/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/151211.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, December 11, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 247 Headlines A-C LIABILITY TRUST: Defendant's Summary Judgment Bid Denied AMAZON: Slapped With Class Action Wage Theft Suit AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Wolf Popper Files Securities Suit APPLE INC: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Company's 'Bag Checks' APPLE INC: Faces "Cottrell" Consumer Suit Over Wi-Fi Assist ARKANSAS: Ct. Blocks Dept. of Veteran Affairs Employees Class Suit ATMEL CORPORATION: Defending Stockholder Suit Over Dialog Deal ATMEL CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Class Action Dismissal BOK FINANCIAL: Defending Class Suit Over Deposit Accounts BROWN SHOE: Court Grants Final Approval of Class Action Deal CAPSTONE TURBINE: "Kinney" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation CENTRAL FREIGHT: Sued Over Truck Driver Misclassification CITIGROUP INC: Settlement in CDS Case Has Initial Approval CITIGROUP INC: Defending Against Treasury Auction Litigation CITIGROUP INC: Transfer of NYPL v. JPMorgan to S.D.N.Y. Sought CITIGROUP INC: Defending Against Beland v. RBoC Litigation CITIGROUP INC: Defending Against "Negrete" Action in S.D.N.Y. CITIGROUP INC: Interchange Fees Case Settlement Under Appeal CLIFFS NATURAL: Court Denies Request for Oral Argument COLORADO: Court Directs Inmate to File Amended Complaint CRICKET WIRELESS: Trial in Suit Over 4G/LTE Services on Dec. 15 DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Appeal in "Weinstat" Action Pending DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Moved to January DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action by Sirona Stockholders DONNYBROOK ENERGY: C$5.5MM Settlement in Securities Suit OK'd DXP ENTERPRISES: "Bouchard" Suit Moved From W.D. to S.D. Texas EDAP TMS: No Appeals Filed from Dismissal of Securities Suit EVERCORE PARTNERS: "Coburn" Class Action in D.C. Remains Pending EXPERIAN: Targeted by Class Suits Over T-Mobile Breach FLAGLER MEDICAL: Faces "Leon" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation GENERAL CHEMICAL: Cincinnati Alleges Price Fixing of Alum Product GOLDMAN SACHS: Settles CDO Class Action GNC HOLDINGS: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Class Suit GNC HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action GNC HOLDINGS: Targeted in $5MM Suit Over Unapproved Supplements HANOVER INSURANCE: CA Affirms Dismissal of Claims in "Durand" INDEPENDENCE, LA: Fire Chief Wants to Expand Case to Class Action ISRAELI RAILWAYS: Court Approves Class Action Over Late Trains JANSSEN PHARMA: Suit Filed in Canada to Address Kidney Injuries KBR INC: Class Action Discovery Expected to Continue Into 2016 KRIS KOBACH: Lawyers Asks for Class Action Status L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Amended Suit Fully Briefed LABORATORY CORP: Trial Court Stays "Jansky" Case Pending Appeal LABORATORY CORP: Appeal by Sandusky Wellness Pending LABORATORY CORP: Notice of "Bohlander" Settlement Circulated LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Reached in "Varsam" Case LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Reached in "Legg" Case LABORATORY CORP: Facing "Davis" Class Action in Florida LIBERTY MAINTENANCE: Court Narrows Claims in "Pikos" Suit LIQUID HOLDING: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Action LOS ANGELES, CA: Judgment in "Drum" Case Upheld MAYO CLINIC: Final Judgment in "Ahearn" Affirmed in Part METLIFE SECURITIES: "Creighton" Suit Moved From Illinois to N.Y. MIKE CAMPBELL & ASSOC: CA Remands Suit to Calif. Superior Court MITSUI & CO: Court Dismisses Korean Residents' Claims MOBILEIRON INC: Amended Complaint Filed in "Panjwani" Case MOBILEIRON INC: Stockholder Class Actions Filed in Calif. MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Securities Litigation Pending in Del. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Denies Attorneys' Fees Bid in "Keller" NATIONAL LLOYDS INSURANCE: CA Denies Writ of Mandamus NFL INC: Faces "Dassa" Suit Over Alleged Anticompetitive Practice NOVA HARDBANDING: Faces "Foster" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation PARTY CITY HOLDCO: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action PAYPAL INC: Amended Deal in "Zepeda" Has Preliminary Approval QLOGIC CORP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Suit QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces "Doe" Suit Over Leak of Personal Info SEARS ROEBUCK: Court Denies Motion to Remand in "Ruano" SENTRY INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Payback Program SERVICE EXPERTS: Court Trims Class Suit in "Frederick" Case SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL: "Dell" Suit Remanded to State Court SMARTHEAT INC: Has Deal to Resolve Securities Class Action SOUTH DAKOTA: Inmates Must Pay Filing Fee Individually TCP INTERNATIONAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit TD BANK: Court Grants Final Approval to "Gevaerts" Settlement TECO ENERGY: Brodsky & Smith Files Suit Over Emera Takeover TOWN SPORTS: Offers Settlement in "Labbe" Class Action TRAVELPORT WORLDWIDE: Defendants Have Until Jan. 15 to Respond TWITTER INC: Proposed Settlement of Class Suit Inked UIL HOLDINGS: Shareholder Litigation Pending in Connecticut VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiff Appeals Class Action Dismissal VICAL INCORPORATED: Appeal in Securities Class Action Pending VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Dismissal of Securities Litigation Sought VIRTUS INVESTMENT: "Youngers" Action Sent to S.D.N.Y. Court VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Class Action Attorneys Wary of GC Offers ZINC ELECTROLYTIQUE: Suit Suspended Due to Vexatious Conduct * Chicago Clearing, InvestCloud Partners in Class Suit Management Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in "Liman" Enlarged ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals in NY PI Suits Consolidated ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Exelon Corp. Units Continue to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trecora Unit Defends Asbestos Exposure Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: London Insurers' Suit v. McDermott Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Still Face Potential Asbestos Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Overseas Shipholding Still Subject to PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Had 90 PI Cases at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 484 Fibro Cases at Oct. 2 ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 2,679 MARDOC Suits at Oct. 2 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vertex Unit Faces Asbestos Abatement Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIM Continues to Face Potential Asbestos Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: AmREIT III Faces Potential Asbestos Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: AmREIT IV Faces Potential Asbestos Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regal Beloit Still Subject to Exposure Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Has 2,971 New Fibro Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Had 90 Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Realty Faces Potential PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l Continues to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Syska Fails in Bid to Junk All Craft's Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies GM's Appeal in "Bryant" ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Montello Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jan. 7 Testimony Deadline in "Covey-Hinzo" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fisher Wins Partial Summary Judgment in PI Suit ********* A-C LIABILITY TRUST: Defendant's Summary Judgment Bid Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the case captioned, WILLARD E. BARTEL, et al., (Administrators for Estate of Darryl J. Bertrand, Sr. Plaintiffs, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. MDL 875 E.D. PA CIVIL ACTION No. 2:11-30147- ER (E.D. Pa.). In 1998, Mr. Bertrand brought claims for non-malignant asbestos- related disease (now pursued by Plaintiffs after the death of Mr. Bertrand) against various defendants, including shipowners represented by Thompson Hine LLP. The case was transferred in January 2011 from the United State District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where it became part of the consolidated asbestos products liability multidistrict litigation (MDL 875). Willard E. Bartel and David E. Peebles, Administrators of the Estate of Darryl J. Bertrand, Sr., allege that Mr. Bertrand was exposed to asbestos while working aboard various ships. Plaintiffs assert that Decedent developed an asbestos-related illness as a result of his exposure to asbestos aboard those ships. In the motion, Thompson Hine Shipowners have moved for summary judgment, arguing that (1) Plaintiffs' non-malignancy claims are barred by way of judicial estoppel because Mr. Bertrand failed to disclose the asbestos action as an asset in his bankruptcy filing, and (2) Plaintiffs cannot pursue any of the asbestos claims in the asbestos action (neither the initial non-malignancy claims nor his post-petition malignancy claims) because the entire asbestos action is now owned by the bankruptcy estate. In his Memorandum dated November 5, 2015 available at http://is.gd/UvsoYTfrom Leagle.com, Judge Robreno found that the failure to disclose the non-malignancy asbestos claims was not in bad faith, nor an attempt to play "fast and loose" with the Bankruptcy Court and that Plaintiff is not the real party in interest and that only the trustee in bankruptcy, as sole representative of Plaintiff's estate, has standing to pursue the instant lawsuit. As to the malignancy claims, the Court held that it is not sufficiently rooted in his pre-bankruptcy past to constitute property of the bankruptcy estate so that it is not property of the bankruptcy trustee. Plaintiffs are represented by Donald A. Krispin, Esq. -- dkrispin@jaquesadmiralty.com -- Duane C. Marsden, Esq. -- dmarsden@jaquesadmiralty.com -- JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., John E. Herrick, Esq. -- jherrick@motleyrice.com -- John David Hurst, Esq. -- jhurst@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC Defendants are represented by Harold W. Henderson, Esq. -- Hal.Henderson@ThompsonHine.com -- Richard C. Binzley, Esq. -- Dick.Binzley@ThompsonHine.com -- Susan K. Dirks, Esq. -- Susan.Dirks@ThompsonHine.com -- THOMPSON HINE LLP AMAZON: Slapped With Class Action Wage Theft Suit ------------------------------------------------- Nicole Knight Shine, writingor for RH reality Check, reported that Amazon is the latest company to face allegations of wage theft, as workers nationwide have increasingly demanded fair compensation in courthouses and demonstrations. The online shopping giant faces claims that it cheated workers of wages, overtime, and employment protections. A class action lawsuit filed October 27 in Los Angeles Superior Court accuses the online retailer of misclassifying workers as independent contractors, among other violations. Drivers for Amazon claim in the court filing that they wear Amazon Prime Now uniforms and report to Amazon's warehouse, but are denied the benefits and protections of California employment law. California affords workers some of the strongest wage protections in the country, and a law signed by the governor in October adds teeth to those measures by permitting the state labor commissioner to place a lien on the property of an employer cited for wage theft and by subjecting violators to imprisonment and fines. The Amazon suit was brought by Oakland-based Leonard Carder LLP on behalf of four drivers employed by an Amazon subcontractor, Scoobeez, for the online retailer's newly launched instant delivery service, Amazon Prime Now. The drivers claim in the filing they must cover gas and other expenses out of pocket and use their own vehicles as they deliver packages within Amazon's one- and two-hour delivery window. They are paid $11 per hour, but these un-reimbursed expenses, they allege, mean their net earnings fall short of the minimum wage. And although the Amazon Prime Now app suggests a default tip of $5, drivers claim they have not received these tips. In a statement October 30, Amazon said it requires its subcontractors "to abide by applicable law, follow our supplier code of conduct and disburse tips given by customers to their drivers. We audit and investigate claims that any provider isn't complying with these obligations." The suit seeks an unspecified amount of back wages, restitution, and compensation for attorney fees, among other damages. This latest court action comes on the heels of a landmark class action settlement this summer in favor of FedEx delivery drivers with similar complaints. The settlement ordered the delivery company to pay $228 million to more than 2,300 California delivery drivers, as the San Francisco Business Times reported, making it one of the largest settlements of its kind. The attorney who won that settlement is now taking Amazon to court. "The facts in this case are much stronger than in the FedEx case, and we won," Beth Ross, the attorney representing the drivers, told the Business Times. "These are low-wage workers who have no other options, otherwise they wouldn't be doing this." Research suggests that workers in the low-paying service industry are often subject to wage theft. Cases centering on these workers have drawn the attention of labor unions and lawmakers across the country of late. RH Reality Check reported in February that a New York judge ordered a Papa John's pizza franchise to pay its workers nearly $800,000 in unpaid wages after New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed suit against the franchise operator. A class action suit filed in federal court in San Francisco on behalf of drivers for the ride-hailing app Uber argues they are misclassified as independent contractors and thus denied employment protections, as Reuters reported. A study of 2008 data released by the National Employment Law Project, the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, and the Center on Urban Economic Development found that of workers in low-wage industries in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City, 26 percent were paid less than the legally required minimum wage, and three out of four employees who worked more than 40 hours a week were not legally compensated for their overtime hours. Six in ten of low-wage industry workers were underpaid by more than $1 per hour. AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Wolf Popper Files Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Wolf Popper LLP, on October 8, 2015, filed a class action lawsuit against Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: FOLD) and certain of its officers, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of all persons who purchased Amicus common stock on the open market or pursuant to a Registration Statement, during the period March 19, 2015 through October 1, 2015, and were damaged thereby. This action alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a member of the Class, please be reminded that you may file a motion no later than December 7, 2015 to be appointed a lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Investors who purchased Amicus common stock during the Class Period and suffered losses are urged to contact Wolf Popper to discuss their rights. The Complaint charges that defendants misrepresented that Amicus had an "approval pathway" for its lead product candidate Galafold, by which it would submit a new drug application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for "accelerated approval" of the drug "in the second half of 2015." On October 2, 2015, Amicus revealed that it would not "submit the NDA for migalastat in the United States by the end of this year" as the FDA has requested "additional data on migalastat's effect on gastrointestinal symptoms in Fabry disease" and "further integration of existing clinical data across studies." On this news, Amicus shares declined $7.36 or 53.5% on October 2, 2015. Based on our ongoing investigation, Amicus disclosed on November 3, 2015 that there is no particular timeframe for the NDA as it "will be based on the completion of the required data integration as well as the determination of the optimal regulatory pathway." Wolf Popper has successfully recovered billions of dollars for defrauded investors. The firm's reputation and expertise have been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed the firm to major positions in securities litigation. See www.wolfpopper.com For more information, please contact: Robert C. Finkel, Esq. Tel.: 877.370.7703 Fax: 877.370.7704 Email: irrep@wolfpopper.com website: www.wolfpopper.com APPLE INC: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Company's 'Bag Checks' ----------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a California federal judge has dismissed a wage-and-hour class action lawsuit filed against Apple over the company's anti-theft measures -- in particular, its employee "package and bag searches" policy. The ruling means the technology giant won't have to compensate more than 12,000 former and current Apple store employees for the time they spent having their bags and devices checked at meal breaks and after their shifts. In his 19-page order, Judge William Alsup for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said the workers could have avoided the searches altogether by not bringing any bags with them. "Plaintiffs could all freely choose not to bring bags to work, thereby avoiding Apple's restrictions during exit searches," the judge wrote in his Nov. 7 order. "That free choice is fatal to their claims." The plaintiff class sought compensation for the time spent undergoing exit searches pursuant to Apple's bag-search and technology-card search policies and for time spent waiting for the searches to occur. The searches were done when employees left the premises with a bag, purse, backpack or briefcase, or with an Apple product, such as an iPhone. The company searched them to see if Apple goods were being pilfered. Employees had to clock out prior to undergoing a search, and their recorded hours worked did not account for the time waiting for a search to be completed. Accordingly, employees received no compensation for the time involved in the searches. At issue was whether the time spent waiting for the exit searches to be completed deserved any compensation under California law. The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in July 2013. In April 2014, Apple moved for summary judgment against all individually-named plaintiffs for all claims. Summary judgment as to plaintiffs' California state-law claims was denied in light of varying fact patterns regarding the duration of wait times and individualized reasons for bringing a bag to work. The non-California claims were stayed and ultimately dismissed following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions Inc. v. Busk last year. The nation's high court, in an unanimous decision, held that time spent by workers waiting to undergo anti-employee theft security screenings is not "integral and indispensable" to their work, and thus not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Because the other state law claims all mirrored the FLSA, only plaintiffs' California claims remained. The Northern District of California then retained supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. In July, Alsup certified the class, ruling that a handful of ex- employees could proceed on behalf of the class. The order also gave both sides a second opportunity to move for summary judgment. Alsup pointed out in his ruling that the class pursued compensation based on a scenario in which personal effects were taken to work willfully and for their own convenience. Also, he noted, although the order certifying the class and the class notice invited class members to intervene to assert claims based on "special needs scenarios," no one intervened. "Plaintiffs contend the freedom to bring a bag to work is not an affirmative benefit, but rather a standard freedom of the job," Alsup wrote. "On the other hand, Apple was concerned that its employees could pilfer merchandise in their bags or claim that they already owned any Apple products they carried out of the store. "Apple could have alleviated that concern by prohibiting its employees from bringing personal bags or personal Apple devices into the store. Instead, Apple took the lesser step of giving its employees the optional benefit of bringing such items to work, which comes with the condition that they must undergo searches in a manner dictated by Apple before they exit the store." Lee S. Shalov, partner at New York law firm McLaughlin & Stern, served as lead counsel for the plaintiffs. "Plaintiffs are disappointed with the court's ruling and are considering their options, including an appeal," he said in an emailed statement. Apple declined to comment on the judge's order. APPLE INC: Faces "Cottrell" Consumer Suit Over Wi-Fi Assist -------------------------------------------------------------- William B. Cottrell, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Apple, Inc., a California Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-05205-PSG (N.D.Cal., November 13, 2015), arises from Defendant's alleged failure to adequately and timely disclose to consumers that the automatic switch to cellular data caused by an activated Wi-Fi Assist at its smartphones can result in exceeding the data capacity allowed under consumers' phone plans, with consequent economic harm. Apple Inc. designs, manufactures and markets mobile communication and media devices, personal computers, and portable digital music players, and a variety of related software, services, peripherals, networking solutions, and third-party digital content and applications. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 600 West Broadway Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 230-0800 Fax: (619) 230-1874 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON SCOTT, LLP 830 Apollo Lane Houston, TX 77058 Phone: (281) 488-8854 Fax: (281) 488-8867 ARKANSAS: Ct. Blocks Dept. of Veteran Affairs Employees Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reports that Arkansas' highest court says a lawsuit by a group of Arkansas Department of Veterans Affairs employees who claim they weren't paid for meal breaks they were required to work shouldn't be a class-action case. Justices reversed a Pulaski County judge's decision to grant class-action status to the hourly, non-nursing employees suing the state agency. The workers claim that the department automatically deducted 30 minutes per day from their paycheck for meal breaks, even though they were regularly required to work during that time. In the 4-3 ruling, the court said the employees' claims were too individualized to be a class-action case. The court in June upheld class-action status for a similar lawsuit filed by a group of nurses against the department. ATMEL CORPORATION: Defending Stockholder Suit Over Dialog Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Atmel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is defending the Dialog Deal Stockholder Litigation. On September 20, 2015, the Company announced that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement with Dialog Semiconductor plc ("Dialog") under which Dialog, subject to customary conditions, would acquire all of the outstanding shares of the Company (the "Transaction"). Following that announcement, three putative class actions were filed in courts in Delaware and California against the Company and/or its Directors, Dialog and Avengers Acquisition Corporation ("Merger Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Dialog. The complaints purport to be brought on behalf of all similarly situated Company stockholders and generally allege that the members of the Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders by approving the Transaction for inadequate consideration, entering into a merger agreement containing preclusive deal protection devices, and failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to stockholders. The complaints also assert claims against Dialog, Merger Sub and/or the Company for allegedly aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints seek preliminary and permanent injunctions against the completion of the Transaction or rescission in the event the Transaction has already been completed, or, alternatively, damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the class. The Company and its Directors believe the claims are without merit, and intend to contest them vigorously. ATMEL CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Class Action Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------- Atmel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of the Southern District of New York Action by LFoundry Rousset ("LFR") and LFR Employees. On March 4, 2014, LFR and Jean-Yves Guerrini, on behalf of himself and a putative class of LFR employees, filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court") against the Company, the Company's French subsidiary, Atmel Rousset S.A.S. ("Atmel Rousset") and LFoundry GmbH ("LF"), LFR's German parent. The case purports to relate to Atmel Rousset's June 2010 sale of its wafer manufacturing facility in Rousset, France to LF, and LFR's subsequent insolvency more than three years later. The Company and Atmel Rousset moved to dismiss the case on numerous grounds - a motion the District Court granted on July 21, 2015. As a result, the District Court dismissed the case on August 21, 2015. Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal. BOK FINANCIAL: Defending Class Suit Over Deposit Accounts --------------------------------------------------------- BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Bank and the Company were named on March 3, 2015, as defendants in a putative class action alleging that the manner in which the Bank posted charges to its consumer deposit accounts was improper from September 1, 2011 through July 8, 2014, the period after which the Bank and BOK Financial settled a class action respecting a similar claim. Management has been advised by counsel that the Bank and the Company have meritorious defenses to the action. A reasonable estimate of losses, if any, cannot be made at this time. On April 8, 2015, the Bank was named as a defendant in a putative class action alleging that the Extended Overdraft Fee charged customers who failed to pay overdrafts after five days constituted interest and exceeded permissible interest rates set by state and federal law. This action was dismissed on the merits by the Court. BROWN SHOE: Court Grants Final Approval of Class Action Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement and granted part Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, expenses and class representative incentive awards in the case captioned, JEROME DAVIS and PRISCILLA HUMPHREY, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. BROWN SHOE COMPANY, INC., etc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:13-CV-01211-LJO-BAM (E.D. Cal.). On June 4, 2013, Plaintiffs initiated the wage and hour class action against Defendant Brown Group Retail, Inc. d/b/a Famous Footwear and Defendant Mike West in Merced County Superior Court. On August 20, 2014, Plaintiffs sought voluntary dismissal of Defendant Mike West from the action, which the Court granted on October 6, 2014. On October 6, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification. Subsequently, the parties requested and received continuations of all dates associated with the pending motion for class certification because they had a reached a preliminary agreement on a proposed settlement following participation in mediation. On May 12, 2015, the Court preliminarily approved the class action settlement. In the motion, Plaintiffs seek final approval of the class action settlement including approval of: (1) the settlement as fair, adequate and reasonable, and in the best interests of the settlement class; (2) the class representatives as suitable; (3) the settlement of civil penalties in the amount of $5,000, with payment of $3,750 to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and allocation of $1,250 to participating class members; (4) claims administration expenses in the amount of $46,000 to Simpluris, Inc.; (5) payment to class members pursuant to the procedures in the Settlement Agreement; (6) incentive awards for each class representative ($7,000 each to Jerome Davis and Priscilla Humphrey; and $2,500 each to Jennifer Carrow and Sabrina Rowell); (7) attorneys' fees and costs ($450,000 in fees and $32,680 in costs); and (8) entry of judgment. In her Findings and Recommendations dated November 3, 2015 available at http://is.gd/SWoqvufrom Leagle.com, Judge McAuliffe found that the procedures employed were adequate to satisfy Due Process and that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and recommends final approval. The Court appointed Plaintiffs Jerome Davis, Priscilla Humphrey, Jennifer Carrow, and Sabrina Rowell as class settlement and Capstone Law APC as class counsel and awards $5,000 as settlement of civil penalties under PAGA, $46,000 as claims administration expenses to Simpluris, Inc., $443,142 as attorneys' fees, $32,680 as payment to class counsel, $7,000 as incentive awards to Jerome Davis and Priscilla Humphrey, $2,500 each as incentive awards to Jennifer Carrow and Sabrina Rowell. Plaintiffs are represented by Raul Perez, Esq. -- Raul.Perez@Capstonelawyers.com -- Melissa Grant, Esq. -- Melissa.Grant@CapstoneLawyers.com -- CAPSTONE LAW APC Brown Group Retail is represented by Christopher Hart Doyle, Esq. -- CDoyle@jmbm.com -- Michael John Hassen, Esq. -- MHassen@jmbm.com -- JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP CAPSTONE TURBINE: "Kinney" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Kinney, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Capstone Turbine Corp., Darren R. Jamison, Edward I. Reich, and Jayme Brooks, Case No. 2:15-cv-08914 (C.D.Cal., November 16, 2015), was filed on behalf of purchasers of Capstone securities between November 7, 2013 and November 5, 2015, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act. Capstone develops, manufactures, markets and services microturbine technology solutions for use in stationary distributed power generation applications, including cogeneration (combined heat and power, integrated combined heat and power, and combined cooling, heat and power), renewable energy, natural resources and critical power supply. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesly F. Port, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Fax: (310) 201-9160 - and - Howard G. Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Phone: (215) 638-4847 Fax: (215) 638-4867 CENTRAL FREIGHT: Sued Over Truck Driver Misclassification --------------------------------------------------------- On October 20, 2015, the Sacramento employment law lawyers at Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit against Central Freight Lines, Inc. on behalf of the company's Truck Drivers alleging that the transportation company devised an illegal scheme of classifying truck driver as independent contractors in order to avoid paying their share of payroll taxes, overtime wages, and other business related expenses. The class action lawsuit is currently pending in the Sacramento Superior Court as Case No. 34-2015-00185756. The class action lawsuit filed by the Sacramento labor attorneys alleges that Central Freight Lines, Inc. hires workers to drive trucks to provide transportation services but claims that the company devised an unlawful scheme of classifying the employees as independent contractors in order to avoid paying for regular and overtime hours worked. In particular, the class action complaint alleges that the company had the authority to exercise complete control over the work performed and the manner and means in which the work was performed. In essence, the complaint claims that the company controlled every critical aspect of Central Freight Lines, Inc. daily transportation operations in that the company allegedly provided the customer, the haul, the route, and instructions to its Truck Driver as to where to deliver the haul and deadlines for delivery. Additionally, the pending class action lawsuit alleges that the company misclassified their Truck Drivers as independent contractors and furthermore claims that the Truck Driver were charged fees, and had deductions from their wages for various purposes, including but allegedly not limited to, for goods, materials, services, government licenses, repairs, equipment maintenance, and/or fines arising from the Truck Drivers' employment with Central Freight Services, Inc. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, and Bhowmik is no stranger to representing many California employees in lawsuits involving various California Labor Code violations. Their employment attorneys understand the uphill battle employees face in order to fight back against big companies that engage in illegal workplace conduct. The Sacramento labor law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik represent many employees in California wage violation lawsuits who have been forced to work uncompensated hours. With labor law offices located in Riverside, San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Francisco, the labor law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik are dedicated to helping employees throughout California protect and enforce their rights against some of the world's largest corporations. If you feel you have been misclassified as an independent contractor and want to collect your unpaid overtime wages, call an experienced Sacramento employment lawyer at (800) 568 - 8020 to speak with one of our experienced employment law attorneys today. CITIGROUP INC: Settlement in CDS Case Has Initial Approval ---------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the defendants in the litigation over credit default swaps, including Citigroup and related parties, entered on September 30, 2015, settlement agreements with the plaintiffs to settle all claims of the putative class, and on October 29, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlements. Additional information relating to this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 13 MD 2476 (S.D.N.Y.) (Cote, J.). CITIGROUP INC: Defending Against Treasury Auction Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that beginning in July 2015, CGMI, along with numerous other U.S. Treasury primary dealer banks, have been named as defendants in a number of substantially similar putative class actions involving allegations that they colluded to manipulate U.S. Treasury securities markets. The actions are based upon the defendants' roles as registered primary dealers of U.S. Treasury securities and assert claims of alleged collusion under the antitrust laws and manipulation under the Commodity Exchange Act. These actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Northern District of Illinois and the District of the Virgin Islands. On September 24, 2015, certain of the plaintiffs filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to have all of the actions transferred to Judge Paul G. Gardephe in the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Judge Gardephe is currently presiding over the first-filed action and is actively coordinating actions in the Southern District of New York. Most of the actions filed in the Southern District of New York have been consolidated under docket number 15 Civ. 5794 (S.D.N.Y.). Additional information relating to certain of the other actions is publicly available in court filings under the following docket numbers: 15 Civ. 7631 (S.D.N.Y.); 15 Civ. 8149 (S.D.N.Y.); 15 Civ. 0055 (D.V.I.); 15 Civ. 8417 (N.D. Ill.); 15 Civ. 8634 (N.D. Ill.); 15 Civ. 8859 (N.D. Ill.); 15 Civ. 8890 (N.D. Ill.); 15 Civ. 9173 (N.D. Ill.). CITIGROUP INC: Transfer of NYPL v. JPMorgan to S.D.N.Y. Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that defendants filed on September 9, 2015, a motion to transfer the action captioned NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. ET AL. from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to the Southern District of New York for possible consolidation with IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 3:15-cv-02290 (N.D. Cal.) (Chhabria, J.). CITIGROUP INC: Defending Against Beland v. RBoC Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that putative class actions captioned BELAND v. ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, ET AL. and STAINES v. ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, ET AL. were filed in September 2015 in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, respectively, against Citigroup and Related Parties, as well as numerous other foreign exchange (FX) dealers. Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to fix the prices and supply of currency purchased in the FX market, and that this manipulation caused investors to pay inflated rates for currency and/or to receive deflated rates for currency. Plaintiffs assert claims under the Canadian Competition Act and the Quebec Civil Code and/or for civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and waiver of tort. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of putative classes of all persons in Quebec or in Canada who entered into an FX instrument or participated in a fund or investment vehicle that entered into an FX instrument between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2013. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 200-06-000189- 152 (C.S.Q. Quebec) and CV-15-536174 (Ont. S.C.J.). CITIGROUP INC: Defending Against "Negrete" Action in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that on September 16, 2015, an action captioned NEGRETE v. CITIBANK, N.A. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that Citibank, N.A. engaged in conduct in connection with plaintiffs' FX trading that caused them losses. Plaintiffs assert claims for fraud, breach of contract, and negligence, and seek compensatory and punitive damages. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 1:15-cv-7250 (S.D.N.Y.) (Sweet, J.). CITIGROUP INC: Interchange Fees Case Settlement Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that various objectors appealed from the final class settlement approval order in the Interchange Fees Litigation with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which heard oral argument regarding the appeals on September 28, 2015. Additional information concerning these consolidated actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number MDL 05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Brodie, J.) and 12-4671 (2d Cir.). CLIFFS NATURAL: Court Denies Request for Oral Argument ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Dan Aaron Polster of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied Defendants' request for oral argument in the case captioned, THE DEP'T OF THE TREASURY OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND ITS DIVISION OF INVESTMENT, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CLIFFS NATURAL RESOURCES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:14 CV 1031 (N.D. Ohio). The case is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of purchasers of publicly traded stock of Defendant Cliffs Natural Resources, Inc. between March 14, 2012 and March 26, 2013. Specifically, the claims are alleged against Cliffs and certain of its former and current executives and arise under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Lead Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint that complied with the Court's page limitation, included the suggested attachment, and reduced the number of confidential witnesses from 29 to 19. In the motion, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint; motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(F) to strike certain allegations from the second amended complaint; and defendants' motion to schedule oral argument on motion to dismiss and motion to strike. In Opinion and Order dated November 6, 2015 available at http://is.gd/Zkl6FJfrom Leagle.com, Judge Polster held that the benefit of oral argument is unwarranted because the briefs were thorough and well-written and the baseless allegations of fraudulent behavior by Defendants should also be stricken because they are scandalous under Rule 12(f). The Court directed counsel to confer and file on November 16, 2015 a proposed agreed discovery schedule. Department of Treasury of the State of New Jersey is represented by Adam D. Hollander, Esq. -- adam.hollander@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN, LITOWITZ, BERGER & GROSSMAN, Brandon M. Fierro, Esq. -- bfierro@lowenstein.com -- Jamie R. Gottlieb, Esq. -- jgottlieb@lowenstein.com -- Joseph A. Fischetti, Esq. -- jfischetti@lowenstein.com -- Michael B. Himmel, Esq. -- mhimmel@lowenstein.com -- Michael T.G. Long, Esq. -- mlong@lowenstein.com -- LOWENSTEIN SANDLER & Scott D. Simpkins, Esq. -- sdsimp@climacolaw.com -- CLIMACO, WILCOX, PECA, TARANTINO & GAROFOLI Defendants are represented by Adrienne F. Mueller, Esq. -- afmueller@jonesday.com -- Brett W. Bell, Esq. -- bbell@jonesday.com -- Geoffrey J. Ritts, Esq. -- grits@jonesday.com -- John M. Newman, Jr., Esq. -- jnewman@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY COLORADO: Court Directs Inmate to File Amended Complaint -------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied a Motion to Take Judicial Notice, Motion for Appointment of Counsel, Motion for Mediation and Motion for Summary Judgment as premature and directed Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint in the case captioned, ZACHARY A. CHESSER, Plaintiff, v. DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant, Case No. 2:14-CV-01647-RDP (D. Colo.). Plaintiff is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary Florence ADMAX facility in Florence, Colorado. The Amended Complaint alleges four claims: (1) BOP Program statement 5360.09's ban on religious gatherings violates The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA); (2) BOP Program statement 5360.09's ban on religious gatherings violates the Establishment Clause; (3) the Director's policy of housing Muslims with ties to terrorism in long term solitary confinement solely because of these ties violates the RFRA; and (4) Mr. Chesser's conditions of confinement at ADX Florence substantially burden his sincere religious exercise in violation of the RFRA. Mr. Chesser purports to bring claims one, two, and three on behalf of "all Sunni Muslim prisoners confined within the Bureau of Prisons." Mr. Chesser requests declaratory and injunctive relief. On September 10, 2015, the Magistrate ordered Mr. Chesser to cure certain designated deficiencies in his complaint. On October 7, 2015, Mr. Chesser filed an amended Prisoner Complaint. Mr. Chesser has also filed a Motion to Take Judicial Notice, a Motion for Appointment of Counsel, a Motion for Mediation, a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction ("TRO Motion"), and a Motion for Summary Judgment. In his Order dated November 5, 2015 available at http://is.gd/Wjd4qSfrom Leagle.com, Judge Gallagher concluded that Plaintiff fails to set forth a short and plain statement of his claims showing that he is entitled to relief. The Amended Prisoner Complaint contains a substantial amount of factual allegations and details that are irrelevant to his claims or are based on other inmates' experiences, and at numerous times, the amended complaint is repetitive and unnecessarily verbose. The Court directed Mr. Chesser to file an amended complaint. CRICKET WIRELESS: Trial in Suit Over 4G/LTE Services on Dec. 15 --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William Alsup of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Defendants' motion to enforce arbitration clauses in their agreements with plaintiffs in the case captioned, FLOR BARRAZA and NIKOLE HENSON, individuals, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CRICKET WIRELESS LLC and LEAP WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. C 15-02471 WHA (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs Flor Barraza and Nikole Henson each purchased wireless service with accompanying phones at Cricket-owned stores in 2013. Barraza and Henson respectively purchased a Samsung Galaxy S4 and a Samsung Galaxy S3. The full terms and conditions for Cricket's service were included in a 3x4 inch booklet, which was titled "Quick Start Guide" which includes an arbitration clause as "Use of phone requires purchase of Cricket(R) service, which must be purchased separately. By activating Cricket(R) service, you agree to the enclosed terms and conditions of the service." Barraza commenced the action in state court in California in May 2015, claiming that Cricket "marketed UNLIMITED 4G/LTE services throughout the United States" but did not actually have the capability to provide unlimited 4G/LTE services, in violation of various state false advertising laws. Defendants removed the action to federal court here in San Francisco under the Class Action Fairness Act. After removal, Barraza amended the complaint to include Henson as a plaintiff. Plaintiffs sue on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Cricket's services from 2012 to 2014, but the facts regarding anyone other than Barraza and Henson are irrelevant at the stage of the case. In the motion, Defendants contend that when plaintiffs began using Cricket's wireless service, they accepted the terms and conditions set forth in the Quick Start Guide, including the arbitration provisions and that they lacked notice of the terms and conditions in the Quick Start Guide, so they never agreed to that contract. They also argue that even if they did agree to the terms and conditions, Cricket should be estopped from enforcing a contract between the parties because it advertised that it offered "No Contract" service. In his Amended Order dated November 3, 2015 available at http://is.gd/uudhkxfrom Leagle.com, Judge Alsup held that the issue cannot be resolved as a matter of law and a summary jury trial is necessary to determine whether plaintiffs agreed to the terms and conditions contained in the Quick Start Guide enclosed with their wireless phones. The Court scheduled the pretrial on December 9 at 2:00 P.M. and the trial on December 15 at 7:30 A.M. Plaintiffs are represented by Keith Allyn Robinson, Esq. -- keith.robinson@karlawgroup.com -- KEITH A. ROBINSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Rex Sharp, Esq.- rsharp@midwest-law.com -- Barbara Frankland, Esq. -- bfrankland@midwest-law.com -- GUNDERSON SHARP, LLP Defendants are represented by Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq. -- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN LLP DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Appeal in "Weinstat" Action Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- DENTSPLY International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is defending against an appeal in the class action filed by Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan. On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS filed a class action suit in San Francisco County, California alleging that the Company misrepresented that its Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral surgical procedures. The Complaint seeks a recall of the product and refund of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for use in oral surgery. The Court certified the case as a class action in June 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and unfair business practices claims. The class that was certified is defined as California dental professionals who, at any time during the period beginning June 18, 2000 through September 14, 2012, purchased and used one or more Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers for the performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients, which Cavitrons(R) were accompanied by Directions for Use that "Indicated" Cavitron(R) use for "periodontal debridement for all types of periodontal disease." The case went to trial in September 2013, and on January 22, 2014, the San Francisco Superior Court issued its decision in the Company's favor, rejecting all of the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the Superior Court's decision, and the appeal is now pending. The Company is defending against this appeal. DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Moved to January ---------------------------------------------------------------- DENTSPLY International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a Court has rescheduled a hearing to January 2016 on plaintiffs' class certification motion in the class action filed by filed by Carole Hildebrand. On December 12, 2006, a Complaint was filed by Carole Hildebrand, DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell Goldman as a named class representative). The case was filed by the same law firm that filed the Weinstat case in California. The Complaint asserts putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The Complaint seeks damages and asserts that the Company's Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scaler was negligently designed and sold in breach of contract and warranty arising from misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product because it cannot assure the delivery of potable or sterile water. Following grant of a Company Motion and dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs filed a second complaint under the name of Dr. Hildebrand's corporate practice, Center City Periodontists, asserting the same allegations (this case is now proceeding under the name "Center City Periodontists"). The plaintiffs moved to have the case certified as a class action, to which the Company has objected and filed its brief. The Court subsequently granted a Motion filed by the Company and dismissed plaintiffs' New Jersey Consumer Fraud and negligent design claims, leaving only a breach of express warranty claim, in response to which the Company has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court has rescheduled a hearing to January 2016 on plaintiffs' class certification motion. DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action by Sirona Stockholders ----------------------------------------------------------------- DENTSPLY International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary Dawkins Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub") were served on October 2, 2015 and October 5, 2015, with two separate putative class action complaints filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by purported stockholders of Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. ("Sirona") against the members of Sirona's Board of Directors, the Company, and Merger Sub. The complaints allege that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted and/or assisted Sirona's Board members in breaching their fiduciary duties to Sirona's stockholders in connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into between the Company and Sirona on September 15, 2015. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this litigation. DONNYBROOK ENERGY: C$5.5MM Settlement in Securities Suit OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP and Siskinds LLP announced the Notice of Settlement Approval in Donnybrook and Donnycreek Securities Class Action. This notice is directed to the following "Class Members": all persons and entities, wherever they may reside or be domiciled, who held shares of Donnybrook Energy Inc. (now known as Stonehaven Exploration Ltd.) ("Donnybrook") at the time of a plan of arrangement completed by Donnybrook on November 4, 2011 (the "Arrangement") and received shares of Donnycreek Energy Inc. (now known as Kicking Horse Energy Inc.) ("Donnycreek") through the Arrangement, other than (i) Excluded Persons (certain persons associated with the Defendants and persons who purchased Donnycreek shares in the Private Placement, and (ii) persons who have previously opted out of the class action. READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AS IT MAY AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. YOU MAY NEED TO TAKE PROMPT ACTION. Please note: This is a summary notice, produced for publication purposes, announcing Court approval of the settlement reached in this litigation. A long form notice containing additional detail is available on the Administrator's website: www.donnybrookclassaction.com; or Class Counsel's website: www.jssbarristers.ca/pages/class-actions/class-actions.cfm or http://www.siskinds.com/donnybrook-energy-and-donnycreek-energy/. Court Approval of the Class Action Settlement In August 2013, the Plaintiff Wayne Philpott commenced a class action against Donnybrook, Donnycreek, Malcolm Todd, Robert Todd, Murray Scalf, David Patterson, Randy Kwasnicia, Ken Stephenson and Colin Watt (collectively, the "Defendants") in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (the "Court"). The class action claims arise out of the Arrangement whereby various assets of Donnybrook were transferred to Donnycreek, as well as a concurrent private placement by Donnycreek pursuant to which shares were issued to various persons (including the individual Defendants) at $0.37 per share (the "Private Placement"). On January 22, 2015, the Court certified this proceeding as a class action on consent. Certification by the Court is not a decision on the merits of the class action. On October 9, 2015, the Court approved the Settlement Agreement between the parties dated July 10, 2015 (the "Settlement Agreement"). The settlement is a compromise of disputed claims and is not an admission of liability, wrongdoing or fault on the part of any of the Defendants, all of whom have denied, and continue to deny, the allegations against them. The Settlement Agreement provides for the payment of CDN$5,500,000.00 (the "Settlement Amount") in consideration for full and final settlement of the claims of Class Members, including legal fees, disbursements, taxes and administration expenses, in return for releases and a dismissal of the class action. Persons who are not Class Members are not permitted to participate in the settlement. Administration of the Settlement Agreement The Court has appointed RicePoint Administration Inc. as the Administrator of this settlement. The Administrator will oversee the claims process and will manage and distribute the balance of the Settlement Amount after payment of fees, expenses and taxes (the "Net Settlement Amount"). Those Class Members who wish to receive compensation from the Net Settlement Amount must mail or otherwise submit a completed Claim Form and any supporting documents to the Administrator, by no later than February 11, 2016, to the following address: RicePoint Administration Inc. P.O. Box 3355 London, ON N6A 4K3 The Class Members who file a valid claim will be paid a pro rata share of the Net Settlement Amount. The long form notice of settlement approval contains the complete details of the process for filing a Claim Form and how the Net Settlement Amount will be distributed. All Class Members will be bound by the terms of the settlement, regardless of whether they submit a claim for compensation or receive payment from the Settlement Amount. Class Members will not be able to bring or maintain any other claim or legal proceeding against the Defendants or any other person released by the settlement in relation to the matters alleged in the class action. For further information regarding the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Plan of Allocation and/or filing a claim, or to obtain a Claim Form, visit the Administrator's website at www.donnybrookclassaction.com or contact the Administrator by calling 1-866-432-5534. The law firms of Siskinds LLP and Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP (together, "Class Counsel") are counsel to the Class Members, and can be reached by telephone, toll free, at 1-877-672- 2121 x 2380, by email at nicole.young@siskinds.com, or on the internet at www.siskinds.com or www.jssbarristers.ca. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT WITH INQUIRIES ABOUT THE CLASS ACTION OR THE SETTLEMENT. All inquiries should be directed to the Administrator or Class Counsel. DISTRIBUTION OF THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA Contact: Siskinds LLP Nicole Young, 1-877-672-2121 x 2380 nicole.young@siskinds.com DXP ENTERPRISES: "Bouchard" Suit Moved From W.D. to S.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Bouchard v. DXP Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-01089, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-03118 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by improperly failing to pay Safety Technicians and other workers overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. DXP is a corporation organized under the laws of Texas. DXP provides well-site and safety services to oil companies. DXP employs individuals, including the Plaintiff, as Safety Technicians, who check site visitors' credentials, record hydrogen sulfide readings, and monitor other chemical readings. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence Morales II, Esq. Allison Sarah Hartry, Esq. THE MORALES FIRM, P.C. 115 E. Travis, Suite 1530 San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: (210) 225-0811 Facsimile: (210) 225-0821 E-mail: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com ahartry@themoralesfirm.com - and - Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH LEEBRON COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: ADunlap@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com mjosephson@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael Carter Crow, Esq. FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP 1301 McKinney, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 651-5218 Facsimile: (713) 651-5246 E-mail: carter.crow@nortonrosefulbright.com - and - Stephen J. Romero, Esq. Mario Alberto Barrera, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 300 Convent St., Suite 2100 San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: (210) 270-7128 Facsimile: (210) 270-7205 E-mail: stephen.romero@nortonrosefulbright.com mario.barrera@nortonrosefulbright.com EDAP TMS: No Appeals Filed from Dismissal of Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The global leader in therapeutic ultrasound, announced that, further to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissal of the securities class action lawsuit filed against the Company, the appeals period has concluded with no notice of appeal filed by the plaintiffs in the suit. Marc Oczachowski, Chief Executive Officer of EDAP said, "We are pleased with the Court's decision and believe the ruling supported our position that the suit was without merit, a belief that was reinforced by the lack of an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs. We look forward to putting this matter behind us and focusing on the growth of the Company following the recent receipt of FDA clearance of our Ablatherm(R) Robotic HIFU." About EDAP TMS SA EDAP TMS SA markets today Ablatherm(R) for high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for prostate tissue ablation in the U.S. and for treatment of localized prostate cancer in the rest of the world. HIFU treatment is shown to be a minimally invasive and effective option for prostatic tissue ablation with a low occurrence of side effects. Ablatherm-HIFU is generally recommended for patients with localized prostate cancer (stages T1-T2) who are not candidates for surgery or who prefer an alternative option, or for patients who failed radiotherapy treatment. Ablatherm-HIFU is approved for commercial distribution in Europe and some other countries including Mexico and Canada, and has received 510(k) clearance by the U.S. FDA. The Company also markets an innovative robot- assisted HIFU device, the Focal One(R), dedicated to focal therapy of prostate cancer. Focal One(R) is CE marked but is not FDA approved. The Company also develops its HIFU technology for the potential treatment of certain other types of tumors. EDAP TMS SA also produces and distributes medical equipment (the Sonolith(R) lithotripters' range) for the treatment of urinary tract stones using extra-corporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) in most countries including Canada and the U.S. For more information on the Company, please visit http://www.edap-tms.com,and http://www.hifu-planet.com. CONTACT: Blandine Confort Investor Relations / Legal Affairs EDAP TMS SA +33 4 72 15 31 72 bconfort@edap-tms.com Investors: Lee Roth The Ruth Group 646-536-7012 lroth@theruthgroup.com EVERCORE PARTNERS: "Coburn" Class Action in D.C. Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Evercore Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a class action by Donna Marie Coburn is now pending either scheduling of an oral argument, which has been requested, or a ruling on the motion. In January 2015, Donna Marie Coburn filed a proposed class action complaint against Evercore Trust Company, N.A. ("ETC") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in which she purports to represent a class of participants in the J.C. Penney Corporation Inc. Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan (the "Plan") whose participant accounts held J.C. Penney stock at any time between May 15, 2012 and the present. The complaint alleges that ETC breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by causing the Plan to invest in J.C. Penney stock during that period and claims the Plan suffered losses of approximately $300 million due to declines in J.C. Penney stock. The plaintiff seeks the recovery of alleged Plan losses, attorneys' fees, other costs, and other injunctive and equitable relief. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against these claims and intends to vigorously defend against them. ETC is indemnified by J.C. Penney, and ultimately the Plan, for reasonable attorneys' fees and other legal expenses, which would be refunded should ETC not prevail. On April 13, 2015, ETC filed an answer along with a motion to dismiss. On June 13, 2015 Plaintiffs filed an opposition to ETC's motion to dismiss and on July 13, 2015, ETC filed its reply to Plaintiffs' opposition. The case is now pending either scheduling of an oral argument, which has been requested, or a ruling on the motion. EXPERIAN: Targeted by Class Suits Over T-Mobile Breach ------------------------------------------------------ Andrew Blake, writing for The Washington Times, reported that Experian is facing an undisclosed number of class-action lawsuits as a result of the security breach that allowed hackers to compromise the personal information of 15 million T-Mobile applicants, the credit firm said. In its six-month financial report released by Experian, the company said it's received "a number of class actions in respect of the data breach and is currently working with regulators and government bodies as part of their investigations." "It is currently not possible to predict the scope and effect on the Group of these various regulatory and government investigations and legal actions, including their timing and scale," the company said. Experian in contracted by T-Mobile to processes credit checks for the telecom, but a security breach had let hackers access the personal records of roughly 15 million applicants, including their Social Security numbers and other sensitive data. "Experian has files on more than 220 million people. Protection of this information is of the utmost importance, especially because the scope of the information is vast and virtually no consumer can apply for credit without entering your system," Sen. Sherrod Brown, Ohio Democrat, wrote in a letter to Experian CEO Brian Cassin. Although Experian's report does not specifically state how many class-action suits it faces, Bloomberg reported that no fewer than six claims had been filed in court within one week of the breach being revealed on Oct. 1. "What makes the most recent breach so ironic is that Experian holds itself out as an expert in the field of data protection, touting its revenues in this area in the amount of $4 billion annually," Bloomberg quoted from one of the complaints. Experian said the one-off costs incurred by responding to the breach has amounted to roughly $20 million. FLAGLER MEDICAL: Faces "Leon" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Miriam L. Leon, and other similarly situated individuals, v. Susan Fox, D.O., P.A.; Flagler Medical Management, Inc. f/k/a Pavilion for Women's Care LLC; and Susan Fox, individually, Case No. 1:15- cv-24256-FAM (S.D.Fla., November 16, 2015), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Flagler Medical Management, Inc. is a staffing agency. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 503-5131 Fax: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com GENERAL CHEMICAL: Cincinnati Alleges Price Fixing of Alum Product ----------------------------------------------------------------- The City Of Cincinnati, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. Frank A. Reichl, General Chemical Corporation, General Chemical Performance Products, LLC, Gentek, Inc. and John Does 1-10, Case 2:15-cv-08065-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., November 13, 2015), alleges that defendants conspired, combined and contracted to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices at which Alum would be sold. The purported group of plaintiffs consists of all persons and entities in the United States, who purchased liquid aluminum sulfate directly from defendants at any time from January 1, 1997 through at least July 31, 2010. Defendants are manufacturers and distributors of Alum used primarily by municipalities in potable water and wastewater treatment and by pulp and paper manufacturers as part of their manufacturing processes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq. William G. Caldes, Esq. Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215)496 0300 Fax: (215)496 6611 E-mail: jcorrigan@srkw-law.com jkodroff@srkw-law.com bcaldes@srkw-law.com jspector@srkw-law.com - and - Steven P. Goodin, Esq. GRAYDON HEAD & RITCHEY LLP Fifth Third Center 1900 Walnut Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513)621 6464 E-mail: sgoodin@graydon.com - and - David H. Fink, Esq. Darryl Bressack, Esq. FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW 100 West Long Lake Road, Suite 111 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Phone: (248)971 2500 E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com GOLDMAN SACHS: Settles CDO Class Action --------------------------------------- Darren S. Teshima, Esq. -- dteshima@orrick.com -- and Jennifer C. Lee, Esq. -- jclee@orrick.com -- at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, in an article for Lexology.com, wrote that on November 3, 2015, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by a class of investors over Goldman's sale of two collateralized debt obligations. The settlement agreement comes on the heels of a September 8, 2015 summary judgment decision for Goldman that we recently covered, which found that Plaintiffs had failed to show evidence that Goldman Sachs knew about the risks associated with the CDOs. The settlement amount was not disclosed. GNC HOLDINGS: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces that class action litigation has been brought on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of GNC Holdings, Inc. ("GNC" or the "Company") between May 2, 2013 and October 22, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of GNC during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than December 28, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the action will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. GNC investors who wish to learn more about the action and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358. Background on the GNC Securities Class Litigation The action charges GNC and certain of its senior executives with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. GNC operates as a specialty retailer of health and wellness products. The action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) GNC unlawfully sold thousands of units of products in Oregon containing picamilon and BMPEA; (2) GNC unlawfully sold thousands of units of products in Oregon that contained BMPEA; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 22, 2015, the Oregon Attorney General announced a lawsuit against GNC arising from the Company's sale of nutritional and dietary supplements containing the illegal ingredients picamilon and BMPEA. On this news, the price of GNC shares fell $5.73 per share, or 14.24%, from a previous closing price of $40.23 on October 21, 2015, to close at $34.50 per share on October 22, 2015, on extremely heavy trading volume. About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for twelve years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity." Best Lawyers and U.S. News have named Lieff Cabraser as a "Law Firm of the Year" for each year the publications have given this award to law firms, including in 2015. GNC HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of GNC Holdings, Inc. Class A common stock during the period between November 28, 2011 and October 28, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from October 29, 2015. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/gnc/. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges GNC and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. GNC is a global specialty retailer of health and wellness products, including vitamins, minerals and herbal supplement products, sports nutrition products and diet products. The Company is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information regarding GNC's business and prospects, including, but not limited to: (i) that the Company had been selling certain products as lawful dietary supplements when, in fact, they contain potentially dangerous, unapproved drugs that may not be lawfully sold as dietary supplements in the United States; (ii) that the Company filed documents with the SEC that contained materially false and misleading representations about GNC's product quality standards and quality controls, risk factors, financial statements and disclosure controls; and (iii) that the Company was experiencing declining supplement sales. Based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its 2015 financial outlook, business prospects and future operating performance. On October 22, 2015, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum filed a lawsuit against GNC alleging that the Company sold nutritional and dietary supplements containing the illegal ingredients picamilon and BMPEA, both of which are synthetic ingredients that are not lawful dietary ingredients in the United States. When Reuters and CNBC made public the allegations in the Oregon Attorney General's lawsuit, the price of the Company's shares fell more than 14%. Then on October 29, 2015, GNC issued a press release announcing its financial results for the quarter ended September 30, 2015. For the quarter, GNC reported a 29% drop in profit, in part due to a 2.7% decline in revenue and a $28.3 million asset impairment charge associated with its Discount Supplements line of business. In response to these revelations, the price of GNC common shares fell an additional 26.9%. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of GNC Class A common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller, with 200 lawyers in ten offices, represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history and was ranked first in both the amount and number of shareholder class action recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 report for 2014. GNC HOLDINGS: Targeted in $5MM Suit Over Unapproved Supplements --------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Stroud, writing for BizJournal.com, reported that three weeks after Pittsburgh-based GNC was targeted by the Oregon Attorney General for allegedly selling products containing unapproved drugs, the first class action lawsuit connected to those products has been filed against the company. Late Tuesday, Iowa resident Chris Lynch sued GNC Holdings Inc. (NYSE: GNC) over the sale of products containing two drugs that are not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as dietary supplements: Picamilon and BMPEA. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleged that Lynch consumed Picamilon and BMPEA when he purchased and used Redline Ultra Hardcore, made by Weston, Fla.-based VPX, a sports nutritional supplement company. The product description on GNC's site said the product is infused with "Black Microtabs" that "deliver powerful fat incinerating ingredients for three hours. When all other fat burners fail Redline Ultra Hardcore Blue Microtabs release into the system from 3 hours up to 7 hours!" Redline Ultra Hardcore is listed on GNC's website, but a salesperson at a a Pittsburgh-based location said the product was not available anywhere within a 50-mile radius of the city. The FDA issued warning letters in April to five companies selling products containing BMPEA. In 2013, the FDA ruled that BMPEA does not qualify as a vitamin, mineral, herb or other botanical, amino acid, dietary substance, concentrate metabolite -- categories of ingredients that are allowed to be contained in and marketed as dietary supplements. On Sept. 28, Cara Welch, acting deputy director, Division of Dietary Supplement Programs with the FDA, issued a declaration that Picamilon also fits none of these categories. Welch's declaration was the first exhibit attached to the Oregon lawsuit. The Oregon lawsuit specifically targeted GNC for "repeatedly" violating the state's unlawful trade practices act "by misrepresenting that various products that GNC sold in Oregon were lawful dietary supplements when in fact these products were adulterated and unlawful." GNC spokeswoman Laura Brophy declined to comment. "As a matter of corporate policy," she wrote in an email, "GNC does not comment on pending litigation." Calls to VPX, Lynch, and Lynch's attorney were not immediately returned. Filed as a class action, Lynch's lawsuit purports to include "thousands of members geographically disbursed throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States," it read. "The aggregated claims of the individual class members exceed $5 million." GNC "repeatedly misrepresented that various products GNC sold in numerous stores throughout the United States were lawful dietary supplements when the products were actually adulterated and unlawful because they contained either Picamilon or BMPEA, potentially dangerous ingredients that do not meet the legal definition of a dietary ingredient and may not be lawfully used in dietary supplements," the class action read. According to the lawsuit, Picamilon was developed by researchers in the former Soviet Union. It's used in Russia "to treat a variety of neurological conditions," the lawsuit read, but "it has never been approved as a prescription or over-the-counter drug in the United States." BMPEA is marketed as a stimulant to increase stamina and energy during workouts, but the FDA's warning said it is "a substance that does not meet the statutory definition of a dietary ingredient." "If [Lynch] had known that these products were unsafe and unlawful, he would not have purchased the products or would have spent materially less to purchase them," the lawsuit read. "Further, neither GNC nor its representatives ever advised [Lynch] of any health or safety risks associated with the unlawful and unsafe GNC products sold to him containing Picamilon and/or BMPEA." HANOVER INSURANCE: CA Affirms Dismissal of Claims in "Durand" ------------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Eric L. Clay of the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, affirmed the judgment of the district court in the case captioned, JENNIFER DURAND, Plaintiff, WALTER J. WHARTON; MICHAEL A. TEDESCO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP, INC.; THE ALLMERICA FINANCIAL CASH BALANCE PENSION PLAN, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 14-5648 (6th Cir.). On March 3, 2007, lead Plaintiff Jennifer Durand filed the complaint initiating this ERISA class action against her former employer, The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and the pension plan it sponsors, Allmerica Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan. The complaint challenged the projection rate used by the Plan to calculate the lump-sum payment Durand elected to receive after ending her employment at the Company in 2003. Durand alleged that Defendants impermissibly used the 30-year Treasury bond rate instead of the projected rate of return on her investment selections in the "whipsaw" calculation required under pre-2006 law, in violation of 29 U.S.C. Sections 1053(e) and 1055(g) (ERISA Sections 203(e) and 205(g)). The district court dismissed Durand's complaint on November 9, 2007 based on her failure to exhaust administrative remedies reversed by another panel of the Court, holding that the exhaustion requirement should be excused as futile. On May 31, 2011, the magistrate judge dismissed the cutback claim asserted by Wharton and Tedesco and the breach of fiduciary duty claims as untimely. On Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, the magistrate judge reinstated the breach of fiduciary claims solely as they related to the whipsaw calculation. Separately, the parties litigated the merits of Wharton's whipsaw claim by means of Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The magistrate judge held that the 2004 Amendment validly governed lump-sum distributions occurring after 2003, and that Wharton was not entitled to a higher interest crediting rate for any portion of his accrued benefits in the whipsaw calculation. On appeal, Plaintiffs Walter Wharton and Michael Tedesco appeal the dismissal of their claims filed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Sections 1001-1461 (ERISA). In her Opinion dated November 6, 2015 available at http://is.gd/BoxWrRfrom Leagle.com, Judge Clay held that Plaintiffs' first theory of breach plainly does not relate to Plan participants' awareness of their cutback claims and Plaintiffs' second theory fails for similar reasons, as they do not explain how Defendants' disclosure of the alleged purpose of the 2004 Amendment to prevent whipsaw liability would have alerted continuing plan participants to the existence of a cutback claim. Plaintiffs are represented by Alan S. Gilbert, Esq. -- alan.gilbert@dentons.com -- DENTONS US LLP - and - Eli Gottesdiener, Esq. GOTTESDIENER LAW FIRM, PLLC 498 7th St Brooklyn, NY 11215 Tel: (718)788-1500 INDEPENDENCE, LA: Fire Chief Wants to Expand Case to Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Rester, writing for The Daily Star, reported that a former Independence fire chief who is suing the town and the district that oversees rural fire departments wants to make his case a class action lawsuit on behalf of firefighters and town employees. According to Thomas Hogan, attorney for David Maurer, the amendments were filed last week to ask for relief for all town of Independence employees who did not receive retirement benefits and to ask that all firefighters in the Tangipahoa Parish Rural Fire Protection District No. 2 be considered classified employees. That would mean the firefighters would get benefits and the district would get a civil service board to review terminations. The plaintiff wants to amend the complaint against Independence on behalf of town employees once he learned the Legislative Auditor found the town failed to enroll 45 eligible employees into retirement systems, Hogan said. The report says the town failed to enroll eligible employees in the Municipal Employees Retirement System and the Municipal Police Employees Retirement System and from January 2013 to December 2014, 45 people were supposed to be enrolled. Hogan said the finding reflected Maurer's claim that he was inadequately paid during his employment with the town. Maurer is suing for wrongful termination when he was fired in July 2013 after he was made chief in January. He alleges the termination was done without due process under the Firefighter Bill of Rights. He also alleges that the town of Independence owes him overtime pay when he was a firefighter before Independence decided to end its fire department in 2012. The town's firefighters transferred to the Independence Volunteer Fire Department, which is under the rural fire district. Maurer was made the fire chief of IVFD and was later fired. According to Glen Galbraith, attorney representing the fire district, the defendant objects to the amendment request, saying it is too late in the lawsuit to amend the complaint against the district for a third time. "We just think that's excessive," he said. The district's board maintains there is only one employee of the district, Fire Administrator Dennis Crocker, and he is not a firefighter, which means he should not be classified, Galbraith said. Asking for class action will not change the defendant's stance that Maurer's complaint will not hold up in court, Galbraith said. "It still won't have any merit," Galbraith said. Hogan said the proposed amendment includes testimony from Robert Lawrence, state examiner for Fire and Police Civil Service, who has said the fire district should be under a civil service system. If Maurer's amendment is accepted, the fire district would have to pay into the Firefighters' Retirement System and credit class members for retirement contributions, as well as pay for damages and attorney fees to Maurer. He is also asking to be reinstated as fire chief of IVFD or be compensated monetarily. He is asking the judge consider class action for Independence employees so they are paid retirement contributions. He also wants the town to pay him for overtime pay, as well as damages, attorney fees and penalties. The hearing to decide if the amended complaints can be heard is scheduled for Dec. 2. The jury trial is set for July 11. ISRAELI RAILWAYS: Court Approves Class Action Over Late Trains -------------------------------------------------------------- Chen Ma'anit, writing for Globe.co.il, reported that judge Michal Agmon-Gonen accepts petition demanding better compensation from Israel Railways for delays over 30 minutes. The Tel Aviv District Court approved a class action suit against Israel Railways for delays longer than 30 minutes. Judge Michal Agmon-Gonen's decision paves the way for rail passengers to receive compensation for their time. The plaintiff, advocate Avner Gabay, had purchased for years the "monthly pass" for the train, in order to ride the line from Hod Hasharon to Tel Aviv. In his petition, he claimed that the line was plagued by delays; when he formally complained about the matter, he was informed that delays yield compensation in the form of one free ticket voucher. However, he claimed the free ticket is not much compensation when his "monthly pass" entitles him to unlimited rides. He also added that the rail company does not inform its passengers of their rights, leaving many to not take advantage of even the limited compensation. The suit demands financial compensation for customers that purchased a "monthly pass" and for all passengers who were purposefully not informed of their rights. Israel Railways responded: "The ruling does not address the current reality but two individual cases in the distant past. As it said in the ruling, the issue of compensation for delay to those holding a term-ticket was fixed years ago -- and that is the focus of the ruling. A monthly pass has not existed in years; it was replaced by a flexible 30-day ticket. Furthermore, the compensation procedure discussed by the court was ended on November 1, 2013; the new procedure does not differentiate between a term-ticket holder and another passenger." JANSSEN PHARMA: Suit Filed in Canada to Address Kidney Injuries --------------------------------------------------------------- Kendra Goldhirsch, writing for The Legal Examiner, reported that on September 10, 2015, plaintiffs filed a new class action lawsuit against the manufacturers of diabetes drug Invokana: Janssen Pharmaceuticals and parent company Johnson & Johnson. Representative plaintiff Rosalba Joudry, a resident of Ontario, filed the case on behalf of all persons in Canada who took Invokana and then suffered serious kidney problems. In the U.S. the FDA warned in May 2015 that Invokana had been linked to diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), a dangerous and potentially life-threatening condition. They issued the warning after receiving 20 reports of DKA between 2013 and 2014 of patients with type 2 diabetes who were taking Invokana and were hospitalized for DKA. Invokana has also been linked to kidney problems, which is the subject of this potential Canadian class-action lawsuit. Plaintiff Taking Invokana Suffers Kidney Failure According to the complaint, Joudry started taking Invokana in October 2014 to manage her high blood glucose levels associated with her type 2 diabetes. The FDA approved Invokana for this use in March 2013. Around June 2015, Joudry states she saw an advertisement on a U.S. television commercial warning Invokana users about the risk for DKA and kidney failure. She immediately contacted her doctor and made an appointment. Tests conducted by her doctor showed that she was experiencing kidney failure. Joudry was shocked by the diagnosis. She states that her doctor didn't alert her to the risk, and that the warnings on the Invokana label were inadequate and downplayed the seriousness of the drug's potential side effects. Had she known about the potential for kidney failure, she states that she would never have taken the drug. Invokana Linked with Kidney Stones and Kidney Failure Invokana was approved for sale in Canada after it was approved in the U.S.--in May 2014. The drug belongs to a class of medications called SGLT2 inhibitors that blocks the kidneys from reabsorbing glucose, allowing that glucose to be flushed out of the body via the urine. In the initial trials used to gain FDA approval of the drug, there was some evidence of bone health issues, cardiovascular problems, and liver abnormalities, but the FDA allowed the approval to go through with the stipulation that the manufacturer conduct additional studies to further determine Invokana's safety. The administration did express concern about the long-term use of the drug, stating that the changes in kidney function seen in the studies could potentially put patients at risk of kidney injury. Within just a year of being on the U.S. market, Invokana was associated with 457 reports of adverse events, as reported by the Institute for Safe Medications Practices (ISMP) in their QuarterWatch publication. Among the problems reported were urinary tract infections, kidney stones, and kidney impairment or failure. Plaintiff Seeks in Excess of $1 Billion in Damages for Injured Class Joudry asserts in her complaint that Janssen failed to provide clear, complete, and current warnings on the Invokana label, and that they have ignored information connecting the drug with kidney and other problems. Instead of properly warning of these problems, the manufacturer has continued to promote the product as safe. On behalf of all potential class members, Joudry seeks general damages in excess of $500 million and special damages in excess of $500 million, for a total of $1 billion, as well as punitive damages. The class action has not yet been certified, which is required under Canadian law before it can proceed. Certification is expected within the next six months. KBR INC: Class Action Discovery Expected to Continue Into 2016 -------------------------------------------------------------- KBR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that discovery has begun and is expected to continue into 2016 in In re KBR, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Company said, "Lead plaintiffs, Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and Local 58/NECA Funds, seek class action status on behalf of our shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company, our former chief executive officer, our current and former chief financial officers, and our former chief accounting officer, arising out of the restatement of our 2013 annual financial statements, and seek undisclosed damages. The case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Master File No. 14-cv-01287. We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint for failure to plead particularized facts supporting a strong inference of scienter on the part of the individual defendants and the motion was denied on September 3, 2015." "We intend to continue to vigorously defend against these claims. Discovery in the case has begun and is expected to continue into 2016. At this early stage, we are not yet able to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter," the Company said. KRIS KOBACH: Lawyers Asks for Class Action Status ------------------------------------------------- Edward M. Eveld, writing for The Kansas City Star, reported that a court challenge by two Douglas County residents against Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach could become a class-action suit that represents many of the 36,000 people slated to have their incomplete voter registrations canceled. Lawyers for Cody Keener and Alder Cromwell filed an amendment to make the change. Kobach has asked the federal court to dismiss the case because Keener and Cromwell are now registered to vote. His office registered them by obtaining proof-of-citizenship documents on their behalf, which is allowed by the registration statute. Will Lawrence, attorney for Cromwell and Keener, said their case remains valid despite Kobach's subsequent action to register them. "But we also realize this case involves tens of thousands of Kansans who have ended up on the suspended voter list and are ultimately to be denied the right to vote," Lawrence said. Craig McCullah, Kobach's spokesman, said the office was reviewing the class-action request and had no comment yet. Kobach implemented an administrative rule in October to cancel incomplete voter registrations after 90 days. Most such registrations were missing proof-of-citizenship documents, such as a birth certificate or passport. The law that requires proof of citizenship for voter registration took effect in 2013. The suit, brought by the law firm of Paul Davis, the Lawrence lawyer who ran against Gov. Sam Brownback in the 2014 election, argues that the 90-day rule violates the National Voter Registration Act and due process rights. L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Amended Suit Fully Briefed ------------------------------------------------------------- L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications Corporation said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 25, 2015, that the Company's motion to dismiss the amended and restated complaint in a class action lawsuit has been fully briefed. In August 2014, three separate, putative class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the District Court) against the Company and certain of its officers. These cases were consolidated into a single action on October 24, 2014. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in the District Court on December 22, 2014, which was further amended and restated on March 13, 2015. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws related to misconduct and accounting errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment, and seeks monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and fees and expenses. The Company believes the action lacks merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. On April 24, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended and restated complaint. The motion has been fully briefed. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate any amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this matter because the proceedings are in their early stages. LABORATORY CORP: Trial Court Stays "Jansky" Case Pending Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- A trial court has stayed the case, Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., pending resolution of an appeal, Laboratory Corporation Of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. The complaint alleges that the Defendants committed unlawful and unfair business practices, and violated various other state laws by changing screening codes to diagnostic codes on laboratory test orders, thereby resulting in customers being responsible for co-payments and other debts. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees, and legal expenses. In June 2015, Plaintiff's Motion for class certification was denied. Plaintiff has appealed the denial of class certification, and the trial court has stayed the case pending resolution of the appeal. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. LABORATORY CORP: Appeal by Sandusky Wellness Pending ---------------------------------------------------- An appeal in the case, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., et al., remains pending, Laboratory Corporation Of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. On August 24, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., et al., filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The lawsuit alleges that on or about February 21, 2012, the defendants violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending unsolicited facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without the recipients' prior express permission or invitation. The lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005 for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief. In September 2014, Plaintiff's Motion for class certification was denied. In January of 2015, the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment on the remaining individual claim was granted. Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. LABORATORY CORP: Notice of "Bohlander" Settlement Circulated ------------------------------------------------------------ Notice of the settlement in the Bohlander lawsuit and Andres lawsuit has been sent to putative class members, Laboratory Corporation Of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. The Company was a defendant in two separate putative class action lawsuits, Christine Bohlander v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., and Jemuel Andres, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, et al., related to overtime pay. After the filing of the two lawsuits on July 8, 2013, the Bohlander lawsuit was consolidated into the Andres lawsuit and removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In the consolidated lawsuit, the Plaintiffs allege on behalf of similarly situated phlebotomists and couriers that the Company failed to pay overtime, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, and committed other violations of the California Labor Code. On May 28, 2015, the District Court issued a preliminary approval of the class action settlement and notice of the settlement has been sent to putative class members. LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Reached in "Varsam" Case ---------------------------------------------------- The parties in the case, Rita Varsam v. Laboratory Corporation of America DBA LabCorp, have reached a settlement in principle, but the Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit if the settlement is not finalized, Laboratory Corporation Of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. The Company was a defendant in two additional putative class action lawsuits alleging similar claims to the Bohlander/Andres consolidated lawsuit. The lawsuit of Rachel Rabanes v. California Laboratory Sciences, LLC, et al., was filed in April 2014 in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, and the lawsuit Rita Varsam v. Laboratory Corporation of America DBA LabCorp, was filed in June 2014 in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego. As a result of the Andres settlement, the Plaintiff in the Rabanes case dismissed her case. The Plaintiff in the Varsam case alleges on behalf of similarly situated employees that the Company failed to pay overtime, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, and committed other violations of the California Labor Code. The complaint seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, costs, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. The parties in the Varsam case have reached a settlement in principle, but the Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit if the settlement is not finalized. LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Reached in "Legg" Case -------------------------------------------------- The parties in the case, Christopher W. Legg, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America, have reached a settlement in principle, but the Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit if the settlement is not finalized, Laboratory Corporation Of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. On July 9, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Christopher W. Legg, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act by allegedly providing credit card expiration date information on an electronically printed credit card receipt. The lawsuit seeks damages of not less than $0.0001 but not more than $0.01 per violation, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. The parties have reached a settlement in principle that is subject to court approval, but the Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit if the settlement is not finalized. LABORATORY CORP: Facing "Davis" Class Action in Florida ------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation Of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company was served on August 31, 2015, with a putative class action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act by billing patients who were collecting benefits under the Workers' Compensation Statutes. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. LIBERTY MAINTENANCE: Court Narrows Claims in "Pikos" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William F. Kuntz, II of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part Defendants' motion to dismiss in the case captioned, EMMANOUIL PIKOS, HARRY GIALAMAS, PAVLOS KARAGEOGIOU, PRAHALAD LALL, and DANIEL ROJAS for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY MAINTENANCE, INC., LIBERTY MAINTENANCE/CORCON JOINT VENTURE, LLC and ELITE CONTRACTORS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 09-CV-4031 (WFK)(RER) (E.D.N.Y.). On June 4, 2009, Plaintiffs Emmanouil Pikos and Harry Gialamas filed an action in the Supreme Court of New York, Kings County, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against Defendant Liberty Maintenance, Inc. and five John Doe Bonding Companies. In the Original Complaint, Plaintiffs Pikos and Gialamas alleged they and similarly situated laborers and mechanics provided labor to Liberty Maintenance between 2003 and 2009 for various publicly financed construction projects in the State of New York, including construction projects related to the Triborough Bridge, the Verrazano Narrows Bridge, and the Robert Moses Causeway. On September 18, 2009, Defendants removed the action to the federal district court on the basis of complete diversity of the parties. The First Amended Complaint, filed August 14, 2014, added Pavlos Karageogiou, Prahalad Lall, and Daniel Rojas as named Plaintiffs. The First Amended Complaint also added Liberty Maintenance/Corcon Joint Venture, LLC and Elite Contractors, Inc. as Defendants. The First Amended Complaint states three causes of action: breach of the Public Works Contracts, willful failure to pay prevailing wages and supplemental benefits under NYLL Sections 191 and 198-c, and willful failure to pay overtime wages under NYLL Sec. 663. In the motion, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint as time-barred and as not relating back to the Original Complaint or, in the alternative, for failure to plead sufficient facts to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In his Decision and Order dated November 6, 2015 available at http://is.gd/ItkHVefrom Leagle.com, Judge Kuntz, II granted as to Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims against Liberty/Corcon and Elite as time-barred and denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the claims of the newly added Plaintiffs against Liberty because the newly added Plaintiffs' claims against original defendant Liberty for failure to pay wages between 2003 and 2009 involve the same "evidence, memories, and witnesses" as those of the original Plaintiffs and are substantially similar. Plaintiffs are represented by LaDonna Marie Lusher, Esq. -- llusher@vandallp.com -- Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq. -- lambinder@vandallp.com -- VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP Defendants are represented by Alan M. Pollack, Esq. -- amp@robinsonbrog.com -- Felicia S. Ennis, Esq. -- fse@robinsonbrog.com -- ROBINSON BROG LEINWAND GREENE G&G P.C LIQUID HOLDING: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Lundin Law PC announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Liquid Holdings Group, Inc. ("Liquid Holdings" or the "Company") concerning possible violations of federal securities laws between July 25, 2013 and December 23, 2014. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period were advised to contact the Firm in advance of the November 20, 2015, lead plaintiff motion deadline. To join this class action lawsuit, please contact Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or via e-mail at brian@lundinlawpc.com According to the complaint, the Company made misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that, according to outside counsel, the Company's prior financial statements for the nine months ended September 30, 2014, can no longer be relied upon, "due to certain accounting errors." No class has been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member. Lundin Law PC was created by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles. LOS ANGELES, CA: Judgment in "Drum" Case Upheld ----------------------------------------------- Joel Drum lives in a neighborhood that receives street cleaning services wherein the City of Los Angeles, California, adopted parking restrictions that prohibit cars from parking on the street during a specific two hour time period each week when street cleaning is scheduled to take place. He received a citation for parking on the street during the posted street cleaning time period. He filed a class action complaint against the City, claiming the street sweeping program and its related parking restrictions violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Drum alleged that, by imposing its street sweeping program in only some Los Angeles neighborhoods, the City subjected residents that live in the areas receiving street cleaning services to an increased risk of receiving a parking citation, while other residents would "never" be in jeopardy of receiving a citation. Drum filed his complaint on behalf of "all persons who reside in the City of Los Angeles in a location that has parking restrictions in front of, or near to, their residence for weekly street cleaning and who, as has plaintiff, have received a citation for parking in violation of the restrictions within three years of the date the original [complaint] was filed." The City moved to strike the class action allegations on the ground that "a plaintiff in pro per cannot be an adequate class representative as required by CCP Sec. 382 which was granted by the court. Drum subsequently amended his complaint twice and each time restated the class action allegations. After Drum filed his second amended complaint, the City filed another motion to strike the class action allegations and a demurrer. The court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal. The court did not rule on the City's pending motion to strike, finding the motion moot in light of the demurrer ruling. On appeal, Drum argues parking restrictions imposed by the City on the street where he lives, which prohibit street parking for two hours each week in order to accommodate street cleaning, violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Drum also contends the court erred by finding, as a matter of law, that a plaintiff in propria persona cannot be the class representative in a class action lawsuit. In a Disposition dated November 6, 2015 available at http://is.gd/kOaphhfrom Leagle.com, Associate Justice Louis A. Lavin of the Court of Appeals of California held that Drum's second amended complaint fails to state a claim. The City's street sweeping program and related parking restrictions are rationally related to the City's goal of maintaining city streets in a safe, healthy and environmentally sound manner. Justice Lavin affirmed the judgment of dismissal. The case before the appeals court is, JOEL DRUM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent, Case No. B256217 (Cal. App.). City of Los Angeles is represented by Michael N. Feuer, Esq., CITY ATTORNEY; Ronald Whitaker, Esq., ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY; and Gabriel S. Dermer, Esq., DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY MAYO CLINIC: Final Judgment in "Ahearn" Affirmed in Part -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, SHAWN AHEARN, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant, v. MAYO CLINIC, A FLORIDA CORPORATION; MAYO CLINIC JACKSONVILLE, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, Appellees, Case No. 1D14-4256 (Fla. Ct. App.), Judge Ross L. Bilbrey of the Court of Appeals of Florida affirmed a final judgment as to the breach in the case of contract count, the breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing count, the actual damages portion of the FDUTPA count, and the declaratory judgment count under Chapter 86, Florida Statutes and reversed the final summary judgment as to FDUTPA count to the extent it seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for Shawn Ahearn individually and as a putative class representative as an allegedly aggrieved person. On September 14, 2013, Ahearn received emergency medical treatment at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville. Because he was not covered by health insurance or any governmental healthcare program, Ahearn was personally billed $5,953.26 for the treatment he received. On December 23, 2013, Ahearn, through counsel, filed a complaint raising four causes of action premised in the allegations that Mayo Clinic charged him and other uncovered patients rates in excess of the reasonable value of the services provided and substantially higher than rates Mayo Clinic charges those patients covered by insurance or a governmental healthcare program. On March 14, 2014, Mayo Clinic, while continuing to deny fault, informed Ahearn that it was waiving the $5,623.26 which Ahearn still owed for the treatment following his payment of $330.00. Mayo Clinic then moved for summary judgment and agreed to pay Ahearn's attorney's fees and costs, or allow the trial judge to assess them if an agreement could not be reached. At no time before the final summary judgment issued did Ahearn attempt to certify the class pursuant to Rule 1.220(d), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. On appeal, Ahearn, individually and as a putative class representative, appeals the final summary judgment issued by the trial court which found that all of the causes of action asserted in Ahearn's complaint were moot as to him individually, and as such, he lacked standing to assert claims for a similarly situated class. In the Opinion dated November 6, 2015 available at http://is.gd/tpRz4gfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bilbrey found that given the lack of an actual controversy, any declaration under Chapter 86 would be an advisory opinion, which the Court has repeatedly stated is inappropriate and that a material issue of fact remains as to whether Ahearn was "aggrieved" under section 501.211(1). Shawn Ahearn is represented by Bryan S. Gowdy, Esq. -- bgowdy@appellate-firm.com -- CREEDY AND GOWDY, P.A. Mayo Clinic is represented by John A. Tucker, Esq. -- jtucker@foley.com -- James A. McKee, Esq. -- jmckee@foley.com -- Benjamin J. Grossman, Esq. -- bgrossman@foley.com -- FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP METLIFE SECURITIES: "Creighton" Suit Moved From Illinois to N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Creighton v. MetLife Securities, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00959, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-08321-WHP to the proceeding. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is incorporated in New York and its principal place of business is in New York. MLIC conducts business in all 50 states. Since February 2012, the Plaintiff served as executive vice president of MetLife Premier Client Group, a division of MLIC. The Plaintiff is represented by: George S. Robot, Esq. Patricia A. Bronte, Esq. Suzanne E. Bish, Esq. Linda Debra Friedman, Esq. STOWELL & FRIEDMAN, LTD. 303 W. Madison, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 431-0888 Facsimile: (312) 431-0228 E-mail: grobot@sfltd.com pbronte@sfltd.com sbish@sfltd.com lfriedman@sfltd.com Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is represented by: Steven J. Pearlman, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 70 West Madison, Suite 3800 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 962-3545 Facsimile: (312) 963-3551 E-mail: spearlman@proskauer.com - and - Katharine Huth Parker, Esq. Keisha-Ann G. Gray, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 11 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 969-3000 Facsimile: (212) 969-2900 E-mail: kparker@proskauer.com kgray@proskauer.com MIKE CAMPBELL & ASSOC: CA Remands Suit to Calif. Superior Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Acting Presiding Judge Madeleine Flier of the Court of Appeals of California reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the trial court in the case captioned, HIREEM ELIJAHJUAN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MIKE CAMPBELL & ASSOCIATES, LTD. et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No. B255533 (Cal. App.). Plaintiffs sued Campbell, alleging they were misclassified as independent contractors when they should have been classified as employees. Plaintiffs sought to bring the lawsuit as a class action of all persons who signed agreements to operate as drivers for Campbell in the State of California. Plaintiffs allege that the class would exceed 1,000 persons. They alleged causes of action for failure to reimburse business expenses (Lab. Code; unlawful deduction from wages; unlawful coerced purchases; failure to keep accurate payroll records and itemized wage statements; failure to authorize meal periods and rest breaks; failure to pay wages as earned upon termination or resignation; and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs brought claims under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, alleged a violation Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., and asserted a claim for declaratory relief. All of the causes of action were contingent on plaintiffs demonstrating they are employees. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Campbell. The court concluded that if plaintiffs were employees, Logistics would need to hire additional drivers, would need to reimburse operating expenses and purchase trucks at a cost of more than $90 million. The trial court also found that Campbell would have to obtain its own motor carrier authorization from the United States Department of Transportation. The court concluded these necessary changes would affect prices, routes, and services as defined by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (49 U.S.C. Sec. 14501 et seq.) On appeal, Plaintiff argues applying Pac Anchor that the FAAAA did not preempt the state law claims based on the alleged misclassification of plaintiffs as independent contractors. In the Order dated November 4, 2015 available at http://is.gd/hMI3Nqfrom Leagle.com, Judge Flier concluded that the statute at issue did not necessarily increase the motor carrier's operating expenses and that Campbell failed to establish a sufficient relationship to price, route, and service to prompt preemption. The Court remanded the cause to the Superior Court for further proceedings. Plaintiffs are represented by: Wilmer J. Harris, Esq. Isabel M. Daniels, Esq. SCHONBRUN DESIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN, LLP 723 Ocean Front Walk #100 Venice, CA 90291 Tel: (310)396-0731 Defendants are represented by Raymond F. Lynch, Esq. -- rlynch@hansonbridgett.com -- Michael B. McNaughton, Esq. -- mmcnaughton@hansonbridgett.com -- Gilbert J. Tsai, Esq. -- gtsai@hansonbridgett.com -- HANSON BRIDGETT LLP MITSUI & CO: Court Dismisses Korean Residents' Claims ----------------------------------------------------- District Judge William Alsup of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Mitsui & Co.'s motion to dismiss all claims in the case captioned, HE NAM YOU and KYUNG SOON KIM, for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JAPAN; HIROHITO; AKIHITO; NOBUSKE KISHI; SHINZO ABE; NYK LINE (NORTH AMERICA); NIPPON YUSEN KABUSHIKI KAISHA; NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.; NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.; HITACHI, LTD.; HITACHI AMERICA, LTD.; NIPPON STEEL & SUMITOMO METAL U.S.A., INC.; NIPPON STEEL & SUMITOMO METAL CORPORATION; MITSUBISHI CORPORATION (AMERICA); MITSUBISHI GROUP; MITSUI & CO. (U.S.A.), INC.; MITSUI & CO. LTD.; OKAMOTO INDUSTRIES, INC.; SANKEI SHIMBUN, CO., LTD.; and DOES 1-1000, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. C 15-03257 WHA (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs He Nam You and Kyung Soon Kim are residents and citizens of the Republic of Korea. Plaintiffs allege that they were abducted by the Japanese government during the Second World War, forced into servitude, and exploited as sex slaves for the benefit of Japanese soldiers at "comfort stations" in Japan. Plaintiffs assert the following claims against Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.): (1) crimes against humanity in violation of the Alien Torts Statute, (2) cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in violation of the Alien Torts Statute, (3) conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity in violation of the Alien Torts Statute, (4) aiding and abetting torture, in violation of the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (6) battery, and (7) violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Mitsui & Co. argues that plaintiffs' amended complaint suffers from numerous fatal deficiencies. Specifically, it contends that the allegations that give rise to plaintiffs' claims against Mitsui & Co. all occurred overseas more than seventy years ago and that plaintiffs' claims are subject to a waiver in the 1965 Treaty between Japan and the Republic of Korea. In his Order dated November 3, 2015 available at http://is.gd/TFzfq0from Leagle.com, Judge Alsup held the gravity of the injuries that plaintiffs allegedly suffered cannot rescue their claims, inasmuch as they present a non-justiciable question and are barred by the relevant statutes of limitations. Plaintiffs may seek leave to amend their complaint and shall have twenty-one calendar days from the date of the order to file a motion, noticed on the normal 35-day calendar, for leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs are represented by Hyungjin Kim, Esq. -- hkim@kimchang.com -- JEONG SE LAW FIRM - and - Hume Joseph Jung, Esq. JOSEPH JUNG & ASSOCIATES 8393 Capwell Dr #210, Oakland, CA 94621 Tel: (510)562-7700 Defendants are represented by Joseph Anthony Meckes, Esq. -- joseph.meckes@squiresanders.com -- Nathan Lane, III, Esq. -- nathan.lane@squiresanders.com -- SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS LLP MOBILEIRON INC: Amended Complaint Filed in "Panjwani" Case ---------------------------------------------------------- An amended complaint has been filed in the case, Panjwani v. MobileIron, Inc., MobileIron said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. On May 1, 2015, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers, captioned Panjwani v. MobileIron, Inc., et al. The action is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between February 13, 2015 and April 22, 2015. It asserts claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. An amended complaint was filed on September 28, 2015. MOBILEIRON INC: Stockholder Class Actions Filed in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------- MobileIron, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that on August 5, 2015, August 21, 2015 and August 24, 2015, purported stockholder class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County against the Company, certain of its officers, directors, underwriters and investors, captioned Schneider v. MobileIron, Inc., et al., Kerley v. MobileIron, Inc., et al. and Steinberg v. MobileIron, Inc., et al. The actions are purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the Company's securities issued pursuant or traceable to the Company's registration statement and the June 12, 2014 initial public offering. The lawsuits assert claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint seeks among other things, compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. The Company intends to defend the litigations vigorously. MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Securities Litigation Pending in Del. -------------------------------------------------------------- MoneyGram International, Inc. intends to vigorously defend against a class action securities litigation in Delaware, Moneygram said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. On April 15, 2015, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, County of New Castle, against MoneyGram, all of its directors, certain of its executive officers, THL, Goldman Sachs and the underwriters of the secondary public offering of the Company's common stock that closed on April 2, 2014 (the "2014 Offering"). The lawsuit was brought by the Iron Workers District Council of New England Pension Fund seeking to represent a class consisting of all purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's registration statement and prospectus, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, issued in connection with the 2014 Offering. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading statements in connection with the 2014 Offering and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On May 19, 2015, MoneyGram and the other defendants filed a notice of removal to the federal district court of the District of Delaware. On June 18, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to Delaware State Court. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Denies Attorneys' Fees Bid in "Keller" ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Claudia Wilken of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Class Counsel's five separate motions for attorneys' fees and costs and incentive awards in the case captioned, SAMUEL KELLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION; ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.; and COLLEGIATE LICENSING COMPANY, Defendants. EDWARD O'BANNON, et al. Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION; ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.; and COLLEGIATE LICENSING COMPANY, Defendants, Case Nos. C 09-1967 CW, C 09-3329 CW (N.D. Cal.). On August 19, 2015, the Court granted final approval of the class action settlements wherein in its final approval orders, the Court allocated thirty percent of the Electronic Arts, Inc. (EA) settlement fund for attorneys' fees, reserving the division of those funds among the attorneys. Class Counsel have filed five separate motions for attorneys' fees and costs and incentive awards. Among those motions are motions by current and former counsel in Hart v. Electronic Arts, D.N.J. Case No. 09-5990. Timothy McIlwain was counsel for Hart at various times leading up to the settlement of the case. He has filed a motion for fees for himself, various attorneys, law clerks and paralegals who he claims to have supervised, as well as attorneys at the Lanier Law Firm, who were associated as co-counsel for Hart from August through September 2013. Mr. McIlwain attaches a spreadsheet he "prepared detailing most but not nearly all of the time" he spent on the case. As to the other individuals, the attachments to Mr. McIlwain's declaration simply list the individual's name, the hourly rate claimed and the total number of hours claimed. Current counsel for Hart Plaintiffs, the McKenna Law Firm and Lum, Drasco & Positan LLC have also filed a motion for fees. Like the declarations filed in support of Mr. McIlwain's motion for fees, the declarations filed in support of Hart Plaintiffs' current counsel's fee motion simply state the total number of hours and hourly rate claimed. In her Order dated November 3, 2015 available at http://is.gd/i5JzKKfrom Leagle.com, Judge Wilken forund that the records submitted by the counsel are insufficient to support a claim of fees. The Court directed counsel to submit supplemental declarations itemizing the hours claimed by each individual by the tasks completed. Plaintiffs are represented by Arthur Nash Bailey, Jr., Esq. -- abailey@hausfeld.com -- Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. -- mhausfeld@hausfeld.com -- HAUSFELD LLP Defendants are represented by Robert B. Carey, Esq. -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP NATIONAL LLOYDS INSURANCE: CA Denies Writ of Mandamus ----------------------------------------------------- Justice Nora L. Longoria of the Court of Appeals of Texas denied the petition for writ of mandamus in the case captioned, IN RE NATIONAL LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 13-15-00390-CV (Tex. App.). On July 8, 2015, a class action petition was filed against National Lloyds Insurance Company, as relator, on grounds that relator engaged in intentional, tortious interference with existing attorney-client representation agreements. The real parties, who are attorneys representing relator's policyholders, allege that relator has been "enlisting its agents to approach its policyholders who are represented by counsel and convince those policyholders to fire their attorneys, all in hopes that relator could drive down the settlement value of the policyholders' claims." On August 6, 2015, real parties filed an application for temporary restraining order, request for temporary injunction, and a request for permanent injunction against relator. The pleading also requested that the trial court order relator to respond to two discovery requests, attached as "Exhibit A" to the application, within 10 days of entry of the initial temporary restraining order and prior to a hearing for a temporary injunction. On August 25, 2015, the trial court granted the real parties' emergency motion to compel and required relator to respond to the discovery requests within two days. In the motion, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the trial court's August 25, 2015 order compelling it to respond to discovery propounded by the real parties in interest, Arguello, Hope, and Associates, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. In her Memorandum Opinion dated November 3, 2015 available at http://is.gd/PKApUjfrom Leagle.com, Judge Longoria held that the temporary restraining order meets the requirements of Rule 680 insofar as it defines the alleged irreparable injuries, losses, and damages, and states why they would be irreparable and that relator has not shown itself entitled to the relief sought. NFL INC: Faces "Dassa" Suit Over Alleged Anticompetitive Practice ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Dassa, on behalf of himself and a class of all others similarly situated, v. National Football League, Inc.; NFL Enterprises LLC; Arizona Cardinals Holdings, Inc.; Atlanta Falcons Football Club LLC; Baltimore Ravens Limited Partnership; Buffalo Bills, LLC; Panthers Football LLC; Chicago Bears Football Club, Inc.; Cleveland Browns Football Company, LLC; Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd.; PDB Sports, Ltd. D/B/A Denver Broncos Football Club; Detroit Lions, Inc.; Green Bay Packers, Inc.; Houston NFL Holdings LP; Indianapolis Colts, Inc.; Jacksonville Jaguars LLC; Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc.; Miami Dolphins, Ltd.; Minnesota Vikings Football Club LLC; New England Patriots, LP; New Orleans Louisiana Saints LLC; New York Football Giants, Inc.; New York Jets LLC; Oakland Raiders LP; Philadelphia Eagles Football Club, Inc.; Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc.; Chargers Football Co., LLC; San Francisco Forty Niners II, LLC; Football Northwest LLC; The Rams Football Company LLC; Buccaneers Limited Partnership; Tennessee Football, Inc.; Washington Football, Inc.; CBS Corporation; Fox Broadcasting Company; NBC Universal Media, LLC; ESPN INC.; Directv Holdings, LLC; And Directv, LLC, Case 1:15-cv-08982-UA (S.D.N.Y., November 16, 2015), seeks injunctive relief to put an end to alleged anticompetitive scheme of Defendants, and damages to compensate the Class for supracompetitive overcharges paid as a result of the Defendants' restriction of supply, thereby raising prices in the multibillion- dollar football broadcasting market. Defendant National Football League, Inc. is an incorporated association of the 32 football teams in the National Football League with its principal place of business in New York, New York. NFL Enterprises LLC is a limited liability company with its principal place of business in New York, New York. The 32 Teams are owned and operated by the other Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc I. Lieberman, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Foor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-661-1100 Fax: 212-661-8665 E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.con - and - Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1792 Bell Tower Lane Suite 203 Weston, FL 33326 Phone: (561) 270-0795 Fax: (954) 315-3455 E-mail: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com NOVA HARDBANDING: Faces "Foster" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Jarrod B. Foster, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Nova Hardbanding, LLC and Ken Brombley, Case No. 2:15-cv-01047-CG-LAM (D.N.Mex., November 16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and related penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Nova Hardbanding, LLC provides oilfield services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew T. Apodaca, Esq. GOLDBERG & DOHAN LP 4801 Lang NE, Suite 110 Albuquerque, NM 87109 Phone: (800) 719-1617 : (505) 369-3699 Fax: (888) 272-8822 E-Mail: aapodaca@goldbergdohan.com PARTY CITY HOLDCO: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Party City Holdco Inc. (NYSE:PRTY) securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with Party City's April 16, 2015 initial public offering ("IPO"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Party City investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Party City class action, go to the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-783.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose certain risks in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, including the impact on Party City due to: (1) soft consumer traffic trends; (2) the extraordinary performance of the Disney Frozen franchise from the prior year; and (3) the store reset initiative. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 19, 2016. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-783.htmlfor more information. You may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. PAYPAL INC: Amended Deal in "Zepeda" Has Preliminary Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiffs' motion for Preliminary Approval of Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement and conferred preliminary approval of the Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement in the case captioned, MOISES ZEPEDA, MICHAEL SPEAR, RONYA OSMAN, BRIAN PATTEE, CASEY CHING, DENAE ZAMORA, MICHAEL LAVANGA, and GARY MILLER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PAYPAL, INC., E-BAY INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. C 10-2500 SBA, RELATED TO No. C 10-1668 SBA (N.D. Cal.). The putative nationwide class action was brought by Plaintiffs Moises Zepeda, Michael Spear, Ronya Osman, Brian Pattee, Casey Ching, Denae Zamora, Michael Lavanga and Gary Miller against PayPal, Inc. and its parent entity, eBay, Inc. Plaintiffs allege that PayPal improperly handled disputed transactions relating to their user accounts by unilaterally placing holds and reserves thereon. PayPal also is alleged to have failed to provide annual error-resolution notices and monthly account statements under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. In the motion, Plaintiffs requested: (1) provisional certification of the two proposed Settlement Classes; (2) the appointment of (a) the Complex Litigation Group, (b) Lexington Law Group, (c) Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Leherman, P.L., and (d) Seeger Weiss LLP, as Class Counsel; (3) approval of the proposed Class Notice; and (4) and the scheduling of a final approval hearing. In her Order dated November 5, 2015 available at http://is.gd/n7rDJLfrom Leagle.com, Judge Armstrong found that Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing to warrant preliminary approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement and that the content of the proposed notice to be appropriate thus approving the proposed notice, as to both form and content. The Court appointed Plaintiffs Moises Zepeda, Michael Spear, Ronya Osman, Brian Pattee, Casey Ching, Denae Zamora, Michael Lavanga and Gary Miller as class representatives, Jeffrey A. Leon of Quantum Legal LLC and Mark N. Todzo and Howard Hirsch of Lexington Law Group as class counsel and Epiq Systems as Settlement Administrator. Plaintiffs are represented by Brian Stephen Kabateck, Esq. -- bsk@kbklawyers.com -- Richard Kellner, Esq. -- rlk@kbklawyers.com -- KABATECK KELLNER LLP - and - Howard Judd Hirsch, Esq. Mark N. Todzo, Esq. LEXINGTON LAW GROUP, LLP 360 N Cutler Dr, North Salt Lake, UT 84054 Tel: (801)994-6572 Paypal, Inc. is represented by Benjamin Taylor Potter, Esq. -- bpotter@stroock.com -- David Wesley Moon, Esq. -- dmoon@stroock.com -- Julia B. Strickland, Esq. -- jstrickland@stroock.com -- Wesley Michael Griffith, Esq. -- wgriffith@stroock.com -- STROOCK AND STROOCK AND LAVAN LLP QLOGIC CORP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of a class of investors of QLogic Corporation ("QLogic" or the "Company") who purchased shares between April 30, 2015 and July 30, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). QLogic investors have until November 27, 2015 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors with losses of over $50,000 are encouraged to contact GPM to discuss their legal rights. QLogic designs and supplies server and storage networking infrastructure products that provide, enhance, and manage computer data communication. These products facilitate the transfer of data and enable resource sharing between servers, networks, and storage. The Company's products are used in enterprise, managed service provider, consumer web, and cloud service provider data centers. The Company's products are based primarily on Fibre Channel and Ethernet technologies and are used in connection with storage networks, local area networks, and converged networks. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was being adversely impacted by lower than expected demand due to weakness in its enterprise server and storage markets; (2) that the Company was being negatively impacted by operational issues including an inventory build-up at a major OEM customer; (3) that, as such, the Company's financial results were being negatively impacted; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. Upon disclosure of these issues the Company's securities declined sharply in value, thereby damaging investors. If you purchased QLogic securities during the Class Period you may move the Court no later than November 27, 2015 to request appointment as lead plaintiff. If you have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. About the Firm: GPM has represented investors, consumers and employees for 25 years. Based in Los Angeles with offices in New York City and Berkeley, the Firm has successfully prosecuted class action cases and complex litigation in federal and state courts throughout the country. As Lead Counsel or as a member of Plaintiffs' Counsel Executive Committees, the Firm has recovered billions of dollars for parties wronged by corporate fraud and malfeasance. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Lesley Portnoy, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 shareholders@glancylaw.com www.glancylaw.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces "Doe" Suit Over Leak of Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- Jane Doe, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., Counseling Services of New York, LLC, and DR. Ferdinand B. Banez, Case 1:15-cv-08992 (S.D.N.Y., November 16, 2015), was filed on behalf of all similarly situated individuals who, allegedly, at any time since November 16, 2012, without authorization or consent, had their protected personal and confidential medical information transmitted to unauthorized third parties as a result of Defendants' acts and/or omissions. Defendant Quest Diagnostics Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New Jersey that provides diagnostic medical testing services for managed care organizations and independent practice associations nationwide. Defendant Counseling Services of New York LLC is a non-intensive, OASAS 822 licensed outpatient chemical dependency and substance abuse treatment program located in Bronx, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffery M. Norton, Esq. NEWMAN FERRARA LLP 1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001 Phone: 212-619-5400 Fax: 212-619-3090 E-mail: jnorton@nfllp.com SEARS ROEBUCK: Court Denies Motion to Remand in "Ruano" ------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez of the United States District for the Central District of California denied Plaintiff's motion to remand in the case captioned, Edwin Ruano, v. Sears Roebuck & Co., Case No. CV 15-6060 PSG (FFMX) (C.D. Cal.). Plaintiff purchased Sears' HVAC system. Plaintiff filed a class action complaint on January 29, 2015 in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of "all individuals in the State of California who, from four years preceding the filing of this Complaint, purchased an HVAC system, including installation, from Sears." His complaint included four causes of action: (1) violation of consumer legal remedies act; (2) unfair and fraudulent business practices; (3) unlawful business practices; and (4) breach of implied warranty. Defendant removed the case more than six months after Plaintiff filed his complaint in state court. Defendant contends that the removal was timely because he removed within 30 days of learning that minimal diversity existed. In the motion, Plaintiff argues that Defendant's removal was untimely because Defendant should have known that a putative class that includes thousands of people who purchased HVAC systems in California would include at least one California citizen. In his Civil Minutes dated November 5, 2015 available at http://is.gd/xn2x9hfrom Leagle.com, Judge Gutierrez held that citizenship is established by domicile, not residency and that Defendant has properly established the amount in controversy. Plaintiff is represented by Wendy Hernandez, Esq., DEPUTY CLERK SENTRY INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Payback Program -------------------------------------------------------------- Sanford J. Schmidt, writing for The Telegraph, reported that an Effingham lawyer has filed a class action suit against Sentry Insurance Co., claiming the firm went back on a promise to repay half of the premiums of its customers who went five years without making an accident claim. "As plaintiffs and many other insureds began qualifying for refunds of the first year's premiums by staying claim-free for five years or more, Sentry unilaterally non-renewed the policies and failed to pay the safe drivers the additional Payback premium," the suit claims. The program was called the "Payback Program" and "Payback Agreement." The suit claims the company broke its contracts in violation of Illinois consumer protection laws. Under the agreement, if the insured did not file a claim during the first five years, he or she would be repaid half the first year's premium he or she paid. The Payback Agreement was added to the policy at a premium above what an insured would normally pay. A spokesman for Sentry could not be reached. The proposed class is represented by Christopher A. Koester of Taylor Law Offices in Effingham. The named plaintiffs are William A. Coleman and Mary A. Coleman of Madison County. The suit must be certified as a class action before it can proceed. The class would be all citizens of Illinois who had a policy with sentry with a "Payback Agreement" and were not renewed and who had no claims or losses under the policy. The suit also claims that Sentry continued to sell and renew Payback Program policies, event after it had already decided it would soon decline to renew the program and that it was selling and renewing Payback policies on which Sentry would never pay, the suit alleges. As of 2003, Sentry had paid back more than $78 million in refunds to insured motorists throughout the country. The company allegedly made a decision in 2012 to cease writing and to not renew its standard personal line policies, including its personal auto insurance and Payback policies in 2014, the suit claims. However the company allegedly failed to inform its customers that it would not be renewing Payback policies in 2014. The suit alleges customers were owed $500 or $650 each year between 2013 and 2018. It claims the company continued to sell and renew its Payback policies, even through it knew that the benefits advertised for in the policies would actually never be available because of the company decision in 2012 not to renew all policies in 2014 and not pay all Payback premium refunds. The suit alleges that between 2010 and 2014, Sentry made a specific promises to its customers that it would continue to receive payback checks. SERVICE EXPERTS: Court Trims Class Suit in "Frederick" Case ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge R. David Proctor of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama granted Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismissed Counts ten through twelve of the Amended Complaint in the case captioned, BRANDI FREDERICK, Plaintiff, v. SERVICE EXPERTS HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:14-CV-01647-RDP (N.D. Ala.). In March 2007, Plaintiff purchased from Defendant Service Experts Heating and Air Conditioning, LLC, through its employee Becky Collins, a new HVAC unit. In June 2011, Plaintiff's HVAC unit began functioning poorly and she had it inspected. Although the inspector asserted that the warranty Plaintiff had purchased would cover the repairs, on June 25, 2011, Defendant Scott Freeman, the Manager of Operations and Service at Service Experts, informed Plaintiff that she had not purchased an extended warranty. Plaintiff filed the lawsuit alleging (on behalf of herself and, with respect to some claims, for a class of similarly situated individuals) that Service Experts, among other things, committed fraudulent sales practices, breaches of contract, and racketeering, with the assistance of other Defendants. Defendant GE's role in the purported racketeering scheme to defraud consumers was to send via mail and e-mail monthly statements and invoices for installment payments on the HVAC unit and warranty, and finance the scheme with the moneys paid on those bills. Plaintiff specifically avers that, by its actions, GE is liable under the civil RICO statute on the basis of predicate acts of mail and wire fraud committed by it while acting as Service Expert's financing agent. Counts ten through twelve of the Amended Complaint allege, respectively, violations of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1692(a), 1692(c), and 1692(d), by GE, Service Experts, and Equiguard. In the motion, GE seeks dismissal of Counts ten through twelve as to itself only. It asserts that Plaintiff, on the one hand, made conclusory legal allegations concerning GE's ostensibly culpable participation in the purported scheme, and on the other hand, that she failed to allege facts supporting the RICO claims as to GE. Plaintiff counters and asserts that it pleads fraud with the requisite particularity, and facts sufficient to give notice of a claim, thus satisfying the federal pleading standards. In his Memorandum Opinion dated November 5, 2015 available at http://is.gd/6A7SiUfrom Leagle.com, Judge Proctor concluded that Plaintiff has not plausibly plead GE's connection with the purported scheme to defraud and that although Plaintiff has pleaded predicate acts of mail and wire fraud against GE with particularity, she has not plausibly plead those allegations. Plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey E. Holmes, Esq. -- jholmes@gilpingivhan.com -- Spencer A. Kinderman, Esq. -- skinderman@gilpingivhan.com -- GILPIN GIVHAN PC Defendants are represented by Grace L. Kipp, Esq. -- Gkipp@spotswoodllc.com -- Michael Sansbury, Esq. -- Msansabury@spotswoodllc.com -- Robert K. Spotswood, Esq. -- Rspotswood@spotswoodllc.com -- SPOTSWOOD SANSOM & SANSBURY LLC SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL: "Dell" Suit Remanded to State Court --------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiff's motion to remand in the case captioned, DANIEL DELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a proxy of the State of California on behalf of aggrieved employees, Plaintiff, v. SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. C 15-3326 SBA (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff filed the wage and hour class action in Alameda County Superior Court against his former employer. On behalf of himself and similarly situated employees, Plaintiff alleges claims for, inter alia, violations of the California Labor Code, as well as a claim under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), Cal. Labor Code Sec. 2698. According to Plaintiff, Defendants failed to pay him and other Inspectors the specified commissions for their work and that Defendant failed to pay them on time or maintain accurate records of their commission sales. Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) failure to pay for all hours worked in violation of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 204, 221-223; (5) failure to keep accurate records in violation of Labor Code Sections 1174 & 1174.5; (6) failure to furnish accurate wage statements in violation of Labor Code Sec. 226; (7) waiting time penalties under Labor Code Sections 201-203; (8) unfair competition and unlawful business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200; and (9) statutory penalties under PAGA. As relief, Plaintiff seeks recovery of unpaid compensation, damages, statutory penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. On July 17, 2015, Defendant removed the action to the federal district court. Defendant alleges that there is complete diversity between Plaintiff and Defendant, and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and that federal jurisdiction is present under CAFA in that the class contains more than 100 members and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. In the motion, Plaintiff argued that Defendant has failed to carry its burden of proving that the amount in controversy necessary for removal has been satisfied. In her Order dated November 5, 2015 available at http://is.gd/wwUEnPfrom Leagle.com, Judge Armstrong concluded that jurisdiction under CAFA has not been established because Defendant has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that at least $5 million is in controversy. Daniel Dell is represented by Joshua Geoffrey Konecky, Esq. -- jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com -- Nathan Piller, Esq. -- npiller@schneiderwallace.com -- Todd Michael Schneider, Esq. -- pschneider@schneiderwallace.com -- SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP, Dylan Hughes, Esq. -- dsh@classlawgroup.com - - GIBBLS LAW GROUP LLP & Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. -- ehg@classlawgroup.com -- GIRARD GIBBS LLP ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc. is represented by Tara Lynn Presnell, Esq. -- tpresnell@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. SMARTHEAT INC: Has Deal to Resolve Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Smartheat Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has entered into an agreement to settle all claims in a US securities class action lawsuit. On August 31, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit, Steven Leshinsky v. James Wang, et al., which purported to allege federal securities law claims against the Company and certain of its former officers and directors, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Thereafter, two plaintiffs filed competing motions to be appointed lead plaintiff in the proceeding. A lead plaintiff was appointed and an amended complaint was filed on January 28, 2013, by the Rosen Law Firm. The amended complaint included Oliver Bialowons, our President, and Michael Wilhelm, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, as defendants in the proceeding though they were not officers of the Company during the alleged class period. A second amended complaint was filed on April 8, 2013, under the caption Stream Sicav, Dharanendra Rai et al. v. James Jun Wang , SmartHeat, Inc. et al., removing Messrs. Wilhelm and Bialowons as defendants. The second amended complaint alleges two counts against the Company, both asserting violations of the federal securities laws arising from alleged insider sales or management sales of securities and alleged false disclosures relating to those sales. On May 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint which was denied. On March 17, 2014 the court, denied, the lead plaintiff's motion for class certification, without prejudice. On August 6, 2014, the lead plaintiff once again filed a motion for class certification. On September 19, 2014, the Company filed an opposition to the lead plaintiff's motion for class certification, to which plaintiff filed a response on October 20, 2014. By Opinion and Order dated January 21, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs' class certification motion, finding that it failed to satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23 for typicality, adequacy and predominance. Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs' theory of liability required a trade-by-trade inquiry as to whether the sale of the locked-up shares resulted in price inflation of the company's stock, and that, as a result, the injury to all class members could not be established by common proof. In addition to finding a lack of predominance of common issues, the Court expressed substantial concerns about the adequacy of the class representative, and that his claims were typical of other class members. The Court also expressed doubts as to how plaintiffs would establish damages. The Court's denial of class certification was without prejudice, and the Court gave plaintiffs until February 17, 2015 to file a "far more rigorous, and a far more convincing submission. . . ". The pleadings and court orders are publicly available. The Company entered into an agreement to settle all claims in a US securities class action lawsuit. No findings of any wrongdoings were ever made against SmartHeat, any current or former officer or director of SmartHeat or any of the defendants, and the Company and all other defendants continue to deny any wrongdoing. The default judgment previously entered against James Jun Wang was vacated and was dismissed with prejudice. The Company entered into the settlement in order to avoid further cost of defending any of the purported actions. According to the settlement, the Company paid the plaintiffs $120,000. In return, the plaintiffs dismissed all claims against the Company and all of the individual defendants with prejudice. As a result of the settlement, the case will not be allowed to be re-filed. The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or acceptance of fault by the Company or any of the individual defendants. The Company has and continues to assert that the allegations made in the consolidated lawsuits lack merit and no evidence was ever asserted supporting the allegations made in the consolidated lawsuits. The Company has nevertheless agreed to the settlement in order to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and expense of further litigation. The Company believes that putting this matter behind it is in the best interest of its customers, employees and shareholders so that it can remain focused on growing and strengthening its business. SOUTH DAKOTA: Inmates Must Pay Filing Fee Individually ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Roberto A. Lange of the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota denied Plaintiffs' appeal to an order requiring each plaintiff to pay the full $350.00 filing fee individually in a lawsuit against officers of the South Dakota Department of Corrections. The case is captioned, JAMES IRVING DALE, BRIAN MICHAEL HOLZER, MICHAEL EUGENE KOCH, DEMETRIUS PETRO COLAITES, TREVOR JOHN ERICKSON, GUY ALLEN BLESI, KEVIN CHRISTOPHER CRANK, JAMES EDWARD HAYES, EDWARD EUGENE DARITY, JOSIA JEREMIAH FUERST, ROBERT EUGENE BLACKWELL, JEFFERY JACOB-DANIEL KLINGHAGEN, DENNIS LOUIS STANISHII, UNKNOWN MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON INMATES, Plaintiffs, v. DENNIS KAEMINGK, SOUTH DAKOTA SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; ROBERT DOOLEY, WARDEN AT MDSP AND THE DIRECTOR OF PRISON OPERATIONS FOR THE SOUTH DAKOTA DOC; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JOSHUA KLIMEK, UNIT MANAGER AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; TAMMY DEJONG, UNIT COORDINATOR AT MDSP; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; SUSAN JACOBS, ASSOCIATE WARDEN AT MDSP; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; REBECCA SCHIEFFER, ASSOCIATE WARDEN AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY COORDINATOR AT MDSP; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JENNIFER STANWICK, DEPUTY WARDEN AT MDSP; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; MICHAEL DOYLEL CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, WITH THE RANK MAJOR, AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JEREMY LARSON, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, WITH THE RANK SERGEANT, AND THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; COREY TYLER, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, WITH THE RANK SERGEANT, AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; MICHAEL MEYER, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; KELLY TJEERDSMA, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, WITH THE RANK CORPORAL, AT MDSP; IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; LORI DROTZMAN, GENERAL EDUCATION DIPLOMA TEACHER, WHO ALSO IS IN CHARGE OF THE LAW LIBRARY AT MDSP; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; MICHAEL JOE HANVEY, PHYSICIANS ASSISTANT AND HEALTH CARE PROVIDER AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; ANDRA GATES, NURSING SUPERVISOR AND HEALTH CARE PROVIDER AT MDSP; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; KELLY SWANSON, HEALTH SERVICES SUPERVISOR AT MDSP; IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; STEPHANIE HAMILTON, NURSE AT MDSP; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; MARY CARPENTER, EMPLOYEE OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ASSISTS WITH INMATE HEALTH CARE DECISIONS FOR INMATES INCARCERATED AT MDSP; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; BARRY SCHROETER, SUPERVISOR FOR CBM CORRECTIONAL FOOD SERVICES AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JENNIFER BENBOON, DIETITIAN EMPLOYED BY CBM CORRECTIONAL FOOD SERVICES; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; CBM CORRECTIONAL FOOD SERVICES, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT COMPANY CONTRACTED BY THE SOUTH DAKOTA DOC TO PROVIDE MEALS TO INMATES INCARCERATED AT MDSP; DELMAR SONNY WALTERS, ATTORNEY AT LAW CONTRACTED BY THE SOUTH DAKOTA DOC TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES TO INMATES INCARCERATED AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; UNKNOWN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS EMPLOYEES, CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS EMPLOYED BY THE SOUTH DAKOTA DOC WHO WORK AT MDSP; UNKNOWN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HEALTH SERVICES STAFF, HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT STAFF EMPLOYED BY THE SOUTH DAKOTA DOC TO PROVIDE HEALTH CARE FOR INMATES INCARCERATED AT MDSP; AND UNKNOWN CBM CORRECTIONAL FOOD SERVICES EMPLOYEES, EMPLOYEES OF CBM CORRECTIONAL FOOD SERVICES ATMDSP; Defendants, Case No. C 10-2500 SBA, RELATED TO No. 4:15-CV-04103-RAL (D.S.D.). Multiple inmates incarcerated at the Mike Durfree State Prison in Springfield, South Dakota, filed a joint pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Plaintiff James Irving Dale sent a letter to the Court representing that the case is a class action and that he is the lead plaintiff. Dale also moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and requested that he be allowed to pay a single $350.00 filing fee for the entire group of plaintiffs. Magistrate Judge Veronica L. Duffy ruled that the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (Apr. 26, 1996), allows joint prisoner litigation but requires that each prisoner pay the full $350.00 filing fee. In the motion, Dale seeks reconsideration of Judge Duffy's order that the plaintiffs must pay the filing fee individually. In his Opinion and Order dated November 5, 2015 available at http://is.gd/SVxidcfrom Leagle.com, Judge Lange agreed with Judge Duffy's order requiring each plaintiff to pay the full $350.00 filing fee individually pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(b)(1) and PLRA which was to deter "frivolous prisoner litigation by instituting economic costs for prisoners wishing to file civil claims. TCP INTERNATIONAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against TCP International Holdings Ltd. ("TCPI" or the "Company") (NYSE:TCPI) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 15-cv-08889, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased TCPI securities between May 8, 2015 and November 5, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased TCPI securities during the Class Period, you have until January 11, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. TCPI, together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures, and markets lamps, fixtures, and Internet-based lighting control solutions to the retail, commercial, and industrial customers worldwide. The Company offers various light emitting diode and compact fluorescent lamps and fixtures, as well as linear fluorescent lighting products and halogen lighting systems. The Company sells its products through retail outlets, including home centers and mass merchants; club, grocery, drug, and hardware stores under private label; and electrical distributors, catalog houses, and specialty lighting distributors. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) TCPI's Chairman, defendant Ellis Yan ("Yan"), had made improper payments with his personal funds relating to TCPI's business; (ii) improper relationships existed between Yan and the Company's Vice- Chairman, Zhaoling Yan, and certain vendors; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about TCPI's business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On November 5, 2015, post-market, TCPI announced that it would delay the release of the Company's third-quarter financial results due to a pending investigation by the Audit Committee of TCPI's Board of Directors (the "Audit Committee") concerning the scope and propriety of payments made by its Chairman with his personal funds relating to TCPI's business, and whether relationships exist between Yan and Zhaoling Yan and certain vendors. TCPI also announced that it did not anticipate filing its third-quarter Form 10-Q by the extended due date of November 23, 2015. TCPI further announced that the Audit Committee has retained independent legal and accounting advisors in connection with its investigation. On this news, the Company's stock fell $1.02, or more than 54%, to close at $1.20 on November 6, 2015. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com TD BANK: Court Grants Final Approval to "Gevaerts" Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the United States District for the Southern District of Florida granted final approval to the settlement, certified the settlement class, and awarded the fees and costs requested by class counsel as well as the requested service awards for the Gevaerts Plaintiffs and the Shaffels Plaintiffs in the case captioned, FRANCOIS ROBERT GEVAERTS, PAUL CHRISTIAN HOLSTEIN GEVAERTS, ALEXANDER CASPER HOLSTEIN GEVAERTS, PIETER SCHAFFELS, AND SCHAFFELS BEHEER B.V., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TD BANK, N.A., DEBORAH C. PECK, DENNIS MOENS, SIMON FRANCISCUS WILHELMUS LAAN, WATERSHED LLC, ZILWOOD S.A., CRYSTAL LIFE CAPITAL, S.A., RUNNING2 LIMITED, BEST INVEST EUROPE, LTD, JENNIFER J. HUME, JENNIFER J. HUME, C.P.A., P.A., Defendants, Case No. 11:14-CV- 20744-RLR (S.D. Fla.). In 2014, Plaintiffs sued on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated for losses that stemmed from the sale to investors of fractional shares in life settlements. The Plaintiffs alleged, the funds held at TD Bank were misappropriated, commingled, and overdrawn, despite the fact that TD Bank had, years before and regularly thereafter, voluntarily entered into an agreement with the New Jersey Bar to monitor and report such misconduct. The Plaintiffs claimed that as a result of the illegal conduct of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs lost approximately $200 million. The parties actively litigated the lawsuit for nearly two years. The parties engaged in extensive discovery which involved the production and review of millions of pages of documents and data from multiple continents and in foreign languages. On October 9, 2015, Plaintiffs and Class Counsel filed their Motion for Final Approval of Settlement, and Application for Service Awards, Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, which sought Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement and Release with TD Bank, N.A. In support, Plaintiffs filed a declaration from John Scarola, Esq., an expert in class action law and attorneys' fees, as well as from the Claims Administrator supplementing the factual record to enable the Court to evaluate the fairness and adequacy of this Settlement. In his Order dated November 5, 2015 available at http://is.gd/pQBc6Yfrom Leagle.com, Judge Rosenberg concluded that the Settlement provides a fair, reasonable and adequate recovery for the Settlement Class Members based on the creation of a $20,000,000 common fund. The Settlement constituted an excellent result for the Settlement Class under the circumstances and challenges presented by the lawsuit. The Court specifically found that the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and a satisfactory compromise of the Settlement Class Members' claims and that the Settlement fully complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). The Court awarded $10,000 to the Gevaerts Plaintiffs and $10,000 to the Schaffels Plaintiffs as service awards, $6,000,000, equal as class counsel attorneys' fees and $300,666.95 as reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses. Plaintiffs are represented by Brett Elliott von Borke, Esq. -- bvb@grossmanroth.com -- Rachel Wagner Furst, Esq. -- rwf@grossmanroth.com -- Seth Eric Miles, Esq. -- sem@grossmanroth.com -- David Buckner, Esq. -- dbu@grossmanroth.com -- GROSSMAN ROTH, Ryan Dwight O'Quinn, Esq. - - roquinn@osslaw.com -- Ryan K. Stumphauzer, Esq. -- rstumphauzer@osslaw.com -- O'QUINN STUMPHAUZER PL TD Bank is represented by Audrey M. Pumariega, Esq. -- apumariega@mwe.com -- Marcos Daniel Jimenez, Esq. -- mjimenez@mwe.com -- MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, LLP, Mark W. Kinghorn, Esq. -- mkinghorn@mcguirewoods.com -- Peter J. Covington, Esq. -- pcovington@mcguirewoods.com -- William O. L. Hutchinson, Esq. -- whutchinson@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIRE WOODS, LLP TECO ENERGY: Brodsky & Smith Files Suit Over Emera Takeover ----------------------------------------------------------- Law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC today announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of all shareholders of TECO Energy, Inc ("TECO Energy" or the "Company") (NYSE: TE) in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida relating to the proposed acquisition by Emera, Inc. ("Emera") (the "Proposed Transaction"). If you are a TECO Energy shareholder and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from Nov. 19. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Jason Brodsky or Evan Smith of Brodsky & Smith, LLC at (877) LEGAL-90, by visiting http://brodsky- smith.com/979-te-teco-energy-inc.html or via e-mail at investorrelations@brodsky-smith.com There is no cost or obligation to you. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. TECO Energy, a Florida corporation, is an energy-related holding company with regulated electric and gas utilities in Florida and New Mexico. The complaint alleges that TECO Energy and its Board breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the proposed merger which will result in grossly inadequate compensation for TECO Energy's shareholders and Emera aided and abetted such violation, in connection with their attempt to consummate the Proposed Transaction pursuant to an unfair process and for an unfair price. The Complaint also brings claims against the Defendants for their violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder ("Rule 14a-9"). In addition, the complaint alleges that TECO Energy and the Board disseminated a false and misleading Schedule 14A preliminary Proxy filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on October 6, 2015 and a Definitive Proxy on October 22, 2015 (together, the "Proxy") promulgated thereunder in connection with the Proposed Transaction. On September 4, 2015, TECO Energy and Emera entered into a definitive agreement (the "Merger Agreement") whereby Emera would acquire all outstanding shares of TECO Energy. The complaint alleges that the Proxy contains a number of false and misleading statements that are material to shareholders who are expected to rely upon the Proxy to determine whether to approve the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy omits a number of material facts necessary to make statements made therein not false and misleading, including the events leading to the Merger Agreement, the analyses conducted by the Board's financial advisor, and TECO Energy's prospective financial information. In addition, the complaint alleges that the Defendants, in breach of their fiduciary duties to TECO Energy shareholders, agreed to preclusive deal protection devices. Brodsky & Smith, LLC is a litigation law firm with extensive expertise representing shareholders throughout the nation in securities and case action lawsuits. The attorneys at Brodsky & Smith have been appointed by numerous courts throughout the country to serve as lead counsel in class actions and successfully recovered millions of dollars for our clients and shareholders. TOWN SPORTS: Offers Settlement in "Labbe" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Town Sports International, LLC has proposed a settlement offer in a class action filed by James Labbe and the parties are working towards a resolution of this matter, Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. On or about October 4, 2012, in an action styled James Labbe, et al. v. Town Sports International, LLC, plaintiff commenced a purported class action in New York State court on behalf of personal trainers employed in New York State. Labbe is seeking unpaid wages and damages from TSI, LLC and alleges violations of various provisions of the New York State labor law with respect to payment of wages and TSI, LLC's notification and record-keeping obligations. The Court has bifurcated class and merits discovery. The deadline for the completion of pre-class certification document discovery was December 31, 2014. On June 12, 2015, the plaintiff made a motion for class certification. On July 24, 2015, the court indefinitely adjourned the plaintiff's motion for class certification to allow the court to first decide a motion for sanctions by TSI, LLC against Labbe. TSI, LLC made that motion for sanctions on June 30, 2015. The motion seeks dismissal of Labbe's complaint, and reimbursement of certain of TSI, LLC's legal fees, on the ground that Labbe has not complied with his discovery obligations and the court's discovery orders. TSI, LLC's motion for sanctions remains pending. TSI, LLC has proposed a settlement offer and the parties are working towards a resolution of this matter. If the parties are unsuccessful in these settlement negotiations, TSI, LLC intends to continue to contest this case vigorously. TRAVELPORT WORLDWIDE: Defendants Have Until Jan. 15 to Respond -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants in a consumer antitrust class action in New York have until January 15, 2016 to respond to an amended complaint, Travelport Worldwide Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. "On July 14, 2015 and July 17, 2015, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against us, Amadeus and Sabre in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Gordon et al. v. Amadeus IT Group, S.A., Amadeus North America, Inc., Amadeus Americas, Inc., Sabre Corporation f/k/a Sabre Holdings Corporation, Sabre Holdings Corporation, Sabre GLBL Inc., Sabre Travel International Limited, Travelport Worldwide Limited, and Travelport LP d/b/a Travelport and Kolman et al. v. Amadeus IT Group, S.A., Amadeus North America, Inc., Amadeus Americas, Inc., Sabre Corporation f/k/a Sabre Holdings Corporation, Sabre Holdings Corporation, Sabre GLBL Inc., Sabre Travel International Limited, Travelport Worldwide Limited, and Travelport LP d/b/a Travelport)," the Company said. On August 14, 2015, the Kolman case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, leaving only the Gordon case in which an amended complaint was filed on October 2, 2015 (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint alleges violations of the Sherman Act, state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws by defendants beginning in 2006. In particular, the plaintiffs claim there was a conspiracy among us and the other defendants to maintain higher fees and restrict competition for airfare bookings that prevents airline discounting. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief under federal antitrust law and damages in connection with their state law claims. Pursuant to the schedule set by the Court, defendants have until January 15, 2016 to respond to the Amended Complaint. "At this time, the outcome of the Gordon lawsuit cannot be determined, but we believe the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, and we intend to defend the claims vigorously; however, we believe the plaintiffs will request damages that would be material to us if there was an adverse ruling against us," the Company said. TWITTER INC: Proposed Settlement of Class Suit Inked ---------------------------------------------------- The San Francisco County, California Superior Court has directed that this Notice be provided to inform you of a proposed class action lawsuit settlement. The settlement will resolve a lawsuit against Twitter, Inc. ("Twitter") filed in San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-10-503630 (the "Lawsuit"). Your rights and options -- and the strict deadlines to exercise them -- are explained in this Notice. The "Representative Plaintiff" in the Lawsuit alleges that Twitter violated the privacy rights of all persons in California (i.e., who reside in California as of October 27, 2015) who used the service before November 18, 2009 (the "Class"). If you used Twitter in California on or before November 18, 2009 and were a California resident on October 27, 2015 you are part of the Class and therefore part of the Lawsuit. If so, you can participate in the settlement as a Class member and be subject to any orders or judgment issued by the Court, favorable or unfavorable. You can also choose to "opt-out" of the Class and not participate in the settlement and the Court will allow you to do so. You can also remain part of the Class and object to part or all of the settlement and you can also appear in the Lawsuit with a lawyer, at your expense. The Lawsuit involves claims arising out of Version 1 of Twitter's privacy policy and terms of service, which were in effect until November 18, 2009. Twitter denies the allegations made by the Representative Plaintiff and further denies causing damage to any Twitter user. If you want to opt-out of the settlement, you must do so by March 11, 2016. If you want to remain part of the Class but object, you must do so by March 11, 2016. To opt-out or object, you must also follow the specific procedures described at www.CATwitterSettlement.com. For more information about the Lawsuit, the settlement, opting-out or objecting, please go to the same web address/link, you may also write to Jane Doe v. Twitter Settlement Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 8060, San Rafael, CA 94912-8060, call (877) 430-3697, or email info@CATwitterSettlement.com. The Clerk of the Court, San Francisco Superior Court, located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102, also maintains files containing documents filed in the Lawsuit. Copies of such documents are available for inspection and copying during the Court's normal business hours or on the court's website www.SFSuperiorCourt.org. Please do not contact the Court or Twitter about this Notice. UIL HOLDINGS: Shareholder Litigation Pending in Connecticut ----------------------------------------------------------- UIL Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is defending the UIL Holdings shareholder litigation related to the proposed merger between UIL Holdings and Iberdrola USA. Following the February 25, 2015 announcement that UIL Holdings had entered into a definitive agreement to combine with a subsidiary of Iberdrola USA, five shareholder putative class action lawsuits were filed in Connecticut Superior Court, beginning on February 27, 2015, against UIL Holdings, its directors, Iberdrola USA and merger sub and/or Morgan Stanley, alleging breach of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting in connection with the proposed transaction. The five actions have been consolidated and transferred to the Complex Litigation Docket of the Connecticut Superior Court in Stamford, Connecticut. The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that UIL Holdings' directors conducted an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreed to the merger at a price that allegedly undervalues UIL Holdings, agreed to deal protection measures that allegedly prevent another company from making a superior offer, and retained Morgan Stanley as UIL Holdings' financial advisor despite Morgan Stanley's alleged conflict of interest. The consolidated complaint also alleges that certain of UIL Holdings' directors approved the merger to benefit themselves personally. In addition, the consolidated complaint alleges that the proxy statement/prospectus fails to provide shareowners with all material information necessary for them to make an informed decision on whether to vote in favor of the transaction. The consolidated amended complaint seeks various remedies, including to enjoin or rescind the merger, to enjoin a shareowner vote on the merger unless or until additional disclosures are made in UIL Holdings' proxy statement, and unspecified damages, costs and fees. VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiff Appeals Class Action Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- A plaintiff in a securities class action against Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated has taken an appeal from the dismissal of that case, Vertex said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. On May 28, 2014, a purported shareholder class action Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Plan & Trust v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors as defendants. The lawsuit alleged that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the Company's disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012 through May 29, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The purported class consists of all persons (excluding defendants) who purchased the Company's common stock between May 7, 2012 and May 29, 2012. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees as well as disgorgement of the proceeds from certain individual defendants' sales of the Company's stock. On October 8, 2014, the Court approved Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff, and Scott and Scott LLP as lead counsel for the plaintiff and the putative class. On February 23, 2015, the Company filed a reply to the plaintiffs' opposition to its motion to dismiss. The court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss on March 6, 2015 and took the motion under advisement. On September 30, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss. On October 15, 2015, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intend to vigorously defend the litigation. As of September 30, 2015, the Company has not recorded any reserves for this purported class action. VICAL INCORPORATED: Appeal in Securities Class Action Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Vical Incorporated is litigating an appeal in a securities class action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. In late October and early November 2013, following the Company's announcement of the results of its Phase 3 trial of Allovectin(R) and the subsequent decline of the price of its common stock, two putative securities class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. On February 26, 2014, the two cases were consolidated into one action and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed, or Consolidation Order. On May 12, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a first amended consolidated complaint alleging that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business prospects and the prospects for Allovectin(R), thereby artificially inflating the price of its common stock. On June 9, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and a motion to strike certain allegations in the amended complaint. On March 9, 2015, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and terminated as moot defendants' motion to strike, or Order. The Lead plaintiff was granted leave to amend his first amended complaint on or before March 25, 2015. The lead plaintiff chose not to amend his complaint and instead stipulated to an entry of judgment. On April 28, 2015, the Court entered final judgment dismissing the action, or Judgment. On May 28, 2015, the lead plaintiff appealed the Order and Judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That same day, another group of the Company's stockholders, that had previously moved for appointment as lead plaintiff, or the Vical Investor Group, also appealed the Order and Judgment, as well as the Consolidation Order, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On August 3, 2015, the Vical Investor Group voluntarily dismissed its appeal. On October 8, 2015, the lead plaintiff-appellant filed an opening brief in support of his appeal. The Defendants' answering brief was due on November 9, 2015. VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Dismissal of Securities Litigation Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a motion to dismiss a consolidated complaint has been filed in the case, In re Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. Securities Litigation; formerly styled as Tom Cummins v. Virtus Investment Partners Inc. et al. On February 20, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging violation of the federal securities laws was filed by an individual shareholder against the Company and certain of the Company's current officers (the "defendants") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On April 21, 2015, three plaintiffs, including the original plaintiff, filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff. On June 9, 2015, the court entered an order appointing Arkansas Teachers Retirement System lead plaintiff. On August 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint") amending the originally filed complaint. The Consolidated Complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between January 25, 2013 and May 11, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The Consolidated Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements and concealed material adverse facts relating to certain funds subadvised by F-Squared. The Consolidated Complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages. The Company believes that the suit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. A motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint was filed on behalf of the Company and the other defendants on October 21, 2015. The Company believes that there is not a material loss that is probable and reasonably estimable related to this claim. VIRTUS INVESTMENT: "Youngers" Action Sent to S.D.N.Y. Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the United States District Court for the Central District of California has entered an order transferring the action, Mark Youngers v. Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. et al, to the Southern District of New York. On May 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by an individual who alleges he is a former shareholder of one of the Virtus mutual funds formerly subadvised by F-Squared and formerly known as the AlphaSector Funds. The complaint purports to allege claims against the Company, certain of the Company's officers and affiliates, and certain other parties (the "defendants"). The complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of purchasers of the AlphaSector Funds between May 8, 2010 and December 22, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements and concealed or omitted material facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading. On June 7, 2015, a group of three individuals, including the original plaintiff, filed a motion to be appointed lead plaintiff. No other motions to be appointed lead plaintiff were filed. On July 27, 2015, the court granted the motion, appointing movants as lead plaintiff. Also, on July 27, 2015, the court issued an order to show cause requiring lead plaintiff to explain no later than July 31, 2015, why his claims should not be transferred and consolidated with the In re Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. Securities Litigation. On October 1, 2015, plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint which, among other things, added a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of Virtus Opportunities Trust. On October 19, 2015, The United States District Court for the Central District of California entered an order transferring the action to the Southern District of New York. The Company believes the plaintiff's claims asserted in the complaint are frivolous and intends to defend it vigorously. The Company believes that there is not a material loss that is probable and reasonably estimable related to this claim. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Class Action Attorneys Wary of GC Offers ---------------------------------------------------------- Dan D'Ambrosio, writing for USA Today, reported that cClass-action attorneys are raising questions about whether Volkswagen diesel car owners could endanger their legal rights if they accept VW's offer of two $500 gift cards as a gesture of goodwill. In fact, Vermont attorneys leading class-action lawsuits against the German automaker are handling the offer with a level of caution usually reserved for a stick of dynamite. That's because in order to receive the gift cards -- one for $500 redeemable at any VW dealership and the other for $500 to be spent on anything -- customers have to sign an agreement that includes a waiver to the right to a trial by jury. The fine print on the gift card agreement reads, "In the event of any dispute or claim relating in any way to to this agreement, customer agrees that such dispute shall be resolved by binding arbitration with the American Arbitration Association, utilizing the rules and procedure of such arbitration service, further, any such arbitration shall take place in Sioux Falls, South Dakota and the laws of the State of South Dakota shall apply." The question, said attorney Patrick Bernal in Manchester Center, Vt., is whether his clients in a class-action lawsuit against VW would be signing away their rights to a jury trial in the lawsuit by accepting the gift cards. "The gift cards could be one of the issues in the class-action lawsuit, and they could leverage it to put the class action lawsuit in South Dakota," Bernal said Wednesday. "I'm not the only person who has that concern. A lot of other plaintiff's attorneys across the country have the same concern." Calls to Volkswagen of America and to an attorney representing Volkswagen were not returned Wednesday. An estimated 350 lawsuits have been filed against Volkswagen in the United States, including two in Vermont. In September, Volkswagen admitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board that the automaker had employed a sophisticated device to cheat U.S. emissions standards in diesel cars with 2.0 liter engines, including the Audi A3, Beetle, Golf, Jetta and Passat. Then, on Nov. 2, the EPA issued a second notice of violation of the Clean Air Act to Volkswagen AG, Audi AG and Volkswagen Group of America, in addition to Porsche AG and Porsche Cars North America. This notice alleges Volkswagen developed and installed a defeat device in VW, Audi and Porsche diesel vehicles equipped with 3-liter engines for model years 2014 through 2016. The latest notice covered the diesel versions of the 2014 VW Touareg, the 2015 Porsche Cayenne, and the 2016 Audi A6 Quattro, A7 Quattro, A8, A8L and Q5, and alleges nitrogen oxide emissions up to nine times EPA's standard. ZINC ELECTROLYTIQUE: Suit Suspended Due to Vexatious Conduct ------------------------------------------------------------ Ariane Bisaillon, Esq. -- ariane.bisaillon@blakes.com -- Marc- Andre Landry, Esq. -- marcandre.landry@blakes.com -- and Claude Marseille, Esq. -- claude.marseille@blakes.com -- at Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that in September 2015, the Superior Court of Quebec released a landmark decision rendered by Justice C. Masse in Deraspe v. Zinc electrolytique du Canada ltee, in which -- for the first time in the area of class actions -- the Court granted a motion for declaration of improper use of procedure, incapacity and quarrelsome conduct against a representative and his counsel. CONTEXT The class action was filed on March 19, 2012, in response to a sulfuric anhydride leak that occurred on August 9, 2004, at the zinc refinery plant operated by Zinc Electrolytique du Canada Ltee (EZC) in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield (Action). The applicant, Fran‡ois Deraspe, alleged that the leak had caused a range of symptoms to exposed individuals. During the hearing of the motion, the plaintiff's counsel maintained, among other things, that Justice Masse had been ordered to grant the motion, which led EZC's counsel to file a motion for declaration of improper use of procedure, incapacity and quarrelsome conduct against Mr. Deraspe and his counsel. According to the Court, Mr. Deraspe and his counsel, Ms. Chantal Desjardins, exhibited improper and vexatious conduct throughout the proceedings. Among other things, the plaintiff and his counsel engaged in a series of vexatious proceedings and correspondence, "riddled with insults, and unsubstantiated attacks" [translation]. In countless interventions with the Chief Justice of the Court, the plaintiff's counsel used an "inappropriate, sometimes even menacing, and constantly disrespectful tone" [translation]. The plaintiff's counsel even tried to turn the judge assigned to managing the case into a party to the dispute. In addition, the plaintiff claimed C$1-million from each of EZC's and defendants' law firms for exemplary and reputational damage, alleging that the firms "had defrauded the administration of justice" [translation]. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT The Court granted the motion, stripped Mr. Deraspe of representative status and ordered his counsel to transfer the case to the Office of the Syndic of the Quebec Bar Association. The plaintiff and his counsel were both declared vexatious litigants in connection with the Action and were solitarily condemned to pay the costs. Out of concern for the interests of the class members, the Court suspended the case for a period not exceeding six months to allow it to be resumed by a new representative and counsel, rather than dismissing it on the merits. Application of CCP Article 54.1 to Class Actions Taking the lead from the Court's comments in Marcotte v. Longueuil (City), the Court applied Articles 4.1, 4.2 and 54.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), which allow the Court to impose sanctions for improper use of procedure and conduct likely to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The Court further pointed out that, even if CCP Article 54.1 did not apply, its inherent powers would allow it to impose sanctions for improper and vexatious conduct as such sanctions were necessary to allow it to fulfil its duties in a fair and reasonable fashion. The Court also pointed out that had the defendants not filed the motion for declaration of improper use of procedure, incapacity and quarrelsome conduct, it would have been appropriate for the Court to intervene with its own motion in order to impose sanctions for the representative's and his counsel's conduct. Since the Court was unable to determine whether counsel or the representative was responsible for the improper use of procedure, it ruled that both were liable for the quarrelsome conduct that prevailed in this case and imposed sanctions on both of them. Removing Status of Representative The plaintiff submitted that the wording of CCP Articles 1023 and 1024 is restrictive and that he could lose his status of representative only through the application of these provisions. The Court did not accept this interpretation and held that these provisions did not exclude the application of other provisions that allow the Court to ensure a healthy administration of justice. In addition, CCP Articles 1023 and 1024 and Article 54.1 are not incompatible. Since Ms. Desjardins's numerous proceedings were supported by Mr. Deraspe's affidavits or had been authorized by him, his conduct conflicted with the interests of the class members and his responsibilities as a representative. The Court therefore stripped him of his status as a representative. Removing Counsel from a Case Ms. Desjardins maintained that CCP Article 54.1 refers to a "party" rather than its counsel, meaning that no sanctions could be imposed upon her, pursuant to this provision. The Court, however, ruled that this provision did not interfere with the exercise of its inherent powers with respect to counsel. The Court maintained that, in addition to her conduct, which brought the administration of justice into disrepute, Ms. Desjardins demonstrated that she no longer had the independence required of counsel to advise a client when she personally filed an application in the same case. The Court thus ordered Ms. Desjardins to transfer the entire case to the Office of the Syndic of the Quebec Bar Association and suspended the case for a period of six months to allow it to be resumed by a new counsel. CONCLUSION This is the first class action in which the Court draws the line in terms of improper and vexatious conduct by a representative and his counsel. Even though this decision was rendered under exceptional circumstances, it shows that improper use of procedure by the representative and his counsel within the framework of a class action can give rise to sanctions at the defendant's request or even by the Court of its own motion. This decision is a clear warning to the parties, including the representative, to refrain from adopting conduct that brings the administration of justice into disrepute within the framework of a class action. * Chicago Clearing, InvestCloud Partners in Class Suit Management ----------------------------------------------------------------- Firms unite to deliver world-class technology solutions to financial institutions for managing the filing, notification, tracking, and collection of class-action settlement claims in the securities industry. Financial advisors within the InvestCloud universe now have a turnkey class-action portal solution that increases value to clients by streamlining the settlement process and identifying claims that traditionally may have been missed by busy financial advisors. Partnership will help Chicago Clearing Corp. deliver technologies to Advisors for stream-lining class-action claims in securities industry. InvestCloud, Inc, a provider of cloud-based front, middle and back office solutions focused on digitizing customer experiences and internal operations for global investment advisors, announced a partnership with Chicago Clearing Corp., (CCC), a class-action claims recovery specialist. The partnership will deliver a technology solution for financial institutions to manage, file, and recover funds in securities class action settlements. Financial advisors within the InvestCloud universe will now have a turnkey solution that increases value to clients by streamlining the settlement process from beginning to end. Today, most financial advisors rely on mailings or hard-to-track industry communications just to stay informed of existing settlements. Claim filing itself requires a significant amount of paperwork filing on behalf of the Advisor and/or client. InvestCloud's customized Chicago Clearing Corp Applet will dramatically simplify this notoriously difficult process. "InvestCloud has built an easily deployable and scalable first- class investment platform for every professional investment manager or financial institution. By partnering with Chicago Clearing Corp we are increasing our user experience and continuing to support our ongoing effort to improve advisor efficiency," said John Wise, chairman and CEO of InvestCloud, Inc. "The partnership with Chicago Clearing Corp is yet another example of how we're helping advisors to grow and achieve great results for their clients, while equipping them to become leaders in the industry." Chicago Clearing Corp's services free up advisors from the tedium of claims-related paperwork and data mining. Chicago Clearing Corp gathers the historical trade data and immediately applies custom search criteria for all qualifying holdings relevant to a class action settlement. Chicago Clearing Corp often has the ability to manage the claims process for settlements that have passed the claim filing deadline. Chicago Clearing Corp even provides fully customizable allocations. In this way, advisors can focus their energies on what matters most -- serving their clients. "Securities Class Actions are here to stay. Chicago Clearing Corporation is excited to partner with InvestCloud and help its users seamlessly retrieve the class action funds owed to them," said Jim Tharin, CEO of Chicago Clearing Corporation. "We believe this partnership is a major step forward for advisors, and provides the platform they need to enhance their advisor-client relationships." With more than two decades in both the legal and the financial industries, Chicago Clearing Corp is uniquely suited to securities class action recovery. Chicago Clearing Corp has recovered over $350 million for harmed class members since its inception in 1993, and over $155 million since 2009 alone. The firm's recent work on the Bank of America settlement case helped RIAs, hedge funds, and family offices file 50,000 claims and recover over $25,000,000 in settlements. Nearly 1,300 institutional investors turn to Chicago Clearing Corp to ensure they keep up with securities settlements, and that they can focus on the real work of investing. InvestCloud has built a proprietary technology platform that offers the investment community the ability to easily build and customize an end-to-end client and advisor digital experience. The global software and design firm serves 5 major client segments; Asset Services, Investment Management, Asset Allocators, Banking Institutions, and Platform Developers. InvestCloud has over 650 clients on the platform with 150,000 monthly users, and now supports over $1.4 trillion in assets. To learn more about InvestCloud please visit us at www.investcloud.com For media inquiries, please contact InvestCloud@FiCommPartners.com. About InvestCloud InvestCloud, Inc is a California-based company, delivering the securities industry with collaborative cloud-based solutions. InvestCloud's one of a kind cloud-based platform supports $1.4 trillion in AUM, across 650 institutions and over 150,000 unique logins per month. Equipped with its unparalleled and innovative cloud delivery model, InvestCloud develops and deploys custom, scalable solutions with pace setting efficiency for asset managers, fund of funds, investment advisors, and the managers of pensions and endowments. These high-impact business solutions collaborate seamlessly with other technologies such as custodians and line-of-business applications, processes, and even allow businesses to leverage their existing infrastructure. For more information, please visit us at www.investcloud.com and follow us on Twitter @InvestCloud. About Chicago Clearing Corp. CCC is the leading securities class action settlement recovery service. Since 1993, CCC has recovered more than $350 million for harmed class members. In the last five years, the firm recovered $145 million for its clients. CCC's SOC 1 & 2 Level II (SSAE - 16) certification means that we adhere to the highest privacy and security standards as set by the American Institute of CPAs. CONTACT INFORMATION Jason Lahita FiComm Partners jason.lahita@ficommpartners.com 973-460-7837 Max Chambers max.chambers@ficommpartners.com 917-636-4802 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in "Liman" Enlarged ----------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, in a decision dated Dec. 1, 2015, enlarged the time to perfect appeal to the April 2016 Term in the case captioned NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to LIMAN, v. AIR AND LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION for CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-4977 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/edMk1zfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals in NY PI Suits Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, in a decision dated Dec. 3, 2015, consolidated the appeal and cross appeals in the case captioned IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to ASSENZIO, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO. -- CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC. -- ESTATE OF ASSENZIO; BRUNCK, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, CO. -- BURNHAM LLC -- BURNHAM CORPORATION -- ESTATE OF BRUNCK; LEVY, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, CO.; SERNA, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, CO.; WINANS, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, CO. -- ESTATE OF VINCENT, MOTION NOS. M-4749, M-4750, M-4746, M-4722, M-4747 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/Xptitb from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Exelon Corp. Units Continue to Defend PI Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Exelon Corporation and two of its subsidiaries, Baltimore Gas and Electric and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, continue to defend themselves against two asbestos-related premises liability cases, LLC, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Since 1993, BGE and certain Constellation (now Exelon Generation Company, LLC) subsidiaries have been involved in several actions concerning asbestos. The actions are based upon the theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE and Generation knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos hazard. In addition to BGE and Generation, numerous other parties are defendants in these cases. Approximately 468 individuals who were never employees of BGE or certain Constellation subsidiaries have pending claims each seeking several million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. Cross-claims and third-party claims brought by other defendants may also be filed against BGE and certain Constellation subsidiaries in these actions. To date, most asbestos claims which have been resolved have been dismissed or resolved without any payment by BGE or certain Constellation subsidiaries and a small minority of these cases has been resolved for amounts that were not material to BGE or Generation's financial results. Discovery begins in these cases after they are placed on the trial docket. At present, only two of the pending cases are set for trial. Given the limited discovery in these cases, BGE and Generation do not know the specific facts that are necessary to provide an estimate of the reasonably possible loss relating to these claims; as such, no accrual has been made and a range of loss is not estimable. The specific facts not known include: * the identity of the facilities at which the plaintiffs allegedly worked as contractors; * the names of the plaintiffs' employers; * the dates on which and the places where the exposure allegedly occurred; and * the facts and circumstances relating to the alleged exposure. Insurance and hold harmless agreements from contractors who employed the plaintiffs may cover a portion of any awards in the actions. Exelon Corporation is an energy provider and holding Company for several energy businesses. Exelon is engaged in the energy generation business through its Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Generation) subsidiary; wholesale and retail energy sales through its Constellation business unit and the energy delivery business through its Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE), Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO) subsidiaries. Generation's integrated business consists of its owned and contracted electric generating facilities and investments in generation ventures that are marketed through its customer-facing activities. ComEd's energy delivery business consists of the purchase and regulated retail sale of electricity and the provision of transmission and distribution services to retail customers in northern Illinois. PECO's energy delivery business in southeastern Pennsylvania and BGE's in central Maryland. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trecora Unit Defends Asbestos Exposure Case ------------------------------------------------------------ South Hampton Resources, Inc., a subsidiary of Trecora Resources, continues to defend itself against a lawsuit alleging exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. On September 14, 2010, SHR received notice of a lawsuit filed in the 58th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas which was subsequently transferred to the 11th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. The suit alleges that the plaintiff became ill from exposure to asbestos. There are approximately 44 defendants named in the suit. SHR has placed its insurers on notice of the claim and plans to vigorously defend the case. No accrual has been recorded for this claim. Headquartered in Sugar Land, Texas, Trecora Resources engages in the manufacturing of various specialty hydrocarbons and synthetic waxes and the provision of custom processing services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: London Insurers' Suit v. McDermott Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- McDermott International, Inc., relates that on September 10, 2015, the 23rd Judicial District Court, Assumption Parish, Louisiana, dismissed with prejudice the lawsuit filed by certain London insurers asserting they have no obligation to indemnify the company for asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. The Company states: "On or about August 23, 2004, a declaratory judgment action entitled Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, et al. v. J. Ray McDermott, Inc. et al., was filed by certain underwriters at Lloyd's, London and Threadneedle Insurance Company Limited (the "London Insurers"), in the 23rd Judicial District Court, Assumption Parish, Louisiana, against MII, J. Ray McDermott, Inc. ("JRMI") and two insurer defendants, Travelers and INA, seeking a declaration that the London Insurers have no obligation to indemnify MII and JRMI for certain bodily injury claims, including claims for asbestos and welding rod fume personal injury which have been filed by claimants in various state courts. Additionally, Travelers filed a cross-claim requesting a declaration of non-coverage in approximately 20 underlying matters. This proceeding was stayed by the Court on January 3, 2005. On September 10, 2015, an Order was signed by the court granting plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice." McDermott International, Inc., is an engineering, procurement, construction and installation company focused on designing and executing offshore oil and gas projects across the world. ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Still Face Potential Asbestos Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- McDermott International, Inc., continues to face potential asbestos-exposure claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. The Company states: "Due to the nature of our business, we and our affiliates are, from time to time, involved in litigation or subject to disputes or claims related to our business activities, including, among other things: -- performance or warranty-related matters under our customer and supplier contracts and other business arrangements; and -- workers' compensation claims, Jones Act claims, occupational hazard claims, including asbestos-exposure claims, premises liability claims and other claims." McDermott International, Inc., is an engineering, procurement, construction and installation company focused on designing and executing offshore oil and gas projects across the world. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Overseas Shipholding Still Subject to PI Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Overseas Shipholding Group Inc. continues to face suits arising principally from personal injuries, including without limitation exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. The Company is a party, as plaintiff or defendant, to various suits in the ordinary course of business for monetary relief arising principally from personal injuries (including without limitation exposure to asbestos and other toxic materials), wrongful death, collision or other casualty and to claims arising under charter parties. A substantial majority of such personal injury, wrongful death, collision or other casualty claims against the Company are covered by insurance (subject to deductibles not material in amount). Each of the claims involves an amount which, in the opinion of management, should not be material to the Company's financial position, results of operations and cash flows. New York based- owns and operates a fleet of oceangoing vessels engaged primarily in the transportation of crude oil and refined petroleum products in the International Flag and U.S. Flag trades through its wholly owned subsidiaries OSG International, Inc. ("OIN"), a Marshall Islands corporation, and OSG Bulk Ships, Inc. ("OBS"), a New York corporation, respectively. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Had 90 PI Cases at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. was a co-defendant in approximately 90 asbestos-related personal injury cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. The Company states: "We were a co-defendant in approximately 90 cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 230 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. "In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from $25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants. "There are only six asbestos cases, involving 24 plaintiffs, that plead specified damages. In each of the six cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $3.0 million for four separate causes of action and $1.0 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of $10.0 million. In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged against each named defendant, compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of $10.0 million, for seven separate causes of action. In the fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $20.0 million for eight separate causes of action and punitive damages in the amount of $20.0 million. In the sixth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $10.0 million for five separate causes of action and $5.0 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of $10.0 million for each cause of action. "Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos- containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the bases; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any. "Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date and, based upon available information, our management does not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or financial position." Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. (Holdings) is a holding Company. The Company operates primarily through the subsidiaries owned by its direct subsidiary, Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. The Company operates in three segments: Supply Technologies, Assembly Components and Engineered Products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 484 Fibro Cases at Oct. 2 ------------------------------------------------------------ General Cable Corporation was a defendant in 484 asbestos- related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2015. The Company states: "We have been a defendant in asbestos litigation for the past 27 years. Our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by us. As of October 2, 2015, we were a defendant in approximately 484 cases brought in state and federal courts throughout the United States. In the nine months ended October 2, 2015, 82 asbestos cases were brought against us. In the calendar year 2014, 104 asbestos cases were brought against us. In the last 27 years, we have had no cases proceed to verdict. In many of the cases, we were dismissed as a defendant before trial for lack of product identification. As of October 2, 2015, 50,665 asbestos cases have been dismissed. In the nine months ended October 2, 2015, 2,778 asbestos cases were dismissed. As of December 31, 2014, 47,887 cases were dismissed. With regards to the approximately 484 remaining pending cases, we are aggressively defending these cases based upon either lack of product identification as to whether we manufactured asbestos-containing product and/or lack of exposure to asbestos dust from the use of our product." General Cable Corporation is engaged in the development, design, manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy, industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets. The Company additionally engages in the design, integration, and installation on a turn-key basis for products, such as high and extra-high voltage terrestrial and submarine systems. The Company operates in three segments: America, Europe and Mediterranean, and Rest of World (ROW). The Company's product portfolio includes more than 100,000 products. The Company operated 56 manufacturing facilities, which included four facilities owned by companies in which the Company has an equity investment, in 25 countries with regional distribution centers across the world. ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 2,679 MARDOC Suits at Oct. 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- General Cable Corporation had 2,679 pending MARDOC asbestos- related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2015. The Company states: "Historically, a large number of suits were brought on behalf of plaintiffs by a single admiralty law firm ("MARDOC"). Plaintiffs in the MARDOC cases generally alleged that they formerly worked in the maritime industry and sustained asbestos-related injuries from products that General Cable ceased manufacturing in the mid-1970s. The MARDOC cases are managed and supervised by a federal judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ("District Court") by reason of a transfer by the judicial panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL"). In September 2014, upon receipt from the MDL Court of a current statistical report listing numbers of outstanding cases as well as a list identifying outstanding Maritime/MARDOC cases by plaintiff name, General Cable recorded a dismissal of 25,759 cases reducing its number of pending Maritime/MARDOC cases to 2,679. In June 2015, upon further review of the outstanding cases, General Cable recorded a dismissal of the remaining 2,679 Maritime/MARDOC cases. "For cases outside the MDL as of October 2, 2015, plaintiffs have asserted monetary damages in 207 cases. In 82 of these cases, plaintiffs allege only damages in excess of some dollar amount (about $525 thousand per plaintiff); in these cases there are no claims for specific dollar amounts requested as to any defendant. In 124 other cases pending in state and federal district courts (outside the MDL), plaintiffs seek approximately $493 million in damages from as many as 50 defendants. In one case, plaintiffs have asserted damages related to General Cable in the amount of $4 million. In addition, in relation to these 207 cases, there are claims of $333 million in punitive damages from all of the defendants. However, many of the plaintiffs in these cases allege non-malignant injuries. As of October 2, 2015 and December 31, 2014, we had accrued, on a gross basis, approximately $4.3 million and $4.7 million, respectively, and as of October 2, 2015 and December 31, 2014, had recovered approximately $0.4 million and $0.5 million of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits, respectively. The net amount of $3.9 million and $4.2 million, as of October 2, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively, represents our best estimate in order to cover resolution of current and future asbestos-related claims. "The components of the asbestos litigation reserve are current and future asbestos-related claims. The significant assumptions are: (1) the number of cases per state, (2) an estimate of the judgment per case per state, (3) an estimate of the percentage of cases per state that would make it to trial and (4) the estimated total liability percentage, excluding insurance recoveries, per case judgment. Management's estimates are based on the Company's historical experience with asbestos related claims. The Company's current history of asbestos claims does not provide sufficient and reasonable information to estimate a range of loss for potential future, unasserted asbestos claims because the number and the value of the alleged damages of such claims have not been consistent. As such, the Company does not believe a reasonably possible range can be estimated with respect to asbestos claims that may be filed in the future. "Settlement payments are made, and the asbestos accrual is relieved, when we receive a fully executed settlement release from the plaintiff's counsel. As of October 2, 2015 and December 31, 2014, aggregate settlement costs were $9.7 million and $9.5 million, respectively. For the nine months ended October 2, 2015 and September 26, 2014, settlement costs totaled $0.2 million and $0.6 million, respectively. As of October 2, 2015 and December 31, 2014, aggregate litigation costs were $25.8 million and $24.7 million, respectively. For the nine months ended October 2, 2015 and September 26, 2014, litigation costs were $1.1 million and $1.2 million, respectively. "In January 1994, we entered into a settlement agreement with certain principal primary insurers concerning liability for the costs of defense, judgments and settlements, if any, in all of the asbestos litigation. Subject to the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement, the insurers were responsible for a substantial portion of the costs and expenses incurred in the defense or resolution of this litigation. However, one of the insurers participating in the settlement that was responsible for a significant portion of the contribution under the settlement agreement entered into insurance liquidation proceedings and another became insolvent. As a result, the contribution of the insurers has been reduced and we have had to bear substantially most of the costs relating to these lawsuits." General Cable Corporation is engaged in the development, design, manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy, industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets. The Company additionally engages in the design, integration, and installation on a turn-key basis for products, such as high and extra-high voltage terrestrial and submarine systems. The Company operates in three segments: America, Europe and Mediterranean, and Rest of World (ROW). The Company's product portfolio includes more than 100,000 products. The Company operated 56 manufacturing facilities, which included four facilities owned by companies in which the Company has an equity investment, in 25 countries with regional distribution centers across the world. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vertex Unit Faces Asbestos Abatement Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Vertex Energy, Inc., discloses that E-Source Holdings, LLC, a subsidiary of Vertex Energy Operating, LLC, faces suit relating to asbestos abatement and remediation operations performed at Motiva Enterprises, LLC's facility in Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. The Company states: "E-Source, the wholly-owned subsidiary of Vertex Operating, was named as a defendant (along with Motiva Enterprises, LLC, ("Motiva")) in a lawsuit filed in the Sixtieth (60th) Judicial District, Jefferson County, Texas, on April 22, 2015. Pursuant to the lawsuit, Whole Environmental, Inc., made certain allegations against E-Source, and Motiva. The claims include Breach of Contract and Quantum Meruit actions relating to asbestos abatement and remediation operations performed for defendants' at Motiva's facility in Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas. The plaintiff alleges it is due monies earned. Defendants have denied any amounts due plaintiff. The suit seeks damages of approximately $864,000, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, the fair value of certain property alleged to be converted by defendants and reimbursement of legal fees. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations made in the complaint. The Company has no basis of determining whether there is any likelihood of material loss associated with the claims and/or the potential and/or the outcome of the litigation." Vertex Energy, Inc., is an environmental services company that recycles industrial waste streams and off-specification commercial chemical products. The Company is based in Houston with offices in California, Chicago, Georgia, Nevada and Ohio. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIM Continues to Face Potential Asbestos Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- CIM Commercial Trust Corporation continues to face potential liability for costs and damages related to environmental matters, including asbestos-containing materials, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. The Company states: "In connection with the ownership and operation of real estate properties, we may be potentially liable for costs and damages related to environmental matters, including asbestos-containing materials. We have not been notified by any governmental authority of any noncompliance, liability, or other claim in connection with any of the properties, and we are not aware of any other environmental condition with respect to any of the properties that management believes will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows." Based in Dallas, Texas, CIM Commercial Trust Corporation, together with its wholly-owned subsidiaries, primarily acquires, owns, and operates Class A and creative office properties in vibrant and improving urban communities throughout the United States. ASBESTOS UPDATE: AmREIT III Faces Potential Asbestos Liability -------------------------------------------------------------- AmREIT Monthly Income & Growth Fund III Ltd. continues to face potential asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. The Company states: "In connection with the ownership and operation of real estate, we may be potentially liable for costs and damages related to environmental matters. In particular, we are subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations as they apply to real estate pertaining to chemicals used by the dry cleaning industry, the existence of asbestos in older shopping centers, and underground petroleum storage tanks. We have not been notified by any governmental authority of any non-compliance, liability or other claim." AmREIT is a Texas limited partnership formed on April 19, 2005 to acquire, develop and operate, directly or indirectly through joint venture arrangements, a portfolio of commercial real estate consisting primarily of multi-tenant shopping centers and mixed- use developments. ASBESTOS UPDATE: AmREIT IV Faces Potential Asbestos Liability ------------------------------------------------------------- AmREIT Monthly Income & Growth Fund IV LP continues to face potential asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. The Company states: "In connection with the ownership and operation of real estate, we may be potentially liable for costs and damages related to environmental matters. In particular, we are subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations as they apply to real estate pertaining to chemicals used by the dry cleaning industry, the existence of asbestos in older shopping centers, and underground petroleum storage tanks. We have not been notified by any governmental authority of any non-compliance, liability or other claim." AmREIT is a Texas limited partnership formed on April 19, 2005 to acquire, develop and operate, directly or indirectly through joint venture arrangements, a portfolio of commercial real estate consisting primarily of multi-tenant shopping centers and mixed- use developments. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regal Beloit Still Subject to Exposure Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Regal Beloit Corporation is, from time to time, party to litigation that arises in the normal course of its business operations, including asbestos litigation matters, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.. The Company's products are used in a variety of industrial, commercial and residential applications that subject the Company to claims that the use of its products is alleged to have resulted in injury or other damage. Headquartered in Beloit, Wis., Regal Beloit Corporation manufactures electric motors and controls, electric generators and controls, and mechanical motion control products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- IntriCon Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos- related lawsuits relating to its discontinued heat technologies segment, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. The Company is a defendant along with a number of other parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may have contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or more named defendants. These lawsuits relate to the discontinued heat technologies segment which was sold in March 2005. Due to the non-informative nature of the complaints, the Company does not know whether any of the complaints state valid claims against the Company. Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have been exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide defense and insurance coverage under those policies. However, the Company has other primary and excess insurance policies that the Company believes afford coverage for later years. Some of these other primary insurers have accepted defense and insurance coverage for these suits, and some of them have either ignored the Company's tender of defense of these cases, or have denied coverage, or have accepted the tenders but asserted a reservation of rights and/or advised the Company that they need to investigate further. Because settlement payments are applied to all years a litigant was deemed to have been exposed to asbestos, the Company believes that it will have funds available for defense and insurance coverage under the non-exhausted primary and excess insurance policies. However, unlike the older policies, the more recent policies have deductible amounts for defense and settlements costs that the Company will be required to pay; accordingly, the Company expects that its litigation costs will increase in the future. Further, many of the policies covering later years (approximately 1984 and thereafter) have exclusions for any asbestos products or operations, and thus do not provide insurance coverage for asbestos-related lawsuits. The Company does not believe that the asserted exhaustion of some of the primary insurance coverage for the 1970-1978 period will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations. Management believes that the number of insurance carriers involved in the defense of the suits, and the significant number of policy years and policy limits under which these insurance carriers are insuring the Company, make the ultimate disposition of these lawsuits not material to the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations. IntriCon Corporation (IntriCon) is an international company engaged in designing, developing, engineering and manufacturing body-worn devices. The Company serves the body-worn device market by designing, developing, engineering and manufacturing micro- miniature products, microelectronics, micro-mechanical assemblies and complete assemblies, for bio-telemetry devices, hearing instruments and professional audio communication devices. The Company operates in the body-worn device segment. The Company's core technologies are focused on three main markets: medical bio- telemetry, value hearing health and professional audio communications. The Company has investments in the development of four core technologies: Ultra-Low-Power (ULP) Digital Signal Processing (DSP), Ultra-Low-Power Wireless, Microminiaturization, and Miniature Transducers. ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Has 2,971 New Fibro Claims at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 2,971 new asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has Metropolitan Life Insurance Company issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during the period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's and allege that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it should not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company employs a number of resolution strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances. Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company have included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with asbestos. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual allegations) include that: (i) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company owed no duty to the plaintiffs -- it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; (iii) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has expired. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, while other trial courts have denied Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motions. There can be no assurance that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company will receive favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases brought to date have settled, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials. As reported in the 2014 Annual Report, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 4,636 asbestos-related claims in 2014. During the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 2,971 and 3,641 new asbestos-related claims, respectively. The number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount of any liability that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company may incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year. The ability of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting its liability can be dynamic and subject to change. The availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to predict the numerous variables that can affect liability estimates, including the number of future claims, the cost to resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of disease in pending and future claims, the impact of the number of new claims filed in a particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in the jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact of tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs to pursue claims against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company when exposure to asbestos took place after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts. The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in the future. In the Company's judgment, there is a future point after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable. It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may be necessary. While the potential future charges could be material in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are recorded, based on information currently known by management, management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a material effect on the Company's financial position. The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for asbestos-related claims. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's recorded asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims already asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, including claims settled but not yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims not yet asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, but which Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal defense costs associated with the foregoing claims. Significant assumptions underlying Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's analysis of the adequacy of its recorded liability with respect to asbestos litigation include: (i) the number of future claims; (ii) the cost to resolve claims; and (iii) the cost to defend claims. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience, reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience in the United States, assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis. These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved in asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of new claims filed against it and other defendants and the jurisdictions in which claims are pending. Based upon its reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through September 30, 2015. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife, Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Had 90 Exposure Cases ----------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., was a co-defendant in 90 asbestos- related cases asserting claims alleging personal injury, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. The Company states: "We are subject to various pending and threatened lawsuits in which claims for monetary damages are asserted in the ordinary course of business. While any litigation involves an element of uncertainty, in the opinion of management, liabilities, if any, arising from currently pending or threatened litigation are not expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations. "We were a co-defendant in approximately 90 cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 230 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. "In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from $25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants. "There are only six asbestos cases, involving 24 plaintiffs, that plead specified damages. In each of the six cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $3.0 million for four separate causes of action and $1.0 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of $10.0 million. In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged against each named defendant, compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of $10.0 million, for seven separate causes of action. In the fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $20.0 million for eight separate causes of action and punitive damages in the amount of $20.0 million. In the sixth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $10.0 million for five separate causes of action and $5.0 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of $10.0 million for each cause of action. "Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos- containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the bases; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any. "Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date and, based upon available information, our management does not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or financial position." Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., which was incorporated as an Ohio corporation in 1984. Holdings, primarily through its subsidiaries owned by its direct subsidiary, Industries, is an industrial supply chain logistics and diversified manufacturing business operating in three segments: Supply Technologies, Assembly Components and Engineered Products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Realty Faces Potential PI Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- American Realty Investors, Inc. continues to face potential asbestos-related personal injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. The Company states: "Under various federal, state and local environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, we may be potentially liable for removal or remediation costs, as well as certain other potential costs relating to hazardous or toxic substances (including governmental fines and injuries to persons and property) where property-level managers have arranged for the removal, disposal or treatment of hazardous or toxic substances. In addition, certain environmental laws impose liability for release of asbestos-containing materials into the air, and third parties may seek recovery for personal injury associated with such materials. "Management is not aware of any environmental liability relating to the matters that would have a material adverse effect on our business, assets or results of operations." Based in Dallas, American Realty Investors, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a real estate investment company primarily in the United States. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l Continues to Defend PI Suits -------------------------------------------------------- Tyco International plc continues to defend asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 25, 2015. The Company states: "We are party to asbestos-related product litigation that could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. We and certain of our subsidiaries, including Grinnell LLC ("Grinnell"), along with numerous other third parties, are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing materials. Substantially all of the cases pending against affiliates of the Company have been filed against Grinnell, and have typically involved product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos containing components. "During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company performed a revised valuation of its asbestos-related liabilities and corresponding insurance assets and recorded a net charge of $240 million. Although the Company's methodology established a range of estimates of reasonably possible outcomes, the Company recorded its best estimate within such range based upon information known at the time. As of September 25, 2015, the Company's estimated gross asbestos liability of $515 million was recorded within the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as a liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs, and separately as an asset for insurance recoveries of $487 million. The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on the Company's strategies for resolving its asbestos claims, currently available information, and a number of estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new claims that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of claims, the identity of defendants, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, amount of insurance, and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Many of these factors are closely linked, such that a change in one variable or assumption will impact one or more of the others, and no single variable or assumption predominately influences the determination of the Company's asbestos-related liabilities and insurance- related assets. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty in the later portion of the projection period. Other factors that may affect the Company's liability and cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Company's calculations vary significantly from actual results. If actual liabilities are significantly higher than those recorded, the cost of resolving such liabilities claims could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. "We have received notification from the United States Environmental Protection Agency and from other environmental agencies that conditions at several sites where we and others disposed of hazardous substances require cleanup and other possible remedial action and may require that we reimburse the government or otherwise pay for the cost of cleanup of those sites and/or for natural resource damages. We have projects underway at several current and former manufacturing facilities to investigate and remediate environmental contamination resulting from past operations by us or by other businesses that previously owned or used the properties. These projects relate to a variety of activities, including: -- solvent, oil, metal and other hazardous substance contamination cleanup; and -- structure decontamination and demolition, including asbestos abatement. These projects involve both remediation expenses and capital improvements. In addition, we remain responsible for certain environmental issues at manufacturing locations previously sold by us. "Certain environmental laws assess liability on current or previous owners or operators of real property for the cost of removal or remediation of hazardous substances at their properties or at properties at which they have disposed of hazardous substances. In addition to cleanup actions brought by governmental authorities, private parties could bring personal injury or other claims due to the presence of, or exposure to, hazardous substances. "The ultimate cost of cleanup at disposal sites and manufacturing facilities is difficult to predict given uncertainties regarding the extent of the required cleanup, the interpretation of applicable laws and regulations and alternative cleanup methods. Environmental laws are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent over time. While we have budgeted for future capital and operating expenditures to maintain compliance with such laws, we cannot provide assurance that our costs of complying with current or future environmental protection and health and safety laws, or our liabilities arising from past or future releases of, or exposures to, hazardous substances will not exceed our estimates or materially adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. We may also be subject to material liabilities for additional environmental claims for personal injury or cleanup in the future based on our past, present or future business activities or for existing environmental conditions of which we are not presently aware." Based in Cork, Ireland, Tyco International plc is a global provider of security products and services, fire detection and suppression products and services and life safety products. Its broad portfolio of products and services, sold under well-known brands such as Tyco, SimplexGrinnell, Sensormatic, Wormald, Ansul, Simplex, Scott and ADT (other than the U.S., Canada and Korea) serve security, fire detection and suppression and life safety needs across commercial, industrial, retail, small business, institutional and governmental markets, as well as non-U.S. residential markets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Syska Fails in Bid to Junk All Craft's Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ All Craft Fabricators, Inc. was hired by Skanska USA Buildings, Inc., to do mill work for the refurbishment of the United Nations Headquarters which included work on salvaged wood panels and doors within the offices of the UNH. All Craft shares offices with its affiliate, Donaldson Interiors, Inc. All Craft alleges that the doors and panels contained toxic substances, specifically, asbestos, and that no notice of the defective condition was given to them. All Craft alleges that during the refurbishment of the doors and panels, due to the asbestos, they were forced to shut down their manufacturing facilities resulting in property damage, business interruption, loss of production, costs to remedy its facility, and costs to dispose of the asbestos. All Crafts commenced an action against Syska Hennessy Group, Inc. alleging that the Defendant was hired to perform design, architectural, and engineering, consulting and other services as part of the Project, and that Syska performed inspection, surveying, remediation and abatement of asbestos at the Project. The Defendant hired ATC Associates, Inc., to perform asbestos related services. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant sent crates containing salvaged wood panels and doors from the UNH to perform millwork. The wood panels and doors contained asbestos. The Defendant now moves to dismiss the Complaint based on a defense founded upon documentary evidence; that the action is time-barred; and that the Complaint fails to state a cause of action for negligence. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, and directed the parties to appear for a preliminary conference on Feb. 10, 2016. The case is captioned ALL CRAFT FABRICATORS, INC. and DONALDSON INTERIORS, INC., Plaintiffs, v. SYSKA HENNESSY GROUP, INC., Defendant, DOCKET NO. 155408/2015, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001, 2015 NY Slip Op 32239(U). A full-text copy of the Decision dated November 23, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/EM8jXbfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies GM's Appeal in "Bryant" ----------------------------------------------------- General Motors Corporation's Powertrain Division appeals a jury verdict finding that Loretta Bryant is entitled to participate in the Ohio Workers' Compensation Fund as a result of the occupational exposure to asbestos sustained by her deceased husband, Ivan Bryant, which contributed to his death from lung cancer. Loretta alleged that Ivan sustained an injurious exposure to asbestos as a result of his job duties at GM and that his asbestos-related lung cancer was the direct and proximate cause of his death. The complaint claimed that Ivan's employment with GM created a risk of contracting asbestos-related diseases and conditions in a greater degree and in a different manner than the public generally. GM denied that Ivan's lung cancer was asbestos- related and denied that he contracted his lung cancer as a result of his employment at GM's Defiance facility. Further, GM contended that Ivan's long-time habit of smoking one to two packs of cigarettes a day was the sole cause of his lung cancer. The jury entered its verdict in favor of Loretta's claim. GM filed this appeal. The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Defiance County, finds no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to allow the trier of the fact to resolve the factual dispute as to the issue of Ivan's occupational asbestos exposure. The case is LORETTA S. BRYANT, SURVIVING SPOUSE OF IVAN BRYANT, DECEASED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., Defendant- Appellant, and MARSHA P. RYAN, ADMR., OHIO BUREAU OF WORKERS COMP, NO. 4-15-03 (Ohio App.). A full text of the Decision dated November 30, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/0wABg4from Leagle.com. General Motors Corp. is represented by: Marc S. Barnes, Esq. BUGBEE & CONKLE, LLP PNC Bank Building 405 Madison Avenue, Suite 1900 Toledo, OH 43604 Tel: (419) 244-6788 Fax: (419) 244-7145 Email: mbarnes@bugbeelawyers.com Loretta S. Bryant, Appellee, is represented by: Shawn M. Acton, Esq. KELLEY & FERRARO, LLP 2200 Key Tower 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114 Tel: (216) 202-3450 Toll Free: 800-398-1795 Fax: (216) 575-0799 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Montello Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Montello, Inc., appeals from a final judgment in favor of various insurers including Canal Insurance Co., Continental Casualty Co., Houston General Insurance Co., and Scottsdale Insurance Co. The district court divided the case into phases and through a series of rulings, rejected Montello's various claims. On appeal, Montello challenges the district court's holdings that Canal and Houston General have no obligation to drop down and defend or indemnify Montello. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirms the district court's judgment dismissing the action for lack of case or controversy. The case is CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff Counter Defendant- Appellee, v. MONTELLO, INC., Defendant Third-Party Plaintiff Counterclaimant-Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY; HOUSTON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party Defendants-Appellees, and HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.; TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Third-Party Defendants, NO. 14-5039 (10th Cir.). A full-text copy of the Order and Judgment dated November 27, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/6Oqfblfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jan. 7 Testimony Deadline in "Covey-Hinzo" ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge William Alsup of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, ordered that the deadline for designation of expert testimony and disclosure of full expert reports as to any issue on which a party has the burden of proof will be continued to January 7, 2016. The case is PATRICIA J. COVEY-HINZO, individually and as successor in interest to GILBERT E. HINZO, Deceased, ALEX HINZO, an individual, and FELICIA WATSON, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS et al., Defendants, CASE NO. C 15-00241 WHA (N.D. Calif.). A full-text copy of the Order dated November 30, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/1F0NVLfrom Leagle.com. Defendant CRANE CO. is represented by Michele C. Barnes, Esq. -- michele.barnes@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP, Peter E. Soskin, Esq. - peter.soskin@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP Defendant General Dynamics Corporation is represented by Lisa Rickenbacher, Esq. -- lrickenbacher@hugoparker.com -- HUGO PARKER LLP Defendant Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. and Crown Holdings, Inc. are represented by William Armstrong, Esq. -- bill.armstrong@armstrongetal.com --ARMSTRONG & ASSOCIATES, LLP Defendant Harsco Corporation is represented by Lauren Michals, Esq. -- lmichals@nixonpeabody.com -- NIXON & PEABODY LLP Defendant IMO Industries, Inc. is represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Esq. -- bbailey@leaderberkon.com -- LEADER & BERKON LLP Defendants Ingersoll Rand Company and Syd Carpenter, Marine Contractor, Inc. are represented by Carla Lynn Crochet, Esq. -- ccrochet@prindlelaw.com --PRINDLE, AMARO, GOETZ, HILLYARD, BARNES & REINHOLZ LLP Defendant ITT Corporation is represented by Joseph Duffy, Esq. -- jduffy@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Defendant Metalclad Insulation LLC is represented by Lisa Oberg, Esq. MCKENNA, LONG & ALDRIDGE Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is represented by Lisa Marie Dowling, Esq. -- ldowling@steptoe.com -- STEPTOE AND JOHNSON LLP Defendant Viad Corporation is represented by Whitney Davis, Esq. - - THE DAVIS LAW FIRM Defendant Warren Pumps, LLC is represented by James Cunningham, Esq. -- james.cunningham@tuckerellis.com -- TUCKER ELLIS LLP Defendants CBS Corporation is represented by Frank Pond, Esq. -- fpond@pondnorth.com -- POND NORTH LLP Plaintiffs are represented by Sara Morton, Esq. -- HEARD ROBINS CLOUD LLP ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fisher Wins Partial Summary Judgment in PI Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gaspar Hernandez-Vega, in an action, contends that he developed mesothelioma during his career as a pipe fitter in Puerto Rico, Massachusetts, Virginia and New York as he was exposed to asbestos from Fisher Controls International LLC's valves during his career, which spanned from approximately 1964 through 1978. Fisher moves for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint and all claims and cross-claims against it. If its motion is not granted, Fisher seeks dismissal of the following Counts in the plaintiff's complaint: Count II (Breach of Warranty), Count V (Conspiracy/Collective Liability/Concert of Action), Count X (Market Share Liability/Joint and Several Liability), and Count XI (Punitive Damages). The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the defendant's motion only to the extent that the court dismisses Count II (Breach of Warranty) as unopposed, Count X to the extent of Market Share Liability (but not Joint and Several Liability) and Count V (Conspiracy/Collective Liability/Concert of Action; The Supreme Court of New York denied the Defendant's motion with leave to renew as to Count XI (Punitive Damages) as necessary; otherwise the motion is denied. The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to GASPAR HERNANDEZ-VEGA, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., et al., Defendants, 2015 NY Slip Op 32242(U), DOCKET NO. 190367/2014, SEQ. NO. 005 (N.Y. Sup.). A full text of the Decision dated November 23, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/SPGhst from Leagle.com. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552. * * * End of Transmission * * *