/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160208.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, February 8, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 27 Headlines AALMOST THERE: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ADAMS TILE: "Gomez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages AL SIEGEL'S: Faces "Lara" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages AMERIANA BANCORP: "Stein" & "Ewing" Cases Dismissed AMERICAN FAMILY: Sued in Ga. Over Property Insurance Policies AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Direct Customers Appeal Claims Dismissal ARIES SHUTTLE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Ozores" Suit Says ASCENA RETAIL: May 20 Final Hearing of Class Action Settlement ASSISTED CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection AUTOMATED BOOKKEEPER: Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Says BALANS BRICKELL: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach BARNES & NOBLE: Trial to Begin May 3 in "Nguyen" Lawsuit BARNES & NOBLE: 2nd Motion to Dismiss PIN Pad Complaint Pending BARNES & NOBLE: Proceedings in "Lina" Case Remains Stayed BARNES & NOBLE: Proceedings in "Jones" Case Remains Stayed BARNES & NOBLE: "Carag" Suit to Proceed in State Court BEST BUY: Awaits 8th Cir. Ruling on Class Certification Appeal BOB EVANS: Settlement in Snodgrass et al. Cases Has Initial OK BOB WONDRIES: Faces "Meredith" Suit Over Vehicle Pricing Policies BUSINESS INFORMATION: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over FCRA Violation CBE GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hill" Action Claims CHASE RECEIVABLES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Rotberg" Suit Says CHICO'S FAS: To Defend Against "Ackerman" Case CHICO'S FAS: Motion to Dismiss "Altman" Suit Pending CIGNA CORPORATION: MOU Reached in Suit over Anthem Merger CORMEDIX INC: "Li" Suit Remains Pending in N.J. CR BARD: Faces "Ricker" Suit in Penn. Over Defective IVC Filter CSRA INC: "Strauch" Plaintiffs to Submit Cert. Bid in January DEBT RECOVERY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection DEUTSCHE BANK: Illegally Reneges Limit Order Offers, Suit Says DEUTSCHE BANK: Sued Over Failure to Monitor Plan Investments DJM ADVISORY: Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Claims EAGLE EYE: Faces "Tiefenbrun" Suit Over Hydro Mousse Defects FAST AUTO: "Saunders" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages FIFTH STREET FINANCE: Facing 3 Securities Class Actions FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Illegally Collects Debt, "King" Action Claims FRESNO PLUMBING: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime GALENA BIOPHARMA: $20-Mil. Settlement Reached in Securities Case GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Duluth Suit Over Liquid Aluminum Sulfate GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Minneapolis Suit Over Aluminum Sulfate GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces TeeMark Suit Over Liquid Aluminum Sulfate GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Settlement Reached in N.J. Class Suit GREGORY A SANOBA: Illegally Collects Debt, "McGriff" Suit Claims INFORMATION ON: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation INTEL CORP: Faces Workers' Suit in Calif. over ERISA Violations ISG ENTERPRISES: Faces "Yu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime IXIA: $3.5MM Class Action Settlement Hearing Set for Feb. 22 J.B. HUNT: Truck Drivers Sue in Los Angeles Court KALOBIOS PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports KKR FINANCIAL: Del. Supreme Court Affirmed Merger Suit Dismissal LAKELAND BANCORP: MOU Reached in Pascack Merger Suit LIBERTY ACQUISITIONS: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims LIFE CARE: Faces "Robinson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime LIQUID HOLDINGS: "De Vito" Class Action Filed in N.J. LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Butter Chicken Lasagna Due to Bone LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Chickpea Products LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Multigrain Buns Due to Spoilage LODE KING: Recalls 2014, 2015 Trailer Models Due to Injury Risk LTD FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Maslaton" Suit Claims LTP MANAGEMENT: Faces "Camacho" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime LUTRON ELECTRONICS: Recalls Custom-Made Roman Shades LVNV FUNDING: Faces "Coleman" Suit Over Debt Collection Policies LYFT INC: Sent Spam Text Messages, "O'Connor" Action Claims MACOPHARMA: Recalls LCRD2 and MTL1 Filters MAID RITE: Recalls Meat Variety Pack Due to Gluten, Milk & Wheat MAJOR LEAGUE: N.D. Cal. Judge Grants Minor League Discovery Bid MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Palmer" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Sponhaltz" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MCDONALD'S CORP: Defrauds Customers over Cheese Sticks, Suit Says MDL 1917: Best Buy Received $75-Mil. from Case Settlement MDL 1950: Settlements Reached by Remaining Class Suit Parties MEDBOX INC: "Crystal" Case Stayed Pending Settlement Approval MERIDIAN-HENDERSON: Sued in Ohio Over Employment Discrimination MICHAELS COS: Defending Against 38 Claims by Ex-Store Managers MICHAELS COS: Still Defending Suits by Graham et al. MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Odar" Suit Over Debt Collection Policies MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Frankel" Suit Over Collection Policies MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Reich" Suit Over Collection Policies MITSUBISHI: Recalls 2014 & 2015 Vehicle Models Due to Injury Risk MUSCLEPHARM CORP: Falsely Marketed Products, "Dabish" Suit Says MUSCLEPHARM CORP: Faces "Gates" Suit for Misleading Packaging MYHEALTH MEDICAL: "Siegel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime NATIONAL AUTO: Faces "Evans" Suit in N.J. Over Automated Calls NATIONAL PATIENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Moskowitz" Suit Says NEWMAR: Recalls Dutch Star Class A Motorhome 1998 Models NINE ENERGY: Faces "Turner" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime NOVA NATURE: Recalls PlantBaby(R) Rattle Trumpets NYCO CHEMISTS: Faces "Lymberatos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Hearing Held on Demurrers in Merger Suit ORTHO-CLINICAL: Recalls Ortho Vision Analyzers PANTHER WELL: "Stallworth" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages PERFORMANT RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Smith" Suit Claims PINTY'S DELICIOUS: Recalls Chicken Products Due to Milk & Mustard PIONEER CREDIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Goodwin" Suit Says PIONEER CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Goodwin" Action Claims POLARIS: Recalls 2016 ATVs Due to Injury Risk POLARIS: Recalls 600, 800 Model 2015 Switchback Snowmobiles POST HOLDINGS: E.D. Pa. Court Ruled on Bid to Certify Subclasses PRATT INSTITUTE: Sued Over Employment Gender Discrimination PREMIERE GLOBAL: Plaintiff Withdraws Injunction Bid PROFLOW LLC: Faces "Munger" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime PRUDENTIAL RETIREMENT: Faces "Rosen" Suit Over Kickback Payment QUIKSILVER INC: Bankruptcy Stays Securities Class Suits READY BAKE: Recalls Baguette and Ciabatta Due to Spoilage RED SKYE: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Cline" Suit Claims RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Breen" Suit Claims REY PIZZA: Faces "Amat" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages RGS FINANCIAL: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection RIDGE WOOD: Recalls Honey Products RITE AID: Faces "Herring" Suit Over Misleading Proxy Statements ROKA BIOSCIENCE: Parties in N.J. Suit Agree to Mediation RONA INC: Recalls Six-Light and Nine-Light Chandeliers SAKSCO GOURMET: Recalls Baby King(R) Rattle Keys SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Faces False Advertising Suit in Calif. SIGNET JEWELERS: N.Y. Court Vacates Portion of Arbitrator Award SIGNET JEWELERS: 2nd Cir. Denies Petition for En Banc Review SIGNET JEWELERS: Class Cert. Bid in "Tapia" Case Pending SIGNET JEWELERS: Dismissal of Zale Acquisition Claims on Appeal SIMBA TOYS: Recalls Cotoons(R) Keys Rattle Due to Choking Hazard SOLUTIONS 2: Recalls Gaming Headsets Due to Infection Risk SPARK ENERGY: Sued in N.J. Over Excessive Natural Gas Charges STRYKER MEDICAL: Recalls Position Pro Mattress STRYKER ORTHOPEADICS: Recalls Ball MDM and ADM Ball Impactor Tips SUPERCOM LTD: Sued in New York Over Misleading Financial Reports TARGA RESOURCES: Houston Judge Won't Halt Vote on Merger TARGET CORPORATION: Actions Remain Pending over 2013 Data Breach TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hartman" Suit Says UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Doesn't Properly Pay Drivers, Action Says UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Doesn't Properly Pay Drivers, Action Says UGI CORPORATION: Direct Customers Appeal Claims Dismissal ULTA SALON: Class Cert. Ruling in "Moore" under Appeal ULTA SALON: Expects Approval of "Galvez" Accord This Year ULTA SALON: Defending "Paez" Class Suit in California ULTA SALON: Defending Against "Quinby" Class Suit in N.D. Cal. VIOLIN MEMORY: Class Suit over 2013 IPO in Discovery Phase WAL-MART STORES: Supreme Court Appeal in "Braun/Hummel" Pending WAL-MART STORES: ASDA Unit Defending 6,000+ Equal Value Claims WARNER ROBINS: "Lawrence" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages WC BRADLEY: Faces "Zinn" Suit in Fla. Over Defective Gas Grills WORLD OF CHANTILLY: Faces "Alfaro" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT WYNDHAM INTERNATIONAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Says ZICAM LLC: Falsely Marketed Pre-Cold Medicines, Action Claims ********* AALMOST THERE: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Riffence Thomas v. Aalmost There Towing, L.L.C., Case No. 3:15-cv- 00847-JWD-SCR (M.D. Lo., December 18, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Aalmost There Towing, L.L.C. is in the business of providing towing services, jumpstart services, lockout services, tire change services and refueling services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel B. Davis Randall E. Estes ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC 850 North Boulevard Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Telephone: (225) 336-3394 Facsimile: (225) 384-5419 E-mail: dan@estesdavislaw.com ADAMS TILE: "Gomez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Raymundo Gomez and Jesus Espinosa v. Adams Tile & Terrazzo, Inc., Reuben Adams, and Scott Adams, Case No. 3:15-cv-00121-CDL (M.D. Ga., December 21, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate a tile and terrazzo flooring business with its principal place of business at 1101 Old Creek Road, Suite B1, Athens, Georgia 30607. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas F. Martin, Esq. Kimberly N. Martin, Esq. MARTIN & MARTIN, LLP Post Office Box 1070 Tucker, GA 30085-10170 Telephone: (770) 344-7267 Facsimile: (770) 837-2678 E-mail: tfmartinlaw@msn.com kimberlymartinlaw@gmail.com AL SIEGEL'S: Faces "Lara" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Diane Lara v. Al Siegel's Discount Furniture, Inc., Alan Siegel, and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC604884 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 18, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Al Siegel's Discount Furniture, Inc. offers a wide selection of upholstered & wood furniture, mattresses & customized couches. The Plaintiff is represented by: T. Joshua Ritz, Esq. T. JOSHUA RITZ & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW 14724 Ventura Blvd Ste. 510 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-1123 Facsimile: (818) 788-1126 AMERIANA BANCORP: "Stein" & "Ewing" Cases Dismissed --------------------------------------------------- Ameriana Bancorp said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2015, that the class action complaint captioned Shiva Stein v. Ameriana Bancorp, et al., filed under Case No. 49D01-1507-PL-022566 in the Marion Circuit Court, Indiana and the complaint captioned Darrell F. Ewing v. Ameriana Bancorp, et al., filed under Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-01491 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against the Company, its board of directors and First Merchants Corporation, related to the merger of the Company and First Merchants Corporation have been dismissed with prejudice. AMERICAN FAMILY: Sued in Ga. Over Property Insurance Policies ------------------------------------------------------------- Garth Anderson, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. American Family Insurance Company and American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 5:15-cv-00475-CAR (M.D. Ga., December 21, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to assess for diminution in value to their insureds' properties resulting from the water damage and to pay such diminution in value. The Defendants operate an insurance company and maintain their principal place of business at 6000 American Parkway, Madison, Wisconsin 53783. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Kopelman, Esq. Clint W. Sitton, Esq. KOPELMAN SITTON LAW GROUP, LLC 3405 Piedmont Road, N.E., Suite 500 Atlanta, GA 30305 E-mail: clint@kopelmansitton.com richard@kopelmansitton.com - and - Adam P. Princenthal, Esq. PRINCENTHAL & MAY, LLC. 5901 Peachtree Dunwoody Road Building A, Suite 525 Sandy Springs, GA 30328 E-mail: adam@princemay.com - and - C. Cooper Knowles, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF C. COOPER KNOWLES 3405 Piedmont Road, N.E., Suite 500 Atlanta, GA 30305 E-mail: cknowles@cckfirm.com - and - James C. Bradley, Esq. Michael J. Brickman, Esq. Nina Fields Britt, Esq. RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC 1017 Chuck Dawley Blvd. (29464) Post Office Box 1007 Mount Pleasant, SC 29465 E-mail: jbradley@rpwb.com mbrickman@rpwb.com nfields@rpwb.com AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Direct Customers Appeal Claims Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------- Amerigas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that direct customers have filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit over the dismissal of their claims in the class action lawsuit over portable propane cylinders. Between May and October 2014, more than 35 purported class action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by certain of their direct and indirect customers. The class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor colluded, beginning in 2008, to reduce the fill level of portable propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to persuade its common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The claims seek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative classes. On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class action cases to the Western Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. In July 2015, the Court dismissed all claims brought by direct customers and all claims other than those for injunctive relief brought by indirect customers. The direct customers have filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The indirect customers have filed an amended complaint claiming injunctive relief and state law claims under Wisconsin, Maine, and Vermont law. "We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any, arising from such litigation. We believe we have strong defenses to the claims and intend to vigorously defend against them," the Company said. ARIES SHUTTLE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Ozores" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Frankie Ozores and Jonathan Flores, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Aries Shuttle Chicago, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-11485 (N.D. Ill., December 21, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Aries Shuttle Chicago, LLC owns and operates a transportation company in Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 800-1017 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com ASCENA RETAIL: May 20 Final Hearing of Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 1, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 24, 2015, that a court has scheduled a hearing for May 20, 2016, to consider final approval of the settlement of a class action lawsuit related to Justice's promotional practices. The Company is a defendant in a number of class action lawsuits that allege that Justice's promotional practices violated state comparative pricing laws in connection with advertisements promoting a 40% discount. The plaintiffs further allege false advertising, violation of state consumer protection statutes, breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and unfair benefit to Justice. The plaintiffs seek to stop Justice's allegedly unlawful practice, and obtain damages for Justice's customers in the named states. They also seek interest and legal fees. In July 2015, an agreement was reached to settle the lawsuits on a class basis with all Justice customers who made purchases between January 1, 2012 and February 28, 2015 for approximately $50 million, including payments to members of the class, payment of legal fees and expenses of settlement administration. As a result, the Company established a reserve for approximately $50 million during Fiscal 2015. The proposed Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court for preliminary approval on September 24, 2015. As of October 24, 2015, the Company continues to believe that the previously accrued $50 million reflects a liability that is both probable and reasonably estimable. Subsequent to the end of the first quarter, on October 27, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and directed that notice be provided to the class members. The Company paid approximately $50 million into an escrow account on November 16, 2015. The settlement remains subject to an opportunity for class members to object or exclude themselves from the settlement, final approval by the Court after consideration of any objections and a potential appeal. The Court has scheduled a hearing on final approval for May 20, 2016. Once final non-appealable approval is granted, it will resolve all claims in all of the outstanding class actions on behalf of customers who made purchases between January 1, 2012 and February 28, 2015, and any claims for purchases outside that time frame. ASSISTED CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Yang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Assisted Credit Services, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv- 02118-AG-JCG (C.D. Cal., December 19, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Assisted Credit Services, Inc. operates a debt collection company located in Costa Mesa, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Wayne A. Sinnett, Esq. SINNETT LAW, APC. 444 West C Street, Suite 230 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 752-0703 Facsimile: (619) 330-2120 E-mail: ws@sinlegal.com AUTOMATED BOOKKEEPER: Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JWD Automotive, Inc. d/b/a Napa Auto Care of Cape Coral, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. The Automated Bookkeeper, Inc. ezandpaperless.com and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-00794-SPC- MRM (M.D. Fla., December 21, 2015) seeks to put an end to the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles without the recipient's prior express invitation or permission. The Defendants own and operate an accounting services company in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com BALANS BRICKELL: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andres Gomez, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated v. Balans Brickell, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-24617-JAL (S.D. Fla., December 16, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Balans Brickell, LLC operates a restaurant located at 901 S Miami Ave, Miami Beach, FL 33139. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Tse-Hua Ku, Esq. Louis I. Mussman, Esq. KU & MUSSMAN PA 6001 NW 153 Street, Suite 100 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Telephone: (305) 891-1322 Facsimile: (305) 891-4512 E-mail: brian@kumussman.com louis@kumussman.com BARNES & NOBLE: Trial to Begin May 3 in "Nguyen" Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that a trial date of May 3, 2016, has been set in the case, Kevin Khoa Nguyen, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. On April 17, 2012, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for the State of California against the Company. The complaint is styled as a nationwide class action and includes a California state-wide subclass based on alleged cancellations of orders for HP TouchPad Tablets placed on the Company's website in August 2011. The lawsuit alleges claims for unfair business practices and false advertising under both New York and California state law, violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act under California law, and breach of contract. The complaint demands specific performance of the alleged contracts to sell HP TouchPad Tablets at a specified price, injunctive relief, and monetary relief, but does not specify an amount. The Company submitted its initial response to the complaint on May 18, 2012, removing the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and moved to compel plaintiff to arbitrate his claims on an individual basis pursuant to a contractual arbitration provision on May 25, 2012. The Company also moved to dismiss the complaint and moved to transfer the action to New York. The court denied the Company's motion to compel arbitration, and the Company appealed that denial to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court granted the Company's motion to stay on November 26, 2012, and the action had been stayed pending resolution of the Company's appeal from the court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration. On August 18, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Company's motion to compel arbitration. On September 2, 2014, the Company filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On October 14, 2014, the court denied the Company's petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, and on October 23, 2014, the mandate issued returning the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Company then refiled its motion to dismiss the complaint and motion to transfer the action to New York. On February 17, 2015, the court denied the Company's motion to transfer. On June 16, 2015 the court granted-in-part the Company's motion to dismiss to the extent certain California unfair business practices and false advertising claims sought restitution or injunctive relief and denied-in-part the Company's motion to dismiss as to the remaining claims. The surviving claims are for breach of contract under New York law, violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and violation of two New York consumer protection statutes. The parties currently are engaging in discovery. On July 30, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification; the Company's opposition was filed on September 17, 2015 and the court held a hearing on the motion on November 6, 2015. All dates for the case have been scheduled, including a trial date of May 3, 2016. BARNES & NOBLE: 2nd Motion to Dismiss PIN Pad Complaint Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the Company's second motion to dismiss to dismiss an amended complaint in the PIN Pad Litigation remains pending. The Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores had been tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PIN numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals. Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012, the Company was served with four putative class action complaints (three in federal district court in the Northern District of Illinois and one in the Northern District of California), each of which alleged on behalf of national and other classes of customers who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes & Noble Retail stores common law claims such as negligence, breach of contract and invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claims such as violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data breach notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptive practices statutes. The actions sought various forms of relief including damages, injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. All four cases were transferred and/or assigned to a single judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and a single consolidated amended complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, and in September 2013, the Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. The Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint, and the Company filed a second motion to dismiss. That motion is pending. BARNES & NOBLE: Proceedings in "Lina" Case Remains Stayed --------------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that all proceedings in the case, Lina v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al., have been stayed pending appeal. On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of California making the following allegations with respect to salaried Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in California from August 5, 2007 to present: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay for missed meals and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to reimburse for business expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage statements. The claims are generally derivative of the allegation that these salaried managers were improperly classified as exempt from California's wage and hour laws. The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the purported class. The Company was served with the complaint on August 11, 2011. On July 1, 2014 the court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification. The court ruled that plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden to demonstrate common issues predominated over individual issues, that plaintiff was a sufficient class representative, or that a class action was a superior method to adjudicate plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on August 29, 2014. On November 18, 2014, the trial court stayed all proceedings pending appeal. No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-Q Report. BARNES & NOBLE: Proceedings in "Jones" Case Remains Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that all proceedings in the case, Jones et al v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al., have been stayed pending appeal in the related Lina action. On April 23, 2013, Kenneth Jones (Jones) filed a purported Private Attorney General Act action complaint against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of California making the following allegations with respect to salaried Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in California: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay for missed meal and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to provide reimbursement for business expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage statements. The claims are generally derivative of the allegation that Jones and other "aggrieved employees" were improperly classified as exempt from California's wage and hour laws. The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the plaintiff or the purported aggrieved employees. On May 7, 2013, Judge Michael Johnson (before whom the Lina action is pending) ordered the Jones action related to the Lina action and assigned the Jones action to himself. The Company was served with the complaint on May 16, 2013 and answered on June 10, 2013. On November 18, 2014, the court stayed all proceedings pending appeal in the related Lina action. No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-Q Report. BARNES & NOBLE: "Carag" Suit to Proceed in State Court ------------------------------------------------------ Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the case, Cassandra Carag individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, has been remanded to state court. On November 27, 2013, former Associate Store Manager Cassandra Carag (Carag) brought suit in Sacramento County Superior Court, asserting claims on behalf of herself and all other hourly (non- exempt) Barnes & Noble employees in California in the preceding four years for unpaid regular and overtime wages based on alleged off-the-clock work, penalties and pay based on missed meal and rest breaks, and for improper wage statements, payroll records, and untimely pay at separation as a result of the alleged pay errors during employment. Via the complaint, Carag seeks to recover unpaid wages and statutory penalties for all hourly Barnes & Noble employees within California from November 27, 2009 to present. On February 13, 2014, the Company filed an Answer in the state court and concurrently requested removal of the action to federal court. On May 30, 2014, the federal court granted Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court and denied Plaintiff's motion to strike portions of the Answer to the Complaint (referring the latter motion to the lower court for future consideration). No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-Q Report. BEST BUY: Awaits 8th Cir. Ruling on Class Certification Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Best Buy Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the Company's appeal from a class certification order remains pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Company said, "In February 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed against us and certain of our executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. This federal court action alleges, among other things, that we and the officers named in the complaint violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in connection with press releases and other statements relating to our fiscal 2011 earnings guidance that had been made available to the public." "Additionally, in March 2011, a similar purported class action was filed by a single shareholder, Rene LeBlanc, against us and certain of our executive officers in the same court. In July 2011, after consolidation of the IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund and Rene LeBlanc actions, a consolidated complaint captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed and served. "We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in September 2011, and in March 2012, subsequent to the end of fiscal 2012, the court issued a decision dismissing the action with prejudice. In April 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the court's decision on our motion to dismiss. In October 2012, the court granted plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the court's decision on our motion to dismiss in part by vacating such decision and giving plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, which plaintiff did in October 2012. "We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in November 2012 and all responsive pleadings were filed in December 2012. A hearing was held on April 26, 2013. On August 5, 2013, the court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss in part and, contrary to its March 2012 order, denying the motion to dismiss in part, holding that certain of the statements alleged to have been made were not forward-looking statements and therefore were not subject to the "safe-harbor" provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). Plaintiffs moved to certify the purported class. "By Order filed August 6, 2014, the court certified a class of persons or entities who acquired Best Buy common stock between 10:00 a.m. EDT on September 14, 2010, and December 13, 2010, and who were damaged by the alleged violations of law. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals granted our request for interlocutory appeal. Oral argument was held in October 2015, and we await a decision. "The trial court has stayed proceedings while the appeal is pending. We continue to believe that these allegations are without merit and intend to vigorously defend our company in this matter." BOB EVANS: Settlement in Snodgrass et al. Cases Has Initial OK -------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Evans Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 2, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 23, 2015, that a settlement agreement executed by parties in the Snodgrass, Utterback and Mackin litigation has received preliminary Court approval. In August 2012, a former Bob Evans Restaurant employee filed an action against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, styled David Snodgrass v. Bob Evans Farms, LLC, Case No. 2:12-cvg-00768 ("Snodgrass"). The lead plaintiff alleged that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant managers as exempt employees and failing to pay overtime compensation during the period of time the employee worked as an assistant manager. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of alleged back wages, liquidated damages, statutory damages and attorneys' fees. The lead plaintiff sought to maintain the suit as a collective action on behalf of other similarly situated assistant managers employed at Bob Evans Restaurants between August 2009 and present. In December 2013, the Court in Snodgrass granted conditional certification of those assistant managers that elected to opt-in to the collective action. In May 2014, the same plaintiffs' counsel in the Snodgrass matter filed essentially duplicative claims under the overtime laws of the State of Ohio and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, styled Utterback v. Bob Evans Farms, LLC Case No. CV14826909 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio ("Utterback") and Mackin v. Bob Evans Farms, LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-450 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ("Mackin"), respectively. Neither the Utterback nor Mackin proceedings have been certified for class status at this time. "While we continue to believe that our assistant managers were properly classified as exempt from the respective Federal and State overtime requirements and that we have meritorious defenses to the claims in each of the Snodgrass, Utterback and Mackin matters, as previously reported in our Annual Report in Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 24, 2015, in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2015 we received an unfavorable ruling related to the Snodgrass litigation and determined a settlement of all three matters was in the best interest of the Company," the Company said. In June 2015, counsel for all parties attended the second mediation in the Snodgrass matter in an attempt to resolve each of the Snodgrass, Utterback and Mackin litigation matters. On July 31, 2015, the Company and counsel for the plaintiffs reached an agreement in principle to resolve all claims presented in the Snodgrass, Mackin and Utterback cases for the total sum of up to $16,500 on a claims made basis. A Settlement Agreement was executed by the parties on October 2, 2015, and the Court provided preliminary approval on October 23, 2015. BOB WONDRIES: Faces "Meredith" Suit Over Vehicle Pricing Policies ----------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Meredith, an individual, and on behalf of himself and all otllers similarly situated v. Bob Wondries Associates, Inc., d/b/a Wondries Toyota, et al., Case No. EC064832 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 18, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, specifically by selling vehicles for more than the advertised price thereby charging a higher price to a credit customer than a cash customer. Bob Wondries Associates, Inc. is engaged in the business of buying, repairing and re-selling used vehicles to the general public, and, taking vehicles in trade. The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis A. Liberty, Esq. LOUIS LIBERTY & ASSOCIATES 553 Pilgrim Drive, Suite A Foster City, CA 94404 Telephone: (650) 341-0300 Facsimile: (650) 403-1783 E-mail: lou@carlawyer.com BUSINESS INFORMATION: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over FCRA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Kelly, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Business Information Group, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv- 06668-CDJ (E.D. Pa., December 17, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Business Information Group, Inc. operates an information technology services firm in south central Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. KELLY & CRANDALL PC 4084 University Dr. Suite 202A Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com - and - Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES PC 763 J Clyde Morris Blvd Ste 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC Land Title Bldg 19th Fl., 100 S. Broad St. Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com CBE GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hill" Action Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Drew Hill, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The CBE Group Incorporated, Case No. 3:15-cv-02868-H-JLB (S.D. Cal., December 18, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls to consumers' wireless telephone without prior express consent. The CBE Group Incorporated provides accounts receivable management and debt collection services for clients in the education, financial, and healthcare. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patric Alexander Lester, Esq. LESTER AND ASSOCIATES 5694 Mission Center Road, Suite 358 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 665-3888 Facsimile: (314) 241-5777 E-mail: pl@lesterlaw.com CHASE RECEIVABLES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Rotberg" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Shoshana Rotberg, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Chase Receivables and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15- cv-08715 (D.N.J., December 17, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Chase Receivables operates as the debt collector for Verizon. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Gideon Kelsen, Esq. 1415 Queen Anne Road, Suite 206 Teaneck, NJ 07666 Telephone: (201) 692-0073 Facsimile: (201) 692-0151 E-mail: bgkelsen@kelsenlaw.com CHICO'S FAS: To Defend Against "Ackerman" Case ---------------------------------------------- Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the Company intends to vigorously defend against the case, Ackerman v. Chico's FAS, Inc. In June 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative representative Private Attorney General action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Ackerman v. Chico's FAS, Inc. The Complaint attempts to allege numerous violations of California law related to wages, meal periods, rest periods, wage statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses, among other things. The Company denies the material allegations of the Complaint and filed its Answer on July 27, 2015. The Company believes that the case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend. As a result, the Company does not believe that the case should have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results of operations. CHICO'S FAS: Motion to Dismiss "Altman" Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------- Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the Company's motin to dismiss the case, Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., remains pending. In July 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in July 2015 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc. The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of federal law, published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number or an expiration date on customers' receipts. The Company denies the material allegations of the complaint and filed a motion to dismiss on September 9, 2015, which is pending. The Company believes that the case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend. As a result, the Company does not believe that the case should have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results of operations. CIGNA CORPORATION: MOU Reached in Suit over Anthem Merger --------------------------------------------------------- Cigna Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2015, that a Memorandum of Understanding has been reached among parties in litigation relating to the merger with Anthem Inc. Putative class action lawsuits were filed by purported Cigna shareholders on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. Five of the actions, Leach v. Cigna Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 11354-CB, Copelli v. Cordani, et al., Civil Action No. 11373-CB, Patel v. Cigna Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 11377-CB, Messenger v. Cigna Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 11383-CB and Litwin v. Cigna Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 11396-CB (collectively, the "Delaware Actions") were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. A sixth action, Solak v. Cordani, et al., Civil Action No. HHD-CV-15-6061337-S (together with the Delaware Actions, the "Cigna Merger Litigation"), was filed in the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford (the "Connecticut Court" or the "Court"). The Cigna Merger Litigation relates to an agreement and plan of merger dated July 23, 2015 (the "Merger Agreement"), among Anthem Inc. ("Anthem"), Anthem Merger Sub Corporation ("Merger Sub") and Cigna, pursuant to which Cigna will merge with and into Merger Sub (the "Merger"). Effective November 24, 2015, solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the Company, the Company's directors, Anthem and Merger Sub entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") to settle the Cigna Merger Litigation. The MOU resolves the Cigna Merger Litigation, subject to further definitive documentation in a stipulation of settlement, and provides that the Company will make the supplemental disclosures. The stipulation of settlement contemplated by the parties will contain customary conditions, including, among other things, Court approval following notice to the Company's shareholders. If the Court approves the settlement, the Cigna Merger Litigation will be dismissed with prejudice and all claims that were or could have been brought in any actions challenging any aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement and any related disclosures will be released. In connection with the settlement, subject to the ultimate determination of the Court, plaintiffs' counsel may receive an award of reasonable fees. This payment will not affect the amount of the consideration to be received by any Company shareholder in the Merger. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, or that the Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. The MOU may terminate, if, among other reasons, the Court does not approve the settlement or the Merger is not consummated for any reason. CORMEDIX INC: "Li" Suit Remains Pending in N.J. ----------------------------------------------- A putative class action lawsuit against Cormedix Inc. remains pending, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. On July 7, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Li v. Cormedix Inc., et al., Case 3:15-cv-05264. The complaint asserts claims that the Company and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiff alleges generally that the defendants made materially false or misleading statements and omissions concerning, among other things, the Company's Neutrolin product, the alleged use of stock promoters and alleged sales of stock by Company insiders. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. The Company believes that it has substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims in the class action and intends to vigorously defend the case. CR BARD: Faces "Ricker" Suit in Penn. Over Defective IVC Filter --------------------------------------------------------------- Bradley Ricker v. C.R. Bard, Inc., Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 1:15-cv-02453-JEJ (M.D. Penn., December 21, 2015) is an action for personal injuries as a direct and proximate result of being implanted with a defective and unreasonably dangerous Inferior Vena Cava ("IVC") filter medical device manufactured by Bard. The Defendants own and operate a company that develops, manufactures, and markets medical technologies in the fields of vascular, urology, oncology, and surgical specialties. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carrie R. Capouellez, Esquire LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP 1123 Admiral Peary Way, Quarters K Philadelphia, PA 19112 Telephone: (215) 952-6910 E-mail: ccapouellez@lopezmchugh.com CSRA INC: "Strauch" Plaintiffs to Submit Cert. Bid in January ------------------------------------------------------------- CSRA Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 2, 2015, that the plaintiffs in the Strauch et al. Fair Labor Standards Act class action were slated to submit a motion for class certification in January 2016. On July 1, 2014, plaintiffs filed Strauch and Colby v. Computer Sciences Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, a putative nationwide class action alleging that CSC violated provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") with respect to system administrators who worked for CSC at any time from June 1, 2011 to the present. Plaintiffs claim that CSC improperly classified its system administrators as exempt from the FLSA and that CSC therefore owes them overtime wages and associated relief available under the FLSA and various statutes, including the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, California Labor Code, California Wage Order No. 4-2001, and the California Private Attorneys General Act. The relief sought by plaintiffs includes unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, damages in the amount of twice the unpaid overtime wages due, and civil penalties. CSC's position is that its system administrators have the job duties, responsibilities, and salaries of exempt employees and are properly classified as exempt from overtime compensation requirements. CSC's Motion to Transfer Venue was denied in February 2015. On June 9, 2015, the Court entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the class of system administrators. The Strauch putative class includes more than 6,400 system administrators, of whom 2,921 are employed by us and the remainder of whom are employed by CSC. Courts typically undertake a two-stage review in determining whether a suit may proceed as a class action under the FLSA. In its order, the Court noted that, as a first step, the Court examines pleadings and affidavits, and if it finds that proposed class members are similarly situated, the class is conditionally certified. Potential class members are then notified and given an opportunity to opt in to the action. The second step of the class certification analysis occurs upon completion of discovery. At that point, the Court will examine all evidence then in the record to determine whether there is a sufficient basis to conclude that the proposed class members are similarly situated. If it is determined that they are, the case will proceed to trial; if it is determined they are not, the class is decertified and only the individual claims of the purported class representatives proceed. The Business's position in this litigation continues to be that the employees identified as belonging to the conditional class were paid in accordance with the FLSA. Plaintiffs are filing an amended complaint to add additional plaintiffs and allege violations under Missouri and North Carolina wage and hour laws. "We do not believe these additional claims differ materially from those in the original complaint," the Company said. "The next stage in the litigation will be a motion for class certification, which is currently due from plaintiffs in January 2016." DEBT RECOVERY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection --------------------------------------------------------------- Kristene Kershaw and Sophia Brister, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Debt Recovery Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-07268-CBA-SMG (E.D.N.Y., December 21, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Debt Recovery Solutions, LLC is a Westbury, N.Y.-based debt collection company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward B. Geller, Esq. EDWARD B. GELLER, ESQ., P.C. 15 Landing Way Bronx, NY 10464 Telephone: (914) 473-6783 Facsimile: (111) 111-1111 E-mail: epbh@aol.com DEUTSCHE BANK: Illegally Reneges Limit Order Offers, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Axiom Investment Advisors, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Deutsche Bank AG, Case No. 1:15-cv-09945-LGS (S.D.N.Y., December 21, 2015) is an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's practice of reneging on its limit orders offered through its own and third-party electronic trading platforms. Deutsche Bank AG is a German global banking and financial services company with its headquarters in the Deutsche Bank Twin Towers in Frankfurt. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Burke, Esq. Walter W. Noss, Esq. Kristen M. Anderson, Esq. Kate Lv, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 707 Broadway, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com wnoss@scott-scott.com kanderson@scott-scott.com klv@scott-scott.com - and - David R. Scott, Esq. Sylvia Sokol, Esq. Thomas K. Boardman, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10174-4099 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com ssokol@scott-scott.com tboardman@scott-scott.com - and - George A. Zelcs, Esq. Robert E. Litan, Esq Randall P. Ewing Jr., Esq. KOREIN TILLERY LLC 205 North Michigan Plaza, Suite 1950 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 641-9750 Facsimile: (312) 641-9751 E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com rlitan@koreintillery.com rewing@koreintillery.com - and - Stephen M. Tillery, Esq. Robert L. King, Esq. Aaron M. Zigler, Esq. Michael E. Klenov, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY LLC 505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-4844 Facsimile: (314) 241-3525 E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com rking@koreintillery.com azigler@koreintillery.com mklenov@koreintillery.com - and - Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. Reena A. Gambhir, Esq. Jeannine M. Keeney, Esq. HAUSFELD, LLP 1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com rgambhir@hausfeld.com jkenney@hausfeld.com - and - Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq. Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. HAUSFELD, LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: bsweeney@hausfeld.com mlehmann@hausfeld.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Bart D. Cohen, Esq. Bradley J. Demuth, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 570 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 702-7053 Facsimile: (212) 681-0300 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com bcohen@nussbaumpc.com bdemuth@nussbaumpc.com DEUTSCHE BANK: Sued Over Failure to Monitor Plan Investments ------------------------------------------------------------ Ramon Moreno and Donald O'Halloran, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Deutsche Bank Matched Savings Plan v. Deutsche Bank Americas Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-09936-LGS (S.D.N.Y., December 21, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to monitor the Plan's investments to ensure that each of the Plan's investments remained prudent. Headquartered in New York City, Deutsche Bank Americas Holding Corp. provides the funding for the Plan while allocating the cost to other American Deutsche Bank entities based upon their headcount. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michele R. Fisher, Esq. Kai H. Richter, Esq. Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. John G. Albanese, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 S 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: fisher@nka.com krichter@nka.com cengstrom@nka.com jalbanese@nka.com DJM ADVISORY: Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------ JWD Automotive, Inc. d/b/a Napa Auto Care of Cape Coral, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. DJM Advisory Group LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv- 00793-JES-MRM (M.D. Fla., December 21, 2015) seeks to put an end to the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles. DJM Advisory Group LLC operates an insurance company with its principal place of business in Mahopac, NY. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com EAGLE EYE: Faces "Tiefenbrun" Suit Over Hydro Mousse Defects ------------------------------------------------------------ Yossi Tiefenbrun, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Eagle Eye Marketing Group, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02842-CAB-KSC (S.D. Cal., December 17, 2015) is an action for damages as a result of the inherent defect in the Hydro Mousse product and the Defendant's failure to disclose the defect to consumers. Eagle Eye Marketing Group, Inc. is a Canadian home furnishing company that operates from one or more locations in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Elliot Adler, Esq. Brittany S. Zummer, Esq. ADLER LAW GROUP, APLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 531-8700 E-mail: EAdler@theadlerfirm.com BZummer@theadlerfirm.com FAST AUTO: "Saunders" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Keyeanna Saunders, suing individually and by and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Fast Auto Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02624-WBS-CKD (E.D. Cal., December 18, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Fast Auto Loans, Inc. provides consumer loan services to its customers in the State of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Mastagni, Esq. Isaac S. Stevens, Esq. Jeffrey R. A. Edwards, Esq. David L. Kruckenberg, Esq. MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT A Professional Corporation 1912 "I" Street Sacramento, CA 95811-3151 Telephone: (916) 446-4692 Facsimile: (916) 447-4614 E-mail: dmastagni@mastagni.com FIFTH STREET FINANCE: Facing 3 Securities Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Street Finance Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 1, 2015, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that the Corporation has been named as a defendant in three putative securities class- action lawsuits. The first lawsuit was filed on October 1, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and is captioned Howard Randall, Trustee, Howard & Gale Randall Trust FBO Kimberly Randall Irrevocable Trust UA Feb 15, 2000 v. Fifth Street Finance Corp., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-07759. The second lawsuit was filed on October 14, 2015, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and is captioned Lynn Waters- Cottrell v. Fifth Street Finance Corp., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv- 01488. The third lawsuit was filed on November 12, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and is captioned Robert J. Hurwitz v. Fifth Street Finance Corp., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08908. The defendants in all three cases are Leonard M. Tannenbaum, Bernard D. Berman, Alexander C. Frank, Todd G. Owens, Ivelin M. Dimitrov, and Richard Petrocelli (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"), Fifth Street Finance Corp. and Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. ("FSAM"). Fifth Street Finance said, "The lawsuits allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased our common stock between July 7, 2014, and February 6, 2015, inclusive. The lawsuits allege in general terms that defendants engaged in a purportedly fraudulent scheme designed to artificially inflate the true value of our investment portfolio and investment income in order to increase FSAM's revenue, which FSAM received as our asset manager and investment adviser. For example, the lawsuits allege that we improperly delayed the write-down of five of our investments until the fiscal quarter ending in December 31, 2014, after FSAM conducted its Initial Public Offering ("IPO") in October 2014, when we should have taken the write-down before FSAM's IPO. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of damages being sought in any of the actions." "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against the plaintiff's allegations. Neither the outcome of the lawsuits nor an estimate of any reasonable possible losses is determinable at this time. No provisions for any losses related to the lawsuits have been recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial statements as of September 30, 2015. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have a material adverse effect on our operations and liquidity." FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Illegally Collects Debt, "King" Action Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christine King, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Financial Business and Consumer Solutions Incorporated d/b/a FBCS Incorporated, Midland Credit Management Incorporated, and Midland Funding LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00582-JAS (D. Ariz., December 15, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The Defendants own and operate a debt collection firm in Arizona. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Michael Panvini, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC 5235 E Southern Ave., Ste. D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone: (602) 388-8898 Facsimile: (866) 317-2674 E-mail: tclg@consumerlawinfo.com - and - Russell Snow Thompson , IV THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC 5235 E Southern Ave., Ste. D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone: (602) 388-8898 Facsimile: (866) 565-1327 E-mail: tclg@consumerlawinfo.com FRESNO PLUMBING: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Reyes, William Eric Nunemaker, and Jose Luis Gonzalez Jr., on their own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated workers v. Fresno Plumbing & Heating, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-05935 (N.D. Cal., December 21, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Fresno Plumbing & Heating, Inc. owns and operates a plumbing company located at 2585 N Larkin Ave, Fresno, CA 93727. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tomas E. Margain, Esq. JUSTICE AT WORK LAW GROUP 84 W. Santa Clara St., Ste. 790 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 317-1100 Facsimile: (408) 351-0105 E-mail: Tomas@JAWLawGroup.Com GALENA BIOPHARMA: $20-Mil. Settlement Reached in Securities Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Galena Biopharma, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, that the Company on December 3, 2015, agreed in principal to resolve and settle the securities putative class action lawsuit, In re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv- 00367-SI, pending against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and other defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. The agreement, which is subject to shareholder notice and Court approval, provides for a settlement payment of $20 million to the class and the dismissal of all claims against the Company and the current and former officers and directors in connection with the consolidated federal securities class actions. Of the $20 million settlement payment to the class: -- $16.7 million will be paid by the Company's insurance carriers under the insurance policies, and -- $3.3 million will be paid by the Company through a combination of: * $2.3 million in cash, and * $1 million in shares of the Company's common stock. The Company will be responsible for defense costs and any settlements or judgments incurred for any related opt out lawsuits. GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Duluth Suit Over Liquid Aluminum Sulfate ---------------------------------------------------------------- City of Duluth, Minnesota, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Chemical Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-04435-RHK-LIB (D. Minn., December 21, 2015) arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to circumvent competitive bidding and independent pricing for liquid aluminum sulfate contracts and to submit artificially inflated bids. General Chemical Corporation maintained Alum manufacturing and distribution facilities throughout the United States and was a leading manufacturer and supplier of water treatment chemicals, including Alum. The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. Charles N. Nauen, Esq. Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq. Brian D. Clark, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com cnnauen@locklaw.com hmsilton@locklaw.com erodette@locklaw.com bdclark@locklaw.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Joshua J. Rissman, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street #2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com jrissman@gustafsongluek.com - and - Bruce L. Simon, Esq. Alexander R. Safyan, Esq. PEARSON SIMON WARSHAW LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94104-4610 Telephone: (415) 433-9000 Facsimile: (415 433-9008 E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com asafyan@pswlaw.com - and - K. Craig Wildfang, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 800 LaSalle Ave., Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 349-8500 Facsimile: (612) 339-4181 E-mail: KCWildfang@RobinsKaplan.com GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Minneapolis Suit Over Aluminum Sulfate -------------------------------------------------------------- City of Minneapolis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Chemical Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-04434-MJD-TNL (D. Minn., December 21, 2015) arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to circumvent competitive bidding and independent pricing for liquid aluminum sulfate contracts and to submit artificially inflated bids. General Chemical Corporation maintained Alum manufacturing and distribution facilities throughout the United States and was a leading manufacturer and supplier of water treatment chemicals, including Alum. The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. Charles N. Nauen, Esq. Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq. Brian D. Clark, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com cnnauen@locklaw.com hmsilton@locklaw.com erodette@locklaw.com bdclark@locklaw.com GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces TeeMark Suit Over Liquid Aluminum Sulfate ----------------------------------------------------------------- TeeMark Corporation individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Chemical Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-04438-DWF-LIB (D. Minn., December 21, 2015) arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to circumvent competitive bidding and independent pricing for liquid aluminum sulfate contracts and to submit artificially inflated bids. General Chemical Corporation maintained Alum manufacturing and distribution facilities throughout the United States and was a leading manufacturer and supplier of water treatment chemicals, including Alum. The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. Charles N. Nauen, Esq. Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq. Brian D. Clark, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com cnnauen@locklaw.com hmsilton@locklaw.com erodette@locklaw.com bdclark@locklaw.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Joshua J. Rissman, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street #2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com jrissman@gustafsongluek.com - and - Bruce L. Simon, Esq. Alexander R. Safyan, Esq. PEARSON SIMON WARSHAW LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94104-4610 Telephone: (415) 433-9000 Facsimile: (415 433-9008 E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com asafyan@pswlaw.com - and - K. Craig Wildfang, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 800 LaSalle Ave., Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 349-8500 Facsimile: (612) 339-4181 E-mail: KCWildfang@RobinsKaplan.com GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Settlement Reached in N.J. Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Gramercy Property Trust Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2015, that the parties to a merger class action lawsuit in New Jersey have entered into a Stipulation of Settlement providing for the settlement of the New Jersey Action. On July 1, 2015, Gramercy Property Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation ("Gramercy"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Chambers Street Properties, a Maryland real estate investment trust ("Chambers"), and Columbus Merger Sub, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company and indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Chambers ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Gramercy is expected to be merged with and into Merger Sub (the "Merger"), with Merger Sub continuing as the surviving entity of the Merger. On December 7, 2015, Chambers, Merger Sub and Gramercy entered into the Second Amendment ("Amendment No. 2") to the Merger Agreement. Amendment No. 2 reduces from five (5) business days to three (3) business days, the time period available to Chambers or Gramercy, as applicable, to submit an adjusted proposal in the event a qualifying superior offer is received by Chambers or Gramercy, as applicable, prior to receipt of the Chambers or Gramercy shareholder approval, as applicable. On October 1, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County by a purported shareholder of Chambers. The action, captioned Elstein v. Chambers Street Properties et al., Docket No. L-002254-15, names as defendants Chambers, the Chambers Board and Gramercy (the "New Jersey Action"). On December 3, 2015, the parties to the New Jersey Action entered into a Stipulation of Settlement providing for the settlement of the New Jersey Action. While the defendants in the New Jersey Action continue to vigorously deny all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability or damage to any of the plaintiffs or the class of shareholders of Chambers, and believe that no supplemental disclosure is required under the applicable law, in order to (i) avoid the burden, inconvenience, expense and distraction of further litigation in connection with the New Jersey Action, (ii) finally put to rest and terminate all of the claims that were or could have been asserted against the defendants in the New Jersey Action and (iii) permit the Merger to proceed without risk of the Superior Court of New Jersey ordering an injunction or damages in connection with the New Jersey Action, Chambers and Gramercy have agreed, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger. The Stipulation of Settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to the Chambers shareholders. A hearing will be scheduled at which the New Jersey Superior Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims by shareholders of Chambers challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith, including in the Definitive Proxy Statement, pursuant to terms that will be set forth in the notice sent to Chambers' shareholders prior to final approval of the settlement. GREGORY A SANOBA: Illegally Collects Debt, "McGriff" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rhondalyn McGriff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Gregory A. Sanoba, P.A. d/b/a The Sanoba Law Firm, and Gregory A Sanoba, Case No. 2:15-cv-14434-RLR (S.D. Fla., December 18, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Gregory A. Sanoba, P.A. operates a law firm in Lakeland, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: S. Keley Jacobson, Esq. Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq. DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C. 5070 A1A Suite D Vero Beach, FL 34963 Telephone: (772) 231-9600 Facsimile: (772) 231-0300 E-mail: jacobson@verobeachlegal.com lwd@verobeachlegal.com INFORMATION ON: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Sharon Crosby, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Information On Demand Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00089 (N.D. Ga., January 12, 2016) is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Information On Demand Inc. owns and operates a background screening company in Blairsville, Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Scott Fortas, Esq. FORTAS LAW GROUP, LLC Suite 100B, 1934-B N. Druid Hills Road Atlanta, GA 30319 Telephone: (404) 315-9936 Facsimile: (404) 636-5418 E-mail: sfortas@fortaslaw.com INTEL CORP: Faces Workers' Suit in Calif. over ERISA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Intel cost its workers tens of millions of dollars by investing their retirement funds in ill- chosen, risky and poorly performing hedge funds and other vehicles, a worker claims in an ERISA class action in federal court in San Jose, California. ISG ENTERPRISES: Faces "Yu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Xue Xiang Yu, Qi Zhong Chen, and He Lin, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. ISG Enterprises Inc. d/b/a Sushi Sushi, ABC Corporation d/b/a Sushi Sushi, Igor Grinberg, John Doe, and Jane Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-09888-JPO (S.D.N.Y., December 21, 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 Japanese restaurant located at 54 Tiemann Place, New York, New York 10027. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Isabella, Esq. Benjamin B. Xue, Esq. XUE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1001 Avenue of the Americas, 11th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 219-2275 E-mail: robertisabella@xuelaw.com benjaminxue@xuelaw.com IXIA: $3.5MM Class Action Settlement Hearing Set for Feb. 22 ------------------------------------------------------------ IXIA said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 1, 2015, that the Company entered into: (A) a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated November 17, 2015, relating to the proposed settlement of the consolidated shareholder derivative action, captioned In re Ixia Shareholder Derivative Litigation, that is pending against the Company, as a nominal defendant, and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Derivative Action Settlement Agreement would resolve all of the claims asserted against the defendants in the Derivative Action and is subject to the Court's preliminary and final approval. (B) entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated November 11, 2015, relating to the proposed settlement of the purported securities class action, captioned Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System and Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System v. Ixia, Victor Alston, Atul Bhatnagar, Thomas B. Miller, and Errol Ginsberg, that is pending in the Court against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The Class Action Settlement Agreement would resolve all of the claims asserted against the defendants in the Class Action and is subject to the Court's preliminary and final approval. The Derivative Action Settlement Agreement implements the agreement in principle to settle the Derivative Action that was entered into in July 2015 and disclosed by the Company in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on August 3, 2015. The Derivative Action Settlement Agreement provides, among other terms, for the Company to implement certain corporate governance measures and for the plaintiffs' counsel to apply to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount not to exceed $575,000. The Company expects that any fees and expenses awarded by the Court to the plaintiffs' counsel would be paid by one of the Company's insurance carriers. The Derivative Action Settlement Agreement does not include any admission of wrongdoing or liability on the part of the Company or the individual defendants and provides for a dismissal of, and a release of all claims asserted against the defendants in, the Derivative Action. The Class Action Settlement Agreement implements the agreement in principle to settle the Class Action that was entered into in August 2015 and disclosed by the Company in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on August 28, 2015. The Class Action Settlement Agreement provides, among other terms, for a settlement payment of $3.5 million, which the Company expects would be paid in full by one of the Company's insurance carriers. The Class Action Settlement Agreement does not include any admission of wrongdoing or liability on the part of the Company or the individual defendants and provides for a dismissal of, and a release of all claims asserted against the defendants in, the Class Action. Hearings for the Court to consider the preliminary approval of the Derivative Action Settlement Agreement and the Class Action Settlement Agreement have been noticed to be held on February 22, 2016. A copy of the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated November 17, 2015, by and among Erie County Employees' Retirement Fund, Colleen Witmer, the Company, Victor Alston, Atul Bhatnagar, Thomas B. Miller, Errol Ginsberg, Jonathan Fram, Laurent Asscher, Gail Hamilton, Jon F. Rager, Alan Grahame, Raymond de Graaf, Walker H. Colston II, and Ronald W. Buckly, is available at: http://is.gd/flhtya A copy of the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated November 11, 2015, by and among Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System, Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, Victor Alston, Atul Bhatnagar, Thomas B. Miller, Errol Ginsberg, and the Company, is available at: http://is.gd/0F6AFx The class action is captioned as, OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION & RETIREMENT SYSTEM and OKLAHOMA LAW ENFORCEMENT RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. IXIA, VICTOR ALSTON, ATUL BHATNAGAR, THOMAS B. MILLER, and ERROL GINSBERG, Defendants, Case No. CV13-08440-MMM (SH)(C.D. Cal.). Judge Margaret M. Morrow oversees the case. Lead Counsel Designee is: James J. Sabella, Esq. Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Defendants' Counsel Designees are: Eric Rieder, Esq. Bryan Cave LLP 1290 Avenue of the Americas, 35th Floor New York, NY 10104 - and - Christopher Caldwell, Esq. Caldwell Leslie & Proctor, PC 725 Figueroa Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 - and - Sheldon Eisenberg, Esq. Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1800 Century Park East, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 The Ixia Securities Litigation Settlement administrator is: Angeion Group 1801 Market Street, Suite 660 Philadelphia, PA 19103 J.B. HUNT: Truck Drivers Sue in Los Angeles Court ------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that truck drivers accuse J.B. Hunt of minimum wage and other Labor Code violations, in a class action in Los Angeles Superior Court. KALOBIOS PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kang Li, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kalobios Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Martin Shkreli, and Herb C. Cross, Case No. 5:15-cv-05841-EJD (N.D. Cal., December 18, 2015) alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Kalobios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that develops monoclonal antibody therapeutics to combat diseases. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com lportnoy@glancylaw.com lportnoy@glancylaw.com KKR FINANCIAL: Del. Supreme Court Affirmed Merger Suit Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- KKR Financial Holdings LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware has affirmed the Delaware Court of Chancery's dismissal of a class action lawsuit related to a merger transaction. From December 19, 2013 to January 31, 2014, multiple putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, the United States District Court of the District of Northern California, and the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by KFN shareholders against KFN, the then individual members of KFN's board of directors, KKR & Co., and certain of KKR & Co.'s affiliates in connection with KFN's entry into a merger agreement pursuant to which it would become a subsidiary of KKR & Co. The Merger Transaction was completed on April 30, 2014. The actions filed in California state court were consolidated, and prior to the filing or designation of an operative complaint for the consolidated action, the consolidated action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on December 1, 2014. The complaint filed in the California federal court action, which was never served on the defendants, was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on May 6, 2014. Of the Delaware actions, two were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, and the remaining Delaware actions were consolidated. On February 21, 2014, a consolidated complaint was filed in the consolidated Delaware action which all defendants moved to dismiss on March 7, 2014. On October 14, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice. On November 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, the oral argument for which was held on September 16, 2015. On October 2, 2015, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed the Delaware Court of Chancery's dismissal. The consolidated complaint in the Delaware action alleged that the members of the KFN board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to KFN shareholders by approving the proposed transaction for inadequate consideration; approving the proposed transaction in order to obtain benefits not equally shared by other KFN shareholders; entering into the merger agreement containing preclusive deal protection devices; and failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to the KFN shareholders. The Delaware action also alleged variously that KKR & Co., and certain of KKR & Co.'s affiliates aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and that KKR & Co. was a controlling shareholder of KFN by means of a management agreement between KFN and KKR Financial Advisors LLC, and KKR & Co. breached a fiduciary duty it allegedly owed to KFN shareholders by causing KFN to enter into the merger agreement. The relief sought in the Delaware action included, among other things, declaratory relief concerning the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs and other relief. LAKELAND BANCORP: MOU Reached in Pascack Merger Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Lakeland Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 2, 2015, that the defendants in a merger class action lawsuit have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the lead plaintiffs regarding settlement of the action. Pascack Bancorp, Inc. is merging with and into Lakeland Bancorp pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated August 3, 2015. In August, 2015, Lakeland was served with a Civil Action Summons and Class Action Complaint that was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Bergen County. A second action, nearly identical to that described in the preceding sentence, was served on Lakeland in September, 2015 and consolidated with the first action. The complaints state that the plaintiffs are bringing the class action claims on behalf of the public stockholders of Pascack against the Board of Directors of Pascack for their alleged breach of fiduciary duties arising out of the Merger Agreement. The complaint alleges that Lakeland has aided and abetted the individual defendants in their alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. On November 3, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint, which reiterates and expands their prior claims based upon the information contained in Lakeland's Form S-4 Registration Statement. All defendants vigorously deny all liabilities with respect to the facts and claims alleged in the lawsuit, and specifically deny that any supplemental disclosure is required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law in connection with the Pascack Special Meeting. However, solely to avoid the risk of delaying or adversely affecting consummation of the merger and to minimize the expense of defending the lawsuit, the defendants have agreed to a settlement. On December 2, 2015, the defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the lead plaintiffs regarding settlement of the action. As part of the settlement, Lakeland agreed to make certain additional disclosures, which are contained in this Current Report on Form 8-K. The Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to customary conditions, including the consummation of the merger and court approval following notice. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement which, if finally approved by the Court, will resolve all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the action being settled, including all claims relating to the merger, the merger agreement and any disclosures made in connection therewith. The Court will also need to approve the conditional certification of the class of plaintiffs at such hearing. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that the lead plaintiffs' counsel will petition the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Pascack and/or Lakeland. If the parties agree on the amount of such award, then the defendants will not oppose the plaintiffs' fee application. If, and only if, the parties cannot agree on the amount of such award, then the defendants reserve the right to oppose the amount of such fee application. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such a stipulation. In the event that neither of these occurs, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding may be terminated. The settlement will not affect the timing of consummation of the merger or the amount or nature of the merger consideration to be paid to the shareholders of the Company in the merger. LIBERTY ACQUISITIONS: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Jesus Villanueva, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Liberty Acquisitions Servicing, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02354-ST (D. Or., December 17, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Liberty Acquisitions Servicing, LLC operates a financial service company that specializes in debt purchasing. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua L. Ross, Esq. Keil M. Mueller, Esq. STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER, PC 209 S.W. Oak Street, Fifth Floor Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 227-1600 Facsimile: (503) 227-6840 E-mail: jross@stollberne.com kmueller@stollberne.com - and - Kelly D. Jones, Esq. KELLY D. JONES, ATTORNEY AT LAW 819 SE Morrison St., Suite 255 Portland, OR 97214 Telephone: (503) 847-4329 Facsimile: (503) 715-0524 E-mail: kellydonovanjones@gmail.com LIFE CARE: Faces "Robinson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Beth Robinson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Life Care Centers of America, Case No. 4:15-cv-03675 (S.D. Tex., December 21, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Life Care Centers of America owns and manages nursing, post-acute, and Alzheimer's facilities across the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Derrick A. Reed, Esq. REED, PLLC 1920 Country Place Pkwy, Suite 320 Pearland, TX 77584 Telephone: (713) 595-9675 Facsimile: (713) 595-9670 E-mail: derrick.reed@reedthelaw.com - and - Marrick Armstrong, Esq. ARMSTRONG LEGAL PLLC 2016 Main Street, Suite 111 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (832) 622-6562 Facsimile: (281) 809-8735 E-mail: marrick@armstronglegalpllc.com LIQUID HOLDINGS: "De Vito" Class Action Filed in N.J. ----------------------------------------------------- Liquid Holdings Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 1, 2015, that a securities class action complaint was filed on September 21, 2015, against Liquid, certain of our former and current officers and directors and the underwriter of our initial public offering (collectively, the "Defendants") in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Robert De Vito v. Liquid Holdings Group, Inc. et al. (No. 2:15- cv-06969-KM-JBC))." "The named plaintiff's complaint brings claims on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons, other than the Defendants and other officers and directors of Liquid, who purchased or acquired our securities: (i) pursuant and/or traceable to the our registration statement and prospectus filed with the SEC in connection with our initial public offering; and/or (ii) between July 26, 2013 and December 23, 2014. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of: (i) Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"); (ii) Section 15 of the Securities Act; (iii) Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act; and (iv) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. As relief, the complaint requests compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel and expert fees, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. "The Company has not yet been served in this action. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. Due to the inherent uncertainties in litigation and because the ultimate resolution of this proceeding is influenced by factors outside of our control, we are currently unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this litigation or its impact on our financial position or results of operations." LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Butter Chicken Lasagna Due to Bone ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: December 4, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Extraneous Material, Other Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Loblaw Companies Limited Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10213 Loblaw Companies Limited is recalling President's Choice brand Butter Chicken Lasagna from the marketplace due to possible presence of bone fragments. Consumers should not consume the recalled product. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. There have been no reported injuries associated with the consumption of this product. This recall was triggered by the company. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- President's Butter 1 kg Best before 0 60383 04640 8 Choice Chicken dates Lasagna 2015 OC 26 2015 DE 25 2016 MR 11 2016 MA 20 Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/2IP8b5 LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Chickpea Products ------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 4, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Extraneous Material Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Loblaw Companies Limited Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10209 Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- PC Chickpeas 540 ml 2018 AL 23 0 60383 70869 6 Organics LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Multigrain Buns Due to Spoilage --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 14, 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: Loblaw Companies Limited Distribution: Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10239 Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- President's Ciabatta 336 g NY069Q 0 60383 04451 0 Choice Multigrain Buns LODE KING: Recalls 2014, 2015 Trailer Models Due to Injury Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 8, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Heavy Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 53 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015584TC ID number: 2015584 On certain hopper-bottom style trailers outfitted with a Michel tarp system, the battery enclosure may not be adequately vented. If the battery in the unit is overcharged, freezes or malfunctions, it may expel a highly flammable gas, which could buildup in the battery enclosure. When the system is next energized it is possible that a spark would occur, which could act as an ignition source, potentially resulting in a fire and/or an explosion causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will replace the defective control box with an updated version that corrects the problem. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- LODE KING SEMI TRAILER 2014, 2015 LTD FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Maslaton" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Moshe Maslaton, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. LTD Financial Services, LP, Case No. 1:16- cv-00137 (E.D.N.Y., January 11, 2016) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. LTD Financial Services, LP operates a debt collection agency with its principal place of business located at 7322 Southwest Fwy #1600, Houston, TX 77074. Moshe Maslaton is a pro se plaintiff. LTP MANAGEMENT: Faces "Camacho" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeaneth Camacho and Elerie Camacho v. LTP Management, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-05743 (N.D. Cal., December 15, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. LTP Management, Inc. owns and operates various assisted living facilities in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Devin Coyle, Esq. David Browne, Esq. DEVIN COYLE LAW 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1800 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 584-9020 Facsimile: (510) 584-9039 E-mail: dcoyle@workerscounsel.com david@brownelaborlaw.com LUTRON ELECTRONICS: Recalls Custom-Made Roman Shades ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 4, 2015 Posting date: December 4, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Strangulation Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-56126 This recall involves motorized or manual, custom-made Roman shades. The shades are made out of fabric mounted on a metal frame. Each shade has two to six vertical mesh lift bands on the back of the shade that are 8 inches wide, secured by lift band clamps at the bottom of the shade. The manufacturer name "Lutron Electronics Inc." and the manufacture date appear on a white label on the shade tube at the top of the shade, which can be located when the shade is fully extended. Consumers should contact Lutron Electronics Co., Inc. if the label cannot be located. The shades were sold through residential window shading dealers. Strangulations can occur when a child places his/her neck between the exposed mesh lift bands and the fabric on the backside of the shade or when a child pulls the band out and wraps it around his/her neck. Neither Health Canada nor Lutron Electronics Co., Inc. has received reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these Roman shades. For more information on the hazard, see Blind Cord Safety. 216 recalled shades were sold in Canada through residential window shading dealers since October 2009. The recalled shades were sold from October 2009 to July 2015. Manufactured in USA. Manufacturer: Lutron Electronics Co., Inc. Coopersburg Pennsylvania UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Roman shades and contact Lutron Electronics Co., Inc. for a retrofit solution. For more information, consumers may contact Lutron Electronics Co., Inc. toll free at 844-478-2033 from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm 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. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/5nQNIs LVNV FUNDING: Faces "Coleman" Suit Over Debt Collection Policies ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carolyn Coleman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LVNV Funding, LLC and Blitt and Gaines, P.C., Case No. 1:15-cv-11338 (N.D. Ill., December 16, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. LVNV Funding, LLC is a collection agency that works for creditors to collect on charged-off debt accounts. Blitt and Gaines, P.C. operates a full service collections law firm located at 661 Glenn Ave, Wheeling, IL 60090. The Plaintiff is represented by: Celetha Chatman, Esq. Michael Jacob Wood, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD. 73 W. Monroe Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 757-1880 Facsimile: (312) 265-3227 E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com - and - Andrew Finko, Esq. WOOD FINKO & THOMPSON P.C. 73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 514 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 757-1880 Facsimile: (312) 265-3227 E-mail: afinko@woodfinkothompson.com The Defendant LVNV Funding, LLC is represented by: Angelo John Kappas, Esq. GORDON & REES LLP One North Franklin Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 565-1400 E-mail: akappas@gordonrees.com The Defendant Blitt and Gaines, P.C. is represented by: Michael L. Starzec, Esq. BLITT AND GAINES, P.C. 661 Glenn Avenue Wheeling, IL 60090 Telephone: (847) 403-4900 E-mail: mike@blittandgaines.com LYFT INC: Sent Spam Text Messages, "O'Connor" Action Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Douglas O'Connor, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Lyft, Inc. and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. cv-536658 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 18, 2015) seeks to put an end to the Defendants' practice of sending spam text messages to class members' cellular telephones without prior express consent. Lyft, Inc. acts as a passenger transportation service that connects riders and drivers through a cellular telephone application. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick N. Keegan, Esq. KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP 5055 Avenida Encinas, Suite 240 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 929-9303 Facsimile: (760) 929-9260 E-mail: pkeegaf@keeganbaker.com MACOPHARMA: Recalls LCRD2 and MTL1 Filters ------------------------------------------ Starting date: December 8, 2015 Posting date: January 7, 2016 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-56542 Misassembled LCRD2 and MTL1 filters were reported to macopharma where the inlet and the outlet tubing were on the same side of the filter. This misassembly creates direct passage of blood from the collection bag to the transfer bag without passing through the filter Affected products: A. POCHE A SANG QUADRUPLE Lot or serial number: Not applicable Model or catalog number: LQT7292LX Manufacturer: Macopharma Rue Lorthiois Mouvaux 59420 FRANCE MAID RITE: Recalls Meat Variety Pack Due to Gluten, Milk & Wheat ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 4, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Wheat Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Maid Rite Company Ltd. Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional CFIA reference number: 10208 Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Sysco Meat 2.04 kg 12/18/14 to 007 34730 49074 8 Imperial Variety 11/20/15 Pack MAJOR LEAGUE: N.D. Cal. Judge Grants Minor League Discovery Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that major League Baseball clubs can't hide their Minor League game reports and schedules from players suing the teams for wages, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled Jan. 29. The discovery dispute is the latest wrangle in two consolidated class actions Minor League players filed against Commissioner of Baseball Bud Selig and 22 Major League clubs. Lead plaintiffs Aaron Senne and Yadel Marti say Minor Leaguers earn only $3,000 to $7,500 a year, working up to 70 hours a week, while Major League Baseball rakes in billions each year. Under the Minor League Uniform Player Contract, players receive salary only during the season, though most players perform substantial work throughout the calendar year, the players say. After dismissing eight teams for lack of jurisdiction in June 2015, U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero granted conditional class certification in October, for players to pursue claims against 22 Major League clubs. On January 29, Spero rejected Major League Baseball's argument that game reports, showing work players did to prepare for games but weren't always paid for, contain confidential information with little evidentiary value. MLB attorney Adam Lupion insisted that because game reports do not specify the time players spent performing certain game-related tasks, their value as evidence is insignificant. Judge Spero rejected that. "It makes no sense to say these game reports have no probative value," he said during the Jan. 29 hearing. "They certainly are a link in the chain. The activities that class members participated in are a piece of this case." Spero granted the MLB clubs' request to interview two class members from each Minor League team, despite opposition from the players' attorneys. Class attorney Bruce Simon said if MLB "hand-selects" class members to interview, it will use the opportunity "to send a message" to the rest of the potential class that "we'll drag you through a very gory process to make you rethink participating." Of 14,850 potential class members who were mailed notifications of the lawsuit, 726 have opted into the class thus far, Simon said. The deadline to opt in ends Feb. 11. MLB attorney Elise Bloom told the judge that MLB attorneys do not plan to interview class members until after the opt-in period ends, allaying fears that MLB will use the depositions to intimidate players into opting out. Bloom said MLB attorneys do intend to conduct the interviews by March 4 -- the deadline to file a motion for class decertification -- because she thinks evidence obtained in interviews will support MLB's motion to decertify the class. As for the players' request for game schedules from six clubs dismissed from the lawsuit, Bloom said retrieving those documents would be "a very onerous task." Minor leaguers who played for the dismissed clubs stayed on as plaintiffs because they are still suing MLB as their primary employer. "The game schedules are kept by multiple individuals - six to eight managers," Bloom said. "To collect that information going back to 2008 will require a substantial amount of manpower hours." After Spero pressured class attorneys to strike a compromise on discovery, the players' attorneys agreed to limit their request to game schedules going back only two years. Spero also ironed out a dispute over class attorneys' request to randomly observe player activities at ballparks and spring training to estimate the actual tasks and amount of time players spend working throughout the calendar year. Spero said the observers should be given free rein to take notes, photos and video in public areas without being harassed by security guards. Bloom asked that the players give teams a more specific timeframe, such as a specific week, when the observers will show up. Otherwise, she said, it may be difficult to coordinate with security because the guards could forget the arrangement to accommodate observers, months after the fact. Spero denied Bloom's request, saying the need to coordinate effectively with security must be balanced against the interest of making sure the teams don't expect observers and change their routine because of it. Spero ordered attorneys to meet, confer and negotiate on a host of other discovery issues and to work quickly on meeting deadlines before the June 13 discovery cutoff date. MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Palmer" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Vicky Palmer v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 03852-RDB (D. Md., December 17, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a large and sophisticated Maryland corporation which, through hundreds of office locations nationwide, provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Sponhaltz" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Margaret A. Sponhaltz v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03856-GLR (D. Md., December 17, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a large and sophisticated Maryland corporation which, through hundreds of office locations nationwide, provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MCDONALD'S CORP: Defrauds Customers over Cheese Sticks, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that McDonald's defrauds customers by claiming its Mozzarella sticks are "100 percent real cheese," because it uses starch as a cheap filler to add weight, a class action claims in Riverside, Calif. federal court. Lead plaintiff Chris Howe sued McDonald's Corp. on behalf of customers in 42 states and the District of Columbia. He accuses the company of unfair and fraudulent competition, false advertising, and breach of warranty - the last under the laws of all 42 states and the District of Columbia. McDonald's began selling "Mozzarella Sticks" in mid-2015, at first in Wisconsin, then nationwide, including California, where Howe lives. In advertising and packaging, it claims they are "made with 'pure mozzarella,' 'real mozzarella,' and '100% mozzarella,'" according to the Jan. 29 lawsuit, which includes photos of the packaging. In fact, Howe claims, the cheese sticks are adulterated and misbranded: "The sticks are filled with a substance that is composed (in part) of starch, in violation of the federal standards of identity for 'mozzarella' cheese, and contrary to reasonable consumers' expectations regarding the meaning of the term 'mozzarella.'" He claims that "McDonald's has used starch as a cheap substitute and filler. Due to starch's ability to hold moisture, a small amount can be introduced into a mixture to add bulk and weight at a fraction of the cost of real cheese. Upon information and belief, McDonald's has been able to cut costs of production by limiting its reliance on actual dairy products necessary to make mozzarella, contrary to what the law requires for products labeled as 'mozzarella.'" The reason for this is "self-evident," Howe says: to save money and increase profits by fooling consumers. The 32-page lawsuit includes federal standards for cheese, and the methods by which McDonald's allegedly violated them. It claims that testing of the sticks' cores -- without the breaded coating -- showed they were 3.76 percent starch by weight. Howe seeks certification as a class of California consumers and a class of nationwide consumers, disgorgement, restitution, a cease- and-desist order, at least $5 million in damages, and costs. His lead counsel is: John Donboli, Esq. DEL MAR LAW GROUP 12250 El Camino Real #120 San Diego, CA 92130 Tel: 858-793-6005 with attorneys from Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca in Bethesda, Md. and Brooklyn, NY, and Halunen Law in Minneapolis. MDL 1917: Best Buy Received $75-Mil. from Case Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Best Buy Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the Company has received $75 million in settlement proceeds from the Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litigation. "On November 14, 2011, we filed a lawsuit captioned In re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California," the Company said. "We allege that the defendants engaged in price fixing in violation of antitrust regulations relating to cathode ray tubes for the time period between March 1, 1995 through November 25, 2007. No trial date has been set." "In connection with this action, we received settlement proceeds net of legal expenses and costs in the amount of $75 million in the first nine months of fiscal 2016. We will continue to litigate against the remaining defendants and engage in further settlement discussions as this matter proceeds; however, it is uncertain whether we will recover additional settlement sums or a favorable verdict at trial." MDL 1950: Settlements Reached by Remaining Class Suit Parties ------------------------------------------------------------- Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. said in an exhibit to its Form 8- K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, that the remaining parties to the putative class action have reported to the MDL 1950 court that settlements in principle had been reached. During 2008, nine putative class action lawsuits were filed in federal court alleging federal antitrust violations in the municipal derivatives industry, seeking damages and alleging, among other things, a conspiracy to fix the pricing of, and manipulate bids for, municipal derivatives, including guaranteed investment contracts ("GICs"). These cases have been coordinated and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as MDL 1950, In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-2516 ("MDL 1950"). Five of these cases named both Assured Guaranty Municipal Holdings Inc. ("AGMH") and AGM: (a) Hinds County, Mississippi v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (b) Fairfax County, Virginia v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (c) Central Bucks School District, Pennsylvania v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; (d) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.; and (e) Washington County, Tennessee v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. In April 2009, the MDL 1950 court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on the federal claims for these five cases, but granted leave for the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. The Corrected Third Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, filed on October 9, 2013, lists neither AGM nor AGMH as a named defendant or a co-conspirator. The complaint generally seeks unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. The other four cases named AGMH (but not AGM) and also alleged that the defendants violated California state antitrust law and common law by engaging in illegal bid-rigging and market allocation, thereby depriving the cities or municipalities of competition in the awarding of GICs and ultimately resulting in the cities paying higher fees for these products: (f) City of Oakland, California v. AIG Financial Products Corp.; (g) County of Alameda, California v. AIG Financial Products Corp.; (h) City of Fresno, California v. AIG Financial Products Corp.; and (i) Fresno County Financing Authority v. AIG Financial Products Corp. When the four plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in September 2009, the plaintiffs did not name AGMH as a defendant. However, the complaint does describe some of AGMH's and AGM's activities. The consolidated complaint generally seeks unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. In April 2010, the MDL 1950 court granted in part and denied in part the named defendants' motions to dismiss this consolidated complaint. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss, if any, or range of loss that may arise from these lawsuits. On September 22, 2015, the remaining parties to the putative class action reported to the MDL 1950 Court that settlements in principle had been reached. The parties also reported that final settlement with those remaining defendants would resolve the putative class case. MEDBOX INC: "Crystal" Case Stayed Pending Settlement Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- Medbox, Inc. on October 22, 2015, entered into settlements in principle, conditioned upon court approval, of certain class and derivative claims. On December 1, 2015, Medbox and the class plaintiffs in Josh Crystal v. Medbox, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-CV-00426-BRO (JEMx), pending before the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the "Court") notified the Court of the settlement. The Court has stayed the action pending the Court's review of the settlement and directed the parties to file a stipulation of settlement on or before December 18, 2015, Medbox said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2015. If preliminarily approved, the settlement provides for notice to be given to the class, a period for opt outs and a final approval hearing. The principal terms of the settlement are: * A cash payment to a settlement escrow account in the amount of $1,850,000 of which $150,000 will be paid by the Company and $1,700,000 will be paid by the Company's insurers; * A transfer of 2,300,000 shares of Medbox common stock to the settlement escrow account, of which 2,000,000 shares would be contributed by Medbox and 300,000 shares by Bruce Bedrick; * The net proceeds of the settlement escrow, after deduction of Court-approved administrative costs and any Court- approved attorneys' fees and costs would be distributed to the Class; * Releases of claims and dismissal of the action. The class action settlement covers the period April 2, 2013 to December 29, 2014. By entering into the settlement, the settling parties have resolved the class claims to their mutual satisfaction. Defendants have not admitted the validity of any claims or allegations and the settling plaintiffs have not admitted that any claims or allegations lack merit or foundation. "With the beginning of the court approval process, we take important steps to resolve and put behind us these significant legal problems that current management inherited from its predecessors," said Jeff Goh, Medbox President and interim Chief Executive Officer, in a Dec. 7 press statement. "We look forward to applying 100% focus on growing and strengthening the company, which is what our shareholders want us to do." MERIDIAN-HENDERSON: Sued in Ohio Over Employment Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- Ruth Zego, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Meridian-Henderson, LLC d/b/a Red Door Tavern, and Xhevair Brakaj, Case No. 2:15-cv-03098-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, December 21, 2015) is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' unlawful employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The Defendants own and operate Arch City, a bar and restaurant in Columbus's Short North neighborhood. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Beggs, Esq. BEGGS LAW OFFICES CO., LPA 1675 Old Henderson Road Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 678-5640 Facsimile: (614) 448-9408 E-mail: John.Beggs@BeggsLawOffices.com - and - Andrew Kimble, Esq. KIMBLE LAW, LLC 1675 Old Henderson Road Columbus, Ohio 43220 Telephone: (937) 286-6428 Facsimile: (614) 448-9408 E-mail: Andrew@kimblelawoffice.com MICHAELS COS: Defending Against 38 Claims by Ex-Store Managers -------------------------------------------------------------- The Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that as a result of the decertification of a lawsuit by former store managers against Michaels Stores, Inc. ("MSI"), the Company is facing 38 individual claims pending as well as a separate representative action pending in the California Superior Court in and for the County of San Diego. On September 15, 2011, MSI was served with a lawsuit filed in the California Superior Court in and for the County of Orange ("Superior Court") by four former store managers as a class action proceeding on behalf of themselves and certain former and current store managers employed by MSI in California. The lawsuit alleges that MSI improperly classified its store managers as exempt employees and as such failed to pay all wages, overtime, waiting time penalties and failed to provide accurate wage statements. The lawsuit also alleges that the foregoing conduct was in breach of various laws, including California's unfair competition law. On December 3, 2013, the Superior Court entered an order certifying a class of approximately 200 members. MSI successfully removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California and on May 8, 2014, the class was decertified. "As a result of the decertification, we have 38 individual claims pending as well as a separate representative action pending in the California Superior Court in and for the County of San Diego brought on behalf of store managers throughout the state," the Company said. "We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. We do not believe the resolution of the lawsuits will have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements." MICHAELS COS: Still Defending Suits by Graham et al. ---------------------------------------------------- The Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the Company intends to defend the remaining lawsuits -- by Christina Graham, Janice Bercut and Michelle Bercut -- against Michaels Stores, Inc. On December 11, 2014, MSI was served with a lawsuit, Christina Graham v. Michaels Stores, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by a former associate. The lawsuit is a purported class action, bringing plaintiff's individual claims, as well as claims on behalf of a putative class of applicants who applied for employment with Michaels through an online application, and on whom a background check for employment was procured. The lawsuit alleges that MSI violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and the New Jersey Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to provide the proper disclosure and obtain the proper authorization to conduct background checks. Since the initial filing, another named plaintiff joined the lawsuit, which was amended in February 2015, Christina Graham and Gary Anderson v. Michaels Stores, Inc., with substantially similar allegations. The plaintiffs seek statutory and punitive damages as well as attorneys' fees and costs. Following the filing of the Graham case in New Jersey, five additional purported class action lawsuits with six plaintiffs were filed, Michele Castro and Janice Bercut v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Michelle Bercut v. Michaels Stores, Inc. in the Superior Court of California for Sonoma County, Raini Burnside v. Michaels Stores, Inc., pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Sue Gettings v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and Barbara Horton v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. All of the plaintiffs alleged violations of the FCRA. In addition, the Castro, Horton and Janice Bercut lawsuits also alleged violations of California's unfair competition law. The Burnside, Horton and Gettings lawsuits have been dismissed and an offer of judgment has been accepted in the Castro lawsuit and will be dismissed. The Graham, Janice Bercut and Michelle Bercut lawsuits were transferred for centralized pretrial proceedings to the District of New Jersey. The Company intends to defend the remaining lawsuits vigorously. "We cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss, or range of loss, related to the lawsuits, if any," the Company said. MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Odar" Suit Over Debt Collection Policies --------------------------------------------------------------- Hector Odar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MCM a/k/a Midland Credit Management, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-08783-AET-TJB (D.N.J., December 21, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a national financial services company that helps consumers resolve past-due financial obligations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com yzelman@marcuszelman.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Frankel" Suit Over Collection Policies ------------------------------------------------------------- Esther Frankel, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, and Encore Capital Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 07167 (E.D.N.Y., December 16, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Midland Credit Management (MCM) is a national financial services company that helps consumers resolve past-due financial obligations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Reich" Suit Over Collection Policies ----------------------------------------------------------- Lea Reich, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, and Encore Capital Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-07195 (E.D.N.Y., December 17, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Midland Credit Management (MCM) is a national financial services company that helps consumers resolve past-due financial obligations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com MITSUBISHI: Recalls 2014 & 2015 Vehicle Models Due to Injury Risk ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 4, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 8875 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015579TC ID number: 2015579 Manufacturer recall number: SR16-001 On certain vehicles, the wiring harness connector located in the area of the drivers footrest could corrode over time due to repeated exposure to melted snow/water containing road salt. This could eventually result in illumination of several warning lamps including the Supplemental Restraint System (SRS) warning lamp. If the SRS warning lamp is illuminated and the vehicle is subsequently involved in a collision that warrants frontal air bag deployment, the timing of the frontal airbag deployment(s) may be delayed, which would increase the risk of injury to the seat occupant(s). Correction: Dealers will install a waterproof sheet to prevent potential contamination and corrosion of the connector. The connector will also be inspected and, if any corrosion is found, the connector will be replaced with a new one. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- MITSUBISHI 2014, 2015 MUSCLEPHARM CORP: Falsely Marketed Products, "Dabish" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Mason Dabish and Bill Bohr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Musclepharm Corp., Case No. 3:15-cv- 02848-W-JMA (S.D. Cal., December 17, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the persons who purchased MusclePharm Arnold Schwarzenegger Series Iron Pump Pre-Workout Powder, MusclePharm Arnold Schwarzenegger Series Iron Cre3 Creatine Powder, MusclePharm Creatine Supplement, MusclePharm Arnold Schwarzenegger Series Iron Dream Nighttime Support Powder, and MusclePharm Assault Pre-Workout Powder, which were falsely advertised and labeled by the Defendants that the newly formulated, novel, ingredients that chemically fuse an amino or organic acid with a nitrate in the Products are safe and provide vast benefits over products that contain their more traditional cousin compounds. Headquartered in Denver, Colorado, Musclepharm Corp. is a major player in the sports nutrition industry with over $177 million in revenue in 2014. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq. Mark L. Knutson, Esq. William R. Restis, Esq. Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP 550 West C St., Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1333 Facsimile: (619) 238-5425 E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com mlk@classactionlaw.com wrr@classactionlaw.com trk@classactionlaw.com - and - Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 N. State Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-0000 Facsimile: (312) 878-1342 E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC 434 West Alexandrine, Suite 101 Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com MUSCLEPHARM CORP: Faces "Gates" Suit for Misleading Packaging ------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Gates and John Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MusclePharm Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-02870-BAS-DHB (S.D. Cal., December 19, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's misleading packaging of its Protein Products, including its Arnold Schwarzenegger Series Iron Whey, MusclePharm Combat Protein Powder, MusclePharm Combat Powder, MusclePharm Combat Black Weight Gainer, and MusclePharm FitMiss Delight, in large, opaque containers that contain approximately 46% of empty space, or non-functional slack fill. MusclePharm Corporation sells nutritional supplements on a nationwide basis, including in more than 110 countries and 35,000 retail outlets across the world. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Naomi Spector, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com naomi@westcoastlitigation.com MYHEALTH MEDICAL: "Siegel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Siegel, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Myhealth Medical Group, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00277- MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., December 21, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees, and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Myhealth Medical Group, LLC is a Georgia corporation that operates a medical facility in Keystone Heights, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew W. Birk, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK 309 NE 1st Street Gainesville, FL 32601 Telephone: (352) 244-2069 Facsimile: (352) 372-3464 NATIONAL AUTO: Faces "Evans" Suit in N.J. Over Automated Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- Frederick Evans, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Auto Division, L.L.C., Ariel Freud, and Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-08714-AET-DEA (D.N.J., December 17, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making autodialed and prerecorded calls to cellular telephones without prior express consent. The Defendants own and operate an auto insurance agency located at 2323 U.S. 9, Howell, NJ 07731. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq. THE GLAPION LAW FIRM, LLC 1704 Maxwell Drive Wall, NJ 07719 Telephone: (732) 455-9737 Facsimile: (732) 709-5150 E-mail: jmg@glapionlaw.com NATIONAL PATIENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Moskowitz" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Moskowitz, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. National Patient Account Services, Inc. d/b/a NPAS, Inc., Case No. 7:15-cv-09812-KMK (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. National Patient Account Services, Inc. is a provider of early-out collection services for hospital and health care companies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward B. Geller, Esq. EDWARD B. GELLER, ESQ., P.C. 15 Landing Way Bronx, NY 10464 Telephone: (914) 473-6783 E-mail: epbh@aol.com NEWMAR: Recalls Dutch Star Class A Motorhome 1998 Models -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 8, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorhome Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Steering Units affected: 85 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015587TC ID number: 2015587 On certain motorhomes, the steering gear mounting bracket could crack and break resulting in a loss of steering control, which would increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect and replace the steering gear mounting bracket as necessary. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- NEWMAR DUTCH STAR 1998 CLASS A MOTORHOME NINE ENERGY: Faces "Turner" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- William M. Turner III, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nine Energy Service, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv- 03670 (S.D. Tex., December 18, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Nine Energy Service, LLC is a nationwide oilfield services with significant completion and land drilling operations throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS &JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com jbresler@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com NOVA NATURE: Recalls PlantBaby(R) Rattle Trumpets ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 8, 2015 Posting date: December 8, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Toys Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Choking Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-56166 This recall involves the PlantBaby(R) Rattle Trumpet. The toy rattle is green and white. It is shaped like a trumpet and has 3 colored rings attached to it. The rattle can also act as a whistle. The rattle can be identified by UPC 8809198340033. Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has revealed that the rattle can break and release small parts, posing a choking hazard to young children. Neither Health Canada nor Nova Nature has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to this product. For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them keep children safe when they play with toys, see Health Canada's General Toy Safety Tips. Approximately 365 units were sold in Canada. The recalled product was sold from November 2011 to November 2015. Manufactured in Korea. Importer: Nova Nature Vancouver British Columbia CANADA Manufacturer: Home Care Co. Ltd SOUTH KOREA Consumers should immediately take the rattle away from young children and return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. For more information, contact Nova Nature at 1-888-887-8228, from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm PST, Monday to Friday or email. 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. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/u3MhOM NYCO CHEMISTS: Faces "Lymberatos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Dimitrios Lymberatos, individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Nyco Chemists Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00131 (E.D.N.Y., January 11, 2016) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Nyco Chemists Inc. owns and operates a pharmaceutical company in Brooklyn, New York. Dimitrios Lymberatos is a pro se plaintiff. OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Hearing Held on Demurrers in Merger Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Omnivision Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that a California court was scheduled to hear on January 22, 2016, the demurrers filed in a consolidated class action lawsuit related to the Company's merger transaction. On April 30, 2015, the Company entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by a consortium composed of Hua Capital Management Co., Ltd., CITIC Capital Holdings Limited, and GoldStone Investment Co., Ltd. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, OmniVision stockholders will receive $29.75 per share in cash, or a total of approximately $1.9 billion. The agreement was unanimously approved by the Company's Board of Directors in April 2015. OmniVision's stockholders also approved the transaction at a special meeting in July 2015. Subsequently, the Company received the anti-trust clearances from the U.S. and China. In October 2015, the Company received notice from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., indicating the conclusion of its review and its determination that there are no unresolved national security concerns with respect to the transaction. By November 2015, the Company also received all the necessary clearance in Taiwan. The transaction, which is expected to close in the third or fourth quarter of fiscal 2016, is still subject to regulatory approvals in the People's Republic of China, and other customary closing conditions. In connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, a number of putative class action lawsuits have been filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara. The actions filed Pope v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 15-CV-280161 (filed May 4, 2015); Francisco v. Xiaoying, et al., No. 15-CV-280270 (filed May 6, 2015); Agee v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc., No. 15-CV-280311 (filed May 7, 2015); Levine v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc., No. 15-CV-280344 (filed May 7, 2015); O'Donnell v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc., No. 15-CV-280411 (filed May 8, 2015); Smith v. Hong, et al., No. 15-CV-280863 (filed May 19, 2015); and Nido v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc., No. 15-CV-281031 (filed May 22, 2015). In general, the various complaints assert that, among other things, the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to OmniVision's stockholders by engaging in a process that was not designed to, and did not, maximize the stockholders' value, and that OmniVision and the proposed acquiring entities aided and abetted the Board of Directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints generally seek to enjoin the merger, rescission of the merger to the extent it is implemented, or alternatively, rescissionary damages. On June 2, 2015, the actions were consolidated under the caption In re OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 15-CV-280161. On June 8, 2015, a consolidated amended complaint was filed. The amended complaint adds allegations that the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by issuing a false and misleading preliminary proxy statement. The amended complaint also adds allegations that J.P. Morgan aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. On July 1, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote on the merger. The Court held a hearing on this motion on July 16, 2015. At that hearing the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for an injunction. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on September 25, 2015. The second amended complaint includes the same claims as the consolidated amended complaint although the Company is no longer named as a defendant. Defendants filed demurrers seeking dismissal of the second amended complaint on October 30, 2015. Those demurrers were scheduled for hearing on January 22, 2016. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this action and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate the loss or a range of possible loss. ORTHO-CLINICAL: Recalls Ortho Vision Analyzers ---------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 10, 2015 Posting date: January 18, 2016 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-56674 Ortho Clinical Diagnostics (Ortho) has identified that under specific circumstances, the saline supply on the Ortho vision analyzer may be insufficient to process tests, without operator knowledge. If an operator opens the liquid access door for any reason, the system software automatically resets, assuming the saline container was refilled to the maximum volume of 4700 ml, regardless of whether the operator refills the saline container or not. If an operator opens the liquid access door and does not refill the saline container to 4700 ml, the system loses track of the actual onboard saline volume. Therefore, the system can no longer accurately determine low saline volume levels and alert the operator. Affected products A. ORTHO VISION Analyzer Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer. Model or catalog number: 6904577 Manufacturer: ORTHO-CLINICAL DIAGNOSTICS INC. 1001 US HWY 202 Raritan 08869 New Jersey UNITED STATES PANTHER WELL: "Stallworth" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Clifford Stallworth, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Panther Well Service, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv- 03673 (S.D. Tex., December 21, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Panther Well Service, LLC is an oilfield services company located at 49 Lightwood Trace, The Woodlands, Texas 77382. The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 PERFORMANT RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Smith" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Christine Smith, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Performant Recovery, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00179-WHO (N.D. Cal., January 12, 2016) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Performant Recovery, Inc. owns and operates a debt collection agency at 17080 S Harlan Rd, Lathrop, CA. The Plaintiff is represented by: Keren E. Gesund, Esq. GESUND & PAILET, LLC 3421 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 805 Metairie, LA 70002 Telephone: (702) 300-1180 E-mail: gesundk@gesundlawoffices.com PINTY'S DELICIOUS: Recalls Chicken Products Due to Milk & Mustard ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 9, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Mustard Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Pinty's Delicious Foods Inc. Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10198 Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Pinty's Honey & Roasted 810 g 2016 SE 16 0 69094 62459 2 Pub & Garlic - Our Grill Premium Chicken Breast Chunks Pinty's Honey & Roasted 890 g 2016 MA 25 0 69094 62399 1 Pub & Garlic - Our Grill Premium Chicken Wings PIONEER CREDIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Goodwin" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Goodwin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-09782-JFW-E (C.D. Cal., December 21, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of initiating a telephonic communication to the Class members' cellular telephone number via an automatic telephone dialing system and artificial or prerecorded voice. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. is engaged in credit recovery on defaulted debt specializing in government collections. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com - and - Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. Matthew A. Young, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 E-mail: koncius@kiesel-law.com young@kiesel-law.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com PIONEER CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Goodwin" Action Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Goodwin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-09783 (C.D. Cal., December 21, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls to consumers' wireless telephone without prior express consent. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. is engaged in credit recovery on defaulted debt specializing in government collections. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. Matthew A. Young, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 E-mail: koncius@kiesel-law.com young@kiesel-law.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE AND SWIGART APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Mona Amini, Esq. Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: mona@kazlg.com ak@kazlg.com POLARIS: Recalls 2016 ATVs Due to Injury Risk --------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 8, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: A.T.V. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Engine Units affected: 136 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015585TC ID number: 2015585 Manufacturer recall number: Z-15-04 On certain side-by-side UTV's, the turbo oil drain tube bolts may have been improperly tightened during assembly. This could result in oil leaking onto nearby hot exhaust or turbo components, which could increase the risk of fire resulting in injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect and properly torque the drain tube bolts. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- POLARIS 2016 POLARIS: Recalls 600, 800 Model 2015 Switchback Snowmobiles ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 8, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Snowmobile Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Steering Units affected: 2316 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015586TC ID number: 2015586 Manufacturer recall number: S-15-02A On certain snowmobiles, steering components could become damaged in a high-impact event. This could potentially result in damage to the pitman or idler arm, which could affect steering control, and increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will add steel plates to the pitman and idler arm assemblies to reduce the chance of component breakage. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- POLARIS 800 SWITCHBACK 2015, 2015, 2015, 2015, 2015, 2015 POLARIS 600 SWITCHBACK 2015 POST HOLDINGS: E.D. Pa. Court Ruled on Bid to Certify Subclasses ---------------------------------------------------------------- Post Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that the court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has granted the motion of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs to certify a shell-egg subclass, but denied their motion to certify an egg-products subclass. In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class-action lawsuits were filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc. and approximately 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs, manufacturers of processed egg products, and egg industry organizations), alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws in connection with the production and sale of shell eggs and egg products, and seeking unspecified damages. In December 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the transfer of all cases to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Between late 2010 and early 2012, a number of companies, each of which would be part of the purported class in the antitrust action, brought separate actions against defendants. These "opt-out" cases, brought primarily by various grocery chains and food companies, assert essentially the same allegations as in the main action. The opt-out cases are also pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where they are being treated as related to the main action. On September 18, 2015, the court denied the motion of the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs for class certification. On September 21, 2015, the court granted the motion of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs to certify a shell-egg subclass, but denied their motion to certify an egg-products subclass. PRATT INSTITUTE: Sued Over Employment Gender Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------- Kathleen A. Dunne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pratt Institute, Case No. 1:15-cv-07246-ARR- RER (E.D.N.Y., December 21, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Equal Pay Act and N.Y. Labor Law, specifically by paying female employees less than it paid male employees who performed equal work. Pratt Institute operates a specialized university with 4500 students in undergraduate and graduate programs in the fine arts, design, fashion, architecture, and information and library science. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan A. Bernstein, Esq. LEVY DAVIS & MAHER, LLP 39 Broadway, Suite 1620 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 371-0033 PREMIERE GLOBAL: Plaintiff Withdraws Injunction Bid --------------------------------------------------- Premiere Global Services, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2015, that the plaintiff in a class action lawsuit withdrew his motion for preliminary injunction of the Company's merger transaction with Pangea Private Holdings II, LLC. However, the class action lawsuit continues. On September 10, 2015, Premiere Global Services, Inc., a Georgia corporation (the "Company" or "PGi"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Pangea Private Holdings II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Parent"), and Pangea Merger Sub Inc., a Georgia corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, among other things, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the Company surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger"). On November 10, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to the Merger was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. A hearing on the plaintiff's emergency motion for preliminary injunction was held on November 19, 2015. On November 20, 2015, the plaintiff withdrew his motion for preliminary injunction. The withdrawal of the motion for a preliminary injunction does not constitute a dismissal, settlement or withdrawal of the plaintiff's claims. Each of the defendants believes the claims asserted in the lawsuit are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, at this time, it is not possible to predict the outcome of the proceeding or its impact on PGi or the Merger. PROFLOW LLC: Faces "Munger" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Munger and Stuart Lester, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Proflow LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-03094- ALM-TPK (S.D. Ohio, December 21, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Proflow LLC provides oil and gas well monitoring services to energy companies nationwide, including in Ohio, Texas, Oklahoma, and Wyoming. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com - and - Don J. Foty, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 711 W. Alabama St. Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com PRUDENTIAL RETIREMENT: Faces "Rosen" Suit Over Kickback Payment --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard A. Rosen, on Behalf of the Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Employee Benefit Plans v. Prudential Retirement Insurance And Annuity Company, Prudential Bank & Trust, FSB, and Prudential Investment Management Services, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-01839 (D. Conn., December 18, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged pay-to-play scheme in which Prudential receives payments from mutual funds in the form of 12b- 1 fees, administration fees, service fees, sub-transfer agent fees and similar fees in return for providing the mutual funds with access to its retirement plan customers, including its 401(k) plan customers. The Defendants operate an insurance company with its principal place of business in Hartford, Connecticut. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurie Rubinow, Esq. James E. Miller, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (860) 526-1100 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: lrubinow@sfmslaw.com jmiller@sfmslaw.com ` - and - Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq. Kolin C. Tang, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP One California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 429-5272 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: rkravitz@sfmslaw.com ktang@sfmslaw.com - and - Nathan Zipperian, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216 Weston, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 515-0123 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: nzipperian@sfmslaw.com - and - Sahag Majarian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN 18250 Ventura Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: sahagii@aol.com QUIKSILVER INC: Bankruptcy Stays Securities Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------- Quiksilver, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2015, that securities class action complaints have been stayed pending the Company's Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. In April 2015, two putative securities class action complaints were filed against the Company and two of its former officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California under the following captions: Leiland Stevens, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Quiksilver, Inc., et al. and Shiva Stein, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Quiksilver, Inc., et al. On June 26, 2015, the court consolidated these lawsuits and named Babulal Parmar as the lead plaintiff. On August 25, 2015, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the consolidated action. The amended complaint asserts claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The putative class period in this action is from June 6, 2014 through March 26, 2015. The complaint seeks designation of this action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the potential impact on its results of operations, financial position or cash flows. The Company has not recorded a liability for this matter. On September 21, 2015, the court entered an order staying the action pending bankruptcy proceedings. READY BAKE: Recalls Baguette and Ciabatta Due to Spoilage --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 14, 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: Ready Bake Foods Inc. Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Warehouse CFIA reference number: 10210 Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Sienna Par Baked 8.00 kg CASE: BEST 6 20868 16880 5 Demi Baguette BEFORE: 2016- 03-08, LOT 253 and 2016-03-09, LOT 254 Sienna Artisan 8.40 kg CASE: BEST 6 20868 16877 5 Baguette BEFORE: 2016- 03-09, LOT 254 Sienna Ciabatta 6.30 kg CASE: BEST 6 20868 16878 2 Baguette BEFORE: 2016 -03-09, LOT 254 Sienna 2.5" 5.40 kg CASE: BEST 6 20868 16882 9 Ciabatta BEFORE: 2016 Roll -03-09, LOT 254 President's Ciabatta 6.048 kg CASE: BEST 10060383044517 Choice Multigrain BEFORE: 2016 Buns -03-09, LOT 254 RED SKYE: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Cline" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Cline, individually & on behalf of all similarly situated v. Red Skye Wireless, LLC, Case No. 0:15-cv-62671-WPD (S.D. Fla., December 21, 2015)is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Red Skye Wireless, LLC owns and operates wireless retail stores throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq. Christina J. Thomas, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3487 E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com cthomas@forthepeople.com RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Breen" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- John Breen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. d/b/a American Medical Collection Agency, Case No. 2:15-cv-07223-JFB-SIL (E.D.N.Y., December 18, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. operates a recovery agency for consumer collections. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. David M. Barshay, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 Facsimile: (516) 706-5055 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com dbarshay@sanderslawpllc.com REY PIZZA: Faces "Amat" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Julio Amat, and all others similarly situated v. Rey Pizza Corp., d/b/a Rey's Pizza and Arch Resources Group, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv- 24687-JEM (S.D. Fla., December 21, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carmen Rodriguez, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CARMEN RODRIGUEZ, P.A. Palmetto Bay Centre 15715 South Dixie Highway, Suite 411 Miami, FL 33157-1884 Telephone: (305)254-6101 Facsimile: (305) 254-6048 E-mail: crpa@crlaborlawfirm.com RGS FINANCIAL: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection --------------------------------------------------------------- Sara Badri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RGS Financial, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07217-JMA-SIL (E.D.N.Y., December 18, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. RGS Financial, Inc. operates a BPO and accounts receivable management company with its principal place of business located at 1700 Jay Ell Dr. #200, Richardson, TX 75081. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. David M. Barshay, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 Facsimile: (516) 706-5055 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com dbarshay@sanderslawpllc.com RIDGE WOOD: Recalls Honey Products ---------------------------------- Starting date: December 9, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Chemical Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Ridge Wood Honey Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10194 Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- None No Label- 1 kg All unlabelled None Liquid 1 kg jars of Honey liquid honey sold to Pingle's Farm on October 23, 2015. None No Label- 500 g All unlabelled None Liquid 500 g jars of Honey liquid honey sold to Pingle's Farm on October 23, 2015. Ridgewood Honey 1 kg Sold between None June 23, 2015 and November 27, 2015 inclusive. Ridgewood Honey 500 g Sold between None June 23, 2015 and November 27, 2015 inclusive. RITE AID: Faces "Herring" Suit Over Misleading Proxy Statements --------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry Herring, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rite Aid Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02440- YK (M.D. Penn., December 18, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' dissemination of a materially false and misleading proxy statement in connection with the proposed sale of Rite Aid to Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. Rite Aid Corporation, a Delaware Corporation headquartered in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, is a retail drugstore chain that sells prescription drugs and a range of other merchandise. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin M. Mather, Esq. KAUFMAN, COREN & RESS, P.C. Two Commerce Square, Suite 3900 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8700 E-mail: bmather@kcr-law.com - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Mark J. Dearman, Esq. Christopher Martins, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com mdearman@rgrdlaw.com cmartins@rgrdlaw.com - and - Randall J. Baron, Esq. David T. Wissbroecker ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-3301 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com ROKA BIOSCIENCE: Parties in N.J. Suit Agree to Mediation -------------------------------------------------------- Roka Bioscience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the parties in a securities class action lawsuit in New Jersey have agreed to attempt to resolve the case through mediation in December 2015. A putative securities class action originally captioned Ding v. Roka Bioscience, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-8020, was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on December 24, 2014, on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who had purchased or otherwise acquired securities pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement for the Company's IPO. The original putative class period ran from July 17 through November 6, 2014. The original complaint asserted claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and contended that the IPO Registration Statement was false and misleading, or omitted allegedly material information, in connection with the Company's statements about its placement of Atlas instruments and its expectations of future growth and increased market share, and the Company's alleged failure to disclose "known trends and uncertainties about the Company's sales." The alleged misrepresentations and omissions purportedly came to light when the Company issued its third-quarter 2014 earnings release on November 6, 2014. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, two applicants filed motions on February 23, 2015 for appointment as lead plaintiff. On March 23, 2015, the applicant with the smaller loss agreed not to oppose the application for lead plaintiff filed by the applicant with the larger loss. The court appointed Stanley Yedlowski as lead plaintiff and The Rosen Law Firm as lead counsel on April 21, 2015. The lead plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, captioned Stanley Yedlowski v. Roka Bioscience, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-8020, on June 23, 2015. The amended complaint pleads Securities Act claims on behalf of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Roka securities pursuant or traceable to the IPO Registration Statement during an extended putative class period, running from July 17, 2014 through March 26, 2015. The amended complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was false or misleading in that it failed to disclose that the Company's customers purportedly were experiencing false positives and other usage issues with the Company's Listeria assays apparently arising from the customers' employees' inability to follow the Company's Listeria assay workflow. The amended complaint alleges that the full extent of the purported misstatements and omissions was not revealed until March 26, 2015. Defendants filed a motion on August 25, 2015 to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiffs filed an opposition to that motion on October 9, 2015. The parties have agreed to attempt to resolve the case through mediation in December 2015. The Company believes that the claims in the securities class action are without merit and, if the mediation is unsuccessful, the Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously, and expects to incur costs associated with defending the securities class action. The Company has various insurance policies related to the risks associated with its business, including directors' and officers' liability insurance policies. However, there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense of the securities class action, and there is no assurance that the insurance coverage will be sufficient or that the insurance carriers will cover all claims or litigation costs. At this early stage of the litigation, the Company cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot reasonably predict the timing or outcomes, or estimate the amount of loss, if any, or their effect, if any, on its financial statements. RONA INC: Recalls Six-Light and Nine-Light Chandeliers ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: December 8, 2015 Posting date: December 8, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items, Tools and Electrical Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fall Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-56124 This recall involves Globe Chelsea Collection six-light and nine- light chandeliers that have a bronze finish with frosted-glass shades. The lights included in this recall are model numbers 63335 and 63336 and the UPC numbers are 058219633359 and 058219633366, respectively. The lights use 60-W type A19 bulbs (sold separately). The ring that connects the chandelier to its chain may break and the chandelier may fall, which could cause injury. In addition to the two incidents that were previously reported to Rona in Canada, 6 additional incidents were reported to Globe Electric Company Inc. No injuries have been reported. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these products. Approximately 5,300 recalled chandeliers were sold at Rona and Reno-Depot stores in Canada. The recalled chandeliers were sold between January 2010 and October 2014. Manufactured in China. Distributor: Rona Inc. Boucherville Quebec CANADA Manufacturer: Globe Electric Company Inc. Montreal CANADA Consumers should contact Globe Electric Company Inc. customer service at 1-800-361-6761 or by email for a replacement ring. 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. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/hU1pDC SAKSCO GOURMET: Recalls Baby King(R) Rattle Keys ------------------------------------------------ Starting date: December 8, 2015 Posting date: December 8, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Toys Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Choking Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-56172 This recall involves the Baby King(R) Rattle Keys. These rattles are made of 4 coloured hard plastic keys on a white hard plastic ring. This recall includes both the bright and pastel colour versions of this product. Both versions of the recalled rattles can be identified by the model number: BK512 and by the UPC: 0 94606 00512 5, which can be found on their packaging. Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined that these rattles do not meet the Canadian safety requirements for the size and shape of rattles. The plastic keys can enter and become lodged in a child's throat, posing a choking or suffocation hazard to young children. Neither Health Canada nor SAKSCO Gourmet Basket Supplies has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these rattles in Canada. 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 1,300 of the recalled rattles were sold at various stores across Canada. The recalled rattles were sold from November 2011 to November 2015. Manufactured in China. Importer: SAKSCO Gourmet Basket Supplies Mississauga Ontario CANADA Distributor: Regent Baby Products Corp. Jamaica New York UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately take the recalled rattles away from children and contact SAKSCO Gourmet Basket Supplies for further instructions. Consumers can contact SAKSCO Gourmet Basket Supplies by telephone toll-free at 1-800-668-4390, from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm ET, Monday to Friday or by email. 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. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/IDiAXL SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Faces False Advertising Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Seagate Technology sells defective hard drives and falsely advertises them, a class action claims in federal court in San Jose, California. SIGNET JEWELERS: N.Y. Court Vacates Portion of Arbitrator Award --------------------------------------------------------------- Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has granted Signet Jewelers Inc.'s Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification Award in part and denied it in part. In March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants") filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against SJI, a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that US store-level employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional activities with respect to gender. In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI opposed the motion. A hearing on the class certification motion was held in late February 2014. On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants' disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date of trial for the Claimants' compensation claims and December 7, 2004 through date of trial for Claimants' promotion claims. The arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII, and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay Act. On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For Corrective Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' emergency motion on February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2015. Claimants' motion was granted in part and denied in part in an order issued on March 16, 2015. Claimants filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII Claims for Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11, 2015. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' Motion for Reconsideration on March 4, 2015. Claimants' reply was filed on March 16, 2015. Claimants' Motion was denied in an order issued April 27, 2015. Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Conditional Certification of Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization of Notice on March 6, 2015. SJI's opposition was filed on May 1, 2015. Claimants filed their reply on June 5, 2015. SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification Award on March 3, 2015. Claimants' opposition was filed on March 23, 2015 and SJI's reply was filed on April 3, 2015. SJI's motion was heard on May 4, 2015. On November 16, 2015, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted SJI's Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification Award in part and denied it in part. On November 25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the AAA Proceedings while SJI appeals the decision of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In the AAA proceeding, on April 6, 2015, Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect of the Class Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional Discrimination Claims. SJI filed its opposition on May 12, 2015. Claimants' reply was filed on May 22, 2015. Claimants' motion was granted on June 15, 2015. SIGNET JEWELERS: 2nd Cir. Denies Petition for En Banc Review ------------------------------------------------------------ Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has denied Signet Jewelers Inc.' Petition for Panel Rehearing and En Banc Review of the appellate court's decision reviving the Company's dispute with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. On September 23, 2008, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against SJI in the US District Court for the Western District of New York. The EEOC's lawsuit alleges that SJI engaged in intentional and disparate impact gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions of female retail store employees from January 1, 2003 to the present. The EEOC asserts claims for unspecified monetary relief and non- monetary relief against the Company on behalf of a class of female employees subjected to these alleged practices. Non-expert fact discovery closed in mid-May 2013. In September 2013, SJI made a motion for partial summary judgment on procedural grounds, which was referred to a Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge heard oral arguments on the summary judgment motion in December 2013. On January 2, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report, Recommendation and Order, recommending that the Court grant SJI's motion for partial summary judgment and dismiss the EEOC's claims in their entirety. The EEOC filed its objections to the Magistrate Judge's ruling and SJI filed its response thereto. The District Court Judge heard oral arguments on the EEOC's objections to the Magistrate Judge's ruling on March 7, 2014 and on March 11, 2014 entered an order dismissing the action with prejudice. On May 12, 2014, the EEOC filed its Notice of Appeal of the District Court Judge's dismissal of the action to United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The parties fully briefed the appeal and oral argument occurred on May 5, 2015. On September 9, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision vacating the District Court's order and remanding the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. SJI filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing and En Banc Review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was denied on December 1, 2015. SJI denies the allegations of the Claimants and EEOC and has been defending these cases vigorously. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated. SIGNET JEWELERS: Class Cert. Bid in "Tapia" Case Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the parties in the case, Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation litigation, are waiting for a court ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Prior to the Company's acquisition of Zale Corporation, Zale was a defendant in three purported class action lawsuits, Tessa Hodge v. Zale Delaware, Inc., d/b/a Piercing Pagoda which was filed on April 23, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino; Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation which was filed on July 3, 2013 in the US District Court, Southern District of California; and Melissa Roberts v. Zale Delaware, Inc. which was filed on October 7, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. All three cases include allegations that Zale Corporation violated various wage and hour labor laws. Relief is sought on behalf of current and former Piercing Pagoda and Zale Corporation's employees. The lawsuits seek to recover damages, penalties and attorneys' fees as a result of the alleged violations. Without admitting or conceding any liability, the Company reached an agreement to settle the Hodge and Roberts matters for an immaterial amount. Final approval of the settlement was granted on March 9, 2015 and the settlement was implemented. On April 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification in the Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation litigation. On May 22, 2015, the Company filed Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23 and Collective Action Certification under 29 U.SC. Sec.216(b). Plaintiff filed her Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification on June 3, 2015. The parties await a ruling on the Motion for Class Certification. The Company intends to vigorously defend its position in this litigation. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated. SIGNET JEWELERS: Dismissal of Zale Acquisition Claims on Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that plaintiffs in the litigation challenging the Company's acquisition of Zale Corporation have taken an appeal from of the decisions of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissing their claims against the Zale Corporation directors and the Company; and against Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Five putative stockholder class action lawsuits challenging the Company's acquisition of Zale were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware: Breyer v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9388-VCP, filed February 24, 2014; Stein v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9408-VCP, filed March 3, 2014; Singh v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9409-VCP, filed March 3, 2014; Smart v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9420-VCP, filed March 6, 2014; and Pill v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9440-VCP, filed March 12, 2014 (collectively, the "Actions"). Each of these Actions was brought by a purported former holder of Zale Corporation common stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of former Zale Corporation stockholders. The Court of Chancery consolidated the Actions on March 25, 2014 (the "Consolidated Action"), and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 23, 2014, which named as defendants Zale Corporation, the members of the board of directors of Zale Corporation, the Company, and a merger-related subsidiary of the Company, and alleged that the Zale Corporation directors breached their fiduciary duties to Zale Corporation stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval of the merger agreement by failing to maximize stockholder value and agreeing to an inadequate merger price and to deal terms that deter higher bids. That complaint also alleged that the Zale Corporation directors issued a materially misleading and incomplete proxy statement regarding the merger and that Zale Corporation and the Company aided and abetted the Zale Corporation directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. On May 23, 2014, the Court of Chancery denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the consummation of the merger. On September 30, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting substantially similar claims and allegations as the prior complaint. The amended complaint added Zale Corporation's former financial advisor, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, as a defendant for allegedly aiding and abetting the Zale Corporation directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. The amended complaint no longer named as defendants Zale Corporation or the Company's merger-related subsidiary. The amended complaint sought, among other things, rescission of the merger or damages, as well as attorneys' and experts' fees. The defendant's motion to dismiss was heard by the Court of Chancery on May 20, 2015. On October 1, 2015, the Court dismissed the claims against the Zale Corporation directors and the Company. On October 29, 2015, the Court dismissed the claims against Bank of America Merrill Lynch. On November 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed an appeal of the October 1, 2015 and October 29, 2015 decisions of the Court of Chancery with the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated. SIMBA TOYS: Recalls Cotoons(R) Keys Rattle Due to Choking Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 14, 2015 Posting date: December 14, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Toys Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Choking Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-56276 This recall involves the Cotoons(R) Keys Rattle. The toy is shaped like a key ring and has three keys and a frame for a photograph. The rattle can be identified by the reference number 211300 and UPC 3032162113004, which can be found on the packaging. Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined that this rattle does not meet the Canadian safety requirements for the size and shape of rattles. The blue picture frame on the key ring contains a hard cardboard template picture. The cardboard template can be removed from the frame and enter into and become lodged in a child's throat. This poses a choking or suffocation hazard to young children. Neither Health Canada nor Simba Toys North America has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this product. 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 1,020 units of the recalled rattles were sold at various stores across Canada. The recalled rattles were sold from October 2011 to November 2015. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: Smoby Toys Hong Kong Limited Kowloon Hong Kong CHINA Importer: Simba Toys North America Quebec Quebec CANADA Distributor: K.I.D Toy Inc. Quebec Quebec CANADA Consumers should immediately take the recalled rattles away from children and return them to the place of purchase for a refund. Consumers can contact Simba Toys North America by telephone toll free at 1-800-897-5107, from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm EST, Monday to Friday, or by email. 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. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/yVYjsc SOLUTIONS 2: Recalls Gaming Headsets Due to Infection Risk ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 4, 2015 Posting date: December 4, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Miscellaneous Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-56122 This recall involves the Turtle Beach Ear Force XO FOUR Stealth gaming headset used with the Xbox One gaming console. The headsets are black with green trim and have soft ear-cups, an audio controller and a removable microphone. The product can be identified by model number TBS-2320-03 and UPC 7 31855 02320 2. A 13-character alphanumeric serial number is printed on the inside of the headband of the headset and on the bottom flap of the box. Only those headsets containing code "C16" within the serial number and that do not have a green dot under the windscreen of the microphone are affected. Mold spores were found on certain units, posing a risk of respiratory or other infections in individuals with chronic health problems. Neither Health Canada nor Solutions 2 Go, Inc. has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of these headsets. Solutions 2 Go Inc. has received six reports of mold on the headsets in the USA. No injuries have been reported. Approximately 1,668 units were sold in Canada. The headsets were sold from June 2015 to November 2015 at Walmart, Superclub Videotron, Amazon.ca, Best Buy, The Source, EB Games, Microplay, Play N Trade, Home Hardware, and other independent retailers. Manufactured in China. Importer: Solutions 2 Go Inc. Mississauga Ontario CANADA Manufacturer: Turtle Beach Corporation San Diego California UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately stop using the affected product and visit www.tbrecall.com for information on how to obtain a free replacement. 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. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/0o4or4 SPARK ENERGY: Sued in N.J. Over Excessive Natural Gas Charges ------------------------------------------------------------- John Melville, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Spark Energy, Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LP, Case No. 1:15-cv-08706-RBK-JS (D.N.J., December 17, 2015) arises from a fraudulent and deceptive scheme perpetrated by the Defendants' relating to the excessive prices Spark charged consumers for natural gas. The Defendants operate a retail energy services company that serves residential and commercial customers in competitive markets across the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard M. Golomb, Esq. Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. David J. Stanoch, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 985-9177 Facsimile: (215) 985-4169 E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com dstanoch@golombhonik.com STRYKER MEDICAL: Recalls Position Pro Mattress ---------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 14, 2015 Posting date: January 7, 2016 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-56552 There have been reports of a melting event with the power cord on the Position Pro surface. The investigation found that when an abnormal external force is applied to the plug, such as relocating the mattress surface without unplugging the cord, there is a potential for a fracture to develop on the prongs inside the molded section of the plug. Affected products A. POSITION PRO MATTRESS Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer. Model or catalog number: 2920000000 2920100000 2920500000 Manufacturer: Stryker Medical 3800 E Centre Avenue Portage 49002 Michigan UNITED STATES STRYKER ORTHOPEADICS: Recalls Ball MDM and ADM Ball Impactor Tips ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 7, 2015 Posting date: December 24, 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-56454 Stryker has received complaints associated with cracks and/or fracture of the ball impactor tip and rim impactor tip instruments. Affected products: A. MDM & ADM BALL IMPACTOR TIP Lot or serial number: All lots Model or catalog number: 1235-0-013 1235-0-014 Manufacturer: Stryker Orthopeadics 325 Corporate Drive Mahwah 07430 Alabama UNITED STATES SUPERCOM LTD: Sued in New York Over Misleading Financial Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elliot Greenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Supercom Ltd., Arie Trabelsi, Tsviya Trabelsi, Ordan Trabelsi, Barak Trabelsi and Simona Green, Case No. 1:15-cv-09899 (S.D.N.Y., December 18, 2015) alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Headquartered in Herzliya, Israel, Supercom Ltd. provides traditional and digital identity solutions to governments and private and public organizations worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis V. Trinko, Esq. Jennifer E. Traystman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP 16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 490-9550 Facsimile: (212) 986-0158 E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com jtraystman@gmail.com TARGA RESOURCES: Houston Judge Won't Halt Vote on Merger -------------------------------------------------------- Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the crash in oil and gas prices has gutted the compensation that Targa Resources unitholders expected under a proposed merger, but that's no cause to delay a vote on the deal, a federal judge in Houston, Texas, ruled. Targa Resources Corp. is a publicly traded Fortune 500 midstream energy company based in Houston. "Midstream" is an industry term for pipeline operators that move hydrocarbons from "upstream" drillers to "downstream" refiners. Targa Resources Corp. does not operate any assets of its own. Its income is generated by affiliate Targa Resources Partners LP, in which it holds an 11 percent stake. Targa Corp.'s fortunes are linked to Targa Partners' natural gas plants and gas and oil pipelines in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and North Dakota. Targa Corp.'s board announced on Nov. 3 that it plans to merge with Targa Partners in a stock-for-stock deal then valued at $6.3 billion. Under the deal, Targa Partners owners will get 0.62 of Targa Corp. stock for every Targa Partners unit. When Targa made the announcement, Targa Partners owners were to get around $36 per unit, based on the $50.88 closing price of Targa Corp. that day. But Targa Corp. stock has tumbled along with the price of crude oil and natural gas. It closed at $22.02 on Jan. 11, the day Targa released a definitive proxy statement that recommends Targa Resources unitholders approve the merger. The diminished Targa Corp. share price means Targa Partners unitholders will get a fraction of what they initially stood to gain. The price of a barrel of Brent crude oil, the international benchmark, dropped from $50 in early November to $28.55 on Jan. 18 before rallying to close at $34.74 on Jan. 29. The price of natural gas fell from $2.25 per million British thermal units, the standard measure, in early November to $1.75 in mid-December and closed at $2.29 on Jan. 29. A British thermal unit is the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit. Targa Partners unitholders Richard Greenthal and John Lindeman filed federal class actions on Jan. 6 and Jan. 19 in Houston against Targa Corp.'s board. The lawsuits were consolidated. Their attorney Thomas Bilek asked U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon for a restraining order and injunction to stop Targa from holding shareholder votes on the merger as planned on Feb. 12, until the board provides an update on how the deal has changed since it was announced. From appearances, Bilek seemed overmatched at the hearing. He and his co-counsel, Derrick Farrell, sat at the plaintiffs' table staring at eight attorneys from Houston-based international law firm Vinson & Elkins, representing the Targa directors. Bilek, tall and goateed, specializes in securities class actions and appeared unperturbed by the mismatch. "Originally, back on Nov. 3, the implied consideration was $36.09 and that's what they disclosed in their proxy statement," Bilek said. "Since then, though, Targa Resources [Corp.] stock price has gone to the floor and as of last night the implied consideration was $13.94, so it's dropped by roughly 60 percent." Bilek hardly stopped to breathe while reading federal securities case law that he said shows that Targa Corp.'s board has a "duty to update" compensation projections for the deal, given the "radical shift in commodity prices." Judge Harmon asked him to slow down. "I'll try to. I have a bad habit of speed reading," he said. "If you look at Targa LP, the stock price has declined by a median of 29.9 percent, but if you look at Targa Corp., it has declined by a median of 36.3 percent. So if Targa Corp. falls a lot more than Targa LP, then you're getting less per share than you originally thought you were when the board approved this transaction," he said. The board's lead counsel Michael Holmes with Vinson & Elkins in Dallas accused Bilek of using a novel interpretation of case law. "All of the cases they've cited, there's not a single one that says we're going to enjoin the vote for the reasons they're asking. What plaintiff is asking you to do is unprecedented," Holmes said. Holmes said Bilek's argument fails at the outset because of disclaimers Targa made in its proxy statement: that financial projections may not pan out. "Because the market price of (Corp.) shares will fluctuate prior to the consummation of the merger, TRP common unitholders cannot be sure of the market value of the (Corp.) shares they will receive as merger consideration," the proxy states . Holmes also criticized Bilek for "waiting until the 11th hour to seek a temporary restraining order," 19 days after Bilek's client Greenthal filed suit. But Bilek said Texas state courts have ruled that shareholders do not have a claim in such cases until a definitive proxy statement is filed. Targa filed that 230-page document on Jan. 11. "So we were waiting for that definitive proxy, and I was actually really surprised when the definitive proxy came out that there was no updated information contained in it, because at that point we knew oil and gas markets had tanked," Bilek said. Holmes countered that since Targa announced the merger, Targa Partners' unit price has dropped in tandem with Targa Corp.'s share price, so the equity that Targa Partners owners would give up also has been reduced. "You can say you're getting less, but you're giving up less too." He asked Harmon not to approve the temporary restraining order because Bilek's clients have another way to oppose the merger, outside of the courtroom. "It sounds like his client just doesn't like the deal because the price of his equity will go down," Holmes said. "There's a method for Mr. Greenthal to voice his displeasure, and that's at the ballot box." Harmon on Jan. 29 declined to issue a restraining order. "(T)he authorities cited by plaintiff found a 'duty to update' only where a defendant is representing that its statements continue to remain current, not where (as here) defendants disclosed historical information and repeatedly disclaimed any inference that this information would remain current after the date it was created or would be updated," Harmon wrote. He also denied plaintiffs' request for expedited discovery. Thomas Bilek may be reached at: Thomas Bilek, Esq. THE BILEK LAW FIRM, LLP 808 Travis Street, Suite 802 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: (713) 227-7720 The case captioned, RICHARD GREENTHAL, Plaintiff, VS. RENE R. JOYCE, et al, Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-CV-41 (S.D. Tex.) TARGET CORPORATION: Actions Remain Pending over 2013 Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Target Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 25, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that lawsuits related to a 2013 data breach that remain pending are: (1) a class action brought on behalf of financial institutions; (2) one action previously filed in Canada; (3) several putative class action suits brought on behalf of shareholders; and (4) ongoing investigations by State Attorneys General and the Federal Trade Commission. The Company said, "In the fourth quarter of 2013, we experienced a data breach in which an intruder stole certain payment card and other guest information from our network (the Data Breach). Based on our investigation, we believe that the intruder installed malware on our point-of-sale system in our U.S. stores and stole payment card data from up to approximately 40 million credit and debit card accounts of guests who shopped at our U.S. stores between November 27 and December 17, 2013. In addition, the intruder stole certain guest information, including names, mailing addresses, phone numbers or email addresses, for up to 70 million individuals." "Each of the four major payment card networks made a written claim against us regarding the Data Breach, either directly or through our acquiring banks. "During the third quarter we entered into settlement agreements with two of the four payment card networks. We have resolved a claim from a third network and expect to resolve the remaining claim in the fourth quarter, both on terms consistent with our accrual. "We entered into a Settlement Agreement to resolve and dismiss the claims asserted on behalf of a class of guests whose information was compromised in the Data Breach. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Target has agreed to pay $10 million to class member guests, certain administrative costs associated with the settlement, and attorneys' fees and expenses to class counsel as the Court may award. That settlement received Court approval on November 17, 2015. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hartman" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Hartman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Transworld Systems Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:15-cv-01662 (W.D. Pa., December 16, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Transworld Systems Inc. operates a financial services company that specializes in recovery of past due or delinquent accounts for every industry with an emphasis in the healthcare & financial services industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark G. Moynihan, Esq. 112 Washington Pl Ste 1-N Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 889-8535 Facsimile: (800) 997-8192 E-mail: mark@moynihanlaw.net UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Doesn't Properly Pay Drivers, Action Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Ladon Bruster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly- situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and Raiser, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-02653 (N.D. Ohio, December 21, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay drivers' minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants provide a service where individuals can login to a software application on their smartphone, request a ride, and be paired with an available driver. The Plaintiff is represented by: John R. Climaco, Esq. Scott D. Simpkins, Esq. CLIMACO WILCOX PECA TARANTINO & GAROFOLI CO., LPA Telephone: (216) 621-8484 Facsimile: (216) 771-1632 E-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com sdsimp@climacolaw.com - and - Marie Napoli, Esq. NAPOLI LAW PLLC 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 10th Floor New York, New York 10019 Telephone: (212) 397-1000 E-mail: MNapoli@napolilaw.com - and - Jeanne Lahiff, Esq. IMBESI LAW P.C. 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408 New York, New York 10123 Telephone: (212) 736-0007 E-mail: jlahiff@lawicm.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Doesn't Properly Pay Drivers, Action Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Ladon Bruster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly- situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and Raiser, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-02653 (N.D. Ohio, December 21, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay drivers' minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants provide a service where individuals can login to a software application on their smartphone, request a ride, and be paired with an available driver. The Plaintiff is represented by: John R. Climaco, Esq. Scott D. Simpkins, Esq. CLIMACO WILCOX PECA TARANTINO & GAROFOLI CO., LPA Telephone: (216) 621-8484 Facsimile: (216) 771-1632 E-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com sdsimp@climacolaw.com - and - Marie Napoli, Esq. NAPOLI LAW PLLC 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 10th Floor New York, New York 10019 Telephone: (212) 397-1000 E-mail: MNapoli@napolilaw.com - and - Jeanne Lahiff, Esq. IMBESI LAW P.C. 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408 New York, New York 10123 Telephone: (212) 736-0007 E-mail: jlahiff@lawicm.com UGI CORPORATION: Direct Customers Appeal Claims Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------- UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 30, 2015, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, that direct customers have filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit over the dismissal of their claims in the class action lawsuit over portable propane cylinders. Between May and October 2014, more than 35 purported class action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by certain of their direct and indirect customers. The class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor colluded, beginning in 2008, to reduce the fill level of portable propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to persuade its common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The claims seek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative classes. On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class action cases to the Western Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. In July 2015, the Court dismissed all claims brought by direct customers and all claims other than those for injunctive relief brought by indirect customers. The direct customers have filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The indirect customers have filed an amended complaint claiming injunctive relief and state law claims under Wisconsin, Maine, and Vermont law. "We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any, arising from such litigation. We believe we have strong defenses to the claims and intend to vigorously defend against them," the Company said. ULTA SALON: Class Cert. Ruling in "Moore" under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------ Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. has taken an appeal from a California court's order granting class certification in the "Moore" lawsuit, Ulta said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015. On March 2, 2012, a putative employment class action lawsuit (Moore v. Ulta) was filed against the Company and certain unnamed defendants in state court in Los Angeles County, California, and was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 12, 2012. On August 8, 2013, the plaintiff asked the court to certify the proposed class; the court issued an order certifying the class on November 16, 2015. Ulta filed an appeal of the court's certification order on November 30, 2015. The plaintiff and members of the proposed class are alleged to be (or to have been) non-exempt hourly employees. The suit alleges that Ulta violated various provisions of California's labor laws and failed to provide plaintiff and members of the proposed class with full meal periods, paid rest breaks, certain wages, overtime compensation and premium pay, all related to exit inspections of employees. The suit seeks to recover damages and penalties as a result of these alleged practices. The Company denies plaintiff's allegations and is vigorously defending the matter. ULTA SALON: Expects Approval of "Galvez" Accord This Year --------------------------------------------------------- Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. expects that the $1,750,000 settlement of the "Galvez" class action lawsuit will be approved by the court this year, Ulta said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015. On December 4, 2013, a putative employment class action lawsuit (Galvez v. Ulta) was filed against us in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County and was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 8, 2014. It seeks class action certification for claims involving payment of wages using an ATM card ("pay card" related claims); as well as claims related to allegedly failing to provide accurate and complete wage statements; allegedly failing to pay all minimum and overtime wages; and allegedly failing to pay meal and rest break premiums due to exit inspections of employees (exit inspection related claims). On August 29, 2014, the court stayed the exit inspection portion of the litigation, thus the case is proceeding only with respect to the pay card-related claims. The suit alleges that Ulta was required by law to obtain employee consent to use pay cards for purposes of supplemental and final pay and that pay statements issued in conjunction with pay cards did not comply with California's Labor Code. The suit seeks to recover damages and penalties as a result of these alleged practices. The parties have agreed to settle the suit for $1,750,000, a significant portion of which will be allocated to attorneys' fees for plaintiff's counsel. Under the terms of the settlement, Ulta admits no liability and the parties fully and finally release all claims. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval, which the Company expects will be granted in 2016. ULTA SALON: Defending "Paez" Class Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------- Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that a putative employment class action lawsuit (Paez v. Ulta) was filed on May 19, 2015, against the Company in the Superior Court of California, San Bernardino County, and was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 24, 2015. As with the Moore class action, it also alleges that Ulta violated various provisions of California's labor laws and failed to provide plaintiff and members of the proposed class with full meal periods, paid rest breaks, certain wages, overtime compensation and premium pay, all related to exit inspections of employees. The suit seeks to recover damages and penalties as a result of these alleged practices. The Company denies plaintiff's allegations and is vigorously defending the matter. ULTA SALON: Defending Against "Quinby" Class Suit in N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that a putative employment class action lawsuit (Quinby et al. v. Ulta) was filed on September 9, 2015, against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs and proposed class members are salaried General Managers who worked for Ulta in California. The suit alleges that the General Managers should have been treated as hourly-paid employees, paid overtime and provided with meal and rest breaks under California's labor laws. The suit seeks to recover damages and penalties as a result of these alleged practices. The Company denies plaintiffs' allegations and is vigorously defending the matter. VIOLIN MEMORY: Class Suit over 2013 IPO in Discovery Phase ---------------------------------------------------------- Violin Memory, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the class action related to the Company's 2013 initial public offering is in the discovery phase of the litigation. Beginning on November 26, 2013, four putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California naming as defendants the Company, a number of the Company's present or former directors and officers, and the underwriters of the Company's September 27, 2013 initial public offering (the "IPO"). The four complaints were consolidated into a single, putative class action, and co-lead plaintiffs were appointed by the court. On March 28, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint purporting to assert claims under the federal securities laws, based upon seven categories of alleged omissions, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock issued in the IPO. The complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount and other relief. On April 18, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. On October 31, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. The court's order dismissed all except one category of alleged omissions, and gave plaintiffs the opportunity to amend the complaint. On November 21, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint and, in so doing, chose not to amend their claims against the Company or the present or former directors and officers. On April 30, 2015, the court issued an order granting in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. The court's order dismissed all except two categories of claims against the Company and the present or former directors and officers of the Company and certain claims against the underwriters. On May 6, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint. On May 20, 2015, the Company and the present and former directors and officers filed an answer to the second amended consolidated complaint denying the material allegations of the complaint and alleging numerous affirmative defenses to the remaining claims. The case is now in the discovery phase of the litigation. WAL-MART STORES: Supreme Court Appeal in "Braun/Hummel" Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 2, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that the Company is a defendant in Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a class-action lawsuit commenced in March 2002 in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to pay class members for all hours worked and prevented class members from taking their full meal and rest breaks. On October 13, 2006, a jury awarded back-pay damages to the plaintiffs of approximately $78 million on their claims for off- the-clock work and missed rest breaks. The jury found in favor of the Company on the plaintiffs' meal-period claims. On November 14, 2007, the trial judge entered a final judgment in the approximate amount of $188 million, which included the jury's back-pay award plus statutory penalties, prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees. By operation of law, post-judgment interest accrues on the judgment amount at the rate of six percent per annum from the date of entry of the judgment, which was November 14, 2007, until the judgment is paid, unless the judgment is set aside on appeal. On December 7, 2007, the Company filed its Notice of Appeal. On June 10, 2011, the Pennsylvania Superior Court of Appeals issued an opinion upholding the trial court's certification of the class, the jury's back pay award, and the awards of statutory penalties and prejudgment interest, but reversing the award of attorneys' fees. On September 9, 2011, the Company filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On July 2, 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the Company's Petition. On December 15, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its opinion affirming the Superior Court of Appeals' decision. At that time, the Company recorded expenses of $249 million for the judgment amount and post-judgment interest incurred to date. The Company will continue to accrue for the post-judgment interest until final resolution. However, the Company continues to believe it has substantial factual and legal defenses to the claims at issue, and, on March 13, 2015, the Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their response in opposition and on May 4, 2015, the Company filed its reply brief. The Supreme Court cases Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Michelle Braun, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Nos. 14-1123 and 14-1124 (U.S.). Attorneys for Petitioners Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al.: Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq., Counsel of Record GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 229-7000 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com Attorneys for Respondents Counsel to Michelle Braun, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al.: Robert S. Peck, Esq., Counsel of Record CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION, P.C. 777 6th Street, NW, Suite 250 Washington, DC 20001 Tel: (202) 944-2803 E-mail: robert.peck@cclfirm.com Counsel to The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al.: Allyson N. Ho, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1717 Main Street, Suite 3200 Dallas, TX 75201-7347 Tel: (214) 466-4000 E-mail: aho@morganlewis.com Counsel to The Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc.: Charles H. Moellenberg Jr., Esq. JONES DAY 500 Grant Street, Suite 4500 Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2514 Tel: (412) 391-3939 E-mail: chmoellenberg@jonnesday.com Counsel to Retail Litigation Center, Inc.: Katharine H. Parker, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP Eleven Times Square New York, NY 10036-8299 Tel: (212)-969-3009 E-mail: kparker@proskauer.com Counsel to DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar: Scott Burnett Smith, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP 200 Clinton Avenue West, Suite 900 Huntsville, AL 35801 Tel: (256) 517-5100 E-mail: ssmith@babc.com WAL-MART STORES: ASDA Unit Defending 6,000+ Equal Value Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 2, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2015, that ASDA Stores, Ltd. ("ASDA"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, is a defendant in over 6,000 "equal value" claims that are proceeding before an Employment Tribunal in Manchester (the "Employment Tribunal") in the United Kingdom ("UK") on behalf of current and former ASDA store employees, who allege that the work performed by female employees in ASDA's retail stores is of equal value in terms of, among other things, the demands of their jobs to that of male employees working in ASDA's warehouse and distribution facilities, and that the disparity in pay between these different job positions is not objectively justified. Claimants are requesting differential back pay based on higher wage rates in the warehouse and distribution facilities and those higher wage rates on a prospective basis as part of these equal value proceedings. ASDA believes that further claims may be asserted in the near future. On March 23, 2015, ASDA asked the Employment Tribunal to stay all proceedings, contending that the High Court, which is the superior first instance civil court in the UK that is headquartered in the Royal Courts of Justice in the City of London, is the more convenient and appropriate forum to hear these claims. On March 23, 2015, ASDA also asked the Employment Tribunal to "strike out" substantially all of the claims for failing to comply with Employment Tribunal rules. On July 23, 2015, the Employment Tribunal denied ASDA's requests to stay all proceedings and to "strike out" substantially all of the claims. On September 2, 2015, ASDA filed a Notice of Appeal with the Employment Appeal Tribunal seeking to appeal both rulings. On October 14, 2015, the Employment Appeal Tribunal denied ASDA's requests for an appeal. At present, the Company cannot predict the number of such claims that may be filed, and cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise from these proceedings. The Company believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses to these claims, and intends to defend the claims vigorously. WARNER ROBINS: "Lawrence" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Steven Lawrence, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Warner Robins Wrecker & Towing Services, Inc., David L. Guest, and Irene Guest, Case No. 5:15-cv-00472-MTT (M.D. Ga., December 18, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage compensation, due but unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs of litigation including reasonable attorneys' fees, and for other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a towing and wrecker service company located at 640 Elberta Rd., Warner Robins, Georgia 31093. The Plaintiff is represented by: Regan Keebaugh, Esq. RADFORD & KEEBAUGH, LLC 315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1080 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (678) 271-0300 E-mail: regan@decaturlegal.com WC BRADLEY: Faces "Zinn" Suit in Fla. Over Defective Gas Grills --------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Zinn, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. W.C. Bradley Co. and Char-Broil, L.L.C., Case No. 1:15-cv-24671-JAL (S.D. Fla., December 18, 2015) seeks redress for the Defendants' deceptive practices in the labeling, advertising, marketing, and promotion of their Char-Broil gas grills, as well as the design and manufacture of the Grills, including, the Igniter Modules. W.C. Bradley Co. is a Georgia corporation that operates a manufacturing company in Florida. Based in Columbus, Georgia, Char-Broil, L.L.C. operates an outdoor cooking company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq. GILMAN LAW LLP 8951 Bonita Beach Road, S.E. Suite 525 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Telephone: (781) 307-2526 E-mail: kgilman@gilmanlawllp.com WORLD OF CHANTILLY: Faces "Alfaro" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Alfaro, Bladimir Flores, Jose Alfaro, Erasto Morales, and Lilian Torres, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. World of Chantilly, Inc., Chambord LLC, faks realty Corp., Ibrahim Faks a/k/a Alberto Faks, Frederick Faks, and Daniel Faks, Case No. 1:15-cv-07257-PKC-RLM (E.D.N.Y., December 21, 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 kosher bakery, dessert, and catering company located in Brooklyn, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com graham@peltonlaw.com WYNDHAM INTERNATIONAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Diane Morgan, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Wyndham International Operating Partnership, L.P d/b/a The Mills House Wyndham Grand Hotel, Case No. 2:15-cv-05001-DCN (D.S.C., December 18, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate approximately 7,670 hotels and 667,000 rooms worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marybeth Mullaney, Esq. MULLANEY LAW 321 Wingo Way, Suite 201 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 849-1692 Facsimile: (800) 385-8160 E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net ZICAM LLC: Falsely Marketed Pre-Cold Medicines, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Gulkis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Zicam LLC and Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., Case No. 7:15-cv-09843 (S.D.N.Y., December 17, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' false and misleading advertising claims and marketing practices of its "Zicam Pre-Cold Medicine", that their Products shorten and reduce the severity of the common cold. The Products at issue are nothing more than a placebo according to the Double-blind placebo-controlled trials. The Defendants are engaged in the business of manufacturing, mass marketing, and distributing homeopathic formulas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: scott@bursor.com jmarchese@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 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 * * *