/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160119.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, January 19, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 12 Headlines ALIBABA GROUP: "Buelow" Suit Removed to N.D. California ALLERGAN PLC: Dismissal of Zymar(R) Case Under Appeal ALLERGAN PLC: Updates on Class Suits Over Celexa and Lexapro ALLERGAN PLC: Deal Reached in Missouri Suits Over Celexa, Lexapro ALLERGAN PLC: Updates on TCPA Class Suits ALLERGAN PLC: Motion to Dismiss TRT Class Action Remains Pending ALLERGAN PLC: Class Suit by Sales Reps in Early Stage ALLERGAN PLC: Alendronate Cases Remain Active in N.J. ALLERGAN PLC: 1,230 Actions Over Benicar(R) Still Open ALLERGAN PLC: 9 Celexa/Lexapro Actions v. Forest Labs Pending ALLERGAN PLC: 195 Birth Defect Cases v. Forest Labs Pending ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery in Metoclopramide Cases in Initial Stage ALLERGAN PLC: Continues to Defend Actions Over Propoxyphene ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery in Testosterone Litigation in Early Stage ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Judge Narrows Claim in "Tabor" Suit AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Cone" Suit Moved from M.D.N.C. to Wash. D.C. AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Scribner" Suit Moved from N.D. Ill. to D.C. AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Carte" Suit Goes from C.D. Calif. to D.C. AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Kraft" Suit Moved From N.D. Ill to Wash D.C. AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Walker" Suit Moved from N.D. Ga. to D.C. AMERICAN AIRLINES: "De La Garza" Suit Goes from N.D. Ill. to D.C. AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Costantino" Suit Goes from N.D. Ill. to D.C. ATLAS AIR: April 18 Jury Trial in Pricing Class Action BALTIMORE ORIOLES: "Senne" Suit Moved from Md. to N.D. Cal. BAY STATE GAS: Appeal Over Credit Sale Junked BRANCH BANKING: D.C. Judge Sends "Roland" Suit to Maryland BREG INC: Magistrate Judge Rules on Discovery Bid in "Lucas" Suit CALIF. CHECK CASHING: "Gilberg" Suit Transferred to Sacramento CASE DETECTIVE: Former Security Guard Sues Over Wage Practices JPMORGAN CHASE: Suit Against Former Employee Dismissed CHANNELADVISOR CORP: Dismissal of Securities Case Sought CHICAGO, IL: Homeless Sex Offenders Win Class Certification CRYPTSY: Sued Over Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices DELTA FUNDING: Judge Won't Remand Suit to State Court DON THORNTON: "Dunham" Suit Moved to N.D. Okla. DRAFTKINGS & FANDUEL: "Bandy" Suit Moved to N.D. Okla. DUKE ENERGY: Settlement in Merger Suit Finally Approved EXCELLUS HEALTH: "Baldwin" Suit Goes to N.D.N.Y. FANNIE MAE: Texas Judge Dismisses "Nguyen" Suit FUHU INC: Judge Denies Bid to Certify Class Over Nabi Tablet PCs GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Discovery Okayed in Copper Coils Suit GRUBHUB INC: "Tan" Misclassification Suit Goes to N.D. Calif. HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Morales" Suit Says HUNTER WARFIELD: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection INTEGRITY SURVEILLANCE: Judge Rules on Discovery Bid in TCPA Suit L & R STRUCTURAL: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT LEE ON GRILL: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages LEGACY PRESSURE: Faces "Guyton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime LOS ANGELES, CA: LAPD Sued For Violating Protesters' Rights MARTHA STEWART: Defending Class Actions Over Sequential Merger MERCK: Settles Securities Class Action Suit for $830MM METLIFE INC: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in Westland Case METLIFE INC: Must Face Birmingham Retirement System Suit METLIFE INC: Must Defend Against "Owens" TCA Action METLIFE INC: "Robainas" Reinsurance Litigation Tossed METLIFE INC: Show Cause Order Issued in "Intoccia" METLIFE INC: Settlement in "Fauley" TCPA Suit Under Appeal METLIFE INC: "Voshall" Case Pending in California Court MICHIGAN: Sued Over Flint Water Crisis MIRAKUYA JAPANESE: Faces "Han" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime NRRM LLC: Faces "Trumbell" Suit in Ill. Over Automated Calls OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT: "Sims" Suit Goes to Wash. D.C. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT: "Hanagan" Moved to Wash. D.C. PETERSBURG, VA: Police Officers Sue to Recover OT Wages PLANET FITNESS: "Truglio" Suit Moved to New Jersey Dist. Court POLLO OPERATIONS: Judge Reopens Case to Approve Class Settlement PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Bouder" Case PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Sterling PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: LIBOR Suits Transferred to S.D.N.Y. RIG POWER: Judge Narrows Plaintiffs' Claim in "Morgan" Suit SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Sued Over Refusal to End Fracking Operations SCANA ENERGY: "Garrett" Suit Moved from Cobb Court to N.D. Ga. SHINY STAR: Recalls Wafer Stick Products Due to Egg SKI-DOO: Recalls Snowmobile 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk SOUTHERN COMPANY: Facing Suit Over AGL Resources Merger STARCRAFT: Recalls Travel Trailer 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk STARCRAFT: Recalls AR-One Trailer 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk STARCRAFT: Recalls Travel Trailer 2016 Model Due to Fall Risk STARS TRADING: Recalls White Pepper Powder Due to Gluten SUBARU: Recalls Legacy and Outback 2016 Models Due to Fire Risk SYNTHES USA: Recalls Distal Radius Plate Systems Locking Screw TEMPUR SEALY: "Benning" Suit Now Closed TEMPUR SEALY: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in "Todd" Case TESLA: Recalls Model S Vehicles Due to Injury Risk TOLO TOYS: Recalls Twist and Turn Rattles Due to Choking Hazard UNFI CANADA: Recalls Cheese Ravioli Products Due to Salmonella URBAN OUTFITTERS: Settlement in "Moore" Case Has Preliminary OK VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Status Conference Set for March 3 VOLKSWAGEN: Casper Law Firm Sues Over "Defeat Devices" VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Shipley" Suit Sent to E.D. Arkansas Court WAL-MART CANADA: Recalls Indoor Mini Light Sets WAL-MART CANADA: Recalls LED Light Sets Due to Fire Hazard WARNER CHILCOTT: Defending 209 Actonel(R) Injury Cases WARNER CHILCOTT: Facing 4 Class Suits Related to Actonel(R) WHOLESOME HARVEST: Recalls Bread Products Due to Spoilage WILLIS GROUP: Motion to Dismiss "Troice" Action Pending WILLIS GROUP: Rupert v. Winter Pending in Texas Court WILLIS GROUP: Plaintiffs Did Not Oppose Bid to Dismiss "Casanova" WILLIS GROUP: Defending Rishmague v. Winter Lawsuit WILLIS GROUP: Still Faces MacArthur v. Winter Action WILLIS GROUP: Defendants Have Yet to Respond in Ranni and Barbar WILLIS GROUP: "Janvey" Action Remains Pending in N.D. Tex. WILLIS GROUP: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Merger Case WYNN LAS VEGAS: "May" Suit Goes to Nevada Dist. Court YAHOO INC: Settles Class Suit Over Scanning Email ZANIMO INC: Recalls Oculex Soin des Yeux Products ********* ALIBABA GROUP: "Buelow" Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Buelow et al. v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited et al., Case No. CIV-535692, was removed from Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv- 05179 to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserted strict liability claims under sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Defendants. Alibaba Group Holding Limited, through its subsidiaries, operates as an online and mobile commerce company in the People's Republic of China and internationally. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP One Montgomery St., Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 228 4545 The Defendants are represented by: James G. Kreissman, Esq. Simona G. Strauss, Esq. Stephen P. Blake, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 2475 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 251 5000 Facsimile: (650) 251 5002 E-mail: jkreissman@stblaw.com sstrauss@stblaw.com sblake@stblaw.com ALLERGAN PLC: Dismissal of Zymar(R) Case Under Appeal ----------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in an antitrust class action lawsuit related to Zymar(R) and Zymaxid(R) have taken an appeal from a dismissal order, Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. On February 16, 2012, Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. filed a complaint in the federal district court in Delaware against Senju Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. ("Senju"), Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. ("Kyorin"), and Allergan, Inc. ("Allergan") alleging monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, conspiracy to monopolize, and unreasonable restraint of trade in the market for gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations, which includes Allergan's ZYMAR(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3% and ZYMAXID(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% products. On May 24, 2012, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss the complaint to the extent it seeks to impose liability for alleged injuries occurring prior to August 19, 2011, which is the date Apotex obtained final approval of its proposed generic product. Allergan and the other defendants also moved to dismiss. Defendants also filed a motion to stay the action pending resolution of related patent actions in the federal court in Delaware and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On February 7, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to stay the proceedings pending resolution of the appeal in the patent dispute and denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to renew. On September 18, 2014, defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the Apotex plaintiffs' complaint. The court dismissed Allergan's motion on May 2, 2015. Thereafter, Allergan filed an answer to Apotex's complaint on June 1, 2015. On June 6, 2014, a separate antitrust class action complaint was filed in the federal district court in Delaware against the same defendants as in the Apotex case. The complaint alleges that defendants unlawfully excluded or delayed generic competition in the gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations market (generic versions of ZYMAR(R) and ZYMAXID(R)). On September 18, 2014, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and joined in co-defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On August 19, 2015, the court granted Allergan's motion to dismiss. On September 18, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLERGAN PLC: Updates on Class Suits Over Celexa and Lexapro ------------------------------------------------------------ Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited provided updates on class action lawsuits related to Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) products in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Forest Laboratories and certain of its affiliates are defendants in three federal court actions filed on behalf of individuals who purchased Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) for pediatric use, all of which have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in an MDL proceeding in the federal district court Massachusetts (the "Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL"). These actions, two of which were originally filed as putative nationwide class actions, and one of which is a putative California-wide class action, allege that Forest marketed Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) for off-label pediatric use and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). The complaints assert various similar claims, including claims under the state consumer protection statutes and state common laws. Plaintiffs in the various actions sought to have certified California, Missouri, Illinois and New York state-wide classes. However, only the Missouri state class was certified. Forest subsequently reached an agreement with the MDL plaintiffs to settle the Missouri class claims, including claims by both individuals and third party payors that purchased Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) for use by a minor from 1998 to December 31, 2013, for $7.65 million with a potential to increase the amount to $10.35 million if settling plaintiffs meet certain thresholds. On September 8, 2014 the court granted final approval for the settlement. Additional actions relating to the promotion of Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) have been filed all of which have been consolidated in the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL. On May 3, 2013, an action was filed in federal court in California on behalf of individuals who purchased Lexapro(R) for adolescent use, seeking to certify a state-wide class action in California and alleging that our promotion of Lexapro(R) for adolescent depression has been deceptive. On March 5, 2014 the court granted Forest's motion to dismiss this complaint. Plaintiff then appealed the district court's decision to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and on February 20, 2015, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, ruling that Plaintiffs' California state law claims were preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). On November 13, 2013, an action was filed in federal court in Minnesota seeking to certify a nationwide class of third-party payor entities that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). Forest moved to dismiss the complaint and on December 12, 2014, the court issued a ruling dismissing plaintiff's claims under Minnesota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, but denying the remaining portions of the motion. On March 13, 2014, an action was filed in the federal court in Massachusetts by two third-party payors seeking to certify a nationwide class of persons and entities that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for use by pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, state consumer protection statutes, and state common laws, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). The court granted Forest's motion to dismiss this complaint in its December 12, 2014 ruling. On August 28, 2014, an action was filed in the federal district court in Washington seeking to certify a nationwide class of consumers and subclasses of Washington and Massachusetts consumers that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that Forest engaged in off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). Forest's response to the complaint was filed on December 19, 2014. On June 16, 2015, the court issued a ruling on the motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part. ALLERGAN PLC: Deal Reached in Missouri Suits Over Celexa, Lexapro ----------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company has reached agreements to resolve two class action lawsuits in Missouri over certain purchases of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). Forest Laboratories and certain of its affiliates are named as defendants in two actions filed on behalf of entities or individuals who purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use pending in the Missouri state court. These claims arise from similar allegations as those contained in the federal actions described in the preceding paragraphs. One action, filed on November 6, 2009, was brought by two entities that purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R). The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. The other action, filed on July 22, 2009, was filed as a putative class action on behalf of a class of Missouri citizens who purchased Celexa(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. In October 2010, the court certified a class of Missouri domiciliary citizens who purchased Celexa(R) for pediatric use at any time prior to the date of the class certification order, but who do not have a claim for personal injury. The Company reached agreements with both sets of plaintiffs in the Missouri actions to resolve each matter for payments that are not material to the Company's financial condition or results of operations. ALLERGAN PLC: Updates on TCPA Class Suits ----------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited provided updates on class action lawsuits over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. A putative class action complaint against Anda, Inc. ("Anda"), a subsidiary of the Company, in Missouri state court alleging conversion and alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. An amended complaint alleges that by sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements, Anda misappropriated the class members' paper, toner, ink and employee time when they received the alleged unsolicited faxes, and that the alleged unsolicited facsimile advertisements were sent to the plaintiff in violation of the TCPA and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaint seeks to assert class action claims on behalf of the plaintiff and other similarly situated third parties. On May 19, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking certification of a class of entities with Missouri telephone numbers who were sent Anda faxes for the period January 2004 through January 2008 but the court vacated the class certification hearing until the FCC Petition was addressed. On May 1, 2012, a separate action was filed in federal court in Florida, purportedly on behalf of the "end users of the fax numbers in the United States but outside Missouri to which faxes advertising pharmaceutical products for sale by Anda were sent." On July 10, 2012, Anda filed its answer and affirmative defenses. The parties filed a joint motion to stay the action pending the resolution of the FCC Petition which the court granted. In addition, in October 2012, Forest and certain of its affiliates were named as defendants, in a putative class action in federal court in Missouri. This suit alleges that Forest and another defendant violated the TCPA and was filed on behalf of a proposed class that includes all persons who, from four years prior to the filing of the action, were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of defendants, which did not display an opt-out notice compliant with a certain regulation promulgated by the FCC. On July 17, 2013, the district court granted Forest's motion to stay the action pending the administrative proceeding initiated by the pending FCC Petition and a separate petition Forest filed. In a related matter, in November 2010 Anda filed a petition with the FCC, asking the FCC to clarify the statutory basis for its regulation requiring "opt-out" language on faxes sent with express permission of the recipient (the "FCC Petition"). On May 2, 2012, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau of the FCC dismissed the FCC Petition. On May 14, 2012, Anda filed an application for review of the Bureau's dismissal by the full Commission, requesting the FCC to vacate the dismissal and grant the relief sought in the FCC Petition. The FCC did not rule on the application for review. On June 27, 2013, Forest filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling with the FCC requesting that the FCC find that (1) the faxes at issue in the action complied, or substantially complied with the FCC regulation, and thus did not violate it, or (2) the FCC regulation was not properly promulgated under the TCPA. On January 31, 2014, the FCC issued a Public Notice seeking comment on several other recently-filed petitions, all similar to the one Anda filed in 2010. On October 30, 2014, the FCC issued a final order on the FCC Petition granting Anda, Forest and several other petitioners a retroactive waiver of the opt-out notice requirement for all faxes sent with express consent. The litigation plaintiffs, who had filed comments on the January 2014 Public Notice, have appealed the final order to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Anda, Forest and other petitioners have moved to intervene in the appeal seeking review of that portion of the FCC final order addressing the statutory basis for the opt out/express consent portion of the regulation. Anda and Forest believe they have substantial meritorious defenses to the putative class actions brought under the TCPA, and intend to defend the actions vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLERGAN PLC: Motion to Dismiss TRT Class Action Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a motion to dismiss an amended complaint filed in the Testosterone Replacement Therapy Class Action remains pending. On November 24, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class action complaint filed on behalf a class of third party payers in federal court in Illinois. The suit alleges that the Company and other named pharmaceutical defendants violated various laws including the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and state consumer protection laws in connection with the sale and marketing of certain testosterone replacement therapy pharmaceutical products ("TRT Products"), including the Company's Androderm(R) product. This matter was filed in the TRT Products Liability MDL, notwithstanding that it is not a product liability matter. Plaintiff alleges that it reimbursed third parties for dispensing TRT Products to beneficiaries of its insurance policies. Plaintiff seeks to obtain certain equitable relief, including injunctive relief and an order requiring restitution and/or disgorgement, and to recover damages and multiple damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint, after which plaintiff amended its complaint. Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and the motion remains pending. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims alleged and intends to vigorously defend the action. However, an adverse determination in the case could have an adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLERGAN PLC: Class Suit by Sales Reps in Early Stage ----------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the class action complaint brought by certain former company sales representatives and specialty sales representatives in the federal district court in New York is in its early stages and the parties are beginning to work on discovery matters. In July 2012, Forest Laboratories and certain of its affiliates were named as defendants in an action brought by certain former company sales representatives and specialty sales representatives in the federal district court in New York. The action is a putative class and collective action, and alleges class claims under Title VII for gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions, as well as discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, and a collective action claim under the Equal Pay Act. The proposed Title VII gender class includes all current and former female sales representatives employed by the Company throughout the U.S. from 2008 to the date of judgment, and the proposed Title VII pregnancy sub-class includes all current and former female sales representatives who have been, are, or will become pregnant while employed by the Company throughout the U.S. from 2008 to the date of judgment. The proposed Equal Pay Act collective action class includes current, former, and future female sales representatives who were not compensated equally to similarly-situated male employees during the applicable liability period. The Second Amended Complaint also includes non-class claims on behalf of certain of the named Plaintiffs for sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII, and for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act. On August 14, 2014, the court issued a decision on the Company's motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part, striking the plaintiffs' proposed class definition and instead limiting the proposed class to a smaller set of potential class members and dismissing certain of the individual plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of an Equal Pay Act collective action on May 22, 2015 which the Company has opposed. On September 2, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs motion to conditionally certify a collective action. The litigation is still in its early stages and the parties are beginning to work on discovery matters. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this action. At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as a whole. ALLERGAN PLC: Alendronate Cases Remain Active in N.J. ----------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that lawsuits over injuries related to the use of Alendronate remain active are part of a mass tort coordinated proceeding in New Jersey state court. Starting in 2010, approximately 130 product liability suits on behalf of approximately 175 plaintiffs have been filed against the Company and certain of its affiliates, including Cobalt Laboratories, as well as other manufacturers and distributors of alendronate for personal injuries including AFF and ONJ allegedly arising out of the use of alendronate. The actions are pending in various state and federal courts. Several of the cases were consolidated in an MDL proceeding in federal court in New Jersey. In 2012, the MDL court granted the Company's motion to dismiss all of the cases then pending against the Company in the New Jersey MDL. The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Any new cases against the Company filed in the MDL are subject to dismissal unless plaintiffs can establish that their claims should be exempted from the 2012 dismissal order. Other cases were consolidated in an MDL in federal court in New York, where the Company filed a similar motion to dismiss. The Court granted, in part, the motion to dismiss which has resulted in the dismissal of several other cases. The Company has also been served with nine cases that are part of a consolidated litigation in the California state court. In 2012, the California court partially granted a motion filed on behalf of all generic defendants seeking dismissal. Appeals in the California cases have been exhausted and the Company has not yet been able to determine how that will affect the cases filed against it. The remaining active cases are part of a mass tort coordinated proceeding in New Jersey state court. In the New Jersey proceeding, the Court granted, in part, a motion to dismiss. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if our indemnification arrangements or insurance do not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLERGAN PLC: 1,230 Actions Over Benicar(R) Still Open ------------------------------------------------------ Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is named in approximately 1,230 actions involving allegations that Benicar(R), a treatment for hypertension that Forest co-promoted with Daiichi Sankyo between 2002 and 2008, caused certain gastrointestinal injuries. Under Forest's Co-Promotion Agreement, Daiichi Sankyo is defending the Company in these lawsuits. ALLERGAN PLC: 9 Celexa/Lexapro Actions v. Forest Labs Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Forest Laboratories and its affiliates are defendants in approximately nine actions pending in various federal district courts involving allegations that Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) caused or contributed to individuals committing or attempting suicide, or caused a violent event. The Company recently reached agreements in principle to resolve eight of the nine matters. The remaining case is stayed. ALLERGAN PLC: 195 Birth Defect Cases v. Forest Labs Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that approximately 195 actions are pending against Forest and its affiliates involving allegations that Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) caused various birth defects. Several of the cases involve multiple minor-plaintiffs. The majority of these actions have been consolidated in state court in Missouri where one case is set for trial in May 2016. Five actions remain in New Jersey state court, none of which are set for trial. There are birth defect cases pending in other jurisdictions but none currently are set for trial. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) cases and maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery in Metoclopramide Cases in Initial Stage ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that discovery in the Metoclopramide litigation is in the preliminary stages. Starting in 2009, a number of product liability suits were filed against certain Company affiliates, including legacy Actavis and Watson companies, as well as other manufacturers and distributors of metoclopramide, for personal injuries allegedly arising out of the use of metoclopramide. Approximately 1,500 cases remain pending against Actavis, Watson and/or its affiliates in state and federal courts, representing claims by multiple plaintiffs. Discovery in these cases is in the preliminary stages as the Company is actively moving to dismiss the suits and either initiating or defending appeals on such motions. The Company believes that, with respect to the majority of the cases against the legacy Watson companies, it will be defended in and indemnified by Pliva, Inc., an affiliate of Teva, from whom the Company purchased its metoclopramide product line in late 2008. With respect to the cases pending against the legacy Actavis companies, the Company recently reached an agreement in principle to resolve the majority of the matters. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. "These actions, if successful, or if our indemnification arrangements or insurance do not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows," the Company said. ALLERGAN PLC: Continues to Defend Actions Over Propoxyphene ----------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company continues to defend several cases over the use of Propoxyphene. Starting in 2011, a number of product liability suits were filed against Watson and certain of its affiliates, as well as other manufacturers and distributors of propoxyphene, for personal injuries including adverse cardiovascular events or deaths allegedly arising out of the use of propoxyphene. Cases are pending against Watson and/or its affiliates in various state and federal courts, representing claims by approximately 1,400 plaintiffs. A number of the cases were consolidated in an MDL in federal district court in Kentucky. On June 22, 2012, the MDL court granted the generic defendants' joint motion to dismiss the remaining MDL cases. On June 27, 2014, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. Plaintiffs did not file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. In addition, approximately 35 cases were filed in California state court. These cases were removed to federal district courts and, after disputes over whether the cases should be remanded to state court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the removals to federal court were proper. Many of the cases in California federal courts were transferred to the MDL in Kentucky. Once the remaining procedural matters are resolved, the defendants will file demurrers and motions to dismiss the remaining suits. In addition, approximately eight lawsuits have been filed in Oklahoma which plaintiffs are seeking to have remanded from federal to state court. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery in Testosterone Litigation in Early Stage ----------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that product liability cases alleging injury due to the use of testosterone products are in the initial stages and discovery is in the early stages. Starting in 2014, a number of product liability suits were filed against the Company and certain of its affiliates, as well as other manufacturers and distributors of testosterone products, for personal injuries including but not limited to cardiovascular events allegedly arising out of the use of Androderm(R) testosterone cypionate, AndroGel and/or testosterone enanthate. Actavis, Inc. and/or one or more of its subsidiaries have been served in approximately 253 currently pending actions, all of which are pending in federal court. These actions have been consolidated in an MDL in federal court in Illinois. The defendants have responded to the plaintiffs' master complaint. Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss all claims relating to any of Actavis' generic TRT products from the cases. These cases are in the initial stages and discovery is in the early stages. The Company anticipates that additional suits will be filed. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Judge Narrows Claim in "Tabor" Suit ------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss in the case RODNEY TABOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-2602 (E.D. Penn.) Prior to November 1999, the majority of Allstate Insurance Company's captive agency force acted as employee agents, under either an R830 or an R1500 contract, and was entitled to a wide range of company-sponsored health, welfare, and retirement benefits. On November 10, 1999, Allstate announced the Preparing for the Future Group Reorganization Program by noting that, as part of a new business model, it was reorganizing its entire captive agency force into a single exclusive agency independent contractor program. With few exceptions, Allstate terminated the employment contracts of the 6,200-plus R830 and R1500 employee agents effective no later than June 30, 2000. While the Program applied to all agents regardless of age, productivity, or performance, approximately ninety percent of the R830/R1500 agents were over 40 years of age. In connection with the termination of the R830 and R1500 employment contracts, Allstate offered the agents working under those contracts four options. The first three release options were conditioned upon the agents' agreement to execute a release of claims, while the fourth option did not. Several employee agents subject to the Program brought age discrimination charges against Allstate with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). On August 1, 2001, 32 employee agents or the so-called Romero plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint against Allstate in connection with the Program. The Romero plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint on October 18, 2001, and their second amended complaint on July 28, 2010. On February 27, 2014, the court ruled on the parties' cross- motions for summary judgment regarding the validity of the release and held that a genuine issue of fact remained as to whether the release was knowingly and voluntarily signed. Following the October 6, 2014 denial of class certification on issues regarding the validity of the release, the court determined that the statute of limitations for the non-party employee agents resumed running and that they were required to file an action in order to pursue their claims. On May 11, 2015, 10 new release-signers or the Tabor plaintiffs filed a complaint and subsequently moved to intervene. The complaint brought the following causes of action: (1) a request for declaratory judgment on the invalidity of the Release under ERISA, the ADEA, and common law (Count I); (2) breach of the R830 contract (Count II); (3) breach of the R1500 contract (Count III); (4) interference with employment and retaliation in violation of Section 510 of ERISA (Count IV); (5) discriminatory termination and retaliation in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 623(a) and (d) (Count V); (6) breach of fiduciary duty (Count VI); (7) cutback of beefed up early retirement benefits in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1054(g)(2) (Count VIII); and (8) cutback of early retirement benefits in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1054(g) (Count IX). The Tabor plaintiffs moved to intervene in Romero v. Allstate matter, Civil Action No. 01-3894. The court granted the motion to intervene. Defendants Allstate and Edward M. Liddy filed motions to dismiss the Tabor plaintiffs' complaint. Judge Buckwalter ruled that as to the Plaintiffs' state law claims, the Plaintiffs' failure to tender back or offer to tender back some or all of the consideration received for signing the Release now constitutes a ratification of that document with respect to those state law claims. With respect to the Plaintiffs' claims under Sec. 510 ERISA, the Court agrees with the Defendants that those claims are time-barred under a technical application of the statute of limitations, but nonetheless finds that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled for the period between the Court's October 6, 2014 Order denying class certification and the Court's December 11, 2014 Order regarding the resumption of the statute of limitations. A calculation of the lapse of time, with that tolled period removed, results in a determination that Plaintiffs' Complaint was timely filed. As to the Plaintiffs' causes of action under Sec. 204(g) of ERISA, the Court holds that they adequately state claims upon which relief may be granted because the early retirement benefits were "accrued" benefits, as defined by controlling precedent. A copy of Judge Buckwalter's memorandum dated December 1, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/tcajP6from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by: Alan L. Yatvin, Esq. POPPER & YATVIN 230 S Broad St #503 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: 215-546-5700 Email: main@popperyatvin.com - and - Jessica F. Salonus, Esq. Jonathan L. Bobbitt, Esq. Justin S. Gilbert, Esq. GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 341 CoolSprings Boulevard, Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Telephone: 615-354-1144 Facsimile: 731-664-1540 Allstate Insurance Company and The Allstate Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jordan M. Heinz -- jordan.heinz@kirkland.com -- at KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP; Katherine M. Katchen -- kkatchen@akingump.com -- at AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP Edward M. Liddy, Defendant, represented by John B. Langel -- langel@ballardspahr.com -- at BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL LLP; Christopher Todd at MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS, LLP AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Cone" Suit Moved from M.D.N.C. to Wash. D.C. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Cone v. American Airlines, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00728, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01924- CKK to the proceeding. American Airlines Group is an American publicly traded airline holding company headquartered in Fort Worth. American Airlines provides scheduled airline services. It offers scheduled jet services primarily to Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth, Los Angeles, Miami, and New York City. Delta Air Lines is a major American airline, with its headquarters and largest hub at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia. Southwest Airlines is a major U.S. airline and the world's largest low-cost carrier, headquartered in Dallas, Texas. United Continental Holdings is a publicly traded airline holding company headquartered in the Willis Tower in Chicago, and owns and operates United Airlines. United Airlines based in Chicago, Illinois, offers passenger and cargo air transportation services. As of October 28, 2015, the company operated approximately 700 mainline aircraft. The Defendants are represented by: Michael Lacovara, Esq. FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US, LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 277 4000 E-mail: michael.lacovara@freshfields.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Scribner" Suit Moved from N.D. Ill. to D.C. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Scribner v. American Airlines Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06915, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01920-CKK to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendants entered into an alleged illegal agreement, combination, or conspiracy to raise and maintain the price of domestic airfare in the United States. American Airlines Group is an American publicly traded airline holding company headquartered in Fort Worth. American Airlines provides scheduled airline services. It offers scheduled jet services primarily to Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth, Los Angeles, Miami, and New York City. Delta Air Lines is a major American airline, with its headquarters and largest hub at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia. Southwest Airlines is a major U.S. airline and the world's largest low-cost carrier, headquartered in Dallas, Texas. United Continental Holdings is a publicly traded airline holding company headquartered in the Willis Tower in Chicago, and owns and operates United Airlines. United Airlines based in Chicago, Illinois, offers passenger and cargo air transportation services. As of October 28, 2015, the company operated approximately 700 mainline aircraft. The Plaintiff is represented by: Susan M. Coler, Esq. Clayton D. Halunen, Esq. Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq. Charles D. Moore, Esq. HALUNEN LAW 1650 IDS Center, 80 S 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 605 4098 Facsimile: (612)605 4099 E-mail: coler@halunenlaw.com halunen@halunenlaw.com wolchansky@halunenlaw.com moore@halunenlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael Lacovara, Esq. FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US, LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 277 4000 E-mail: michael.lacovara@freshfields.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Carte" Suit Goes from C.D. Calif. to D.C. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Carte v. American Airlines Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-05208, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01917-CKK to the proceeding. The Defendants allegedly conspired in fixing, raising, maintaining, and/or stabilizing the prices of domestic airline tickets The Plaintiff seeks damages and for injunctive relief for price fixing under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the antitrust laws of the United States against the Defendants American Airlines Group is an American publicly traded airline holding company headquartered in Fort Worth. American Airlines provides scheduled airline services. It offers scheduled jet services primarily to Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth, Los Angeles, Miami, and New York City. Delta Air Lines is a major American airline, with its headquarters and largest hub at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia. Southwest Airlines is a major U.S. airline and the world's largest low-cost carrier, headquartered in Dallas, Texas. United Continental Holdings is a publicly traded airline holding company headquartered in the Willis Tower in Chicago, and owns and operates United Airlines. United Airlines based in Chicago, Illinois, offers passenger and cargo air transportation services. As of October 28, 2015, the company operated approximately 700 mainline aircraft. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Brian Murray, Esq. Lee Albert, Esq. Thomas J. Kennedy, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201 9150 Facsimile: (310) 201 9160 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com bmurray@glancylaw.com lalbert@glancylaw.com tkennedy@glancylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael Lacovara, Esq. FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US, LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 277 4000 E-mail: michael.lacovara@freshfields.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Kraft" Suit Moved From N.D. Ill to Wash D.C. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Kraft et al. v. American Airlines Group et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06216, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01894- CKK to the proceeding. Plaintiffs brought the action pursuant to Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, for injunctive relief and to recover treble damages and the costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, for Defendants' violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. American Airlines Group is an American publicly traded airline holding company headquartered in Fort Worth. American Airlines provides scheduled airline services. It offers scheduled jet services primarily to Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth, Los Angeles, Miami, and New York City. Delta Air Lines is a major American airline, with its headquarters and largest hub at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia. Southwest Airlines is a major U.S. airline and the world's largest low-cost carrier, headquartered in Dallas, Texas. United Continental Holdings is a publicly traded airline holding company headquartered in the Willis Tower in Chicago, and owns and operates United Airlines. United Airlines based in Chicago, Illinois, offers passenger and cargo air transportation services. As of October 28, 2015, the company operated approximately 700 mainline aircraft. The Plaintiffs are represented by: John R. Malkinson, Esq. Seth R. Halpern, Esq. MALKINSON & HALPERN, P.C. 208 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1750 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 427 9600 Facsimile: (312) 750 1912 E-mail: jmalkinson@mhtriallaw.com shalpern@mhtriallaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael Lacovara, Esq. FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US, LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 277 4000 E-mail: michael.lacovara@freshfields.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Walker" Suit Moved from N.D. Ga. to D.C. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Walker v. American Airlines Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03081, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01896-CKK to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff brought the lawsuit for injunctive relief and treble damages, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, arising from Defendants' alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act American Airlines Group is an American publicly traded airline holding company headquartered in Fort Worth. American Airlines provides scheduled airline services. It offers scheduled jet services primarily to Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth, Los Angeles, Miami, and New York City. Delta Air Lines is a major American airline, with its headquarters and largest hub at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia. Southwest Airlines is a major U.S. airline and the world's largest low-cost carrier, headquartered in Dallas, Texas. United Continental Holdings is a publicly traded airline holding company headquartered in the Willis Tower in Chicago, and owns and operates United Airlines. United Airlines based in Chicago, Illinois, offers passenger and cargo air transportation services. As of October 28, 2015, the company operated approximately 700 mainline aircraft. The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Daniels Miles III., Esq. Archie I. Grubb, Esq Andrew E. Brashier, Esq Leslie Pescia, Esq BEASLEY, ALLENM CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. P.O. Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 Telephone: (334) 269 2343 Facsimile: (334) 954 7555 E-mail: Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com Archie.Grubb@BeasleyAllen.com Andrew.Brashier@BeasleyAllen.com Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com The Defendants are represented by: William Parker Sanders, Esq. SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP Promenade II 1230 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 3100 Atlanta, GA 30309-3592 Telephone: (404) 815 3500 Facsimile: (404) 685 6984 E-mail: psanders@sgrlaw.com - and - Michael Lacovara, Esq. FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US, LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 277 4000 E-mail: michael.lacovara@freshfields.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: "De La Garza" Suit Goes from N.D. Ill. to D.C. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled De La Garza et al. v. American Airlines Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06858, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01891-CKK to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit to obtain injunctive relief and treble damages arising from Defendants' alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act. American Airlines Group is an American publicly traded airline holding company headquartered in Fort Worth. American Airlines provides scheduled airline services. It offers scheduled jet services primarily to Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth, Los Angeles, Miami, and New York City. Delta Air Lines is a major American airline, with its headquarters and largest hub at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia. Southwest Airlines is a major U.S. airline and the world's largest low-cost carrier, headquartered in Dallas, Texas. United Continental Holdings is a publicly traded airline holding company headquartered in the Willis Tower in Chicago, and owns and operates United Airlines. United Airlines based in Chicago, Illinois, offers passenger and cargo air transportation services. As of October 28, 2015, the company operated approximately 700 mainline aircraft. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward A. Wallace, Esq. Tyler J. Story, Esq. WEXLERWALLACE LLP 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346 2222 Facsimile: (312) 346 0022 E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com tjs@wexlerwallace.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. David G. Scott, Esq. EMERSON SCOTT, LLP 830 Apollo Lane Houston, TX 77058 Telephone: (281) 488 8854 Facsimile: (281) 488 8867 E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com dscott@emersonfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael Lacovara, Esq. FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US, LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 277 4000 E-mail: michael.lacovara@freshfields.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Costantino" Suit Goes from N.D. Ill. to D.C. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Costantino et al. v. American Airlines, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06323, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01893-CKK to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize the price of domestic airfares in the United States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Delta Air Lines is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta operates more than 5,400 flights per day to 326 locations in 64 countries. American Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its principal places of business located in Fort Worth, Texas. American is the largest airline in the world, operating nearly 6,700 flights per day to 339 locations in 54 countries. Southwest Airlines is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business located in Dallas, Texas. Southwest operates more than 3,600 flights per day to 94 locations in the United States and six additional countries. United Airlines is Delaware corporations with its principal places of business located in Chicago, Illinois. United offers service to more destinations than any other airline in the world, operating more than 5,300 flights per day to 369 locations across six continents. The Plaintiffs are represented by: George A. Zelcs, Esq. Robert E. Litan, Esq Stephen M. Tillery, Esq. Garrett R. Broshuis, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY, LLC 205 North Michigan, Suite 1950 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 641-9750 E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com rlitan@koreintillery.com stillery@koreintillery.com gbroshuis@koreintillery.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael Lacovara, Esq. FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US, LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 277 4000 E-mail: michael.lacovara@freshfields.com ATLAS AIR: April 18 Jury Trial in Pricing Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a jury trial has been scheduled to to commence on April 18, 2016, in a class action over pricing practices. The Company and Old Polar have been named defendants, along with a number of other cargo carriers, in several class actions in the United States arising from allegations about the pricing practices of Old Polar and a number of air cargo carriers that have now been centralized for pretrial purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants, including the Company and Old Polar, manipulated the market price for air cargo services sold domestically and abroad through the use of surcharges, in violation of United States, state, and European Union antitrust laws. The suit seeks treble damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. In 2007, the Company and Old Polar commenced an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court against each of the plaintiffs in this class action litigation seeking to enjoin the plaintiffs from prosecuting claims against the Company and Old Polar that arose prior to July 28, 2004, the date on which the Company and Old Polar emerged from bankruptcy. In 2007, the plaintiffs consented to the injunctive relief requested and the bankruptcy court entered an order enjoining plaintiffs from prosecuting Company claims arising prior to July 28, 2004. The court in the antitrust class actions has heard and decided a number of procedural motions. Among those was the plaintiffs' motion to join Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. as an additional defendant, which the court granted for discovery purposes on April 13, 2011. There was substantial pretrial written discovery and document production, and a number of depositions were taken. On October 15, 2014, the magistrate judge issued a decision recommending that the District Court enter an order certifying the class for adjudicating the claims. On July 10, 2015, the District Court judge issued an order affirming the magistrate judge's decision and certifying the class. On August 31, 2015, the District Court judge held a hearing on the various motions for summary judgment filed by the plaintiffs and defendants. Ruling from the bench, the judge granted plaintiffs' motions and denied defendants' motions. The District Court judge has scheduled a jury trial to commence on April 18, 2016. "We are unable to reasonably predict the outcome of the litigation," the Company said. BALTIMORE ORIOLES: "Senne" Suit Moved from Md. to N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Senne v. Baltimore Orioles, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02940, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-mc-80268-JCS to the proceeding. Baltimore Orioles is a professional baseball team that plays in Major League Baseball. The company was founded in 1993 and is based in Baltimore, Maryland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P Moylan, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440 Baltimore, MD 21202-1031 Telephone: (410) 783 7000 Facsimile: (410) 783 8823 E-mail: dmoylan@zuckerman.com - and - Garrett R Broshuis KOREIN TILLERY LLC 505 N. 7th St Ste 3600 St Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241 4844 Facsimile: (314) 241 3525 E-mail: gbroshuis@koreintillery.com The Defendants are represented by: Marie Celeste Bruce, Esq. RIFKIN, WEINER, LIVINGSTON, LEVITAN AND SILVER, LLC 7979 Old Georgetown Road, Suite 400 Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (301) 951 0150 Facsimile: (301) 951 0172 E-mail: cbruce@rwlls.com BAY STATE GAS: Appeal Over Credit Sale Junked --------------------------------------------- Diane Saia entered into an agreement with Bay State Gas Company for the installation of a new water heater at her home in Longmeadow. She signed a document entitled "Appliance Lease Agreement," which obligated her to pay $28.16 per month for three years for use of a water heater. The total lease payments for the three-year "minimum term" amounted to $1,013.76. That amount combined with a $220 upfront installation fee brought her total obligation under the agreement to $1,233.76. At the end of the minimum term, both Saia and Bay State could cancel the lease at any time upon a 30-day written notice. Absent the written cancellation notice, the lease could continue indefinitely. Saia was also given the option to purchase the water heater at any time during the lease including within the minimum term. After making 13 lease payments totaling $366.08, Saia chose to exercise the purchase option and paid an additional $1,381.66 pursuant to the contract buyout formula. Adding together the lease payments, the upfront installation fee, the buyout price, and the sales tax, she spent a total of $1,967.74 to take ownership of the water heater. On November 10, 2010, Saia filed a four-count amended class action complaint against Bay State, asserting misrepresentation (Count I), violations of G. L. c. 93A (Count II), unjust enrichment (Count III), and seeking rescission on the basis that the defendant had violated G. L. c. 93, Section 48 (Count IV). She contends that a transaction involving the lease of a water heater was actually a credit sale in disguise, and, consequently, that the defendant's failure to make certain required disclosures amounted to common-law misrepresentation and a violation of G. L. c. 93A. A Superior Court judge dismissed the entire complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P 12(b)(6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974). Saia appealed. The Appeals Court of Massachusetts, in an unpublished decision in 2012, affirmed the dismissal of counts III and IV and reversed the dismissal of the remaining claims which, resting on the Consumer Credit Cost Disclosure Act (CCCDA) and the defendant's failure to disclose interest charges, alleged common-law misrepresentation and violation of G. L. c. 93A. Following remand on the reinstated counts, the lower court judge entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the plaintiff's amended complaint. Saia again appealed. Justice Diana Maldonado of the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk, affirmed the summary judgment entered by the Superior Court of Massachusetts in a decision dated December 15, 2015, available at http://goo.gl/l096pxfrom Leagle.com. The appealed case is DIANE SAIA, v. BAY STATE GAS COMPANY, No. 14- P-1010 (Mass. App. Ct.) For Plaintiff: Valeriano Diviachhi, Esq. DIVIACHHI LAW OFFICE 111 Beach St. Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: 617-542-3175 J. Christopher Allen, Jr. -- Troy Lieberman -- tlieberman@nixonpeabody.com -- at Nixon Peabody LLP, for the defendant The Appeals Court of Massachusetts panel consists of Justices Diana Maldonado, Cynthia J. Cohen and Gabrielee R. Wolohojian. BRANCH BANKING: D.C. Judge Sends "Roland" Suit to Maryland ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Rudolph Contreras of the District of Columbia denied defendants' motion to dismiss in the case BERNARD ROLAND, Plaintiff, v. BRANCH BANKING & TRUST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-00040 (RC) (D.D.C.) Bernard Roland executed a mortgage loan agreement with Liberty Mortgage Corporation against property located Fort Washington, Maryland. Mr. Roland alleges that Liberty dissolved in 2011 and that Branch Banking & Trust Corporation (BB&T) subsequently appeared claiming to be a note holder. On November 5, 2013, substitute trustees commenced a foreclosure proceeding against Mr. Roland in Maryland state court relating to the property. Defendant White P.C. appears to have represented the substitute trustees in the action. After the commencement of the foreclosure proceeding, Mr. Roland filed for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland. Mr. Roland commenced an action on January 12, 2015 against defendants, seeking to represent a class of similarly situated plaintiffs, and claiming various violations of the Truth in Lending Act, breach of fiduciary duty, and common law fraud primarily arising from the foreclosure proceeding in Maryland state court. On the same day, a process server hired by Mr. Roland served a summons on Valena Metcalfe, a legal assistant employed by White P.C., at White P.C.'s offices in Rockville, Maryland. The next day, a different process server served a summons on Pam Adam- Motley, who, according to the process server's affidavit, was designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of BB&T. Defendants moved to dismiss Mr. Roland's complaint on multiple grounds, including insufficient service of process, improper venue, res judicata, and various jurisdictional reasons. Judge Contreras denied defendants' motion to dismiss; and transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Maryland. A copy of Judge Contreras's memorandum and opinion dated December 14, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/X2yA7yfrom Leagle.com. BERNARD ROLAND, Plaintiff, Pro Se Defendants, represented by: Daniel Jay Pesachowitz, Esq. SAMUEL I. WHITE PC 611 Rockville Pike Sandy Spring Bank Financial Center Suite 100 Rockville, MD 20852 Telephone: 301-804-3400 Facsimile: 301-838-1954 BREG INC: Magistrate Judge Rules on Discovery Bid in "Lucas" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes of the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion regarding discovery in the case STACY LUCAS, an individual, TAREK ALBABA, an individual, RIGOBERTO VINDIOLA, and individual, DAVID GAMMA, an individual, SARAH FISHER, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiffs, v. BREG, INC., a California corporation; GARY LOSSE, an individual; MARK HOWARD, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-CV-00258-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal.) Plaintiffs and the putative class allege defendants engaged in a false, misleading, deceptive, fraudulent, and unlawful advertising campaign regarding the sale of Breg Inc.'s Polar Care 500, a motorized cold therapy device. Plaintiffs contend the product was defective and dangerous because it can produce a non-freezing cold injury. They allege defendants were aware of the risk but concealed it and failed to alert consumers of the risk. On November 5, 2015, plaintiffs served via mail deposition notices for three-non-party witnesses. Specifically, plaintiffs seek to depose (1) the Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) for Orthofix, Inc.; (2) the PMK for Water Street Healthcare Partners, LLC; and (3) Bradley Mason. Plaintiffs allege that Orthofix purchased Breg in November of 2003, and Water Street purchased Breg from Orthofix in April of 2012. Bradley Mason is the former president and CEO of Breg, and is the current President and CEO of Orthofix. The parties conferred and determined the depositions would not go forward on the date noticed, but were unable to resolve the dispute as to whether the depositions would proceed at all. The parties filed a joint motion for determination of discovery dispute. Breg moves the court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 16(b)(4) for an order prohibiting the depositions from proceeding at all. Magistrate Judge Stormes granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion. Breg's motion is granted to the extent it seeks an order prohibiting plaintiffs from deposing the three non- party witnesses for class discovery purposes. Plaintiffs are not permitted to depose the PMK for Orthofix, Inc., the PMK for Water Street and Bradley Mason for class discovery purposes. Breg's motion is denied without prejudice to the extent it seeks an order prohibiting plaintiffs from deposing the three non-party witnesses at all. A copy of Magistrate Judge Stormes's order dated December 8, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/pGHjaQfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by Chase Stern -- stern@morrissullivanlaw.com -- William A Lemkul -- lemkul@morrissullivanlaw.com -- at Morris, Sullivan & Lemkul; Marc O Stern -- moslaw@san.rr.com -- Law Offices of Marc O Stern Breg, Inc. and Mark Howard, Defendants, represented by David Jeffrey Duke -- david.duke@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Eden Darrell -- eden.darrell@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Marion V. Mauch -- marion.mauch@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Mary Novacheck -- mary.novacheck@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Paul Gerard Cereghini -- paul.cereghini@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Susan Elizabeth Burnett -- susan.burnett@bowmanandbrooke.com -- at Bowman & Brook LLP Gary Losse, Defendant, represented by C. Christopher Brown -- C.Christopher.Brown@lewisbrisbois.com -- at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP CALIF. CHECK CASHING: "Gilberg" Suit Transferred to Sacramento -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Gilberg v. California Check Cashing Stores, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-06770, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02309-JAM-AC to the proceeding. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC is a financial institution that provides short-term cash solutions in California. Its solutions include title loans, payroll advances, signature loans, check cashing, prepaid cards, auto insurance, Western Union money transfer, tax services, and money orders. The company was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Oakland, California. Checksmart Financial is a Delaware limited liability company, based in Dublin, Ohio. The Company, doing business as CheckSmart, provides financial services in the United States. The company's services include cash advances, check cashing, MoneyGram, money transfers, money orders, bill payment, insight silver prepaid MasterCard, title loans, Western Union services, deferred deposits, payroll advances, small loans, deferred presentment transactions, consumer loans, consumer lines of credit, and open-ended credit lines. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq. Tuvia Korobkin LAW OFFICES OF SHAUN SETAREH 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com tuvia@setarehlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Anthony J. DeCristoforo, Esq. Crystal S. Chase, Esq. Timothy W. Snider, Esq. Bryan L. Hawkins, Esq. STOEL RIVES, LLP 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 447 0700 Facsimile: (916) 447 4781 E-mail: ajdecristoforo@stoel.com crystal.chase@stoel.com twsnider@stoel.com blhawkins@stoel.com - and - Eve H Wagner, Esq. SAUER & WAGNER, LLP 1801 Century Park E, Suite 1150 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 712 8100 Facsimile: (310) 712 8108 E-mail: ewagner@swattys.com CASE DETECTIVE: Former Security Guard Sues Over Wage Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Gina Potthoff, writing for Noozhawk, reports that a former security guard for Santa Barbara's Case Detective Agency has filed a class-action lawsuit against the investigative firm, alleging he was not paid overtime and was often paid in cash without proper wage statements. Santa Barbara law firm Anticouni & Associates filed the complaint in Santa Barbara County Superior Court against Craig Case, who owns the investigative agency and provider of uniformed security officers in Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Ventura counties. In the lawsuit, former employee and county resident Jeffrey Harris alleges Case violated California's wage-and-hour laws by failing to pay overtime and minimum wage, failing to reimburse for business expenses, engaging in unfair business practices and more. Harris worked as a security guard for the agency from May 15, 2015, until Dec. 5, 2015 -- predominantly in Santa Barbara and Montecito -- and was paid on an hourly basis, attorney Bruce Anticouni said. "Defendants did not keep timecards, they relied on plaintiff and other class member to total their hours for the week, and defendant would often pay them in cash," the lawsuit states. Anticouni said the class-action case would seek nearly $1 million in damages and could involve between 75 and more than 100 current or former non-exempt hourly employees from the past four years. The penalty for issuing an incorrect itemized wage statement -- Case allegedly failed to pay the agency's Social Security share, unemployment insurance and state disability -- is $100 per pay period, Anticouni said. "That adds up very quickly," he told Noozhawk, noting that another plaintiff might be added to the original complaint. "We've had a number of calls from (impacted) people." The lawsuit also alleges hourly employees weren't allowed a meal period of at least 30 minutes when shifts exceeded five hours, according to California Labor code, and weren't paid in a timely fashion, since accurate payroll records weren't maintained. Case, who did not respond to requests for comment, was described in the complaint as "willful or reckless." Anticouni is asking for payment of lost wages, reimbursement of business expenses, damages and attorney fees. JPMORGAN CHASE: Suit Against Former Employee Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of California ruled on the parties' motion in the case JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Plaintiff, v. SELENA ARMAS, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv- 03704-WHO (N.D. Cal.) Selena Armas, a former JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase) Assistant Branch Manager, signed a Binding Arbitration Agreement (BAA) on or about May 1, 2013. Covered claims include all legally protected employment-related claims as well as violations of any common law, federal, state or local statute and the right to submit, initiate, or participated in a representative capacity or as a plaintiff, claim or member in a class action, collective action, or other representative or joint action. In early January 2015, Armas filed a putative class action complaint in San Francisco Superior Court, alleging misclassification and other California Labor Code violations. Chase removed the action to the federal court a month later. A few days after removal, Chase received a copy of Armas's amended complaint, which added a representative Private Attorney Generals Act of 2004 (PAGA) claim. Armas's attorney sent an email to Chase's counsel communicating Armas's intention to dismiss the case and move to individual arbitration. Approximately two weeks later, Armas filed a representative action lawsuit under PAGA with the San Francisco County Superior court seeking civil penalties for various California Labor Code violations stemming from Chase's misclassification of Armas and other Assistant Branch Managers. Armas also commenced individual arbitration proceedings before the American Arbitration Association concerning allegations in her original complaint. On July 28, 2015, Chase filed a counterclaim in the arbitration regarding Armas's purported breach of the BAA claiming that she has refused to arbitrate all of her claims pursuant to the BAA. On August 13, 2015, Chase filed the present lawsuit alleging a claim in equity that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts PAGA, California public policy, and the rule announced in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (2014) cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 1155 (2015), a claim for declaratory relief that Armas's representative action is unenforceable under the FAA and a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 that Armas's representative action deprives Chase of its federally protected rights under FAA and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Armas moves to dismiss Chase's complaint, saying Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., 803 F.3d 425 (9th Cir. 2015) forecloses Chase's ability to state a claim. Chase opposes on the theory that Sakkab was wrongly decided and instead seeks a stay pending a rehearing of Sakkab and a subsequent change in law. Judge Orrick granted Armas's motion to dismiss with leave to amend and denied Chase's motion to stay, but allowed Chase to amend its complaint within 30 days of the date of the order. A copy of Judge Orrick's order dated December 8, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/W3BnkDfrom Leagle.com. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Plaintiff, represented by Alexander L. Grodan -- agrodan@morganlewis.com -- Carrie Anne Gonell -- cgonell@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Selena Armas, Defendant, represented by: Ori Edelstein, Esq. THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C. 535 Mission St Fl 14 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: 415-463-1257 CHANNELADVISOR CORP: Dismissal of Securities Case Sought -------------------------------------------------------- ChannelAdvisor Corporation has sought dismissal of a consolidated securities class action complaint, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. On January 23, 2015, plaintiff Justin Dice filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.), Dice v. ChannelAdvisor Corporation et al., alleging violations of the federal securities laws against the Company and certain of its executive officers. "Plaintiff Dice alleges that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the price of our common stock by making false and misleading statements to investors concerning our financial guidance for the fourth quarter of 2014," the Company said. On January 26, 2015, plaintiff David Gracia also filed a purported class action complaint in the S.D.NY., Gracia v. ChannelAdvisor Corporation et al., in which Plaintiff Gracia brings the same claims, against the same named defendants, as in the action brought by Plaintiff Dice. On May 5, 2015, the S.D.N.Y. consolidated the Dice and Gracia actions, captioned the actions as In re ChannelAdvisor Securities Litigation, and appointed Plaintiff Dice as lead plaintiff for the putative class. On July 2, 2015, the S.D.N.Y. granted the defendants' motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. On September 28, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the case. The motion is not yet fully briefed. "We dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously," the Company said. CHICAGO, IL: Homeless Sex Offenders Win Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge John Robert Blakely of the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case MICHAEL BELEY and DOUGLAS MONTGOMERY, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant, Case No. 12 C 9714 (N.D. Ill.) Plaintiffs Michael Beley and Douglas Montgomery are convicted sex offenders who reside in the City of Chicago and are required to register under the Illinois Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), 750 ILCS 150. Sex offenders lacking a fixed residence must report weekly in person to their local law enforcement agency. Failure to register carries legal consequences, including serving at least seven days in jail and paying a $500 mandatory minimum fine. Plaintiffs allege that the City of Chicago through the Chicago Police Department, in contravention of SORA and in violation of their procedural due process rights, has a policy of refusing to register homeless sex offenders despite its obligations to do so under the statute. On November 20, 2012, Beley, who was then homeless, sought to register with the Chicago Police Department. The Department, however, refused to register Beley because he lacked identification with a fixed address. As a result, from November 22 to December 11, 2012, Beley was in violation of SORA, and that violation was posted on the state police website. On December 11, 2012, the Chicago Police Department allowed Beley to register with a temporary address at a homeless shelter. Montgomery raises similar allegations, that is, while homeless and living on Wacker Drive, he sought to register with the Chicago Police Department, but the Department turned him away, telling Montgomery that he was not going to be registered as a homeless person. Unable to register, around July 13, 2011, Montgomery was charged with having violated SORA but was later acquitted. Plaintiffs move to certify a class of: All persons who attempted to register under the Illinois Sex Offender Registration Act with the City of Chicago from December 6, 2010 to the date of entry of judgment and who were not permitted to register because they were homeless. Plaintiffs argue that the proposed class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). Judge Blakely granted plaintiffs' class certification motion and certifies a class of: All persons who attempted to register under the Illinois Sex Offender Registration Act with the City of Chicago from December 6, 2010 to the date of entry of judgment and who were not permitted to register because they were homeless. The court designates plaintiffs Michael Beley and Douglas Montgomery as the class representative. The court appoints Thomas G. Morrissey and Patrick W. Morrissey of Thomas G. Morrissey Ltd. and Kenneth N. Flaxman and Joel A. Flaxman of Kenneth N. Flaxman P.C. as class counsel. A copy of Judge Blakely's memorandum opinion and order dated December 7, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/zTqLojfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by: Thomas Gerard Morrissey, Esq. Patrick William Morrissey, Esq. Thomas G. Morrissey, Ltd. 10249 South Western Avenue Chicago, IL 60643-1917 Telephone: 773-233-7900 Facsimile: 773-239-0387 - and - Joel A. Flaxman, Esq. Kenneth N Flaxman, Esq. KENNETH N. FLAXMAN, P.C. 200 south Michigan Avenue, Suite 201 Chicago, IL 06604 Telephone: 312-427--3200 City Of Chicago, Defendant, represented by Andrew S. Mine, City of Chicago, Law Department, Mary Eileen Cunniff Wells, City Of Chicago, Department Of Law &Rebecca Alfert Hirsch, City of Chicago CRYPTSY: Sued Over Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices ------------------------------------------------------- Stan Higgins, writing for CoinDesk, reports that two Florida law firms have filed a class action lawsuit in US district court against digital currency exchange Cryptsy and its CEO, Paul Vernon. Filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida on 13th January, the case alleges negligence, unjust enrichment, conversion and violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The lawsuit was filed by Jinyao Liu, a Cryptsy customer based in Virginia. Liu, in addition to other members of the class, is being represented by Wites & Kapetan, PA and the Silver Law Group, the latter of which filed suit in state court on behalf of a Cryptsy customer. That case was later settled, according to the firm. Attorney David Silver told CoinDesk that the new suit grew out of a growing number of complaints that his firm received regarding withdrawals. In interview, Silver highlighted that Cryptsy is registered with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), arguing that the exchange needs to be forthcoming with its customers about site issues. He told CoinDesk: "As a FinCEN member, you have certain obligations, and those obligations require you to communicate with your customers. And here, customers don't know why they are being denied access to their money." The exchange, founded in 2013, offers a number of markets for bitcoin and alternative cryptocurrencies. Customers have complained for months that Cryptsy has withheld their withdrawals for extended periods of time, an issue the exchange has attributed to technical problems. Vernon did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Case details: According to the complaint, the plaintiff made a deposit on 27th December, and since that date has not received a withdrawal despite repeated requests. "Plaintiff, on December 27, 2015, deposited 84,000,000 Dodge Coin (a commonly used cryptocurrency) to fund his CRYPTSY account. The value of that deposit, according to CRYPTSY, was approximately 33.6 BTC ($14,100.00 USD)," the filing states. The complaint claims that withdrawal requests were submitted on the 28th, 29th and 30th of December, as well as 2nd and 8th January, and further claims that the customer has received no funds as of the filing date. The plaintiff goes on to state that other members of the class are in a similar situation: "Plaintiff's experience with CRYPTSY is not unique. CRYPTSY has refused to honor the requests of other members of the Class, who have likewise requested to liquidate or transfer their account balances to other Money Service Businesses, only to have those requests met with silence." According to the filing, the plaintiff is seeking restitution and damages for an unspecified amount, as well as legal fees. Phishing attack response The filing of the lawsuit comes amid continued problems for the exchange. In recent days, the exchange has moved to suspend trading, most recently in response to a reported customer phishing attack. Cryptsy later said in a 13th January blog post that an account it uses to issue text messages to customers had been compromised, but claimed that exchange's mailing service had not. The company said it was unsure how the mailing list had been obtained. The post, attributed to Vernon, said that more details regarding the months of customer withdrawal issues would be forthcoming. "Regarding other issues that have been apparent at Cryptsy for the last couple months, I will be making another post to explain what has been happening in the next couple days," he wrote. At press time, the exchange is reporting market trades but a notice states that all withdrawals have been cancelled and remain unavailable. DELTA FUNDING: Judge Won't Remand Suit to State Court ----------------------------------------------------- District Judge George Caram Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division denied plaintiff's motion to remand to state court the case, FELICIA SMITH, individually and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Rena Johnson, a/k/a Renee Johnson, dec'd & on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DELTA FUNDING CORP., WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., successor by merger to Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., as Trustee f/k/a Northwest Bank Minnesota, N.A., as. Trustee for the registered holders of Renaissance Home Equity Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2004-1, Advantage Investors Mortgage Corporation, WAYNE COUNTY, MI SHERIFF and WAYNE COUNTY, MI REGISTER OF DEEDS, Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-13387 (E.D. Mich.) Felicia Smith filed a three-count complaint in Wayne County Circuit Court, which contains: (A) Count I - Complaint To Set Aside Real Estate Mortgage Foreclosure Sale Against Defendants Wells Fargo, Wayne County Sheriff & Wayne County Register Of Deeds, (B) Count II - Individual & Class Action Complaint For Damages For Violating The Federal Fair Housing Act, The Federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act, The Michigan Consumer Mortgage Protection Act And The Michigan Mortgage Brokers, Lenders, And Servicers Licensing Act Against Defendants Delta Funding, Advantage & Wells Fargo, (C) Count III - Complaint For Modification Of Real Estate Mortgage Against Defendant Wells Fargo. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor by merger to Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., as Trustee f/k/a Northwest Bank Minnesota, N.A., as Trustee for the registered holders of Renaissance Home Equity Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2004-1 ("Trustee"), removed the action to the present court. Smith filed a motion to remand contending that the remaining defendants were served with the state court complaint. Plaintiff seeks to remand to state court arguing that the Trustee failed to seek concurrence from the non-removing defendants who were properly served with the state court complaint and the Wayne County defendants were not fraudulently joined. A copy of Judge Steeh's order dated December 3, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/w9ZlJqfrom Leagle.com. Felicia Smith, Plaintiff, represented by: Herman J. Anderson, Esq. HERMAN J. ANDERSON, PLLC 19613 Lochmoor St Harper Woods, MI 48225 Telephone: 313-331-2964 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Robert H. Ellis -- rellis@dykema.com -- Thomas M. Schehr -- tschehr@dykema.com -- Thomas H. Trapnell -- ttrapnell@dykema.com -- at Dykema Gossett PLLC Wayne County Sheriff and Wayne County Register of Deeds, Defendants, represented by Aaron C. Thomas, Wayne County Corporation Counsel DON THORNTON: "Dunham" Suit Moved to N.D. Okla. ----------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Dunham v. Don Thornton Volkswagen of Tulsa et al., Case No. CJ-15-03502, was removed from the Tulsa County District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00636-JED-FHM to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges the class vehicles were sold for a higher price than non-class vehicles. The base model price of the diesel-equipped class vehicle was $2,860 higher than the price of the corresponding model car that was not equipped with the diesel engines installed in the class vehicles. Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in Herndon, Virginia. Don Thornton Volkswagen of Tulsa is domestic limited liability company based in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Michael Thetford, Esq. Terence Patrick Brennan, Esq. LEVINSON, SMITH & HUFFMAN, P.C. 1743 E 71st ST Tulsa, OK 74136-5108 Telephone: (918) 492 4433 Facsimile: (918) 492 6224 E-mail: j.thetford@lsh-law-firm.com terry.brennan@lsh-law-firm.com The Defendants are represented by: James Michael Reed, Esq. John T Richer, Esq. HALL ESTILL HARDWICK GABLE GOLDEN & NELSON (TULSA) 320 S Boston STE 200 Tulsa, OK 74103-3706 Telephone: (918) 594 0400 Facsimile: (918) 594 0505 E-mail: jreed@hallestill.com jricher@hallestill.com - and - Colin Hampton Tucker, Esq. John H Tucker, Esq. Kerry R Lewis, Esq. RHODES HIERONYMUS JONES TUCKER & GABLE P O BOX 21100 Tulsa, OK 74121-1100 Telephone:(918) 582 1173 Facsimile: (918) 592 3390 E-mail: chtucker@rhodesokla.com jtuckercourts@rhodesokla.com klewiscourts@rhodesokla.com DRAFTKINGS & FANDUEL: "Bandy" Suit Moved to N.D. Okla. ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Bandy v. DraftKings, Inc. et al., Case No. CJ-15-03821, was removed from the District Court for Tulsa County District of Oklahoma, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00637-JED-TLW to the proceeding. Plaintiff asserted that Defendants allegedly allowed employees of other Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS) sites to enter fantasy sports contests on Defendants' respective websites, and that the employees of other DFS sites used "material, non-public, valuable data and information" in connection with their participation in the contests. The supposed information allegedly gave the employees of other DFS sites an advantage over other players. FanDuel operates an online fantasy sports platform that enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes. The company is based in New York, New York with an additional office in Edinburgh, Scotland. DraftKings provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and Canada. The company is based in Boston, Massachusetts. The Defendants offer leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf, college football, and college basketball. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Michael Thetford, Esq. Terence Patrick Brennan, Esq. LEVINSON, SMITH & HUFFMAN, P.C. 1743 E 71st ST Tulsa, OK 74136-5108 Telephone: (918) 492 4433 Facsimile: (918) 492 6224 E-mail: j.thetford@lsh-law-firm.com terry.brennan@lsh-law-firm.com - and - Matthew James Sill, Esq. Timothy Michael Bunson, Esq. SILL LAW GROUP, PLLC 14005 N Eastern Ave Edmond, OK 73013 Telephone: (405) 509 6300 Facsimile: (405) 509 6368 E-mail: matt@sill-law.com tim@sill-law.com The Defendants are represented by: Charles D. Neal, Jr., Esq. Gary C. Crapster, Esq. STEIDLEY & NEAL, PLLC. CityPlex Towers, 53rd Floor 2448 East 81st Street Tulsa, OK 74137 Telephone: (918) 513 3521 Facsimile: (918) 664 4133 E-mail: cdn@steidley-neal.com gcc@steidley-neal.com DUKE ENERGY: Settlement in Merger Suit Finally Approved ------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Corporation, the 11 members of the Board of Directors who were also members of the pre-merger Board of Directors (Legacy Duke Energy Directors) and certain Duke Energy officers were defendants in a purported securities class action lawsuit (Nieman v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al). This lawsuit consolidates three lawsuits originally filed in July 2012 and is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The plaintiffs allege federal Securities Act and Exchange Act claims based on allegations of materially false and misleading representations and omissions in the Registration Statement filed on July 7, 2011, and purportedly incorporated into other documents, all in connection with the post-merger change in Chief Executive Officer (CEO). On August 15, 2014 the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. On March 10, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement and a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement. The court issued an order for preliminary approval of the settlement on March 25, 2015. Under the terms of the agreement, Duke Energy agreed to pay $146 million to settle the claim. On April 22, 2015, Duke Energy made a payment of $25 million into the settlement escrow account. The remainder of $121 million was paid by insurers into the settlement escrow account. Notice has been sent to members of the class and a final approval hearing was held on August 12, 2015. The final order approving the settlement was issued on November 2, 2015. A copy of the Nov. 2 decision is available at http://is.gd/US82Uk from Leagle.com. EXCELLUS HEALTH: "Baldwin" Suit Goes to N.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Baldwin et al. v. Excellus Health Plan, Inc., Case No. EFCA2015002705, was removed from New York State Supreme Court, Broome County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York - Main Office (Syracuse). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01324-GTS-DEP to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly failed to protect sensitive information of customers stored in their system. Excellus Health Plan operates as a nonprofit health insurance company in New York. It provides medical, Medicare, and dental health insurance plans for individuals and businesses. The company is based in Rochester, New York, and is a subsidiary of Lifetime Healthcare, Inc. The Defendant is represented by: John G. Schmidt , Jr., Esq. Mark J. Moretti, Esq. Richard T. Tucker, Esq. PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP-BUFFALO OFFICE One Canalside 125 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14203 Telephone: (716) 847 8400 Facsimile: (716) 852 6100 E-mail: jschmidt@phillipslytle.com mmoretti@phillipslytle.com rtucker@phillipslytle.com FANNIE MAE: Texas Judge Dismisses "Nguyen" Suit ----------------------------------------------- In the case, MINH NGUYEN, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION a/k/a FANNIE MAE, Defendant, Civ. A. No. H-15-1958 (S.D. Tex.), District Judge Melinda Harmon of the Southern District of Texas weighed on (i) Fannie Mae's motion to dismiss and motion to remove lis pendens, to which plaintiff Minh Nguyen has failed to file a response, and (ii) United States Magistrate Frances Stacy's memorandum and opinion recommendation that the motion to dismiss be granted and the motion to remove lis pendens be denied. Fannie Mae explains that in a previous case, plaintiff, represented by counsel at the time, claimed that Fannie Mae was not entitled to foreclose on the property located at 103 Nina Lane, Stafford, Texas, as it was not the holder of the note, where the court disagreed and held that Fannie Mae was entitled to enforce its rights under the note, including foreclosure. Fannie Mae then tried to sell the property, and plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase the property, but was unable to close. He requested and was granted a 10-day extension to close on the property or, as warned, if he failed to do so he would lose his earnest money. Because he did not want to lose the earnest money, he terminated the contract two days prior to closing and released the earnest money contract. Fannie Mae contends that because Plaintiff admits that he terminated the contract, he cannot show that he was ready, willing and able to complete the contract. Fannie Mae notes that plaintiff also filed a lis pendens in the Official Real Property Records of Fort Bend County under Clerks Number 2015055598, which Fannie Mae states has impaired Fannie Mae's ability to transfer and sell the property. Since plaintiff has voluntarily terminated the contract without tendering performance, he has no interest in or claim to the property. Fannie Mae has also requested an award of attorney's fees and costs. Judge Harmon adopts the Magistrate Judge's ruling on Fannie Mae's motion to dismiss, and grants the motion. Judge Harmon, however, overrules the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the court deny Fannie Mae's motion to remove lis pendens and grants that motion. A copy of Judge Harmon's opinion and order dated December 8, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/85PhK7from Leagle.com. Minh Nguyen, Plaintiff, Pro Se Federal National Mortgage Association, Defendant, represented by: Michael Clifton Maus, Esq. BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TURNER & ENGEL, LLP 15000 Surveyor Blvd # 100 Addison, TX 75001 Telephone: 972-386-5040 FUHU INC: Judge Denies Bid to Certify Class Over Nabi Tablet PCs ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Christina A. Snyder of the Central District of California denied plaintiff's motion for class certification in the case SCOTT MILLER, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF, THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED v. FUHU INC., et al., No. 2:14-cv-06119-CAS-AS. (C.D. Cal.) Fuhu, Inc. and Fuhu Holdings, Inc. manufacture electronic tablets for children. Among these products are the Nabi XD, Nabi 2, Nabi 2 S, Nabi Jr., and Disney and Nickelodeon special edition Nabi 2 tablets. To promote the sales of Nabi tablets, defendants provide advertising materials and information to their retail partners, and also communicate such information directly to consumers through their website. Defendants market, advertises, and represent to retailers, and on their website, that each Nabi tablet includes a power adapter, that is rechargeable, and has rechargeable batteries. Similar representations also appear in Nabi tablet user manuals. Among other things, the manuals represent that the tablets may be used while connected to an external power source. Plaintiff Scott Miller purchased a Nabi 2 tablet from Best Buy for $199.99 for his grandson. Plaintiff specifically wanted to purchase a tablet that was both rechargeable and could be used while it was recharging, such as during a car ride or while plugged directly into a wall outlet. Moreover, plaintiff alleges that he read and relied upon each of defendants' affirmative misrepresentations and omissions before completing his purchase. According to plaintiff, defendants' representations are false because the Nabi tablets have defective power adapters that fail to reliably recharge the tablets. In particular, consumers attempting to recharge the Nabi tablets using the provided power adapters experience intermittent recharging failures, well within the first year of operation, which includes failure of the tablets to begin recharging, failure of the tablets to power on after recharging and/or failure of the tablets to function while recharging. Plaintiff alleges that defendants have not informed potential consumers or instructed retailers to inform potential consumers that the Nabi tablets are not rechargeable or that they cannot be used while charging or plugged in, instead defendants knowingly and intentionally failed to disclose the information to the consumers. On July 7, 2014, plaintiff filed a putative class action against defendants in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Defendants removed the action to the present court on August 5, 2014, asserting diversity jurisdiction. The operative complaint alleges claims for violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civil Code Section 1750, et seq. (CLRA), violation of California's False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code Section 17500, et seq. (FAL), common law fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, in violation of Cal. Com. Code Section 2100, et seq., breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, in violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civil Code Section 1790, et seq. (Song-Beverly Act; and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq. (UCL). On June 29, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification seeking to certify the following class and subclasses: "All persons, who between July 3, 2010 and the present purchased, in the United States, a Nabi tablet (the Class); All members of the Class who purchased and registered their Nabi tablet with one or more Defendants prior to September 24, 2014 (the Unconsionability Subclass); All members of the class who purchased their Nabi tablets from a third-party retailer (the Warranty Subclass)." Judge Snyder denied plaintiff's motion to certify the proposed class without prejudice. "However, this denial is without prejudice to a renewed motion for class certification," the judge said. "[P]laintiff's proposed methodology could, in theory, provide a legally justifiable measurement for classwide damages. If plaintiff is able to provide more concrete details regarding his proposed survey, the Court may be able to certify a class similar to that proposed here." A copy of Judge Snyder's decision dated December 1, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/XBLyaSfrom Leagle.com. Scott Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Joshua Gutride -- adam@gutridesafier.com -- Marie Ann McCrary -- marie@gutridesafier.com -- Seth A Safier -- seth@gutridesafier.com -- Todd Kennedy -- todd@gutridesafier.com -- at Gutride Safier LLP Defendants, represented by Ivo M Labar -- labar@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Anna P Chang -- chang@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Michael J Von Loewenfeldt -- mvl@kerrwagstaffe.com -- at Kerr and Wagstaffe LLP; Matthew D Powers -- mpowers@omm.com -- Richard Blair Goetz -- rgoetz@omm.com -- Cynthia Merrill -- cmerrill@lomm.com -- Edmundo Clay Marquez - cmarquez@omm.com -- Matthew Alan Bahleda -- mbahleda@omm.com -- at O'Melveny and Myers LLP GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Discovery Okayed in Copper Coils Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers of the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted in part plaintiffs' motion to compel in the case ROCCO SIRIANO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOODMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, L.P., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-1131, (S.D. Ohio) Plaintiffs brought a breach of warranty, products liability, and consumer protection action against defendants, alleging that the evaporator coils and condenser coils found in defendants' air conditioners, air handlers and heat pumps have defects that cause premature corrosion and holes or cracks in the coils. Plaintiffs allege that defendant Goodman Products' copper coils, as the result of a design or manufacturing defect, are too thin and prematurely corrode or crack causing refrigerant to leak through the fissures. The defects are widespread, affecting as much as 80% of the products sold. Plaintiffs finally allege that defendants knew about it, but failed to disclose, the defects. Defendants denied the allegations and on December 1, 2014, defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs seek a court order compelling defendants to fully respond to a number of outstanding requests for production of documents especially to the discovery related to condenser coils. Defendants submit that production of the requested information would be unduly burdensome. Specifically, defendants assert that gathering the information plaintiffs request would require more than the 4,000 hours of lawyer review time over several months they expended in preparing responses to discovery. Magistrate Judge Deavers granted in part plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery related to condenser coils. A copy of Magistrate Judge Deavers' opinion and order dated December 9, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/Nf1D3Ufrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by: Jack Landskroner, Esq. Drew T Legando, Esq. LANDSKRONER - GRIECO - MERRIMAN, LLC 1360 W 9th St #200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: 216-522-9000 - and - Glen L Abramson, Esq. Lawrence Deutsch, Esq. Shanon J Carson, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE PC 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 1-800-424-6690 Facsimile: 215-875-4604 Email: gabramson@bm.net ldeutsch@bm.net scarson@bm.net - and - Gregory F Coleman, Esq. Lisa A White, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: 865-247-0080 Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com Defendants, represented by Louis A Chaiten -- lachaiten@jonesday.com -- Elizabeth G Myers -- egmyers@jonesday.com -- Sharyl A Reisman -- sareisman@jonesday.com -- at Jones Day GRUBHUB INC: "Tan" Misclassification Suit Goes to N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Tan v. Grubhub, Inc., Case No. GCG-15-548103, was removed from San Francisco Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of. California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15- cv-05128-JSC to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly misclassified Plaintiff and other GrubHub drivers as independent contractors, and failing to reimburse them for expenses they paid in violation of the California Labor Code. GrubHub, together with its subsidiaries, provides online and mobile platform for restaurant pick-up and delivery orders in the United States. The company connects approximately 35,000 local restaurants with diners in approximately 900 cities, and is based in Chicago Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew David Carlson, Esq. CARLSON LEGAL SERVICES 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone:(415) 817 1470 E-mail: mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com - and - Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994 5800 Facsimile: (617) 994 5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Theane Evangelis, Esq. Dhananjay S. Manthripragada, Esq. Justin T. Goodwin, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: 213.229.7000 Facsimile: 213.229.7520 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com tevangelis@gibsondunn.com dmanthripragada@gibsondunn.com jgoodwin@gibsondunn.com HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Morales" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alejandro Morales, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC and John Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-08401 (D.N.J., December 2, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC operates a healthcare collection agency in New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl. Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com HUNTER WARFIELD: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amir J. Goldstein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hunter Warfield, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-09319 (C.D. Cal., December 2, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Hunter Warfield, Inc. is a Florida corporation that provides revenue recovery and risk mitigating services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Climaco Limbo, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF AMIR J. GOLDSTEIN 8032 West Third Street, Suite 201 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (323) 937-0400 Facsimile: (866) 288-9194 E-mail: jcl@consumercounselgroup.com INTEGRITY SURVEILLANCE: Judge Rules on Discovery Bid in TCPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Avern Cohn of the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion in the case ROGER KEY and JANET GAJEWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. INTEGRITY SURVEILLANCE SOLUTIONS, INC., d/b/a Integ Security Solutions, a Michigan corporation, Defendant, Case No. 15-11235 (E.D. Mich.) Plaintiffs Rogery Key and Janet Gajewski are suing Integrity Surveillance Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Integ Security Solutions claiming that Integ violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq (TCPA) by placing unsolicited telemarketing calls to plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals without prior consent. Integ responded to the complaint with affirmative defenses, which includes an assertion of a complete defense to liability because Integ does not employ an automatic telephone dialing system as defined by the TCPA. Further, Integ asserted the alleged calls may be exempt from an action under the TCPA in that calls qualify as research, market surveys, and/or political polling which do not involve solicitation. Integ filed a motion to dismiss and/or deny class certification. During the hearing, Integ's counsel argued that the case should be dismissed and discovery should be denied, because class discovery would be burdensome and expensive. In addition, at the hearing, plaintiffs moved to amend the complaint under seal to include their telephone numbers. The court made an order on July 23, 2015 and on July 30, 2015, plaintiffs served Integ with written interrogatories and requests for production of documents (RTPs). On August 3, 2015, plaintiffs served their requests for admission (RTAs). On September 1, 2015, Integ filed its responses to plaintiffs' discovery requests, which Integ provided only a three page contract between Integ and MyAutoBlast, its contracted automatic call service. Integ then objected to answering all but one of plaintiffs' 22 interrogatories because the requested information is beyond the scope of the limited discovery ordered in the matter. On September 9, 2015 plaintiffs sent Integ a letter outlining the deficiencies in its responses. Plaintiffs requested that Integ withdraw its affirmative defenses nos. 3 and 12 because they were meritless based on Integ's responses to discovery. On September 17, 2015, Integ replied via email to plaintiffs that it disagreed with plaintiffs' objections to its responses to the discovery requests. Further, Integ said that it provided a complete narrative with supporting documentation and that the discovery requests were broad and ignored the court's specific limitations on discovery. Finally, Integ said that plaintiffs are inappropriately using discovery to find additional plaintiffs for the class action. Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel complete responses to discovery as well as a motion for leave to conduct a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition of Integ, to serve subpoenas on MyAutoBlast and plaintiffs' telephone carriers, and to exchange initial disclosures. Judge Cohn granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion. Plaintiffs' motion to compel complete responses to discovery, motion to subpoena MyAutoBlast, motion to compel complete exchange of initial disclosures, and request to compel the withdrawal of Integ's affirmative defense no. 3 are granted. The motion for leave to conduct a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition and to serve a subpoena on plaintiffs' telephone carriers and plaintiffs' request to compel the withdrawal of Integ's affirmative defense no. 12 are denied without prejudice. A copy of Judge Cohn's memorandum and order dated December 8, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/ytDOIWfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by Steven L. Woodrow -- swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow & Peluso, LLC Integrity Surveillance Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Integ Security Solutions, Defendant, represented by: Jan J. Rubinstein, Esq. THE RUBINSTEIN LAW FIRM 30150 Telegraph Rd., Ste. 444 Bingham Farms, MI 48025 Telephone: 248-220-1415 Facsimile: 248-213-6394 L & R STRUCTURAL: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Luis Alberto Torres and all others similarly situated v. L & R Structural Corp., Inc., a/k/a L&R Structural, Inc., Hi-Rite Woods I Inc., Carlos Marquez, and David Sonck, Case No. 1:15-cv-24473-DPG (S.D. Fla., December 4, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a construction company located at 7102 SW 44th St, Miami, FL 33155. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM LEE ON GRILL: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Cesar Martinez and John Doe, on behalf of themselves and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs v. Lee on Grill Inc. d/b/a Grill on Lee and Bobby [Last Name Unknown], Case No. CV156897 (E.D.N.Y., December 4, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 196 Hewes Street, Brooklyn, NY 11211. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq. C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1124 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com cklee@leelitigation.com LEGACY PRESSURE: Faces "Guyton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Billy Guyton and David Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Legacy Pressure Control, Inc., Robert D. Myrick, and Isha Myrick, Case No. 5:15-cv-01075 (W.D. Tex., December 6, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an oilfield services company that operates in East Texas/North Louisiana, South Texas/West Texas, and Ohio/West Virginia/Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Austin Kaplan, Esq. KAPLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC 98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 540 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 553-9390 Facsimile: (512) 692-2788 E-mail: akaplan@kaplanlawatx.com - and - Parker P. Polan, Esq. S.A. Hayden Briggle, Esq. BRIGGLE & POLAN, PLLC 812 San Antonio St., Ste. 310 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 472-1926 Facsimile: (512) 472-1174 E-mail: parker@brigglepolan.com hayden@brigglepolan.com LOS ANGELES, CA: LAPD Sued For Violating Protesters' Rights ----------------------------------------------------------- Richard Winton, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that individuals arrested in Los Angeles while protesting the killing of a black man in Ferguson, Mo., have filed a class-action lawsuit accusing the city and police of violating their constitutional rights. The federal lawsuit alleges that in November 2014, the Los Angeles Police Department surrounded several hundred protesters as they marched downtown and in the Westlake district. Police then arrested or detained and questioned dozens of individuals without lawful dispersal orders, the suit says. One of the protests occurred Nov. 26 at Sixth and Hope streets and involved about 130 protesters. Two days later, about 40 protesters were detained and questioned at Beverly and Alvarado streets, the suit says. Other demonstrations also resulted in arrests and detentions. The suit, filed on behalf of protesters by the National Lawyers Guild Los Angeles, alleges that police corralled, "detained, interrogated" protesters and that the demonstrators were "forced to give up personal information." Protesters were told they were detained for blocking traffic, according to the lawsuit. The Los Angeles protests were among dozens around the country after the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., and the subsequent decision by a grand jury not to indict the white police officer involved. Most of those protests resulted in few arrests. But more than 323 protesters were arrested over several days in Los Angeles. Only about 9% of those arrested had been charged, according to a Times review. The class-action suit, which names police Chief Charlie Beck and other high-ranking officers, alleges the LAPD gave dispersal orders at one location, but arrested protesters at another location who had not heard the order or warnings that they could be arrested. The suit accuses the LAPD of violating the 1st, 4th and 14th Amendment rights of the protesters. Most of the plaintiffs, according to the suit, were held for about 14 hours and not allowed release on their own recognizance, which is typically granted. Beck, however, eventually ordered their release because of the Thanksgiving holiday. Carol Sobel, a veteran civil rights lawyer and one the attorneys who filed the suit, said the city and police have failed to curtail alleged rights violations that have resulted in large damage awards to plaintiffs involved in past protests. Those settlements include a $5-million award to protesters arrested during the 2000 Democratic National Convention, nearly $13 million awarded to those arrested during a 2007 May Day protest, and $2.45 million awarded to protesters arrested during Occupy L.A. sit-ins in 2012. "They don't learn from the mistakes of the past," Sobel said. Sobel said that as part of the 2000 and 2007 settlements the LAPD agreed to provide officers better training on the rights of protesters, but has failed to do so. During the 2007 May Day rally, officers swung batons and fired rubber bullets on a mostly peaceful crowd, injuring 250 people. An LAPD spokesman, Capt. Andrew Neiman, declined to comment on the latest lawsuit, citing the ongoing litigation. Police have previously defended their actions during the Ferguson- related protests. The objective was to allow protesters to exercise their 1st Amendment rights, but concerns over public safety led to police action, said LAPD Capt. Jeff Bert, who oversaw the on-the-ground response. Bert said he delivered dispersal orders but acknowledged that the chaotic circumstances posed challenges, particularly during the first night of demonstrations. On Nov. 26, protesters initially gathered outside the federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles but moved to 7th and Figueroa streets, where police said they ordered the crowd to disperse. But many protesters and others say they never heard such an order. The lawsuit alleges that the crowd was allowed to move to 6th and Hope streets where they and other demonstrators were detained. Charmaine Chua, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said she asked to leave and police refused. About 130 arrests were made, including people there who were not protesting, the suit alleges. Two nights later, protesters marched to 8th and Alvarado and about 40 protesters were penned by riot-clad officers. An order to disperse was given about an hour later and protesters were informed they would be individually questioned. Those protesters weren't arrested, but they say they were handcuffed, searched, videotaped and questioned about their identities before they were allowed to leave. MARTHA STEWART: Defending Class Actions Over Sequential Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that since the announcement of the merger with Sequential Brands Group, Inc., a number of putative stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, alleging, among other things, that the members of the MSLO board breached their fiduciary duties and that Sequential and its board aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The Company, Sequential and each of their respective directors believe these lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. On June 22, 2015, the Company and Sequential, a Delaware corporation, entered into a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Sequential would acquire 100% of the outstanding shares of MSLO for aggregate consideration valued at $6.15 per share, payable 50% in stock and 50% in cash (the "Merger"). Under the terms of the Merger, each of Sequential and MSLO will merge with and into subsidiaries of Singer Madeline Holdings, Inc., a newly formed public holding company ("TopCo"). TopCo will continue as a publicly traded company on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the symbol "SQBG" and will be renamed "Sequential Brands Group, Inc." Pursuant to the terms of the Merger, each share of Sequential common stock will be converted into one share of TopCo common stock. MSLO stockholders will be entitled to elect to receive either (a) $6.15 in cash or (b) a number of shares of TopCo common stock equal to $6.15 divided by the volume weighted average price of Sequential common stock during the five-day period ending on the trading day immediately prior to the closing of the Merger, for each share of MSLO common stock held. The cash and stock elections by MSLO stockholders will be subject to proration in the event of oversubscription, although any stockholder who elects 50% stock and 50% cash will not be subject to proration. The transaction is subject to customary closing conditions and approval by the holders of a majority of MSLO outstanding common stock not owned directly or indirectly by Martha Stewart or her affiliates. MERCK: Settles Securities Class Action Suit for $830MM ------------------------------------------------------ Merck (NYSE: MRK) announced that it has reached an agreement with plaintiffs to resolve In re Merck & Co., Inc. Securities Litigation, a multi-district class action lawsuit pending in New Jersey federal court. The settlement class consists of persons who purchased Merck securities during the period from May 21, 1999, through Oct. 29, 2004, inclusive, and who seek to recover damages under the federal securities laws for certain Merck statements regarding Vioxx. Under the agreement, Merck will pay $830 million to resolve the settlement class members' claims, plus an additional amount for approved attorneys' fees and expenses. After available funds under certain insurance policies, Merck's cash payment for the settlement and fees will be approximately $680 million, for which the company will record a charge in the fourth quarter of 2015, which will be excluded from non-GAAP results. The agreement is subject to court approval. The settlement does not constitute any admission by Merck or any of the individual defendants of any liability or wrongdoing. Merck still faces previously disclosed individual securities lawsuits related to Vioxx. Judge Stanley R. Chesler is presiding over the case. Merck is represented by Evan Chesler of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP and Ted Wells of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP. METLIFE INC: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in Westland Case --------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Plaintiffs have filed a third amended complaint in the case, City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y., filed January 12, 2012) Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"), as well as the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On September 11, 2015, the court issued an order dismissing all claims under the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and dismissing all claims under the Securities Act except for those based on alleged misrepresentations of mortality ratios. A copy of the Court's decision is available at http://is.gd/N323Dnfrom Leagle.com. Following the court's September 11, 2015 order, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint that supplemented the factual allegations of the second amended complaint. The defendants intend to continue to defend this action vigorously. METLIFE INC: Must Face Birmingham Retirement System Suit -------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. must defend against the case, City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, filed July 5, 2012), after a court tossed its motion to dismiss the complaint, MetLife said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common equity units in or traceable to a public offering in March 2011, the plaintiff filed an action alleging that MetLife, Inc., certain current and former directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc., and various underwriters violated several provisions of the Securities Act related to the filing of the registration statement by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On March 31, 2015, a federal court granted plaintiff's motion to remand this action to state court. On October 14, 2015, the state court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously. METLIFE INC: Must Defend Against "Owens" TCA Action --------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company continues to defend the case, Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014). This putative class action lawsuit alleges that MLIC's use of the total control accounts or TCA as the settlement option for life insurance benefits under some group life insurance policies violates MLIC's fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that MLIC realized on accounts owned by members of the putative class. The court denied MLIC's motion to dismiss the complaint. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. METLIFE INC: "Robainas" Reinsurance Litigation Tossed ----------------------------------------------------- A New York court has dismissed the case, Robainas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014), MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance policies issued by MLIC from 2009 through 2014 (the "Policies"). Two similar actions were subsequently filed, Yale v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2015) and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Lodge 15 v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015). Both of these actions were consolidated with the Robainas action. The consolidated complaint alleges that MLIC inadequately disclosed in its statutory annual statements that certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies were collateralized using "contractual parental guarantees," and thereby allegedly misrepresented its financial condition and the adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuit sought recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty in the amount of the premiums paid for the Policies. On October 9, 2015, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, finding that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because they did not allege any concrete injury as a result of the alleged conduct. METLIFE INC: Show Cause Order Issued in "Intoccia" -------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a show cause order has been issued in the case, Intoccia v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2015). Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums for Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders attached to variable annuity contracts with MLIC from 2009 through 2015 (the "Annuities"). The court consolidated Weilert v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2015) with the Intoccia case, and the consolidated, amended complaint alleges that MLIC inadequately disclosed in its statutory annual statements that certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies were collateralized using "contractual parental guarantees," and thereby allegedly misrepresented its financial condition and the adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuits seek recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty in the amount of the premiums paid for Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders attached to the Annuities. On October 9, 2015, the court issued an order to show cause why the Intoccia action should not be dismissed pursuant to the reasoning in the court's order dismissing the Robainas case. METLIFE INC: Settlement in "Fauley" TCPA Suit Under Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that objectors have taken an appeal from the order approving the settlement reached in the case, Fauley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al. (Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Ill., July 3, 2014). Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against defendants, including MLIC and a former MetLife financial services representative, alleging that the defendants sent unsolicited fax advertisements to plaintiff and others in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227. The court issued a final order certifying a nationwide settlement class and approving a settlement under which MLIC has agreed to pay up to $23 million to resolve claims as to fax ads sent between August 23, 2008 and August 7, 2014. Objectors to the settlement have appealed the approval order. METLIFE INC: "Voshall" Case Pending in California Court ------------------------------------------------------- Voshall v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, April 8, 2015), remains pending, MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all persons covered under a long-term group disability income insurance policy issued by MLIC to public entities in California between April 8, 2011 and April 8, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that MLIC improperly reduced benefits by including cost of living adjustments and employee paid contributions in the employer retirement benefits and other income that reduces the benefit payable under such policies. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for declaratory relief, violation of the California Business & Professions Code, breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. MICHIGAN: Sued Over Flint Water Crisis -------------------------------------- Click On Detroit reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the state of Michigan, Gov. Rick Snyder and the city of Flint for what plaintiffs are calling negligence in the Flint water crisis. Plaintiffs Doris Collins, Robin Pleasant and Jason Phinisee claim to have suffered injury from contaminated drinking water after the state "connected to the Flint River in a cost-cutting move," the lawsuit reads. "Plaintiffs are currently still billed for the undrinkable water," the suit reads. Gov. Rick Snyder, the state of Michigan, the city of Flint, former Flint emergency financial manager Darnell Earley (who is the current emergency manager for Detroit Public Schools), Howard Croft and "all others similarly situated" are named as defendants. Croft recently resigned from his position as Flint Public Works director. Attorney Brenda Williams is representing the plaintiffs. MIRAKUYA JAPANESE: Faces "Han" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gen Wang Han, Individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. Mirakuya Japanese Restaurant Inc. d/b/a Mirakuya Japanese Restaurant, Yun Jun Gao, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" # 1-10, Case No. 3:15-cv-02339-RDM (M.D. Penn., December 6, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate Mirakuya Japanese Restaurant at 700 W. Broad St., Hazleton, PA 18201. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq., Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Avenue Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com NRRM LLC: Faces "Trumbell" Suit in Ill. Over Automated Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ Matthew Trumbell, Kevin Amato, Craig Mehr, and Nick Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NRRM, LLC, d/b/a stoprepairbills.com, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv- 10923 (N.D. Ill., December 4, 2015) seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of using automatic dialing equipment and robocalls to sell extended vehicle warranties. NRRM, LLC is in the business of selling extended vehicle service contracts and product warranties. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stacy M. Bardo, Esq. BARDO LAW, P.C. One South Dearborn Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 219-6980 Facsimile: (312) 219-6981 E-mail: stacy@bardolawpc.com - and - Craig L. Briskin, Esq. Steven A. Skalet, Esq. MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC 1250 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 822-5100 Facsimile: (202) 822-4997 E-mail: cbriskin@findjustice.com sskalet@findjustice.com - and - Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com jmurray@terrellmarshall.com sstrauss@terrellmarshall.com OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT: "Sims" Suit Goes to Wash. D.C. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Sims v. United States of America, Office of Personnel Management et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-13426, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01931-ABJ to the proceeding. The United States Office of Personnel Management is an independent agency of the United States government that manages the civil service of the federal government. Key Point Government Solutions provides specialized investigative and risk mitigation services to the U.S. federal government organizations that span across the civilian, defense, and intelligence sectors. The company is based in Loveland, Colorado. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT: "Hanagan" Moved to Wash. D.C. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Hanagan v. United States Office of Personnel Management et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-06045, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01933-ABJ to the proceeding. The United States Office of Personnel Management is an independent agency of the United States government that manages the civil service of the federal government. Key Point Government Solutions provides specialized investigative and risk mitigation services to the U.S. federal government organizations that span across the civilian, defense, and intelligence sectors. The company is based in Loveland, Colorado. The Defendants are represented by: John Kenneth Theis, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 883 Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 305 7632 Facsimile: (202) 616 8460 E-mail: john.k.theis@usdoj.gov PETERSBURG, VA: Police Officers Sue to Recover OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Mark Bowes, writing for Richmond Times-Dispatch, reports that more than two dozen current and former Petersburg police officers have filed a class-action lawsuit against the city seeking to recover overtime wages that they claim have been routinely unpaid in violation of the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act and Virginia law. In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Richmond, the 28 police officers and detectives of the 140-member department said they and similar employees were regularly required to work in excess of their regularly scheduled hours but were not receiving compensation for all the extra time -- or at the required overtime scale of 1-1/2% times their regular pay. "Defendant's current pay plan is such that plaintiffs are automatically paid for 80 hours in a 14-day cycle," the suit says. "In order for plaintiffs to receive pay for any hours worked above 80, they must turn in a handwritten overtime slip. However, even if plaintiffs turn in an overtime slip, they are not always paid time and a half for all hours worked over 80 or 86 in a 14-day period." Further, the department has a policy or practice or paying a straight rate for certain types of overtime, the suit says. "For instance, plaintiffs regularly work past the end of their regularly scheduled shift." the suit says. "These hours are designated as 'end-of-shift' hours. Plaintiffs also regularly spend time in training outside their regularly scheduled shift. Upon information and belief, (the department) only pays a straight rate for end-of-shift hours and training, regardless of whether these hours are over 40 in a week, 80 in a 14-day period, or 86 in a 14-day period." Petersburg City Attorney Brian K. Telfair said the city was made aware of the lawsuit on the morning of Jan. 14 and received a copy of it about noon that day. "We're still in the process of evaluating the complaint and as well as performing our initial investigation," he said. The suit comes at a difficult time for the department, which already is under scrutiny for allegations of officer misconduct and corruption. Petersburg's chief prosecutor announced that she has asked Virginia State Police to investigate city police issues that have come to her attention. They include at least $13,356 in missing cash from the department's evidence room and serious officer misconduct allegations raised by the city's Public Defender's Office. The overtime lawsuit also alleges that the department's payroll system is in disarray and the agency does not employ a dedicated worker to administer its payroll. That function is currently assigned to a secretary, the suit says. "Defendant's pay records are nearly impossible to decipher and are written in such a way that conceals the number of hours that plaintiffs work and the number of hours plaintiffs are being paid," the suit says. "The nature of these pay records prevent plaintiffs from identifying any discrepancies in their pay." The suit also claims the department fails to pay overtime compensation for the week that it was earned. The department often pays overtime on the next pay period or even several pay periods after it is earned, the suit says. "This further prevents plaintiffs from identifying discrepancies in their pay," according to the suit. The complaint says federal law requires the department to provide overtime to its employees for all hours worked that exceed 86 in a 14-day period, assuming the department meets the law enforcement exemption set by federal statute. If the department cannot claim the exemption, officers are entitled to overtime pay for all hours worked beyond 40 per week. In addition, Virginia law was amended in 2005 to require law enforcement agencies with more than 100 employees to pay overtime compensation for the difference in the regularly scheduled workweek and the federal maximum by law. "The department has had knowledge of Virginia's law enforcement overtime provisions, as local news media outlets have widely reported on similar police officer lawsuits against, and settlements paid by, the city of Richmond, Henrico County, the city of Norfolk, the city of Hampton and other Virginia localities with at least 100 law enforcement employees," the complaint says, which provides a link to a 2011 Richmond Times-Dispatch story on the issue. The suit was filed on behalf of the officers by attorneys Craig J. Curwood and Philip J. Dean of the Curwood Law Firm, and attorney Ryan H. Ash of Blackburn, Conte, Schilling & Click. The suit seeks to recover unpaid overtime pay, "liquidated damages" and attorneys' fees. PLANET FITNESS: "Truglio" Suit Moved to New Jersey Dist. Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Truglio v. Planet Fitness, Inc. et al., Case No. MON-L-15-03596, was removed from Superior Court of New Jersey Monmouth County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey [LIVE] (Trenton). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-07959-FLW-LHG to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly violated the Health Club Services Act, Consumer Fraud Act, and Truth-in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act. Planet Fitness is an American franchise of fitness centers based in Newington, New Hampshire. Each gym features exercise equipment and fitness instructors to assist its members. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq. Joseph K. Jones, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES LLC 555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 459 7971 E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com jkj@legaljones.com The Defendant is represented by: Craig R. Tractenberg, Esq NIXON PEABODY, LLP 437 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022-7001 Telephone: (212) 940 3722 Facsimile: (212) 940 3111 E-mail: ctractenberg@nixonpeabody.com - and - Louis A. Felicetta, Esq. CARLUCCIO, LEONE, DIMON, DOYLE & SACKS LLC 9 Robbins Street Toms River, NJ 08753 Telephone: (732) 797 1600 E-mail: Elfelicetta@cldds.com - and - Craig R. Tractenberg, Esq. NIXON PEABODY LLP 437 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022-7039 Telephone: (212) 940 3722 Facsimile: (866) 852 2714 Email: ctractenberg@nixonpeabody.com POLLO OPERATIONS: Judge Reopens Case to Approve Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell of the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, granted an agreed upon motion to reopen a class action lawsuit for purposes of approval of a class settlement. That case is, DAISY, INC., a Florida corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons Plaintiff, v. POLLO OPERATIONS, INC., EDWARD PRIORE and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants Case No. 2:14-cv-564-FtM-38CM (M.D. Fla.) Daisy, Inc. asked the court to enter an order reopening the case for purposes of approval of the parties' class-wide settlement, preliminarily approving the proposed class-wide settlement agreement, approving the form of class notice, and authorizing the distribution to the class, and setting dates for opt-outs, objections, and a fairness hearing at which time final judgment can be entered. Judge Chappell granted plaintiff's motion and the case is reopened for the express purpose of approving the parties class settlement agreement and providing Opt-in Opt-out notice to class members. The settlement agreement is preliminarily approved. The court finds that the notice satisfies the requirements of due process and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The plan is approved and adopted. The court orders that the parties provide the notice to the settlement class as proposed in the settlement agreement. The court approves the form of the notice and also approves The Angeion Group as the settlement administrator. The Court appoints plaintiff, Daisy, Inc. as the class representative and appoints attorney Brian J. Wanca of Anderson + Wanca as class counsel. The Court set a final approval hearing for March 16, 2016, at 9:30am. A copy of Judge Chappell's order dated December 3, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/TLeh7Hfrom Leagle.com. Daisy, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Ross M. Good -- RGood@andersonwanca.com -- Brian J. Wanca -- BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- Ryan M. Kelly -- RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- at Anderson & Wanca; Roy W. Foxall -- oxalldocs@comcast.net -- at Law Office of Roy W. Foxall Pollo Operations, Inc., Defendant, represented by Catherine A. Miller -- catherine.miller@akerman.com -- Jason L. Margolin -- jason.margolin@akerman.com -- Jeffrey J. Mayer -- jeffrey.mayer@akerman.com -- at Akerman LLP; Marc H. Kallish -- mkallish@ralaw.com -- at Roetzel & Andress, LPA Edward Priore, Defendant, Pro Se PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Bouder" Case ------------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, Inc. continues to defend the case, Bouder v. PFI, in New Jersey, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. In February 2015, the federal District Court for New Jersey granted in part, and denied in part, plaintiffs' renewed class certification motion. It certified for class treatment plaintiffs' wage payment claims which include allegations that the Company made improper deductions from the wages of its former common law agents in California, New York, and Pennsylvania, and its financial services associates in California and New York. The Court denied plaintiffs' attempt to certify a class based on the Company's alleged failure to pay overtime to its former common law agents and its financial services associates in California, Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania. In March 2015, the Company filed a motion requesting that the Court reconsider its decision to partially grant plaintiffs' renewed class certification motion with regard to its former common law agents. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Sterling ----------------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Plaintiffs' class certification motion in the case, City of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System v. Prudential Financial, Inc., et al., was granted in August 2015. In September 2015, defendants filed a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit seeking permission to file an appeal from the order certifying a class. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: LIBOR Suits Transferred to S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that following an August 2015 decision, granting in part defendants' motions to dismiss, in September 2015, Prudential filed the following LIBOR complaints: (1) in the Southern District of New York, captioned Prudential Investment Portfolios 2 et al. v. Barclays Bank PLC, et al. (the "New York Complaint"), naming as defendants Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Barclays PLC, Citibank, N.A., Citigroup Funding Inc., Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse (USA) Inc., Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC Holdings PLC, JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Royal Bank of Canada, and The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC. These defendants were dismissed from the original LIBOR action on jurisdictional grounds. The New York Complaint reasserts the causes of action brought in the original LIBOR action; and (2) in the Western District of North Carolina, captioned Prudential Investment Portfolios 2 et al. v. Bank of America Corporation et al. (the "North Carolina Complaint"), naming as defendants Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A. These defendants were dismissed from the original LIBOR action on jurisdictional grounds. The North Carolina Complaint reasserts the causes of action brought in the original LIBOR action. Both the New York Complaint and the North Carolina Complaint have been transferred for pre-trial purposes to the LIBOR multi- district litigation presided over by Judge Buchwald in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case is, Prudential Investment Portfolios 2, f/k/a Dryden Core Investment Fund, o/b/o Prudential Core Short-Term Bond Fund and Prudential Core Taxable Money Market Fund v. Bank of America Corporation et al. RIG POWER: Judge Narrows Plaintiffs' Claim in "Morgan" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge David Alan Ezra of the Western District of Texas, Midland-Odessa Division, granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification and notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs in the case GARLAND MORGAN, RUBEN RAMIREZ, JORGE PINEDO, DAVID DURON, and ALFELIO MARTINEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RIG POWER, INC. and M3P ENERGY, LLC, Defendants, No. 7:15-CV-73-DAE (W.D. Tex.) Rig Power, Inc. is a Texas corporation that provides rental equipment and services to companies in the oil and gas industry. M3P Energy, LLC (M3P) is Rig Power's parent company. Plaintiffs were employed by Rig Power and M3P as field technicians to perform manual labor related to the transportation, operation, and maintenance of oilfield equipment. On May 22, 2015, plaintiffs filed a complaint on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq (FLSA). Plaintiffs allege that they routinely worked more than 40 hours per week and that defendants failed to compensate them at the required overtime rate for such work. Plaintiffs specifically allege that Rig Power paid a fixed amount for each day an employee worked more than eight hours, regardless of how many additional hours the employee worked on those days or how many additional hours the employee worked in a given week. Plaintiffs further allege that similarly situated field technicians were also not paid overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The purported class members also show that they worked as field technicians at a variety of Rig Power field offices such as in San Angelo, Texas, Midland, Texas, Wysox, Pennslyvania, and Seguin, Texas. Plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification and notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs. Judge Ezra granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification and notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs. The conditional class is defined as: "Field Technicians who have worked for Rig Power within three years of the date of this Order." The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding the notice to the class and consent form, and to file with the court a proposed agreed notice to the class and consent form for the court's approval. The defendants must produce, in a useable electronic format, the names, last known addresses, and dates of employment of all putative class members. A copy of Judge Ezra's order dated December 10, 2015 is available at http://goo.gl/QX8cKpfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by: Joshua C. Borsellino, Esq. BORSELLINO, P.C. 1020 Macon St., Ste. 15 Forth Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: 817-908-7718 Facsimile: 814-394-2412 Defendants, represented by: Lisa K. Hooper, Esq. Randall L. Rouse, Esq. LYNCH, CHAPPELL & ALSUP, P.C. The Reliance Building, Suite 700 300 North Marienfeld Midland, TX 79701 Telephone: 432-897-1697 Facsimile: 432-683-2587 SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Sued Over Refusal to End Fracking Operations -------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Greco, writing for Koco.com, reports that a New York- based law firm announced it has filed a class-action petition against four Oklahoma energy companies that they say have refused to end fracking operations. Weitz & Luxenberg, in partnership with Poynter Law Group, filed the lawsuit against SandRidge Energy, New Dominion, Chesapeake Energy and Devon Energy, according to a news release. The lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Logan County after an increase in the number and magnitude of earthquakes in Oklahoma. "Despite compelling evidence, these companies continue to inject wastewater into wells at an alarming rate, all the while knowing that their activities are jeopardizing residents' homes and livelihoods," said Robin Greenwald, head of Weitz & Luxenberg's environmental, toxic tort and consumer protection litigation unit. "They must compensate the many thousands of Oklahomans who not only worry about the value of their homes but also their personal safety should one of the earthquakes cause even greater harm, including the loss of life. "The state was rocked by two of the largest earthquakes seen in recent years, which followed a series of smaller earthquakes in the week prior. This lawsuit seeks redress for the damage these earthquakes and those before them have caused." The suit claims the companies are liable to the plaintiffs and the class for private nuisance, ultra-hazardous activities, negligence and trespass in their actions, which the lawsuit says have led to Oklahoma residents' harm and suffering. "These companies have acted with reckless abandon in their drilling practices and it is time they be held accountable for the damage they have caused and continue to cause," said Curt Marshall, an attorney in the firm's environmental, toxic tort and consumer protection litigation unit. Weitz & Luxenberg is asking the four Oklahoma energy companies to strengthen structures that could be damaged or destroyed by large earthquakes. The law firm also is looking to establish an independent earthquake monitoring and prediction center to analyze and predict the connection between increased seismic activity and fracking, the news release said. SCANA ENERGY: "Garrett" Suit Moved from Cobb Court to N.D. Ga. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Garrett v. Scana Energy Marketing, Inc., Case No. 15A2478-4, was removed from the State Court of Cobb County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-03881-RWS to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, by initiating non-emergency telephone calls using an automatic telephone dialing system to cellular telephone numbers without the prior express consent of the subscribers of those cellular telephone numbers. SCANA Energy Marketing provides natural gas distribution and contract services. It offers the procurement of natural gas, capacity management, asset management, risk management, scheduling and balancing, and alternate fuel analysis and sourcing services. The company is based in Columbia, South Carolina. The Plaintiff is represented by: James Marvin Feagle, Esq. Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq. Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq. SKAAR AND FEAGLE, LLP 2374 Main Street, Suite B Tucker, GA 30084 Telephone: (404) 373 1970 Facsimile: (404) 601 1855 E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com krisskaar@aol.com The Defendant is represented by: Barry Goheen, Esq. Nicholas G. Hill, Esq. KING & SPALDING, LLP 1180 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 SHINY STAR: Recalls Wafer Stick Products Due to Egg --------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 13, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Egg Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Shiny Star Canada Ltd. Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10163 Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on UPC ---------- ----------- ---- product --- ---------- W. L. Foods Barquillos- 480 g All packages 4 806511 015603 First Love Fresh Milk where eggs Wafer Sticks are not declared on the label. W. L. Foods Barquillos- 480 g All packages 4 806511 010578 First Love Chocolate where eggs Wafer Sticks are not declared on the label. SKI-DOO: Recalls Snowmobile 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 17, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Snowmobile Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Lights And Instruments Units affected: 5408 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015545TC ID number: 2015545 Certain snowmobiles may not comply with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 1201 - Snowmobile Standards. The rear side reflectors may fall off due to inadequate adhesion to the structure. This could render the vehicle less visible to other motorists during hours of darkness, possibly resulting in a crash causing property damage and/or personal injury. Correction: Dealers will inspect and replace affected reflectors. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- SKI-DOO 2016, 2016 SOUTHERN COMPANY: Facing Suit Over AGL Resources Merger ------------------------------------------------------- The Southern Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that AGL Resources and each member of the AGL Resources board of directors have been named as defendants in four purported shareholder class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in September and October 2015. These actions were filed on behalf of named plaintiffs and other AGL Resources shareholders challenging the Merger and seeking, among other things, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining the merger with Southern Company, and, in certain circumstances, damages. Southern Company and Merger Sub were also named as defendants in two of these lawsuits. Southern Company intends to vigorously defend these suits. Southern Company does not believe these suits will impact the completion of the Merger, and they are not expected to have a material impact on Southern Company's financial statements. However, the ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be determined at this time. STARCRAFT: Recalls Travel Trailer 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 16, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Travel Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Structure Units affected: 13 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015540TC ID number: 2015540 On certain travel trailers, the tires may have inadequate clearance with the wheel wells. Inadequate clearance between the wheel and wheel well may cause premature tire wear or possible tire failure, which could lead to a crash, resulting in injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will replace the hanger brackets on the frame with a new tube and bracket assembly. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- STARCRAFT 2016 STARCRAFT: Recalls AR-One Trailer 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 17, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Travel Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 104 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015544TC ID number: 2015544 On certain travel trailers, the labels on the breaker box and 12 volt fuse panel may be incorrect. Incorrect labels may create a possibility of electrical shock hazard when working on the travel trailer, which could result in injury. Correction: Labels will be sent to current owners instructing them to replace the incorrect label on the breaker box and 12 volt fuse panel. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- STARCRAFT AR-ONE 2016, 2016, 2016, 2016 STARCRAFT: Recalls Travel Trailer 2016 Model Due to Fall Risk ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 19, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Travel Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Structure Units affected: 81 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015547TC ID number: 2015547 On certain travel trailers equipped with a "Happy Jack" bed, the brackets for the bed may have been incorrectly positioned. This could cause the bed to lift up too far, which could damage the bed's brackets and motor. This could result in the brackets potentially breaking, and allowing the bed to possibly fall onto an occupant that may be under it, increasing the risk of injury. Correction: Dealers will reposition the bed's brackets to ensure that it will not lift up too far. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- STARCRAFT 2016 STARS TRADING: Recalls White Pepper Powder Due to Gluten -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 13, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Gluten Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Stars Trading Co. Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10164 Code(s) on Brand name Common name Size product UPC ---------- ----------- ---- ---------- --- Wu Hsing White Pepper 42 g 23.03.2017 4 710868 801010 Powder SUBARU: Recalls Legacy and Outback 2016 Models Due to Fire Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 23, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Powertrain Units affected: 185 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015555TC ID number: 2015555 Manufacturer recall number: WQV-57 On certain vehicles, the nuts securing the propeller shaft to the rear differential may have not been tightened to specification during assembly and could loosen over time. This could cause the propeller shaft to come loose from the rear differential, which would result in excessive noise and may contact and eventually damage the fuel tank, which may result in a fuel leak. Fuel leakage, in the presence of an ignition source, could result in a fire causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will inspect the nuts fastening the propeller shaft to the rear differential and tighten or replace the nuts and bolts as necessary. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- SUBARU LEGACY 2016 SUBARU OUTBACK 2016 SYNTHES USA: Recalls Distal Radius Plate Systems Locking Screw -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 20, 2015 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-56194 It was discovered that part number (212.818) and lot 7856527 of 2.4mm locking screws may contain the incorrect package insert (GP2613, VA-LCP distal radius system). The correct package insert for the above part is GP2615 (Modular Mini Fragment LCP system). Affected products: DISTAL RADIUS PLATE SYSTEM - LOCKING SCREW SELF TAPPING W/STARDRIVE Lot or serial number: 7856527 Model or catalog number: 212.818 Manufacturer: Synthes USA LLC 1101 SYNTHES AVENUE Monument 80132 Colorado UNITED STATES TEMPUR SEALY: "Benning" Suit Now Closed --------------------------------------- Arthur Benning, Jr., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and Dale E. Williams; filed June 25, 2012, has been resolved in the Company's favor after the Plaintiff declined to seek Supreme Court review of a dismissal order, Tempur Sealy International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. On June 20 and 25, 2012, the suits were filed against the Company and two named executive officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of stockholders who purchased the Company's stock between January 25, 2012 and June 5, 2012. The complaints asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, alleging, among other things, false and misleading statements and concealment of material information concerning the Company's competitive position, projected net sales, earnings per diluted share and related financial performance for the Company's 2012 fiscal year. The plaintiffs sought damages, interest, costs, attorney's fees, expert fees and unspecified equitable/injunctive relief. On November 2, 2012, the Court consolidated the two lawsuits and on March 6, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On March 31, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting the Company's motion to dismiss with prejudice the consolidated complaint. The Court issued its memorandum of opinion and entered final judgment on May 23, 2014. On June 6, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ("Appeals Court"). Following oral argument, the Appeals Court issued an order on June 4, 2015, ruling in favor of the Company. The Plaintiff had until September 2, 2015 to file a petition seeking review by the United States Supreme Court. The Plaintiff did not file for review, therefore this matter has now been resolved in the Company's favor. TEMPUR SEALY: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in "Todd" Case -------------------------------------------------------- A third amended complaint has been filed in the case, Alvin Todd, and Henry and Mary Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, Defendants. On October 25, 2013, the suit was filed against Tempur Sealy International and one of its domestic subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of "consumers" as defined by Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1761(d) who purchased, not for resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in the State of California. On November 19, 2013, the Company was served for the first time in the case but with an amended petition adding additional class representatives for additional states. The purported classes seek certification of claims under applicable state laws. The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations or omissions related to the sale of certain products. The plaintiffs seek restitution, injunctive relief and all other relief allowed under applicable state laws, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The purported classes do not seek damages for physical injuries. The Company believes the case lacks merit and intends to defend against the claims vigorously. In an August 26, 2015 Order, District Judge Jon S. Tigar for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to file their proposed Third Amended Complaint. The TAC: (1) adds a nationwide class claim for unjust enrichment, applying Kentucky law; (2) adds new factual allegations based on information learned during discovery; (3) removes two claims based on North Carolina law; and (4) removes the names and details of Plaintiffs who no longer wish to pursue this litigation and have been dismissed. Defendants' deadline for filing their opposition to Plaintiffs' class certification motion was September 3, 2015, and the hearing was scheduled for November 19, 2015. A copy of the Aug. 26 Order is available at http://is.gd/S4lRpJ from Leagle.com. "The Court was scheduled to consider class certification motions in the fourth quarter of 2015 and the outcome is uncertain," Tempur Sealy said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. "As a result, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation, or whether the Company's applicable insurance policies will provide sufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations," Tempur said. TESLA: Recalls Model S Vehicles Due to Injury Risk -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 19, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Seats And Restraints Units affected: 3911 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015553TC ID number: 2015553 On certain vehicles, the driver and front passenger seatbelt anchor plate may not have been properly bolted to the pretensioner anchor plate during assembly. In the event of a crash, the seatbelt may be unable to provide sufficient restraint force, which could increase the risk of injury to the seat occupant. Correction: Tesla Service Technicians at authorized locations will inspect and affect repairs as necessary. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- TESLA MODEL S 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 TOLO TOYS: Recalls Twist and Turn Rattles Due to Choking Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 20, 2015 Posting date: November 20, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Toys Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Choking Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-55914 This recall involves the Twist and Turn Rattle. This rattle is 13 centimeters long. It is composed of six connected rotating sections which can change the shape of the rattle. In some sections, there are small balls which create a sound when the toy is shaken. This toy is intended for children under 3 years of age. The product is sold in a cardboard box with a transparent window. The model number is 86445 and the UPC is 019287864455. The rattle can break and release small parts, posing a choking hazard to young children. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this product in Canada. Tolo Toys has received one incident report of the rattle breaking. No injury was reported. For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them keep children safe when they play with toys, see the General Toy Safety Tips. Approximately 24 units were sold in Canada. The recalled product was sold from January 2015 to May 2015. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: Tolo Toys Kowloon, Hong Kong CHINA UNFI CANADA: Recalls Cheese Ravioli Products Due to Salmonella -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 13, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: UNFI Canada, Inc. Distribution: New Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10169 Code(s) on Brand name Common name Size product UPC ---------- ----------- ---- ---------- --- Conte's Gluten Free 340 g Use By Date: 7 341589- Cheese Ravioli 021117 94445 8 with Marinara Sauce URBAN OUTFITTERS: Settlement in "Moore" Case Has Preliminary OK --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jeffrey S. White of the Northern District of California granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement in the case ALEXANDER MOORE, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. URBAN OUTFITTERS WHOLESALE, INC., D/B/A ANTHROPOLOGIE, a Pennsylvania corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:13-cv-02245-JSW, Related Case No. 13-cv-02628-JSW, No. 14-cv-00024-JSW., 14-cv- 01580-JSW, 14-002601-JSW (N.D. Cal.) Judge White conducted a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement on December 4, 2015. Judge White said the settlement class shall be conditionally certified for settlement purposes only and shall consist of all persons who were employed at Anthropologie stores in California as hourly managers or hourly supervisors (i.e., Operations Supervisors, Selling Supervisors, or Managers in Training) at any time during the period from April 10, 2009 to the date of preliminary approval. The court approved, as to form and content, the proposed notice of class action settlement. The court directed the mailing, by first- class U.S. mail, of the class notice to class members in accordance with the schedule and the other procedures described in the settlement agreement. The court said the method selected for communicating the preliminary approval of the settlement agreement to class members is the best notice practicable under the circumstances, constitutes due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to notice, and thereby satisfies due process. Named plaintiffs Alexander Moore and Charlotte Whitmore are appointed class representatives for the settlement class; the court appointed Capstone Law APC as class counsel. The court approves and appoints Simpluris, Inc. as the settlement administrator. The court will hold a hearing on March 25, 2016 at 9:00 a.m., to consider final approval of the class action settlement and motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and class representative enhancement payments. A copy of Judge White's order dated December 2, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/2yafeBfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by Arnab Banerjee at Initiative Legal Group APC; Melissa Grant -- Melissa.Grant@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Raul Perez -- Raul.Perez@Capstonelawyers.com -- Suzy E Lee -- Suzy.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com -- at Capstone Law APC Urban Outfitters Wholesale, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cheryl D. Orr -- Cheryl.Orr@dbr.com -- Jaime Danielle Walter -- Jaime.Walter@dbr.com -- Thomas J Barton -- Thomas.Barton@dbr.com - - William Robert Horwitz -- William.Horwitz@dbr.com -- at Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Status Conference Set for March 3 -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Edward M. Chen signed off on a Joint Stipulation and Order settling schedules in the securities class action against Vocera Communications, Inc. The stipulation is entered into by and among Lead Plaintiffs Baltimore County Employees' Retirement System and Arkansas Teacher Retirement System; and defendants Vocera Communications, Inc., Robert J. Zollars, Brent D. Lang and William R. Zerella. The Court previously entered orders: (1) setting a deadline for a CMC statement to be filed by January 21, 2016; (2) scheduling a status conference for January 28, 2016; and (3) setting a deadline for Lead Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement to be filed by December 7, 2015. In the interest of judicial efficiency, the parties jointly request that the Court issue an order adopting the following revised schedule in connection with the formal documentation of the settlement and pending submission of the motion for preliminary approval: 1. The deadline for submission of the CMC statement on January 21, 2016 is reset for February 25, 2016. 2. The status conference is reset for March 3, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. 3. Lead Plaintiffs will submit a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on or before January 15, 2016. Background on the lawsuit is discussed in Vocera's Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. On August 1 and 21, 2013, two putative securities class action suits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers, its board of directors, a former director and the underwriters for the Company's initial public offering. On November 20, 2013, the court consolidated the actions as In re Vocera Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed Lead Plaintiffs. Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint on September 19, 2014. The consolidated complaint names certain current and former officers and directors and the underwriters for the Company's initial public offering and secondary offering and alleges claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false and materially misleading statements and omissions in the registration statement for the Company's initial public offering and secondary offering and in communications regarding its business and financial results. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between March 28, 2012 and May 2, 2013, and seeks compensatory damages, rescission, fees and costs, as well as other relief. On November 3, 2014, Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On February 11, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Act claims, but denied the motion as to the Exchange Act claims, allowing the matter to proceed on that basis. On April 27, 2015, Defendants filed answers to the consolidated complaint. In connection with a mediation, an agreement in principle to settle the suit was reached in October 2015. The settlement, which is subject to the parties' execution of final settlement documents and the approval of the Court, calls for payment of $9 million, which will be funded entirely by the Company's insurance carriers. A copy of the Dec. 7 Stipulation is available at http://is.gd/9d4HA2from Leagle.com. VOLKSWAGEN: Casper Law Firm Sues Over "Defeat Devices" ------------------------------------------------------ Lillian Schrock, writing for Star Tribune, reports that a Casper law firm filed a federal class action lawsuit against Volkswagen on behalf of Wyomingites who bought cars installed with software designed to cheat emission tests. The German automobile manufacturer admitted last 2015 to installing "defeat devices" in its vehicles to evade clean air standards. The suit, filed by attorney Jason Ochs, contends Volkswagen deceived its customers by requiring them to pay high prices for vehicles marketed as "clean, fuel efficient and powerful," according to the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court of Wyoming. In fact, the cars emitted up to 40 times the amount of nitrogen oxide allowed under United States law. The devices were installed in VW cars dating back to 2009. Ochs filed the suit on behalf of Casper resident Ron Weiss, who purchased in 2013 a Volkswagen Jetta from Fremont Volkswagen in Casper. Weiss bought the diesel version of the Jetta specifically for the lower emissions marketed by VW, according to the lawsuit. A defeat device was installed in the car. "People thought they were buying clean diesel vehicles that would be efficient and not only safe for the environment, but also safe for their health," Ochs said during a phone interview. "In order for Wyomingites to seek their day in court, there needed to be someone and some firm to step up and represent them. My firm is honored to represent Wyomingites all over the state, any of whom have been victims of these corporate decisions." Ochs said Weiss reached out to his firm for legal assistance. Weiss was unavailable for comment. Had Weiss known about the defeat devices before purchasing his Jetta, he would never have bought the car, Ochs said. Nitrogen oxide pollutants have been linked to respiratory- and cardiovascular-related illnesses, the lawsuit contends. A phone call to Mario Guerreiro, executive vice president of group communications for Volkswagen of America, went unreturned. Officials became aware of Volkswagen's actions after a clean air group tested the emission levels of certain diesel cars. The International Council for Clean Transportation found in 2014 that the levels of nitrogen oxide emissions by Volkswagen's diesel models were significantly higher than permitted by federal regulations, according to the lawsuit. The group notified the Environmental Protection Agency of its findings. The California Air and Resources Board commenced an investigation into the reasons for the elevated emissions. Meanwhile, Volkswagen asserted the higher emissions were related to technical issues, and issued a recall of the cars. In May 2015, testing to determine the effectiveness of the recall found that nitrogen oxide emissions were still significantly higher than they should be. Eventually, Volkswagen admitted to installing the defeat devices. The lawsuit claims Volkswagen knew the devices were meant to bypass emission standards. This is because, during federal tests, the emission control system operated at its highest levels, but it operated at lower levels when the car was not undergoing official testing. The EPA has ordered Volkswagen to recall nearly 500,000 cars with the defeat devices and modify them so they comply with emission requirements. The lawsuit requests a judge order Volkswagen to buy back the cars purchased by Wyomingites that contain the defeat devices, or institute a free replacement program for the cars, or remove the defeat devices and ensure the cars comply with emission standards while also retaining their promised fuel efficiency and drive performance. U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer in San Francisco has been tasked with overseeing consumer lawsuits filed throughout the country against Volkswagen. Ochs said if his case were to go to trial, it would be tried in in front of a Wyoming jury. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Shipley" Suit Sent to E.D. Arkansas Court ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Shipley et al. v. Landers Auto Group LLC et al., Case No. 60CV-15-04551, was removed from the Pulaski County Circuit Court, Arkansas Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00696-JLH to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly sold Defective Device Vehicles, which were promoted and advertised as Clean Diesel vehicles. Landers Auto was founded in 2001 headquartered in Benton, Arkansas. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of new and used automobiles. Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in Herndon, Virginia. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Allison Koile, Esq. Maryna Jackson, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221 0088 Facsimile: (888) 787 2040 E-mail: allison@sanfordlawfirm.com maryna@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Gail Ponder Gaines, Esq. Mark Evan Stallings, Esq. Michael E. Hale, Esq. BARBER LAW FIRM PLLC 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone (501) 372 6175 Facsimile: (501) 375 2802 E-mail: ggaines@barberlawfirm.com estallings@barberlawfirm.com mhale@barberlawfirm.com WAL-MART CANADA: Recalls Indoor Mini Light Sets ----------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 19, 2015 Posting date: November 19, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items, Tools and Electrical Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fire Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-55902 This recall involves the Holiday Time 100 count Indoor Mini Light Set seasonal lights. The affected product has a length of approximately 6.7 meters (22 feet), has clear bulbs and a green wire. The recalled product has model number HPCA100B/2S, manufacturing date 07/2014, CSA file number 241989 and UPC 628915113020. Consumers can find the model number, manufacturing date and CSA file number on the white tag affixed to the wire and the UPC on the back of the product's packaging. Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined that the seasonal lights may pose an overheating and fire hazard. Neither Health Canada nor Wal-Mart Canada Corp. has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these products. Approximately 104,588 units of the seasonal lights were sold at Walmart Canada retail stores across Canada. The recalled products were sold from October 2014 to October 2015. Manufactured in China. Importer: Wal-Mart Canada Corp. Mississauga Ontario CANADA Manufacturer: Taizhou Hongpeng Colour Lanterns Co. Ltd. Zhejiang CHINA Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled seasonal lights and return them to a Walmart Canada retail store for a full refund. For additional information, contact Wal-Mart Canada Corp. customer service toll-free at 1-800-328-0402 from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. For the complete list of recalls posted as a result of this sampling and evaluation project, visit the Consumer Product Update on seasonal lights. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/c1iWSQ WAL-MART CANADA: Recalls LED Light Sets Due to Fire Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 19, 2015 Posting date: November 19, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items, Tools and Electrical Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fire Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-55906 This recall involves the Holiday Time Multi-Colour 100 LED C6 Light Set of 100 seasonal lights. The affected product has a length of approximately 7.46 meters (24.5 feet), has multi- coloured bulbs and a green wire. The recalled product has model number HPCAL100WCX/2S, manufacturing date 06/2015, CSA file number 241989 and UPC 628915150667. Consumers can find the model number, manufacturing date and CSA file number on the white tag affixed to the wire and the UPC on the back of the product's packaging. Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined that the seasonal lights may pose an overheating and fire hazard. Neither Health Canada nor Wal-Mart Canada Corp. has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these products. Approximately 750 units of the seasonal lights were sold at Walmart Canada retail stores across Canada. The recalled products were sold from September 2015 to November 2015. Manufactured in China. Importer: Wal-Mart Canada Corp. Mississauga Ontario CANADA Manufacturer: Taizhou Hongpeng Colour Lanterns Co. Ltd. Zhejiang CHINA Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled seasonal lights and return them to a Walmart Canada retail store for a full refund. For additional information, contact Wal-Mart Canada Corp. customer service toll-free at 1-800-328-0402 from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. For the complete list of recalls posted as a result of this sampling and evaluation project, visit the Consumer Product Update on seasonal lights. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/04njqC WARNER CHILCOTT: Defending 209 Actonel(R) Injury Cases ------------------------------------------------------ Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Warner Chilcott is a defendant in approximately 209 cases and a potential defendant with respect to approximately 385 unfiled claims involving a total of approximately 602 plaintiffs and potential plaintiffs relating to Warner Chilcott's bisphosphonate prescription drug Actonel(R). The claimants allege, among other things, that Actonel(R) caused them to suffer osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ"), a rare but serious condition that involves severe loss or destruction of the jawbone, and/or atypical fractures of the femur ("AFF"). All of the cases have been filed in either federal or state courts in the United States. Warner Chilcott is in the initial stages of discovery in these litigations. WARNER CHILCOTT: Facing 4 Class Suits Related to Actonel(R) ----------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Warner Chilcott is aware of four purported product liability class actions that were brought against Warner Chilcott in provincial courts in Canada alleging, among other things, that Actonel(R) caused the plaintiffs and the proposed class members who ingested Actonel(R) to suffer atypical fractures or other side effects. It is expected that these plaintiffs will seek class certification. Plaintiffs have typically asked for unspecified monetary and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees. Warner Chilcott is indemnified by Sanofi for certain Actonel claims pursuant to a collaboration agreement relating to the two parties' co-promotion of the product in the United States and other countries. Warner Chilcott is partially indemnified by the Proctor & Gamble Company ("P&G") for ONJ claims that were pending at the time Warner Chilcott acquired P&G's global pharmaceutical business in October 2009. In May and September 2013, Warner Chilcott entered into two settlement agreements which resolved a majority of the then-existing ONJ-related claims which are subject to the acceptance by the individual respective claimants. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and intends to defend these claims vigorously. Warner Chilcott maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. WHOLESOME HARVEST: Recalls Bread Products Due to Spoilage --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 17, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Microbiological - Non harmful (Quality/Spoilage) Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Wholesome Harvest Baking Inc. Distribution: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional CFIA reference number: 10147 Brand name Common Size Code(s) on UPC ---------- name ---- product --- ------ ---------- Wholesome White 9.6 kg Best Before 00 64342- Harvest Baguette June 6, 7, 21501 0 Baking 12 and 13, 2016 Wholesome White 7.9 kg Best Before 1 00 56884- Harvest Baguette June 6, 7, 31022 0 Baking 12 and 13, 2016 Wholesome Par Baked 7.9 kg Best Before 1 00 56884- Harvest Baguette June 6, 7, 31023 7 Baking - Multigrain 12 and 13, 2016 Wholesome Par Baked 7.9 kg Best Before 1 00 56884- Harvest Batard June 11, 2016 31110 4 Baking - White Wholesome Par Baked 6.8 kg Best Before 1 00 56884- Harvest June 11, 2016 32745 7 Baking Wholesome Cara 9 kg Best Before 1 00 56884 Harvest Multigrain June 11, 2016 Baking Dinner Roll Wholesome Cara 7.9 kg Best Before 1 00 56884- Harvest White Dinner June 6, 7, 32744 0 Baking Roll 12 and 13, 2016 Wholesome Maison 8.6 kg Best Before 0 00 64342- Harvest Cousin June 7, 8, 21506 5 Baking White 14, 15 and French 16, 2016 Bread Wholesome 66% Whole 9.6 kg Best Before 0 00 64342- Harvest Wheat June 12, 2016 21502 7 Baking Baguette Wholesome Baguettine 7.3 kg Best Before 0 00 64342- Harvest June 12, 2016 21515 7 Baking WILLIS GROUP: Motion to Dismiss "Troice" Action Pending ------------------------------------------------------- Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company has sought dismissal of the "Troice" class action lawsuit in Texas, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:9- CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among others. On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis Limited as a defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint, arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' claims are precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ('SLUSA'). On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green, Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N. On August 31, 2011, the court issued its decision in Roland, dismissing that action with prejudice under SLUSA. On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i) dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set forth in the Roland decision and (ii) dismissing without prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class Action Complaint on an individual basis. Also on October 27, 2011, the court entered a final judgment in the action. On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice, et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N, which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland decision discussed above and on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of briefing and oral argument. Following the completion of briefing and oral argument, on March 19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the actions. On April 2, 2012, the defendants-appellees filed petitions for rehearing en banc. On April 19, 2012, the petitions for rehearing en banc were denied. On July 18, 2012, defendants-appellees filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court regarding the Fifth Circuit's reversal in Troice. On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted our petition. Opening briefs were filed on May 3, 2013 and the Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 7, 2013. On February 26, 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision. On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to Defer Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f) Conference and For Entry of Scheduling Order. On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action discussed below stipulated to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28, 2014, the Court "so ordered" that stipulation and, thus, consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a). On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs' request to defer resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss, but granted the plaintiffs' request to enter a scheduling order; (b) requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all parties on the defendants' motions to dismiss, which the parties submitted on September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery) on April 20, 2015. On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. On January 30, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the Third Amended Class Action Complaint. On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, the defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed their reply in further support of the motion. Pursuant to an agreed stipulation also filed with the court on April 20, 2015, the defendants on June 4, 2015 filed sur-replies in further opposition to the motion. The Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the motion. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The motion was scheduled to be fully briefed as of November 19, 2015. WILLIS GROUP: Rupert v. Winter Pending in Texas Court ----------------------------------------------------- Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company still faces the case, Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., the Company said in its Form 10- Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rupert, the report said. Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was filed on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933, Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than $300 million, attorneys' fees and costs. On October 20, 2009, certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rupert to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of Rupert to the Northern District of Texas. On January 24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of the court. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay, which motion was denied by the court on September 16, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the stay to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al. action, and the consolidated appeal, was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rupert. WILLIS GROUP: Plaintiffs Did Not Oppose Bid to Dismiss "Casanova" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion to dismiss the case, Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of seven Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On February 13, 2015, the parties filed an Agreed Motion for Partial Dismissal pursuant to which they agreed to the dismissal of certain claims pursuant to the motion to dismiss decisions in the Troice action discussed above and the Janvey action discussed below. Also on February 13, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the complaint in the Casanova action. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion. WILLIS GROUP: Defending Rishmague v. Winter Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company still faces the lawsuit captioned as, Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rishmague, the report said. Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585, was filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors, individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than $37 million and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 11, 2011, certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rishmague to the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On August 8, 2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it is currently pending. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs joined with the plaintiffs in the Rupert action in their motion to lift the court's stay of the Rupert action. On September 9, 2014, the court remanded Rishmague to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of the court and denied the plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the stay to the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rupert action, and the consolidated appeal was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rishmague. WILLIS GROUP: Still Faces MacArthur v. Winter Action ---------------------------------------------------- Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company continues to face the case, MacArthur v. Winter, according to its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in MacArthur. MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed on February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks actual, special, consequential and treble damages of approximately $4 million and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 29, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. (i) removed MacArthur to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action. On April 2, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. filed a motion in the Southern District of Texas to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. Also on April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur in the Southern District of Texas transferred the action to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On September 29, 2014, the parties stipulated to the remand (to Texas state court (Harris County)) and stay of MacArthur until further order of the court (in accordance with the court's September 9, 2014 decision in Rishmague), which stipulation was "so ordered" by the court on October 14, 2014. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in MacArthur. WILLIS GROUP: Defendants Have Yet to Respond in Ranni and Barbar ---------------------------------------------------------------- Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that defendants have not yet responded to the complaints in Ranni or Barbar in Florida. On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were filed against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in Florida state court (Miami-Dade County) alleging violations of Florida common law. The five suits are: (1) Barbar, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05666CA27, filed on behalf of 35 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $30 million; (2) de Gadala-Maria, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05669CA30, filed on behalf of 64 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $83.5 million; (3) Ranni, et ano. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05673CA06, filed on behalf of two Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $3 million; (4) Tisminesky, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05676CA09, filed on behalf of 11 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $6.5 million; and (5) Zacarias, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05678CA11, filed on behalf of 10 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $12.5 million. On June 3, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. removed all five cases to the Southern District of Florida and, on June 4, 2013, notified the JPML of the pendency of these related actions. On June 10, 2013, the court in Tisminesky issued an order sua sponte staying and administratively closing that action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation and coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On June 11, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. moved to stay the other four actions pending the JPML's transfer decision. On June 20, 2013, the JPML issued a conditional transfer order for the transfer of the five actions to the Northern District of Texas, the transmittal of which was stayed for seven days to allow for any opposition to be filed. On June 28, 2013, with no opposition having been filed, the JPML lifted the stay, enabling the transfer to go forward. On September 30, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand in Zacarias, and, on October 3, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motions to remand in Tisminesky and de Gadala Maria. On December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015, the court granted the plaintiffs' motions to remand in Barbar and Ranni, respectively, remanded both actions to Florida state court (Miami-Dade County) and stayed both actions until further order of the court. On January 2, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs in Barbar and Ranni, respectively, appealed the court's December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015 decisions to the Fifth Circuit. On April 22, 2015 and July 22, 2015, respectively, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the Barbar and Ranni appeals sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. |We believe the dismissals were in error and that appeals are likely to be reinstated," the Company said. On April 1, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria for lack of personal jurisdiction. On July 15, 2015, the court dismissed the complaint in Zacarias in its entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On July 21, 2015, the court dismissed the complaints in Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria in their entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On August 6, 2015, the plaintiffs in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria filed amended complaints (in which, among other things, Willis Group Holdings plc was no longer named as a defendant). On September 11, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints. The motions were scheduled to be fully briefed as of November 3, 2015. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaints in Ranni or Barbar. WILLIS GROUP: "Janvey" Action Remains Pending in N.D. Tex. ---------------------------------------------------------- Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., remains pending, according to Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company's Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13- CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 in the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate. The complaint was filed (i) by Ralph S. Janvey, in his capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the Stanford Receivership Estate, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee (the 'OSIC') against all defendants and (ii) on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors against Willis North America Inc. Plaintiffs Janvey and the OSIC allege claims under Texas common law and the court's Amended Order Appointing Receiver, and the putative class plaintiffs allege claims under Texas statutory and common law. Plaintiffs seek actual damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and costs. On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint, which added certain defendants unaffiliated with Willis. On February 28, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which motions were granted in part and denied in part by the court on December 5, 2014. On December 22, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit, and, on December 23, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the court's December 5 order. On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First Amended Complaint. On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis's motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On February 4, 2015, the court granted Willis's motion to amend and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the December 5 order On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and Janvey stipulated to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28, 2014, the Court "so ordered" that stipulation and, thus, consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a). On January 26, 2015, the court entered an order setting a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery) on July 20, 2015. By letter dated March 4, 2015, the parties requested that the court consolidate the scheduling orders entered in Troice and Janvey to provide for a class certification submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases. On March 6, 2015, the court entered an order consolidating the scheduling orders in Troice and Janvey, providing for a class certification submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases, and vacating the July 20, 2015 class certification submission date in the original Janvey scheduling order. WILLIS GROUP: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Merger Case --------------------------------------------------------- Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that five putative class action complaints challenging the merger with Towers Watson were filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, captioned New Jersey Building Laborers' Statewide Annuity Fund v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11270-CB (filed on July 9, 2015), Stein v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11271-CB (filed on July 9, 2015), City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Ganzi, et al., C.A. No. 11275-CB (filed on July 10, 2015), Cordell v. Haley, et al., C.A. No. 11358-CB (filed on July 31, 2015), and Mills v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11423-CB (filed on August 24, 2015). The Stein action was voluntarily dismissed on July 28, 2015. The complaints were filed by purported stockholders of Towers Watson on behalf of a putative class comprised of all Towers Watson stockholders and name as defendants Towers Watson, the members of its board of directors, Willis and Merger Sub. (The various named defendants, to the extent they are stockholders of Towers Watson, are excluded from the putative class.) The complaints generally allege that Towers Watson's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Towers Watson stockholders by agreeing to merge Towers Watson with Willis through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair consideration, and by agreeing to unfair deal protection devices, and that Willis and Merger Sub aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The complaints seek, among other things, to enjoin the Merger. On August 17, 2015, the court consolidated the first three filed actions (the fourth, Mills, had not yet been filed) and any other actions then pending or thereafter filed arising out of the same issues of fact under the caption In re Towers Watson & Co. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 11270-CB. Pursuant to the court's consolidation order, the plaintiffs in the first three filed actions were to designate one of their three complaints as the operative complaint or file a consolidated amended complaint, after which the parties would negotiate a schedule for the defendants to respond. On September 9, 2015, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a verified consolidated amended complaint, which, among other things, added claims for alleged misstatements and omissions in the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed initially on August 27, 2015 in connection with the Merger. On September 17, 2015, they filed a motion for expedited proceedings and a motion for a preliminary injunction, which motions they voluntarily withdrew on October 19, 2015. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in the consolidated action. WYNN LAS VEGAS: "May" Suit Goes to Nevada Dist. Court ----------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled May et al. v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, Case No. A157261, was removed from Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (Las Vegas). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02142 to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law. Wynn Las Vegas develops, owns, and operates destination casino resorts. It operates Wynn Las Vegas/Encore, an integrated destination casino resort on the 'Strip' in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leon Greenberg, Esq. A POROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2965 S. Jones Blvd., Suite E-3 Las Vegas, NV 89146 Telephone: (702) 383 6085 The Defendants are represented by: Scott M. Abbott, Esq. Jen J. Sarafina, Esq Kaitlin H. Ziegler, Esq. KAMER ZUCKER & ABBOTT 3000 West Charleston Blvd. Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (702) 259 8640 Facsimile: (702) 259 8646 E-mail: sabbott@kzalaw.com jsarafina@kzalaw.com kziegler@kzalaw.com YAHOO INC: Settles Class Suit Over Scanning Email ------------------------------------------------- Lisa Vaas, writing for Nakes Security, reports that Yahoo has settled a class action lawsuit over automatically scanning email sent by non-Yahoo Mail customers -- including attachments -- without consent, in order to deliver targeted ads to Mail users. The upshot: Yahoo's going to keep scanning email, but it's tweaking the timing so that it scans only after the email has reached a user's inbox. Outgoing messages will also still continue to be scanned, but only after they show up in the sent folder. The settlement, first spotted by The Recorder, doesn't include payouts to class members, given that the plaintiffs had earlier in the case dropped demands for statutory damages. The plaintiffs do plan to seek a $5,000 service award for each of the four class representatives, according to The Recorder, and the lawyers plan to ask for up to $4 million in fees and costs. The class action lawsuit, which tied together six lawsuits filed in 2013, was given the go-ahead by a US District judge in May 2015. In the settlement posted by Ars Technica, Yahoo agreed that e-mail content will be "only sent to servers for analysis for advertising purposes after a Yahoo Mail user can access the email in his or her inbox." As far as the plaintiffs are concerned, this will bring Yahoo in line with the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). That law was enacted to prohibit wiretapping of any conversation if there's a reasonable expectation that it's not being overheard or recorded. The plaintiffs had also argued that Yahoo violated the Stored Communications Act (SCA) when it tested Google's AdSense for Mail in 2013, as well as the federal Wiretap Act. The SCA addresses voluntary and compelled disclosure of "stored wire and electronic communications and transactional records" held by third-party internet service providers (ISPs). Yahoo, which wasn't found guilty of acting unlawfully, has argued that plaintiffs failed to show lack of consent. The judge found that Yahoo's terms of service agreement explicitly acknowledged Yahoo's scanning, fulfilling the Wiretap Act's requirement that at least one party consent to interception of communications. The settlement refers to Yahoo's changes to system architecture and website -- i.e. that email will be scanned only after it hits an inbox or outbox -- as "significant structural changes." These changes have everything to do with getting square with the laws' restrictions on intercepting email while in transit. But those changes, which also include tweaks to its privacy statement and other online verbiage, don't appear to usher in any changes to the actual privacy implications of Yahoo's habit of scanning email. Thus, it's unclear how the settlement will satisfy the plaintiffs, privacy-wise. Ars Technica points to a redacted September filing (PDF) in which the lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote that Yahoo's "invasion of the privacy of class members constitutes an irreparable injury." Plaintiffs at the time were seeking an injunction that would force Yahoo to stop its scanning without having first secured "consent" and that would require the company to "permanently delete all information it has collected and stored from class members' email without their consent." The plaintiffs have in the past argued that Yahoo could stop scanning email in order to target ads if it wanted to, while still scanning for spam and other abuse. Ars's Joe Mullen questions why the class action lawyers are celebrating a settlement that "will change none of those practices. In fact, it explicitly authorizes them." The reaction of many has been to look to the $4 million those lawyers will be seeking and to wonder whether the actual wronged parties -- non-Yahoo users whose emails were scanned -- should have gotten a payout. But as other internet commenters are pointing out, a class action lawsuit such as this one is more about righting a wrong than scoring a jackpot that's divisible by the number of parties. ZANIMO INC: Recalls Oculex Soin des Yeux Products ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 19, 2015 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Veterinary Drugs Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-56080 Product sold without a valid market authorisation (DIN) Depth of distribution: Retailers and pet stores - Quebec and Ontario Affected products: Oculex Soin des Yeux DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM N/A Dosage form: Eye drops Strength: Eyebright 100 mg/mL Cornflower water 50 mg/mL Rose water 5 mg/mL Witch-hazel 1 mg/mL Lot or serial number: 4I070 5F011 Recalling Firm: Zanimo Inc. 231 chemin du Marais St-Adolphe-d'Howard J0T 2B0 Quebec CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder Not Applicable ********* 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 2016. 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 * * *