/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160215.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, February 15, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 32 Headlines 144 NINTH: Faces "Benitez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ACTAVIS PLC: Faces Suit Over Memantine HCL Monopoly AFFINION GROUP: Filed Sur-Reply to Support Class Cert. Objection AFFINION GROUP: Brief Due April 15 in Class Action Appeal AFFINION GROUP: Filed Answering Brief in 9th Cir. Appeal AFFINION GROUP: Massachusetts Class Action Dismissed AIRGAS INC: Faces "Wojcicki" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports AIRTRAN HOLDINGS: Briefing Completed in Checked Bag Fees Action ALEX FIGLIOLIA: Faces "Campoverde" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT AMAZON.COM INC: "Blagman" Class Suit Still Pending AMERICAN APPAREL: "Rodriguez" Shareholder Action Dismissed AMERICAN APPAREL: Bankruptcy Stays Ex-Employees' Suit in Calif. AMERICAN APPAREL: Calif. Suit over Collection of E-mails Stayed AMSTERDAM PRINTING: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Claims ANTHEM GROUP: "Bell" Suit Alleges Retirement Fund Mismanagement ANTHONY C COLUZZI: Illegally Collects Debt, "Rosado" Suit Claims APPLE INC: iPhone Crashed on iOS 9 Upgrade, "Williams" Suit Says ARETE GROUP: Otto Group Seeks Payment for Subcontract Job ARGENTINA: Bondholders' Lawyer Not Included in Settlement Talks ASHLEY FURNITURE: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Upholstery ASTRO PAK: "Wright" Sues to Recover Upaid Overtime Pay B&B AMBULETTE: Faces "Bishun" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime BABY DOLLS: Stripper Files Class Action Over Unpaid Wages BANK OF AMERICA: Court Wants "Gnipp" Complaint Amended by Feb. 29 BERTUCCI'S GROUP: Faces "Kappotis" Over Gift Card Redemption BIOGEN INC: Defending Securities Litigation in D. Mass. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued in Cal. Over Defective N63 Engines BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Can't Alter Resin in Vaginal Mesh Products BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Wins Transvaginal Mesh Suit BRINKER INT'L: "Hohnbaum" Case Resulted in $5,800,000 Charge BULLZEYE OILFIELD: "Furlow" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages BUTH NA-BODHAIGE: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation CAL-MAINE FOODS: Dismissed from Direct Purchasers' Class Suit CAL-MAINE FOODS: 3rd Cir. Stays Appeal from Damages-Class Ruling CAL-MAINE FOODS: Hearing This Month on Summary Judgment Bids CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over "Fire Prevention" Fee CALNET INC: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Ahmadi" Suit Says CAMPBELL EWALD: Ruling May Drastically Change Pickoff Tactic CAPITAL ADVANCE: Faces "Menichiello" TCPA Class Suit CAPSTONE TURBINE: Consolidation of Kinney & Grooms Cases Sought CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces Probe Into Food Safety Practices CHURCH & DWIGHT: Sued for Misrepresenting Vitamin Products CIENA CORP: Briefing Underway on Bid to Dismiss Delaware Suit CIENA CORP: Still Facing Calif. Suit over Cyan Acquisition CITIFINANCIAL INC: Still Defends "Lightner" Action CLEAR WATER: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Aragon" Suit Says CLIFFS NATURAL: Settles Securities Class Action in Ohio CMRE FINANCIAL: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection COMMUNICATIONS UNLIMITED: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages CONNECTICUT: Class Action Mulled Over Unlawful Ebola Quarantine CONQUEST COMPLETION: Faces "Albert" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CRACKER BARREL: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach CSX: Sued for Contributing to Gills Creek Flooding DESTINATION CHIC: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages DEVRY EDUCATION: Law Firm Mulls Securities Class Action DIXON GOLF: Faces "York" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages DREW ECKL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Felberbaum" Suit Claims EAGLE MATERIALS: Summary Judgment Bid Pending in Wallboard Case EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Word" Suit Over FCRA Violation FARMERS INSURANCE: Female Attorneys Sue Over Pay Discrimination FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Settlement Completion Deadline Extended FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Motion to Dismiss "Ludwick" Action Pending FLECK FLECK: "Alibrandi" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation FLINT, MI: Suits Pile Up Over Water Crisis FOOD EXPRESS: Court Approves Settlement, Slashes Counsel Fees FOOTHILL/EASTERN: "Cohen" Suit Stayed Pending Spokeo Decision FRESH TRANSPORTATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages FTS USA: "Taylor" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages GATEWAY GENOMICS: "Main" Sues Over Inaccurate Pregnancy Test GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Beaver Water Suit Over LAS-Price Fixing GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Siloam Springs Suit Over LAS-Price Fixing GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Springdale Suit Over LAS-Price Fixing GENERAL CHEMICAL: St. Paul Water Services Hits Overpriced Alum GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Lawyers Respond to Criticisms GENERAL MOTORS: 121 Recall Class Actions Pending Through Jan. 27 GENERAL MOTORS: Oral Argument in 2nd Cir. Appeal Set for March 16 GENERAL MOTORS: April 20 Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Set GENERAL MOTORS: 2nd Bellwether Trial to Commence in March 2016 GENERAL MOTORS: Appeal in Canada Dealers' Claim Pending GLOBAL TRAVEL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Tye" Action Claims GOOGLE INC: Court Dismisses Class Action Over CAPTCHA GOPRO INC: Faces Securities Class Action After Stock Slump GRENVILLE CHRISTIAN: Former Students Sue Over Alleged Abuse HAPPY ANGEL: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Moreno" Suit Says HBH GOURMET: "Maye" Action Seeks OT, Tips, Spread of Hours Pay HEALTH CANADA: Women Mull Class Action Over Anti-Nausea Drug HEDGEPATH PHARMACEUTICALS: Suit v. Accentia, Biovest Settled HENRY INDUSTRIES: Faces "Hose" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime HIGHER ONE: Faces "Hall" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: To Seek Dismissal of Merger Class Action ISE RESTAURANT: Faces Suit in N.Y. Seeking Unpaid Wages & Damages ITALY: Solicitor Mulls Class Action Over Juventus Travel Ban JL BARNES: "Blake" Sues over Unsolicited Fax Messages KEANE GROUP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Frazier" Suit Claims KEURIG GREEN: Faces "Kaufmann" Suit Over Merger With Acorn KEURIG GREEN: Facing Class Suits in Delaware over Acorn Merger KEURIG GREEN: Facing Class Suits in Vermont over Acorn Merger LE MACARON: "Herrera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages LOS ARCOS: $178,928 Settlement in Labor Suit Has Initial Okay MAGELLAN SOLUTIONS: "Hayford" Suit Seeks Pre-shift Overtime Pay MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Eley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Mitchell" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Walker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT NANT DISTILLERY: Investors Mull Class Action NURSERY ELEGUA'S: Faces "Bonilla" Wage-and-Hour Suit PATRIZIO BENVENUTI: Arrested in Italy Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme POST OFFICE: Subpostmaster Mulls Class Action QUICKEN LOANS: Court Dismisses "Arace" Suit over Tax Service Fee SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Morris" Suit Hits Illegal Collection Methods SEASONS HOSPICE: "Lopez" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Tips SEE'S CANDY: Red Heart Chocolates Are Not Kosher, Suit Claims SNAK-KING CORP: "Parga" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages SOLERA HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending SOUTHAVEN, MS: Troy Goode's Family Files Class Action SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: D.C. Court Has Yet to Issue Scheduling Order SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Defendant in British Columbia Class Action SPECIAL TOUCH: Faces "Matala-De-Mazza" Wage-and-Hour Suit ST. LOUIS RAMS: Faces Second Class Action Over Seat Licenses TAMKO BUILDING: Faces "Snyder" Suit Over Defective Shingles THOMSON REUTERS: "Furey" Stays in N.D. Cal.; Discovery Okayed TREMOR VIDEO: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Medina" Complaint TRIVASCULAR TECHNOLOGIES: MOU Reached in Merger Class Action U.S. FOODSERVICE: Brinker Received $2,000,00 from Settlement UBER: Drivers' Cases Over Employment Status Won't Go to MDL UNITED AIRLINES: Hausfeld Named Lead Counsel in Price-Fixing Suit UNITED STATES: Girard Named Lead Counsel in OPM Data Breach Case UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA: Alumni Files Data Breach Suit VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: New Jersey Files Suit Over Emissions Fraud WASHINGTON: Inmate's Civil Rights Suit Denied Class Status * Securities Class Action Filings Rise to 234 in 2015, NERA Says ********* 144 NINTH: Faces "Benitez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Ivan Benitez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 144 Ninth Gotham Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Gotham Pizza, Michael Shamailov, and Lana Shamailov, Case No. 1:15-cv-10062-AT (S.D.N.Y., December 28, 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 pizzeria located at 144 9th Avenue, New York, NY 10011. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com ACTAVIS PLC: Faces Suit Over Memantine HCL Monopoly --------------------------------------------------- Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Actavis, PLC, et al., Case No. 1:15- cv-10083 (S.D.N.Y., December 28, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' unlawful scheme to maintain a monopoly in the United States market of branded and generic versions of memantine hydrochloride. Actavis, PLC markets a broad portfolio of branded and generic pharmaceuticals and has commercial operations in more than 60 countries around the world. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth A. Silva, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: esilva@faruqilaw.com - and - Peter Kohn, Esq. Joseph T. Lukens, Esq. Neill W. Clark, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 277-5770 Facsimile: (215) 277-5771 E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com jlukens@faruqilaw.com nclark@faruqilaw.com AFFINION GROUP: Filed Sur-Reply to Support Class Cert. Objection ---------------------------------------------------------------- Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10 General Form For Registration Of Securities filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2016, that the defendants in a class action lawsuit have filed a sur-reply in support of their objection to the motion for class certification of the case. On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the Company and Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant") in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a California-only subclass in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and for unjust enrichment. On September 29, 2010, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration of all of the claims asserted in this lawsuit. On February 24, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion. On March 28, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing the district court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration. On September 7, 2012, the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court denying arbitration. While that issue was on appeal, the matter proceeded in the district court. There was written discovery and depositions. Previously, the court had set a briefing schedule on class certification that called for the completion of class certification briefing on May 18, 2012. However, on March 28, 2012, the court suspended the briefing schedule on the motion due to the filing of two other overlapping class actions in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The first of those cases was filed on March 6, 2012, against the Company, Trilegiant, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corp., Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Apollo Global Management, LLC, 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc., United Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Int'l, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corp., People Finderspro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc., IAC/InteractiveCorp., and Shoebuy.com, Inc. The second of those cases was filed on March 25, 2012, against the same defendants as well as Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Vertrue, Inc., Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co. These two cases assert similar claims as the claims asserted in the earlier-filed lawsuit in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs. On April 26, 2012, the court consolidated these three cases. The court also set an initial status conference for May 17, 2012. At that status conference, the court ordered that Plaintiffs file a consolidated amended complaint to combine the claims in the three previously separate lawsuits. The court also struck the class certification briefing schedule that had been set previously. On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting substantially the same legal claims. The consolidated amended complaint added Priceline, Orbitz, Chase Paymentech, Hotwire, and TigerDirect as Defendants and added three new Plaintiffs; it also dropped Webloyalty and Rakuten as Defendants. On December 7, 2012, all Defendants filed motions seeking to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and to strike certain portions of the complaint. Plaintiff's response brief was filed on February 7, 2013, and Defendants' reply briefs were filed on April 5, 2013. On September 25, 2013, the court held oral argument on the motions to dismiss. On March 28, 2014, the court ruled on the motions to dismiss, granting them in part and denying them in part. The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' RICO claims and claims under the California Automatic Renewal Statute as to all defendants. The court also dismissed certain named Plaintiffs as their claims were barred either by the statute of limitations and/or a prior settlement agreement. Certain Defendants were also dismissed from the case. The court also struck certain allegations from the consolidated amended complaint, including certain of Plaintiffs' class action allegations under CUTPA. As to the Company and Trilegiant, the court denied the motion to dismiss certain Plaintiffs' claims under ECPA and for unjust enrichment, as well as certain other claims of Plaintiffs under CUTPA. Also, on December 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs' law firms in these consolidated cases filed an additional action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. That case is identical in all respects to this case except that it was filed by a new Plaintiff (the named Plaintiff from the class action complaint previously filed against the Company, Trilegiant, 1-800- Flowers.com, and Chase Bank USA, N.A., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November 10, 2010). On January 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate that case into the existing set of consolidated cases. On June 13, 2013, the court entered an order staying the date for all Defendants to respond to the Complaint until 21 days after the court ruled on the motion to consolidate. On March 28, 2014, the court entered an order granting the motion to consolidate. On May 12, 2014, remaining Defendants in the consolidated cases filed answers in which they denied the material allegations of the consolidated amended complaint. On April 28, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking interlocutory appellate review of portions of the court's order of March 28, 2014. Briefing on the motion was completed on June 5, 2014. On March 26, 2015, the court denied Plaintiff's motion for interlocutory appeal. On May 29, 2015, the court issued a scheduling order indicating that discovery was to commence immediately and be completed by December 31, 2015. On May 29, 2015, the court also set deadlines for dispositive motions, which are due February 29, 2016. If no dispositive motions are filed, a joint trial memorandum would be due by April 1, 2016, and jury selection would take place on May 3, 2016. If dispositive motions are filed, the joint trial memorandum would be due by October 3, 2016, and jury selection would take place on November 1, 2016. On June 16, 2015, the court set a schedule for class certification, with plaintiffs' motion for class certification due on September 15, 2015, and with briefing to be completed by November 30, 2015. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on September 15, 2015, and Defendants filed an opposition brief on December 15, 2015. Plaintiffs filed a reply brief on December 22, 2015, and Defendants filed a sur-reply on December 29, 2015. AFFINION GROUP: Brief Due April 15 in Class Action Appeal --------------------------------------------------------- Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10 General Form For Registration Of Securities filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2016, that the the Company's answering brief must be filed by April 15, 2016, in an appeal in a Connecticut class action lawsuit against Webloyalty. On August 27, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against Webloyalty, one of its former clients and one of the credit card associations in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging, among other things, violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, civil theft, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act violation (the "Connecticut Action"). This lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on and after October 1, 2008. On November 1, 2010, the defendants moved to dismiss the initial complaint, which plaintiff then amended on November 19, 2010. On December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a second motion to dismiss this lawsuit. On May 15, 2014, the court heard oral argument on plaintiff's motion to strike the Company's request for judicial notice of the plaintiff's membership enrollment documents filed in support of the Company's second motion to dismiss. On July 17, 2014, the court denied plaintiff's motion to strike. The court, at the same time, dismissed those claims grounded in fraud, but reserved until further proceedings the determination as to whether all of plaintiff's claims are grounded in fraud and whether those claims not grounded in fraud are dismissible. The court permitted the plaintiff until August 15, 2014 to amend his complaint and allowed the parties the opportunity to conduct limited discovery, to be completed by September 26, 2014, concerning the issues addressed in its dismissal order. All other discovery was stayed in the case. The July 17, 2014 order indicated that the court would set a further motion to dismiss briefing schedule following the conclusion of this limited discovery. The plaintiff amended his complaint as scheduled, and the parties conducted limited discovery as ordered. After this limited discovery, the parties proposed a motion to dismiss briefing schedule calling for the defendants to file their opening briefs on January 9, 2015. The plaintiff filed his opposition brief on March 24, 2015, and on April 24, 2015, the defendants filed their reply briefs in response to that opposition. On October 15, 2015, the court entered a judgment dismissing all of the plaintiff's claims with prejudice and without further leave to amend. On November 13, 2015, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal decision, but no further dates for that appeal have been scheduled. Plaintiff's opening appeals brief must be filed by February 10, 2016. The Company's answering brief must be filed by April 15, 2016. Plaintiff will then have 14 days in which to file a reply brief if he chooses. The Court has not scheduled a date for a hearing. AFFINION GROUP: Filed Answering Brief in 9th Cir. Appeal -------------------------------------------------------- Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10 General Form For Registration Of Securities filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2016, that the the Company filed its answering brief on January 19, 2016, in a California class action appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On June 7, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Webloyalty that was factually similar to the Connecticut Action. The action claims that Webloyalty engaged in unlawful business practices in violation of California Business and Professional Code Sec 17200, et seq. and in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Both claims are based on allegations that in connection with enrollment and billing of the plaintiff, Webloyalty charged plaintiff's credit or debit card using information obtained through a data pass process and without obtaining directly from plaintiff his full account number, name, address, and contact information, as purportedly required under Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act. On September 25, 2012, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety and the court scheduled a hearing on the motion for January 14, 2013. Webloyalty also sought judicial notice of the enrollment page and related enrollment and account documents. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 12, 2012, and Webloyalty filed its reply submission on January 7, 2013. Thereafter, on January 10, 2013, the court cancelled the previously scheduled January 14, 2013 hearing and indicated that it would rule based on the parties' written submissions without the need for a hearing. On August 28, 2013, the court sua sponte dismissed plaintiff's complaint without prejudice with leave to amend by September 30, 2013. The plaintiff filed his amended complaint on September 30, 2013, adding purported claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and for unjust enrichment, money had and received, conversion, civil theft, and invasion of privacy. On December 2, 2013, the Company moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint. Plaintiff responded to the motion on January 27, 2014. On February 6, 2014, the court indicated that it would review the submissions and issue a decision on plaintiff's motion without oral argument. On September 29, 2014, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims on substantive grounds and/or statute of limitations grounds. The court has allowed the plaintiff 28 days to file a motion demonstrating why a further amendment of the complaint would not be futile. On October 27, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint and attached a proposed amended complaint. The Company responded to the motion on November 10, 2014. On June 22, 2015, the court entered a final order and judgment denying plaintiff's motion to amend, dismissing all federal claims with prejudice, and dismissing all state claims without prejudice. On July 10, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal decision and denial of his request to further amend his complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company responded to the motion on November 10, 2014. On June 22, 2015, the court entered a final order and judgment denying plaintiff's motion to amend, dismissing all federal claims with prejudice, and dismissing all state claims without prejudice. On July 10, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal decision and denial of his request to further amend his complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The plaintiff filed his opening appeal brief on November 19, 2015, and the Company filed its answering brief on January 19, 2016. AFFINION GROUP: Massachusetts Class Action Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------- Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10 General Form For Registration Of Securities filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2016, that the parties in a consumer class action lawsuit in Massachusetts have filed a joint stipulation of dismissal. On February 7, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and one of its clients in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging, among other things, violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Electronic Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, money had and received, conversion, misrepresentation, violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and equitable relief. Claims are based on allegations that plaintiff was enrolled and billed for a package program without plaintiff's proper consent and knowledge. On April 4, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. A hearing on that motion was held on July 24, 2014. On March 11, 2015, the magistrate judge to whom the motion was referred by the district court judge issued a report and recommendation granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. The magistrate judge granted the motion to dismiss on the fraud claim, which was dismissed as time-barred, but denied the remainder of the motion. On March 25, 2015, the Company filed objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Briefing on the objections concluded on April 9, 2015. On June 4, 2015, the court accepted and adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge over the Company's objections. The Company filed its answer to the complaint on July 2, 2015. A scheduling conference was held with the court on August 11, 2015. The court entered an order providing that fact discovery is to be completed by March 31, 2016. On October 2, 2015, plaintiff's counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. On October 20, 2015, the court granted the motion of plaintiff's counsel to withdraw as counsel. On October 21, 2015, plaintiff and the Company agreed to settle plaintiff's claims on an individual, non-class basis for a payment of $25,000. In connection with such settlement, plaintiff released the Company and its affiliates from all claims that plaintiff had against such parties related to such lawsuit. On November 12, 2015, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal. AIRGAS INC: Faces "Wojcicki" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Wojcicki, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Airgas, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-06787-PBT (E.D. Penn., December 23, 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. Airgas, Inc. is a producer and supplier of industrial, medical and specialty gases, and hard-goods, such as welding equipment and related products. The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Banko, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 101 Greenwood Ave. Suite 600 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 277-5770 Facsimile: (215) 277-5771 E-mail: jbanko@faruqilaw.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. James M. Wilson Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com AIRTRAN HOLDINGS: Briefing Completed in Checked Bag Fees Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in a class action lawsuit against Delta Air Lines, Inc. and AirTran Holdings, LLC, have completed briefing on defendants' motions for summary judgment, plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and the motions to exclude the opinions of experts, and those motions have been submitted to the Court for decision. A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta Air Lines, Inc. and AirTran Holdings, LLC, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009. The complaint alleged, among other things, that AirTran attempted to monopolize air travel in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15- per-bag fees for the first item of checked luggage in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The initial complaint sought treble damages on behalf of a putative class of persons or entities in the United States who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on domestic flights beginning December 5, 2008. After the filing of the May 2009 complaint, various other nearly identical complaints also seeking certification as class actions were filed in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia; Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada. All of the cases were consolidated before a single federal district court judge in Atlanta. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in the consolidated action on February 1, 2010, which broadened the allegations to add claims that Delta and AirTran conspired to reduce capacity on competitive routes and to raise prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In addition to treble damages for the amount of first baggage fees paid to AirTran and to Delta, the Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks injunctive relief against a broad range of alleged anticompetitive activities, as well as attorneys' fees. On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that AirTran and Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the imposition of a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity and pricing decisions. On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class, which AirTran and Delta have opposed. The parties have submitted briefs on class certification, and the parties have filed motions to exclude the class certification opinions of each other's expert. The parties engaged in extensive discovery, and discovery has now closed. On June 18, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order that plaintiffs have abandoned their claim that AirTran and Delta conspired to reduce capacity. On August 31, 2012, AirTran and Delta moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' remaining claims, but discovery disputes between plaintiffs and Delta delayed further briefing on summary judgment. On August 5, 2015, the Court entered an order granting class certification, which was vacated on August 17, 2015, to permit further briefing on class certification and AirTran's motion to exclude plaintiffs' expert. Thereafter, the parties filed motions to exclude the opinions of the other parties' experts. On January 8, 2016, the parties completed briefing on defendants' motions for summary judgment, plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and the motions to exclude the opinions of experts, and those motions have been submitted to the Court for decision. While AirTran has denied all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and intends to defend vigorously any and all such allegations, results of legal proceedings such as this one cannot be predicted with certainty. Southwest Airlines Co. (the "Company") operates Southwest Airlines, a major domestic airline. The Consolidated Financial Statements include the accounts of the Company and its wholly owned subsidiaries, which include AirTran Holdings, LLC. On May 2, 2011 (the "acquisition date"), the Company acquired all of the outstanding equity of AirTran Holdings, Inc. ("AirTran Holdings"), the former parent company of AirTran Airways, Inc. ("AirTran Airways"). ALEX FIGLIOLIA: Faces "Campoverde" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Segundo Marcial Saeteros Campoverde, individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Alex Figliolia Water & Sewer LLC and Alexander Figliolia, Case No. 1:15-cv-07353-ENV-RML (E.D.N.Y., December 28, 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 plumbing company doing business as Alex Figliolia Water & Sewer LLC and located at 420 Carroll Street, Brooklyn, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: John M. Gurrieri, Esq. Brandon D. Sherr, Esq. Justin A. Zeller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007-2036 Telephone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com bsherr@zellerlegal.com jazeller@zellerlegal.com AMAZON.COM INC: "Blagman" Class Suit Still Pending -------------------------------------------------- Amazon.Com, Inc. continues to defend against the class action lawsuit filed by Norman Blagman, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. In July 2012, Norman Blagman filed a purported class-action complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. for copyright infringement in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Amazon.com, Inc. sells digital music in its Amazon MP3 Store obtained from defendant Orchard Enterprises and other unnamed "digital music aggregators" without obtaining mechanical licenses for the compositions embodied in that music. The complaint seeks certification as a class action, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and interest. "We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter," the Company said. AMERICAN APPAREL: "Rodriguez" Shareholder Action Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- American Apparel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a Delaware court has granted the voluntary dismissal of a shareholder class action lawsuit filed by Eliana Gil Rodriguez. On April 30, 2015, former employee and purported shareholder Eliana Gil Rodriguez filed a putative class action lawsuit against Company directors, a former Company officer, and Standard General L.P. in the Delaware Chancery Court (Case No. 10944). The lawsuit alleges breach of fiduciary duty claims in connection with the Company's 2014 annual meeting, its secondary offering, the Standstill Agreement, the 2014 adoption of a rights plan, and certain amendments to the bylaws against the former and current Company directors and the named former Company officer. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that Standard General aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and requests that the Court order a revote of the Class A directors. On September 18, 2015, the Court granted plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. American Apparel, including its subsidiaries, is a manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of branded fashion basic apparel products and designs. In addition, the Company operates an online retail e-commerce website. At September 30, 2015, the Company operated a total of 227 retail stores in 19 countries including the U.S. and Canada. AMERICAN APPAREL: Bankruptcy Stays Ex-Employees' Suit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- American Apparel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a class action lawsuit filed by former employees has been stayed due to its bankruptcy filing. On April 16, 2015, former employees Carlos Hirschberg, Cesar Antonio Palma Cordero, and Dominga Valencia filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:15-CV- 02827), asserting: (i) violation of the WARN Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 2101 et seq.); (ii) violation of the California WARN Act (Labor Code Sec.1400 et seq.), and (iii) unfair business practices under California Business and Professions Code Sec.17200 et seq.). The judge in this matter has since dismissed Mr. Hirschberg as a plaintiff. The Company believes that all such claims are without merit and intends to vigorously dispute the validity of these claims. This matter is currently stayed with respect to the Company, pursuant to the automatic stay effected by its bankruptcy filing on October 5, 2015. The Company is unable to predict the financial outcome of this matter at this time, and any views formed as to the viability of these claims or the financial exposure which could result may change from time to time as the matter proceeds through its course. Accordingly, adjustments, if any, that might result from the resolution of this matter have not been reflected in the consolidated financial statements. However, no assurance can be made that this matter together with the potential for reputational harm, will not result in a material financial exposure, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. American Apparel, including its subsidiaries, is a manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of branded fashion basic apparel products and designs. In addition, the Company operates an online retail e-commerce website. At September 30, 2015, the Company operated a total of 227 retail stores in 19 countries including the U.S. and Canada. AMERICAN APPAREL: Calif. Suit over Collection of E-mails Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- American Apparel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a class action lawsuit over the Company's practice of collecting e-mail addresses in connection with credit card transactions has been stayed due to its bankruptcy filing. On April 2, 2015, a purported customer of the Company filed a putative class action, (in San Diego Superior Court (Case No. 37- 2015-00011243), for violations of California Civil Code Sec. 1747.08 relating to the Company's alleged practices for collecting e-mail addresses in connection with credit card transactions at its retail stores. This matter is currently stayed with respect to the Company, pursuant to the automatic stay effected by its bankruptcy filing on October 5, 2015. The Company intends to aggressively defend against this matter. The Company is unable to predict the financial outcome of this matter at this time, and any views formed as to the viability of these claims or the financial liability which could result may change from time to time as the matter proceeds through its course. Accordingly, adjustments, if any, that might result from the resolution of this matter have not been reflected in the consolidated financial statements. However, no assurance can be made that this matter together with the potential for reputational harm, will not result in a material financial liability, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. American Apparel, including its subsidiaries, is a manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of branded fashion basic apparel products and designs. In addition, the Company operates an online retail e-commerce website. At September 30, 2015, the Company operated a total of 227 retail stores in 19 countries including the U.S. and Canada. AMSTERDAM PRINTING: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Career Counseling, Inc. d/b/a Snelling Staffing Services, a South Carolina corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Amsterdam Printing & Litho, Inc., Taylor Corporation and John Does 1-10, Case No. 3:15- cv-05061-CMC (D.S.C., December 28, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles without the recipient's prior express invitation or permission. The Defendants operate a business that markets and sells promotional products to businesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Felder Jr., Esq. McGOWAN, HOOD & FELDER, LLC 1517 Hampton Street Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 779-0100 Facsimile: (803) 256-0702 E-mail: jfelder@mcgowanhood.com - and - Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com ANTHEM GROUP: "Bell" Suit Alleges Retirement Fund Mismanagement --------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Bell, Janice Grider and Cindy Prokish, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons of the Anthem 401(k) Plan (formerly the We1lPoint 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan), Plaintiffs, v. Anthem, Inc., Pension Committee of ATH Holding Company, LLC, Board of Directors of Anthem, Inc., Joseph R. Swedish, George A. Schaefer, Jr., R. Kerry Clark, Robert L. Dixon, Jr., Lewis Hay III, Julie A. Hill, Ramiro G. Peru, William J. Ryan, Elizabeth E. Tallett, Angela F. Braly, Lenox D. Baker, Jr., Susan B. Bayh, Sheila P. Burke, William H.T. Bush, Warren Y. Jobe, Victor S. Liss, Jane G. Pisano, Jackie M. Ward and John Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-2062-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind. December 29, 2015), asks the Court: -- for damages as a result of excessive management fees in breach of fiduciary duties, -- to enjoin defendants from future ERISA violations, -- for interest and other equitable or remedial relief. Plaintiff alleges Defendants of charging and/or employing excessive management and administrative fees for the management of their retirement plan, failing to use a stable value fund instead of a money market fund, failing to monitor fiduciaries, and withholding substantial information regarding their funds. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. Michael A. Wolff, Esq. Troy A. Doles, Esq. Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq. Heather Lea, Esq. SCHLICTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP 100 South Fourth Street St. Louis, MO 63102 Tel: (314) 621-6115 Fax: (314) 621-7151 , Email: jschlichter@uselaws.com mwolff@uselaws.com tdoles@uselaws.com kstruckhoff@uselaws.com hlea@uselaws.com ANTHONY C COLUZZI: Illegally Collects Debt, "Rosado" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer T. Rosado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anthony C. Coluzzi, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv- 07335-LDW-SIL (E.D.N.Y., December 24, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Anthony C. Coluzzi, LLC is a full-service debt collection company that obtains debt payments through fair and legal means. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, 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 - and - David M. Barshay, Esq. SANDERS LAW, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 Facsimile: (516) 706-5055 E-mail: dbarshay@sanderslawpllc.com APPLE INC: iPhone Crashed on iOS 9 Upgrade, "Williams" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roslyn Williams, Chaim Lerman, Christina Gonzalez, and James Vorrasi, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Apple Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-07381-SJ-LB (E.D.N.Y., January 18, 2016), alleges violation of New York General Business Law Sec. 349 and 350 and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act Sec 56:8-1, et seq. Plaintiffs owned iPhone 4s units and, when their software was updated to iOS 9 after Apple released the software to the public, their phone either crashed and froze completely or slowed down significantly with delayed responses to touch interactions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Shimon Yiftach, Esq. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 697-6484 Email: peretz@bgandg.com ARETE GROUP: Otto Group Seeks Payment for Subcontract Job --------------------------------------------------------- Otto Group, LLC, for itself and on behalf of all other trust beneficiaries similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Arete Group Inc., Stephan Economou, John Simon and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 604943/2015 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau County, July 31, 2015), alleges that the defendants breach their obligations under the parties' contracts by failing to pay the sum of $33,724.53. Arete Group Inc. is a New York corporation with a place of business at 580 Muttontown Road, Syosset, New York 11791-2319. Stephan Economou and John Simon are its owners. Otto Interiors, Inc., contracted with Arete to perform interior painting and related services as a subcontractor at the Downing Residence located at River House, Apt. 12B, in New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Troup, Esq. Christopher Tumulty, Esq. TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN LLP 1350 Broadway New York, NY 10018 Tel: (212) 216-8000 ARGENTINA: Bondholders' Lawyer Not Included in Settlement Talks --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Wernau and Taos Turner, writing for The Wall Street Journal, report that an end to a stalemate over Argentina's defaulted debt faces a number of hurdles despite the country's new $6.5 billion offer to U.S. bondholders on Feb. 5, said people familiar with the matter. An agreement would have to contend with a number of thorny issues in the U.S. and Argentina as large debt owners haven't yet signaled their approval, these people said. Argentina is trying to settle with these holdouts so it can return to the global bond market. The offer represented 75% of the amount bondholders say they are owed, and any deal is expected to serve as a model for settlement talks with hundreds of other creditors who have sued the government. Most of the U.S. hedge funds that own the debt -- including one of the biggest creditors, Paul Singer's Elliott Capital Management -- haven't signaled their approval of the offer, say people familiar with the matter. Analysts believe that some of these bondholders feel little pressure to rush to an agreement and may be inclined to push for better terms. While newly elected, business-friendly President Mauricio Macri has pledged to end the standoff between Argentina and bondholders, he is expected to face strong opposition from much of the population and some members of Argentina's Congress, who have derided bondholders as "vultures." Hundreds of smaller debtholders must also get on board with an agreement. There is a risk that these mostly local investors could try to scuttle a deal that works for big U.S. hedge funds. Argentina's negotiators have already left New York City, the setting for the most recent meetings to break the stalemate, a sign that no immediate agreement is expected, say people briefed on the matter. "It's not time to pop the champagne," said Charles Blitzer, an economist and former senior IMF staffer, who has been involved in many sovereign-debt restructurings. "It's this kind of unilateral offer that got them into trouble five and even 10 years ago. They need to communicate with more creditors and actually negotiate." The default issue has been a lingering and painful problem for Argentina because it effectively bars the government from borrowing any money in the international capital markets. The new administration views a global bond offering as crucial for raising new capital to stimulate an economy mired in recession. Mr. Macri has some reasons for optimism. The Finance Ministry said in a statement that some creditors, including Dart Management and Montreux Partners, had already agreed to accept the offer. Representatives of those firms couldn't be reached or declined to comment. Even Mr. Singer has said as recently as July that his firm would be willing to negotiate with Argentine officials and accept a discount to full value. "In the past, these hedge funds, particularly Elliott, have said 'we're entitled to full payment,'" said Mark Cymrot, a partner with BakerHostetler in Washington, D.C. "The truth is, you can't get a very determined sovereign to pay." That Argentine negotiators, including Financial Secretary Luis Caputo, traveled to New York to meet with bondholders is a step forward. Mr. Macri became personally involved, holding a phone call with the U.S. District Court-appointed mediator. By contrast, U.S. bondholders' request last year to resume negotiations received no response from the former Peronist-led government. Yet people on both sides think there is much more work to be done. Any deal would have to overcome significant political opposition. Former President Cristina Kirchner made blaming the holdouts a pillar of her political discourse. Posters and banners proclaimed "Fatherland or Vultures," implying that Argentines had to choose between defending their country or betraying it by siding with the bondholders. On social-media networks over the weekend, opponents of the government's offer accused Mr. Macri of selling out, saying that even if Argentina paid the holdouts 75% of what they are owed, Mr. Singer would be making a windfall. "Being friendly with creditors, taking on debt and seducing Wall Street ends up leading to banking and currency crises," Alejandro Vanoli, Argentina's central bank president under Mrs. Kirchner, said in a Twitter post on Feb. 6. Some smaller Argentine debtholders may continue to hold out. Jennifer Scullion, a partner at Proskauer Rose LLP, representing bondholders in eight class-action cases in New York, said Argentina hasn't included them in negotiations. The two sides are arguing over how to quantify the size of those classes, and Ms. Scullion said she would move for an injunction if the government settles with other bondholders before they have agreed to a deal with her clients. "These are literally the same bonds," she said. "We have the same rights." Some think the hedge funds would be wise to make a deal, considering that 93% of Argentina's bondholders have already agreed to offers that pay about 30 cents on the dollar. "They will never find a more market-friendly administration in Argentina than this one. So, if they reject what is now on offer -- say out of greed -- than they will probably have to wait a whole lot longer to get paid," said Jan Dehn, head of research at London-based asset manager Ashmore Group, which oversees about $50 billion. His firm owns Argentine bonds but isn't part of the U.S. group dealing with the government. ASHLEY FURNITURE: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Upholstery -------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that two people are suing a furniture manufacturer over claims its brand of upholstery deceives consumers. Juan Alvarez and Silvia Rico, individually and for all others similarly situated, filed a class-action lawsuit Dec. 22 in the Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles against Ashley Furniture Industries, Ashley Homestores and Does 1-100, alleging fraud by concealment, unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty and violations of California consumer protection statutes. The suit states around April 2008 Ashley began using an upholstery product in some of its furniture which it marketed as "blended- leather upholstery" under the trade name DuraBlend. The suit states this marketing deceives consumers because "blended leather" appears to be leather, when in fact the suit claims it is not leather. Ashley allegedly further concealed the nature of DuraBlend by not disclosing the percentage of leather scraps or fibers, if any, it contains, as required by law. The plaintiffs and others in the class seek restitution, injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, interests, attorney fees, costs and expenses. They are represented by attorneys Mike Arias -- mike@asstlawyers.com -- and Mikael H. Stahle -- mikael@asstlawyers.com -- of Arias, Sanguinetti, Stahle & Torrijos in Los Angeles. The defendants filed to transfer the case to federal court on Jan. 28 because there is minimal diversity of citizenship among the parties, the class exceeds 100 members, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Western Division Case number 2:16-cv-00630-ODW-MRW ASTRO PAK: "Wright" Sues to Recover Upaid Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------ David Wright, as an individual and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Astro Pak Corporation and Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. BC604983 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County, December 21, 2015), seeks actual and liquidated damages, restitution of all monies illegally gained and disgorged profits, waiting time penalties, interests, injunctive and declaratory relief for failing to pay all wages and overtime compensation and reasonable attorney's fees and cost of suit in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et. seq. Wright was employed by the Defendant as an industrial cleaner and passivationist. He claims to have unpaid overtime as a result of working off the clock and through meal periods without additional pay, as well as pay due and owed wages at the time of termination of employment. Astro Pak is into passivation precision treatment, high purity and chemical cleaning as well as related metal surface industrial treatment. They maintain their corporate headquarters at 270 E Baker Street, Suite 100, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq Katherine Odenbreit, Esq. MAHONEYLAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Tel: (562) 590-5550 Fax: (562) 590-8400 Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net B&B AMBULETTE: Faces "Bishun" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Bishun v. B&B Ambulette Corp., K&M Ambulette Corp., Inc., and Kenneth J. Milo, Case No. 7:15-cv-09962-NSR (S.D.N.Y., December 22, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are in the business of providing medically-related transportation services to individuals and facilities in New York State. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathaniel K. Charny, Esq. Elizabeth A. Ledkovsky, Esq. CHARNY & ASSOCIATES 9 West Market Street Rhinebeck, NY 12572 Telephone: (845) 876-7500 Facsimile: (845) 876-7501 E-mail: ncharny@charnyandassociates.com eledkovsky@charnyanadassociates.com BABY DOLLS: Stripper Files Class Action Over Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Elaine Silvestrini, writing for The Tampa Tribune, reports that Alexa Rohlsen says she danced at a strip club to pay her way through cosmetology school, but these days, it's been a struggle. Ms. Rohlsen says she likes the work; it's good exercise, she sees it as art and she likes to be around people. But the enjoyment goes down when she has to go home with little or no cash for her efforts, even though she pays fees to the club and DJ, whether she made money or not. "People try and say that dancing isn't a real job," she said. "But to us it is because we go out there and we're working hard. We're sweating. We're busting our butts doing all kind of tricks and stuff like that. It's crazy. We should get paid for that." When she injured herself falling off the stripper pole, she had no insurance and so she was on her own when she had to go to the hospital. So Ms. Rohlsen joined a growing number of exotic dancers around the country, filing a lawsuit against her former employer, accusing Baby Dolls in Clearwater of violating federal law by failing to pay her minimum wage and overtime. The lawsuit, like others, seeks class-action status on behalf of other dancers in the same situation. Strippers say the industry practice of paying them no wages while charging them money for the privilege of shaking their stuff for tips is unfair and illegal. Ms. Rohlsen's lawyer, W. John Gadd, said when he first heard from dancers that they collect zero wages and actually pay the clubs to be allowed to dance, he was flabbergasted. There was, he said, a "cognitive dissonance" on his part because he couldn't believe what he was hearing. But strip clubs say the dancers are not employees at all. They're independent contractors or lessees, who rent space in the clubs that generously allow them to earn a very nice living on their own while the club owners shoulder the legal liabilities and fight the political battles to keep their businesses open. But judges around the country have repeatedly sided with strippers, saying federal law, specifically the Fair Labor Standards Act, protects their right to be considered employees -- not independent contractors -- and paid wages and given benefits, including workers' compensation and unemployment insurance. Judges in California, New York, Georgia and Nevada have come down on the side of dancers suing strip clubs. Club owners in other places, including South Florida, have been sued or forced to pay settlements. Lawyer Luke Lirot represents Baby Dolls and other Tampa-area strip club owners, including the owners of the Mile High clubs in Pinellas County that were sued for the same thing last year. Although the Mile High case is pending, Mr. Lirot acknowledges the courts have been ruling against the owners in the majority of cases. But he said dancers do not benefit by being considered employees because they can make much more money through tips and private dance fees than they could earn if they got minimum wage. "If they were employees, the money they make for the dances would go back to the club," he said. "There's not a dancer anywhere in the bay area -- or country for that matter -- if they're diligent enough to leave the dressing room, that can't make many multiples of minimum wage with a modicum of effort." Mr. Lirot has been working to inoculate his clients by drawing up lease agreements for dancers to sign saying they are temporarily leasing space in the clubs to ply their trade, similar to an agreement a hairdresser might make with a salon. The agreements, he said, also include a clause requiring the dancers to agree to give up their right to sue and to take any legal disagreements to binding arbitration. Mr. Lirot has filed a motion to dismiss the Mile High case and send it to binding arbitration, although he could not find arbitration agreements signed by some of the dancers who sued those clubs. Mr. Lirot said he checked and was unable to find an agreement signed by Ms. Rohlsen, although he said other dancers at Baby Dolls have signed it. "To summarize the position of the club owners," he said, "through their sweat and labor, they develop and maintain these businesses and generously provide these performers with the opportunity to make as much money as they can earn lawfully and successfully with customers. "Trying to take advantage of a technicality in the Fair Labor Standards Act is improper because the performers are essentially trying to double dip. They've never performed as employees; they've never contributed as employees; they've never expressed a desire to be employees." Typically, he said, dancers collect a small amount of money as a result of these lawsuits, while attorneys enrich themselves. "There's no way to stop these guys from filing these lawsuits," he said. "They're popping up everywhere all over the country. The vulnerability (of the club owners) is limited only by the avarice of the plaintiffs' counsel." Mr. Rohlsen's lawyer, Mr. Gadd, said it was a "curious notion" that the dancers' lawyers are getting rich by bringing these cases. "After all, we are talking about an entire class of young females who dance for the entertainment of the male customers that support these establishments," he added. "Under the current scheme, these owners have the audacity to direct these young ladies to reveal themselves intimately and physically to strangers while the fat cat owners charge the girls for the privilege of dancing nearly naked or fully naked for a crowd of men they do not know. "There is no other comparator for this type of scheme in any other industry of which I am aware. I am not aware of any other business that directs the employment of their employees while charging the employees to work there." Mr. Gadd and Ms. Rohlsen said Baby Dolls is an employer because the club sets the rules for work. They provided a copy of a notice posted in the club, which listed various edicts, including hours for different shifts and the charge for dances -- $20 or two for $30. The notice directs dancers to pay the house $17 and DJs $10 and says, "All entertainers need to wear cover up on floor." Ms. Rohlsen said club management would also give rules for what the dancers were supposed to wear; the cloth on the back of their thong had to be at least a certain width. And she said she was told not to go outside during her shift and got in trouble if she showed up late. Ms. Rohlsen said she was never given any lease or agreement to sign. All she signed, she said, were standard job applications, requiring her name, Social Security number and references. "If I'm a contractor, give me a contract," she said. "Let me sign that. Don't tell me what to do." In addition to setting prices for private dances, the club also requires dancers to pay DJs a percentage of that fee, depending on the number of dances they perform, Ms. Rohlsen said. She said the club tried to get dancers to sell drinks by having customers buy them for the women. Ms. Rohlsen said she was fired from Baby Dolls after another dancer "ratted me out" when she tried to get the dancer to sign a document to join the lawsuit. Mr. Lirot said Ms. Rohlsen wasn't fired; her lease was canceled. Discussing insurance, Ms. Rohlsen said, "They don't give you nothing. They claim they care about the girls, but they don't care about the girls. . . . We're paying them to work there and we get nothing." Mr. Gadd scoffed at the notion that the dancers are lessees. "Trying to interject a property law concept into this fact pattern borders on the absurd since this is a wage and hour case," he said. "I'd love to see a copy of the lease if that is the defense they are hanging their hat on, as all real property transactions must be reduced to writing in the State of Florida." And as for dancers not benefiting from these suits, Mr. Gadd said, "There appears to be no shortage of dancers who have an interest in these cases based upon the reception and inquiries I have received. These young ladies are working to get paid and make a living. Their work is obviously being directed to the club owners. Seeking an honest day's pay for an honest day's work is a concept that goes back to biblical times and there is no shame in seeking to get paid for the work one does." Ms. Rohlsen said when she first started dancing in 2011, the money was good. She could make more than $300 during a shift. It was enough to pay for cosmetology school. But these days, she said, the money is terrible. She now has two children and needs to support them. "I'm not the best, but I'm good at what I do," she said. Dancing, she said, is "fun for me. It's just not fun when you have to go home with no money, especially for a single parent. I've got to get my baby some diapers." BANK OF AMERICA: Court Wants "Gnipp" Complaint Amended by Feb. 29 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Senor District Judge John E. Steele of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted Defendant's motion to dismiss in the case captioned, THOMAS A. GNIPP, as self trustee under agreement dated January 20, 2005 and any unknown heirs, devisees, grantees, creditors and other unknown personas or unknown spouses claiming by, through and under any of the above named Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., Defendant, Case No. 2:15-CV-FTM-29CM (M.D. Fla.). Thomas A. Gnipp, proceeding pro se, filed a three-paragraph Complaint against Bank of America N.A. on February 13, 2015. The Complaint purports to seek redress for Defendant's failure to acknowledge receipt of and respond to Plaintiff's Qualified Written Request (QWR), in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. Sec. 2600 et seq., and to respond to Plaintiff's request for debt validation, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692 et seq. Plaintiff alleges that these violations damaged his credit report. The Complaint also references the commencement of an "un-warranted" foreclosure action against Plaintiff and contends that "Defendant comes into court with un-clean hands". Defendant argues that dismissal is appropriate because the Complaint does not satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Defendant contends that: -- the Complaint does not allege any facts to support Plaintiff's conclusory allegations that Defendant failed to respond a QRW and a debt validation notice from Plaintiff; -- Plaintiff did not attach a copy of either document to the Complaint; and -- the RESPA and FDCPA sections cited in the Complaint do not address, respectively, QWRs and debt validation notices. Dismissal is warranted, the Bank argues, because: -- Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendant is a "debt collector," as is required to state a claim for a violation of the FDCPA; -- Plaintiff has not sufficiently plead damages under RESPA; and -- Plaintiff's claims are barred by the so-called Rooker- Feldman doctrine, the abstention doctrine, and the litigation privilege. In his Opinion and Order dated February 8, 2016 available at http://is.gd/dd2eYTfrom Leagle.com, Judge Steele found that Plaintiff's three-paragraph Complaint does not satisfy Rule 8's pleading requirements. Plaintiff makes only the conclusory allegations that Defendant violated RESPA and the FDCPA by failing to respond, respectively, to Plaintiff's QWR and request for debt validation; he does not allege any facts that would support these legal theories. The Court afforded Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint on or before February 29, 2016. Bank of Amenrica, NA is represented by Ashlie Nicole Tarpley, Esq. -- AT@lgplaw.com -- LIEBLER, GONZALEZ & PORTUONDO, PA BERTUCCI'S GROUP: Faces "Kappotis" Over Gift Card Redemption ------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Scott Kappotis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bertucci's, Inc., Bertucci's Restaurant Corporation, Bertucci's Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 153821BLS (Mass. Super. Ct., December 18, 2015), seeks compensatory damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and further relief due to defendants' breach of contract and 940 Code of Massachusetts Regulations 6.05(16). Plaintiff purchase a gift card from the Defendant for $25.00 and the redemption restrictions were not made clear to him prior the purchase. Bertucci's Inc. is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, maintaining a principal place of business in Northborough, Worcester County. Bertucci's Restaurant Corporation is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, maintaining a principal place of business in Northborough, Worcester County, Massachusetts. Bertucci's Corporation is a foreign corporation formed under the laws of the state of Delaware, with a principal office located at 155 Otis Street, Northborough, Massachusetts and a registered agent located at 44 School Street, Suite 325, Boston Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth D. Quat, Esq. QUAT LAW OFFICES 929 Worcester Rd. Framingham, MA 01701 Tel: (508) 872-1261 Email: ken@quatlaw.com BIOGEN INC: Defending Securities Litigation in D. Mass. ------------------------------------------------------- Biogen Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the Company and certain current and former officers are defendants in In re Biogen Inc. Securities Litigation, filed by a shareholder on August 18, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The amended complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws under 15 U.S.C. Sec.78j(b) and Sec.78t(a) and 17 C.F.R. Sec.240.10b-5. The lead plaintiff seeks a declaration of the action as a class action, certification as a representative of the class and its counsel as class counsel, and an award of damages, interest, and attorneys' fees. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued in Cal. Over Defective N63 Engines ------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Lesieur, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-06143-EDL (N.D. Cal., December 28, 2015) is brought on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased or leased any model year 2011 to present BMW vehicles equipped with the twin turbo N63 engine, that contains one or more design and manufacturing defects that prevents the engine from properly utilizing and maintaining an appropriate amount of engine oil and, in fact, causes the improper burn-off, leaking, and abnormally high consumption of engine oil. BMW of North America, LLC designs, manufactures, markets, and sells motor vehicles, parts, and other products for sale in California and the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. Robert Friedl, Esq. Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. Cody R. Padgett, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1840 Century Park East, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Can't Alter Resin in Vaginal Mesh Products ------------------------------------------------------------- Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that in the 55th District Court in Houston, Judge Jaclanel McFarland issued an order barring Boston Scientific, the medical equipment and devices company, from disposing or altering supplies of a resin material allegedly used in surgical vaginal mesh products. Judge McFarland set a hearing for Feb. 13 on a proposed temporary restraining order that would extend the order. Steven Mostyn and his Houston-based firm Mostyn Law represent the plaintiffs who asked McFarland to issue the order. Steven Mostyn's clients have filed racketeering and negligence allegations against Boston Scientific in two companion lawsuits, the one in the Houston court and another in a Charleston, West Virginia, federal court. According to the Mostyn firm, the plaintiffs are women who have suffered severe discomfort, infections and other complications from plastic mesh implants used to treat a variety of medical issues. Tom Keppeler, a spokesman for Boston Scientific, wrote in an email: "This is an unnecessary legal maneuver." Mr. Keppeler said the company had no intention to destroy or alter evidence, regardless of the ruling. Amber Mostyn, a shareholder in the Mostyn firm, wrote in an email that there are approximately a thousand cases of women who received the vaginal mesh during the time that the material in question was allegedly used. "Mostyn Law will be filing claims for those women in the best venue for those particular clients based on their residences and the respective laws of their states," Amber Mostyn said. "Ultimately, Mostyn Law will use whatever remedies are available to the women harmed by Boston Scientific until Boston Scientific either voluntarily agrees to take this product off of the market or it is forced to," she added. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Wins Transvaginal Mesh Suit ---------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that the first trial against two manufacturers of transvaginal mesh products has ended in a verdict for both companies. The jury in the 16th Judicial Circuit Court in Jackson County, Missouri, which began hearing opening statements in the trial on Dec. 2, found that both Boston Scientific Corp. and C.R. Bard Inc. weren't liable for plaintiff Eve Sherrer's injuries. Sherrer's case is one of 70,000 lawsuits filed against seven companies alleging their mesh devices, which are surgically implanted to treat urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, have caused pain and subsequent surgeries to remove them. The verdict is a big win for Bard, which lost a $5.5 million verdict in its only other trial in 2012. Boston Scientific previously has won some trials, but its losses involved some of the largest verdicts to come out of the pelvic mesh litigation, ranging from $18.5 million to $100 million. "We believe the jury reached the right decision based on the facts and the law," wrote Boston Scientific spokesman Tom Keppeler in an email. "We are pleased with the verdict." Boston Scientific was represented by Robert Adams -- rtadams@shb.com -- a Kansas City, Missouri, partner at Shook, Hardy & Bacon. A Bard spokesman and its attorney, Lori Cohen -- cohenl@gtlaw.com -- chairwoman of the pharmaceutical, medical device and health care litigation practice at Greenberg Traurig in Atlanta, did not respond to a request for comment. The case centered on the alleged defective design of Boston Scientific's Solyx device and Bard's Align product, according to Courtroom View Network, which videotaped the trial. Plaintiffs attorneys Tom Wagstaff -- twwagstaff@wcllp.com -- of Wagstaff & Cartmell and Grant Davis -- gdavis@dbjlaw.net -- of Davis, Bethune & Jones, both in Kansas City, did not respond to a request for comment. BRINKER INT'L: "Hohnbaum" Case Resulted in $5,800,000 Charge ------------------------------------------------------------ Brinker International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 23, 2015, that in the second quarter of fiscal 2015, the class action lawsuit styled as Hohnbaum, et al. v. Brinker Restaurant Corp., et al. was finalized resulting in an additional charge of approximately $5.8 million to adjust the Company's previous estimate of the final settlement amount. Brinker is principally engaged in the ownership, operation, development, and franchising of the Chili's Grill & Bar ("Chili's") and Maggiano's Little Italy ("Maggiano's") restaurant brands. At December 23, 2015, it owned, operated, or franchised 1,646 restaurants. BULLZEYE OILFIELD: "Furlow" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tommy Furlow and Josh Berryhill, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bullzeye Oilfield Service, LLC, and Keith Maxey, Case No. 5:15-cv-01156-DAE (W.D., Tex., December 28, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate an oilfield services company located at 664 CR 307, Tye, Texas 79563. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com BUTH NA-BODHAIGE: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Shane Flaum, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Buth Na-Bodhaige, Inc. d/b/a The Body Shop, Case No. 0:15-cv-62695-WJZ (S.D. Fla., December 27, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Buth Na-Bodhaige, Inc. owns and operates The Body Shop retail stores throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Christopher Crotty, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT D. OWENS 3800 S. Ocean Drive, Suite 235 Hollywood, FL 33019 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 Facsimile: (954) 337-0666 E-mail: pccrotty@gmail.com - and - Scott David Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 3800 S. Ocean Drive, Suite 235 Hollywood, FL 33019 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 Facsimile: (954) 337-0666 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com - and - Bret Leon Lusskin Jr., Esq. BRET LUSSKIN, P.A. 20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste 302 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (954) 454-5841 Facsimile: (954) 454-5844 E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Manuel Kushner, Esq. KAYE SCHOLER LLP 777 S Flagler Drive East Tower- Suite 1000 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6163 Telephone: (561) 802-3230 Facsimile: 802-3217 E-mail: manuel.kushner@kayescholer.com CAL-MAINE FOODS: Dismissed from Direct Purchasers' Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 28, 2015, that a September 2015 class certification ruling in the egg antitrust litigation by direct purchaser plaintiffs will not impact the Company as it has been dismissed from the case. Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. In some of these cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on behalf of a putative class. In the remaining cases, the named plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs indirectly from one or more of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties -- and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the named plaintiffs in each group. In all of the cases, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to artificially high levels. In each case, plaintiffs allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs by: (a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg exports; and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs. The named plaintiffs in the remaining indirect purchaser putative class action seek treble damages under the statutes and common-law of various states and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act on behalf of themselves and all other putative class members in the United States. Although plaintiffs allege a class period starting in October, 2006 and running "through the present," the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify classes seeking damages under the laws of 21 states and denied without prejudice the plaintiffs' motion to certify an injunctive-relief class. Five of the original six non-class cases remain pending against the Company. In four of the remaining non-class cases, the plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act. In the other remaining non-class case, the plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and the Ohio antitrust act (known as the Valentine Act). The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders related to case management, discovery, class certification, summary judgment, and scheduling. The Pennsylvania court has not set a trial date for any of the Company's remaining consolidated cases (non-class and indirect purchaser cases). The direct purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md- 02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In November 2014 the Court approved the Company's settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiff class and entered final judgment dismissing with prejudice the class members' claims against the Company. On September 18, 2015, the Court denied the direct purchaser plaintiffs' motion against the remaining defendants for an egg products subclass, but certified in part a direct purchaser plaintiff shell egg subclass. The class certification ruling will not affect the Company since it has been dismissed from this case. The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining cases as vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company believes are meritorious and provable. CAL-MAINE FOODS: 3rd Cir. Stays Appeal from Damages-Class Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 28, 2015, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has stayed an appeal by the indirect purchaser plaintiffs in the Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation from a trial court's decision denying their request for certification of a damages-class pending the lower court's resolution of the plaintiffs' renewed motion to certify an injunctive-relief class. Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. In some of these cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on behalf of a putative class. In the remaining cases, the named plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs indirectly from one or more of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties -- and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. In all of the cases, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to artificially high levels. In each case, plaintiffs allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs by: (a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg exports; and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs. The named plaintiffs in the remaining indirect purchaser putative class action seek treble damages under the statutes and common-law of various states and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act on behalf of themselves and all other putative class members in the United States. Although plaintiffs allege a class period starting in October, 2006 and running "through the present," the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify classes seeking damages under the laws of 21 states and denied without prejudice the plaintiffs' motion to certify an injunctive-relief class. Five of the original six non-class cases remain pending against the Company. In four of the remaining non-class cases, the plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act. In the other remaining non-class case, the plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and the Ohio antitrust act (known as the Valentine Act). The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders related to case management, discovery, class certification, summary judgment, and scheduling. The Pennsylvania court has not set a trial date for any of the Company's remaining consolidated cases (non-class and indirect purchaser cases). The indirect purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md- 02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 20-21, 2015, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On July 2, 2015, the Company filed and joined several motions for summary judgment that sought either dismissal of the entire case or, in the alternative, dismissal of portions of the case. On July 2, 2015, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of certain affirmative defenses based on statutory immunities from federal and state antitrust laws. Briefing on the parties' respective motions for summary judgment has been completed, and the Court will hear argument on those motions in February 2016. On September 18, 2015, the Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification of 21 separate classes seeking damages under the laws of 21 states, holding that the plaintiffs were not able to prove that their purported method for ascertaining class membership was reliable or administratively feasible, that common questions would predominate, or that their proposed class approach would be manageable in a single trial. In addition to barring any right to pursue a class monetary remedy under state law, the Court also denied indirect purchaser plaintiffs' request for certification of an injunctive-relief class under federal law. However, the court allowed the indirect purchaser plaintiffs to renew their motion for class certification seeking a federal injunction. The plaintiffs filed their renewed motion to certify an injunctive-relief class on October 23, 2015. The Company joined the other defendants in opposing that motion on November 20. The plaintiffs also filed a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, asking the court to hear an immediate appeal of the trial court's denial of the motion to certify 21 state-law damages classes. On December 3, 2015, the Third Circuit entered an order staying its consideration of the plaintiffs' request for an immediate appeal of the damages-class ruling pending the trial court's resolution of the plaintiffs' renewed motion to certify an injunctive-relief class. The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining cases as vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company believes are meritorious and provable. CAL-MAINE FOODS: Hearing This Month on Summary Judgment Bids ------------------------------------------------------------ Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 28, 2015, that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is scheduled to hear arguments on the motions for summary judgment filed by parties in non-class action lawsuits that have been consolidated in the Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation. Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. In some of these cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on behalf of a putative class. In the remaining cases, the named plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs indirectly from one or more of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties -- and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. In all of the cases, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to artificially high levels. In each case, plaintiffs allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs by: (a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg exports; and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs. The named plaintiffs in the remaining indirect purchaser putative class action seek treble damages under the statutes and common-law of various states and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act on behalf of themselves and all other putative class members in the United States. Although plaintiffs allege a class period starting in October, 2006 and running "through the present," the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify classes seeking damages under the laws of 21 states and denied without prejudice the plaintiffs' motion to certify an injunctive-relief class. Five of the original six non-class cases remain pending against the Company. In four of the remaining non-class cases, the plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act. In the other remaining non-class case, the plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and the Ohio antitrust act (known as the Valentine Act). The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders related to case management, discovery, class certification, summary judgment, and scheduling. The Pennsylvania court has not set a trial date for any of the Company's remaining consolidated cases (non-class and indirect purchaser cases). Six of the cases in which plaintiffs do not seek to certify a class have been consolidated with the putative class actions into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md- 02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Company chose not to appeal the court's order granting direct action plaintiffs Kraft Foods Global, Inc., General Mills, Inc., Nestle USA, Inc., and The Kellogg Company September 14, 2015, more time to opt out of the direct purchaser case settlement. The court granted with prejudice the defendants' renewed motion to dismiss the non-class plaintiffs' claims for damages arising before September 24, 2004. On July 2, 2015, the Company filed and joined several motions for summary judgment that sought either dismissal of all of the claims in all of these cases or, in the alternative, dismissal of portions of these cases. On July 2, 2015, the non-class plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of certain affirmative defenses based on statutory immunities from federal antitrust law. Briefing on the parties' respective motions for summary judgment has been completed, and the Court will hear argument on those motions in February 2016. The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining cases as vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company believes are meritorious and provable. CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over "Fire Prevention" Fee --------------------------------------------------------- Marc Benjamin, writing for Firehouse, reports that money from a controversial "fire prevention" fee paid by many California foothill and mountain residents will be used to cut down trees that are dead or dying because of the drought and bark beetle infestation. Local counties got $1.75 million from the State Responsibility Area fee. About 37,700 home and business owners pay into the parcel fee that ranges from $117 to $152 annually. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Association filed a class-action lawsuit against the state arguing that the fee actually was an illegal tax. The association contends that, as a tax, the fire prevention fee violates Proposition 13 because it would require two-thirds approval in the state Legislature to pass. The association wants the fee refunded. But that fee is critical to making the Sierra safer from catastrophic fires, said Daniel Berlant, a Sacramento-based Cal Fire spokesman. "If we can prevent fires in the first place, then you are really saving money," Mr. Berlant said. Six counties from Kern to Tuolumne are facing some of the highest fire risks from dying trees, Mr. Berlant said. Issuing grants to clear trees was a high priority. In 2014, there were about 3.3 million dead or dying trees in the Sierra. Last year, Mr. Berlant said, that number skyrocketed to 29 million. "Those six counties are suffering and have an increased wildfire risk because of all the dead trees," he said. The projects include cutting down dead trees and increasing the distance between trees in fire-prone areas. In North Fork, the money will pay for a 10-acre site to store logs at the old timber mill. Other projects include cutting down dead and dying trees near Bass Lake. In Fresno County, about $400,000 is paying for dead tree removal and removing combustible materials in Miramonte, near Shaver Lake and Meadow Lakes. Pat Gallegos, project manager for the Highway 168 Fire Safe Council, said the removal projects are a start. The fire safe council pays contractors to clear the sites. "We are looking at a couple hundred thousand trees dying in our corridor," she said. "We consider them a hazard because they can fall on a house or people, and they are very susceptible to wildfires." Other counties getting tree-cutting project money are Mariposa, Kern, Tulare, and Tuolumne. CALNET INC: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Ahmadi" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Ratib Ahmadi, Sayed Anwar, Amahn Assiaban, Niloufar Badie, Abdul Farzam, Wahid Jelani, Musa Karimi, Mustafa Khan, Ahmed Magdi, Bariqlay Quraishi, Anil Saleh, Mohammad Saleh, Reshad Saleh, Roxana Suitan, Tariq Zakriya, Mohd Osman Zaman, individually v. Calnet, Inc., Acclaim Technical Services, Inc., and Parsons Government Services, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-02636 (C.D. Cal., December 28, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 hours per week. The Defendants provide Irwin Military Base and National Training Center in California with the native role-players and interpreters who would aid the soldiers in these realistic pre-deployment training Rotations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis Evans, Esq. Trey Dayes, Esq. PHILLIPS DISABILITY PC PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM PC 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: 1-800-JOB-LAWS E-mail: docket@phillipsdayeslaw.com CAMPBELL EWALD: Ruling May Drastically Change Pickoff Tactic ------------------------------------------------------------ Chad Halcom, writing for Crain's Detroit Business, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling against Detroit-based Campbell Ewald Co. could close off or drastically change a tactic businesses nationwide sometimes use to defuse employee class-action lawsuits, before they can gain traction. Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez is not itself an employment lawsuit -- the ad agency is accused of violating the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act via mass-marketing text messages through subcontractor Mindmatics LLC to mobile phone users, on behalf of the U.S. Navy. But the court majority in that decision in January switched its position on a 2013 employment case and said companies cannot get certain kinds of suits tossed out just by making offers to individual employees in the early stages of litigation. At issue was whether lawsuit defendants can make an "offer of judgment" to an individual with a proposed class-action or collective-action lawsuit, and then get the case dismissed even if the offer goes unanswered. It's a strategy sometimes called a "pickoff" in class-action or collective-action cases: A person brings a suit on behalf of himself and others he claims have suffered the same violation. But the class isn't a class until a judge says so by certifying one in court, and defendants sometimes offer to pay the individual claim before that happens. Why? To head off much more expensive class-action litigation. Pickoffs can take various shapes, but one approach is to make an offer of judgment, where an employer will accept a court judgment against itself and pay the highest sum an employee stands to gain in court. If the employee doesn't respond in two weeks, the company can ask the court to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the offer made the controversy moot, even if it was not accepted or paid. The justices had previously found in Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Szymczyk that an employment lawsuit in Philadelphia over meal break time for nurses could be dismissed that way. But local attorneys said other rulings were split about that subject, and the court in the Campbell Ewald case found an offer that wasn't accepted is void -- essentially taking that defense strategy off the table. It's unclear whether Campbell Ewald will continue to fight the text messages lawsuit at a California court. The Navy moved its advertising account to rival firm Young & Rubicam Inc. of New York in 2015, and Campbell Ewald parent company Interpublic Group fired the ad shop's CEO, Jim Palmer, Jan. 29 after an unrelated racist email by a staffer at its San Antonio office became public. Kevin Wertz, the agency president who has replaced Palmer as CEO, did not respond to requests for comment on the case. Laura Wytsma, lead attorney for Campbell Ewald at Loeb & Loeb LLP in Los Angeles, also could not be reached. Jason Thompson, head of the complex litigation department at Sommers Schwartz PC in Southfield, and partner Deborah Brouwer of Detroit-based Nemeth Law PC, both said the dismissal tactic used in Campbell-Ewald is not widespread. But employers sometimes use it if a case is nearly past the statute of limitations to be heard in court, or if no other employee at the same company is likely to bring a similar lawsuit later. "It's a strategy that works well in wage and hour cases because they're very susceptible to a party being able to figure out exactly what is owed to one person," Ms. Brouwer said. "And that area is one of the hottest in employment law right now, for a couple of reasons. They're very predisposed to class actions, and if there is a class, there's incentive for plaintiff firms to take the cases. "But I don't think this (dismissal) tactic is all that common, because it would really be limited to cases where there is unlikely to be another plaintiff." Mr. Thompson said his law firm has handled at least 100 lawsuits under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act nationwide, like Genesis Healthcare, since the court made that ruling in 2013, and he estimates five or fewer tried to use that specific strategy. But it is an occasional defense strategy for "running out the clock," or settling with individuals until the alleged violation was too far back in the past for a new class action to be filed, he said. "When Genesis Health came out, a lot of us in the plaintiff's bar were screaming that the sky was falling, and companies were going to pick off a lot of suits this way, and that didn't really happen," he said. "For one thing, they have to allow the judgment to be entered against them in federal court, where other parties can reference it, and not many attorneys are comfortable with that." Both attorneys also said the ruling may have eliminated one pickoff strategy, but it remains to be seen if the court will allow a different approach -- like actually attempting to pay the judgment, not just offering one, by depositing the sum into an escrow account or with a court clerk. Mr. Thompson said he actually had a potential class action under the same Telephone Consumer Protection Act law get dismissed just in the past few months, after a client actually accepted an individual offer and left the case without a controversy. "(Putting up the money) might not succeed as an actual strategy, but someone's probably going to try it. Because the Supreme Court almost invited it, by the way the ruling was made," Ms. Brouwer said. CAPITAL ADVANCE: Faces "Menichiello" TCPA Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Joseph Menichiello and Jason Alan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Capital Advance Solutions, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:15-cv-02163-SVW-KES (C.D. Cal., December 29, 2015), seeks statutory damages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 et seq. Defendants allegedly called the Plaintiff without his prior consent using an autodialer, offering a loan. Plaintiff incurred a charge for these incoming calls. Capital Advance Solutions, LLC provides loans to small and mid- sized businesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Tel: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com CAPSTONE TURBINE: Consolidation of Kinney & Grooms Cases Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- Capstone Turbine Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that several shareholders filed motions to consolidate the Kinney and Grooms actions and for appointment as lead plaintiff. Two putative securities class action complaints were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California under the following captions: David Kinney, etc. v. Capstone Turbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-08914 on November 16, 2015 (the "Kinney Complaint") and Kevin M. Grooms, etc. v. Capstone Turbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-09155 on December 18, 2015 (the "Grooms Complaint"). The putative class in the Kinney Complaint is comprised of all purchasers of the Company's securities between November 7, 2013 and November 5, 2015. The Kinney Complaint alleges material misrepresentations and omissions in public statements regarding BPC and the likelihood that BPC would not be able to fulfill many legal and financial obligations to the Company. The Kinney Complaint also alleges that the Company's financial statements were not appropriately adjusted in light of this situation, and were not maintained in accordance with GAAP, and that the Company lacked adequate internal controls over accounting. The Kinney Complaint alleges that these public statements and accounting irregularities constituted violations by all named defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the individual defendants. The Grooms Complaint makes allegations and claims that are substantially identical to those in the Kinney Complaint, and both complaints seek compensatory damages of an undisclosed amount. On January 16, 2016, several shareholders filed motions to consolidate the Kinney and Grooms actions and for appointment as lead plaintiff. The Court has not yet issued a decision on those motions. The Company has not recorded any liability as of December 31, 2015 since any potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable given the preliminary nature of the proceedings. Capstone Turbine develops, manufactures, markets and services microturbine technology solutions for use in stationary distributed power generation applications, including cogeneration (combined heat and power ("CHP"), and combined cooling, heat and power ("CCHP")), renewable energy, natural resources, critical power supply, transportation and marine. In addition, the Company's microturbines can be used as battery charging generators for hybrid electric vehicle applications. The Company was organized in 1988 and has been producing its microturbine generators commercially since 1998. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces Probe Into Food Safety Practices -------------------------------------------------------- Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that a federal criminal investigation into food safety practices at one Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. restaurant in Simi Valley, California, was a troubling enough development for the embattled Denver-based burrito maker. But now that investigation has ballooned. While releasing financials for the fourth quarter of 2015 on Feb. 2, Chipotle revealed that the whole company is now subject to a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice. Chipotle says it will have to produce documents and information related to its food safety practices dating back to the beginning of 2013. The switch to a companywide subpoena signals DOJ interest in looking for widespread and systemic problems that could have led to a series of food-borne illness outbreaks traced to Chipotle's restaurants during the second half of 2015. And given the recent aggressive stance of the DOJ and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on food safety prosecutions, both Chipotle and its executives could be in the crosshairs. Chipotle, a company that has long branded its food as wholesome and local, made the wrong kind of headlines last year. In July, customers in Seattle got sick from e.coli traced to its food, and the situation grew more dire as salmonella and norovirus outbreaks were linked to Chipotle locations from coast to coast. In total, the company was linked to six outbreaks in just six months. "That in and of itself sort of underscores the fact that the wheels of the bus had come off," says Bill Marler, managing partner of Marler Clark, a food safety firm suing Chipotle on behalf of consumers. "And I think the federal government is looking at it and going: this can't be right. There's got to be a structural problem in management that allowed for something like this to happen." When the DOJ digs through Chipotle's documents and data, experts say it will likely be looking to determine whether complaints about food safety and contamination were raised and didn't get properly addressed. Since the subpoena goes back three years, data could also reveal a lot about other safety issues not publicly known. "In part, the government is focused in finding the cause for what happened," says Shawn Stevens of Food Industry Counsel, a firm representing defendants in food safety matters. "But on the other hand, they are really on a fishing expedition to see if they can shake the bushes and see if anything else falls out that would support criminal charges." Chipotle and its executives could be charged with violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which protects consumers from adulterated and misbranded food and drugs. In the past, the DOJ rarely used the statute for food safety cases. But that has changed recently as both companies and executives have been charged. When carrying out the investigation, both the government and Chipotle will have to contend with the fact that the sources of contamination are widespread. Jim Neale -- jneale@mcguirewoods.com -- a partner at defense-side firm McGuireWoods, says the Chipotle outbreaks aren't physically connected to the same source, but there's still room to find the company responsible. "I'm sure there is pressure to link those events, but they are different root cause events and there is certainly no commonality in the origin of those events," Mr. Neale says. "Where there may be some commonalities is in the shortcomings of the responses to those events." There are also complications posed by Chipotle's supply chain. As Neale explains, with a company such as Chipotle, where each restaurant uses many local food providers and then commingles ingredients in the restaurant, it's hard to have as much certainty about where a particular pathogen came from. So without another source to name, Chipotle could wind up taking the heat for contamination it didn't directly cause. "Once it gets into their restaurant, they bought the problem," Mr. Neale says. CHURCH & DWIGHT: Sued for Misrepresenting Vitamin Products ---------------------------------------------------------- Robbie Hargett, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that two Illinois men are suing a vitamins and supplements manufacturer over claims it misrepresents its products as being made in the U.S. Jack Wambach and Jason Finn, individually and for all others similarly situated, filed a class-action lawsuit Jan. 26 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division against Church & Dwight Co., alleging violations of consumer protection statutes in Illinois and several other states. The defendant manufactures the Vitafusion brand of vitamins, including Vitafusion Multivites, the suit states. The suit states the defendant represents that its products are made in the U.S., when in fact the products contain ingredients, such as vitamin C, that are sourced in foreign countries. The plaintiffs and others in the class seek actual, compensatory and punitive damages, plus injunctive relief, attorney fees and costs, together to exceed $5 million. They are represented by attorney John E. Norris -- jnorris@davisnorris.com -- of Davis & Norris in Birmingham, Alabama, and by attorneys Gerald Bekkerman and Jennifer Bekkerman of Bekkerman Law Offices in Chicago. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division Case number 1:16-cv-01183 CIENA CORP: Briefing Underway on Bid to Dismiss Delaware Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Ciena Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 21, 2015, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2015, that briefing is to be completed in March 2016 on the defendants' renewed motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit in Delaware related to the Company's acquisition of Cyan, Inc. From May 15 through June 3, 2015, five separate putative class action lawsuits in connection with Ciena's then-pending acquisition of Cyan, Inc. ("Cyan") were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware: -- Luvishis v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11027-CB, filed May 15, 2015 -- Poll v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11028-CB, filed May 15, 2015 -- Canzano v. Floyd, et al., C.A. No. 11052-CB, filed May 20, 2015 -- Kassis v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11069-CB, filed May 27, 2015 -- Fenske v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11090-CB, filed June 3, 2015 Each of the complaints named Cyan (except for the Canzano complaint), Ciena, Neptune Acquisition Subsidiary, Inc., a Ciena subsidiary created solely for the purpose of effecting the acquisition ("Merger Sub"), and the members of Cyan's board of directors as defendants. On June 23, 2015, each of these lawsuits was consolidated into a single case captioned In Re Cyan, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 11027-CB. On July 9, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a verified amended class action complaint, which named as defendants Ciena, Merger Sub, and the members of Cyan's board of directors. On August 5, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint which named as defendants the members of Cyan's board of directors. Cyan, Ciena, and Merger Sub were not named as defendants. The second amended complaint generally alleges that the Cyan board members breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in a conflicted and unfair sales process, failing to maximize stockholder value in the acquisition, taking steps to preclude competitive bidding, and failing to disclose material information necessary for stockholders to make an informed decision regarding the acquisition. The second amended complaint seeks (i) a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to a quasi-appraisal remedy, (ii) rescissory damages, (iii) recovery through an accounting of all damages caused as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, (iv) compensatory damages, and (v) costs including attorneys' fees and experts' fees. On October 15, 2015, the defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss. A briefing schedule for these motions has been set, with briefing to be completed in March 2016. CIENA CORP: Still Facing Calif. Suit over Cyan Acquisition ---------------------------------------------------------- Ciena Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 21, 2015, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend a consolidated securities class action in California related to its acquisition of Cyan Inc. As a result of the Company's acquisition of Cyan in August 2015, Ciena became a defendant in a securities class action lawsuit. On April 1, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, against Cyan, the members of Cyan's board of directors, Cyan's former Chief Financial Officer, and the underwriters of Cyan's initial public offering. On April 30, 2014, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the same court against the same defendants. The two cases have been consolidated as Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, et al. v. Cyan, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-14- 538355. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of Cyan's common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus for Cyan's initial public offering in April 2013, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. In July 2014, the defendants filed a demurrer to the consolidated complaint, which the court overruled in October 2014 and allowed the case to proceed. On May 19, 2015, the proposed class was certified. On August 25, 2015, the defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on an alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the case, which motion was denied on October 23, 2015. Ciena believes that the consolidated lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. CITIFINANCIAL INC: Still Defends "Lightner" Action -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit filed by Paul Lightner against CitiFinancial, Inc., remains pending, and a new judge has been assigned to the case, OneMain Holdings, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K/A Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2016. In 2006, Paul Lightner filed a counter-claim class action complaint seeking recovery under West Virginia's Consumer Credit and Protection Act against CitiFinancial, Inc. (WV) for selling insurance with allegedly inflated premiums and for allegedly taking impermissible security interests in household goods. In 2008, the trial court certified a class under both claims and denied CitiFinancial, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on both claims. CitiFinancial, Inc. appealed the denial of summary judgment on the insurance claim, and in 2009 the West Virginia Supreme Court reversed the trial court, and held that appropriateness of insurance rates was a matter to be decided by the West Virginia Insurance Commissioner. In 2010, the West Virginia Insurance Commissioner ruled in CitiFinancial, Inc. (WV)'s favor, and plaintiffs appealed this decision. In June 2014, the West Virginia Supreme Court ruled in CitiFinancial, Inc. (WV)'s favor, and affirmed the decision of the Insurance Commissioner. The matter has been remanded back to the trial court, where a new judge has been assigned to the matter. CitiFinancial, Inc. (WV) is subject to the prior judge's 2008 certification order, and is seeking to have the remaining claim for taking impermissible security interests in household goods decertified. Additional information concerning this matter is publicly available in court filings under Lightner v. CitiFinancial, Inc., Case No. 02-C0723 (Cir. Ct. Marshall Co. WV). OneMain Financial Holdings, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of CitiFinancial Credit Company ("CCC" or "Parent"), which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Associates First Capital Corporation, an indirect subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc. ("Citigroup"). CLEAR WATER: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Aragon" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Aragon, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. Clear Water Products LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv- 02821 (D. Colo., December 28, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Clear Water Products LLC operates an oilfield service company providing solids control services in Colorado. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Gonzales, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC 123 North College Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Telephone: (970) 212-4665 Facsimile: (303) 539-9812 E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com CLIFFS NATURAL: Settles Securities Class Action in Ohio ------------------------------------------------------- Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. on Feb. 7 disclosed that the Company has reached agreements in principle to settle both the putative federal securities class action pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, and the combined shareholder derivative actions pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The lawsuits were brought against the Company and/or a number of its former directors and officers in 2014 before the change of control which occurred coincident with the July 2014 annual shareholder meeting. These lawsuits were based, among other things, on the alleged dissemination of false or misleading information by the previous management and previous board of directors regarding the Company's former Bloom Lake mine in Canada, the impact of those operations on the Company's financial outlook, including the sustainability of the common stock dividend, and alleged failures to maintain internal controls and appropriately oversee and manage the development of the Bloom Lake mining operation. The settlement agreements contain no admission of liability or wrongdoing and include a full release of all defendants in connection with the allegations made in the lawsuits. The settlements are subject to definitive documentation, shareholder notice, and court approval. The settlement of these lawsuits will have no impact on the Company's financial position or operations. The agreement in the securities action provides for a settlement payment to the class of $84,000,000, the totality of which will be paid by the Company's third party insurance carriers. Under the terms of the settlement for the derivative actions, the Company has agreed to adopt a number of changes to its corporate governance policies, protocols and practices. In addition, the Company's insurance carriers will pay $775,000 for plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs, subject to court approval. About Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. -- http://www.cliffsnaturalresources.com-- is a mining and natural resources company in the United States. The Company is a major supplier of iron ore pellets to the North American steel industry from its mines and pellet plants located in Michigan and Minnesota. Cliffs also operates an iron ore mining complex in Western Australia. CMRE FINANCIAL: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anand Patel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CMRE Financial Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:15-cv-08878-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., December 26, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. CMRE Financial Services, Inc. owns and operates an accounts receivable management company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com COMMUNICATIONS UNLIMITED: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ David Oughton, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. Communications Unlimited Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15- cv-01937 (E.D. Miss., December 29, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Communications Unlimited Inc. owns and controls business entities that perform cable television and internet installation and repair services in Missouri, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Washington DC, including services performed in the greater St. Louis area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eli Karsh, Esq. LIBERMAN, GOLDSTEIN & KARSH 230 South Bemiston Ave., Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 862-3333 ext. 13 Facsimile: (314) 862-0605 E-mail: elikarsh@aol.com CONNECTICUT: Class Action Mulled Over Unlawful Ebola Quarantine --------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Cuda, writing for News Times, reports that multiple people quarantined in the state following the panic surrounding an Ebola outbreak in West Africa plan to file a lawsuit in U.S. District court on Feb. 1. According to a news release sent out on Feb. 7, the plaintiffs are suing over what they call a "pattern and practice of unlawful quarantine of travelers from countries affected by Ebola." Those suing include one current and one former Yale University public health student quarantined upon their return from a humanitarian trip to Liberia in fall 2014; a West African family of six quarantined in October 2014; the aunt in whose house the family was quarantined; a religious leader who travels between churches in West Haven and Liberia and his wife; the Liberian Community Association of Connecticut; and a physician who specializes in emergency medicine and has treated Ebola patients in West Africa. The suit was set to be officially announced at noon on Feb.8 during a news conference at the Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School. The quarantines took place in the midst of an Ebola epidemic in West Africa that killed thousands of people in that region. During the health scare, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy granted the Department of Public Health the authority to quarantine anyone who may have been exposed to or infected with the virus. Though there was at least one person tested for Ebola in Connecticut, no one tested positive for the disease in the state. However, multiple people were quarantined, including Laura Skrip, a student at the Yale School of Public Health, who was quarantined in October 2014 after she returned home from a trip to provide technical assistance to the Liberian government. "Being quarantined made me feel like a criminal," said Ms. Skrip in a news release announcing the lawsuit. "If I had posed any threat to the public, I would have voluntarily quarantined myself. But there was no scientific reason to confine me to my apartment, with no visitors and a police officer parked outside my door for two weeks." The plaintiffs will file a proposed class action against Malloy, Acting Commissioner of the state Department of Public Health Raul Pino, and former Commissioner of the Department of Public Health Dr. Jewel Mullen. The Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Clinic at Yale Law School represents the plaintiffs. The lawsuit builds on a report issued in December by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Yale Global Health Justice Partnership, a collaboration between Yale's law and public health schools. CONQUEST COMPLETION: Faces "Albert" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Munoz, Albert, et al. v. Conquest Completion Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-01158-XR (W.D. Tex., December 28, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Conquest Completion Services, LLC operates an oilfield services company located at 2001, 2999 E County Rd 123, Midland, TX 79706. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford-Ste 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com CRACKER BARREL: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Clemente, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-08845-RMB-JS (D.N.J., December 24, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. operates a chain of combined restaurant and gift stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan Jason Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 1040 Kings Highway, North, Suite 601 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 795-7250 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com CSX: Sued for Contributing to Gills Creek Flooding -------------------------------------------------- InsuranceNewsnet.com reports that a railroad bridge across Gills Creek didn't draw much attention until a storm blasted Columbia with heavy rain and flooding last fall. That's when Sabrina Todd, Vince Osborne and several neighbors began wondering if the CSX structure had contributed to the flood damage they suffered Oct. 4. Water rose rapidly that morning, reaching the second floor of homes like the one Todd and Osborne own near South Beltline Boulevard. Had embankments that support the bridge blocked water rushing down Gills Creek? And had the obstruction caused water to back up onto their property? A federal lawsuit contends the answer is yes. The suit, filed after the flood by Ms. Todd, Mr. Osborne and four others, says the CSX railroad corporation is liable for damage the flood caused to their homes and property. According to the suit, the train trestle stopped water that was moving down Gills Creek during the storm. The company denies responsibility. "It's almost like we were getting hit from both directions," Ms. Todd said. "The water didn't have a place to escape. In my mind, it kind of seems like a sandwich with too much jelly on it." The railroad lawsuit isn't unprecedented, but it's an unusual twist in the legal wars that have erupted in Columbia since the October flood. At least four suits filed since the flood claim that failed dams upstream contributed to the damage received in downstream homes and businesses. But the case against CSX focuses on how some property might have affected homes upstream. In effect, the suit says huge earthen abutments holding up the train bridge across Gills Creek repelled water back into neighborhoods upstream, said Jones Andrews, a lawyer representing the property owners. The suit relies in part on a South Carolina railroad law that says train corporations are liable for damage to neighbors "from the wrongful obstruction of watercourses." The lawsuit, filed in November in state court but later moved to federal court, says CSX was negligent in maintaining the trestle structure. The suit seeks a "class action" status, meaning that dozens of people beyond the six who filed the suit could receive compensation if the case is successful. The class would have to be certified by a judge. The suit does not specify how much property owners would be compensated. Others who've sued CSX along with Ms. Todd and Mr. Osborne are Michael Haley, Lisa Johnson and Dale and Alyssa Stigamier. The Ms. Stigamiers, Ms. Haley and Ms. Johnson declined comment, Andrews said. "We think the law is very clear: You cannot create a situation where you flood people," Andrews said. Railroad denies allegations CSX, one of the nation's biggest railroad companies, declined comment when contacted by The State newspaper. But in court filings, the corporation denied the allegations. It also has asked a federal judge to dismiss the case. In its legal response to the suit, CSX said the railroad didn't cause the flooding and the company wasn't negligent in maintaining the bridge structure, as alleged. At the same time, the company said the flood was an "act of God" that can't be blamed on anything CSX did. The residents who filed suit "assumed the risk of any damages incurred from the alleged backing up and flooding along Gills Creek," the response said. CSX, headquartered in Jacksonville, Fla., operates about 20,000 miles of rail lines in the U.S. and Canada. It was formed from the merger of several smaller railroad companies in 1980. The company employs about 32,000 people. Last fall's flood will be hard for many people to forget. Over a single weekend, about a foot of rain fell on some parts of the Columbia area as the storm hovered over South Carolina. Scores of homes had water pour inside, in some cases to the rooftops. Some people had to flee their neighborhoods in boats as local streets turned into rivers. Several people trapped in the floods died. Property in the Gills Creek watershed, which winds through much of Columbia, took the heaviest brunt of the storm as dams burst on a chain of lakes. Those involved in the federal lawsuit say they've had plenty of damage. The six people who sued CSX own three homes valued collectively at nearly $650,000, court records show. The split-level house Ms. Todd and Mr. Osborne own on Glenhaven Drive is an example of the lingering effects of the flood. Valued at more than $126,000 before the storm, the home has been damaged more than 50 percent and may have to be rebuilt, Osborne said. The walls inside are gone in many rooms, leaving only exposed beams. The cabinet around the kitchen sink is missing. And the house has no heat. Mr. Osborne and Ms. Todd, who bought the house in 2000, had never seen flooding on their property until last October, Osborne said. Ms. Todd and Mr. Osborne said the home was not covered by flood insurance and the couple have received only $33,000 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency as compensation for the loss. Mr. Osborne said winning the lawsuit could help offset the financial loss he has suffered since October, but his main goal is to ensure that CSX makes any improvements necessary to avoid similar upstream flooding one day. The railroad bridge is about two-thirds of a mile downstream from the house Todd and Osborne own. At the area downstream, a tall earthen embankment holding up part of the bridge extends from South Beltline Boulevard through the soggy flood plain to the creek bed, where the railroad tracks cross the water as part of a bridge. The bridge then connects back with another huge embankment that holds up the railroad tracks as they extend into deep woods. It was unclear when the trestle was built. "This doesn't really make me mad, it just makes me wonder about the thought processes that went on when this was built," Mr. Osborne said as he looked at the train bridge that is the subject of his lawsuit. "This was the cheapest land and this was the easiest way to get through from Point A to Point B. Instead of paying Farmer Jones money for his land on a higher (area), they could just go right in the middle of the swamp." The CSX train bridge is one of two across Gills Creek along South Beltline between Shop Road and Rosewood Drive. The other is a Norfolk Southern bridge that is farther away from Osborne's home. Norfolk Southern was not named in the suit. Railroads and flooding Although the case is different from many filed in Columbia after the flood, it isn't unprecedented. Cases similar to the CSX suit have come up across the country, including: -- In 2013, residents of a Louisiana community claimed that the BNSF Railway flooded their property by failing to adequately maintain a drainage culvert. The case ultimately was settled and dismissed, records show. -- In 2009, residents of an Arkansas neighborhood claimed the Union Pacific Railroad put up two embankments in 1972 and 1980 that caused their homes to flood years later. The residents lost their case at trial, records show. -- In 2010, environmentalists in South Carolina sued the Federal Highway Administration in an attempt to get rid of some embankments that support U.S. 601 as the road was being reconstructed for a bridge project over the Congaree River. Environmentalists said the embankments blocked water flow in the flood plain near Congaree National Park. The highway administration ultimately prevailed in court after state road officials argued that replacing the embankments with bridging was too expensive. Legal arguments aside, experts say railroad and road embankments can be problematic. Will Graf, a river scientist and professor emeritus with the University of South Carolina's geography department, said railroad and highway embankments alter the flow of water through flood plains. In turn, that can cause high water to remain longer in areas upstream, he said. "Railroads that are constructed across flood plains obviously seek to elevate their tracks because they want to keep their property dry," Mr. Graf said, noting that railroads sometimes put culverts in the embankments to release water. "If the water passage beneath the embankment is under-engineered, or under-constructed, it may cause problems in the future." DESTINATION CHIC: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Rolphy Ramirez, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Destination Chic Interiors Ltd., and David Tawil, Case No. 1:15-cv-07366-JG-SMG (E.D.N.Y., December 28, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime pay and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a construction company located at 841 East 9th Street, Brooklyn, New York 11230. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 DEVRY EDUCATION: Law Firm Mulls Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is investigating potential claims on behalf of investors of DeVry Education Group Inc. concerning the Company and its officers' possible violations of federal securities laws. On January 27, 2016, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") filed a lawsuit against DeVry University, accusing the company of deceiving students about the likelihood that they would be able to find work upon graduation. The FTC has accused DeVry of being deceitful through its claim that 90 percent of DeVry graduates found work in their field within six months of graduation. On this news, shares of DeVry fell approximately 20% in mid-morning trading on January 27, 2016. DeVry Education Group Inc.'s stock on February 5 traded at beginning with a price of $17.66 and when day-trade ended the stock finally decreased -10.65% to end at $17.03. DeVry Education Group Inc.'s showed weekly performance of -14.42%. Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, is investigating potential breach of fiduciary duty claims against Blount International Inc. DIXON GOLF: Faces "York" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brian York and Tiffany Khoshaba, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Dixon Golf Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 11699 (N.D. Ill., December 28, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Dixon Golf Inc. is a privately-held company headquartered in Tempe, Arizona that manufactures and sells golf equipment and apparel. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq. Peter L. Currie, Esq. Kevin P. Noll, Esq. FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC 10 West State Street, Suite #200 Geneva, IL 60134 Telephone: (630) 232-7450 Facsimile: (630) 232-7452 E-mail: kcc@fmcolaw.com plc@fmcolaw.com kpn@fmcolaw.com DREW ECKL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Felberbaum" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Aron Felberbaum, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Drew Eckl & Farnham, LLP, Case No. 1:15-cv- 07391-MKB-MDG (E.D.N.Y., December 29, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Drew Eckl & Farnham, LLP operates a law firm in New York. 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 EAGLE MATERIALS: Summary Judgment Bid Pending in Wallboard Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Eagle Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a judge has not yet made a ruling on the motion for summary judgement in the Domestic Wallboard Antitrust Litigation. Since late December 2012, several purported class action lawsuits were filed in various United States District Courts, including the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Western District of North Carolina and the Northern District of Illinois, against the Company's subsidiary, American Gypsum Company LLC ("American Gypsum"), alleging that American Gypsum conspired with other wallboard manufacturers to fix the price for drywall sold in the United States in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in some cases related provisions of state law. The complaints allege that the defendant wallboard manufacturers conspired to increase prices through the announcement and implementation of coordinated price increases, output restrictions, and other restraints of trade, including the elimination of individual "job quote" pricing. In addition to American Gypsum, the defendants in these lawsuits include CertainTeed Corp., USG Corporation and United States Gypsum (together "USG"), New NGC, Inc., Lafarge North America, Temple Inland Inc. ("TIN") and PABCO Building Products LLC. On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") transferred and consolidated all related cases to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated pretrial proceedings. On June 24, 2013, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed consolidated amended class action complaints. The direct purchasers' complaint added the Company as a defendant. The plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuits bring claims on behalf of purported classes of direct or indirect purchasers of wallboard from January 1, 2012 to the present for unspecified monetary damages (including treble damages) and in some cases injunctive relief. On July 29, 2013, the Company and American Gypsum answered the complaints, denying all allegations that they conspired to increase the price of drywall and asserting affirmative defenses to the plaintiffs' claims. In 2014, USG and TIN entered into agreements with counsel representing the direct and indirect purchaser classes pursuant to which they agreed to settle all claims against them. On August 20, 2015, the court granted final approval of USG and TIN's settlements with the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs. Initial discovery in this litigation is complete. American Gypsum denies the allegations in these lawsuits and will vigorously defend itself against these claims. At this stage we are unable to estimate the amount of any reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses associated with these lawsuits. Defendants' motions for summary judgement were filed in the class actions in the first quarter of fiscal 2016 and a hearing on the motion occurred on November 23, 2015. The judge has not yet made a ruling on the motion for summary judgement. On March 17, 2015, a group of homebuilders filed a complaint against the defendants, including American Gypsum, based upon the same conduct alleged in the consolidated class action complaints. On March 24, 2015, the JPML transferred this action to the multidistrict litigation already pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Word" Suit Over FCRA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Cierra Word, et al. v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-02167 (C.D. Cal., December 29, 2015) seeks to pursue remedies under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is an Ohio corporation which provides, among other things, credit check services to corporations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Darren O'Leary Aitken, Esq. Wylie A. Aitken, Esq. AITKEN AITKEN AND COHN 3 MacArthur Place Suite 800 Santa Ana, CA 92707-2555 Telephone: (714) 434-1424 Facsimile: (714) 434-3600 E-mail: darren@aitkenlaw.com wylie@aitkenlaw.com - and - Samuel M. Ward, Esq. Stephen R. Basser, Esq. BARRACK RODOS AND BACINE 600 West Broadway Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 E-mail: sward@barrack.com sbasser@barrack.com FARMERS INSURANCE: Female Attorneys Sue Over Pay Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that California's new Fair Pay Act is getting one of its first workouts in a case brought by female attorneys at Farmers Insurance who claim they were paid less than their male colleagues. Plaintiffs counsel at the Costanzo Law Firm and Andrus Anderson on Feb. 3 amended the complaint in the Farmers case to add claims under the California law, which went into effect at the beginning of the year. "I do think this will be a test case," said Andrus Anderson partner Lori Andrus, who noted that she hadn't seen any other suits filed under the new law. The Fair Pay Act shifts the burden of proof to employers to show that a wage gap is based on legitimate factors such as seniority or merit rather than gender. It also created an avenue for female workers to sue if they are paid less than male counterparts who perform "substantially similar work" rather than strictly equal work as required under state's old statute or the federal equal- protection law. Andrus said that "there will have to be judicial interpretation of what ['substantially similar'] means," but it's clear that the language is "more accommodating" than existing laws. Nancy Abell -- nancyabell@paulhastings.com -- of Paul Hastings, who represents Farmers Insurance in the case, didn't respond to messages on Feb.4. But other labor and employment attorneys said that they expect the case to provide some guidance on the new law. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe partner Jessica Perry -- jperry@orrick.com -- said it will take time for the courts to interpret the new "substantially similar work" standard. The standard could be particularly hard to apply in the legal profession where an employment litigator and transactional lawyer of the same seniority level might have entirely different skill sets, Ms. Perry said. "You can just see that it's going to be a challenge" to determine what substantially similar work is, Ms. Perry said. "I think it's going to require an employer to put forward more evidence in terms of what the reasons are for the pay differential." That, Ms. Perry added, could prove to be a fact-intensive, individual- by-individual inquiry, making the class action an inappropriate vehicle for dealing with claims under the new law. Melinda Riechert -- mriechert@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius said that, despite recent legal changes, plaintiffs still face long odds in getting equal-pay claims to stick. "There are many reasons [why] people get paid different amounts," Ms. Riechert said. "There weren't very many equal-pay cases before. They are hard to bring and hard to win," she said. Jennifer Reisch, legal director at Equal Rights Advocates, said the first batch of claims under the new Fair Pay Act may be making their way through administrative proceedings before the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Mr. Reisch said she hoped that the fact that the new law is being wielded in a case involving female attorneys "will highlight the need for some examination of pay practice in [the legal] industry." Although the new law does not apply retroactively, the Farmers suit also brings claims on behalf of current employees. The amended complaint filed on Feb. 3 adds Keever Rhodes, a current Farmers employee in Los Angeles, as a name plaintiff. FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Settlement Completion Deadline Extended ------------------------------------------------------------ Fidelity & Guaranty Life said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in the class action lawsuit by Eddie L. Cressy have filed a Joint Motion to amend the January 2, 2015 Final Order and Judgment, to extend the deadline for settlement completion from January 28, 2016 to October 24, 2016. On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff Eddie L. Cressy filed a putative class Complaint captioned Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life Insurance Company, et. al. in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (the "Court"), Case No. BC-514340. The Complaint was filed after the Plaintiff was unable to maintain an action in federal court. The Complaint asserts, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and members of the putative class relied on Defendants' advice in purchasing allegedly unsuitable equity- indexed insurance policies. On January 2, 2015, the Court entered Final Judgment in Cressy, certifying the class for settlement purposes, and approving the class settlement reached on April 4, 2014. On August 10, 2015, the Company tendered $1 million to the Settlement Administrator for a claim review fund. The Company implemented an interest enhancement feature for certain policies as part of the class settlement, which enhancement began on October 12, 2015. On December 11, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to amend the January 2, 2015 Final Order and Judgment, to extend the deadline for settlement completion from January 28, 2016 to October 24, 2016. At December 31, 2015, the Company estimated the total cost for the settlement, legal fees and other costs related to Cressy would be $9 million, with a liability for the unpaid portion of the estimate of $2 million. The Company has incurred and paid $4 million related to legal fees and other costs and $3 million related to settlement costs as of December 31, 2015. Based on the information currently available the Company does not expect the actual cost for settlement, legal fees and other related costs to differ materially from the amount accrued. FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Motion to Dismiss "Ludwick" Action Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity & Guaranty Life said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit by Dale R. Ludwick remains pending. On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Harbinger Group Inc., Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company, Raven Reinsurance Company, and Front Street Re (Cayman) Ltd. The complaint alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), requests injunctive and declaratory relief seeks unspecified compensatory damages for the putative class in an amount not presently determinable, treble damages, and other relief, and claims the plaintiff overpaid at least $0 for her annuity. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. On April 13, 2015, the Company joined in the filing of a joint motion to dismiss the complaint, which is pending before the Court. As of December 31, 2015, the Company did not have sufficient information to determine whether the Company is exposed to any losses that would be either probable or reasonably estimable beyond an expense contingency estimate of $1 million, which was accrued during the three months ended December 31, 2015. FLECK FLECK: "Alibrandi" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------- David Alibrandi, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fleck, Fleck & Fleck, Esq., an unknown business entity, Edward A. Fleck, individually and in his official capacity, Patricia A. Fleck, individually and in her official capacity, Raymond A. Fleck, Jr., individually and in his official capacity, Anthony G. Fleck, individually and in his official capacity and, John and Jane Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-07392-JMA-ARL (E.D.N.Y., December 29, 2015), seeks actual and statutory damages, declaratory relief, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff incurred a financial obligation to General Utilities, Inc., and the amount was transferred to Fleck Fleck for collection. Plaintiff alleges the Defendant made false representation that a licensed attorney was behind the collection efforts set forth by Fleck. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abraham Kleinman, Esq. KLEINMAN, LLC 626 RXR Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556-0626 Tel: (516) 522-2621 Fax: (888) 522-1692 E-Mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com FLINT, MI: Suits Pile Up Over Water Crisis ------------------------------------------ Chad Halcom, writing for Crain's Detroit Business, reports that wherever plenty of outrage and blame are going around, plenty of litigation is likely to follow -- and so far the Flint water crisis is no exception. At least nine lawsuits have landed over the past three months in Genesee County Circuit Court, U.S. District Court in Detroit and the Michigan Court of Claims over lead contamination, a surge in Legionnaires' disease or other public health issues connected to city water drawn from the Flint River over 18 months. Most are brought as potential class-action lawsuits on behalf of all city residents and businesses that might be affected by corrosion or contamination of the city's aging water infrastructure. And while experts think governmental immunity and court precedents make suing Flint and the state a longshot, some are taking a novel approach by instead targeting companies that contract with Flint or operate in the city, or specific government employees. Eight residents allege professional negligence in a Genesee County lawsuit against Houston-based Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam Inc., an engineering services and program-management company hired to oversee a refit of the city's nearly century-old Water Treatment Plant when Flint separated itself from the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department in April 2014. The company, which has Michigan offices in Flint and Lansing, has made more than $3.5 million on various city contract awards since preparing an analysis in 2011 for then-Mayor Dayne Walling about using the Flint River as a water source. The lawsuit alleges the company knew that river water needed anti- corrosion treatment chemicals, didn't require them and didn't evaluate water coming out of the tap before completing the switch to river water. But the company defended its services to Flint in a statement. "(The company) provided a limited scope of engineering services to address specific components of the City of Flint's water treatment plant. LAN has provided those services in a responsible and appropriate manner in accordance with industry standards," Pete Wentz, executive director of Chicago-based Apco Worldwide and a spokesman for Lockwood Andrews, said in a statement on the company's behalf. "We believe that this lawsuit has no merit and will vigorously defend our position in court." Mark McAlpine, owner of McAlpine PC in Auburn Hills and attorney for the residents in the lawsuit, said Lockwood Andrews was advised in November 2014 of a need to correct high trihalomethane levels in the Flint water supply, possibly suggesting the water was aggressively chlorinated to eliminate other chemicals it knew were present. "The engineers are by far the most knowledgeable people involved . . . and that's why we think LAN has such pronounced liability in this case," he said. "In municipal contracts like these, everyone else relies on them, even the regulatory structure that's been put in place." The case is one of at least four related cases assigned to Genesee Circuit Judge Archie Hayman. A 10th local lawsuit, filed on Feb. 1 in U.S. District Court on behalf of 2-year-old Flint resident Sophia Waid along with her father, Luke Waid, and Michelle Rodriguez alleges gross negligence, nuisance, violations of due process and of the federal Safe Water Drinking Act. The lawsuit is not a class action, but names former Flint emergency mangaers Gerald Ambrose and Darnell Earley as defendants, along with Snyder and former MDEQ employees Daniel Wyant and Liane Shekter-Smith, former MDEQ communications director Wurfel and several Flint city employees as defendants. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Matthew Leitman. In other lawsuits, Southfield-based Fieger, Fieger, Kenney & Harrington PC accuses McLaren Regional Medical Center of gross negligence and premises liability on behalf of two Otisville residents and two Flint residents who allegedly contracted the Legionella virus that causes Legionnaires' disease within days of being admitted to McLaren's hospital in Flint -- including Debra Kidd, 58, who later died at Genesys Regional Medical Center last August. "A hospital won't make money if it discloses a Legionnaires' outbreak from contaminated water, and a governor will stop hearing whispers that he's being considered for higher office if he reveals a water and Legionnaires' crisis. We know what happened here," Geoffrey Fieger said in a statement. Laurie Prochazka, vice president of marketing and communication at McLaren-Flint, said the hospital received that lawsuit only on Feb. 4 and does not comment on pending litigation. E. Powell Miller, president of the Miller Law Firm PC in Rochester who specializes in class actions, securities litigation and high- stakes commercial litigation, said getting a judge to sign off on a class action will be difficult, because of governmental immunity and court precedents in personal injury cases. "Here especially you're likely to have cases where some (residents) had no real injury at all, and some people have serious injury, and some had only minor injuries or different kinds of injuries -- and so by personal injury law their claims aren't similar enough to go forward together as a class (in court)." he said. "My heart goes out, but this is a case that has spurred several investigations and has the attention of the president of the United States. So hopefully the parties come up with a quick solution or some legislation comes to provide help. Because the law is very tough when you try to sue the government." Neither the McAlpine lawsuit nor the Fieger lawsuit targets the state, the city or Gov. Rick Snyder, although the Fieger case does name current and former employees Stephen Busch, Liane Shekter- Smith and Brad Wurfel of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality as defendants. Two other proposed class-action lawsuits at U.S. District Court name Snyder, former Flint Emergency Manager Darnell Earley, Walling and the city, among other defendants, while a third, by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan and the Natural Resources Defense Council along with the Concerned Pastors for Social Action and parent/resident Melissa Mays, names the members of the Flint Receivership Transition Advisory Board and State Treasurer Nick Khouri. Ms. Mays is also a plaintiff in lawsuits in Genesee County and the Court of Claims. FOOD EXPRESS: Court Approves Settlement, Slashes Counsel Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York adopted the settlement agreement, with modifications, in the case captioned, ANTONIO FLORES, Plaintiff, v. FOOD EXPRESS REGO PARK, INC.; FOOD EXPRESS WHITESTONE, INC.; FOOD EXPRESS BRONX, INC.; HARIS AJAZSYED; and ERUMFATIMA Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-1410 (KAM)(SMG) (E.D.N.Y.). On March 18, 2015, plaintiff Antonio Flores initiated the action alleging, inter alia, violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL) against defendants Food Express Rego Park, Inc., Food Express Whitestone, Inc., Food Express Bronx, Inc., Haris Ajazsyed, and Erum Fatima. On January 4, 2016, the parties notified the court that a settlement had been reached. On January 18, 2016, the parties filed a joint letter motion seeking court approval of their proposed settlement agreement. Under the proposed Agreement, defendants would pay a total of $17,500 to resolve plaintiff's claims: -- $10,437.75 would go to plaintiff; and -- $7,062.25 would go to plaintiff's counsel for attorneys' fees and costs related to the action. Judge Matsumoto noted that the proposed attorneys' fees, inclusive of costs, constituted approximately 40% of the total settlement recovery. Courts, Judge Matsumoto said, have often rejected settlement agreements that provide for fees in that range. He pointed to the Opinion and Order in Martinez v. Gulluoglu LLC, No. 15-cv-2727 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016), ECF No. 27 ("Barring unusual circumstances not present here, courts in this District have declined to award fees constituting more than one-third of the total settlement amount in an FLSA action." Accordingly, Judge Matsumoto modified the deal to provided that the counsel fees will constitute 35% of the settlement amount, thus, increasing the amount the plaintiff may take home. A copy of the Court's Order dated February 1, 2016, is available at http://is.gd/JgcfJofrom Leagle.com. Antonio Flores is represented by: Amit Kumar, Esq. William Cafaro, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO 108 W 39th St #602 New York, NY 10018 Tel: (212)583-7400 Defendants are represented by: Sima Asad Ali, Esq. Yasmin D. Soto, Esq. ALI LAW GROUP 775 Park Ave #255, Huntington, NY 11743 Tel: (631)423-3440 FOOTHILL/EASTERN: "Cohen" Suit Stayed Pending Spokeo Decision ------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution of the case, ROBERT COHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY; SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION AGENCY; 3M COMPANY; BRIC-TPS LLC, Defendants, Case Nos. SACV 15- 01698 DDP (DFMx) (C.D. Cal.), will have to wait until the U.S. Supreme Court decides on a similar case, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339, a California district judge ruled. The putative class action case alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, as modified by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act to prevent identity theft and fraud on consumers. FACTA's amendments passed on December 4, 2003, and came into force on December 4, 2006. At issue in Cohen is 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681c(g)(1), which requires truncation of credit and debit card numbers on receipts provided to cardholders at the point of sale or transaction. No more than the last five digits of the card number can be printed, and the receipts may not include the card's expiry date. Plaintiff cites 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681n(a) for supporting his allegation that statutory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs are available to consumers who prove a willful violation of FACTA's requirements. Plaintiff claims that Defendants were on notice of FACTA's requirements to truncate all but the last five digits of credit and debit card numbers on electronically printed receipts. Plaintiff alleges the violations were done "willfully, knowingly, or recklessly" and that Defendants "knew, should have known, and/or were reckless in not knowing about the requirement to truncate customers' credit and debit card numbers." According to Plaintiff, "because Defendants violated FACTA by disclosing more than the last five digits of Plaintiff's debit card number, Plaintiff is subject to an increased risk of identity theft and fraud." Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, to Stay Action Pending Resolution of Spokeo by U.S. Supreme Court. Defendants raise three main arguments in support of their motion: (1) Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to sue; (2) the complaint does not sufficiently plead a willful violation of FACTA; and (3) the Court should stay the case because the Supreme Court is reviewing the question of statutory standing from another FCRA case in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339. Plaintiff responds that he did allege actual injury as well as a statutory violation in order to satisfy the standing requirement. Further, Plaintiff argues the complaint does allege facts supporting Plaintiff's claim that Defendants' violation of FACTA was willful. Lastly, Plaintiff argues the Court should not grant the stay because it is speculative whether Spokeo will impact this case and a stay would be prejudicial. In his Order dated February 8, 2016 available at http://is.gd/YjbMunfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Dean D. Pregerson found that the complaint does plead sufficient facts to support Plaintiff's claim that Defendants willfully violated FACTA and that the prejudice to Plaintiff would be slight if a stay is granted. Robert Cohen is represented by Anna Faircloth, Esq. -- afaircloth@jswlegal.com -- Jeff S. Westerman, Esq. - jwesterman@jswlegal.com -- WESTERMAN LAW CORP & Jessica J. Sleater, Esq. -- jessica@andersensleater.com -- ANDERSEN SLEATER LLC, Atticus N. Wegman, Esq. -- atticus@aitkenlaw.com -- Darren O'Leary Aitken, Esq. -- darren@aitkenlaw.com -- AITKEN AITKEN AND COHN Defendants are represented by Calvin L. Litsey, Esq. -- calvin.litsey@FaegreBD.com -- Aaron D. Van Oort, Esq. -- aaron.vanoort@FaegreBD.com -- Eileen M. Hunter, Esq. -- eileen.hunter@FaegreBD.com -- Nicholas Poli Chan, Esq. -- Nicholas.chan@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP FRESH TRANSPORTATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Jiovanny F. Membreno Alaniz and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Fresh Transportation & Logistics, Inc. a/k/a Dukes Transport, Judith Padilla, Osmany Padilla, Case No. 1:15-cv-24737-JEM (S.D. Fla., December 28, 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 transportation company that regularly transacts business within Dade County. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM FTS USA: "Taylor" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Taylor, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. FTS USA, LLC, and Unitek USA, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-04461-CAP (N.D. Ga., December 23, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Based in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, the Defendants are in the business of providing engineering services, cable installation, maintenance, splicing, sweep, certification, balancing, disconnecting and customer service to the cable television industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: John L. Mays, Esq. MAYS & KERR, LLC 235 Peachtree Street NE, 202 North Tower Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 410-7998 Facsimile: (404) 855-0820 E-mail: john@maysandkerr.com - and - Harold Lichten, Esq. Matthew Thomson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com mthomson@llrlaw.com GATEWAY GENOMICS: "Main" Sues Over Inaccurate Pregnancy Test ------------------------------------------------------------ Kristine Main, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Gateway Genomics, LLC and Does 1-20, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-02945- AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal., December 29, 2015), seeks compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement of all wrongfully obtained compensation, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, exemplary damages, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees for violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and the California False Advertising Law. Gateway Genomics, LLC is a Delaware limited liability corporation with its principal place of business in La Jolla, California. It makes the Sneakpeek pregnancy test that claims to predict the gender of the baby. Main gave birth to a boy when Sneakpeek predicted girl. She paid $169 for the service. The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. David L. Weisberg, Esq. KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP 12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: (310) 507-7924 Fax: (310) 507-7906 Email: john@kristensenlaw.com david@kristensenlaw.com GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Beaver Water Suit Over LAS-Price Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- Beaver Water District, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Chemical Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-08887-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., December 28, 2015) arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and price-fixing conspiracy to circumvent competitive bidding and independent pricing for liquid aluminum sulfate (LAS). General Chemical Corporation is a Delaware corporation that manufactures and supplies water treatment chemicals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa J. Rodriquez, Esq. SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP Woodland Falls Corporate Park 220 Lake Drive East, Suite 200 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-1165 Telephone: (856) 482-5741 Facsimile: (856) 482-6980 E-mail: ljrodriquez@schander.com - and - Michael L. Roberts, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A. 20 Rahling Circle PO Box 241790 Little Rock, AR 72223-1790 Telephone: (501) 821-5575 Facsimile: (501) 821-4474 E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us - and - Don Barrett, Esq. DON BARRETT, P.A PO Box 927, 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: donbarrettpa@gmail.com GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Siloam Springs Suit Over LAS-Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- City of Siloam Springs, Arkansas v. General Chemical Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-08888-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., December 28, 2015) arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and price-fixing conspiracy to circumvent competitive bidding and independent pricing for liquid aluminum sulfate (LAS). General Chemical Corporation is a Delaware corporation that manufactures and supplies water treatment chemicals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa J. Rodriquez, Esq. SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP Woodland Falls Corporate Park 220 Lake Drive East, Suite 200 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-1165 Telephone: (856) 482-5741 Facsimile: (856) 482-6980 E-mail: ljrodriquez@schander.com - and - Michael L. Roberts, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A. 20 Rahling Circle PO Box 241790 Little Rock, AR 72223-1790 Telephone: (501) 821-5575 Facsimile: (501) 821-4474 E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us - and - Don Barrett, Esq. DON BARRETT, P.A PO Box 927, 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: donbarrettpa@gmail.com GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Springdale Suit Over LAS-Price Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------- City of Springdale, Arkansas v. General Chemical Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-08889-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., December 28, 2015) arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and price-fixing conspiracy to circumvent competitive bidding and independent pricing for liquid aluminum sulfate (LAS). General Chemical Corporation is a Delaware corporation that manufactures and supplies water treatment chemicals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa J. Rodriquez, Esq. SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP Woodland Falls Corporate Park 220 Lake Drive East, Suite 200 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-1165 Telephone: (856) 482-5741 Facsimile: (856) 482-6980 E-mail: ljrodriquez@schander.com - and - Michael L. Roberts, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A. 20 Rahling Circle PO Box 241790 Little Rock, AR 72223-1790 Telephone: (501) 821-5575 Facsimile: (501) 821-4474 E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us - and - Don Barrett, Esq. DON BARRETT, P.A PO Box 927, 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: donbarrettpa@gmail.com GENERAL CHEMICAL: St. Paul Water Services Hits Overpriced Alum -------------------------------------------------------------- Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Frank A. Reichl, General Chemical Corporation, General Chemical Performance Products, LLC, Gentek, Inc., Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund, Chemtrade Logistics, Inc., GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc., C&S Chemicals, Inc., USALCO, LLC, Thatcher Group, Inc., Kemira Chemicals, Inc., and John Does 1-50. Defendants, Case No. 0:15-cv-04582-ADM-TNL (D. Minn. December 29, 2015), asks the Court: -- to permanently enjoin defendants from further violating antitrust laws, and -- for treble damages, penalties and other monetary relief and reasonable attorney fees, pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act 15 U.S.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the Clayton Act 15 U.S.C. Saint Paul Regional Water Services supplies water to the City of St. Paul. They use liquid alum in water treatment. Defendants are allegedly engaged in a conspiracy to artificially fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of aluminum sulfate in the United States. Plaintiff purchased liquid aluminum sulfate directly from the defendants at allegedly excessive prices. Reichl was the General Manager of Water Chemicals for General Chemical Group, Inc., a corporation existing under the laws of Delaware, with principal place of business at 90 East Halsey Road, Parsippany, New Jersey. General Chemical Corporation was a corporation existing under the laws of Delaware with principal place of business at Suite 300, 155 Gordon Baker Road, Toronto, Ontario. General Chemical Performance Products LLC was a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware with principal place of business at 90 East Halsey Road, Parsippany, New Jersey. GenTek Inc. was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey. GenTek manufactured and supplied water treatment chemicals throughout the United States. It owned and controlled Defendants General Chemical Performance Products LLC and General Chemical Corporation. Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund is a limited purpose trust under the laws of the Province of Ontario and is headquartered in Toronto, Canada. It manufactures and markets industrial chemicals and other coagulants used in water treatment in Canada, the United States and Europe. Chemtrade Logistics Inc. is a subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund incorporated under the laws of the Province of Ontario. GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. is a privately held Ohio corporation with its principal place of business at 340 Mathers Road, Ambler, Pennsylvania. GEO Specialty manufactures, markets, and supplies specialty chemicals, including water treatment chemicals. Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation is a Delaware corporation and is a subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund. Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and is a subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund. C&S Chemicals, Inc. is a privately held Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business at 4180 Providence Road, Marietta, Georgia. C&S Chemicals specializes in the production of Liquid Aluminum Sulfate and Sodium Aluminate and currently operates six manufacturing facilities located in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Illinois, and Minnesota. USALCO, LLC is a privately held Maryland corporation with its principal place of business at 2601 Cannery Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland. USALCO manufactures and distributes aluminum-based chemical commodities to the industrial and municipal markets in the North America. Thatcher Group, Inc. is a privately held Nevada corporation with its principal place of business at 1905 Fortune Road, Salt Lake City, Utah. Thatcher Group manufactures and distributes a complete line of products for industrial and municipal water and wastewater treatment. Kemira Chemicals, Inc. is a publicly held Georgia corporation with its principal place of business at 1000 Parkwood Circle, Suite 500, Atlanta, Georgia. It manufactures, formulates and supplies specialty and process chemicals for paper, water treatment, mineral slurries and industrial chemical industries in North America and internationally. 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 Tel: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 Email: wjbruckner@locklaw.com cnnauen@locklaw.com hmsilton@locklaw.com erodette@locklaw.com bdclark@locklaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Lawyers Respond to Criticisms -------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that plaintiffs lawyers leading hundreds of lawsuits over General Motors Co.'s ignition-switch defect on Feb. 1 defended their management of the multidistrict litigation, which came under attack after the first bellwether trial imploded abruptly last month amid revelations of apparent fraud and perjury. The three co-lead plaintiffs attorneys, in a response to a motion filed in New York federal court, insisted that they had worked "tooth and nail" on the litigation and that the first bellwether, despite its unraveling, would aid the MDL going forward. They also refuted claims that one of them, Robert Hilliard, of Hilliard Munoz Gonzales in Corpus Christi, Texas, struck a deal as part of a Sept. 17 settlement between 1,385 of his clients and GM that would maximize his fees and reduce the automaker's liability. Five of the six bellwether cases slated for trials this year are Hilliard's remaining clients, including the first one, which was voluntarily dismissed on Jan. 22. Following that dismissal, attorney Lance Cooper, a former member of the plaintiffs' executive committee in the MDL, filed a motion asking U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in New York to disqualify Hilliard and two other lead attorneys, Steve Berman and Elizabeth Cabraser, given their alleged mismanagement of the MDL, including picking a poor case for the first bellwether trial. He filed a second motion asking Furman to reconsider approval of a settlement fund given Hilliard's alleged "quid pro quo" with GM. Firing back on Feb. 1, the lead attorneys accused Mr. Cooper, who resigned on April 20, of shirking his own responsibilities as a member of the plaintiffs executive committee, noting that he is $100,000 in arrears for cost assessments. "Mr. Cooper's unsupported recriminations-made by one who abdicated the important responsibilities given him by the court to help further the MDL-fail to recognize and acknowledge the substantial work performed by the co-leads and the [executive committee]," they wrote. As to Hilliard's settlement with GM, they wrote: "Mr. Cooper's sensational characterization of the settlement as a nefarious, secret pact is simply untrue," they asserted, noting that GM merely refused to settle Hilliard's bellwether cases. In an email, Hilliard said, "We invite Mr. Cooper to immediately withdraw his groundless motions and, instead of attacking his own comrades, begin to direct his talents and efforts towards rejoining our fight to assure a meaningful result for those killed and injured by this deadly defect." Mr. Cooper, founding partner of The Cooper Firm in Marietta, Georgia, who represents ignition-switch clients in nine cases in the MDL, did not respond to a request for comment. He was scheduled to reply by Friday, Feb. 5. In a separate filing on Feb. 1, GM defended the management of the MDL, which it called the "hallmark of transparency," and refuted Cooper's "wild and frivolous" allegations about its settlement with Hilliard. "Mr. Cooper's intentional decision to lie in wait and raise complaints only after he saw an opportunity to seize upon the unexpected end to the first bellwether trial is an unacceptable attempt to game the system at the expense of continuing progress in the federal MDL," wrote GM attorney Richard Godfrey -- richard.godfrey@kirkland.com -- a partner at Chicago's Kirkland & Ellis. GENERAL MOTORS: 121 Recall Class Actions Pending Through Jan. 27 ---------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company in the year ended December 31, 2014, announced various recalls relating to safety, customer satisfaction and other matters. Those recalls included recalls to repair ignition switches that could under certain circumstances unintentionally move from the "run" position to the "accessory" or "off" position with a corresponding loss of power, which could in turn prevent airbags from deploying in the event of a crash. General Motors said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that through January 27, 2016, it was aware of: -- 100 putative class actions pending against GM in various federal and state trial courts in the U.S. alleging that consumers who purchased or leased vehicles manufactured by GM or General Motors Corporation had been economically harmed by one or more of the recalls announced in 2014 and/or the underlying vehicle conditions associated with those recalls (economic-loss cases). -- 21 putative class actions pending in various Provincial Courts in Canada seeking relief similar to that sought in the economic-loss cases in the U.S. In the aggregate these economic-loss cases seek recovery for purported compensatory damages, such as alleged diminution in value of the vehicles, as well as punitive damages, injunctive relief and other relief. There are also two civil actions brought by state governmental entities relating to the 2014 recalls that seek injunctive relief as well as economic damages and attorneys' fees for alleged violations of state consumer protection statutes. "Through January 27, 2016 we were aware of 235 actions pending in various federal and state trial courts in the U.S. against GM alleging injury or death as a result of defects that may be the subject of recalls announced in 2014 (personal injury cases)," the Company said. "Additionally through January 27, 2016 we were aware of nine actions pending in various Provincial Courts in Canada seeking relief similar to that sought in the personal injury cases in the U.S. In general, these personal injury cases seek recovery for purported compensatory damages, punitive damages and other relief." "Since June 2014 the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has issued orders from time to time directing that certain pending economic-loss and personal injury federal lawsuits involving faulty or allegedly faulty ignition switches or other defects that may be related to the recalls announced in the year ended December 31, 2014 be transferred to, and consolidated in, a single federal court, the Southern District of New York (the multidistrict litigation). Through January 27, 2016 the JPML has transferred 262 pending cases to, and consolidated them with, the multidistrict litigation. At the court's suggestion, the parties to the multidistrict litigation engage from time to time in discussions of possible mechanisms to resolve pending litigation. "On September 17, 2015 we announced that we had reached a memorandum of understanding with certain personal injury claimants regarding possible settlement of their claims. GENERAL MOTORS: Oral Argument in 2nd Cir. Appeal Set for March 16 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oral argument on the appeal over a bankruptcy court's ruling on successor liability claims will be held March 15, 2016, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. Because many plaintiffs are suing over the conduct of General Motors Corporation or vehicles manufactured by that entity for liabilities not expressly assumed by GM, GM moved to enforce the terms of the July 2009 Sale Order and Injunction issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Bankruptcy Court) to preclude claims from being asserted against us for, among other things, personal injuries based on pre-sale accidents, any economic-loss claims based on acts or conduct of General Motors Corporation and claims asserting successor liability for obligations owed by General Motors Corporation (successor liability claims). "On April 15, 2015 the Bankruptcy Court issued a Decision precluding claims against us based upon pre-sale accidents, claims based upon the acts or conduct by General Motors Corporation and successor liability claims, except for claims asserting liabilities that had been expressly assumed by us in the July 2009 Sale Agreement and claims that could be asserted against us only if they were otherwise viable and arose solely out of our own independent post-closing acts and did not in any way rely on acts or conduct by General Motors Corporation. Plaintiffs have appealed the Bankruptcy Court's decision and we have cross appealed with respect to certain issues to preserve our rights. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit) has accepted a direct appeal of the matter and the parties have briefed the appeal pursuant to an expedited schedule set by the Second Circuit. Oral argument is scheduled for March 15, 2016. "In addition on December 4, 2015 the Bankruptcy Court issued a judgment regarding certain issues left unresolved by the April 15, 2015 decision including the extent to which punitive damages could be asserted against GM based on claims involving vehicles manufactured by General Motors Corporation. Various groups of plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the district court overseeing the multidistrict litigation. The uncertainties include the legal theory or the nature of the claims, the complexity of the facts, the results of any investigation or litigation, and the timing of resolution of the investigations or litigation. For example, the appeal from the Bankruptcy Court's April 2015 decision is currently pending before the Second Circuit, as is the appeal to the district court overseeing the multidistrict litigation from the Bankruptcy Court's December 2015 judgment. The resolution of these appeals could have a substantial impact on the potential liability of GM for acts or conduct of General Motors Corporation and what claims plaintiffs may pursue against GM in the multidistrict litigation and other courts. Further, there have been little or no discussions to date concerning any potential resolution of the SEC investigation, the state attorneys general's investigations, the various claims for economic loss, or the claims concerning death or personal injury not covered by the memorandum of understanding. "We will continue to consider potential resolution of open matters involving ignition switch recalls and other recalls where it makes sense to do so," the Company said. GENERAL MOTORS: April 20 Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a New York court has scheduled a final settlement fairness hearing for April 20, 2016, in a shareholder class action lawsuit. "In the putative shareholder class action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Shareholder Class Action), the court appointed the New York State Teachers' Retirement System as the lead plaintiff. On January 15, 2015 the New York State Teachers' Retirement System filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint against GM and several current and former officers and employees (Defendants) on behalf of purchasers of our common stock from November 17, 2010 to July 24, 2014. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleges that Defendants made material misstatements and omissions relating to problems with the ignition switch and other matters in SEC filings and other public statements. "On September 17, 2015 we announced that we had entered into a binding term sheet regarding settlement of this matter. On November 20, 2015 the district court granted its preliminary approval of the settlement and has scheduled a final settlement fairness hearing for April 20, 2016. GENERAL MOTORS: 2nd Bellwether Trial to Commence in March 2016 -------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a second bellwether trial related to the ignition switch recalls is expected to commence in March 2016. In January 2016 the first of several "bellwether" trials, Scheuer v. General Motors, LLC, took place in the multidistrict litigation associated with the ignition switch recalls. On January 22, 2016 a Stipulation of Dismissal was filed by which plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit with prejudice. No payment was made to plaintiff. Each bellwether trial will be tried on its facts and the result of any subsequent bellwether trial may be different from this first bellwether trial. Further, this first bellwether trial does not allow us to estimate the possible loss associated with the resolution of the multidistrict litigation. The second bellwether trial is expected to commence in March 2016. GENERAL MOTORS: Appeal in Canada Dealers' Claim Pending ------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company anticipates that the appeal related to the so-called GM Canada Dealers' Claim will be heard in the year ending December 31, 2016. On February 12, 2010 a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against GM Canada on behalf of a purported class of over 200 former GM Canada dealers (the Plaintiff Dealers) which had entered into wind-down agreements with GM Canada. In May 2009 in the context of the global restructuring of the business and the possibility that GM Canada might be required to initiate insolvency proceedings, GM Canada offered the Plaintiff Dealers the wind-down agreements to assist with their exit from the GM Canada dealer network and to facilitate winding down their operations in an orderly fashion by December 31, 2009 or such other date as GM Canada approved but no later than on October 31, 2010. The Plaintiff Dealers allege that the Dealer Sales and Service Agreements were wrongly terminated by GM Canada and that GM Canada failed to comply with certain disclosure obligations, breached its statutory duty of fair dealing and unlawfully interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' statutory right to associate in an attempt to coerce the Plaintiff Dealers into accepting the wind-down agreements. The Plaintiff Dealers seek damages and assert that the wind-down agreements are rescindable. The Plaintiff Dealers' initial pleading makes reference to a claim "not exceeding" CAD $750 million, without explanation of any specific measure of damages. On March 1, 2011 the court approved certification of a class for the purpose of deciding a number of specifically defined issues including: (1) whether GM Canada breached its obligation of "good faith" in offering the wind-down agreements; (2) whether GM Canada interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' rights of free association; (3) whether GM Canada was obligated to provide a disclosure statement and/or disclose more specific information regarding its restructuring plans in connection with proffering the wind-down agreements; and (4) whether the Plaintiff Dealers can recover damages in the aggregate (as opposed to proving individual damages). A number of former dealers opted out of participation in the litigation, leaving 181 dealers in the certified class. Trial of the class issues was completed in the three months ended December 31, 2014. On July 8, 2015 the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the Plaintiff Dealers' claim against GM Canada, holding that GM Canada did not breach any common law or statutory obligations toward the class members. The court also dismissed GM Canada's counterclaim against the Plaintiff Dealers for repayment of the wind-down payments made to them by GM Canada as well as for other relief. All parties have filed notices of appeal. "We anticipate that the appeal will be heard in the year ending December 31, 2016," the Company said. GLOBAL TRAVEL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Tye" Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Mary E. Tye, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Global Travel International, Inc., Does I through X, inclusive and Roe Corporations I through X, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-02654-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal., December 23, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making a telemarketing call to the Plaintiff's wireless phone using an automated telephone dialing system or a prerecorded voice. Global Travel International, Inc. owns and operates a privately owned, Orlando, Florida-based travel company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Candice E. Renka, Esq. MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, NV 89145 Telephone: (702) 382-0711 Facsimile: (702) 382-5816 E-mail: crenka@maclaw.com - and - Patrick D. Toole, Esq. Dylan J. Crosby, Esq. WANGER JONES HELSLEY, PC 265 E. River Park Circle, Suite 300 Fresno, CA 93729 Telephone: (559) 233-4800 Facsimile: (559) 233-9330 E-mail: ptoole@wjhattorneys.com dcrosby@wjhattorneys.com GOOGLE INC: Court Dismisses Class Action Over CAPTCHA ----------------------------------------------------- Walter Olson, writing for Overlawyered, reports that a California court has dismissed an intended class action suit against Google claiming that it reaped undeserved profit when users solved CAPTCHA letter-recognition problems that assisted in solving passages that had gone undeciphered in Google's own OCR scanning. The ruling "reinforces [the principle] that not every asymmetrical economic benefit exchanged online must be compensated. Parties in a mutual exchange rarely get the exact same amount of value from the exchange, but the fact that one party derives more value from the exchange than the other shouldn't create a federal case." GOPRO INC: Faces Securities Class Action After Stock Slump ---------------------------------------------------------- Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that GoPro Inc., the maker of wearable cameras popular with skiers, surfers and other outdoor sports enthusiasts, has been hit with a string of securities class actions after a sharp dive in the company's share price. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd joined the fray on Feb. 4 with a suit alleging that the company failed to disclose declining sales trends, price pressure and rising inventories that indicated weak demand. San Mateo-based GoPro has missed its earnings targets the past two quarters due to weaker than expected sales for its new HERO Session line of cameras. The price of the latest camera in the line was cut from $399 to $299 in July, then again to $199 in December. The company announced last month that it would take a $30 million charge to account for its excess inventory and that it would lay off about 7 percent of its workforce. GoPro's stock price, which topped $64 in August, fell below $13 on January 14, the day after it released its preliminary fourth quarter results. GoPro shares closed at $9.78 on Feb. 4, and the company announced that chief financial officer Jack Lazar will be leaving the company in March. The Feb. 4 suit from Robbins Geller alleges that the company and executives, including Lazar, made false or misleading statements about the GoPro's financial health, causing its stock to be overvalued. The suit follows two similar complaints filed last month in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by lawyers at Glancy Prongay & Murray and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer. The earlier suits have both been assigned to U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar. A company representative didn't immediately respond to an email message. No lawyer has yet entered an appearance as defense counsel for GoPro. GRENVILLE CHRISTIAN: Former Students Sue Over Alleged Abuse ----------------------------------------------------------- CTV News reports that the school yearbooks and glossy brochures all show images of beaming students getting a good Christian education. And in promotional videos, student after student offers up glowing testimonials, especially about their teachers. According to the brochures, students attending Grenville Christian College would find academic excellence. Sports. And the Arts. "Educating the whole person in body, mind and spirit." But a CTV W5 investigation has found that Grenville, once an elite private boarding school on the banks of the St. Lawrence River, has a dark past. For hundreds of former students, the school, which now sits empty having closed its doors in 2007, is a place haunted with painful memories. W5 spoke with several alumni who recounted disturbing stories about their years at the school and the abuses they suffered -- allegations of physical, sexual and psychological abuse during the 1970s, '80s and '90s. Mark Vincent attended Grenville in the '70s. "Probably the worst memory, they beat the crap out of me with a desk top to the point where I couldn't stand, because God told them to do it to me." Standing at the edge of the property, Jacqueline Thomas could barely look up at the sprawling campus. She was a student in the '90s. "This is the first time I've been here in 22 years. I'm trying really hard not to cry. But I feel sick. I'm terrified." With a Grenville brochure in hand, Andrew Hale-Byrne recalled his family's search for a school and thinking they'd found a place like the finest boarding schools in his native United Kingdom. "My mother commented that it looked better than most country clubs she'd seen. It was beautiful. It was actually breathtaking," Andrew said. But soon after arriving at the school, he witnessed first-hand the dark side. "One thing that stuck out in my mind and I found this particularly disturbing from the very first moment I witnessed it was the public humiliations in the chapel and the dining room where they (the headmaster and teachers) would drag a student onto the stage and that person would be ripped apart, humiliated, shamed in front of the entire student body." What Andrew found troubling was that the brochure promised "love and Christian teaching," but, he says, they got neither. "They took Christianity which is a religion of love which was my experience of growing up Anglican and they inverted it into a cult of hate." "I was told that in order to be loved by God I had to pass through the light and that involved going through what they called a 'light session' which is one of these public humiliations. And you had to die to self they said in order to be loved by God, and that involved hating yourself," Andrew explained. "After two years of being there I came to believe that I was garbage, filth, trash. We were told 'God hates you. God doesn't love you. You're damned.' And I came to just normalize this." Andrew has written a book about his experiences, which is available online. Dan Michielsen entered Grenville in 1985 in grade 10. He described himself as a happy go lucky 15-year-old but all that changed within a couple of weeks with a rude awakening. Dan recalled being dragged out of bed along with other boys in the dormitory in the middle of the night by staff. "Lights would be turned on and we were berated and screamed at for being sinful boys." Sinful boys, but the girls were singled out by headmaster Charles Farnsworth and other staff for far more degrading attacks simply because they were female. Sheila Coons recalled the headmaster seeing her as the Devil incarnate. "He would say that I had a devil inspired body and that I was tempting men by my devil inspired body. He compared me to Lucifer because at the time I was blonde and Lucifer apparently had blonde hair." According to Sheila and confirmed by other former students W5 interviewed, Farnsworth often accused girls of inviting sexual attention. "Father Farnworth took me into the Vestry and told me that I was a whore and I looked like a whore and I had really no alternative in life but to be a whore," Sheila said. "We were told that women are responsible for anything sexual, for turning men on, turning boys on, that men just looked at us as pieces of meat. And if a woman got raped that was her fault. She was a temptress as Eve was a temptress, as Jezebel was a temptress and then the list goes on." Father Farnworth's tirades about women may have hidden his own lust. "He would call me up to his office frequently, take me out of class and tell me what an awful, sinful creature I was. "On this one occasion he stood up, pressed his body against mine. He said, 'you smell good' and he clenched me to him and he put his mouth on my neck and licked it and he pressed his hips up against mine. "At the time I thought he was obsessed with me. I found out later that he was doing it to other girls as well." Today, these students are grown up but they still feel the pain, and are now part of a $200-million lawsuit -- a class action -- on behalf of hundreds of former boarding school students, claiming systemic abuse and bizarre religious practices at the hands of Grenville staff, especially Father Charles Farnsworth. Father Farnsworth's version of what went on at Grenville may never be fully known. He died in March 2015. But former students had already launched their class action against the school by this time. Father Farnsworth came to the school in 1972 and by 1983 he was named headmaster, a position he held for the next 14 years. What students likely didn't know back then was that he and other staff members were disciples of an American group called the Community of Jesus based in Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Reports by U.S. news media beginning in the 1980s described the group as a cult which practiced communal living and extreme rituals, particularly when it came to disciplining each other. As a devout follower, Father Farnsworth applied the teachings of the Community of Jesus at Grenville on unsuspecting students. Before his death, Father Farnsworth wrote about the allegations in a document obtained by W5. "The whole reason for being in our mission was to bring these people into the realm of the Christ . . ." Father Farnsworth added: 'We have been accused of many things that I never knew of and never heard of . . . But I honestly think some of the people have gone delusional. Some of the things they said happened, some of the accusations of sexual abuse by me, they just didn't happen." Many former Grenville staff also vigorously deny the allegations put forward in the lawsuit. However, Joan Childs, a former teacher and administrator at the school, as well as a follower of the Community of Jesus and one of Father Farnsworth's inner circle, told W5 that the students are telling the truth. "They aren't exaggerating. They aren't making these things up. As sad as it is, these things happened." She has apologized for what was done to students at the school while she was there. HAPPY ANGEL: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Moreno" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Guadalupe De La Cruz Moreno and Rosa Toledo Cabrera, individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Happy Angel Nail Spa Inc. and Wang Dong, Case No. 1:15-cv-10078 (S.D.N.Y., December 28, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a nail salon doing business as Happy Angel, located at 2632 Broadway, New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: John M. Gurrieri, Esq. Brandon D. Sherr, Esq. Justin A. Zeller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, N.Y. 10007-2036 Telephone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com bsherr@zellerlegal.com jazeller@zellerlegal.com HBH GOURMET: "Maye" Action Seeks OT, Tips, Spread of Hours Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- FREDDY MAYE on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, v. HBH Gourmet Sandwiches, Inc., Robert Ugorets, Dmitry Kirichansky and Lore Schlager, Defendants, Case No. CV7371 (E.D.N.Y., December 29, 2015), seeks injunction, unpaid overtime compensation due under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, unpaid minimum wages due, unpaid spread of hours premium due, recovery of unlawfully deducted tip compensation due, liquidated and/or punitive damages for failure to pay overtime compensation, statutory penalties, prejudgment and post-judgment interests and reasonable attorneys' and expert fees. HBH Gourmet Sandwiches, Inc., is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of New York, with principal place of business located at 407 Smith St. Brooklyn, NY 11231 where Maye was hired by Defendants as a delivery man. He claims to have rendered in excess of 40 hours per work week without overtime compensation, was not paid the mandatory spread of hours premium, did not receive wage statements and was not paid his tips due. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 HEALTH CANADA: Women Mull Class Action Over Anti-Nausea Drug ------------------------------------------------------------ Melanie Cole, writing for the Observer Star, reports that a class- action lawsuit has been filed in Canada by women who say their babies were harmed by a powerful anti-nausea drug not technically approved for use in pregnant women. Like most mothers, Terra Mercer wanted a drug-free pregnancy. But early in her pregnancy with her daughter, Aaleyah, Terra suffered severe nausea and vomiting. Still in her first trimester, she tried to handle it on her own, but when she began seeing blood in her vomit, she went to the hospital. A physician offered her a medication delivered by IV. "Before I said yes, I first asked if there were any side effects. He said. 'No, it's safe.' So I trusted him," she recalled. The drug was called ondansetron. It is marketed under the brand name Zofran. It is available in IV and pill form and is approved by Health Canada to prevent nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy and surgery patients. But it is also prescribed "off label," to treat extreme cases of morning sickness, or Hyperemesis Gravidarum, even though its possible risks have not been fully studied. HEDGEPATH PHARMACEUTICALS: Suit v. Accentia, Biovest Settled ------------------------------------------------------------ HedgePath Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a class action lawsuit against Accentia Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., and its former subsidiary, Biovest International, Inc., have been settled, and that settlement has been approved by the court. On July 24, 2013 and August 5, 2013, purported class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa Division) against Accentia Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., and several current and former directors and officers of Accentia and its former subsidiary, Biovest International, Inc., (collectively, the "Class Action"), including Frank E. O'Donnell, Jr. M.D., the Company's Executive Chairman. The complaints allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making or causing Accentia and/or Biovest to make false statements, and by failing to disclose or causing Accentia and/or Biovest to fail to disclose material information, concerning the results of the clinical trial of Biovest's cancer vaccine, BiovaxID, and status of its approval by the FDA. Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of shareholders who purchased common stock of Accentia or Biovest during a defined time period. All defendants, including Dr. O'Donnell, believe this litigation to be without merit, deny any wrongdoing or liability and have vigorously defended the alleged claims. A settlement of this matter, in which defendants make no admissions of wrongdoing or liability, has been agreed upon by all parties and approved by the Court. HedgePath is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company that is seeking to discover, develop and commercialize innovative therapeutics for patients with certain cancers. HENRY INDUSTRIES: Faces "Hose" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Hose v. Henry Industries, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01913 9 (E.D. Mo., December 23, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Henry Industries, Inc. is a provider of distribution center, warehouse and logistic needs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Dolley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC 2726 S. Brentwood Blvd. St. Louis MO 63144 Telephone: (314)645-4100 Facsimile: (314)736-6216 E-mail: kevin@dolleylaw.com - and - Cyrus Dashtaki, Esq. DASHTAKI LAW FIRM, LLC 5201 Hampton Avenue St. Louis, MO 63109 Telephone: (314) 832-9600 Facsimile: (314) 353-0181 E-mail: cyrus@dashtaki.com HIGHER ONE: Faces "Hall" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Hall, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Higher One Machines, Inc., Higher One, Inc., and Higher One Holdings, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00670-F (E.D.N.C., December 28, 2018) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants offer a wide array of technological services on campus, ranging from streamlining the institution's performance analytics and financial aid refund processes to offering students innovative banking services, tuition payment plans, and the basics of financial management. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Jesse L. Young SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 936-2143 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Timothy J. Becker, Esq. Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com jrusch@johnsonbecker.com - and - W. Ellis Boyle, Esq. Joe Thomas Knott III, Esq. KNOTT & BOYLE P.L.L.C. 4800 Six Forks Road, Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: (919) 783-5900 Facsimile: (919) 783-9650 E-mail ellis@knottboyle.com joeknott@knottboyle.com HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: To Seek Dismissal of Merger Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Hutchinson Technology Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 27, 2015, that the Company intends to move to dismiss the class action lawsuits challenging the Company's merger agreement with Headway Technologies, Inc. On November 1, 2015, Hutchinson entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Headway Technologies, Inc. ("Parent") and Hydra Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Subsidiary"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Subsidiary will merge with and into Hutchinson and Hutchinson will continue as the surviving corporation and as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger"). Parent and Merger Subsidiary are each beneficially owned by TDK Corporation, a Japanese electronics company. In November and December 2015, following the announcement of the Merger, four actions were filed by purported shareholders of the company in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The actions are captioned David Erickson v. Hutchinson Technology Incorporated, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-04261-DSD-LIB, Stephen M. Harnik v. Hutchinson Technology Incorporated, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-04321, Jesse Hendricks v. Richard J.Penn, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-04338, and Matthew Ridler and Lori Ridler v. Hutchinson Technology Incorporated, Case No. 0:15-cv-04356-MJD- TNL. The plaintiffs each purport to bring their action as a class action on behalf of the company's public shareholders. All four complaints name the company and its directors as defendants, and allege that they have violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of, and Rule 14a-9 under, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by filing a preliminary proxy statement that contains materially incomplete and misleading statements and omissions. The Hendricks complaint also names Parent and Merger Subsisiaryas defendants, and includes claims under state law for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and equitable relief under the Minnesota Business Corporation Act. The Hendricks complaint alleges that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the company by operating an inadequate sale process, agreeing to a merger with Parent and Merger Subsidiary at an unfair price, and agreeing to deal protection provisions that are unfavorable to the company and its shareholders. All of the federal complaints seek injunctive and equitable relief, including an order enjoining the closing of the Merger until the alleged deficiencies in the preliminary proxy statement have been corrected; damages in an unspecified amount; and an award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements. The defendants have not yet responded to any of the complaints, but intend to move to dismiss the actions. "We believe that the actions are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against all claims asserted," the Company said. ISE RESTAURANT: Faces Suit in N.Y. Seeking Unpaid Wages & Damages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Carlos Rosales-Sanchez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Ise Restaurant Inc., and Manabu Nishigaki, Case No. 1:15-cv-10064-CM (S.D.N.Y., December 28, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate two restaurants in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue - 6th floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com ITALY: Solicitor Mulls Class Action Over Juventus Travel Ban ------------------------------------------------------------ Ben Gladwell, writing for ESPN FC, reports that Diego Maradona's solicitor is planning to lead a class action launched by Napoli fans to overturn a ban on them travelling to Juventus. Angelo Pisani, who has defended Mr. Maradona in his various disputes with Italian tax authorities, has taken on the Napoli fans' bid to travel to the Feb. 6 top-of-the-table Serie A clash at the Juventus Stadium. The away end of the Juventus Stadium is to remain empty with police fearing crowd trouble. Fans with a residency in the state of Campania will be forbidden from buying tickets for the fixture as the league leaders travel to the second-placed side. "It's an unacceptable and illegitimate measure which also offends the dignity of Neapolitans," Mr. Pisani told Il Corriere dello Sport. "It just disgusts you. It is blatantly illegitimate and unacceptable because it is discriminatory and reflects a state which has capitulated and is incapable of guaranteeing people's safety." The Juventus Stadium will be sold out for the fixture which will nevertheless see a large presence of Napoli fans who do not reside in Campania, and who will have been able to get tickets for the home fans' areas. "Closing the stadium to residents of Campania, who feel offended and damaged, is not the way to ensure the sporting event goes ahead correctly," Mr. Pisani added. "Also because decisions like these upset the healthy sporting passion of the Partenopei fans and, in general, it offends the dignity of the Neapolitan people. "It provokes the serious risk of mixing Azzurri fans from other parts of Italy with Bianconeri supporters in the same sectors, with a real risk of danger in these cases." With or without their fans, Napoli will be looking to win in Turin, and take a major step towards a first Scudetto since 1990. "If we get a draw after a difficult game, then that would be fine, but it's not something I would sign for in advance," said Napoli coach Maurizio Sarri, whose side have a two-point advantage over Juve. "I want to go there to win. They are stronger than us, but we need to go there with defiance and play our football at the [Juventus] Stadium. They have always been coached by great coaches, they are a strong club with a very united group of players, who are used to this kind of game. "It's something for us to be proud about, being ahead of them, and we're happy to be able to play a game like this. We're going to go there and play our game, knowing that they're going to cause us plenty of problems." That confidence is shared by Napoli midfielder Marek Hamsik. "We're going to make a game of it in Turin," Mr. Hamsik told Mediaset. "We're expecting a great game against Juventus -- it's first against second, so what more do we want? "You don't need any extra motivation for a game like that. We've got a week to prepare, to study them and to get it right. They're in great form and it's going to be extremely difficult." Juventus beat Frosinone on Feb. 7 to make it 14 wins in a row while Napoli's 1-0 win over Carpi was their eighth straight win in Serie A. JL BARNES: "Blake" Sues over Unsolicited Fax Messages ----------------------------------------------------- Timothy Blake, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. J.L. Barnes Insurance Agency Inc., Defendant, Case No. CACE-15-022331 (Fla. Cir., December 21, 2015), seeks statutory damages, statutory penalties, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest from violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 et seq. J.L. Barnes Insurance Agency Inc. is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Illinois with its headquarters at 4355 Weaver Parkway, Warrenville, IL 60555. It operates American Health Insurance Exchange which sells insurance products and services and has partnered with the American Association of Justice of which Blake is a member. J.L. Barnes Insurance Agency Inc. began promoting their products and services by sending fax messages to the members of the American Association of Justice without their consent. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn Heller, Esq. Joshua Glickman, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE PO Box 70327 Washington, DC Tel: (202) 709-5744 Email: shawn@sjlawcollective.com josh@sjlawcollective.com - and - Peter Bennett Richard Bennett BENNETT & BENNETT 1200 Anastasia Ave, Ofc. 360 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Email: richardbennett27@.gmail.com peterbennettlaw@gmail.com KEANE GROUP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Frazier" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Frazier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Keane Group Holdings, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01702-DSC (W.D. Penn., December 28, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Keane Group Holdings, LLC operates an oilfield services company that operates throughout the United States, including in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Texas, and North Dakota. The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 711 W. Alabama Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com - and - Anthony J. Lazzaro, 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@lazzarolaw.com KEURIG GREEN: Faces "Kaufmann" Suit Over Merger With Acorn ---------------------------------------------------------- Carl J. Kaufmann, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., Norman H. Wesley, Barbara D. Carlini, John D. Hayes, Brian P. Kelley, A.D. David Mackay, Michael J. Mardy, Hinda Miller, David E. Moran, Jose Octavio Reyes Lagunes, Susan Saltzbart Kilsby, Robert A. Steele, Acorn Holdings B.V., Maple Holdings Acquisition Corp. and JAB Holdings B.V., Defendants, Case No. 58324942 (Del. Ch., December 21, 2015), seeks damages, attorney's fees and equitable relief for breach of fiduciary duties. The complaint says Acorn Holdings would acquire all of the outstanding shares of Keurig in a merger. The Board agreed to certain onerous deals in favor Acorn that are generally unfavorable to the stockholders, asserts the complaint. Kaufmann is a shareholder of Kuerig. Norman H. Wesley, Barbara D. Carlini, John D. Hayes, Brian P. Kelley, A.D. David Mackay, Michael J. Mardy, Hinda Miller, David E. Moran, Jose Octavio Reyes Lagunes, Susan Saltzbart Kilsby and Robert A. Steele are members of the Board of Kuerig. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-5310 - and - Brian C. Kerr, Esq. BROWER PIVEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 501-9000 KEURIG GREEN: Facing Class Suits in Delaware over Acorn Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. is facing class action lawsuits in Delaware court over its merger agreement with Acorn Holdings B.V., Keurig said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2016, for the thirteen weeks ended December 26, 2015. On December 6, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 6, 2015, by and among Acorn Holdings B.V., Maple Holdings Acquisition Corp., and JAB Holdings B.V. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement, Acquisition Sub will be merged with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Acorn. A putative class action lawsuit (Berger v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., et al., Case No. 11815-CB) was filed on December 15, 2015, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, the members of the Company Board, Acorn, Acquisition Sub, JAB and JAB Holding. The complaint alleges that the members of the Company Board breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, (i) initiating a process to sell the Company that undervalues it, (ii) capping the price of the Company at an amount that does not adequately reflect its true value, (iii) failing to sufficiently inform themselves of the Company's value or disregarding that value and (iv) committing to the proposed transaction at the expense of any alternate potential acquirers. The complaint also alleges that the Company, Acorn, Acquisition Sub, JAB and JAB Holding aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the members of the Company Board. The complaint seeks, among other things, an order that the action may be maintained as a class action, certification of the plaintiff as a representative of the class and plaintiff's counsel as class counsel, injunctive relief, rescission of the transaction or rescissory damages in favor of the plaintiff and the class, an accounting of all damages sustained by the plaintiff and the class and the fees and costs associated with the litigation. From December 21, 2015 through January 19, 2016, three additional putative class action lawsuits (Kaufmann v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., et al., Case No. 11826-CB, Restivo v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., et al., Case No. 11840-CB and Chapel v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., et al., Case No. 11911-CB), were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, the members of the Company Board, Acorn, Acquisition Sub and JAB. The complaints allege similar claims and allegations to those in the Berger complaint, except that the Chapel complaint also alleges that the members of the Company Board breached their fiduciary duties by making false and misleading proxy disclosures. The complaints seek similar relief to that sought in the Berger complaint. On January 27, 2016, the Chapel plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Expedited Proceedings. The court set a hearing on the motion for expedited proceedings for February 2, 2016. KEURIG GREEN: Facing Class Suits in Vermont over Acorn Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit in Vermont court over its merger agreement with Acorn Holdings B.V., Keurig said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2016, for the thirteen weeks ended December 26, 2015. On December 6, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 6, 2015, by and among Acorn Holdings B.V., Maple Holdings Acquisition Corp., and JAB Holdings B.V. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement, Acquisition Sub will be merged with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Acorn. On January 27, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit (Montanio v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-00019-gwc) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont against the Company, the members of the Company Board, Acorn, Acquisition Sub and JAB. The complaint alleges, among other things, (i) that the defendants violated federal securities laws by disseminating a proxy statement that was allegedly false and misleading, and which allegedly failed to disclose facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading and (ii) that our directors violated federal securities laws in exercising control over individuals alleged to have disseminated the proxy statement that was allegedly false and misleading. The complaint seeks, among other things, an order that the action may be maintained as a class action, certification of the plaintiff as a representative of the class and plaintiff's counsel as class counsel, a declaration that the proxy was materially false and misleading and in violation of certain federal securities laws, injunctive relief, rescissory damages in favor of the plaintiff and the class, and the fees and costs associated with the litigation. The lawsuit is in a preliminary stage. The shareholder vote on the proposed buyout has been scheduled for Feb. 24, the suit states. Mr. Montanio and others in the class are represented by attorney Philip Woodward -- woodward@wklawvt.com -- of Woodward & Kelley in South Burlington, Vermont; attorneys Stuart A. Davidson, Mark J. Dearman, Christopher Martins, Randall J. Baron and David T. Wissbroecker of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in Boca Raton, Florida and San Diego; and attorney Hamilton P. Lindley -- hlindley@dunnamlaw.com -- of Dunnam & Dunnam in Waco, Texas. U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont Burlington Division Case number 5:16-cv-00019-GWC LE MACARON: "Herrera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ruben F. Herrera, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Le Macaron Miami LLC and Vincent Benoliel, Case No. 1:15-cv-24739-FAM (S.D. Fla., December 28, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a French bakery operating in several locations within Miami-Dade County. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com LOS ARCOS: $178,928 Settlement in Labor Suit Has Initial Okay ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted a joint motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement in the case captioned, BELICE PLIEGO on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOS ARCOS MEXICAN RESTAURANTS, INC., d/b/a Los Arquitos Mexican Restaurant, Los Arquitos, Los Arquitos, Inc., Los Arcos, Inc. and Los Arcos Mexican Restaurant, AMR-LONE TREE, INC., d/b/a Los Arcos Mexican Restaurant, AMR-WESTLAND, INC., JUAN LUEVANO, IGNACIO LUEVANO, RAMON LUEVANO, SANDRA LUEVANO, and LIZ LUEVANO, Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-01686-RM-KMT (D. Colo.). On June 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed the collective and class action lawsuit. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage Order by failing to pay overtime premiums to current and former employees. Plaintiff has further alleged that Defendants improperly rounded their current and former employees' hours and improperly charged their employees for employer-required uniforms. The settlement resolves both FLSA claims as an opt-in collective and the MWO claims pursuant to the opt-out provisions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The Settlement Agreement provides that Defendants will make a reversionary Settlement Payment of $178,928.84 into a Settlement Fund to compensate Plaintiff and the combined Opt- in/Rule 23 Class for their damages and liquidated damages, inclusive of attorney fees and costs. The Parties have agreed to the payment of a service award to Class Representative Belice Pliego in the amount of $7,500.00 from the Settlement Fund. Plaintiff's counsel seeks an award of 33% of the Settlement Fund ($59,046.52), claiming this percentage to be a customary fee. In the motion, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement. In her Order dated February 8, 2016 available at http://is.gd/ka6Ixifrom Leagle.com, Judge Tafoya found that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of the Plaintiff Class. The Court approves Brandt Milstein, Esq. as class counsel, Plaintiff Belice Pliego as class representative and Settlement Services, Inc. as Settlement Administrator. The court certifies the Rule 23 Class and the FLSA Collective settlement class which shall be defined as, "All individuals employed by Defendants at the Westminster and Lone Tree Los Arcos Restaurants between June 17, 2011 and July 20, 2014". A telephonic hearing is scheduled for February 16, 2016 at 11:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya for revisions to the Class Notice and claim forms, including relevant dates for inclusion. Belice Pliego is represented by Brandt Powers Milstein, Esq. -- Brandt@MilsteinLawOffice.com -- MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE Los Arcos Mexican Restaurants, Inc. is represented by Emily Hobbs- Wright, Esq. -- ehobbswright@hollandhart.com -- Gregory Alan Eurich, Esq. -- geurich@hollandhart.com -- HOLLAND & HART, LLP MAGELLAN SOLUTIONS: "Hayford" Suit Seeks Pre-shift Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Terri Hayford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Magellan Solutions USA, Defendant, Case No. 5:15-cv-01136 (D. Ariz., December 29, 2015), seeks compensatory and liquidated damages on all wages and overtime pay owed, reasonable attorneys' fees incurred and further relief under Section 6 and 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq. Magellan operates call centers in Arizona. Prior to starting work on the call center floor, employees are interviewed by the managers, then conduct pre-shift task such as booting which takes considerable time. This constitutes overtime on top of their 8- hour shift, the suit contends. The Plaintiff is represented by: James X. Bormes, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan Ave., Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Email: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com - and - Thomas M. Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C. 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 726-3400 Email: tom@tomryanlaw.com - and - Michelle R. Matheson #019568 MATHESON & MATHESON, P.L.C. 15300 North 90th Street, Suite 550 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Tel: (480) 889-8951 Email: mmatheson@mathesonlegal.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Eley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nina Eley v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. :15-cv- 03917-JFM (D. Md., December 23, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation 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 "Mitchell" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Tasha Mitchell v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-03928-JFM (D. Md., December 23, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation 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 "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Rodriguez v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03926-JFM (D. Md., December 23, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation 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 "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Rodriguez v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03919-JFM (D. Md., December 23, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation 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 "Walker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Janie Walker v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 03937-JFM (D. Md., December 23, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation 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 "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Peggy Williams v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-03913-GLR (D. Md., December 23, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation 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 NANT DISTILLERY: Investors Mull Class Action -------------------------------------------- The Sydney Morning Herald reports that an investor in Nant, IT consultant David Kavanagh, says Nant Distillery refused to allow him to take his whisky out of its investment scheme to another bond store, even though he had applied to the Australian Tax Office for permission and had organised placement in another secure facility. Mr Kavanagh said he began approaching Nant in November 2014, just a month before his barrel was expected to reach maturity. But after numerous emails and phone calls went unanswered, he instead decided in July 2015 to take the two barrels he owns from Nant's bond store to another distillery in Goolwa, South Australia. "We had a legal right to do that," he said. "Under the scheme we own them." But the courier, who arrived at Nant's distillery in August 2015, armed with the paperwork from the Australian Taxation Office, was turned away and told the barrels could not be released. Through his solicitors Mr. Kavanagh is now demanding the release of his barrels, and is threatening a class action on behalf of investors. Fairfax Media revealed on Feb. 6 that the man behind a whisky barrel investment scheme, Keith Batt, put himself into bankruptcy just before Christmas and has resigned all his directorships of the Nant group of companies, as creditors chasing debts relating to his previous failed Queensland Property Partners close in. The Nant whisky business, which Mr Batt founded, finances its operations by offering investors a sale and guaranteed buyback of two 225 litre barrels, with an interest rate of 9.55 per cent. Under earlier offers the investor has the right to redeem his investment when the whisky reaches maturity, usually after four years, but Nant is the sole arbiter of when the whisky is matured. That has now changed and the redemption can occur after four years. A spokeswoman for Nant said Mr. Kavanagh had been refused access to his whisky because the courier turned up without notice, did not have the originals of the documents, did not have a food safe container, and it was not safe to transport such flammable liquid in its barrel. "We have advised Mr. Kavanagh he is more than welcome to the whiskey he owns but a transfer needs to follow these requirements which includes the safe transportation of the product," she said. "If Nant were to allow the unsafe transfer of any materials Nant would be held responsible." Mr. Kavanagh said he was more than happy to comply with any requirements and give notice, but his attempts to get a response from Nant on a convenient time have gone unanswered. Meanwhile, Nant wrote to investors on Feb. 1 to reassure them that Nant was "a highly successful, award-winning and profitable company that now employs 80 people". An accompanying "fact sheet" acknowledged Mr Batt's bankruptcy. "After working for six years to find a resolution with bank creditors, Mr. Batt was forced to accept his property business could not be saved and declared himself personally insolvent in December 2015." Mr. Batt owes $16.4 million. Despite Mr. Batt's financial troubles, he has not slowed his lifestyle and was at the helm of the Nant-owned and refurbished Maxi Ragamuffin in the recent Sydney to Hobart yacht race. Until recently Mr. Batt was the main shareholder of Nant, but has transferred all directorships and shares to his wife in recent months. Nant told investors that "more than 200 delighted customers have redeemed their mature barrels. We anticipate hundreds more barrels will reach maturity this year". The company has been unable to say what proportion of its stock is currently owned by investors, but says by 2017 less than 50 per cent will be investor-owned. Nant whisky has won numerous international awards and the base grade whisky sells for more than $150 a bottle. NURSERY ELEGUA'S: Faces "Bonilla" Wage-and-Hour Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Elias Bonilla, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Nursery Elegua's, Inc., Miguel Rojas, individually and Carmen Rojas, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-24751-FAM (S.D. Fla., Miami Division, December 29, 2015), seeks compensatory, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses and all other compensation, overtime and back pay and other benefits wrongly denied in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Bonilla was employed as a driver and worker in the Defendant's gardening, plant and tree sales, and landscaping business. He allegedly was deprived of overtime compensation for all hours worked over forty hours per week. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Hudson, Esq. HUDSON & CALLEJA, LLC 355 Alhambra Circle, Suite 801 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Tel: (305) 444-6628 Fax: (305) 444-6627 Email: rhudson@hudsoncalleja.com jsocorro@hudsoncalleja.com PATRIZIO BENVENUTI: Arrested in Italy Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that an Argentine monsignor suspected of being behind a Ponzi scheme swindling investors out of 30 million euros ($34 million) has been put under house arrest in Genoa, Italian financial police said on Feb. 10. Monsignor Patrizio Benvenuti boasted of Vatican connections and held dinners in a prestigious Rome palazzo as part of a technique to persuade nearly 300 people, many of them elderly, to put their money in an investment fund as well as to donate to a charitable foundation, said Police Capt. Alessandra Faietti, based in the northern city of Bolzano. Most of those swindled were French or Belgian citizens, Italian authorities said. Ms. Faietti said the probe began after a nun who had been Monsignor Benvenuti's housekeeper in Rome for many years contacted tax police when she started receiving at her home bank and other documents referring to a trust that had been set up in her name. Police said the nun was startled and puzzled to see hundreds of thousands of euros moving through financial instruments linked to her name. An international arrest warrant has been issued for a French financier who allegedly worked closely with Monsignor Benvenuti, the police said. The two men are under investigation on suspicion of fraud, money laundering and tax evasion, authorities said. Seven other people are also under investigation. Police seized property, bank accounts and other items worth a total of 10 million euros ($11 million). Among the seized properties was a luxurious 15th-century villa on the Tuscan coast near Piombino where Monsignor Benvenuti would stay, Ms. Faietti said. Tax police said at the beginning investors did receive some interest payments, as commonly happens in Ponzi schemes, but later the payments stopped coming and they couldn't get their investment back. Ms. Faietti said investigations showed that Benvenuti had established official residence in the Canary Islands and investigators believed he intended to move there soon. POST OFFICE: Subpostmaster Mulls Class Action --------------------------------------------- Karl Flinders, writing for Computer Weekly, reports that The Post Office faces group litigation in relation to a long-running dispute over the computer system that its branch network uses, as campaigners get the financial backing they need to take the case to civil court. Subpostmasters plan a group legal action against the Post Office, claiming wrongful prosecution, fines and even prison sentences because of failures in the computer system. In 2009, Computer Weekly revealed the stories of subpostmasters who had received heavy fines and even jail terms for alleged false accounting -- which they blamed on the Horizon system and supporting processes. The Post Office has vehemently denied this claim. In November 2015, the subpostmasters -- supported by The Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance (JSFA) -- announced their group action against Post Office. The group seeks justice and compensation for subpostmasters. At the time, the JFSA said that, after years of campaigning, it was left with "no other option but to seek redress though the courts". Freeths Solicitors and Henderson Barristers Chambers have been preparing the civil action through the High Court. Alan Bates, chairman at the JFSA, confirmed the group had secured the funding it needs to take the action. "We are now able to move forward in civil court with the exposure of the failings of the Post Office and its Horizon system." A group action is a case where a number of claimants with similar claims get together to initiate an action against a single party. It is similar to a US class action. In response to previous Computer Weekly articles, the Post Office recently said: "It remains the case that more than three years of investigations have not identified any transaction caused by a technical fault in Horizon which resulted in a postmaster wrongly being held responsible for a loss." QUICKEN LOANS: Court Dismisses "Arace" Suit over Tax Service Fee ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Ronnie Abrams of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Defendant Quicken Loan Inc.'s motion to dismiss in the case captioned, ALEXANDRA ARACE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. QUICKEN LOANS, INC. and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-382 (S.D.N.Y). Plaintiff brings the putative class action pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, alleging that Defendants Quicken Loans and up to 20 unknown associates engaged in an improper mortgage lending practice by charging and splitting an unnecessary "tax service fee" in connection with Plaintiff's mortgage loan. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that because her residential building is run as a cooperative and owned by a cooperative corporation that pays the real estate taxes on all the units, Quicken Loans had no need to charge Plaintiff a tax service fee on behalf of itself or any other entity. Plaintiff brings her claim pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Sec. 2607(b), which prohibits the splitting of unearned fees related to mortgage loans. Quicken Loans moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that Plaintiff fails to state a claim in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in the case, Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 132 S.Ct. 2034, 2044 (2012), because Plaintiff does not allege her tax service fee was split. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that Sec. 2607(b) proscribes only the splitting of fees "between two or more persons" and does not provide a remedy when fees are unearned but not split. In his Opinion and Order dated February 1, 2016 available at http://is.gd/SxcxI3from Leagle.com, Judge Abrams concluded that Plaintiff has not alleged that a charge for settlement services was divided between two or more persons -- which failure is fatal to Plaintiff's claim under Sec. 2607(b). Alexandra Arace is represented by: Stuart E. Nahas, Esq. ZRAICK NAHAS & RICH 303 5th Ave #1201 New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212)686-0855 - and - Wayne Scott Kreger, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WAYNE KREGER 303 5th Avenue, Suite 1201 New York, NY 10016-6601 Tel: (212)956-2136 Quicken Loans is represented by Alyssa Anne Sussman, Esq. -- asussman@goodwinprocter.com -- Sabrina M. Rose-Smith, Esq. -- srosesmith@goodwinprocter.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Morris" Suit Hits Illegal Collection Methods ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cheryl Johnson-Morris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., an Illinois Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2015-CH-18352 (Ill. Cir, Cook County, December 18, 2015), seeks actual and statutory damages, injunction, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and relief in accordance with Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692 and in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227. Plaintiff alleges Santander Consumer USA Inc. of charging unlawful debt collection fees and telephone calling practices. Santander is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois with its principal place of business located at 1601 Elm Street, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas. It is a nonprime loans financer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. J. Dominick Larry, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Tel: (312) 589-6370 Fax: (312) 589-6378 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com nlarry@edelson.com - and - John E. Norris, Esq. Frank Davis, Esq. DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP 2154 Highland A venue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Tel: (205) 930-9900 Fax: (205) 930-9989 Email: jnorris@davisnorris.com fdavis@davisnorris.com SEASONS HOSPICE: "Lopez" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Tips ----------------------------------------------------- Zoila Lopez and other similarly situated care consultants, Plaintiffs, v. Seasons Hospice & Palliative Care of Southern Florida, Inc. and Todd A. Stern, Individually, Defendant (s), Case No. 2015-029435-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., December 18, 2015), seeks actual damages in the amount of unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation, double damages/liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and additional relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Zoila Lopez performed work for Defendants as a care consultant. She claims to have worked in excess of forty hours per week and was not paid the proper overtime rate. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Renner, Esq. Brody M. Shulman, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Tel: (305) 416-5000 Fax: (305)416-5005 Email: jremer@rgpattomeys.com SEE'S CANDY: Red Heart Chocolates Are Not Kosher, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in Oakland, Calif., claims See's Candy advertises its Red Heart Assorted Chocolates as kosher, but kosher they are not. SNAK-KING CORP: "Parga" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Daisy Parga, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Snak-King Corp., Real Time Staffing Services, LLC, Select Specialized Staffing, LLC, Koosharem Corporation, Koosharem Corporation as agent for Real Time Staffing Services and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC604855 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County, December 21, 2015), seeks an injunction, enjoinment, restitution and other further relief pursuant to California Labor Code Sec. 226(e) and 1194 and the California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et. Seq. The complaint says the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff wages for meal period premium wages during times when she worked during her assigned break time. Defendants also failed to provide accurate wage and hour statements. She was also not paid for earned wages upon her termination. Snak-King Corp. is an organic snack food manufacturer that operates in Los Angeles County. The Company employed Plaintiff at its business located at 16150 Stephens Street, City of Industry, California 91745 through Real Time Staffing Services, LLC, Select Specialized Staffing, LLC and Koosharem Corporation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Tel: (310) 432-0000 Fax: (310) 432-0001 SOLERA HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Solera Holdings, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a Delaware class action lawsuit related to a proposed merger transaction remains pending, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015. On September 13, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Summertime Holding Corp., a Delaware corporation ("Parent"), and Summertime Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. Parent and Merger Sub were formed by affiliates of Vista Equity Partners Fund V, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the "Sponsor" or "Vista"). The board of directors of the Company (the "Board"), following the receipt of the unanimous recommendation of a special committee of independent directors of the Board, unanimously approved the Merger Agreement. On December 8, 2015, the Company's stockholders voted to adopt the Merger Agreement. On September 21, 2015, an alleged stockholder of the Company filed an action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of a putative class of the Company's stockholders against the Company and its directors, Vista Equity Partners, Parent and Merger Sub. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement at an inadequate price and following an inadequate sale process, and that the Company, Vista, Parent and Merger Sub aided and abetted these alleged breaches of duty. The complainant seeks, among other things, either to enjoin the proposed transaction or to rescind it should it be consummated, as well as an award of plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs in the action. On October 13, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On October 21, 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that added allegations contending that the Company's disclosure contained in the preliminary version the Company's proxy statement misstated or failed to disclose certain allegedly material information to Company stockholders. On October 22, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the holding of the Company's shareholder meeting based upon his claim that the Company's public disclosures were inadequate. On November 5, 2015, the Court denied the motion for expedited proceedings, and declined to consider plaintiff's motion seeking to enjoin the special meeting. The defendants deny any wrongdoing in connection with the merger and plan to defend vigorously against the claims set forth in the amended complaint and any injunction motion. On November 17, 2015, a duplicative action was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company's directors on behalf of the same putative class of the Company's stockholders, alleging similar claims for breach of fiduciary duty and challenging the merger and the disclosures relating to the merger. On December 23, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action. That motion remains pending. The defendants deny any wrongdoing in connection with the merger and plan to defend vigorously against the claims set forth in these actions. SOUTHAVEN, MS: Troy Goode's Family Files Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- FOX13 reports that the family of the late Troy Goode has filed a lawsuit against the City of Southaven and others after he died in police custody in July. The class-action lawsuit includes Baptist Memorial Hospital- DeSoto, Southeastern Emergency Physicians, Southeastern Emergency Services, as well as six individual firefighters/EMS workers, five Southaven police officers and one doctor. Allegations of negligence, medical malpractice and wrongful death are all listed and explained in full. The lawsuit is seeking unspecified damages for the death of the 30-year old-husband and father. On July 18, 2015, Mr. Goode was hogtied by Southaven police after they said he was combative with officers who were called to the scene of a disturbance. Mr. Goode was still hogtied when he was taken to Baptist Memorial Hospital-DeSoto, and he died at the hospital. The lawsuit was filed in Federal Court in Memphis. It is 66 pages long and details the family's account of what happened on the evening of July 18. The accusations against the city of Southaven and others named in the lawsuit are very powerful and compelling. Mr. Goode's family wants answers and accountability for a death they say happened in the negligent hands of Southaven police, fire department, EMS and others. In the lawsuit, the family claims: "Troy's death is not a simple case of negligence. Instead it reflects a systemic failure and willful violation of civil rights by the defendants named herein." Here are some of allegations the family is making: It took an ambulance 41 minutes to drive just 4.4 miles to Baptist Memorial Hospital DeSoto, all while Mr. Goode struggled to breathe. Police and firefighters filtered in and out of Mr. Goode's hospital room, all while he struggled to breathe, and laughed at him. Mr. Goode was still hogtied. FOX13 reached out to the Mayor of Southaven, Darren Musselwhite, for comment. He sent this statement via email: "Our full statement made in November is very thorough and the City will not be making any further comments. As noted then, we strongly disagree with these allegations and will vigorously defend our City." FOX13 reached out to the family's attorney's for comment, and they told us that the allegations in the lawsuit spoke for themselves. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: D.C. Court Has Yet to Issue Scheduling Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has not yet entered a scheduling order establishing a date for defendants to respond to the consumer complaints. On July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the Company, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines to limit capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Since then, a number of similar class action complaints have been filed in the United States District Courts for the Central District of California, the Northern District of California, the District of Columbia, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern District of Louisiana, the District of Minnesota, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New York, the Middle District of North Carolina, the District of Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern District of Texas, the District of Vermont, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The complaints seek treble damages for periods that vary among the complaints, costs, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation centralized the cases to the United States District Court in the District of Columbia. The Court has not yet entered a scheduling order establishing a date for defendants to respond to the complaints. While the Company intends to vigorously defend these civil cases, results of legal proceedings such as this one cannot be predicted with certainty. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Defendant in British Columbia Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company was named as a defendant in putative class action filed on July 8, 2015, in British Columbia, Canada alleging that the Company, Air Canada, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines colluded to restrict capacity and maintain higher fares for Canadian citizens traveling in the United States and for travel between the United States and Canada. Similar lawsuits were filed in Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan. The time for the Company to respond to the complaints has not yet expired. While the Company intends to vigorously defend these civil cases, results of legal proceedings such as this one cannot be predicted with certainty. SPECIAL TOUCH: Faces "Matala-De-Mazza" Wage-and-Hour Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Loubov Matala-De-Mazza, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by Special Touch Home Care Services, Inc., and Steven Ostrovsky, Plaintiffs, v. Special Touch Home Care Services, Inc., and Steven Ostrovsky, Defendants, Case No. 515383/2015 (N.Y. Sup., Kings County, December 18, 2015), seek to recover wages and benefits pursuant to New York Labor Law Sec. 190, 663, 650 and 651, New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations Sec. 142-2.1, 142-2.2, 142-2.4, 142-2.14 and 142-2.6, and New York Public Health Law Sec. 3614-c. Special Touch is a business corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal location at 2091 Coney Island Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, 11223. Special Touch is primarily engaged in providing nursing and home health aide services at the residences of its clients. Plaintiff was home health care attendant, providing services to elderly and disabled clients. She generally worked a total of approximately 60 to 68 hours per week and sometimes worked 24-hour shifts. She did not get a one-hour break for each of three meals per day and did not receive the spread of hours premium of one additional hour at the minimum wage rate for the days in which she worked ten or more hours. The Plaintiff is represented by: LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq. Milana Dostanitch, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 943-9080 Fax: (212) 943-9082 Email: llusher@vandallp.com ST. LOUIS RAMS: Faces Second Class Action Over Seat Licenses ------------------------------------------------------------ Jim Salter, writing for Associated Press, reports that a second lawsuit has been filed over the Rams' move to Los Angeles, this time by holders of personal seat licenses who say they should retain their right to seat licenses and season tickets, even in California. The suit said the PSL agreement in St. Louis granted holders "the right to purchase season tickets for the assigned seats for each and every football season through the year 2025," but did not stipulate that the games had to be played in St. Louis. "It's our position that the PSL holders should be allowed to either purchase tickets in L.A., or to transfer their PSLs to those who want to purchase season tickets in L.A.," said attorney David Bohm. He is representing his brother and sister-in-law, Robert and Sue Bohm, along with Edward Mock and Envision LLC, an IT consulting firm and staffing agency that bought six PSLs for $27,000. The suit seeks class-action status for more than 30,000 PSL holders who retained licenses as of the 2015 season. The suit was filed in St. Louis County. NFL owners voted Jan. 12 to allow the Rams to relocate to Los Angeles starting next season. The move returns the team to their home before moving to St. Louis in 1995. Though St. Louis-area fans might seem unlikely to travel nearly 2,000 miles for football games, resale of PSLs or season tickets could be lucrative. The Rams on Jan. 18 said they collected more than 45,000 season ticket deposits in just two days. The team plans to play in the Coliseum next season and move into owner Stan Kroenke's planned Inglewood stadium in 2019. A suit filed earlier in January on behalf of St. Louis Rams fans alleged that Kroenke and chief operating officer Kevin Demoff deceived fans by claiming the team had no intention of leaving, while plotting the move all along. That suit said the deception violated Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act. TAMKO BUILDING: Faces "Snyder" Suit Over Defective Shingles ----------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Snyder and Martin and Beth Melnick, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tamko Building Products, Inc., a Missouri Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-01892-SAB (E.D. Cal., Fresno Division, December 18, 2015), seeks award of all actual, general, special, incidental, statutory, treble or other multiple, punitive and consequential damages under statutory and common law, pre-judgment and post- judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, equitable and injunctive relief for defendant's breach of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent concealment, and violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Unfair Competition Law, California False Advertising Law and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Plaintiffs purchased shingles made by the Defendant and complained of cracking and being brittle and were denied full warranty. TAMKO Building Products, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Missouri, with its principal place of business located in Joplin, Missouri. The Complaint says the Company designed, manufactured, warranted, advertised, and sold defective shingles that were installed on thousands of structures located in California, Connecticut and throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. Camille Fundora, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: scarson@bm.net sschalman-bergen@bm.net apiazza@bm.net cfundora@bm.net THOMSON REUTERS: "Furey" Stays in N.D. Cal.; Discovery Okayed ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Defendants' motion to transfer venue and granted Plaintiff's request to conduct limited discovery in the case captioned, PHILLIP FUREY, Plaintiff, v. THOMSON REUTERS AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-04633-KAW (PGS)(DEA) (N.D. Cal.). On October 6, 2015, Plaintiff Phillip Furey filed a putative class action against Defendants Thomson Reuters America Corporation and Reuters America LLC alleging wage and hour violations. Plaintiff Phillip Furey worked as a journalist for Defendants for the last 10 years. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants misclassified him and other similarly situated journalists as independent contractors, and seeks damages, including unpaid wages, overtime compensation, employee benefits, and injunctive relief available under California law. On December 7, 2015, Defendants filed their Motion to Transfer the action to the Central District of California arguing that the action could have been brought there in the first instance, and that the relevant factors relating to convenience and the interests of justice favor transfer. On December 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed an opposition. In the Order dated February 8, 2016 available at http://is.gd/qivYZpfrom Leagle.com, Judge Westmore found that Plaintiff's choice of venue should be accorded some deference because this factor is neutral. The Court lacks sufficient information to determine the extent of Defendants' contacts with the Northern District, which weighs against transfer. Plaintiff's request to conduct limited discovery regarding Reuters's corporate structure and business operations in the Northern District of California is granted. Discovery shall be completed on or before April 18, 2016. Philip Furey is represented by: Alvin Mark Gomez, Esq. GOMEZ LAW GROUP 1469 Oglethorpe St. Macon, GA 31201 Tel: (478)744-0905 - and - Karl Patrick Romero Evangelista, Esq. C. Joe Sayas, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF C. JOE SAYAS, JR. 500 N Brand Blvd Suite 980, Glendale, CA 91203 Tel: (818)291-0088 Defendants are represented by Diana Tabacopoulos, Esq. -- dtabacopoulos@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP TREMOR VIDEO: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Medina" Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the case captioned, ALEJANDRO MEDINA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, and ADAM FURMAN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TREMOR VIDEO, INC. et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 15-2178-CV (2nd Cir.). Alejandro Medina brings the securities class action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, along with Adam Furman, against Tremor Video, Inc., an online video advertisement network provider, and its underwriters, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Jefferies LLC, Canaccord Genuity Inc., and Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Sections 77k, 77o. On June 27, 2013, Tremor Video issued 7.5 million common shares at $10 per share, pursuant to a registration statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Medina claims the defendants fail to disclose known trends or uncertainties as required by Item 303 of the SEC's Regulation S-K, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 229.303(a)(3)(ii). The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs' "conclusory complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to support a plausible inference" that defendants omitted material trends or uncertainties. Further, the district court concluded that defendants' Registration Statement had adequate cautionary language to defeat plaintiffs' claim. Subsequently, the district court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), holding that the "proposed amendments would be futile," and denied plaintiffs' motion to amend or vacate the judgment pursuant to Rules 59(e), 60(b). On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint. In the Summary Order dated February 8, 2016 available at http://is.gd/zanrA1from Leagle.com, Judges Guido Calabresi, Gerard E. Lynch, Raymond J. Lohier, Jr., concluded that the proposed second amended complaint does not state facts from which they can infer that defendants knew of the existence or impact of any uncertainty or trend that the rest of the world did not know, and that therefore should have been disclosed. The plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Plaintiffs are represented by: Susan K. Alexander, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 E-mail: salexander@rgrdlaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. Marshall P. Dees, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 1200 Ashford Pkwy #410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Tel: (770)392-0090 Tremor Video, Inc. is represented by Koji F. Fukumura, Esq. -- kfukumura@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP, Adam Hakki, Esq. -- ahakki@shearman.com -- SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP TRIVASCULAR TECHNOLOGIES: MOU Reached in Merger Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Trivascular Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2016, that a memorandum of understanding has been reached to settle class action lawsuits related to the merger between the Company and Endologix, Inc. TriVascular Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("TriVascular" or the "Company"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 26, 2015 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among the Company, Endologix, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Endologix" or "Parent"), and Parent's wholly-owned subsidiary, Teton Merger Sub Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Merger Sub"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, at the effective time of the Merger, Merger Sub was merged with and into the Company (the "Merger") with the Company surviving the Merger as a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of the Parent. The Closing of the Merger occurred on February 3, 2016. On December 7, 2015, Barry Lucido, individually and on behalf of TriVascular stockholders, filed a putative stockholder class action lawsuit in the Sonoma County Superior Court of the State of California against TriVascular, members of TriVascular's Board of Directors, Endologix and the Merger Sub. The complaint alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by TriVascular's directors in negotiating and approving the Merger Agreement, as well as failure to make material disclosures in connection with the Merger. The complaint alleged that Endologix and the Merger Sub aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint sought injunctive relief in the form of enjoining the Merger, rescissory and compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and expenses. TriVascular has also become aware that, on January 11, 2016, Roger Mariani, individually and on behalf of TriVascular stockholders, filed a second putative stockholder class action lawsuit in the Sonoma County Superior Court of the State of California against TriVascular, members of TriVascular's Board of Directors, Endologix and the Merger Sub. This follow-on complaint, which has not been served on any of the defendants, asserted materially the same claims and sought materially the same relief as the previously filed Lucido complaint, and plaintiffs' counsel in both actions are collaborating. The defendants believe that the claims in both actions are without merit. On January 25, 2016, the defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") with the plaintiffs providing for the settlement of all claims in both actions. Under the MOU, and subject to approval of the Sonoma County Superior Court of the State of California and further definitive documentation, the plaintiffs on behalf of the putative class they represent have agreed to settle and release, against the defendants and their affiliates and agents, all claims in the actions and any potential claim related to (i) the adequacy of the consideration to be paid to TriVascular's stockholders in connection with the Merger and/or the Merger Agreement, or any amendment thereto; (ii) the fiduciary obligations of any of the defendants or other released parties in connection with the Merger and/or the Merger Agreement, or any amendment thereto; (iii) the negotiations in connection with and process leading to the Merger and/or the Merger Agreement, or any amendment thereto; and (iv) the disclosures or disclosure obligations of any of the defendants or other released parties in connection with the Merger and/or the Merger Agreement. The settlement will not affect the consideration payable to stockholders of TriVascular in connection with the Merger. Endologix -- http://www.endologix.com/-- develops and manufactures minimally invasive treatments for aortic disorders. Endologix's focus is endovascular stent grafts for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). TriVascular, a wholly owned subsidiary of Endologix, develops and commercializes innovative technologies to significantly advance the minimally invasive treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. U.S. FOODSERVICE: Brinker Received $2,000,00 from Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Brinker International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 23, 2015, that the Company was a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against US Foods styled as In re U.S. Foodservice, Inc. Pricing Litigation. The Company said, "A settlement agreement was fully executed by all parties in September 2015 and we received approximately $2.0 million during the second quarter of fiscal 2016 in settlement of this litigation." Brinker is principally engaged in the ownership, operation, development, and franchising of the Chili's Grill & Bar ("Chili's") and Maggiano's Little Italy ("Maggiano's") restaurant brands. At December 23, 2015, it owned, operated, or franchised 1,646 restaurants. UBER: Drivers' Cases Over Employment Status Won't Go to MDL ----------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that Uber has dodged a legal move that would have coordinated more than a dozen lawsuits brought by its drivers over their employment status. In a Feb. 3 order, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation decided against moving the cases into an MDL and appeared persuaded by Uber's arguments that classifications of independent contractors varied too much state-to-state to make coordination feasible. As of the panel's decision, 17 lawsuits had been filed against Uber in 13 states. Most of the suits allege that Uber Technologies Inc. has misclassified drivers as independent contractors rather than employees who are entitled to unpaid wages, tips and reimbursement for gas and other expenses. Uber, based in San Francisco, offers a transportation service through a mobile application that connects drivers with customers. "Although these actions share certain factual issues regarding Uber's classification of drivers as independent contractors and its business practices concerning payment of gratuities and business expenses to drivers, the standards for determining whether independent contractors are employees vary substantially from state to state and involve a broad range of factors which require consideration of distinct aspects of the alleged employer's relationship with plaintiffs," wrote MDL Panel Chairwoman Sarah Vance. Uber, represented by Andrew Spurchise -- aspurchise@littler.com -- a shareholder in the New York office of San Francisco's Littler Mendelson, made similar arguments in its Dec. 29 motion opposing an MDL. An Uber spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment. The panel's decision also found that the case brought in San Francisco by Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan in Boston, which is set to go to trial on June 20, was too far along in discovery to be coordinated. Hunter Shkolnik of New York's Napoli Shkolnik, who moved to coordinate the litigation into an MDL, said in an email: "We respect the panel's decision and look forward to taking Uber on in every court across the country. They made their bed and now must live with it. Uber will be hard pressed to argue we should not depose their witnesses in each state now." UNITED AIRLINES: Hausfeld Named Lead Counsel in Price-Fixing Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that lawyers from Hausfeld and Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy have snagged the co-lead counsel spots in more than 100 class actions alleging that four major airlines conspired to fix the prices of domestic fares. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in the District of Columbia appointed Michael Hausfeld -- mhausfeld@hausfeld.com -- of Washington's Hausfeld and Steve Williams -- swilliams@cpmlegal.com -- a partner at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy in Burlingame, California, to lead the litigation, according to an order on Feb. 4. She also accepted their proposed executive committee members: Elizabeth Cabraser of San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein; Robert Kaplan -- rkaplan@kaplanfox.com -- a partner at New York's Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer; and Warren Burns of Burns Charest in Dallas. In their application, Messrs. Hausfeld and Williams had emphasized a lean leadership team. "It made sense to have a more focused smaller group that was comparable to the number of defendants in this case so that we could be more efficient and more precise in the work we do," Mr. Williams said. The judge asked both sides by Feb. 25 to submit a proposed filing schedule and ordered the new plaintiffs leadership team to come up with a "proposal for addressing the issue of managing plaintiffs' fees and expenses in this litigation," including how she could review costs. The class actions, which were coordinated into an MDL on Oct. 13, allege that United Airlines Inc., Delta Air Lines Inc., American Airlines Inc. and Southwest Airlines Co. fixed prices for domestic airline tickets by limiting the seating capacity on flights. The cases allege antitrust violations under the federal Sherman Act. The winning group, which has handled numerous air transportation antitrust cases before, beat out three competing leadership teams, including one by Los Angeles-based Quinn Emanuel Uquhart & Sullivan's Stephen Neuwirth -- stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com -- in New York and another by Patrick Coughlin -- patc@rgrdlaw.com -- at San Diego's Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Jay Himes -- jhimes@labaton.com -- of New York's Labaton Sucharow. Mr. Williams said he anticipated working closely with the U.S. Justice Department, which has launched a civil investigation into the matter. "If past experience is any indication, they will probably want to know before we engage in discovery and will likely want to at a minimum coordinate with us so they know what's happening and we don't get ahead of them," he said. Judge Kollar-Kotelly is overseeing her first multidistrict litigation but in 2014 approved a settlement with the Justice Department that allowed American Airlines and US Airways to complete their $11 billion merger. UNITED STATES: Girard Named Lead Counsel in OPM Data Breach Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Zoe Tillman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a federal district judge in Washington on Jan. 28 picked Daniel Girard, managing partner of Girard Gibbs in San Francisco, to serve as lead counsel for federal employees suing the U.S. Office of Personnel Management over data breaches that exposed the private information of millions of government workers. Girard Gibbs was one of six law firms representing plaintiffs in lawsuits filed against the federal government to seek appointment as lead counsel. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson heard arguments from the candidates on Jan. 21. Mr. Girard is a lead attorney for the American Federation of Government Employees, which filed one of several putative national class actions against OPM. Judge Jackson also appointed Gary Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- of Whitfield Bryson & Mason in Washington as liaison counsel and three lawyers -- John Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group in Tampa, Florida; Tina Wolfson of Ahdoot & Wolfson in West Hollywood, California; and David Thompson -- dthompson@cooperkirk.com -- of Cooper & Kirk in Washington -- to the plaintiffs' steering committee. "The court expects that this leadership team will call upon the talent and expertise of the many other extremely well-qualified attorneys in the case -- some of whom submitted applications and some of whom did not -- to aid in the many important tasks ahead in this litigation," Judge Jackson wrote. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in October consolidated cases related to the data breaches in the D.C. court before Judge Jackson. At least eighteen lawsuits were filed in federal district courts nationwide. Over the past year, OPM disclosed two data breaches in which personal information about federal employees was stolen. The first involved the personnel data of 4.2 million current and former federal employees. The second involved the records of current, former and prospective federal employees who applied for background checks, as well as information about family members or people they live with. The second breach affected more than 20 million people. In response to the thefts, OPM offered identity theft protection and credit monitoring services to employees and family members who were affected. With the plaintiffs' counsel leadership team in place, the next step is for the plaintiffs to file an amended joint complaint. That will be due in about a month. UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA: Alumni Files Data Breach Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Alissa Smith, writing for Central Florida Future, reports that UCF alumni Logan Berkowitz and Anthony Furbush have issued a class action lawsuit against the university because of the recent data breach involving 63,000 Social Security numbers. The plaintiffs claim that UCF did not protect its employee and student information, nor inform them that their data had been compromised in a timely manner. Mr. Berkowitz, a former SGA president, claims that UCF knew about the data breach as early as December 2015, but failed to announce the hack publicly until Feb. 4. The lawsuit also claims that UCF violated the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, also known as FERPA, which requires certain schools to protect the privacy of student education records. In an email sent out on Feb. 4, President John C. Hitt said that the safeguarding of personal information is extremely important to UCF. He called for a review of university's online systems and policies to determine what improvements could be made. Mr. Hitt said the investigation into the hack showed that no credit card information, financial records, medical records, or grades were stolen -- just 63,000 Social Security numbers. According to the Social Security Association's website, identity theft is one of the fastest growing crimes in America. The site states that anyone with your social security number can use it to find out other personal information about you, open bank accounts and apply for credit cards and often, you won't notice until you start getting calls from collection agencies. UCF has a call center focused on helping those whose data has been compromised. They can be reached at 877-752-5527. For more information from UCF regarding the data breach and tips on how to handle the situation, please visit www.ucf.edu/datasecurity VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: New Jersey Files Suit Over Emissions Fraud ------------------------------------------------------------ James R. Hood, writing for Consumer Affairs, reports that add the state of New Jersey to the long list of plaintiffs suing Volkswagen for using deceptive software to allow its VW, Porsche, and Audi diesel-powered cars to masquerade as low-emission vehicles. "For the past decade Volkswagen engaged in one of the largest frauds in the history of the automobile industry," the state's lawsuit asserts. "It developed and distributed into the marketplace sophisticated software to evade emissions requirements, it misled regulators about the true environmental impact of its vehicles, and it misled consumers about the products that it was marketing as supposedly good for the environment." "Our lawsuit alleges that Volkswagen put profit ahead of honesty, integrity, fair business practices and -- most disturbing of all - - the well-being of people living and breathing the air here in New Jersey and across the country," said Acting Attorney General John J. Hoffman. The New Jersey suit is similar to those filed by New Mexico, Texas, and West Virginia. The company also faces a federal complaint that seeks billions of dollars in damages, as well as a growing list of individual and class action suits. Volkswagen says its primary concern at the moment is figuring out how to recall and fix the affected vehicles in a manner that satisfies regulators. "Profited greatly" The New Jersey suit, filed on Feb. 5 in Hudson County Superior Court, alleges that Volkswagen "profited greatly" from its effort -- launched in 2005 -- to gain a greater share of the U.S. passenger vehicle market by quietly developing, then deceptively promoting, diesel vehicles that appeared to be environmentally friendly, but in fact were equipped with pollution control systems that only functioned during emissions testing. The alleged conspiracy enabled Volkswagen to steadily increase its passenger vehicle sales over time so that by 2014, it accounted for about 70% of new diesel passenger car sales in the U.S. The New Jersey suit alleges that Volkswagen fraudulently increased its sales and market share "at the expense of the unsuspecting public." By emphasizing the supposed superiority of German engineering, the company successfully charged "inflated purchase prices" for the cars, which spewed illegal qualities of nitrogen oxide (NOx) into the air, endangering the health of New Jerseyans, the suit argues. NOx pollution has been shown to contribute to harmful ground-level ozone (smog) and fine particulate matter (soot), and exposure to NOx and its byproducts has been linked to such serious health problems as cardiopulmonary disease, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and exacerbation of asthma, the complaint alleges. Current estimates are that Volkswagen sold approximately 580,000 vehicles equipped with the defeat software in the United States, about 17,420 of them in New Jersey. WASHINGTON: Inmate's Civil Rights Suit Denied Class Status ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Robert J. Bryan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denied class certification and adopted the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom in the case captioned, DAVID MICHAEL AARON BAKER, Plaintiff, v. BERNARD EDWARD WARNER, and JEFFREY A. UTTECHT, Defendants, Case No. 15-5298 RJB-KLS (W.D. Wash.). Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, claims his First Amendment rights were violated by Defendants' application of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Sec. 137-48-020, which restricts prisoner's ability to receive mail containing sexually explicit material. Originally filed in Thurston County, Washington Superior Court, Plaintiff states in his Complaint that the action is intended as a "class action." After the case was removed, several non-party inmates filed motions to join the case as "persons needed for just adjudication." Plaintiff has argued that the case is a "class action." The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation recommends denial of the motions for joinder. It further recommends denial of class certification. The Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, arguing that the regulation at issue "infringes on the rights of the class and our family members." He identifies the class as "being 17,000 inmates incarcerated in Washington Department of Corrections." He argues that they have common questions. Plaintiff argues that certain of the parties that filed motions for joinder did, in fact, grieve the actions taken against them. He asserts that the proposed class meets Rule 23 requirements. After the Report and Recommendation was filed, William Davis and Kimothy Wynn, other non-party inmates, filed Motions for Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication. These pleadings are the same as or substantially similar as the Motion for Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication filed by the other non-party inmates. In his Order dated February 1, 2016 available at http://is.gd/jDjkUufrom Leagle.com, Judge Ryan concluded that Plaintiff fails to make any of the required showings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 in the pleadings he has filed. The Court found that Plaintiff's arguments regarding joinder of the other inmates are substantially similar to those raised in his prior pleadings and are addressed in the Report and Recommendation. Defendants are represented by: Katherine Joy Faber, Esq. WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 1125 Washington St SE # 7 Olympia, WA 98501 Tel: (360)753-6200 * Securities Class Action Filings Rise to 234 in 2015, NERA Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consultancy.uk reports that the number of securities class actions filings in the US in 2015 reached heights last seen before the financial crisis. In a recently released report from NERA Economic Consulting, titled "Recent Trends in Securities Class Action Litigation: 2015 Full-Year Review", the consultancy explores the securities litigation landscape in some detail. Filing type The study finds that the number of filings has remained relatively stable over the past seven years, with an average of 220 cases filed per year. In 2015 the number of filings increased to 234, closing the gap on 2008 when there were 247 filings. Over the past two decades the number of filings has remained relatively stable in the mid 200s, with 2006 and 2005 showing the lowest number at 132 and 187 respectively. The type of filings have though changed in recent years. Since 2005 merger objection cases have trended upwards, hitting a high of 70 of the total cases in 2010 and slowly trending down to 43 such cases by 2015. At the same time, the number of cases violating Rule 10b-5, Section 11, or Section 12 decreased considerably in 2009, although they have been trending upwards since 2010 when there were 129 such cases to 182 in 2015. Losses to investors The economic consultancy also considers the aggregate amount that investors lost from buying the defendant's stock rather than investing in the broader market during the alleged class period. Such "investor losses" are seen as a proxy for the relative size of investors' potential claims, as historically, investor losses have been a powerful predictor of settlement size. In 2015, (potential) shareholder class actions with alleged violations of Rule 10b-5 or Section 11 totalled $183 billion, representing a more than 25% increase over 2014 and a 15% over 2013*. The losses are still down on 2012 when $218 billion in losses were filed, and 2011 when $248 billion in losses were filed. These numbers are still dwarfed by 2008 when $403 billion in losses were filed, while filings in 2007 amounted to $327 billion. Median settlements In terms of settlements the numbers vary considerably. The median settlement in 2015 of $7.3 million was close to that of 2014's $6.7 million. In 2013 the median settlement was somewhat higher at $8.9 million, although still somewhat low compared to the largest settlement year in the past two decades with $12.7 million paid out in 2012. The average settlement came in at $52 million in 2015, highlighting that a few large settlements drove the average up, while many small settlements kept the median stable. ********* 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 * * *