "RESPONSE RELEASE SYSTEM" are printed on the black loop. The release hood on replacement systems is orange and black or yellow and black. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/QxWnRu The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Surf and specialty stores nationwide and by independent sales representatives from December 2014 through February 2015 for about $500. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled kiteboard control systems and contact Liquid Force for a free replacement chicken loop release mechanism. The firm is contacting all owners of the kiteboard control systems directly. LIVE NATION: Accrued $34.9MM Related to Ticketing Fee Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that as of June 30, 2015, the Company had accrued $34.9 million, its best estimate of the probable costs associated with the settlement in the Ticketing Fees Consumer Class Action Litigation. In October 2003, a putative representative action was filed in the Superior Court of California challenging Ticketmaster's charges to online customers for shipping fees and alleging that its failure to disclose on its website that the charges contain a profit component is unlawful. The complaint asserted a claim for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and sought restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i) the total shipping fees charged by Ticketmaster in connection with online ticket sales during the applicable period, and (ii) the amount that Ticketmaster actually paid to the shipper for delivery of those tickets. In August 2005, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, then pleading the case as a putative class action and adding the claim that Ticketmaster's website disclosures in respect of its ticket order processing fees constitute false advertising in violation of California's False Advertising Law. On this new claim, the amended complaint seeks restitution or disgorgement of the entire amount of order processing fees charged by Ticketmaster during the applicable period. In April 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint adding new claims that (a) Ticketmaster's order processing fees are unconscionable under the UCL, and (b) Ticketmaster's alleged business practices further violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs later filed a third amended complaint, to which Ticketmaster filed a demurrer in July 2009. The Court overruled Ticketmaster's demurrer in October 2009. The plaintiffs filed a class certification motion in August 2009, which Ticketmaster opposed. In February 2010, the Court granted certification of a class on the first and second causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster misrepresents/omits the fact of a profit component in Ticketmaster's shipping and order processing fees. The class would consist of California consumers who purchased tickets through Ticketmaster's website from 1999 to present. The Court denied certification of a class on the third and fourth causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster's shipping and order processing fees are unconscionably high. In March 2010, Ticketmaster filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate with the California Court of Appeal, and plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Superior Court's class certification order. In April 2010, the Superior Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's class certification order, and the Court of Appeal denied Ticketmaster's Petition for Writ of Mandate. In June 2010, the Court of Appeal granted the plaintiffs' Petition for Writ of Mandate and ordered the Superior Court to vacate its February 2010 order denying plaintiffs' motion to certify a national class and enter a new order granting plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class on the first and second claims. In September 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on all causes of action in the Superior Court, and that same month plaintiffs filed their Motion for Summary Adjudication of various affirmative defenses asserted by Ticketmaster. In November 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion to Decertify Class. In December 2010, the parties entered into a binding agreement providing for the settlement of the litigation and the resolution of all claims therein. In September 2011, the Court declined to approve the settlement in its then-current form. Litigation continued, and later that same month, the Court granted in part and denied in part Ticketmaster's Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties reached a new settlement in September 2011, which was preliminarily approved, but in September 2012 the Court declined to grant final approval. In June 2013, the parties reached a revised settlement, which was preliminarily approved by the Court in April 2014. In February 2015, the Court granted the parties' motion for final approval of the settlement. Ticketmaster and its parent, Live Nation, have not acknowledged any violations of law or liability in connection with the matter. As of June 30, 2015, the Company had accrued $34.9 million, its best estimate of the probable costs associated with the settlement. The calculation of this liability is based in part upon an estimated redemption rate. Any difference between the Company's estimated redemption rate and the actual redemption rate it experiences will impact the final settlement amount; however, the Company does not expect this difference to be material. LONESTAR RESOURCES: "Gonzales" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Larry Gonzales, and all others similarly-situated v. Lonestar Resources America, Inc., Amadeus Petroleum, Inc., and Lonestar Resources, Inc. dba Lonestar Resources, Case No. 5:15-cv-00882 (W.D. Tex., October 13, 2015), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants provide products and services in the oil and gas industry, throughout the United States in those areas in which fracking is a viable business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AK 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Feb. 25 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT - SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Ardon v. City of Los Angeles YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A CASH TELEPHONE TAX REFUND If you paid for telephone service utilized any time between October 19, 2005 and March 15, 2008, and you had a billing or service address within the City of Los Angeles you may be eligible to receive a refund of telephone tax. WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT? This class action lawsuit was filed by a Los Angeles resident seeking refunds of telephone taxes paid to the City of Los Angeles for telephone services utilized between October 19, 2005 and March 15, 2008. The City denied any wrongdoing and still denies any liability in this case. However, the parties have agreed to a settlement that provides for telephone tax refunds to eligible claimants. WHO IS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT? You must submit a valid claim by February 20, 2016 to receive payment. If you paid for landline telephone service with a service address in the City of Los Angeles, or if you paid for a mobile/cellular telephone account with a billing address in the City of Los Angeles (does not including pre-paid mobile service), and those services were utilized at any time from October 19, 20105 until March 15, 2008, you are entitled to claim a monetary refund for the utility users' tax ("UUT") paid. To submit a Claim Form, visit the settlement website at www.LATaxRefund.com or contact the Claim Administrator at 1-888-643-6490 to request one be mailed to you. YOUR OPTIONS You may take any of the following actions: If you: Complete and Submit a valid Claim Form by DEADLINE: February 20, 2016 Then you will: Receive a payment in the mail for one or more of the following amounts: $50-Mobile Telephone Service;$30-Residential Landline Service; $50-Business Landline Service; and/or Actual UUT Refund Amount Or you may direct that such a payment be instead donated to one of four designated funds that support City services. If you: Do Nothing Then you will: You do not receive any money from the lawsuit, any claim you have for a refund will be released, and you will no longer have such a claim. If you: Exclude Yourself DEADLINE: February 11, 2016 Then you will: Get out of the lawsuit. Get no payment. Keep your right to sue separately with your own lawyer. If you: Object DEADLINE: January 26, 2016 Then you will: Write to the Court about why you do not like the settlement. If you: Go To A Court Hearing Then you will: Ask to speak to the Court about the fairness of the settlement. You do not have to attend the hearing to receive payment. The Final Approval Hearing is on February 25, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 307, Los Angeles Superior Court, Central Civil West Courthouse EXCLUDING YOURSELF If you don't want a payment from the settlement, but you want to keep the right to sue the City of Los Angeles on your own over the UUT, then you must exclude yourself from the settlement. To do that, you must submit online at www.LATaxRefund.com or send in the mail a letter by February 11, 2016 saying that you want to be excluded from the settlement to: Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 30196, College Station, TX 77842- 3196. If you ask to be excluded, you cannot object to the settlement and cannot receive payment. You will not be bound by anything that happens in this lawsuit. OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT You can tell the Court that you don't agree with the settlement or some part of it. You may only object if you are a Class Member and you do not exclude yourself from the settlement. You can object yourself or hire a lawyer at your own expense. The Court will consider your objection. Your objection must be in writing, and should include your name, address, telephone number, signature, and the reasons you object. You must also provide evidence of membership in the Class, such as a copy of a phone bill from the Class period. If your objection is mailed in time, you do not have to attend the fairness hearing described below. You must mail your written objection before January 26, 2016 to: Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 30196, College Station, TX 77842-3196. What You Are Giving Up To Receive Payment In exchange for payment of the refund, you are agreeing not to sue the City for any claims that relate to this lawsuit or could have been brought in this lawsuit. Signing the Claim Form will prevent you from being able to sue the City of Los Angeles for any disputes you may have over the UUT collected for telephone services utilized from October 19, 2005 through March 15, 2008. THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU As a Class Member, you are represented by four law firms: Francis M. Gregorek Rachele R. Rickert Marisa C. Livesay Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP 750 B Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 Nicholas E. Chimicles Timothy N. Mathews Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Jonathan W. Cuneo Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP 507 C Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 Jon Tostrud Tostrud Law Group PC 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2125 Los Angeles, CA 90067 This Publication Notice summarizes the proposed settlement. More details are in the Settlement Agreement. All court records in this litigation, including complete copies of the Settlement Agreement, may be examined during regular court hours at the office of the Clerk of the Court, 600 South Commonwealth Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90005. If you have questions about the settlement or this Notice, please contact the Claims Administrator at 1-888-643-6490 or visit www.LATaxRefund.com, www.whafh.com or www.chimicles.com Do not contact the Court directly with any questions about the settlement. MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: Class Action Notice Sent to Class Members -------------------------------------------------------------- MabVax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that notice of the action as a class action has been sent to class members. On May 30, 2014, a class action lawsuit was commenced in Santa Clara County Superior Court, State of California, on behalf of Cadillac Partners and others similarly situated, naming as defendants, MabVax Therapeutics, the Company and the Company's directors, Hudson Bay Capital Management LP, Bio IP Ventures LLC, Hudson Bay Master Fund Ltd., and Hudson Bay IP Opportunities Master Fund LP, together the "Parties". The suit alleged the defendants breached certain fiduciary duties, or aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duties, in connection with the Company's Merger with MabVax Therapeutics. In support of their purported claims, the plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the Company's board has historically failed to fulfill its fiduciary duty to its stockholders, and claiming with respect to the Series B Private Placement and the Merger, that such transactions involved an inadequate sales process and included preclusive deal protection devices, and that the Company's board of directors would receive personal benefits not available to its public stockholders as a result of the Merger. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the Merger and obtain damages as well as attorneys' and expert fees and costs. On June 29, 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Settlement (the "Settlement"), pursuant to which the Company agreed to file with the SEC certain supplemental disclosures in connection with the Merger. The Settlement is subject to certain confirmatory discovery to be undertaken by the plaintiff and to the Parties' agreement on the payment of the plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses. On July 16, 2014, the Company and all other parties to the litigation entered into an agreement which, if consummated, will settle the litigation (the "Proposed Settlement"). Among many other terms, under the Proposed Settlement the Company and all defendants will receive a broad release of any and all claims pertaining to the Series B Private Placement, the Merger, the prior disclosure and a wide variety of other matters. The Proposed Settlement also calls for the parties to ask the court to, among other things, enter orders enjoining other stockholders from bringing similar actions, certifying the putative settlement class, and approving the Proposed Settlement as a fair, final, and binding resolution of the litigation. Under the Proposed Settlement, the Company and the other defendants have expressly denied the allegations of the complaint and denied engaging in any other misconduct, nor will any of them make any payment or in any respect amend the negotiated terms of the since-consummated Series B Private Placement and Merger. Finally, under the Proposed Settlement, the Company and the other defendants have not agreed to pay any legal fees, or reimburse any expenses, allegedly incurred by the plaintiffs who filed the complaint; instead, the Company expects that counsel for those plaintiffs will present any such disputed claim for legal fees and expenses to the court for resolution. On April 20, 2015, the Parties made an application for an Order for Notice and Scheduling of Hearing of Settlement in accordance with a Stipulation of Settlement dated as of April 20, 2015 (the "Action"), which sets forth the terms and conditions for settlement and which provides for dismissal of the Action with prejudice. The Order after Hearing on June 12, 2015, provided preliminary approval of the settlement that was agreed to by the Parties, in which the Company provided supplemental disclosures in the definitive proxy filed with the SEC on June 30, 2014. Notice of the action as a class action was sent to class members in July 2015. The Company believes that any additional expenses that could be incurred related to the Action after June 30, 2015, will be offset by insurance co-payments covering expenses previously incurred or expected to be incurred in the Stipulation of Settlement. MAELI ROSE: Recalls Girl's Hoodies Due to Strangulation Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Maeli Rose, of Arcadia, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 1,200 Girl's Hoodies. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The hoodies have a drawstring inside the lining of the hood that surrounds the face which poses a strangulation hazard to children. Drawstrings can become entangled or caught on playground slides, hand rails, school bus doors or other moving objects, posing a significant strangulation and/or entanglement hazard to children. In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines about drawstrings in children's upper outerwear. In 1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a voluntary standard. Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines and voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation. CPSC's actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts. This recall involves the girls' blush hoodie sizes 2T-6X, made of 62% polyester, 35% cotton and 3% spandex. The garment comes in blush/pink and has a lace decoration strip around the hood opening. There is a white drawstring inside the hood lining that surrounds the face. There is a zipper on the front with a pocket on each side. The pocket openings and sleeves are decorated with a lace strip. The name Just Fab Girls is sewn into the label of the neck. There is also a label sewn into the side seam that reads "RN #137339" and "Made in China." No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/Zanjon The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Children's boutiques and other specialty retail stores nationwide from July 2013 through December 2013 for about $20. Consumers should immediately take the recalled hoodie away from children and remove the drawstring to eliminate the hazard or return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Automated Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- Audrey Fober, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Management and Technology Consultants, L.L.C., and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 8:15-cv-01673 (C.D. Cal., October 19, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of placing calls on consumers' cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice. Management and Technology Consultants, L.L.C. owns and operates a marketing company in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com MARTEL'S FAMILY: Faces "Escobar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Honorio Escobar individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Martel's Family Restaurant, Inc. and Marina Pappas, Case No. 3:15-cv-50269 (N.D. Ill., October 19, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 350 Northwest Highway, Cary, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 878-1302 E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com MAXLINEAR INC: Entropic Merger Case Subject to Negotiation ---------------------------------------------------------- MaxLinear, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the settlement in the Entropic Communications Merger Litigation is subject to negotiation of the settlement papers by the parties and is subject to court approval after notice and an opportunity to object is provided to the proposed settlement class. Beginning on February 9, 2015, eleven stockholder class action complaints (captioned Langholz v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10631-VCP (filed Feb. 9, 2015); Tomblin v. Entropic Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 10632-VCP (filed Feb. 9, 2015); Crill v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10640-VCP (filed Feb. 11, 2015); Wohl v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10644-VCP (filed Feb. 11, 2015); Parshall v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10652-VCP (filed Feb. 12, 2015); Saggar v. Padval, et al., C.A. No. 10661- VCP (filed Feb. 13, 2015); Iyer v. Tewksbury, et al., C.A. No. 10665-VCP (filed Feb. 13, 2015); Respler v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10669-VCP (filed Feb. 17, 2015); Gal v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10671-VCP (filed Feb. 17, 2015); Werbowsky v. Padval, et al., C.A. No. 10673-VCP (filed Feb. 18, 2015); and Agosti v. Entropic Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 10676-VCP (filed Feb. 18, 2015)) were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of a putative class of Entropic Communications, Inc. stockholders. The complaints name Entropic, the board of directors of Entropic, MaxLinear, Excalibur Acquisition Corporation, and Excalibur Subsidiary, LLC as defendants. The complaints generally allege that, in connection with the proposed acquisition of Entropic by MaxLinear, the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Entropic stockholders by, among other things, purportedly failing to take steps to maximize the value of Entropic to its stockholders and agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal protection devices in the merger agreement. The complaints further allege that Entropic, MaxLinear, and/or the merger subsidiaries aided and abetted the individual defendants in the alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaints seek, among other things, an order enjoining the defendants from consummating the proposed transaction, an order declaring the merger agreement unlawful and unenforceable, in the event that the proposed transaction is consummated, an order rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages to the class, imposition of a constructive trust, damages, and/or attorneys' fees and costs. On March 27, 2015, plaintiffs Ankur Saggar, Jon Werbowsky, and Angelo Agosti filed an amended class action complaint. Also on March 27, 2015, plaintiffs Martin Wohl and Jeffrey Park filed an amended class action complaint. On April 1, 2015, plaintiff Mark Respler filed an amended class action complaint. On April 16, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the Delaware actions, captioned In re Entropic Communications, Inc. Consolidated Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 10631-VCP (the "Consolidated Action"). The April 16, 2015 order appointed plaintiffs Rama Iyer and Jon Werbowsky as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and designated the amended complaint filed by plaintiffs Ankur Saggar, Jon Werbowsky, and Angelo Agosti as the operative complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint names as defendants Entropic, the board of directors of Entropic, the Company, Excalibur Acquisition Corporation, and Excalibur Subsidiary, LLC. The Amended Complaint generally alleges that, in connection with the proposed acquisition of Entropic by the Company, the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Entropic stockholders by, among other things, purportedly failing to maximize the value of Entropic to its stockholders, engaging in a purportedly unfair and conflicted sale process, agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal protection devices in the merger agreement, and allegedly misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose all material information in connection with the proposed transaction. The Amended Complaint further alleges that the Company and the merger subsidiaries aided and abetted the individual defendants in the alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The Amended Complaint seeks, among other things: an order declaring the merger agreement unlawful and unenforceable, an order rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the merger agreement, an order enjoining defendants from consummating the proposed transaction, imposition of a constructive trust, and attorneys' and experts' fees and costs. On April 24, 2015, the parties to the Consolidated Action entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding a proposed settlement of the Delaware actions. The proposed settlement is subject to negotiation of the settlement papers by the parties and is subject to court approval after notice and an opportunity to object is provided to the proposed settlement class. There can be no assurance that the parties will reach agreement regarding the final terms of the settlement agreement or that the Court of Chancery will approve the settlement. MDC PARTNERS: Faces Class Suit by Firefighters Pension Plan ----------------------------------------------------------- The North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District Firefighter Pension Plan filed on July 31, 2015, a putative class action suit in the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants MDC Partners Inc., CFO David Doft, Mr. Nadal, and Mr. Sabatino. The plaintiff alleges violations of Sec. 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Sec. 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on allegedly materially false and misleading statements in the Company's SEC filings and other public statements regarding executive compensation, goodwill accounting, and the Company's internal controls. The Company intends to vigorously defend this suit. No further updates were provided in MDC Partners Inc.'s Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. MICHAEL KORS: Faces "Hyseni" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Enxhi Hyseni, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. Michael Kors (USA), Inc., Michael Kors, L.L.C., Michael Kors Stores, L.L.C., Michael Kors Retail, Inc., Case No. 160628/2015 (N.Y. Super. Ct., October 16, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the New York Labor Law. The Defendants own and operate a fashion company with its headquarters and principal place of business located at 11 West 42nd Street, New York, New York 10036. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212)943-9080 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com - and - Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com MINNESOTA: Faces "Kamara" Suit Over FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------------- Abu Kamara, and all others similarly-situated v. the State of Minnesota, Case No. 0:15-cv-03846 (D. Minn., October 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked as a "security counselor" for 33 years within Defendant's Department of Health and Human Services at its St. Peter Regional Treatment Center. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Lukas, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: (612) 256-3200 Fax: (612) 215-6870 E-mail: lukas@nka.com - and - Randall Knutson, Esq. KNUTSON + CASEY, PLLP 196 St. Andrews Dr., Suite 100 Mankato, MN 56001 Tel: (507) 344-8888 Fax: (507) 344-8616 E-mail: randy@knutsoncasey.com MODEL N: Discovery in Securities Action Ongoing ----------------------------------------------- Model N, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that discovery in the securities class action case is ongoing. On September 5, 2014 and January 22, 2015, purported securities class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of the Company's current and former directors and executive officers and underwriters of the initial public offering ("IPO"). The lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of the Company seeking to represent a class consisting of all those who purchased the Company's stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO. The lawsuits assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seek unspecified damages and other relief. On March 2, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the two class action lawsuits. Discovery in the case is ongoing. The Company believes that the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain and an adverse result could have a material effect on its financial statements. However, based on currently available information, the Company does not expect that the ultimate outcome of these unresolved matters will have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, cash flows or financial position. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Class Action Remains Subject to Court Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement in a class action involving Mohawk Industries, Inc. remains subject to court approval, according to the Company's Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2015. Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits were initiated in several U.S. federal courts alleging that certain manufacturers of polyurethane foam products and competitors of the Company's carpet underlay division had engaged in price fixing in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of individual cases (the first filed on August 26, 2010), as well as in two consolidated amended class action complaints (the first filed on February 28, 2011, on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products, and the second filed on March 21, 2011, on behalf of a class of indirect purchasers). All pending cases in which the Company has been named as a defendant were filed in or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for consolidated pre-trial proceedings under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MDL-02196. In these actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. Any damages actually awarded at trial are subject to being tripled under U.S. antitrust laws. On March 23, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to settle all claims brought by the class of direct purchasers, and on April 30, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to settle all claims brought by the class of indirect purchasers. Both settlement agreements are subject to court approval, which the Company expects to receive. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing but settled the class actions to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Cases by Foam Products Purchasers Still Open --------------------------------------------------------------- Mohawk Industries, Inc. remains a defendant in a number of cases involving other purchasers of polyurethane foam products not sold by the Company, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2015. On April 23, 2015, the Court consolidated twelve of these lawsuits involving non-class claims filed against the Company by direct purchasers of polyurethane foam. These consolidated cases had been scheduled for trial to begin August 18, 2015. The Company has agreements to settle all of the cases set for trial in August. In addition, the Company has executed agreements to settle nine additional individual cases. Five individual cases remain pending against the Company, all of which were brought by purchasers of polyurethane foam products not sold by the Company. The amount of the damages in the remaining cases varies or has not yet been specified by the plaintiffs. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs and injunctive relief against future violations. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Settles Claims by Canadian Plaintiffs -------------------------------------------------------- Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that the Company on June 12, 2015, entered into an agreement to settle all claims brought by the class of Canadian plaintiffs. In December 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a Canadian Class action, Hi! Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et al., filed in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, Canada and Options Consommateures v. Vitafoam, Inc. et al., filed in the Superior Court of Justice of Quebec, Montreal, Canada, both of which allege similar claims against the Company as raised in the U.S. actions and seek unspecified damages and punitive damages. On June 12, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to settle all claims brought by the class of Canadian plaintiffs. The Company continues to deny all allegations of wrongdoing but is settling to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Illegally Collects Debt, "McCoy" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas McCoy on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC and Does 1 through 100, Case No. 3:15-cv-02366-DMS-RBB (S.D. Cal., October 19, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of collecting interest, fees, and expenses incidental to the principal obligation of the alleged debt that were not authorized by the original mortgage and, in any event, were charges that were unauthorized by law because the alleged debt did not exist at any time that Nationstar allegedly owned it. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC operates a mortgage company with a principal place of business in Coppell, Texas 75019. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael W. Vivoli, Esq. Jason P. Saccuzzo, Esq. Michael L. Federici, Esq. VIVOLI SACCUZZO, LLP 2550 Fifth Avenue, Suite 709 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 744-9992 Facsimile: (619) 744-9994 NEW ENGLAND FITNESS: Sued in New Jersey Over TCCWNA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Kauffman, Jr. and Krystal Kauffman, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated v. New England Fitness South, Inc. d/b/a Planet Fitness, Case No. CAM-L-3936-15 (N.J. Super. Ct., October 18, 2015) seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of using a standard form Membership Agreement that contains terms which violate the New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act. New England Fitness South, Inc. operates a fitness facility located at 1468 Blackwood-Clementon Road in Clementon, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Galpern, Esq. Andrew P. Bell, Esq. James A. Barry, Esq. LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC 801 N. Kings Highway Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 663-8200 E-mail: info@lockslaw.com - and - Charles N. Riley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES N. RILEY, LLC 900 N. Kings Highway, Suite 308 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 667-4666 PACIFIC PREMIER: Bank Unit Dismissed from "Baker" Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- The banking unit of Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. has been dismissed from a class action lawsuit, James Baker v. Century Financial, et al, with prejudice, Pacific Premier said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. In February 2004, the Bank was named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit entitled "James Baker v. Century Financial, et al," which alleged violations of the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act (the "MSMLA") by the Bank's predecessor, Life Bank. The lawsuit alleged that Missouri homeowners were charged closing costs and related fees exceeding the amount permitted by the MSMLA. While Life Bank did not originate these mortgages, it did ultimately own and service them for a period of time, which plaintiffs allege creates potential liability under the MSMLA. The class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri in 2000. After a lengthy period of inactivity, the Bank was contacted by plaintiffs' counsel to schedule depositions and discovery, and prepare the case to go to trial in 2015. The Board of Directors of the Company established a $1.7 million reserve related to the lawsuit during the fourth quarter of 2014, which the Board of Directors believed to be a reasonable estimate of the Company's exposure as of December 31, 2014. In March and April 2015, the Company entered into a proposed settlement agreement with plaintiffs to resolve the litigation as to the Company. In June, the court granted approval for the settlement and the Bank remitted the final settlement amount of $1,764,693.87. The Bank has been dismissed from the lawsuit with prejudice. PANASONIC CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Antitrust Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Linkitz Systems, Inc., and all others similarly-situated v. Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Panasonic Industrial Devices Sales Company of America, KOA Corporation,KOA Speer Electronics, Inc., Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Murata Electronics North America, Inc., ROHM Co. Ltd., ROHM Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC, Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., Yageo Corporation, and Yageo America Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-04724 (N.D. Calif., October 13, 2015), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and all other relief available under the federal antitrust laws and the relevant laws of California and New York. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants along with other co- conspirators agreed, combined, and conspired to inflate, fix, raise, maintain or artificially stabilize prices of linear resistors sold in the United States. The Defendants are leading manufacturers of linear resistors. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allan Steyer, Esq. STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP One California Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 421-3400 Fax: (415) 421-2234 E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com PATRICK W. LAWLOR: Sui Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Maribel Depasquale, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Patrick W. Lawlor, P.A., Lawlor & Zigler, LLC, and Patrick W. Lawlor, Case No. 9:15-cv-81455-KLR (S.D. Fla., October 19, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate a law firm based at 1877 South Federal Highway, Suite 110, Boca Raton, Florida 33432-7466. The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith M. Stern, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. 2300 Glades Road, Suite 360W Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Telephone: (561) 299-3703 Facsimile: (561) 288-9031 E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com PELMEN FOODS: Recalls Dumpling Products Due to Non-Inspection ------------------------------------------------------------- Pelmen Foods, an Ontario, Canada, establishment, is recalling approximately 332 pounds of beef, chicken and pork dumpling products that were not presented at the U.S. point of entry for inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. Without the benefit of full inspection, a possibility of adverse health consequences exists. The dumpling products were imported on Oct. 8, 2015. The following products, sold between Oct. 8, 2015 and Oct. 30, 2015, are subject to recall: 12.4 lb. cases containing 12 bags of "Pelmen Foods PELMENI Siberian Recipe (Pork & Beef)" with "EXP Oct 02' 16" and Lot 5275 on the bags 12.4 lb. cases containing 12 bags of "Pelmen Foods PELMENI Chicken" with "EXP Oct 02' 16" and Lot 5275 on the bags The products subject to recall bear establishment number "721" inside Canada's mark of inspection. These items were shipped to distributors in Illinois and Wisconsin. The problem was discovered during routine FSIS surveillance activities of imported products. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact Svetlana Minos, Quality Assurance and HACCP Coordinator, at (416) 661-9600 Ext 205. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. PHL VARIABLE: Court Granted Preliminary Approval of Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- PHL Variable Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the court has granted preliminary approval of the settlement of a class action. On November 18, 2011, Martin Fleisher and another plaintiff (the "Fleisher Litigation"), on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed suit against Phoenix Life in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (C.A. No. 1:11-cv-08405-CM-JCF (U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y.)) challenging cost of insurance ("COI") rate adjustments implemented by Phoenix Life in 2010 and 2011 in certain universal life insurance policies. The complaint seeks damages for breach of contract. The class certified by the court is limited to holders of Phoenix Life policies issued in New York subject to New York law and subject to Phoenix Life's 2011 COI rate adjustment. The Company has been named as a defendant in six actions challenging its COI rate adjustments in certain universal life insurance policies implemented concurrently with the Phoenix Life adjustments. Phoenix Life and the Company are referred to as the "Phoenix Life Companies." Five cases have been brought against the Company, while one case has been brought against the Company and Phoenix Life. These six cases, only one of which is styled as a class action, have been brought by (1) Tiger Capital LLC (C.A. No. 1:12-cv- 02939-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on March 14, 2012; the "Tiger Capital Litigation"); (2-5) U.S. Bank National Association, as securities intermediary for Lima Acquisition LP ((2: C.A. No. 1:12-cv-06811-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on November 16, 2011; 3: C.A. No. 1:13- cv-01580-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on March 8, 2013; collectively, the "U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations"); (4: C.A. No. 3:14-cv-00555-WWE; U.S. Dist. Ct; D. Conn., complaint originally filed on March 6, 2013, in the District of Delaware and transferred by order dated April 22, 2014, to the District of Connecticut; and 5: C.A. No. 3:14-cv-01398-WWE, U.S. Dist. Ct; D. Conn., complaint filed on September 23, 2014, and amended on October 16, 2014, to add Phoenix Life as a defendant, and consolidated with No. 3:14-cv-00555-WWE (collectively the "U.S. Bank Conn. Litigations")); and (6) SPRR LLC (C.A. No. 1:14-cv- 8714-CM; U.S. Dist. Ct.; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on October 31, 2014; the "SPRR Litigation"). SPRR LLC filed suit against the Company, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, challenging COI rate adjustments implemented by the Company in 2011. The Tiger Capital Litigation and the two U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations were assigned to the same judge as the Fleisher Litigation. Plaintiff in the Tiger Capital Litigation seeks damages for breach of contract. Plaintiff in the U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations and the U.S. Bank Conn. Litigations seeks damages and attorneys' fees for breach of contract and other common law and statutory claims. The plaintiff in the SPRR Litigation, which has been reassigned to the same judge as the Fleisher Litigation, Tiger Capital Litigation and the two U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations, seeks damages for breach of contract for a nationwide class of policyholders. The Phoenix Life Companies reached a definitive agreement to settle a COI case, the Tiger Capital Litigation (Tiger Capital LLC (C.A. No. 1:12-cv-02939-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y.)) on a basis that will not have a material impact on the Company's financial statements. On June 3, 2015, the parties to the Tiger Capital Litigation advised the court of the settlement, which includes Tiger Capital, LLC's participation in the class Settlement. The Phoenix Life Companies reached an agreement as of April 30, 2015, memorialized in a formal settlement agreement executed on May 29, 2015, with SPRR, LLC, Martin Fleisher, as trustee of the Michael Moss Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust II, and Jonathan Berck, as trustee of the John L. Loeb, Jr. Insurance Trust (collectively, the SPRR Litigation and the Fleisher Litigation plaintiffs referred to as the "Plaintiffs"), to resolve the Fleisher Litigation and SPRR Litigation (the "Settlement"). A motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement was filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 29, 2015. On June 3, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement, ordered notice be given to class members, and set a hearing on September 9, 2015 to address, among other things, final approval of the Settlement. The proposed Settlement class consists of all policyholders that were subject to the 2010 or 2011 COI rate adjustments (collectively, the "Settlement Class"), including the policies within the above-named COI cases, and will be structured to allow members of the Settlement Class to opt out of the Settlement. The Phoenix Life Companies will establish a Settlement fund, which may be reduced proportionally for any opt-outs, and will pay a class counsel fee if the Settlement is approved. The Phoenix Life Companies will be released by all participating members of the Settlement Class, and the COI rate adjustment for policies participating in the Settlement Class will remain in effect. The Phoenix Life Companies agreed to pay a total of $48.5 million, as reduced for any opt-outs, in connection with the Settlement. The Phoenix Life Companies agreed not to impose additional increases to COI rates on policies participating in the Settlement Class through the end of 2020, and not to challenge the validity of policies participating in the Settlement Class for lack of insurable interest or misrepresentations in the policy applications. The Settlement is subject to certain conditions and final court approval is intended to resolve all pending COI cases, other than for policyholders who opt-out of the Settlement. Under the Settlement, policyholders who are members of the Settlement Class, including those which have filed individual actions relating to COI rate adjustments, may opt out of the Settlement and separately litigate their claims. The opt-out period expired on July 17, 2015. Opt-out notices have been received by the Phoenix Life Companies, including from U.S. Bank, a party to four COI cases. The Phoenix Life Companies are currently unable to estimate the damages that policyholders who opt out of the Settlement may or may not collect in litigation against the Phoenix Life Companies. There can be no assurance that the ultimate cost to the Company will not be higher or lower than $36.4 million. PLY GEM: Deal Reached with Objectors to Vinyl Clad Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that MW entered into a settlement agreement with, among others, the Objectors in the Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement. In John Gulbankian v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. ("Gulbankian"), a purported class action filed in March 2010 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court"), plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of the defective design and manufacture of MW's V-Wood windows. In Eric Hartshorn and Bethany Perry v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. ("Hartshorn"), a purported class action filed in July 2012 in the Court, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of the defective design and manufacture of MW's Freedom and Freedom 800 windows. On April 22, 2014, plaintiffs in both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, making similar claims against all MW vinyl clad windows, including MW's V-Wood, Freedom, Freedom 600 and Freedom 800 windows. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive damages, and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. During 2014, MW engaged in mediation sessions with plaintiffs' counsel for both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases. MW signed a settlement agreement with plaintiffs as of April 18, 2014 to settle both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases on a nationwide basis (the "Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement"). The Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement provides that this settlement applies to any and all MW vinyl clad windows manufactured from January 1, 1987 through May 23, 2014, and provides for a cash payment for eligible consumers submitting qualified claims showing, among other requirements, certain damage to their MW vinyl clad windows. The Court granted preliminary approval of this settlement on May 23, 2014, and issued a Final Approval Order, Final Judgment, and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice (the "Final Approval Order") on December 29, 2014, granting final approval of the settlement as well as MW's payment of attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of $2.5 million. On January 13, 2015, notice of appeal of the final approval (the "Appeal") was given by certain objectors to the settlement, Karl Memari, Joelene Connor-Hethcox and Vincent Cecil Garrett, Jr. (the "Objectors"). On May 6, 2015, MW entered into a settlement agreement with, among others, the Objectors to fully and finally resolve their claims, including the dismissal of Karl Memari v. Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. et al., another pending lawsuit seeking class certification, making the Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement final and binding on the parties. The Company and MW deny all liability in the settlements and with respect to the facts and claims alleged. The Company, however, is aware of the substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation, and therefore agreed to settle these matters. PLY GEM: "Memari" Case in South Carolina Court Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------- Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that plaintiff dismissed the case, Karl Memari v. Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. et al. In Karl Memari v. Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. et al., a purported class action filed in March 2013 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleges damages as a result of the illegality and/or defects of MW's vinyl clad windows. The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief, including (i) actual and compensatory damages, (ii) punitive damages, and (iii) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. Plaintiff dismissed this matter in connection with the settlement of the Appeal in the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases. PLY GEM: No Class Certification Ruling in "Pagliaroni" Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that a court has not yet ruled on the hearing regarding class certification in the case, Anthony Pagliaroni v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. and Deceuninck North America, LLC. In Anthony Pagliaroni v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. and Deceuninck North America, LLC, a purported class action filed in January 2012 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleges damages as a result of the defective design and manufacture of Oasis composite deck and railing, which was manufactured by Deceuninck North America, LLC ("Deceuninck") and sold by Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. ("MHE"). The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive damages, and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified. Discovery regarding class certification has closed and the hearing regarding class certification was held on March 10, 2015, although the Court has not yet ruled on this hearing. Deceuninck, as the manufacturer of Oasis deck and railing, has agreed to indemnify MHE for certain liabilities related to this claim pursuant to the sales and distribution agreement, as amended, between Deceuninck and MHE. MHE's ability to seek indemnification from Deceuninck is, however, limited by the terms and limits of the indemnity as well as the strength of Deceuninck's financial condition, which could change in the future. PLY GEM: Court Has Not Yet Rule on Appeal in "Muhler" Case ---------------------------------------------------------- Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has yet to rule on the plaintiff's appeal in the case, The Muhler Company, Inc. v. Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. et al. In The Muhler Company, Inc. v. Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. et al., a lawsuit filed in April 2011 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division (the "Court"), plaintiff alleges unfair competition and trade practices. The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief, including (i) consequential damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive damages, and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. In April 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment with respect to the federal Lanham Act claims. In May 2013, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit with respect to the summary judgment granted on the federal Lanham Act claims, and the Fourth Circuit denied interlocutory appeal. With the summary judgment granted on the federal Lanham Act claims, only state unfair competition and trade practices claims remain. In April 2015, the Court heard arguments on the Company's motion for summary judgment with respect to such claims, and on July 13, 2015, the Court granted the Company's motion. On July 27, 2015, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit with respect to the Court's ruling. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has yet to rule on the plaintiff's appeal. The damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified. PLY GEM: Strathclyde Securities Litigation Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------- District Judge J. Paul Oetken of the Southern District of New York has granted defendants' motion to dismiss the case, In Re Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 14-CV-3577(JPO) (S.D.N.Y.). Judge Oetken, however, left the door open for lead plaintiff, the Strathclyde Pension Fund, to file a second amended complaint. That filing deadline was Oct. 28. The defendants are: Defendants Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. ("Ply Gem" or the "Company"), Gary E. Robinette, Shawn K. Poe, Frederick J. Iseman, Robert A. Ferris, Steven M. Lefkowitz, John D. Roach, Michael P. Haley, Timothy T. Hall, Jeffrey T. Barber, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LCC, Goldman, Sachs, & Co., UBS Securities LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Zelman Partners LLC, BB&T Capital Markets, and Stephens Inc. A copy of the Court's Sept. 29 order is available at http://is.gd/tArYbvfrom Leagle.com. Ply Gem explained in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2015: In re Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation is a purported federal securities class action filed on May 19, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., several of its directors and officers, and the underwriters associated with the Company's IPO. It is filed on behalf of all persons or entities, other than the defendants, who purchased the common shares of the Company pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO and seeks remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging that the Company's Form S-1 registration statement was negligently prepared and materially inaccurate, containing untrue statements of material fact and omitting material information which was required to be disclosed. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) damages together with interest thereon and (ii) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. On October 14, 2014, Strathclyde Pension Fund was certified as lead plaintiff, and class counsel was appointed. On February 13, 2015 the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint, on April 14, 2015 the lead plaintiff filed its opposition to that motion to dismiss, and on May 14, 2015 the defendants filed their reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss. The damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified. Pursuant to the Underwriting Agreement, dated May 22, 2013, entered into in connection with the IPO, the Company has agreed to reimburse the underwriters for the legal fees and other expenses reasonably incurred by the underwriters' law firm in its representation of the underwriters in connection with this matter. Pursuant to Indemnification Agreements, dated as of May 22, 2013, between the Company and each of the directors and officers named in this action, the Company has agreed to assume the defense of such directors and officers. The Company believes the purported federal securities class action is without merit and will vigorously defend against the lawsuit. POTTERY BARN: Recalls Water Bottles Due to Lead ----------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Pottery Barn Kids, of San Francisco, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 15,200 Avengers and Darth Vader Themed Water Bottles (in addition, 430 units were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The gray paint on the metal portion of the water bottle can contain excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. This recall involves Avengers and Darth Vader themed stainless steel water bottles with images of Thor, The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man on one and an image of Darth Vader and the Death Star on the other style. The water bottles are gray with a blue or black plastic top, a vacuum-valve stopper and are 5 1/2 inches tall by 2 3/4 inches in diameter. SKU number 7939721 (Avengers) or 7939721 (Darth Vader) is printed on the price sticker affixed to the bottom of the bottle, along with one of the following date codes: 12/2013, 8/2014 or 12/2014. A tracking label imprinted on the underside of the bottle contains the date code printed along with the words, "Pottery Barn Kids," "LOT 1, BATCH 1" and "JINHUA, CHINA." No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/5A8TFq The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Pottery Barn Kids and Pottery Barn Outlet stores nationwide, through the Pottery Barn Kids catalog and online at www.potterybarnkids.com from June 2014 through September 2015 for about $16. Consumers should immediately take the recalled water bottles from children and return them to the nearest Pottery Barn Kids store or contact the firm's toll-free number for free shipping information. Consumers will have the option of a full refund or replacement water bottle, plus a $20 Pottery Barn Kids gift card. PRA GROUP: Court Lifted Stay in TCPA Litigation ----------------------------------------------- PRA Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court has lifted the stay in the case, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation. The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative class action cases, each alleging that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by calling consumers' cellular telephones without their prior express consent. On December 21, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on Multi- District Litigation entered an order transferring these matters into one consolidated proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court"). On November 14, 2012, the putative class plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint in the matter, now styled as In re Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, case No. 11-md-02295 (the "MDL action"). Following the ruling of the United States Federal Communications Commission on June 10, 2015 on various petitions concerning the TCPA, the Court lifted the stay of these matters that had been in place since May 20, 2014. QUALITY BICYCLE: Recalls Bicycles & Cranksets Due to Fall Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Quality Bicycle Products, Inc. (QBP), of Bloomington, Minn., announced a voluntary recall of about 70 bicycles and about 170 cranksets (in addition, about 40 bicycles and about 40 cranksets were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The left end of the bicycle crankset spindle can break, posing a fall hazard to the rider. The recall involves WeThePeople Envy BMX bicycles and aftermarket ECLAT Aeon BMX cranksets. The Envy BMX bicycles have a 20.6 or 21 inch chromoly frame, painted dark gold. The bicycle bottom bracket has an "ENVY20.6" or "ENVY21" stamp. The ECLAT Aeon BMX cranksets are the gears at the front of the bicycle chain with pedals attached to the outer ends. The cranksets have a steel, two-piece construction. Printed on the left side of the spindle is ESS Eclat 22mm" and next to the pedal, on the crank arm is "Aeon." Printed on the inside of the crank arm is "Eclat Germany" followed by the crank arm length "170mm" or "175mm." WeThePeople has received five reports of the crankset spindles breaking. No injuries have been reported. The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at BMX bicycle/product dealers, WeThePeople distributors and specialty bicycle retailers nationwide and online at www.QBP.com and other BMX bicycle/product websites from September 2014 through July 2015. The Envy bicycles sold for about $1,100 and the aftermarket cranksets sold for about $180. Consumers should immediately stop riding the recalled bicycles and cranksets and return to the store where purchased for a free inspection and free replacement spindle. QUANTA SERVICES: "Benton" Action Seeks $21MM for Damages, Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Quanta Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, Lorenzo Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., et al., the plaintiffs seek approximately $16 million for class damages and $5 million in attorneys' fees. In June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against Telecom Network Specialists (TNS), a former subsidiary of Quanta. Benton seeks to represent a class of workers that includes all persons who worked on TNS projects between June 2002 and the present, including individuals that TNS retained through 29 staffing agencies. An amended complaint was filed in August 2007, naming two additional class representatives, one of whom has since settled directly with his employer. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was heard and denied in May 2012. The plaintiffs appealed the denial of class certification, and in October 2013, the California Court of Appeal reversed the denial and remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration. In November 2013, TNS filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of California, which was denied. The parties attended mediation in December 2014, however, there was no resolution. In March 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification in the remanded proceeding. The plaintiffs seek approximately $16 million for class damages and $5 million in attorneys' fees. Quanta retained any liability associated with this matter following its sale of TNS in December 2012. REDBACK ENERGY: "Reynolds" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- William Reynolds, and all others similarly-situated v. Redback Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-01145 (W.D. Okla., October 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Redback Energy Services, LLC is an oil and gas service company specializing in completion and production services, including pump down and flowback services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS &JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Tel: (713) 751-0025 Fax: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com ROVINI CONCRETE: "Figueroa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Frankie Figueroa, Dannion Jordan, Jamez Leggett, Lamont Gray and Shawn Parrilla, and all others similarly-situated v. Rovini Concrete Corp., Rovini Construction Corp., vincent Zollo and Rosemary Zollo, Case No. 1:15-cv-08058 (S.D.N.Y., October 13, 2015), seek to recover unpaid overtime premium pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants own and operate concrete and construction companies in New York. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 385-9700 E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com RUSTICO FOODS: Recalls Soup Products Due to Non-Inspection ---------------------------------------------------------- Rustico Foods, a Los Angeles, Calif. establishment, is recalling approximately 2,659 pounds of packaged soup products that were produced without the benefit of federal inspection and outside inspection hours, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The ready to eat soups were produced from Sept. 24, 2015, through Oct. 21, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: --- 2-lb. individual plastic container of soup labeled "CHICKEN MATZO BALL." --- 1.6-lb. individual plastic container of soup labeled "CHICKEN MATZO BALL." --- 1.6-lb. individual plastic container of soup labeled "TURKEY CHILI WITH BEANS." --- 1.6-lb. individual plastic container of soup labeled "CHICKEN VEGETABLE." The products subject to recall bear establishment number "P-45180" inside the USDA mark of inspection. They also bear lot codes "Lot #2662015" through "Lot #2942015" on the bottom of the container and "Best By 10/21/15" through "Best By 11/18/15" stickers on the sides of the container. These items were shipped to retail establishments in southern California. The problem was discovered when an FSIS Consumer Safety Inspector identified return products that he did not have knowledge of being produced. An FSIS Enforcement Investigations and Analysis Officer then visited the establishment and determined that the establishment also produced some products outside of their approved hours of inspection. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact Jorge Castaneda, Plant Coordinator, at (213) 749-9670. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. SAM'S WEST: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Costumer Refund ---------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Chikosi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sam's West, Inc., Sam's East, Inc., and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01675 (C.D. Cal., October 19, 2015) is brought to remedy unfair and unlawful practices by the Defendants for failure to comply with the terms of its 200% refund guarantee. The Defendants operate a chain of discount department stores and warehouse stores, including Walmart Supercenters, Walmart Discount Stores, and Sam's Club retail warehouses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ali Abtahi, Esq. ABTAHI LAW GROUP PC 4000 MacArthur Blvd, Suite 600 East Tower Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 326-5500 Facsimile: (949) 326-5501 E-mail: aabtahi@abtahilaw.com - and - T. Christopher Tuck, Esq. RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC 1037 Chuck Dawley, Blvd., Building A Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 727-6500 Facsimile: (843) 216-6509 E-mail: ctuck@rpwb.com - and - William D. Herlong, Esq. THE HERLONG LAW FIRM, LLC 1421 Augusta Street P.O. Box 8217 Greenville, SC 29604 Telephone: (864) 238-5111 Facsimile: (864) 752-0820 E-mail: William@HerlongLaw.com SHAN NAMKEEN: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dimas Rodriguez, and all others similarly situated v. Shan Namkeen, Inc. and Shailesh Patel, Case No. 3:15-cv-03370-M (N.D. Tex., October 19, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are in the commercial food manufacturing business in Dallas, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq Joshua A. Petersen, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.C. 6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112 Dallas, TX 75240 Telephone: (972) 233-2264 Facsimile: (972) 386-7610 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net josh.a.petersen@gmail.com SHULER MEATS: Recalls Turkey Products Due Non-Inspection -------------------------------------------------------- Shuler Meats, a Thomasville, N.C. establishment, is recalling approximately 25,920 pounds of turkey products that were reconditioned without the benefit of FSIS inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The fully cooked smoked turkey legs were produced from Nov. 24, 2014, through May 4, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: --- 648 - 40 lb. (approximate weight) plastic-lined cardboard boxes containing frozen turkey legs with the labels: "Shuler Meats, Co." and "Belmont Meats, Co." The products subject to recall bear establishment number "P-21309" on the Belmont Meats, Co. boxes, and "M-40367" on the Shuler Meats, Co. label. These items were distributed to fairs and retailers in North Carolina. The problem was discovered when staff from the North Carolina Department of Agriculture notified FSIS personnel of the issue. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact Wayne Shuler, owner of Shuler Meats, at (336) 476-6477. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Lawsuits on Premature Corrosion Resolved --------------------------------------------------------------- Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the following lawsuits, which all alleged premature corrosion of the Company's strap tie holdown products in a housing development known as Ocean Pointe in Honolulu, Hawaii, have been resolved by means of a written settlement agreement (the "Settlement"): Alvarez v. Haseko Homes, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing, Inc., Civil No. 09-1-2697- 11 ("Case 1"); Ke Noho Kai Development, LLC v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., and Honolulu Wood Treating Co., LTD., Case No. 09- 1-1491-06 SSM ("Case 2"); North American Specialty Ins. Co. v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. and K.C. Metal Products, Inc., Case No. 09-1-1490-06 VSM ("Case 3"); and Charles et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc. et al. and Third Party Plaintiffs Haseko Homes, Inc. et al. v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et al., Civil No. 09- 1-1932-08 ("Case 4," and collectively, the "Cases"). Cases 1 and 4 were homeowner class actions consolidated for all purposes. The Hawaii First District Circuit Court had previously granted the Company summary judgment on all claims asserted by the plaintiff homeowners against the Company in Cases 1 and 4. The Court further granted the Company summary judgment on various claims and cross- claims asserted by the housing developer and sub-contractor defendants against the Company. The only claim remaining against the Company in any of the Cases, which was asserted by the developer and sub-contractor defendants for alleged negligent misrepresentation, was resolved pursuant to the Settlement without adjudication or any admission of liability by the Company. The Settlement may not be used as evidence of liability against any party. The Court granted final approval of the Settlement on June 19, 2015, and the Cases will be dismissed in due course. The Company incurred no uninsured liability to the homeowner plaintiffs, or to the developer or sub-contractor defendants, in connection with the Cases or the Settlement. The following insurance coverage lawsuits related to the above- referenced Cases have also been resolved through settlement: National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Simpson Manufacturing Company, Inc., et al., Civil No. 11-00254 ACK (the "National Union Action"); Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Civil No. 11 1789 SBA (the "Fireman's Fund Action"); and Simpson Manufacturing Company, Inc, et al. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company, et al., Case No. CGC-11-516046 (collectively the "Insurance Coverage Cases"). These Insurance Coverage Cases will be dismissed in due course after the Company's insurance companies make agreed contributions to the above-referenced Settlement. The Company incurred no liability in connection with the Insurance Coverage Cases. SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Class Cert. Bid in "Nishimura" Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a request for class certification in the case, Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd., et al., remains pending. Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd; Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc.; and Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., Civil no. 11-1-1522-7, was filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit of Hawaii on July 20, 2011. The Nishimura case alleges premature corrosion of the Company's strap tie holdown products in a housing development at Ewa Beach in Honolulu, Hawaii. In February 2012, the Court dismissed three of the five claims the plaintiffs had asserted against the Company. In December 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims. The Plaintiffs continue to prosecute their claims against the developer of their properties, and on April 1, 2015, filed a motion to seek certification to proceed on behalf of a class of homeowner plaintiffs. SKECHERS U.S.A.: Trials Expected in Early to Mid-2016 ----------------------------------------------------- Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that trials in the lawsuits related to the Shape-ups shoes are expected to be set for dates in early to mid-2016. The Company said, "On February 20, 2011, Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers Fitness Group were named as defendants in a lawsuit that alleged, among other things, that Shape-ups are defective and unreasonably dangerous, negligently designed and/or manufactured, and do not conform to representations made by our company, and that we failed to provide adequate warnings of alleged risks associated with Shape-ups. In total, we are named as a defendant in 1,199 currently pending cases (some on behalf of multiple plaintiffs) filed in various courts that assert further varying injuries but employ similar legal theories and assert similar claims to the first case, as well as claims for breach of express and implied warranties, loss of consortium, and fraud. Although there are some variations in the relief sought, the plaintiffs generally seek compensatory and/or economic damages, exemplary and/or punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs." "On December 19, 2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order establishing a multidistrict litigation ("MDL") proceeding in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky entitled In re Skechers Toning Shoe Products Liability Litigation, case no. 11-md-02308-TBR. Since 2011, a total of 1,233 personal injury cases have been filed in or transferred to the MDL proceeding and 414 additional individuals have submitted claims by plaintiff fact sheets. The Company has resolved 432 personal injury claims in the MDL proceedings, comprised of 62 that were filed as formal actions and 370 that were submitted by plaintiff fact sheets. Skechers has also settled 8 claims in principle -- 6 filed cases and 2 claims submitted by plaintiff fact sheets -- and anticipates that those settlements will be finalized in the near term. Forty-two cases in the MDL proceeding have been dismissed either voluntarily or on motions by Skechers and 38 unfiled claims submitted by plaintiff fact sheet have been abandoned. The MDL currently encompasses 1,129 personal injury cases (which include the claims of 1,437 individuals who filed court approved questionnaires) and 4 claims submitted by plaintiff fact sheets." Under a mediation procedure authorized by the District Court, a total of 2,353 settlement questionnaires were submitted by persons who had yet to file a lawsuit or who were already participants in the MDL or related coordinated proceedings pending in California state court. Mediations were held on October 4, 2014 and December 16, 2014, but no settlements were reached. On December 29, 2014, the District Court ordered that a total of sixty cases be selected by the parties for staggered, accelerated discovery and then either be remanded to their originating districts or set for trial. The sixty cases were selected in January 2015 and both written and deposition discovery is proceeding. Seven of the 60 accelerated cases have been dismissed either voluntarily or on motions by Skechers, and the Company expects the stipulated dismissal of an additional case will be ordered in the near term. To the extent that the remaining 52 accelerated cases are not resolved by dispositive motions or otherwise, trials are expected to be set for dates in early to mid-2016." SKECHERS U.S.A.: Trial Dates Set for First 2 Bellwether Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that if the remaining bellwether cases are not resolved, the court set trial dates of October 26, 2015 and January 25, 2016 for the first two bellwether cases, but deferred selection of the specific individual bellwether plaintiff to go forward on each of those two dates to a later time. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers Fitness Group have been named as defendants in a total of 71 personal injury actions filed in various Superior Courts of the State of California that were brought on behalf of 914 individual plaintiffs (360 of whom also submitted MDL court-approved questionnaires for mediation purposes in the MDL proceeding). Of those cases, 67 were originally filed in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles (the "LASC cases"). On August 20, 2014, the Judicial Council of California granted a petition by the Company to coordinate all personal injury actions filed in California that relate to Shape-ups with the LASC cases (collectively, the "LASC Coordinated Cases"). On October 6, 2014, three cases that had been pending in other counties were transferred to and coordinated with the LASC Coordinated Cases. On April 17, 2015, an additional case was transferred to and coordinated with the LASC Coordinated Cases. Four of the actions originally filed as LASC cases, brought on behalf of a total of 6 plaintiffs, have been dismissed. The claims of 44 additional plaintiffs have been dismissed entirely from certain of the lawsuits, either voluntarily, on motion by Skechers, or pursuant to a settlement agreement. The claims of 21 additional persons have been dismissed in part, either voluntarily or on motions by Skechers. Thus, the LASC Coordinated Cases currently involve 67 pending personal injury lawsuits brought on behalf of a total of 864 plaintiffs. On March 12, 2014, the Superior Court selected twelve plaintiffs as bellwether cases to be set for one or more trials starting in March 2015. To date, extensive written discovery and document productions have taken place in the LASC cases. Over twenty fact witness depositions have been taken (all of which were cross- noticed in the MDL), as have eight expert depositions. Two of the bellwether cases have settled and one bellwether plaintiff dismissed her action after Skechers filed a motion for summary judgment. On January 7, 2015, the Court vacated the March 2015 initial bellwether trial date and granted Skechers' motions for summary adjudication in five bellwether cases with respect to those plaintiffs' advertising-related claims, including their claims for breach of warranty, fraud, and violations of consumer protection laws. On February 25, 2015, the Court granted Skechers' motions for summary adjudication in the four remaining bellwether cases with respect to those plaintiffs' advertising-related claims, including their claims for breach of warranty, fraud, and violations of consumer protection laws; the Court also granted Skechers' summary adjudication motions as to two of the four plaintiffs' products liability claims for an alleged failure to warn, and took under submission the portion of Skechers' motions seeking summary adjudication of all four plaintiffs' products liability claims for alleged design defects. If the remaining bellwether cases are not resolved, the Court also set trial dates of October 26, 2015 and January 25, 2016 for the first two bellwether cases, but deferred selection of the specific individual bellwether plaintiff to go forward on each of those two dates to a later time. SKECHERS U.S.A.: Jan. 4 Trial Set in Missouri State Court Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in other state courts, a total of 13 personal injury actions (some on behalf of numerous plaintiffs) have been filed that have not been removed to federal court and transferred to the multidistrict litigation ("MDL"). Ten of those actions have been resolved and dismissed. The remaining 3 actions include the claims of 220 plaintiffs, all of whom had submitted court-approved settlement questionnaires in the MDL. No discovery has taken place in these actions. If not otherwise resolved, a trial date of January 4, 2016, has been set in one action currently pending in Missouri state-court. No other trial dates have been set. SKECHERS U.S.A.: Settlements Being Negotiated with Several Groups ----------------------------------------------------------------- Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the personal injury cases in the multidistrict litigation ("MDL") and the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles Coordinated Cases and in other state courts are in many instances solicited and handled by the same plaintiffs law firms. Mediations were held with these laws firms on May 18, June 18, and July 24, 2015. The Company said, "Settlements in principle are being negotiated with several groups that collectively claim to represent over 2,700 claimants. The settlements involve complex monetary and non- monetary terms that still have to be negotiated and documented. If the group settlements are not finalized and the litigation proceeds, it is too early to predict the outcome of any case, whether adverse results in any single case or in the aggregate would have a material adverse impact on our operations or financial position, and whether insurance coverage will be adequate to cover any losses." "Notwithstanding, we believe we have meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations and intend to defend each of these cases vigorously. In addition, even if the global settlement is finalized, it is too early to predict whether there will be future personal injury cases filed which are not covered by the settlement, whether adverse results in any single case or in the aggregate would have a material adverse impact on our operations or financial position, and whether insurance coverage will be available and/or adequate to cover any losses." SKECHERS U.S.A.: "Grabowski" Deal to Resolve 2 Other Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the settlement reached in the Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected to resolve the class actions: -- Patty Tomlinson v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.; and -- Elma Boatright and Sharon White v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers Fitness Group. "Tomlinson" Case The Company said, "On January 13, 2011, Patty Tomlinson filed a lawsuit against our company in Circuit Court in Washington County, Arkansas, Case No. CV11-121-7. The complaint alleges, on her behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, that our advertising for Shape-ups violates Arkansas' Deceptive Trade Practices Act, constitutes a breach of certain express and implied warranties, and is resulting in unjust enrichment (the "Tomlinson action"). The complaint seeks certification of a statewide class, compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs." "On February 18, 2011, we removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, where it was pending as Patty Tomlinson v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., CV 11-05042 JLH. On March 21, 2011, Ms. Tomlinson moved to remand the action back to Arkansas state court, which motion we opposed. On May 25, 2011, the Court ordered the case remanded to Arkansas state court and denied our motion to dismiss or transfer as moot, but stayed the remand pending completion of appellate review. "On September 11, 2012, the District Court lifted its stay and remanded this case to the Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas. On October 11, 2012, by stipulation of the parties, the state Circuit Court issued an order staying the case. On August 13, 2012, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the nationwide consumer class action settlement in Grabowski v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. Case No. 3:12-CV-00204, and Morga v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 3:12-CV-00205 (the "Grabowski/Morga class actions"), and issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the continued prosecution of the Tomlinson action, among other cases. On May 13, 2013, the Court in the Grabowski/Morga class actions entered an order finally approving the nationwide consumer class action settlement, and the time for any appeals therefrom has expired. The settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected entirely to resolve the class claims brought by the plaintiff in Tomlinson." "Boatright" Case The Company also said, "On February 15, 2012, Elma Boatright and Sharon White filed a lawsuit against our company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Case No. 3:12-cv-87-S. The complaint alleges, on behalf of the named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated, that our advertising for Shape-ups is false and misleading, thereby constituting a breach of contract, breach of implied and express warranties, fraud, and resulting in unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs." "On March 6, 2012, the named plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate this action with In re Skechers Toning Shoe Products Liability Litigation, case no. 11-md-02308-TBR. On August 13, 2012, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the consumer class action settlement agreement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions (described above), and issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the continued prosecution of this action. On May 13, 2013, the Court in the Grabowski/Morga class actions entered an order finally approving the nationwide consumer class action settlement, and the time for any appeals therefrom has expired. The settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected entirely to resolve the class claims brought by the plaintiff in Boatright." SKECHERS U.S.A.: Distribution of Funds to "Angell" Class Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that following approval of a deal to resolve the case, Jason Angell v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers U.S.A. Canada, Inc., claims are still being evaluated and the funds still have to be distributed to class members. The Company said, "On April 12, 2012, Jason Angell filed a motion to authorize the bringing of a class action in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal. Petitioner Angell seeks to bring a class action on behalf of all residents of Canada (or in the alternative, all residents of Quebec) who purchased Skechers Shape-ups footwear. Petitioner's motion alleges that we have marketed Shape-ups through the use of false and misleading advertisements and representations about the products' ability to provide health benefits to users. The motion requests the Court's authorization to institute a class action seeking damages (including damages for bodily injury), punitive damages, and injunctive relief. Petitioner's motion was formally presented to the Court on June 29, 2012." "At a mediation held on February 28, 2013, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Angell action (as well as the Niras and Dedato actions described below) through authorization by the Quebec Superior Court of a nationwide settlement class. That agreement was finalized by the parties in December 2013 and thereafter presented to the Quebec Superior Court for approval. "On November 5, 2014, the Court issued its formal judgment approving the settlement and the time for appealing the judgment has now expired without any appeal. Notwithstanding, claims are still being evaluated and the funds still have to be distributed to class members. In the event that there are unforeseen circumstances which upset the settlement, we cannot predict the outcome of this action or a reasonable range of potential losses or whether the outcome of this action would have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial position or result in a material loss in excess of the settlement or a recorded accrual." "Davis/Smith" Case Skechers U.S.A., Inc. also disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, updates in the case, Brenda Davies/Kourtney Smith v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II, and Skechers U.S.A. Canada Inc. The Company said, "On September 5, 2012, Brenda Davies filed a Statement of Claim in the Court of Queen's Bench in Edmonton, Alberta, on behalf of all residents of Canada who purchased Skechers Shape-ups footwear. The Statement of Claim alleges that Skechers marketed Shape-ups through the use of false and misleading advertisements and representations about the products' ability to provide fitness benefits to users. The Statement of Claim seeks damages (including damages for bodily injury), restitution, punitive damages, and injunctive relief." "On or about November 21, 2013, an Amended Statement of Claim was filed to substitute a new representative plaintiff, Kourtney Smith, in place of Ms. Davies and to allege substantially the same claims as in the original Statement of Claim with respect to all Skechers toning footwear sold to residents of Canada. "On or about February 28, 2014, representative plaintiff Smith agreed to the terms and conditions of the settlement reached in the Angell, Niras, and Dedato class actions. . ., and agreed to discontinue the Davies/Smith action once the settlement in the Angell, Niras, and Dedato class actions is finally approved by the Court and affirmed on appeal in the event an appeal is taken. On November 5, 2014, the Quebec Superior Court issued its formal judgment approving the settlement in the Angell class action and the time for appealing the judgment has now expired without any appeal. "On January 16, 2015, the Court in the Davies/Smith action issued an order effectively dismissing that action. Notwithstanding, claims are still being evaluated in connection with the settlement of the Angell action and the funds still have to be distributed to class members. In the event that there are unforeseen circumstances which upset the settlement we cannot predict the outcome of the Davies/Smith action or a reasonable range of potential losses or whether the outcome of the Davies/Smith action would have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial position or result in a material loss in excess of the settlement or a recorded accrual." "Niras" Case Skechers U.S.A., Inc. also disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, updates in the George Niras v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II, and Skechers U.S.A. Canada Inc. The Company said, "On September 21, 2012, George Niras filed a Statement of Claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of all residents of Canada who purchased Shape-ups, Resistance Runners, Shape-ups Toners/Trainers, or Tone-ups. The Statement of Claim alleges that Skechers marketed these toning shoes through the use of false and misleading advertisements and representations about the products' ability to provide health benefits to users. The Statement seeks damages, restitution, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. At a mediation held on February 28, 2013, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Niras action (as well as the Angell action described above and the Dedato action) through authorization by the Quebec Superior Court of a nationwide settlement class." "That agreement was finalized by the parties in December 2013 and thereafter presented to the Quebec Superior Court for approval. On November 5, 2014, the Quebec Superior Court issued its formal judgment approving the settlement and the time for appealing the judgment has now expired without any appeal. On November 20, 2014, the Ontario Superior Court issued an order effectively dismissing the Niras action. "Notwithstanding, claims are still being evaluated in connection with the settlement of the Angell action and the funds still have to be distributed to class members. In the event that there are unforeseen circumstances which upset the settlement, we cannot predict the outcome of the Niras action or a reasonable range of potential losses or whether the outcome of the Niras action would have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial position or result in a material loss in excess of the settlement or a recorded accrual." "Dedato" Case Skechers U.S.A., Inc. also disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, updates in the case, Frank Dedato v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A. Canada, Inc. The Company said, "On or about November 5, 2012, Frank Dedato filed a Statement of Claim in Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of all residents of Canada who purchased Shape-ups, Tone- ups or Resistance Runners footwear. The Statement of Claim alleges that Skechers has allegedly made misleading statements about its footwear products' ability to provide fitness benefits to users. The Statement of Claim seeks damages, restitution, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. At a mediation held on February 28, 2013, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Dedato action (as well as the Angell and Niras actions) through authorization by the Quebec Superior Court of a nationwide settlement class. That agreement was finalized by the parties in December 2013 and thereafter presented to the Quebec Superior Court for approval." "On November 5, 2014, the Quebec Superior Court issued its formal judgment approving the settlement and the time for appealing the judgment has now expired without any appeal. Notwithstanding, claims are still being evaluated in connection with the settlement of the Angell action and the funds still have to be distributed to class members. In the event that there are unforeseen circumstances which upset the settlement, we cannot predict the outcome of the Dedato action or a reasonable range of potential losses or whether the outcome of the Dedato action would have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial position or result in a material loss in excess of the settlement or a recorded accrual." "Cooper" Case Skechers U.S.A., Inc. also disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, updates in the case, Susan Cooper et al. v. Ontrea Inc. et al. On October 22, 2014, the Company was named as a third-party defendant in a lawsuit pending in the Court of Queen's Bench in Calgary, Alberta, Case No. 1301 10673. The third party notice asserts claims for indemnification and contribution arising from injuries plaintiff allegedly sustained as a result of wearing Shape-ups shoes. The class action settlement in the Angell action, is expected to resolve the Cooper action. "However, in the event there are unforeseen circumstances that upset the settlement, we cannot predict the outcome of the Cooper action or a reasonable range of potential losses or whether the outcome of the Cooper action would have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial position or result in a material loss in excess of the settlement or a recorded accrual," the Company said. SOLAZYME INC: Norfolk County Retirement System Case Filed --------------------------------------------------------- Solazyme, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a securities class action complaint entitled Norfolk County Retirement System v. Solazyme, Inc. et al. was filed in June 2015, against the Company, its CEO, Jonathan Wolfson, its CFO/COO, Tyler Painter, certain of its current and former directors, and the underwriters of its March 2014 equity and debt offerings, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Inc. and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1934, as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class that would comprise all individuals who acquired the Company's securities (i) between February 27, 2014 and November 5, 2014 and (ii) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's public equity and debt offerings in March 2014. The complaint alleges that investors were misled by statements made during that period about the construction progress, development, and production capacity associated with the production facility located in Brazil owned by the Company's joint venture, Solazyme Bunge Produtos Renovaveis Ltda. The Company believes the complaint lacks merit, and intends to defend itself vigorously. SOUTHWEST BANCORP: Cohen Entered Appearance as Co-Counsel --------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll based in Washington, D.C. has entered its appearance as co-counsel on behalf of plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit. On March 18, 2011, an action entitled Ubaldi, et al. v SLM Corporation ("Sallie Mae"), et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-01320 EDL (the "Ubaldi Case") was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as a putative class action with respect to certain loans that the plaintiffs claim were made by Sallie Mae. The loans in question were made by various banks, including Bank SNB, and sold to Sallie Mae. Plaintiffs claim that Sallie Mae entered into arrangements with chartered banks in order to evade California law and that Sallie Mae is the de facto lender on the loans in question and, as the lender on such loan, Sallie Mae charged interest and late fees that violates California usury law and the California Business and Professions Code. Sallie Mae has denied all claims asserted against it and has stated that it intends to vigorously defend the action. On March 26, 2014, the Court denied the plaintiffs' request to certify the class; however, the Court permitted the plaintiffs to amend the filing to redefine the class. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion on June 23, 2014. On December 19, 2014, the Court issued a decision on the renewed motion, certifying a class with respect to claims of improper late fees, but denying class certification with respect to plaintiffs' usury claims. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion seeking leave to amend their complaint to add additional parties, which Sallie Mae opposed, and, on March 24, 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion. On June 5, 2015, the law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll based in Washington, D.C. entered its appearance as co-counsel on behalf of plaintiffs. Bank SNB is not specifically named in the action. However, in the first quarter of 2014, Sallie Mae provided Bank SNB with a notice of claims that have been asserted against Sallie Mae in the Ubaldi Case (the "Notice"). Sallie Mae asserts in the Notice that Bank SNB may have indemnification and/or repurchase obligations pursuant to the ExportSS Agreement dated July 1, 2002 between Sallie Mae and Bank SNB, pursuant to which the loans in question were made by Bank SNB. Bank SNB has substantial defenses with respect to any claim for indemnification or repurchase ultimately made by Sallie Mae, if any, and intends to vigorously defend against any such claims. Due to the uncertainty regarding (i) the size and scope of the class, (ii) whether a class will ultimately be certified, (iii) the particular class members, (iv) the interest rate on loans made by Bank SNB charged to particular class members, (v) the late fees charged to particular class members, (vi) the time period that will ultimately be at issue if a class is certified in the Ubaldi Case, (vii) the theories, if any, under which the plaintiffs might prevail, (viii) whether Sallie Mae will make a claim against us for indemnification or repurchase, and (ix) the likelihood that Sallie Mae would prevail if it makes such a claim, we cannot estimate the amount or the range of losses that may arise as a result of the Ubaldi Case. SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Proceedings in "Perry" Action Stayed -------------------------------------------------------------- Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court ordered a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of mediation between the parties in the case, John Perry v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Filed March 14, 2013 in United States District Court, District of Nevada; Case Number 2:2013-cv-00433-LDG-CWH). This putative consolidated class action raises substantially identical claims and allegations against defendants Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Dr. Rajesh C. Shrotriya, Brett L. Scott, and Joseph Kenneth Keller. The alleged class period is August 8, 2012 to March 12, 2013. The lawsuits allege a violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against all defendants and control person liability, as a violation of Section 20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against the individual defendants. The claims purportedly stem from the Company's March 12, 2013 press release, in which it announced that it anticipated a change in ordering patterns of FUSILEV. The complaints allege that, as a result of the March 12, 2013 press release, the Company's stock price declined. The complaints further allege that during the putative class period certain defendants made misleadingly optimistic statements about FUSILEV sales, which inflated the trading price of Company stock. The lawsuits seek relief in the form of monetary damages, costs and fees, and any other equitable or injunctive relief that the court deems appropriate. On March 21, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing Arkansas Teacher Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On May 20, 2014, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. "On July 18, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint. On March 26, 2015, the court denied the motion to dismiss. On June 15, 2015, the Court ordered a stay of the proceedings pending the outcome of mediation between the parties," the Company said. STEEL DYNAMICS: Class Certification Bid Remains Under Advisement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steel Dynamics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a hearing on class certification was held on March 5 - 7 and April 11, 2014, and the matter remains under advisement. It's unclear when the court will issue its ruling on class certification. No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-Q report. The company is involved, along with other steel manufacturing companies, in several class action antitrust complaints pending in federal court in Chicago, Illinois, which allege a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which steel products were sold in the United States during a period between 2005 and 2007, by artificially restricting the supply of such steel products. One of the complaints was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all direct purchasers of steel products. A second complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all indirect purchasers of steel products within the same time period. An additional complaint was brought in December 2010, on behalf of indirect purchasers of steel products in Tennessee and has been consolidated with the original complaints. All complaints seek treble damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and injunctive relief. "Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification in May 2012, and on February 28, 2013, Defendants filed their Joint Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. A hearing on class certification was held on March 5 - 7 and April 11, 2014, and the matter remains under advisement. It's unclear when the court will issue its ruling on class certification," the Company said. SUPREME SERVICE: "Gomez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Augustine Gomez and Dallas Brown, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Supreme Service & Specialty Company, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-05264 (E.D. Lo., October 10, 2015) seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Supreme Service & Specialty Company, Inc. is the largest independent specialty rental company in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael T. Tusa Jr., Esq. SUTTON, ALKER & RATHER, LLC 4080 Lonesome Road, Suite A Mandeville, LO 70448 Telephone: (985) 727-7501 Facsimile: (985) 727-7505 E-mail: mtusa@sutton-alker.com SYATT FRANCHISING: "Fuller" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Fuller, Maqunair, Rodrigues De Freitas, and Adilson Dos Santos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Syatt Franchising, Inc. d/b/a Jani-King of Greater Rhode Island, Jani-King International, and Jani-King, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00438-M-LDA (D.R.I., October 19, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Massachusetts Wage Laws. The Defendants own and operate a janitorial franchise company across the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02098 Telephone: (401) 831-7730 Facsimile: (401) 861-6064 E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com - and - James W. Simpson Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES SIMPSON, P.C. 100 Concord Street, Suite 3B Framingham, MA 01702 Telephone: (508) 872-0002 E-mail: james@simpsonlawoffices.com - and - Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Jill Kahn, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com jkahn@llrlaw.com TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls Turkey Meatloaf Products Due to Misbranding ----------------------------------------------------------------- Taylor Farms, a Swedesboro, N.J. establishment, is recalling approximately 276 pounds of turkey meatloaf products due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products contain eggs, soy and wheat, known allergens which are not declared on the product label. The items were produced on Oct. 15, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: -- 13.9-ounce, single serve trays containing Taylor Farms "Turkey Meatloaf with tomato bacon glaze." The products subject to recall bear establishment number "P-34513" inside the USDA mark of inspection and a Sell By date of Oct. 29, 2015. These items were shipped to retail locations in Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia. The problem was discovered by a Taylor Farms merchandiser. Taylor Farms then notified the FSIS Raleigh (N.C.) District Office. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact Marie Butler, company quality assurance director, at (856) 294- 4181. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. TESCO CORP: Participating in Arbitration to Settle Labor Rift ------------------------------------------------------------- Tesco Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is currently participating in an arbitration related to federal and state unpaid overtime actions. The Company is currently participating in an arbitration, based on the Company's dispute resolution process, with 29 current and former employees (the "Employees") who had worked or are working in various states. The Employees claim that they are owed unpaid overtime wages including liquidated damages under the Federal Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the applicable state laws of various states, including New Mexico and Colorado. The case is assigned to a three judge panel of arbitrators. The parties litigated the issue of whether or not a Rule 23 style opt-out class action is appropriate in this case and the arbitration panel has determined it is not appropriate for FLSA claims but is available for state law wage claims. "At June 30, 2015, we maintain an estimated reserve for potential exposure, which we consider adequate," the Company said. TMCD CORPORATION: "Long" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Robyn Long, and all others similarly-situated v. TMCD Corporation dba The Men's Club of Dallas dba The Men's Club of Charlotte dba The Men's Club of Houston, and David Fairchild, Case No. 3:15-cv- 03298 (N.D. Tex., October 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failing to pay minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant operates a family of gentelman's clubs located in Dallas and Houston, Texas and Charlotte, North Carolina. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP 1801 N. Lamar St. Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Tel: (214) 749-1400 Fax: (214) 749-1010 - and - Jack Siegel, Esq. SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC 10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040 Dallas, TX 75231 Tel: (214) 706-0834 TRADE STREET: Defending Class Action in Baltimore Circuit Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Trade Street Residential, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a complaint was filed on June 11, 2015, naming the Company and the members of the Company's Board of Directors as defendants in the Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore City. On July 15, 2015, plaintiffs amended their complaint and added Senator, Monarch Alternative Capital, LP ("Monarch") and BHR Capital LLC ("BHR") as defendants. The amended complaint purports to assert class action claims alleging that the members of the Company's Board breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and the Company's minority stockholders by approving the Merger for inadequate consideration, that the process leading up to the Merger was flawed, and that three directors of the Company, by virtue of their affiliations with certain stockholders of the Company, engaged in an alleged self-interested scheme to force the sale of the Company. The amended complaint alleges that the stockholder defendants aided and abetted these alleged violations and were unjustly enriched by the merger. Among other relief, the complaint seeks a finding that the individual director defendants are liable for breaching their fiduciary duties; an order requiring that the directors affiliated with the stockholder defendants disgorge all profits, compensation and other benefits obtained by them as a result of their conduct in connection with the Merger; and an award of plaintiffs' costs and disbursements of this action, including attorney's fees. The amended complaint does not seek an injunction against the shareholder vote or the closing of the transaction. The deadline for an answer or other responsive pleading by the defendants has not yet passed. The Company and the director defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claim and believe the probability of an unfavorable outcome as less than probable. However, the Company cannot give any assurance as to the legal or financial outcome of this defense. Due to the nature of the 2012 Recapitalization, the Company could find itself subject to a legal claim or proceeding associated with the previous business operations of the Predecessor. On February 13, 2015, the Company completed the settlement of a claim involving disputed charges on property previously owned by the Predecessor in the amount of approximately $0.7 million. The charge associated with this settlement was included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the Company's consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2014. Due to the nature of the Company's operations, it is possible that the Company's existing properties have or properties that the Company will acquire in the future have asbestos or other environmental related liabilities. TRE AMICI: Faces "Carrillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Arturo Carrillo and Pedro Jimenez, similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Tre Amici Pizza, LLC, and Colleen Felfle, Case No. 1:15-cv-09226 (N.D. Ill., October 19, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Defendants operate Tre Amici Pizza restaurant located at 1536 Nerge Rd., Elk Grove Village, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 800-1017 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com TTM TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Settlement Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------- TTM Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the settlement in the class action complaints related to Viasystems Acquisition remains pending. Since the public announcement on September 22, 2014 of the execution of the Merger Agreement, Viasystems, TTM, and the members of the Viasystems Board have been named as defendants in two putative class action complaints challenging the acquisition of Viasystems. The first lawsuit, filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri on September 30, 2014 (the Missouri Lawsuit), and the second lawsuit, filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on October 13, 2014 (the Delaware Lawsuit and, together with the Missouri Lawsuit, the Lawsuits), generally allege that the Merger fails to properly value Viasystems, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger Agreement, and that those breaches were aided and abetted by TTM and Viasystems. The Delaware Lawsuit specifically alleges, among other allegations, that (1) the Viasystems Board breached its fiduciary duties by: (a) agreeing to the Merger for grossly inadequate consideration, (b) agreeing to lock up the Merger with deal protection devices that prevent other bidders from making a successful competing offer for Viasystems, and (c) participating in a transaction where the loyalties of the Viasystems Board and management are divided; (2) the voting agreements entered into between the Company and certain of Viasystems' significant stockholders prevent Viasystems stockholders from providing a meaningful vote on the proposal to adopt the Merger; and (3) that those breaches of fiduciary duties were aided and abetted by TTM, Merger Sub, and Viasystems. Further, the Missouri Lawsuit specifically alleges, among other allegations, that (1) the proposed Merger is unfair and the consideration to be paid in connection with the Merger is inadequate; (2) the Viasystems Board and Viasystems' management have a conflict of interest due to the cash pool bonus and change in control payments to be made to certain executive officers and key employees if the Merger is consummated; and (3) the Merger Agreement contains impermissible deal protection devices. The Lawsuits seek injunctive relief to enjoin the defendants from completing the Merger on the agreed-upon terms, rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the Merger Agreement or any of the terms therein, costs and disbursements and attorneys' and experts' fees and costs, as well as other equitable relief as the respective court deems proper. The Delaware Lawsuit also seeks: (1) in the event the Merger is consummated prior to the entry of the court's final judgment, rescissory damages as an alternative to rescission, and (2) an accounting by all defendants to the plaintiff and other members of the class for all damages caused by the defendants and for all profits and any special benefits obtained as a result of their alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. On January 6, 2015, the parties to the Missouri Lawsuit entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with respect to a proposed settlement that will terminate both Lawsuits upon entry of the final judgment. Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement on May 22, 2015, that remains subject to customary conditions, including court approval. The settlement agreement does not require the defendants to pay any monetary consideration to the proposed settlement class. The settlement agreement provides for payment of attorneys' fees of the plaintiffs and reimbursement of expenses, in the amount to be determined by the court, but not to exceed $550,000. If the stipulation of settlement is approved by the court, it will fully and finally resolve all of the claims asserted, or that could have been asserted, in the Lawsuit against the defendants, and provide a release by the proposed settlement class of all claims against the defendants and their respective affiliates and agents in connection with the Merger. The proposed settlement is subject to the preliminary approval of the court as well as the court's final approval after notice of the terms of the settlement has been provided to the proposed settlement class. Timing of the approval process is dependent on the court's calendar. Members of the proposed settlement class will have the right to object to the settlement in writing to the court once the court has set a hearing for final approval. UGI CORPORATION: Notice of Appeal Filed by Direct Customers ----------------------------------------------------------- UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that direct customers have filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in a class action lawsuit. Between May and October of 2014, more than 35 purported class action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by certain of their direct and indirect customers. The class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor colluded, beginning in 2008, to reduce the fill level of portable propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to persuade its common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The claims seek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative classes. On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class action cases to the Western Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. In July 2015, the Court dismissed all claims brought by direct customers and all claims other than those for injunctive relief brought by indirect customers. The direct customers have filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; other procedural responses may be available to the indirect customers. "We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any, arising from such litigation. We believe we have strong defenses to the claims and intend to vigorously defend against them," the Company said. UNITED STATES STOVE: Recalls Pellet Heater/Stove Products --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with United States Stove Company, of South Pittsburg, Tenn., announced a voluntary recall of about 4,400 Pellet Heater/Stove. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The internal fire box baffle can degrade, overheat and pose a fire hazard. The recall includes United States Stove Company's HomComfort 2400 24K BTU Pellet Heater/Stoves. These steel and polycarbonate products are grey and are used as a window mounted heating appliance. The heaters measure about 21.5 inches high by 24.5 inches deep by 23 inches wide. Serial numbers included in the recall are 0451 through 4420, 5681 through 5890 and 6301 through 6310. The firm name and serial number are printed on the faceplate attached by screws on the front bottom of the unit. The United States Stove Company has received 16 reports of fire and property damage. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/8jyqDf The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Northern Tool, Orsheln, Orgill Brothers and Rural King home heating retailers and online at www.HomeDepot.com, www.Lowes.com and www.NorthernTool.com from April 2010 through March 2012 for about $1000. Consumers should immediately unplug these units, stop using the product and return the circuit board and serial face plate to the firm for $868 cash or $1,200 credit towards the purchase of any United States Stove Company product. USPACK LOGISTICS: Faces "Easterday" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Easterday, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. USPack Logistics LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv- 07559-RBK-KMW (D.N.J.., October 19, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and New Jersey common law. USPack Logistics LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that supplies courier services throughout the State of New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Esq. BERGEN & MONTAGUE, PC 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: apiazza@bm.net scarson@bm.net sschalman-bergen@bm.net - and - Harold Lichten, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com - and - Edward A. Wallace, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3300 Chicago, IL Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: aew@wexlerwallace.com aek@wexlerwallace..com VERSACE USA: Sued in New York Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Occhiolini and Lillith Vargas, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. Versace USA, Inc., Case No. 160637/2015 (N.Y., Super. Ct., October 16, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the New York Labor Law. Versace USA, Inc. is a retailer selling the upmarket Italian label's apparel, accessories & fragrances for men & women. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com - and - Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com VOLKSWAGEN AG: "Rochford" Suit Alleges RICO Violation ----------------------------------------------------- Michael Rochford and Shelly Adami, and all others similarly- situated v. Volkswagen A.G. and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01664 (D.D.C., October 12, 2015), seeks damages against the Defendants for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). The Defendants manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted the Defeat Device Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names throughout the nation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq. SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A. 1212 SE Third Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 Tel: 954-320-9507 Fax: 954-320-9609 E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com - and - Eric R. Glitzenstein, Esq. MEYER GLITZENSTEIN & EUBANKS LLP 4115 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 210 Washington, D.C. 20016 Tel: (202) 588-5206 Fax: (202) 588-5049 E-mail: eglitzenstein@meyerglitz.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Brown" Suit in Ga. Over Defeat Devices --------------------------------------------------------------- Jontyl C. Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03680-ODE (N.D. Ga., October 19, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' intentional installation of so-called "defeat devices" on at least 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United States since 2009, that caused the vehicles' pollution controls to disengage except during emissions tests. 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: Jason W. Graham, Esq. Eric L. Jensen, Esq. Zachary S. Lewis, Esq. Mary Meyer, Esq. GRAHAM & JENSEN, LLP 17 Executive Park Drive, Suite 115 Atlanta, GA 30329 Telephone: (404) 842-9380 Facsimile: (678) 904-3110 E-mail: jgraham@grahamjensen.com ejensen@grahamjensen.com zlewis@grahamjensen.com mmeyer@grahamjensen.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Clark" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fabian Clark, Bobby Yates, Deborah Kiley, Ronald Trimm, Megan Hinton, Andrew Pruett, Ray Harris, Mark Johnson, Pamela Johnson and Rusty Wensel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07581-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., October 19, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's alleged intentional installation of so-called emission "defeat devices" on over 482,000 clean diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United States since 2009. 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: Sherrie R. Savett, Esq. Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Russell D. Paul, Esq. Lane L. Vines, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: ssavett@bm.net scarson@bm.net rpaul@bm.net lvines@bm.net - and - Jay J. Rice, Esq. Bruce H. Nagel, Esq. Diane E. Sammons, Esq. Randee Matloff, Esq. Greg M. Kohn, Esq. NAGEL RICE LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 618-0400 Facsimile: (973) 618-9194 E-mail: jrice@nagelrice.com bnagel@nagelricc.com dsammons@nagelrice.com rmatloff@nagelrice.com gkohn@nagelrice.com - and - Peter S. Pearlman, Esq. COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLP Park 80 West-Plaza One, 250 Pehle Ave., Ste. 401 Saddle Brook, NJ 07663 Telephone: (201) 845-9600 Facsimile: (201) 845-9423 E-mail: psp@njlawfirm.com - and - Kai H. Richter, Esq. E. Michelle Drake, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: krichter@nka.com drake@nka.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Gentry" Suit Over Defeat Devices --------------------------------------------------------- Eric Gentry, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv- 01107 (M.D. Tenn., October 19, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's alleged intentional installation of so-called emission "defeat devices" in approximately 500,000 Jetta, the Beetle, the Audi A3, the Golf and the Passat models, to undermine the emissions tests of the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and other state testing agencies by producing artificially low levels of pollutants during emissions tests, and dramatically higher levels of pollutants during real-world driving. 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 Russell, Esq. GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT, PLC 341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Telephone: (615)354-1144 E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com - and - Donald J. Cazayoux, Jr. CAZAYOUX EWING, LLC 257 Maximilian Street Baton Rouge, LO 70802 Telephone: (225) 650-7400 Facsimile: (225) 650-7401 E-mail: don@cazayouxewing.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hayden" Suit Over Defeat Devices --------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Hayden and Dario Medina, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-13688-PDB-DRG (E.D. Mich., October 19, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's alleged intentional installation of so-called emission "defeat devices" in approximately 500,000 Jetta, the Beetle, the Audi A3, the Golf and the Passat models, to undermine the emissions tests of the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and other state testing agencies by producing artificially low levels of pollutants during emissions tests, and dramatically higher levels of pollutants during real-world driving. 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: Caleb Marker, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, L.L.P. 555 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 500 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 Facsimile: (877) 500-8781 E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - and - Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, L.L.P. 14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (480) 348-6400 Facsimile: (480) 348-6415 E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com - and - Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Jason R. Lee, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, L.L.P. 1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Henderson" Suit Over Defeat Devices ------------------------------------------------------------ Scott Henderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01182-D (W.D. Okla., October 19, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's alleged intentional installation of so-called emission "defeat devices" in approximately 500,000 Jetta, the Beetle, the Audi A3, the Golf and the Passat models, to undermine the emissions tests of the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and other state testing agencies by producing artificially low levels of pollutants during emissions tests, and dramatically higher levels of pollutants during real-world driving. 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: Tracy L. Brock, Esq. TRACY BROCK, PLLC 5104 Summit Drive Edmond, OK 73034 Telephone: (405) 285-7761 Facsimile: (405) 285-7751 - and - Charles "Dee" Hopper, Esq. Sergio Salzano, Esq. LYNCH, HOPPER, SALZANO & SMITH, LLP 1640 Alta Drive, Ste. 11 Las Vegas NV 89106 Telephone: (702) 868-1115 Facsimile: (702) 868-1114 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hoag" Suit Over Defeat Devices ------------------------------------------------------- Caroline Hoag and Paul Byrne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02367-AJB-DHB (S.D. Cal., October 19, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's alleged intentional installation of so-called emission "defeat devices" in approximately 500,000 Jetta, the Beetle, the Audi A3, the Golf and the Passat models, to undermine the emissions tests of the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and other state testing agencies by producing artificially low levels of pollutants during emissions tests, and dramatically higher levels of pollutants during real-world driving. 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 J. Dowd, Esq. Jason A. Forge, 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: miked@rgrdlaw.com jforge@rgrdlaw.com rachelj@rgrdlaw.com - and - Paul J. Geller, Esq. Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Mark Dearman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com mdearman@rgrdlaw.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Joseph" Suit Over Defeat Devices --------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Joseph, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-13693-SFC-EAS (E.D. Mich., October 19, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of so-called "defeat devices" on at least 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United States since 2009. 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 H. Fink, Esq. Darryl Bressack, Esq. FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW 38500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 350 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 971-2500 Facsimile: (248) 971-2600 E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com - and - Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. Amy Williams-Derry, Esq. Tana Lin, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Daniel Mensher, Esq. Ryan McDevitt, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com tlin@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com dmensher@kellerrohrback.com rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com - and - Matthew Preusch, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1129 State Street, Suite 8 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 Facsimile: (805) 456-1497 E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Landau" Suit Over Defeat Devices --------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Landau and Frederick H. Landell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00286-CLC-CHS (E.D. Tenn., October 19, arises out of the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of so-called "defeat devices" in several Audi and Volkswagen models sold in the 2009 through 2015 model years and equipped with the "2.0 liter TDI(R) Clean Diesel". 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: Joe P. Leniski Jr., Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 250-3937 E-mail: joeyl@BSJFirm.com gerards@BSJFirm.com - and - Robert D. Liebenberg, Esq. Donald L. Perelman, Esq. Gerald L. Dever, Esq. Paul Costa, Esq. FINE KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C. One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 567-6565 Facsimile: (215) 568-5872 E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com dperelman@finekaplan.com gdever@finekaplan.com pcosta@finekaplan.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Levy" Suit in Tenn. Over Defeat Devices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan M. Levy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 00285 (E.D. Tenn., October 19, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of so-called "defeat devices" in 500,000 vehicles equipped with the 2.0 liter TDI(R) Clean Diesel. 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: Joe P. Leniski Jr., Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 250-3937 E-mail: joeyl@BSJFirm.com gerards@BSJFirm.com - and - Robert D. Liebenberg, Esq. Donald L. Perelman, Esq. Gerald L. Dever, Esq. Paul Costa, Esq. FINE KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C. One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 567-6565 Facsimile: (215) 568-5872 E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com dperelman@finekaplan.com gdever@finekaplan.com pcosta@finekaplan.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Linnee" Suit Over Defeat Devices --------------------------------------------------------- Paul Linnee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv- 13689-MFL-DRG (E.D. Mich., October 19, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of so-called "defeat devices" on 500,000 vehicles equipped with the 2.0 liter TDI(R) Clean Diesel. 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: Caleb Marker, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, L.L.P. 555 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 500 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 Facsimile: (877) 500-8781 E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - and - Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, L.L.P. 14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (480) 348-6400 Facsimile: (480) 348-6415 E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com - and - Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Jason R. Lee, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, L.L.P. 1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Rogers" Suit Over Defeat Devices --------------------------------------------------------- Jerel Rogers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00061 (M.D. Tenn., October 19, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of "defeat device" in approximately 500,000 vehicles sold and leased in the United States from 2009 to 2015, to allow the Vehicles to spew dangerous nitrogen oxide while in normal operation and to manipulate engine performance when it detected testing to simulate compliance with emission 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: David W. Garrison, Esq. Timothy L. Miles, Esq. Scott P. Tift, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Bank of America Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com tmiles@barrettjohnston.com stift@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com - and - David Boies, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (9140 749-8200 Facsimile: (202) 749-8300 E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com - and - Jonathan D. Schiller, Esq. Damien J. Marshall, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 575 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 Facsimile: (212) 446-2350 E-mail: jschiller@bsfllp.com dmarshall@bsfllp.com - and - Stephen N. Zack, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 100 SE Second Street, Suite 2800 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 539-8400 Facsimile: (305) 539-1307 E-mail: szack@bsfllp.com - and - Jerry E. Martin, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2203 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: jmartin@rgrdlaw.com - and - Darren J. Robbins, 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: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com - and - Paul J. Geller, Esq. Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Mark J. Dearman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com mdearman@rgrdlaw.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Suit Over Fraud by Concealment ------------------------------------------------------ William Romesburg, John Rowden, Paul Wright, Annie Argento, William Resh, Sgt. Kenneth Odegard, Sandra Rossi, Donald Ardine, Dawn Faron-Ardine, Dylan Hanson, James Stepahin, Donald Stave, Charles Woods, Sara Schram, Segundino Butron III, Patrick Kosacek, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Audi of America LLC, and Audi of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-13579 (E.D. Mich., October 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for alleged fraud by concealment and breach of contract. Volkswagen AG and other Defendants, each of which is a direct or indirect subsidiary and agent of Volkswagen AG, manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted the Defeat Device Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names throughout the nation. The Plaintiff are represented by: Tana Lin, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Tel: (206) 623-1900 Fax: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: tlin@kellerrohrback.com - and - Matthew Preusch, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 1129 State Street, Suite 8 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Tel: (805) 456-1496 Fax: (805) 456-1497 E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Fisher" Suit Over Breach of Contract ------------------------------------------------------------- James H. Fisher, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-13594 (E.D. Mich., October 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for alleged breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant marketed vehicles installed with the defeat devices as environmentally friendly, fuel efficient, high performing, and clean. Defendant marketed these vehicles as "green" with full knowledge that the company's vehicles equipped with the defeat devices would not meet the company's claims and pass United States' emission standards without the devices. 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 Dr., Herndon, Virginia 20171. At all times relevant to this action, Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted the Subject Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Dr. Ste. 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Tel: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Gibson" Suit Alleges Fraudulent Representation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rex W. Gibson, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Group of America and Volkswagen AG, Case No. 2:15-cv-01785 (N.D. Ala., October 13, 2015), seeks damages against the Defendants for fraudulent representation and fraudulent concealment. Volkswagen AG and other Defendants, each of which is a direct or indirect subsidiary and agent of Volkswagen AG, manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted the Defeat Device Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names throughout the nation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven L. Nicholas, Esq. CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC 1601 Dauphin St. Mobile, AL 36604 Tel: (251) 471-6191 Fax: (251) 479-1031 E-mail: sln@cunninghambounds.com W2007 GRACE: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held --------------------------------------------------- W2007 Grace Acquisition I, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a hearing on final approval of the class action settlement has been held. In September 2013, a putative class action lawsuit (the Johnson Lawsuit) was filed in the Chancery Court of Shelby County, Tennessee (the Chancery Court) by several current and former shareholders of the Series B and C preferred shares of Grace Acquisition I. The complaint, which alleges, among other things, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty that resulted in the loss of Series B and Series C preferred share value, names Grace Acquisition I, members of Grace Acquisition I's board of directors, PFD Holdings, LLC (PFD Holdings), GS Group, Whitehall, Goldman Sachs Realty Management, L.P. and Grace I as defendants. On October 4, 2013, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (the Federal Court). In November 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case back to the Chancery Court, which the defendants opposed. On July 28, 2014, the Federal Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand. In addition, in January 2014, the defendants also filed a motion to dismiss the Johnson Lawsuit and the motion was fully briefed on April 24, 2014. In October 2013, a similar lawsuit was filed by another plaintiff in the same Chancery Court (the Dent Lawsuit), alleging similar breaches against several of the same defendants named in the Johnson Lawsuit, in addition to a former member of the Company's board of directors. In January 2014, the plaintiffs and defendants in the Dent Lawsuit agreed to stay that case until the motion to remand in the Johnson Lawsuit was decided. As stipulated by the parties, plaintiff must file any response to defendants' motion to stay within ten business days after notice of the Federal Court decision denying the remand motion. Defendants notified plaintiff of the resolution of the remand motion in the Johnson Lawsuit, and plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion to stay. In August 2014, the Company and the other defendants entered into a non-binding memorandum of understanding with respect to a settlement of the claims raised in the Johnson Lawsuit. On August 22, 2014, the parties notified the Federal Court of the proposed settlement, and the Federal Court agreed that the parties would no longer be subject to pending deadlines in the current scheduling order. On September 2, 2014, in light of the proposed settlement, defendants filed a motion to withdraw their motion to dismiss without prejudice to renew that motion if the proposed settlement of the Johnson Lawsuit does not become final. The Federal Court granted the motion. The parties submitted the proposed settlement stipulation and related papers to the Federal Court for approval on October 9, 2014, and filed additional papers in support of settlement on December 4, 2014 and March 20, 2015. The stipulation was preliminarily approved by the Federal Court on April 30, 2015 and remains subject to final approval by the Federal Court. A hearing on final approval was scheduled for September 11, 2015. The stipulation of settlement would settle claims with respect to two classes described in the Johnson Lawsuit: (1) the "Holder Class" consisting of any and all persons who, as of August 22, 2014 and through the effective time of the merger contemplated by the stipulation, hold the preferred stock, excluding defendants and their affiliates, persons who opt out of the Holder Class and holders of dissenting shares and (2) the "Seller Class" consisting of all persons who sold some or all of their shares of preferred stock between October 25, 2007 and October 8, 2014, inclusive, and suffered a loss, excluding the defendants, their affiliates and persons who sold shares to PFD Holdings, and persons who opt out of the Seller Class. The stipulation of settlement generally provides for the following: (1) the effectuation of a merger that will result in the exchange of $26.00 in cash for each share of Series B and C preferred stock outstanding; (2) the establishment of a $6 million fund to be distributed pursuant to a plan of allocation to members of the Seller Class; and (3) an award of $4 million in counsel fees, subject to approval by the Federal Court. Therefore, during the three months ended June 30, 2014, the Company accrued $24.25 million related to the agreement which is included in accounts payable and accrued liabilities in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets and in contingent loss on litigation settlement in the condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss. In June 2015, the Company paid $0.25 million to the trust created for the Seller Class and the Company anticipates funding the balance of the settlement with cash on hand or, if necessary, funding from Whitehall. The proposed settlement in the Johnson Lawsuit purports to encompass the claims asserted in the Dent Lawsuit. Ongoing defense costs will be expensed as incurred. No further updates were provided in the Form 10-Q report. WALTER INVESTMENT: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Walter Investment Management Corp. continues to defend a shareholder class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. On March 7, 2014, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Marc Helm and Robert Yeary captioned Beck v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., No. 1:14-cv-20880 (S.D. Fla.). On July 7, 2014, an amended class action complaint was filed. The amended complaint names as defendants the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Keith Anderson, Brian Corey and Mark Helm, and is captioned Thorpe, et al. v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al. No. 1:14-cv-20880-UU. The amended complaint asserted federal securities law claims against the Company and the individual defendants under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Additional claims are asserted against the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On December 23, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice. On January 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint asserted the same legal claims and alleged that between May 9, 2012 and August 11, 2014 the Company and the individual defendants made material misstatements or omissions relating to the Company's internal controls and financial reporting, the processes and procedures for compliance with applicable regulatory and legal requirements by Green Tree Servicing, the liabilities associated with the Company's acquisition of RMS, and RMS's internal controls. The complaint seeks class certification and an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securities between May 9, 2012 and August 11, 2014. On January 23, 2015, all defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On June 30, 2015, the court issued a decision that granted the motions to dismiss in part and denied the motions in part. Among other things, the court dismissed the claims against Messrs. O'Brien, Cauthen, Dixon and Helm and the claims relating to statements about the Company's acquisition of RMS. On July 10, 2015, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint that, among other things, added certain allegations concerning the Company's settlement with the FTC and CFPB. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was due on August 30, 2015. The Company cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of the putative shareholder class action or that such an outcome will not have a material adverse effect on its reputation, business, prospects, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. WELLS FARGO: January 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------- To All Persons Who Have Or Had A Mortgage Serviced By Wells Fargo And Who Owe Or Paid Property Inspection Fees Assessed During The Period August 1, 2004 Through December 31, 2013 The following statement is being issued by Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP and Reese LLP regarding the Young v. Wells Fargo & Co., et al. Litigation. THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. Para ver este aviso en Espa¤ol, se puede visitar www.WellsFargoPropertyInspectionSettlement.com YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on January 21, 2016 at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Robert W. Pratt, at the United States District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Central Division, U.S. District Courthouse, 123 East Walnut Street, Des Moines, Iowa 50309, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned action ("Action") for the sum of $25,750,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Final Judgment as provided under the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement ("Stipulation") should be entered, dismissing the Third Amended Class Action Complaint filed in the Action on the merits and with prejudice; (3) the release by the Class of the Released Claims, as set forth in the Stipulation, should be provided to the Released Defendants; (4) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below); (5) to grant Plaintiffs' requests for service awards out of the Settlement Fund for the time and effort they expended in prosecuting this action on behalf of the Class; and (6) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court. IF YOU HAVE OR HAD A MORTGAGE SERVICED BY WELLS FARGO AND OWE OR PAID PROPERTY INSPECTION FEES ASSESSED DURING THE PERIOD AUGUST 1, 2004 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2013, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION. To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you may be required to file a Proof of Claim on or before March 16, 2016. If you are required to file a Proof of Claim and do not do so by March 16, 2016, you will not receive any recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action. If you are a member of the Class and do not request to be excluded, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Action, including, but not limited to, the Final Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. You may obtain a copy of the Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), a Proof of Claim form, and a copy of the Stipulation (which among other things contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice), online at www.WellsFargoPropertyInspectionSettlement.com or by writing to: Wells Fargo Inspection Fee Settlement c/o Garden City Group, LLC P.O. Box 10106 Dublin, OH 43017-3106 Phone: (855) 382-6434 Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of Claim form, may be made to Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel: Deborah Clark-Weintraub SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10174 Michael R. Reese REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION BY DECEMBER 22, 2015, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT ENTERED IN THE ACTION. Dated: September 2, 2015 HONORABLE ROBERT W. PRATT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA, CENTRAL DIVISION WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Curry Chicken Salad Products Due to Listeria ----------------------------------------------------------------- A Whole Foods Market establishment located in Everett, Mass. is recalling approximately 234 pounds of curry chicken salad products that may be adulterated with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The chicken curry salad was packaged on Oct. 16, 2015, and was sold prepackaged, in salad bars, in store's chef's cases, and in sandwiches and wraps prepared in the stores. The following products are subject to recall: --- Sold by weight "Curry Chicken Salad, Our Chef's Own" bearing UPC Code # 285551. --- Sold by weight "Curry Chicken Salad CC" bearing UPC Code # 261068. --- Sold by weight "PPK Salad Chicken Curry" bearing UPC Code # 263142 --- 12 oz. "Curry Chicken Salad Wrap, Made Right Here" bearing UPC Code # 263144. --- 7 oz. "Single Curry Chicken Salad Wrap, Made Right Here" bearing UPC Code # 263126. --- 7 oz. "Curry Chicken Salad Rollup" bearing UPC Code # 265325. These items have a sell by date of Oct. 23, 2015 and were shipped to a warehouse and retail locations in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island. The problem was discovered when FSIS was notified of sample testing results performed by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Consumption of food adulterated by L. monocytogenes can cause listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects older adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women and their newborns. Less commonly, persons outside these risk groups are affected. Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck, confusion, loss of balance and convulsions sometimes preceded by diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms. An invasive infection spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract. In pregnant women, the infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths, premature delivery or life-threatening infection of the newborn. In addition, serious and sometimes fatal infections in older adults and persons with weakened immune systems. Listeriosis is treated with antibiotics. Persons in the higher-risk categories who experience flu-like symptoms within two months after eating adulterated food should seek medical care and tell the health care provider about eating the adulterated food. FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be at home in consumers' freezers or refrigerators. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. Related items, including the Whole Foods Class Deli Pasta Salad, have been listed for recall on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's website at http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm469008.htm. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. FSIS advises all consumers to reheat ready-to-eat product until steaming hot. Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact Heather McCready, Public Relations Manager, at (617) 492- 5500. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Settlement Approved for Immaterial Amount ------------------------------------------------------------- Wintrust Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that parties in a class action lawsuit have settled the dispute for an immaterial amount and the court has approved the settlement. On March 15, 2012, a former mortgage loan originator employed by Wintrust Mortgage Company, named Wintrust, Barrington Bank and its subsidiary, Wintrust Mortgage Company, as defendants in a Fair Labor Standards Act class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "FLSA Litigation"). The suit asserts that Wintrust Mortgage Company violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and challenges the manner in which Wintrust Mortgage Company classified its loan originators and compensated them for their work. The suit also seeks to assert these claims as a class. On September 30, 2013, the Court entered an order conditionally certifying an "opt-in" class in this case. Notice to the potential class members was sent on or about October 22, 2013, primarily informing the putative class of the right to opt-into the class and setting a deadline for same. Approximately 15% of the notice recipients joined the class. On September 26, 2014, the Court stayed actions by opt-in plaintiffs with arbitration agreements, which reduced the class size by more than 40%. The Court also denied the opt-in plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling, which the Company anticipates will reduce the class size by an additional 15%. On April 30, 2015, the parties settled the dispute for an immaterial amount and the court approved the settlement on June 17, 2015. XPO LOGISTICS: Intermodal Drayage Claims in Initial Stages ---------------------------------------------------------- XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that matters related to intermodal drayage classification claims are in the initial procedural stages. Certain of the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries, which were acquired on March 31, 2014, received notices from the California Labor Commissioner, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (the "DLSE"), that a total of 153 owner operators contracted with these subsidiaries have filed claims with the DLSE in which they assert that they should be classified as employees, as opposed to independent contractors. These claims seek reimbursement for the owner operators' business expenses, including fuel, tractor maintenance and tractor lease payments. After a decision was rendered by a DLSE hearing officer in seven of these claims, the Company appealed the decision to California Supreme Court, San Diego, where a de novo trial was held on the merits of those claims. On July 17, 2015, the court issued a final statement of decision finding that the seven claimants were employees rather than independent contractors, and awarding an aggregate of $2.0 million to the claimants. The court's judgment is subject to appeal, and the Company is evaluating its options with respect to these claims. The Company cannot provide assurance that the Company will determine to pursue an appeal or that an appeal will be successful. The remaining DLSE claims have been transferred to California Superior Court in three separate actions involving approximately 200 claimants, including the 153 claimants mentioned above. These matters are in the initial procedural stages. XPO LOGISTICS: "Molina" Action in Initial Stages of Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------- XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the matter related to the class action brought by Edwin Molina is in the initial stages of discovery. The subsidiary is a party to a putative class action litigation brought by Edwin Molina in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. Mr. Molina asserts that he should be classified as an employee, as opposed to an independent contractor, and seeks damages for alleged violation of various California wage and hour laws. Mr. Molina seeks to have the litigation certified as a class action involving all owner- operators contracted with this subsidiary at any time from August 2009 to the present, which could involve as many as 600 claimants. Certain of these potential claimants also may have claims under the actions pending in California Superior Court. This matter is in the initial stages of discovery and the court has not yet determined whether to certify the matter as a class action. The Company has reached a tentative agreement to settle this litigation with the claimant, subject to court approval and acceptance by a minimum percentage of members of the purported class. There can be no assurance that the settlement agreement will be finalized and executed, that the court will approve any such settlement agreement or that it will be accepted by the requisite members of the purported class. ********* 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 * * *