/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160222.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, February 22, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 37 Headlines 50 EGGS: "Brock" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Faces Securities Class Action in California AETNA LIFE: "Fisher" Sues over Denied Insurance Claim AG DURHAM: "Edwards" Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages and Tips AIR CANADA: Faces Collective Action Over Fuel Surcharge ALICO INC: Settlement Reached in Suit Over Silver Nip Acquisition AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Blind Customers Sue Over Defective Headsets AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Indirect Buyers' Injunctive Relief Claim Nixed AMTECH SYSTEMS: Proposed Order & Final Judgment Revised ANTHEM INC: Judge Rejects Key Arguments in Data-Breach Suits APPLE INC: Fights Bid to Revive Antitrust Suit Over Apps APPLE INC: Suit Says Software Update Renders iPhones Inoperable ARGENTINA: Reaches Settlement Deal in Bondholders' Class Action ARKLATEX WIRELINE: "Wright" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Class Action Pending in California BANK OF NEW YORK: 3 Class Actions Filed in New York BASIC ENERGY: Faces "Holley" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation BLUE CROSS: "Oakes" Sues over Denied Coverage for Hep-C Treatment BP PLC: Jury Selection Starts in Ex-Rig Supervisor's Trial BREEZE-EASTERN CORP: Faces "Soueidan" Suit Over TransDigm Merger BRO'S PAINTING: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay BUMBLE BEE: Fixed Price of Seafood Products, "Daniels" Suit Says BURBERRY LTD: Faces "Belcastro" Suit for Deceptive Marketing BURGER KING: Violated FCRA & ICRAA, "Robinson" Suit Claims CAFE EL TAPATIO: Violated FLSA & IWPCA, "Ramirez" Suit Claims CALBEE NORTH: Violated Consumer Protection, "Riedel" Suit Claims CANADA: Faces Class Action Over 2012 Legionnaires' Outbreak CAPITAN CORP: "Ramos" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages Under FLSA CARNEGIE MANAGEMENT: "Ford" Suit Alleges Time-keeping Fraud CELADON GROUP: Appeal in "Wilmoth" Case Still Pending CELADON GROUP: Appeal in "Day" Case Still Pending CELLCEUTIX CORP: To Defend Against "O'Connell" Action in New York CLIFFS NATURAL: $84,000,000 Settlement Reached in Ohio Class Suit COOK COUNTY, IL: "Renx Group" Suit Challenges Filling Fees CORAL TELL: Israel Class Suit over Phone Call Overages Pending CUSTOM BY W: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Recovery of Overtime Pay CVS HEALTH: Faces "Barchock" Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty D&D PAINTING: "Rivera" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay DAVE AND BUSTER'S: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Class Action Denied DEL-AIR ELECTRICAL: Faces "Kirton" Suit for FLSA Violation DELTA APPAREL: Company, Soffe & Junkfood to Pay Up $200,000 DESIGNER SHOE: Wants "Compare At" Pricing Class Action Dismissed DEVRY EDUCATION: Faces Class Action by Rayter and Herendeen DIRECTV: "Torres" Suit Seeks Actual, Statutory Damages Under EFTA DIRECTV: Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Clause Class Waivers DIRT DOCTORS: Faces "Del Re" Wage-and-Hour Complaint EDS HARDWOOD: "Corazzari" Files Sexual Discrimination Complaint ELECTRONIC ARTS: Certiorari Petition in Madden NFL Case Pending ENDEAVOUR ENERGY: Faces $20MM Class Action Over 2013 Bushfires ENERGY PRO: "Galvez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Pay Under FLSA EOS PRODUCTS: Falsely Marketed Lip Balm, "Menz" Action Claims ETHICON INC: Three Lawyers Leave MDL Team Following Fee Fight EXPERIAN INFO: "Clark" Suit Seeks Statutory Damages Under FCRA EXPRESS COURIER: Sued for FLSA, Ark. Minimum Wage Law Violations EZCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss New York Action Remains Pending EZCORP INC: Has Until Feb. 29 to Respond to Texas Action FARMER BROS: "Hernandez" Class Action Claims Dismissed FEDERAL INTERIORS: Faces "Harmon" Suit Over FLSA Violation FERRING PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Action Over Fertility Drug FIFTH STREET: Faces "Craig" Class Action in Delaware FISCARDO INC: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Hernandez" Suit Claims FLINT, MI: Meeting Held Over Water Crisis Class Action FLOYD COUNTY, NY: Jail Strip-Search Class Action Can Proceed GAONA LANDSCAPING: Faces "Vazquez" Suit for Alleged FLSA Breach GEICO GENERAL: "Milligan" Suit Seeks to Recover Damages and Costs GENERAL CHEMICAL: Violated Sherman Act, St. Cloud City Suit Says GEORGIA: Dept. of Driver Services Faces Suit Over Denied License GERDES WHOLESALE: "Cabrajal" Suit Asserts FLSA & IMWL Violations GOLDEN STATE: "Parson" Sues Over Denied Breaks, Unpaid Wages GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Faces "Sain" Suit Over Deceptive Practices H&O INVESTMENTS: "Molina" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA HAIN CELESTIAL: $9.35MM Settlement in False Ad Suit Wins Final OK HALLIBURTON CO: 5th Cir. to Hear Appeal on Certification Ruling HAWKINS INC: Dismissed as Defendant in Antitrust Class Actions HEALTHPORT TECH: Removes Class Action Over Medical Record Fees HF FINANCIAL: Defending "Stein" Class Suit in South Dakota HILTON WORLDWIDE: Faces "Elder" Suit for Breach of Contract II-VI INCORPORATED: To Defend Against Anadigics Merger Suit INSYS THERAPEUTICS: April 4 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ISORAY INC: April 21 Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss JNP BUS: Violated FLSA, New York Labor Law, "Xu" Suit Claims KELLOGG, BROWN: Veterans File Class Action over Toxic Burn Pits KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN: "Restivo" Files Suit Over Acorn Merger KLA-TENCOR CORP: MOU Reached to Settle Lam Research Merger Suits KOENIG'S INC: Owners Face "Velasquez" Suit Over Unpaid Wages LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: March 24 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss LEAR CORP: Settlement with End-Payor Purchasers Remains Pending LET THERE BE BAGELS: "Amon" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Recovery LIVANOVA PLC: Faces Class Action Over Heater-Cooler Device LOS ANGELES, CA: LA Fire Dept Employees Files Wage and Hour Suit MAG BUILDERS: "Chacon" Suit Asserts FLSA, NYLL Violation MANASSEH JORDAN: Faces "Molitor" Suit Over Automated Calls MANHATTAN NUVO: Violated FLSA AND NYLL, "Bonini" Suit Claims MANNKIND CORPORATION: Faces "Ardolino" Securities Class Action MCESSY INVESTMENT: "Amador" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages MCKEE FOODS: "Juan" Suit Seeks OT Wages Under Cal. Labor Code MID-ATLANTIC LUBE: "Hoover" Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages MIDLAND CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection MODEL N: Mediated Settlement Reached in Consolidated Class Suit MONSANTO CO: Brief in "Mirzaie" 9th Cir. Appeal Due July 25 NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Class Action Status Sought for Antitrust Suit NEWBRIDGE BANCORP: MOU Reached in Yadkin Merger Class Actions NISKA GAS: Plaintiffs Dismiss Public Unitholders Litigation NISSAN NA: "Jefferson" Suit Alleges Illegal Vehicle Reselling NUVASIVE INC: Motion to Dismiss 5th Amended Complaint Pending PEERLESS NETWORK: "Pacleb" Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA PEPPERIDGE FARM: SDAs File Class Action Over Employment Status PFIZER INC: Rejection of Plaintiffs' Zoloft Case Experts Upheld PHILLIP MORRIS: Not Obliged to Offer CT Scans to Smokers PREFERRED IMAGING: "Lewis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages PRIMERO MINING: April 15 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set PROVIDENCE ST. JOHN'S: "Nemeth" Sues Over Illegal Termination PULASKI FINANCIAL: To Defend Against Merger Class Action QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: "Fober" Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA RAYMOND JAMES: Class Action Pending Related to Open End Funds REPUBLIC SCHOOLS NASHVILLE: Violated TCPA, "Skeete" Suit Claims REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 28 Tobacco-Related Cases Served in Q4 2015 REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Served in 3,111 Engle Progeny Cases REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 6 Engle Progeny Cases Removed to Federal Court REYNOLDS AMERICAN: $375-Mil. in Judgments Remain Outstanding REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 26 Cases Set for Trial Through Dec. 2016 REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 16 Tobacco PI Class Suits Pending at Dec. 31 REYNOLDS AMERICAN: May 2 Fairness Hearing in Camel Cash Suit REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Court Conditionally Approved "Feinman" Accord REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Diek" Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Imperial to Indemnify RAI in "Whitney" Case REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motion to Dismiss "Harris" Class Suit Pending REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Lights Cases Pending in Illinois & Missouri REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motion to Recall Mandate Denied in "Price" REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 24 Status Conference in "Turner" Case REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still No Activity in Howard v. B&W Case REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 22 Status Conference in "Collora" Case REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 22 Status Conference in "Black" Case REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Hearing in "No Additive" Case in March or May REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Sproule" Stayed Pending Bid to Consolidate REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Brattain" Stayed Pending Bid to Consolidate REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parties in "Rothman" Case Request Stay REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parties in "Dunn" Case Request Stay REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parties in "Haksal" Case Request Stay REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Has Yet to Respond in "Cuebas" Case REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Has Yet to Respond in "Okstad" Case REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Young v. American Tobacco Remains Stayed REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parsons v. AC&S Remains Dormant REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Jones v. American Tobacco Remains Dormant REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Lorillard Faces 64 Filter Cases at Dec. 31 REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Oral Argument Held in Lorillard Appeal REYNOLDS AMERICAN: JTI Assumes Defense of 7 Canadian Cases REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motions Pending in ERISA Litigation RINCON PROGRESENO: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Castillo" Suit Says RITE-AID: Does Not Provide Workers Rest Periods, Action Claims ROTHMAN FOOD: Faces "Veronese" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SAN FRANCISCO: "Lofton" Suit Alleges Discrimination SANTANDER CONSUMER USA: Violated FUTCL, "Jones" Suit Claims SANTANDER CONSUMER USA: "Jones" Suit Seeks Damages Under FUTCL SINGER FINANCIAL: Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, KHS Says SINGING RIVER: Sued Over Failure to Fund Workers Retirement Plan SING SONG: "Tang" Suit Seek Overtime Pay Recovery SKINDER-STRAUSS: 3rd Cir. Affirms Junk Fax Settlement Approval SKULLCANDY INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Utah SKULLCANDY INC: April 12 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set SOCAL GAS: Pleads Not Guilty to Criminal Charges Over Leak SPOTIFY: Seeks Dismissal of $150MM Copyright Class Action SUMMIT COLLECTION: Faces "McGeehan" Suit Over Debt Collection SYNGENTA AG: 3,929 U.S. Suits Filed Over VIPTERA and DURACADE SYNGENTA AG: Faces Ontario Class Action Over VIPTERA and DURACADE SYNGENTA AG: Motion to File Class Suit in Montreal Pending TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Violated Securities Act, "Patel" Suit Claims TRICAN WELL SERVICE: "Alawar" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Recovery TWENTY-FIRST: Wilder Litigation Remains Pending UGI CORP: Appeal by Direct Customers Remains Pending UNITED CONTINENTAL: Sued in Ill. Over Alleged Breach of Contract UNITED DEVELOPMENT: "Anderson" Sues over Share Price Drop UNITED SERVICES: Judge Set to Decide on Attorney Sanctions VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: "Jacobs" Suit Seeks Relief Under ERISA VICTORIA FINE FOODS: Violated CPL, "Shmidt" Suit Claims VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Martin" Files Suit Over Defeat Device VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Noggle" Suit in Id. Over Defeat Devices WAL-MART: Supreme Court to Review "Stacked" Class Action Ruling WEDGEWOOD VILLAGE: Violated JFPA, Noah's Ark Suit Claims WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Sued Over Misleading Proxy Statement WORLD SECURITY: Faces "Garcia" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law XL FOODS: Court Approves E. Coli Class Action Settlement ZIMMER INC: Faces "Gallagher" Suit in Cal. Over Durom Cup Design * Justice Scalia's Death May Complicate Two Pending Class Actions ********* 50 EGGS: "Brock" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------- Keith Brock, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 50 Eggs, Inc., Asian Operations, LLC, Swine Gables, LLC, and John Kunkel, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-20294-JAL (S.D. Fla., January 25, 2016), asks the Court to: -- issue a declaratory judgment that the Defendants' acts, policies, practices and procedures in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., 29 C.F.R. Section 531.35, and declaration of rights; -- enjoin the Defendants from further violations of the FLSA; -- award the Plaintiff reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; -- award such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants forced Plaintiff and those similarly situated to: -- share their tips with non-tipped employees. -- kick-back a portion of their tips to the Defendants directly or indirectly, or to others for the Defendants' benefit. -- perform work-related duties without being compensated. The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable. 50 Eggs owned and operated Asian Operations, LLC d/b/a Khong River House restaurant located at 1661 Meridian Avenue in Miami Beach, Miami-Dade County, Florida and Swine Gables, LLC d/b/a Swine Southern Table & Bar, located at 2415 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Coral Gables, Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Brock II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN 17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 358-6800 Fax: (305) 358-6808 Email: robert@kuvinlaw.com legal@kuvinlaw.com AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Faces Securities Class Action in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Sege, writing for Law360, reports that an investor in Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings Inc. has hit the company with a class action in the wake of a federal filing that told regulators past earnings statements have to be revised, claiming the aerospace products manufacturer deceived investors and artificially inflated the price of its shares. The lawsuit, filed in California federal court on Feb. 11 by share purchaser Juliann Travis, relates to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission in which Aerojet Rocketdyne said that six of its past consolidated financial statements "should no longer be relied upon." Aerojet Rocketdyne's disclosure to the SEC, submitted in a Form 8- K filing on Feb. 1, followed an accounting review related to the company's 2013 acquisition of Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne from United Technologies Corp., according the complaint. It revealed that the company had made misleading statements or had not disclosed errors in its purchase accounting of contracts included in the acquisition, including incorrect accounting of subsequent changes to one such contract, according to the suit. "[A]s a result, defendants' statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times," Mr. Travis claims. Shares of Aerojet Rocketdyne, which designs and manufactures aerospace products, fell more than 3.6 percent the day after the company's Feb. 1 filing with the SEC, according to the suit. In addition to Aerojet Rocketdyne, the complaint names the company's current chief executive officer, Eileen P. Drake, and chief financial officer, Kathleen E. Redd, as well as a previous CEO, Scott J. Seymour. It claims the company and the executives either knew or should have known that the incorrect financial statements were deficient. "Defendants had actual knowledge of the misrepresentations and omissions of material facts set forth herein, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth in that they failed to ascertain and to disclose such facts, even though such facts were available to them," Mr. Travis claims. The statements that need correction were related to fiscal years 2013, 2014 and 2015, according to the complaint. Mr. Travis is suing on behalf of himself and of others who purchased stock in the company between Oct. 15, 2013 and Feb. 1, 2016. Mr. Travis is asking for class certification and for damages, in an amount determined at trial. At least three law firms in addition to the one representing Travis announced Feb. 2 that they were investigating possible securities claims against Aerojet Rocketdyne. A spokesman for Aerojet Rocketdyne, Glenn Mahone, told Law360 the company does not comment on pending litigation. An attorney for Travis did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Mr. Travis is represented by Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- of The Rosen Law Firm PA. Counsel information for Aerojet Rocketdyne was not immediately available. The case is Juliann Travis v. Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. et al., case number 2:16-cv-00961, in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. AETNA LIFE: "Fisher" Sues over Denied Insurance Claim ----------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline Fisher, Plaintiff, v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, Defendant., Case No. 1:16-cv-00144-RJS (S.D.N.Y., January 8, 2016), seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and other and further relief for breach of contract. Fisher's doctor had prescribed the brand name prescription drug EFFEXOR XR (R) EFFEXOR XR (R) to treat clinical depression. Aetna refused to provide any insurance or co-insurance for the said purchase. Aetna is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut, with its principal place of business in Hartford, Connecticut. Dunnegan & Scileppi LLC entered into a contract with Aetna that provided health insurance coverage for their attorneys and staff, as well as their families. Fisher is the spouse of partner William Dunnegan, Plan participant. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Dunnegan, Esq. Richard Weiss, Esq. DUNNEGAN & SCILEPPI LLC 350 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 332-8300 Email: wd@dunnegan.com rw@dunnegan.com AG DURHAM: "Edwards" Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages and Tips ------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Edwards, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AG of Durham, Inc., AG of Raleigh, Inc., AG of Wake Forrest, Inc., Defendant Casey A. Fox, Kent L. Hodges, and Karen B. Halsey, Defendants, Civil Case No. 1:16-cv-57 (M.D. N.C., January 25, 2016), alleges that the Defendants failed to satisfy the notice requirements of the tip credit provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act; failed to ensure that Tipped Employees earn the mandated minimum wage when taking the tip credit; required Tipped Employees to use their tips to reimburse Defendants for uniforms and other ordinary business expenses; and failed to pay Tipped Employees for hours worked, in violation of the FLSA, the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, and North Carolina common law. The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all questions of fact raised by the complaint. The Defendants own and operate at least three Mellow Mushroom restaurants in the State of North Carolina. Each of these locations has employed waiters and waitresses who have been subjected to the Defendants' unlawful practices, the complaint says. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul E. Smith, Esq. PATTERSON HARKAVY, LLP 100 Europa Drive, Suite 420 Chapel Hill, NC 27517 Tel: (919) 942-5200 Fax: (866) 397-8671 E-mail: psmith@pathlaw.com - and - Eric Rayz, Esq. KALIKHMAN & RAYZ, LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite "A" Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Tel: (215) 792-2963 Fax: (215) 364-5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP 2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 308 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Tel: (610)822-3700 Fax: (610)-822-3800 Email: gwells@cwg-law.com rgray@cwg-law.com AIR CANADA: Faces Collective Action Over Fuel Surcharge ------------------------------------------------------- The Siver Times reports Air Canada and its carrier to Air Canada Rouge discounts are covered by another demand collective action related to the fuel surcharge charged to passengers. Filed in Superior Court on January 29, this application requires a total of 240 million -- 48 million in punitive damages -- to the airline. The representatives accuse the company of having charged its passengers took international flights overloads that do not reflect the definition presented on its website. Led by lawyer Karim Renno, this application is for customers who, between 15 April 2012 and 28 December 2014, have purchased tickets from the company in person or by phone, through an agency travel or intermediary websites. However, flights to the United States, including Hawaii, Mexico and the Caribbean are not affected by this process. Demand recalls that on 15 April 2012, Air Canada had changed, on its website, the description of the overload during international flights. "Carriers collect a fuel surcharge to mitigate volatility and fluctuations in operating costs associated with fuel prices, it said. For international flights, the surcharge varies depending on destination. " Depending on demand, fuel prices paid by Air Canada rose 95%, excluding inflation, between the end of 2004 -- when the company has decided to impose a surcharge of $ 11 -- and November 29, 2014. Considering this statistic, the supplement should have asked to average $22 per ticket in 2014, it is argued. But the overload was more like $ 238 per passenger. "The progress the additional amount for international flights on average increased by 2063% between the first load to the end of 2004 and November 29, 2014," it is written. In a more specific case taking into account inflation, officials believe Air Canada illegally charged $ 151 to customers for a flight to Frankfurt, Germany, asking them $ 238 in fuel surcharge. In business class, the additional amount required rose to $438, then it should have been, according to representatives, $160 per passenger. A similar class action claim was filed in fall 2014 for passengers who purchased tickets on the carrier's websites and its discount subsidiary. In total, according to the document of 21 pages, 48 million travelers -- half are Canadians -- have paid a fuel surcharge for international flights between 2012 and 2014. Some 3.1 million of them bought tickets without going through the websites of Air Canada and Air Canada Rouge. The airline refused to respond to the filing of this new demand collective action. "It would be inappropriate for us to comment outside of the judicial process as the matter is before the courts," said an email spokesperson Isabelle Arthur. ALICO INC: Settlement Reached in Suit Over Silver Nip Acquisition ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alico, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a settlement has been reached by parties to the consolidated class action lawsuit related to the Company's acquisition of Silver Nip. On March 11, 2015, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit captioned Shiva Y. Stein v. Alico, Inc., et al., No. 15-CA-000645 (the "Stein lawsuit"), was filed in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial District in and for Lee County, Florida, against Alico, Inc. ("Alico"), its current and certain former directors, 734 Citrus Holdings, LLC d/b/a Silver Nip Citrus, 734 Investors, LLC ("734 Investors"), 734 Agriculture, LLC ("734 Agriculture") and 734 Sub, LLC ("734 Sub") in connection with the acquisition of Silver Nip by Alico (the "Acquisition"). The complaint alleges that Alico's directors at the time of the Acquisition, 734 Investors and 734 Agriculture breached fiduciary duties to Alico stockholders in connection with the Acquisition and that Silver Nip and 734 Sub aided and abetted such breaches. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, monetary and equitable relief, costs, fees (including attorneys' fees) and expenses. On May 6, 2015, a putative stockholder class action and derivative lawsuit captioned Ruth S. Dimon Trust v. George R. Brokaw, et al., No. 15-CA-001162 (the "Dimon lawsuit"), was filed in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial District in and for Lee County, Florida, against Alico, its current directors, Silver Nip Citrus, 734 Investors and 734 Agriculture in connection with the Acquisition of Silver Nip Citrus by Alico. The complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and tortious interference with contract against Alico's directors, unjust enrichment against three of the directors and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Silver Nip Citrus, 734 investors and 734 Agriculture. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, rescission of the Acquisition, an injunction prohibiting certain payments to Silver Nip Citrus members, unspecified damages, disgorgement of profits, costs, fees (including attorneys' fees) and expenses. On July 17, 2015, the plaintiffs in the Stein and Dimon lawsuits filed a stipulation and proposed order consolidating their cases for all purposes under the caption, In re Alico, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Master File No. 15-CA-000645 (the "Consolidated Action") and seeking the appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead and liaison counsel. The court entered that proposed order on July 21, 2015. On October 16, 2015, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action reported to the court that the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Consolidated Action and other claims related to the Acquisition and that they are in the process of formally documenting their agreements. That process is ongoing and the settlement remains subject to final documentation and court approval following notice to the relevant Alico shareholders. Once the parties have completed the settlement documents, they will contact the court to schedule a hearing at which they will request the court to preliminarily approve the settlement and to set a final settlement hearing date. Alico Inc. generates operating revenues primarily from the sale of citrus products and cattle ranching operations. AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Blind Customers Sue Over Defective Headsets -------------------------------------------------------------- David Louie, writing for ABC7, reports that a national movie theater chain is under fire by blind customers for not allowing them to enjoy movies. The suit was filed in San Francisco on Feb. 16. It used to be up to family members or friends to whisper into the ears of blind people to describe scene changes or body language that dialogue doesn't convey, but technology was supposed to change all of that. The nationwide class action lawsuit, however, claims AMC's devices frequently don't work. Moviegoers shelled out $11 billion at the box office last year, not including money spent on popcorn, candy and drinks. "We all want to have the same experience, the same escapism, the same access to entertainment," class action lawsuit plaintiff Scott Blanks said. However, that hasn't happened at the AMC Theatres Scott Blanks has patronized in San Francisco and the East Bay. The special audio description headsets have failed consistently for several years, leaving Mr. Blanks disappointed and frustrated when he went to a movie with his sons. "I wasn't able to communicate with my boys, Zachary and Elliott, about what was happening for the remainder of the film or afterwards so much because I missed out on a great deal of the action in a film that is not exactly heavy on dialogue," Mr. Blanks said. AMC promotes its audio description technology online. And here's an example of what a blind person hears during a scene with no words: "Two scientists stand before a flask of orange liquid. One tries to pour a test tube of green liquid in, but the liquid doesn't move." A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMC on behalf of five individuals and two advocacy groups. But only after attorney Michael Nunez sent letters to the theater chain, urging it to get staff to maintain the equipment. "AMC by and large has the technology in many of its theaters and needs to go that extra mile to take those last steps to insure that it's actually effectively provided to blind movie-goers," Blanks' attorney Michael Nunez said. ABC7 News reached out to AMC corporate offices, but did not get a response. AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Indirect Buyers' Injunctive Relief Claim Nixed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amerigas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a district court has dismissed the remaining injunctive relief claims in a class action lawsuit by indirect purchasers of propane gas. Between May and October of 2014, more than 35 purported class action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by certain of their direct and indirect customers. The class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor colluded, beginning in 2008, to reduce the fill level of portable propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to persuade its common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The claims seek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative classes. On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class action cases to the Western Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. In July 2015, the Court dismissed all claims brought by direct customers and all claims other than those for injunctive relief brought by indirect customers. The direct customers filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which is still pending. The indirect customers filed an amended complaint claiming injunctive relief and state law claims under Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont law. In January 2016, the District Court dismissed the remaining injunctive relief claims for the indirect purchasers. As a result, the only claims remaining with respect to indirect purchasers involve alleged violations of Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont state antitrust laws. "We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any, arising from such litigation. We believe we have strong defenses to the claims and intend to vigorously defend against them," the company said. AmeriGas Partners, L.P. ("AmeriGas Partners") is a publicly traded limited partnership that conducts a national propane distribution business through its principal operating subsidiary AmeriGas Propane, L.P. ("AmeriGas OLP"). AMTECH SYSTEMS: Proposed Order & Final Judgment Revised ------------------------------------------------------- Amtech Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the parties to the class action lawsuits related to the Company's merger with BTU International Inc. ("BTU") have modified the Order and Final Judgment (the "Order") to be approved by the Delaware Chancery court. A copy of the proposed Order and Final Judgment is available at http://is.gd/G4I3sg The proposed Order, among other things, seeks to certify: -- Plaintiffs Peter Herman and Ying Yao as Class Representatives, and -- their counsel, Kahn Swick & Foti LLC, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Rigrodsky & Long P.A. and Andrews & Springer, LLC, as Class Counsel. Shortly after the Company entered into the merger agreement with BTU, two separate putative stockholder class action complaints (together, the "Stockholder Actions") were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Court"). The first was filed on November 4, 2014 and the second on November 17, 2014, on behalf of BTU's public stockholders, against BTU, members of the BTU board, Amtech and the special purpose merger subsidiary. The Stockholder Actions were consolidated on December 4, 2014. The complaints generally alleged that, in connection with entering into the merger agreement, the BTU board of directors breached certain fiduciary duties owed to BTU's stockholders. The complaints sought various forms of declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory damages. On January 16, 2015, the Company and BTU, along with the other defendants named therein, entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") to settle the Stockholder Actions. Pursuant to the MOU, the parties to the Stockholder Actions agreed to resolve the claims alleged and the Company and BTU agreed to make certain additional disclosures regarding the merger. On June 22, 2015, the Company and BTU, along with the other defendants named therein, filed a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement with the Delaware Court to memorialize the MOU. On November 6, 2015, the Company and BTU, along with the other defendants named therein, filed an Amended Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement (the "Amended Stipulation of Settlement") with the Delaware Court. The Amended Stipulation of Settlement provides for a release of all alleged claims against the Company and BTU, along with the other defendants named therein, subject to an exception for certain securities law claims. In addition, the Amended Stipulation of Settlement provides that BTU, its insurer(s), or its successor(s) in interest will be responsible for the payment of certain amounts in plaintiffs' attorney fees and expenses in connection with the settlement, and that the defendants in the Stockholder Actions agree not to oppose an application to the Delaware Court for fees and expenses not to exceed $325,000. In an effort to bring the Amended Stipulation of Settlement into conformity with recent rulings by the Delaware Court, the parties to the Stockholder Actions modified the Order and Final Judgment (the "Order") to be approved by the Delaware Court. In amending the Order, the parties modified the definition of "Released Claims" by limiting the Released Claims solely to claims related to any disclosures (or lack thereof) to BTU's stockholders concerning the merger and any fiduciary claims concerning the decision to enter into the merger. The modified Order further narrowed the definition of Released Claims by removing the inclusion of "Unknown Claims" from the definition of the Released Claims. The Amended Stipulation of Settlement and Order are subject to court approval. The Company and BTU entered into the Amended Stipulation of Settlement solely to avoid the costs, risks, and uncertainties inherent in litigation and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing. There can be no assurance that the court will approve the Amended Stipulation of Settlement or the Order, as amended. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the Amended Stipulation of Settlement may be terminated. The case is, In re BTU International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated Case No. 10310-CB (Del. Ch.). Amtech Systems, Inc. is a global manufacturer of capital equipment, including thermal processing, silicon wafer handling automation, and related consumables used in fabricating solar cells, LED and semiconductor devices. The Company sells these products to solar cell and semiconductor manufacturers worldwide, particularly in Asia, United States and Europe. ANTHEM INC: Judge Rejects Key Arguments in Data-Breach Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh's first major ruling in data-breach lawsuits against major health insurer Anthem Inc. didn't do much to clarify how the litigation itself will ultimately play out. The 82-page order handed down on Feb. 14 dismissed some state law claims, upheld others and gives plaintiffs a chance to try again. The ruling, however, found Judge Koh, a potential nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, once again at the forefront of data-breach litigation and once again on the opposite side of corporate defendants who argue that the exposure of customers' personal information, while regrettable, doesn't necessarily amount to a legally recognizable injury. In her decision, Judge Koh addressed for the first time the question of whether the loss of personal information constitutes harm under New York's General Business Law, a consumer protection law similar to California's Unfair Competition Law. It does, she ruled, rejecting arguments from Anthem and its lawyers at Hogan Lovells and expanding reasoning she has applied in at least one earlier data-breach case. In 2014, Judge Koh found that customers of Adobe Systems Inc. faced a credible threat of injury from a 2013 breach of 38 million customers' data, especially since some personal information from the breach had already been published on the Internet. "Indeed, the threatened injury here could be more imminent only if plaintiffs could allege that their stolen personal information had already been misused," Judge Koh wrote in September in In re Adobe Systems Privacy Litigation, 13-5226. The ruling was a rare victory in a data-breach case for plaintiffs, who generally struggle to show that they've suffered an actual injury and have standing to sue. Judge Koh's ruling in In Re Anthem Data Breach Litigation builds on the Adobe decision. Like in Adobe, Judge Koh recognized that the theft of personal identification information is a harm to consumers in itself separate from any subsequent misuse of it. Judge Koh quoted her conclusion in Adobe that "allegations of a concrete and imminent threat of future harm" are enough to establish an injury and standing in the early stages of a breach suit. Anthem, the nation's second-largest health insurer, announced in February 2015 that hackers had accessed a database containing as many as 80 million customer records, including names, birthdays and Social Security numbers. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation routed more than 100 breach-related class actions filed against the company to Judge Koh. Eve Cervantez -- ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com -- of Altshuler Berzon and Andrew Friedman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll serve as co-lead plaintiffs counsel. Ms. Cervantez said on Feb. 16 that plaintiffs are "overall quite pleased" with the decision. "At 82 pages, it's obvious [the judge] spent a lot of time and effort on each claim," she said. In the Feb. 14 ruling, Judge Koh cleared a path for claims to proceed under California's Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs contend they overpaid for their insurance policies because the company's data-protection practices weren't as strong as promised. Judge Koh wrote that the California law allows plaintiffs to seek restitution for profits Anthem allegedly gained by providing "lax security measures." The breach affected about 13.5 million customers in California, more than in any other state. Judge Koh also turned back Anthem's argument that the increasing number of high-profile data breaches provides a viable defense for companies fighting data-breach claims. Anthem's lawyers at Hogan Lovells cited recent cyberattacks affecting eBay, Target, Home Depot and Neiman Marcus to support the notion that the plaintiffs' personal information could have been leaked elsewhere. But Judge Koh wrote that adopting Anthem's position would create a "perverse incentive for companies: so long as enough data breaches take place, individual companies will never be found liable." "No part of the UCL, the relevant authority addressing causation, or the specific facts of this case support such a legal theory," Judge Koh wrote. APPLE INC: Fights Bid to Revive Antitrust Suit Over Apps -------------------------------------------------------- Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that a lawyer for Apple Inc. faced pointed questions on Feb. 10 from a Ninth Circuit panel considering whether to revive an antitrust lawsuit challenging the company's model for selling apps. Apple takes a 30 percent cut of all proceeds from iPhone applications sold through its App Store. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz sued the company on behalf of a class of iPhone buyers in 2011 claiming that Apple holds monopoly power over the market for apps for the phones. Daniel Wall and his colleagues at Latham & Watkins previously convinced a federal judge in Oakland that app buyers lacked standing to sue under the federal antitrust laws since the 30 percent fee is charged to app developers rather than to the purchasers. That distinction seemed less convincing to the three-judge panel that heard an appeal of the dismissal on Feb. 10. "In a normal pass-through case the purchaser is not dealing with the alleged monopolist," Circuit Judge William Fletcher said. He said that in the Apple case there is "zero ambiguity" that app buyers are paying Apple, the alleged monopolist, directly. Latham's Wall replied that Apple simply acts as an agent for developers through the App Store. Wall said that allowing developers to price their own apps was the "defining feature" of Apple's model, and electronic-commerce companies commonly charge similar distribution fees. But Fletcher said that it was "undisputed" that Apple set the 30 percent fee and that consumers paid it directly to the company. "Why is that a pass-through?" he asked. Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima joined Fletcher's line of questioning. "You can argue in theory it's a pass-through," Tashima said. "But, as a matter of fact, it is paid directly" by consumers to Apple, he said. Judge Tashima asked who would be considered direct purchasers with standing to sue if the app buyers are indirect purchasers in the App Store model. Mr. Wall responded that the app developers are the direct purchasers, and added that they haven't sued Apple "because they love" the model. "[This case is] not about what Apple sells," Mr. Wall continued. "It's about what the developer sells. How can it not be a pass- through when Apple has no say in that?" Mark Rifkin -- rifkin@whafh.com -- of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz said his team doesn't know precisely what happens between Apple and the developers because U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers knocked the suit out on a motion to dismiss in 2013, prior to "one drop of discovery." But Mr. Rifkin called the notion that app developers are the direct purchasers "ludicrous." "In this case there can't be a pass-through," Mr. Rifkin said. "There's but one transaction and there's but two parties: The consumer and Apple." APPLE INC: Suit Says Software Update Renders iPhones Inoperable --------------------------------------------------------------- Samara Lynn, writing for Black Enterprise, reports that a class action lawsuit was filed against Apple on Feb. 11 in San Francisco. In Northern California District Court Docket 3:16- cv-00705, plaintiffs Nicholas Lusson, Bryant Kushmick, Alexander Saenz, John DeNoma, and Nora Penner cite the lawsuit's cause of action as "Class action relating to iPhones rendered inoperable by software update," under civil statute 28 U.S.C. 1332. The docket indicates that a jury trial has been demanded. The attorneys handling the action are from Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala PLLC, in Tacoma, Washington, and the Law Offices of Timothy A. Scott, in San Diego. Fortune earlier reported of the possibility that Apple may face lawsuits over a software update which did ruin some iPhones. Some users running iOS version 9, received an "Error 53" trying to restore their phones through iTunes. The error prevents the usage of the phone, and has been happening with the iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6S, and iPhone 6S Plus after their Touch ID sensors are repaired by unapproved retailers. The error message bug has been reportedly happening in the UK, as well. This isn't the first time angry users brought a class action lawsuit against Cupertino. Last year, Apple was accused of deceptive trade practices and false advertising due to its claims of iOS 9 being compatible with older iOS devices, primarily the iPhone 4s. The lawsuit claims that iOS "significantly interferes" with the performance of the iPhone 4s and that Apple is in the wrong for not allowing users to downgrade to older versions of the operating system, reported 9to5mac. ARGENTINA: Reaches Settlement Deal in Bondholders' Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, report that Argentina has reached a deal with lawyers pursuing a US class action lawsuit over defaulted debt to resolve the case, as part of the country's efforts to settle long-running litigation over its 2002 default, a court-appointed mediator said on Feb. 16. Daniel Pollack, a New York lawyer overseeing the settlement talks, said the agreement in principle "fit within the numerics" of Argentina's proposed offer to resolve various lawsuits by holders of defaulted bonds. Exactly how many bondholders are covered by the class action settlement would be known in several weeks, Mr. Pollack said. Those who do participate would receive 100 per cent of the principal owed and 50 per cent of the interest on that principal, he said. Mr. Pollack said the deal was conditioned on the approval of the Argentine Congress and the lifting of injunctions issued by US District Judge Thomas Griesa in the litigation. He added that he was "hopeful that there will be more settlements to come." Jason Zweig, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he was pleased Argentina had "decided to put this matter behind them." "This shows that the proposal is good and that we are continuing to advance positively. We hope that there will be more agreements in the coming days," said a source in the Argentine finance ministry. The deal came after Argentina, headed by President Mauricio Macri, on February 5 proposed paying $US6.5 billion ($9.1 billion) to settle litigation stemming from its record $US100 billion default in 2002. Two out of six leading bondholders pursuing have already accepted the offer, Mr. Pollack has said. The offer represents a 27.5 per cent to 30 per cent discount for creditors who filed claims of about $US9 billion. But Elliott Management's NML Capital and Aurelius Capital Management, among the leading creditors pursuing individual lawsuits in the dispute, have not accepted the offer. Those creditors spurned Argentina's 2005 and 2010 debt restructurings, which resulted in 92 per cent of its defaulted debt being swapped and investors being paid less than 30 cents on the US dollar. The class action lawsuit in the Feb. 16 accord was one of several by boldholders who sought to pursue claims as a group. Plaintiffs led by Henry Brecher, one of the bondholders, until recently sought $US68 million. But a US appeals court in September dealt the plaintiffs a setback by throwing out a ruling that had expanded the class action. As a result, the plaintiffs were expected at a hearing in April to present a revised model in which the damages that could be sought would have been limited to only investors who held the bonds for a continuous defined period. Mr. Macri is seeking to resolve Argentina's decade-long battle with creditors as part of his efforts to undo the policies of his predecessor, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. The country defaulted for the second time in 13 years in 2014 when Fernandez refused to abide by a US court order to settle with so- called holdout hedge funds, vowing never to sweeten terms for investors who bought up the bonds after the default, dubbing them "vultures." Argentina's push to resolve its longstanding legal battles is boosting the country's overseas bonds, which have jumped 4 per cent. The gains on the notes compare with an average loss of 1.2 per cent for junk-rated emerging-market debt. Argentina's Finance Secretary Luis Caputo, who has travelled back and forth between New York and Buenos Aires since December, was in Manhattan again for the talks, a government official told reporters on Feb. 15. Santiago Bausili, undersecretary of finance and a former Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan Chase banker, has also been involved in the talks. ARKLATEX WIRELINE: "Wright" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Cody Wright, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Arklatex Wireline Services, LLC, f/k/a AWS Oilfield Services, Arklatex Energy Services, LLC, Tri-State Wireline, LLC, PDP Wireline LLC, AND Predator Pressure Control and Crane Services, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00043 (W.D. Tex., San Antonio Division, January 15, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime wages as liquidated damages, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ark La Tex Wireline Services provides cased-hole wireline services in North Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. Its services include cased-hole logging, pipe recovery, perforating, mechanical, pressure control, crane mobilization, and horizontal pump down and high angle services. The company was founded in 2005 and is based in Shreveport, Louisiana with additional offices in Edinburg, Lytle, Odessa, Tyler, Palestine, and Weatherford, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremi K. Young, Esq. Rachael Rustmann, Esq. 1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200 Amarillo, TX 79101 Telephone: (806) 331 1800 Facsimile: (806) 398 9095 E-mail jyoung@youngfirm.com rachael@youngfirm.com ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Class Action Pending in California ------------------------------------------------------ A consolidated class action in California remains pending against Arrowhead Research Corporation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015. The Company and certain of its officers and directors have been named as defendants in a consolidated class action pending before the United States District Court for the Central District of California regarding certain public statements in connection with the Company's hepatitis B drug research. The consolidated class action, initially filed as Wang v. Arrowhead Research Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-07890 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 10, 2014), and Eskinazi v. Arrowhead Research Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-07911 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 13, 2014), asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks damages in an unspecified amount. Additionally, three putative stockholder derivative actions captioned Weisman v. Anzalone et al., No. 2:14-cv-08982 (C.D. Cal., filed Nov. 20, 2014), Bernstein (Backus) v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:14-cv-09247 (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 2, 2014); and Johnson v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:15-cv-00446 (C.D. Cal., filed Jan. 22, 2015), were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the Company's Board of Directors in connection with the facts underlying the securities claims. An additional consolidated derivative action asserting similar claims is pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court, initially filed as Bacchus v. Anzalone, et al., (L.A. Super., filed Mar. 5, 2015); and Jackson v. Anzalone, et al. (L.A. Super., filed Mar. 16, 2015). Each of these suits seeks damages in unspecified amounts and some seek various forms of injunctive relief. Arrowhead Research develops novel drugs to treat intractable diseases by silencing the genes that cause them. BANK OF NEW YORK: 3 Class Actions Filed in New York --------------------------------------------------- The Bank Of New York Mellon Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, that in late December 2015 and January 2016, three putative class action lawsuits were filed against BNY Mellon in federal court in the Southern District of New York asserting claims relating to BNY Mellon's foreign exchange pricing when converting dividends and other distributions from non-U.S. companies in its role as depositary bank to Depositary Receipt issuers. The primary claims are for breach of contract and violations of ERISA. The lawsuits are in their earliest stages. BASIC ENERGY: Faces "Holley" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- BRAD HOLLEY v. BASIC ENERGY SERVICES, L.P., d/b/a BASIC ENERGY SERVICES; T.M. "ROE" PATTERSON, JIM NEWMAN and ALAN KRENEK, Each Individually and as Officers of BASIC ENERGY SERVICES, L.P., Case 5:16-cv-00147 (W.D.Tex., February 11, 2016), was filed on behalf of himself and on behalf of other hourly Equipment Operators, including chemical loaders, sand spotters and other equivalent positions that are not wireline operators, seeking declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Basic Energy Services, L.P. offers oil well servicing contract services. The company's fluid services offer trucking, storage, disposal and mixing plant options. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com BLUE CROSS: "Oakes" Sues over Denied Coverage for Hep-C Treatment ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eugene Oakes, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Blue Cross And Blue Shield Of Florida, Inc., d/b/a/ Florida Blue, Defendant, Case. No. 9:16- cv-80028-KAM (S.D.Fla, January 7, 2016), seeks unpaid benefits, injunctive relief, enjoinment, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and further relief for breach of Fiduciary Obligations under the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act of 1974. Florida Blue is the health insurance plan operating under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names in Florida. It is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida with its principle place of business at 4800 Deerwood Campus Parkway, Jacksonville, FL 32246. Oakes is a plan holder of Florida Blue. He was diagnosed with Hepatitis C which could have been treated with Harvoni but was denied coverage by Florida Blue. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andr‚s Rivero, Esq. Jorge A Mestre, Esq. Alan H. Rolnick, Esq. Charles E. Whorton, Esq. Daniel A. Sox, Esq. RIVERO MESTRE LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1000 Miami, FL 33134 Tel: (305) 445-2500 Fax: (305) 445-2505 E-mail: arivero@riveromestre.com arolnick@riveromestre.com jmestre@riveromestre.com cwhorton@riveromestre.com dsox@riveromestre.com BP PLC: Jury Selection Starts in Ex-Rig Supervisor's Trial ---------------------------------------------------------- Janet McConnaughey, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a judge and attorneys questioned jurors on Feb. 16 as a former BP rig supervisor went on trial for a misdemeanor pollution charge from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Robert Kaluza, 65, is likely the last person to stand trial after a sweeping Justice Department investigation into the rig explosion and well blowout. Millions of gallons of oil spewed into the Gulf of Mexico, and BP PLC and the U.S. government worked for nearly three months to stop the gusher. Each prospective juror had earlier filled out a 16-page questionnaire and pledged not to research, read or look into any information that might be related to Mr. Kaluza's case. One of the 48 questions asked was their opinions about oil companies, BP and co-defendants Transocean and Halliburton. They also were asked about drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, and whether they, family members or close friends were affected by the 2010 explosion or oil spill. If attorneys or the judge had questions about their answers, they were called up to a table where the judge and attorneys sat to ask them for details. Questions and answers were not audible to others in the courtroom. Prosecutors say Mr. Kaluza and Donald Vidrine, another rig supervisor, botched a "negative pressure test" and missed clear signs of trouble before the blowout. Both had faced more serious charges of manslaughter of 11 workers who died when the rig exploded, but federal prosecutors backed off those charges. In terms of individual criminal responsibility for the spill, only four mostly lower-ranking employees faced charges, and those cases have unraveled before skeptical jurors and judges. The government did secure a landmark criminal settlement and record civil penalties against the corporation, which BP said would cost it billions of dollars. Mr. Kaluza's trial is for a single charge of violating the Clean Water Act. Mr. Vidrine pleaded guilty to the same charge last year. He has not been sentenced yet, but it's likely no one will serve any prison time related to the spill. "From Bob's standpoint, he's charged with a crime he didn't commit, and he's going to go to trial to clear his name," Mr. Kaluza's attorney Shaun Clarke said in December. The manslaughter charges against Messrs. Kaluza and Vidrine were dropped after the June acquittal of former BP executive David Rainey. A jury found him not guilty of manipulating calculations to match a far-too-low estimate of the amount of oil spewing into the Gulf. Former BP engineer Kurt Mix once faced two felony charges for allegedly deleting text messages that prosecutors said were related to investigations of the spill. After a yearslong legal ordeal, he pleaded guilty last November to a misdemeanor charge and received no jail time. He made clear publicly that he believed he had done nothing wrong and felt vindicated. BREEZE-EASTERN CORP: Faces "Soueidan" Suit Over TransDigm Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Majed Soueidan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Breeze-Eastern Corporation, Brad Pedersen, Robert J. Kelly, Nelson Obus, William J. Recker, William M. Shockley, Frederick Wasserman, Charles A. Vehlow, William T. Crosby, Transdigm Group Incorporated and Hook Acquisition Sub Inc., Defendants, Case No. 11834 (Del. Ch., December 22, 2015), asks the Court to enjoin the consummation of the merger between Breeze-Eastern and TransDigm Group Incorporated through Hook Acquisition Sub Inc. The case seeks reasonable attorneys' fees and further equitable relief for breaches of fiduciary duties. Breeze-Eastern Corporation is to be acquired by TransDigm Group Incorporated through Hook Acquisition Sub Inc. Despite the fact that the Breeze-Eastern stock price increased by 73% in the last 12 months on the strength of its reported financial results, the Defendants are forcing the stockholders to sell their stock at a discount, says the complaint. The Plaintiff owns shares of stock of Breeze-Eastern. Breeze-Eastern is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located in Whippany, New Jersey. It designs, develops, manufactures, sells, and services sophisticated engineered mission equipment for specialty aerospace and defense applications. TransDigm is a global designer, producer, and supplier of highly engineered aircraft components, systems and subsystems for use on nearly all commercial and military aircrafts. Brad Pedersen, Robert J. Kelly, Nelson Obus, William J. Recker, William M. Shockley, Frederick Wasserman, Charles A. Vehlow and William T. Crosby are members of the Board of Directors. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carmela P. Keener, Esq. ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A. 919 N. Market Street, #1401 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 656-4433 Fax: (302) 658-7567 Email: ckeener@rmgglaw.com - and - HARWOOD FEFFER LLP 488 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 935-7400 Fax: (212) 753-3630 BRO'S PAINTING: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Ricardo Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Bro's Painting, LLC, Defendant, Case. No. CV160096 (E.D.N.Y., January 8, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages plus an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and other expenses of suit, and other relief pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed as a painter for Defendant. He regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week, occasionally in excess of 50 hours per week, and was paid an hourly rate of $12. He is owed compensation for his last pay period, including regular pay and overtime pay. Bro's Painting, LLC, is a limited liability company registered to do business in Pelham, Shelby County, Alabama. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Chester, Esq SCHWARTZ ROLLER & ZWILLING 600 Vestavia Parkway, Suite 251 Birmingham, AL 35216 Telephone: (205) 822-2701 Facsimile: (205) 822-2702 Email: ezwilling@szalaw.com BUMBLE BEE: Fixed Price of Seafood Products, "Daniels" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sunde Daniels and Christopher Todd on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Starkist Company, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, and King Oscar, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00185-JLC-MDD (S.D. Cal., January 25, 2016), alleges that the Defendants have conspired to raise, fix, stabilize or maintain prices as well as allocate customers, and restrict capacity within the market, for the sale of shelf-stable packaged seafood products (PSPs) during the period from and including at least January 1, 2000 through such time as the anticompetitive effects of the Defendants' conduct ceases (Class Period). The Plaintiffs ask the Court to adjudge and decree the alleged unlawful conduct to be in violation of Sections 1 of the Sherman Act, Section 3 of the Clayton Act, the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, and the and the Mississippi Antitrust Statute. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC d/b/a Chicken of the Sea International is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 4510 Executive Drive, No. 3, San Diego, CA 92121. King Oscar, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3838 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 115, San Diego, CA 92108. COTS and KOI are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Thai Union Frozen Products Public Company, Ltd., a publicly held company headquartered in Thailand. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, f/k/a Bumble Bee Seafoods LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 9655 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92123. Bumble Bee is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lion Capital, a private investment firm headquartered in the United Kingdom. StarKist Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 225 North Shore Drive, Suite 400, Pittsburgh, PA 15212. StarKist is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dongwon Enterprises Co., which is headquartered in the Republic of Korea. The complaint says the Defendants and their co-conspirators directly and through their affiliates sold PSPs in the United States and in this district at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Defendants are direct, horizontal competitors in the United States PSP market. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Betsy C. Manifold, Esq. Rachele R. Rickert, Esq. Marisa C. Livesay, Esq. Brittany N. Dejong, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 239-4599 Fax: (619) 234-4599 E-mail: manifold@whafh.com rickert@whafh.com livesay@whafh.com - and - Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq. Thomas H. Burt, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Tel: 212/545-4600 Fax: 212/545-4653 E-mail: isquith@whafh.com burt@whafh.com - and - Theodore B. Bell, Esq. Carl Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC One South Dearborn St., Suite 2122 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 984-0000 Fax: (312) 212-4401 E-mail: tbell@whafh.com malmstrom@whafh.com dejong@whafh.com BURBERRY LTD: Faces "Belcastro" Suit for Deceptive Marketing ------------------------------------------------------------ THOMAS BELCASTRO v. BURBERRY LIMITED, Case 1:16-cv-01080 (S.D.N.Y., February 11, 2016), seeks monetary damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendant for deceptive and misleading labeling and marketing of merchandise Burberry sold through its company-owned Burberry Factory Outlet stores. Burberry sells menswear, womenswear, coats, dresses, shoes, accessories, bags, scarves, beauty and fragrance. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. Benjamin Elga, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 16 Court Street, Suite 1012 Brooklyn, NY 11241 Phone: (202) 789-3960 Fax: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com belga@cuneolaw.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 L. Street, N.W., Suite 808 Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone: (202) 973-0900 Fax: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: jkaliel@tzlegal.com - and - Charles D. Moore, Esq. Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq. HALUNEN LAW 1650 IDS Center 80 S 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612.605.4098 Fax: 612.605.4099 E-mail: moore@halunenlaw.com wolchansky@halunenlaw.com - and - Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq. Scott Edelsberg, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Boulevard., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Fax: (954) 449-4602 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com edelsberg@kolawyers.com BURGER KING: Violated FCRA & ICRAA, "Robinson" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Lamont Robinson, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Burger King Corporation, a Florida Corporation; Scarbrough Management Corporation, a California corporation, Central Valley Group II, a California corporation, and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG15798513 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda County, December 31, 2015), seeks all available remedies including statutory damages, actual damages, injunctive and equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, and Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. Burger King operates a chain of fast food hamburger restaurants worldwide. The company offers burgers, chicken, salads and veggies, breakfast, beverages, coffee and frappes, sides, sweets, kids' meals, and more. It also provides franchising opportunities. The company was founded in 1954 and is based in Miami, Florida. It has locations in Miami, Florida; Madrid, Spain; Zug, Switzerland; Singapore; Slough, United Kingdom; and Munich, Germany. Burger King Corporation operates as a subsidiary of Burger King Holdings, Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Tuvia Korobin, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888 7771 Facsimile: (3l0) 888 0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com tuvia@setarehlaw.com CAFE EL TAPATIO: Violated FLSA & IWPCA, "Ramirez" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Lazaro Ramirez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Cafe El Tapatio, Inc., and Joseph M. Parra, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00659 (N.D. Ill., Eastern Division, January 15, 2016), seeks redress for Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS Section 105/1 et seq. (IMWL), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act; as well as for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff at least the Illinois mandated minimum wage rate, overtime wages for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a week, and for Defendants' failure to compensate him for all hours worked. The Plaintiff also seeks redress under the Municipal Code of Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance for Defendants' failure to compensate him at least the city of Chicago mandated minimum wage rate. Defendants operate a restaurant called "Cafe el Tapatio" located at 3400 North Ashland Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 800-1017 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com CALBEE NORTH: Violated Consumer Protection, "Riedel" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jutamat Riedel and John Does 1-100, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Calbee North America, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. cv16-02299 (E.D.N.Y., January 15, 2016), seeks relief for Defendant's misconduct in marketing its Harvest Snaps Products in a way that is deceptive to consumers. The Defendant claimed that Harvest Snaps food products are simply baked snap peas when they are a combination of powdered snap peas, rice and corn oil among a handful of other ingredients and flavoring agents, says the complaint. Calbee North America processes and markets potato products and frozen food products in Oregon. The company was formerly known as RDO-Calbee Foods, LLC and changed its name to Calbee North America LLC in June 2012. The company was founded in 2006 and is based in Boardman, Oregon. RDO-Calbee Foods, LLC is a joint venture between RD Offutt Foods and CALBEE, Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Xee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465 1188 Facsimile: (212) 465 1181 CANADA: Faces Class Action Over 2012 Legionnaires' Outbreak ----------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that a lawyer requesting permission to file a class-action lawsuit over the 2012 deadly Legionnaires' outbreak in Quebec City says public health officials weren't properly prepared to deal with the situation. Jean-Pierre Menard argued at the Quebec City courthouse on Feb. 16 that mismanagement by public health officials made the outbreak last longer and led to more deaths. Mr. Menard is representing Solange Allen, who lost her husband Claude Desjardins to the severe pneumonia caused by the Legionella bacterium. Mr. Desjardins was among the 14 people who died that summer. Public health officials said 181 people were infected by the bacterium over the course of the summer. It took more than two months to find the source of the bacteria, which turned out to be water in the rooftop cooling system of a downtown building. The proposed lawsuit contends the province should have established a mandatory list of all buildings with cooling systems, as recommended in the late 1990s after an earlier Legionnaires' outbreak in the city. Ms. Allen said her husband was 64 when he died and four months away from retirement. She was joined in court on Feb. 16 by others who lost a relative to listen to legal arguments about whether the class-action should be allowed. The proposed lawsuit is aimed at public health officials, the province of Quebec and the owner of the building where the bacteria flourished. Quebec's attorney general is also named in the proposed suit. CAPITAN CORP: "Ramos" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ Fredy Ramos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Capitan Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00041-OLG (W.D. Tex., San Antonio Division, January 15, 2016), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees as a result of Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay overtime compensation, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Capitan Corp. is a for-profit, domestic corporation registered to do business in the State of Texas, providing products and services in the oil and gas industry, throughout the United States in those areas in which fracking is a viable business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221 0088 Facsimile: (888) 787 2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com CARNEGIE MANAGEMENT: "Ford" Suit Alleges Time-keeping Fraud -------------------------------------------------------------- Kailey N. Ford, Plaintiff, v. Carnegie Management Services, Inc. and McDonald's USA, LLC, Defendants, Case. No. 2:16-cv-00018-GCS- NMK (S.D. Ohio, January 8, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime compensation, compensation withheld, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq. and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, Chapter 4111, Ohio Constitution Art. 2 Sec. 34a, and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 and Sec. 1343(a)(4). Carnegie Management Services, Inc. operates the McDonald's franchise located at 6000 Sinclair Road, Columbus, Ohio 43229, where Kailey Ford works as a Manager in Training. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant fraudulently edited their time cards to reduce their compensable hours. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Bryant (0090859) BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 629 N. High St., 4th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Tel: (614) 704-0546 Fax: (614) 573-9826 Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com CELADON GROUP: Appeal in "Wilmoth" Case Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Celadon Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the company's appeal from a judgment in the "Wilmoth" class action remains pending. A subsidiary has been named as the defendant in Wilmoth et al. v. Celadon Trucking Services, Inc., a class action proceeding. A summary judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiffs. "We have appealed this judgment," the Company said. "We believe that we will be successful on appeal, but that it is also reasonably possible the judgment will be upheld. We estimate the possible range of financial exposure associated with this claim to be between $0 and approximately $5 million. We currently do not have a contingency reserved for this claim, but will continue to monitor the progress of this claim to determine if a reserve is necessary in the future." CELADON GROUP: Appeal in "Day" Case Still Pending ------------------------------------------------- Celadon Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the company's appeal from a judgment in the "Day" class action remains pending. "We have been named as the defendant in Day et al. v. Celadon Trucking Services, Inc., a class action proceeding," the Company said. "A judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiffs. We have appealed this judgment. We believe that we will be successful on appeal, but that it is also reasonably possible the judgment will be upheld. We estimate the possible range of financial exposure associated with this claim to be between $0 and approximately $2 million. We currently do not have a contingency reserved for this claim, but will continue to monitor the progress of this claim to determine if a reserve is necessary in the future." CELLCEUTIX CORP: To Defend Against "O'Connell" Action in New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cellceutix Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a securities class action lawsuit entitled O'Connell v. Cellceutix Corp. et al. (No. 1:15-cv-07194) was filed in September 2015 by a law firm in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its officers alleging that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations and prospects. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. Cellceutix is in the business of developing innovative small molecule therapies to treat diseases with significant medical need, particularly in the areas of cancer, antibiotics and inflammatory disease. CLIFFS NATURAL: $84,000,000 Settlement Reached in Ohio Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. 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. Cleveland, Ohio-based Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. (NYSE: CLF) -- http://www.cliffsnaturalresources.com/-- 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. COOK COUNTY, IL: "Renx Group" Suit Challenges Filling Fees ---------------------------------------------------------- Renx Group, LLC, f/k/a Big Blue Capital Partners, LLC, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated the Plaintiff, v. Dorothy Brown, as Clerk of the Circuit, Court of Cook County, Illinois; Maria Pappas, as Treasurer of Cook County, Illinois; and Cook County, Illinois, a body politic, the Defendants, Case No. 2013-CH-13958 (Ill. Circuit Ct., Cook County- Chancery Division, November 14, 2013), seeks to recover unlawful fees demanded and collected by Defendants. The Defendants charge and collect a fee for filing a motion or petition to reconsider, vacate or modify interlocutory orders in the Circuit Court. However, the Clerk of Court's statutory authorization is limited to collecting such a fee, says the complaint. The Circuit Court of Cook County of the State of Illinois is the largest of the 24 judicial circuits in Illinois and one of the largest unified court systems in the world. It has more than 400 judges who serve the 5.1 million residents of Cook County within the City of Chicago and its 126 surrounding suburbs. More than 1.2 million cases are filed each year. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rusty A. Payton, Esq. PAYTONDANN ATTORNEYS 161 N Clark St, Suite 4700 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 702 1000 Facsimile: (312) 702 1000 CORAL TELL: Israel Class Suit over Phone Call Overages Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Digital Turbine, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a class action lawsuit related to Coral Tell Ltd. remains pending in Israel. On May 30, 2013, a class action suit in the amount of NIS 19,200,000, or approximately $5,300,000, was filed in the Tel-Aviv Jaffa District Court against Coral Tell Ltd., an Israeli company that owns and operates a website offering advertisements. "Coral Tell Ltd. is currently being sued in a class action lawsuit regarding phone call overages, and has served a third-party notice against Logia and two additional companies for our alleged involvement in facilitating the overages," Digital Turbine said. "The suit relates to a service offered by the Coral Tell website, enabling advertisers to display a virtual cellular number in the advertisement instead of their real cellular number. The plaintiff claims that calls were charged for the connection time between two segments of the call, instead of the second segment alone; that the caller was charged even if the advertiser did not answer the call (as the charge began upon initiation of the first segment); and that the caller was charged for text messages sent to the advertiser, although the service did not support delivery of text messages. "We have no contractual relationship with this company," Digital Turbine said. "We believe the lawsuit is without merit and a finding of liability on our part remote. After conferring with advisors and counsel, management believes that the ultimate liability, if any, in aggregate will not be material to the financial position or results or operations of the Company for any future period." On November 25, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the parties to submit their positions as to whether the defendant (applicant) has a right to appeal the Israeli District Court's decision or must request the Israeli Supreme Court to grant a right to appeal. On December 25, 2013, after reviewing the parties' positions, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the respondents (Cellcom, Logia, Ethrix) to submit their responses to the defendant's petition to grant the right to appeal by January 26th, 2014. Appellant responded thereafter and the appeal is now under review and pending judgment. Usually, in petitions such as this, the Israeli Supreme Court makes a judgment based on the parties' written responses. The Defendant appealed the ruling of July 2013, and on April 1, 2015 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal. This means that the third-party notices, Logia included, will be addressed and heard after judgment is made in the case between the Plaintiff and Defendant. Digital Turbine does not believe there is a probable and estimable claim. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability. Digital Turbine, through its subsidiaries, innovates at the convergence of media and mobile communications, delivering end-to- end products and solutions for mobile operators, application advertisers, device original equipment manufacturers ("OEM"), and other third parties to enable them to effectively monetize mobile content and generate higher value user acquisition. The Company operates its business in two reportable segments -- Advertising and Content. CUSTOM BY W: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Recovery of Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Rafael Hernandez, on behalf of himself, Plaintiff, v. Custom By W., Inc. and Michael Wicentowsky, Defendants, Case. No. CV160096 (E.D.N.Y., January 8, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, unpaid spread of hours premium, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff was hired by Defendants as a painter for Defendants' interior design company located at 315 East 89th Street, Brooklyn, New York 11236. He claims to have worked over 40 hours per week, over 10 hours per day for five to six days a week, for a minimum of 50 hours a week, with no breaks in the day. 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 CVS HEALTH: Faces "Barchock" Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty -------------------------------------------------------------- MARY BARCHOCK, THOMAS WASECKO and STACY WELLER v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, THE BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE OF CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, and GALLIARD CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC., Case 1:16-cv- 00061 (D.R.I., February 11, 2016), was brought for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and to obtain the relief provided under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a pharmacy company. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sonja L. Deyoe, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SONJA L. DEYOE 395 Smith Street Providence, RI 02908 Phone: (401) 864-5877 Fax: (401) 354-7464 E-mail: sld@the-straight-shooter.com - and - Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq. John N. Nestico, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 8501 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 270 Scottsdale, AZ 85253 Phone: (480) 428-0142 Fax: (866) 505-8036 E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com jnestico@schneiderwallace.com - and - Kyle G. Bates, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Phone: 415-421-7100 Fax: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: kbates@schneiderwallace.com D&D PAINTING: "Rivera" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- ISRAEL RIVERA, an Individual, on behalf of himself and for the benefit of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. D&D Painting, Inc., a California corporation; D&D Painting And Drywall and Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC6055172 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County, December 23, 2015), seeks: * unpaid wages in accordance with California Labor Law, * damages resulting from discharge of respective duties with interest and from engaging in unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200, et seq., and * restitution, interests, attorneys' fees and cost of suit under Labor Code Sec. 226 and 1194 and further relief. Plaintiff claims that they were required to attend mandatory meetings without compensation, perform work for which they were paid less than the minimum wage, work in excess of regular workdays and workweek hours without being paid the required overtime and/or double-time premium wages and work through meal periods. She also alleges that the Defendant failed to maintain accurate time-keeping records and accurate itemized wage statements, pay statutory waiting-time penalties, and reimburse her for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred. D&D Painting and Drywall is located at 9837 Owensmouth Avenue, Suite H, Chatsworth, California 91311. The Plaintiff is represented by: Cesar H. Nava, Esq. Stanley J. Hodson, Esq. NAVA LAW FIRM 326 South 'A' Street, Suite 2 Oxnard, CA 93030 Tel: (805) 483-2465 Fax: (805) 483-0860 Email: cnava@navalaw.com sjhodson@navalaw.com DAVE AND BUSTER'S: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Class Action Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- Wilber H. Boies, PC, Esq. and Susan M. Nash, Esq., of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that compliance with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has resulted in increased health benefit costs for many employers. A recent court decision demonstrates that while programs to reduce the number of full-time employees may lower health care costs in the short run, they also may lead to ERISA class action litigation. In Marin v. Dave and Buster's, a federal district judge in the Southern District of New York denied a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit claiming that the Dave and Buster's amusement chain violated ERISA by cutting employee hours to avoid providing health care benefits to a class of employees. The ACA's employer shared responsibility requirements obligate large employers to offer minimum essential health coverage to substantially all of their full-time employees, or to pay significant penalties if just one such employee qualifies for a premium subsidy on a public health insurance exchange. There are also penalties if an employer offers coverage to its full-time employees but the coverage is not affordable for such employees or is not of minimum value. Specifically, the ACA defines a full- time employee as an employee who regularly works on average at least 30 hours per week. Employers are not exposed to penalties under the ACA for failure to offer coverage to part-time employees. As a result, some employers have considered moving employees to part-time status in order to avoid triggering penalties under the ACA for failure to offer health insurance coverage to such workers. Section 510 of ERISA makes it unlawful for any person to discriminate against any participant or beneficiary for exercising a right under ERISA or an ERISA benefit plan. The plaintiffs alleged that by reducing employees' hours to keep them below the 30-hour weekly average to qualify as a full-time employee, Dave & Buster's interfered with the attainment of the affected employees' right to be eligible for company health benefits. Two things are particularly notable about the court decision denying a motion to dismiss the case. First, while the complaint includes claims for past and future health benefits and for "incidental" lost wages, the opinion focuses on ERISA Section 510 and holds that the plaintiff has a viable claim that reducing her work hours was done for the purpose of interfering with her right to benefits under the company health plan. Second, the opinion finds that the complaint successfully alleged the employer's "unlawful purpose" and intention to interfere with benefits, pointing to allegations that company representatives publicly stated that they were reducing the number of full-time employees to avoid ACA costs. This court decision will encourage plaintiffs' class action lawyers and should be of concern to employers. Plaintiffs' lawyers now have a model for a class action complaint under Section 510 of ERISA when employers limit their full-time employee staff. Further, when plaintiffs are able to get past a motion to dismiss and take discovery, depositions and document production will be difficult for employers if avoiding or reducing ACA benefits has been part of the internal discussion about employee status and staffing, particularly if the restructuring is done in a manner that attempts to evade ACA requirements. Employers contemplating staffing changes in response to ACA employer shared responsibility requirements, such as reducing employee's work hours or requiring breaks in service to avoid service bridging, are encouraged to contact legal counsel before implementing such workforce policies. DEL-AIR ELECTRICAL: Faces "Kirton" Suit for FLSA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN KIRTON v. DEL-AIR ELECTRICAL SERVICES, INC., a Florida corporation, and ROBERT DELLO RUSSO, individually, Case 8:16-cv- 00329-JSM-AEP (M.D.Fla., February 11, 2016), seeks overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Del-Air Electrical Services, Inc. is an electrical contractor, which provides electrical services for new construction, residential and commercial customers throughout the state of Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Camar R. Jones, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP P.A. 1515 S. Federal Hwy, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 447-8888 Fax: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com DELTA APPAREL: Company, Soffe & Junkfood to Pay Up $200,000 ----------------------------------------------------------- Delta Apparel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended January 2, 2016, that Delta Apparel, Soffe and Junkfood have collectively agreed to contribute $200,000 to the settlement reached in the California wage and hour litigation. "We were served with a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, on or about March 13, 2013, by a former employee of our Delta Activewear business unit at our Santa Fe Springs, California distribution facility alleging violations of California wage and hour laws and unfair business practices with respect to meal and rest periods, compensation and wage statements, and related claims (the "Complaint")," the Company said. "The Complaint is brought as a class action and seeks to include all of our Delta Activewear business unit's current and certain former employees within California who are or were non-exempt under applicable wage and hour laws. The Complaint also names as defendants Junkfood, Soffe, an independent contractor of Soffe, and a former employee, and sought to include all current and certain former employees of Junkfood, Soffe and the Soffe independent contractor within California who are or were non-exempt under applicable wage and hour laws. Delta Apparel, Inc. is now the only remaining defendant in this case. The Complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, monetary damages and compensation, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre-judgment interest." "On or about August 22, 2014, we were served with an additional complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, by a former employee of Junkfood and two former employees of Soffe at our Santa Fe Springs, California distribution facility alleging violations of California wage and hour laws and unfair business practices the same or substantially similar to those alleged in the Complaint and seeking the same or substantially similar relief as sought in the Complaint. This complaint is brought as a class action and seeks to include all current and certain former employees of Junkfood, Soffe, our Delta Activewear business unit, the Soffe independent contractor named in the Complaint and an individual employee of such contractor within California who are or were non-exempt under applicable wage and hour laws. Delta Apparel, Inc. and the contractor employee have since been voluntarily dismissed from the case and the remaining defendants are Junkfood, Soffe, and the Soffe contractor. "On September 17, 2015, an agreement in principle was reached between all parties to settle the above-referenced wage and hour matters. Pursuant to that agreement, the defendants in the matters have agreed to pay an aggregate amount of $300,000 in exchange for a comprehensive release of all claims at issue in the matters. Delta Apparel, Inc., Soffe and Junkfood have collectively agreed to contribute $200,000 towards the aggregate settlement amount, which remains in our accrued expenses as of January 2, 2016. The settlement agreement requires the approval of the applicable courts before it can be finalized and the parties are currently seeking the necessary approvals." DESIGNER SHOE: Wants "Compare At" Pricing Class Action Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Van Acker and Dani Meyer, writing for Law360, report that Designer Shoe Warehouse claimed in California federal court on Feb. 12 that two shoppers' proposed false advertising class action should be dismissed because they've failed to support their claim that the retailer duped them and others with phony "compare at" prices. DSW Inc. said that Melanie Barber and Michael Yang never identified other retailers who sold the products they purchased, or how much those retailers charged, and said that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission doesn't require comparison prices to be former prices that customers have actually paid. "Plaintiffs claim that a reasonable consumer would interpret the phrase 'compare at' as a former price comparison," DSW said. "The [first amended complaint] does not identify any representation by DSW that would cause a consumer to reach this conclusion, and plaintiffs offer no explanation as to why a consumer would believe this." Two California federal courts have held that reasonable people would interpret a "compare at" price to be nothing more than "a comparable value comparison," but the two plaintiffs' claims wouldn't stand up even if their interpretation was correct, according to DSW. The company noted that it defeated another proposed class action over its comparison prices just January, when U.S. District Judge Jesus G. Bernal agreed that the shopper behind that suit didn't provide enough details. DSW said that Ms. Barber and Mr. Yang made similarly deficient allegations, and said the pair has failed to show that they didn't get what they paid for. "Here, DSW listed a price, plaintiffs decided that each item was worth that price, and plaintiffs gave that amount of money in exchange for their items they purchased," DSW said. "Plaintiffs do not allege that the listed 'compare at' prices were inaccurate, that the items they bought are worth any less than what they paid, or that it would otherwise unjust for DSW to retain that amount." Ms. Barber and Mr. Yang sued in December, claiming that they purchased a total of three products after seeing "compare at" prices of $125.00, $59.00 and $35.00, and DSW prices of $69.95, $34.94 and $19.95, respectively. On Feb. 12, DSW filed not only its motion to dismiss, but also a motion to strike the plaintiffs' class claims, telling the court that "they have no hope of success" for certifying a class covering consumers in a total of 40 states. "They identify no class representatives entitled to invoke these laws, nor do they allege any facts showing that statutory violations occurred in these other states," DSW said. "As a matter of law, due process, choice of law considerations and California substantive law prohibit plaintiffs from this attempt to corral the rights of non-residents into this proceeding." The plaintiffs are represented by Wayne S. Kreger of the Law Offices of Wayne S. Kreger PA. DSW is represented by Stephanie A. Sheridan, Anthony J. Anscombe and Meegan B. Brooks of Sedgwick LLP. The suit is Barber et al. v. DSW Inc., case number 8:15-cv-02024, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. DEVRY EDUCATION: Faces Class Action by Rayter and Herendeen ----------------------------------------------------------- DeVry Education Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Alex Rayter and Ryan Herendeen, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against DeVry Group and DeVry University, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 29, 2016. The lawsuit claims breaches of implied contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the California Unfair Trade Practices Act, the California False Advertising Act and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and negligent misrepresentations. The claims are based on allegations substantially similar to the allegations in the FTC lawsuit. The lawsuit seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against future violations of law, restitution, disgorgement of profits, punitive damages, reimbursement of costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court deems proper. DeVry Group strongly believes DeVry University's advertising complied with each of the various laws implicated in this action and both DeVry Group and DeVry University intend to vigorously defend themselves. DIRECTV: "Torres" Suit Seeks Actual, Statutory Damages Under EFTA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rosario Torres, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DirecTV, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00094-GMS (D. Ariz., January 15, 2016), seeks to recover actual damages, statutory damages with total recovery of lesser of $500,000 or 1% of the net worth of Defendant, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs relief as the Court may deem just and proper, pursuant to the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. DIRECTV is based in El Segundo, California. The company provides direct-to-home digital television services and multi-channel video programming distribution (MVPD) services in the United States. It provides access to various channels of digital-quality video entertainment and CD-quality audio programming that are transmitted directly to subscribers' homes or businesses via geosynchronous satellites. The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell S. Thompson, IV (029098) Thompson Consumer Law Group, PLLC 5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone: 602-388-8898 Facsimile: 866-317-2674 E-mail: rthompson@consumerlawinfo.com DIRECTV: Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Clause Class Waivers --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hoenig, writing for Law.com, reports that in mid-December, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in DIRECTV v. Imburgia, upholding a class arbitration waiver clause in a consumer service agreement and reversing a California appellate court's decision in favor of two consumers who sued over early termination fees they believed to violate state law. As a result, the plaintiffs had to submit to individual arbitration and not to pursue class proceedings. DIRECTV is another high court ruling in a chain that began with the now-famous Concepcion decision in 2011. This article briefly surveys the court's pivotal rulings leading to the DIRECTV decision and provides the pith and substance of this new ruling. In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, a 5-4 ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts state laws that make specific categories of claims non-arbitrable, the U.S. Supreme Court said: "[w]hen state law prohibits outright the arbitration of a particular type of claim, the analysis is straightforward: The conflicting rule is displaced by the FAA." This is a forceful premise and can cut a wide swath. Thus, in Marmet Health Care Center v. Brown the court held that injury and death lawsuits against nursing homes could be barred by an arbitration agreement. Let's look closer at Concepcion, the seminal precedent in the cluster. Section 2 of the FAA makes agreements to arbitrate "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." That provision was held in Concepcion to preempt a California Supreme Court rule adopted in a case called Discover Bank v. Superior Court The latter was widely interpreted as banning most consumer arbitration agreements requiring arbitration to be conducted only on an individual basis. In other words, California's rule deemed "unconscionable" class action waivers in arbitration agreements incorporated into consumer contracts of adhesion where the damages claimed would be relatively small and one party had superior bargaining power. The California approach proved to be influential in other jurisdictions as mandatory arbitration of certain kinds of consumer claims were deemed against public policy. Concepcion swept all that away. Because the California rule, as applied to AT&T's arbitration provision, "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress," California's categorical unconscionability approach was preempted. The underlying dispute in Concepcion arose from a cell phone contract between Vincent and Liza Concepcion and AT&T Mobility. By purchasing the wireless service, they received two new cell phones as part of the agreement. Although they did not have to pay for the phones, they were charged $30.22 in sales tax for the devices. They sued in a federal court that AT&T's advertisements for "free" phones were fraudulent. The case was later consolidated with a putative class action against AT&T involving the same issues. AT&T then moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement between the parties. The cell phone arbitration clause had a class action waiver: "You and AT&T agree that each may bring claims against the other only in your or its individual capacity, and not as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class or representative proceeding." AT&T included "consumer-friendly," generous provisions. The consumer would get at least a $7,500 payment if the arbitration award exceeded the last written settlement offer the company made prior to selecting an arbitrator; cost-free arbitration for non- frivolous claims; double attorney fees if the arbitrator awarded the customer more than AT&T's last settlement offer; and the option of conducting the arbitration in person, over the phone, or solely on the filed papers. Waiver Upheld The district court denied AT&T's motion to compel arbitration on the ground that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable in California. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. It recognized that the AT&T arbitration agreement "essentially guarantees" that customers will have relief that makes them "whole." But the court held that California law made the inability-to-arbitrate-on-behalf-of-a-class provision unconscionable. The Supreme Court, however, reversed. It reasoned, in part, that the Discover Bank rule "interfered with fundamental attributes of arbitration." One of these was that class arbitration "greatly increases the risks to defendants" because class arbitration has the same high stakes of class actions in court yet is subject to the sharply limited standard of judicial review of arbitration awards. Marmet, the nursing home injury case, involved three negligence suits for injuries or harm filed against nursing homes in West Virginia. In each of the three cases, a patient requiring extensive nursing care died and a family member sued. The agreements signed by family members with the nursing homes included arbitration clauses requiring the parties to arbitrate all disputes. The party filing the arbitration was responsible for paying a filing fee in accordance with the Rules of the American Arbitration Association fee schedules. A state trial court dismissed the lawsuits based on the agreement to arbitrate. The cases wound up in West Virginia's highest court which held that "as a matter of public policy" an arbitration clause in a nursing home admission agreement adopted prior to an occurrence of negligence that results in personal injury or wrongful death, "shall not be enforced to compel arbitration of a dispute concerning the negligence." The West Virginia court called the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the FAA "tendentious" and "created from whole cloth" and concluded that the FAA does not preempt the state's public policy against pre-dispute arbitration agreements that apply to nursing home injury or death claims. The U.S. Supreme Court acted swiftly to grant certiorari, vacate the West Virginia ruling and remand for proceedings not inconsistent with the court's opinion. This time the Supreme Court did not act 5-4, but unanimously, in a "per curiam" opinion. The FAA says an arbitration agreement "shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." The statute's text, said the court, "includes no exception for personal-injury or wrongful-death claims." It "requires courts to enforce the bargain of the parties to arbitrate" and it "reflects an emphatic federal policy in favor of arbitral dispute resolution." Citing Concepcion, the court emphasized that when state law "prohibits outright" arbitration of a particular type of claim, the conflicting state rule is displaced and preempted by the FAA. West Virginia's prohibition against pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate nursing home injury or death claims was a "categorical rule prohibiting arbitration of a particular type of claim" and thus was "contrary to the terms and coverage of the FAA." The FAA Section 2's "savings clause" (arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable and enforceable, "save upon such grounds as exist at law or equity for the revocation of any contract") could, in a given case, put into play state law defenses that are applicable to "any contract." Concepcion advised that this could include state law defenses such as fraud, duress or unconscionability. But a state's "general" contract defenses aimed primarily at arbitration agreements or targeting or applying to arbitration agreements disproportionately will be preempted. Mr. Hoenig's June 2013 column reported on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter, upholding an arbitrator's decision to allow class arbitration, but only because the parties there agreed that the arbitrator should decide whether their contract authorized class arbitration. The defendant's decision to challenge "arbitrability" of the issue in court came too late. Thus, even though the underlying agreement was "silent" on whether the parties had intended to permit class arbitration, the arbitrator's construction "holds, however good, bad or ugly." Since contracts that are "silent" regarding class arbitration have a measure of frailty in this regard -- indeed, the court in Oxford said in footnote 2: "this Court has not yet decided whether the availability of class arbitration is a question of arbitrability" -- Mr. Hoenig column advised those firms electing to arbitrate disputes to incorporate "class action waivers" in their contractual arbitration clauses. In American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, the court held the FAA does not permit courts to invalidate a contractual waiver of class arbitration on the ground that the plaintiff's cost of individually arbitrating a federal statutory claim exceeds the potential recovery. The Amex decision, as it is popularly called, involved federal antitrust class action claims by merchants alleging American Express violated the Sherman and the Clayton Acts by forcing merchants to accept its credit cards at rates some 30 percent higher than fees for competing credit cards. Amex fought the court class action proceedings by moving to compel individual arbitration in accordance with the class waiver provision. In resisting Amex's motion, the plaintiffs submitted an economist's declaration that estimated the costs of an expert's analysis needed to prove the individual antitrust claims would be at least several hundred thousand dollars, and "might exceed $1 million." Compared to the individual plaintiff's maximum antitrust recovery of some $12,850 (or $38,549 when trebled), such costs were deemed "prohibitive." The district court, nonetheless, granted the defense motion to compel individual arbitration, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed holding that the class waiver was unenforceable since Concepcion involved FAA preemption of a state statute. In Amex, however, the federal statutes were not intended to be preempted. A petition for rehearing en banc was denied with five judges dissenting. 'Concepcion's' Strength The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Amex was emphatic confirmation of Concepcion's strength. The court held that the FAA does not permit courts to invalidate a contractual class action waiver on the ground that a plaintiff's cost of individually arbitrating a federal statutory claim exceeds the potential recovery. The expense of litigation is not a determinative factor: "[T]he antitrust laws do not guarantee an affordable procedural path to the vindication of every claim." The fact that "it is not worth the expense involved in proving a statutory remedy does not constitute the elimination of the right to pursue that remedy." Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the five-justice majority, confirmed the vitality of Concepcion: "Truth to tell, our decision in AT&T Mobility all but resolves this case. There we invalidated a law conditioning enforcement of arbitration on the availability of class procedure because that law 'interfere[d] with fundamental attributes of arbitration.'" Class arbitration "sacrifices the principal advantage of arbitration -- its informality -- and makes the process slower, more costly, and more likely to generate procedural morass than final judgment." And, in its footnote 5, the court reminded us that "the FAA's command to enforce arbitration agreements trumps any interest in ensuring the prosecution of low-value claims." In the court's newest decision in this chain, DIRECTV, the service agreement had a provision that "any Claim either of us asserts will be resolved only by binding arbitration." The agreement also set forth a waiver of class arbitration. However, it also provided that, if the "law of your state" makes the waiver of class arbitration unenforceable, then the entire arbitration provision "is unenforceable." The California courts held the arbitration provision unenforceable since the words "law of your state" made California law determinative even if that law were inconsistent with Concepcion. The Supreme Court, however, reversed. The contract's reference to "state law," absent any indication to the contrary, is governed by its ordinary meaning, namely "valid" state law. The court emphasized that, while Concepcion was a "closely divided" holding (5-4 decision) and lower court judges can note their disagreement with the decision, "[n]o one denies that lower courts must follow" Concepcion. The FAA "is a law of the United States, and Concepcion is an authoritative interpretation of that Act. Consequently, the judges of every State must follow it."10 Since Concepcion issued in 2011, there has been a great deal of commentary, much of it extremely critical and some of it quite strident. In particular, the "doomsday" kind of commentary seemed to impart an emotional, "over-the-top" message in the face of a rather generous legal system. Then, too, the Concepcion arbitration provision enforced by the court there was quite generous. What were the competing rationales? The exceptions? How "bad" was the Concepcion aftermath? Since the article literally was at the printer in December when DIRECTV issued, we could only include minimal discussion of the new ruling. The article -- "Arbitration and Class Action Waivers Under Concepcion: Reason and Reasonableness Deflect Strident Attacks" -- examines the roots of the Concepcion decision and the considerations that support it. It also reviews judicial developments post-Concepcion as well as "exceptions" to the rule. The attempts by claimants to mount additional theories or defenses to defeat enforcement of class waivers, with varying success, are surveyed. In the latter section we discuss challenges on "unconscionability" grounds and the features courts look at to decide the issue; challenges on contract formation grounds; failure to give assent and "illusoriness" of the agreement; issues of waiver and estoppel; and the effect of excessive arbitration and administrative fees. Conclusion Arbitration and class action waiver provisions are a fact of life. The Supreme Court says they are enforceable. There are complex considerations affecting the ability of lawyers to challenge as well as to enforce such provisions. The chain of decisions and our law review article discussed above can be useful resources in the lawyer's quest to defend or defeat such provisions. DIRT DOCTORS: Faces "Del Re" Wage-and-Hour Complaint ---------------------------------------------------- Francisco Del Re, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dirt Doctors, LLC, aka Thiry Brothers Home Improvements, and Derek Thiry, Individually, and Daryl Thiry, Individually, Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-00432-FLW-TJB (D. N.J., January 25, 2016), seeks recovery against Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq. and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, N.J.S.A., 34:11-56a et seq. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants did not properly compensate Plaintiff, and those similarly situated employees, for all overtime hours worked in a work week. Dirt Doctors are in the home improvement business throughout the State of New Jersey. Dirt Doctors are headquartered in Bridgewater, Somerset County, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 North Harrison Street Suite 9F, #306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Tel: (201) 687-9977 Fax: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com EDS HARDWOOD: "Corazzari" Files Sexual Discrimination Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- Fabio Corazzari, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EDS Hardwood Floors, Inc. and Eliton De Sordi, Defendants, Case 7:16-cv-00544 (S.D.N.Y., January 25, 2016), seeks equitable and legal relief for the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq. (FLSA), New York Labor Laws (NYLL) Sections 190 et seq. and 650 et seq. and 12 NYCRR 142-2.14, and New York State Human Rights Law, Executive Law Sec. 290 et seq. (NYSHRL). The Plaintiff alleges he was discriminated against and unlawfully terminated on the basis of his sexual orientation. The Plaintiff seeks payment of: a) all overtime wages due to the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, an additional award of 100% of all wages due, all reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and interest, in an amount to be determined by the Court; b) an additional award of 100% of all wages due to the Plaintiff, all reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and interest, in an amount to be determined by this Court; c) all overtime wages due, an additional award of 100% of all wages due to the Plaintiff, all reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and interest, in an amount to be determined by the Court; d) liquidated damages in the amount of $50.00 per day in which the violation occurred, up to a maximum of $5,000.00, along with all reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; e) liquidated damages in the amount of $250.00 per day for every day in which the violation occurred, up to a maximum of $5,000.00, along with all reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; f) all spread of hour wages due in an amount to be determined by the Court, liquidated damages, along with all reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; g) all compensatory, emotional, physical, liquidated, and punitive damages, if applicable, along with lost pay, front pay, reasonable attorneys' fees, the costs and disbursements of this action and any other damages permitted by law in an amount to be determined at trial; and h) other and further relief as is just and proper. EDS is a New York limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 141 Crotona Avenue, Harrison, New York 10528. EDS is engaged in the business of repairing and installing flooring for residential and commercial properties. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Katz, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600 New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 460-0047 Fax: (212) 428-6811 ELECTRONIC ARTS: Certiorari Petition in Madden NFL Case Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Electronic Arts Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court is pending. On July 29, 2010, Michael Davis, a former NFL running back, filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, alleging that certain past versions of Madden NFL included the images of certain retired NFL players without their permission. In March 2012, the trial court denied the Company's request to dismiss the complaint on First Amendment grounds. In January 2015, that trial court decision was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the case was remanded back to the district court. In October 2015, the Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which is pending. Electronic Arts develops, markets, publishes and distributes game software content and services that can be played by consumers on a variety of platforms, including video game consoles (such as the PlayStation 3 and 4 from Sony, and the Xbox 360 and Xbox One from Microsoft), PCs, mobile phones and tablets. ENDEAVOUR ENERGY: Faces $20MM Class Action Over 2013 Bushfires -------------------------------------------------------------- SkyNews reports that residents caught in the path of the 2013 Blue Mountains bushfires suffered a terrifying ordeal that could have been avoided if a power company had cut down a single tree, the NSW Supreme Court has heard. A $200 million class action lawsuit against Endeavour Energy began in Sydney on Feb. 17 with claims that a massive blaze that burned through the lower-mountains suburbs of Springwood and Winmalee in October 2013 was sparked by a tree falling onto an electricity conductor at Linksview Road in Springwood. "This tree was compromised by dry rot which, if Endeavour Energy had adopted reasonable practices, it would have been aware of and would have attended to," barrister Tim Tobin SC told the court in his opening address. The class action has been brought by Sean Johnston and other Blue Mountains residents who allege they lost property or suffered physical or psychiatric injury as a result of Endeavour Energy's inaction in the hot and dry months that preceded the outbreak of wildfire. "Flames were as high as 20 metres and travelling at frightening speed, destroying 194 homes and partially damaging hundreds more," Mr. Tobin said on Feb. 17. "For members of the group who were caught in the path of the fire, the experience was life-threatening and terrifying." Mr. Tobin told the court the bushland region west of Sydney was in "a state of high vulnerability to ignition and spread of bushfire" in the lead up to October 17. That day, he said, Springwood woman Marilyn Stubbs arrived home from the shops about 1pm and noticed "nothing unusual". Fires were already burning higher up the mountains and to the west, and there was smoke in the sky as Mrs. Stubbs went to her bedroom and began reading a magazine. But by 1:09 p.m., Mrs. Stubbs was dialling triple zero. She will give evidence over the two-month civil case that she heard "a twang followed by a 'zzz', a sound consistent with an electrical noise", followed by a "crackling" sound. When she went to investigate, Mrs. Stubbs saw a 'slow, creeping' fire through her window and within moments, she saw trees beginning to explode into flames. "This explosion of trees sent embers flying and looked like fireworks," Mr. Tobin said. The hearing continues before Justice Peter Garling. ENERGY PRO: "Galvez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Pay Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alfredo Galvez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Gary Grecco, Milton Siavichay, individually and Energy Pro Insulation LLC, and Advanced Firestop Solutions, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00228 (E.D.N.Y., January 15, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages and related damages for unpaid overtime hours worked, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Energy Pro is a New York Corporation located at Staten Island, New York. The Company's line of business include Home Energy Assessments, Heating, Insulation & Air Sealing, Air Conditioning & Heat Pump, and Solar Electric. The Plaintiff is represented by: Darren P.B. Rumacj. Esq. THE KLEIN LAW GROUP 11 Broadway Suite 960 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 344 9022 Facsimile: (212) 344 0301 EOS PRODUCTS: Falsely Marketed Lip Balm, "Menz" Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Melisa Menz, individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. EOS Products, LLC, Case No. 8:16-cv-00128- SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla., January 19, 2016) is an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and sale of defective lip balm designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised, and sold by EOS in the State of Florida and throughout the United States. EOS Products, LLC is a New York LLC that provides beauty products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. Michael J. Pascucci, Esq. EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP 5400 S. University Drive, Suite 413 Davie, FL 33328 Telephone: (954) 889-3359 Facsimile: (954) 889-5913 E-mail: JEggnatz@ELPlawyers.com MPascucci@ELPlawyers.com ETHICON INC: Three Lawyers Leave MDL Team Following Fee Fight ------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a battle over legal fees and costs has prompted three lawyers to withdraw from the plaintiffs leadership team in the multidistrict litigation over power morcellators made by Johnson & Johnson's Ethicon Inc. After a hearing on Feb. 10 before a federal judge in Kansas, two plaintiffs lawyers -- Rebecca King, an attorney at Houston's Tracey & Fox, and Fran‡ois Blaudeau, of counsel at Heninger Garrison Davis in Birmingham -- resigned from the 20-person plaintiffs steering committee, according to co-lead counsel Paul Pennock. A third committee member, Avram Blair, of Avram Blair & Associates in Houston, also resigned after a similar fee dispute, said Mr. Pennock, managing attorney at New York's Weitz & Luxenberg. The MDL's committee was noted for being the first to involve a majority of women members. Their departures leave 10 women attorneys on a 17-person committee. Those lawyers along with two other plaintiffs attorneys, one of whom also served on the committee, claimed that they should not have to pay into a proposed common benefit fund for cases they had just settled. A common benefit fund charges a "hold back" amount on settlements and judgments of individual cases in order to pay for the attorney fees and costs that lead counsel incur in an MDL. Mr. Pennock, who moved to establish the fund on Dec. 31, had insisted that lawyers with recent settlements retroactively pay 2 percent of their fees and costs to the fund given that they were precipitated by the formation of an MDL and plaintiffs steering committee. After the hearing, Mr. Pennock told The NLJ that he agreed to remove the 2 percent requirement and make other changes to the fund, though he declined to say what those would be. He also confirmed the committee's resignations. "We resolved our differences and they are out, and we're moving forward," Mr. Pennock said. He said he wasn't sure whether the committee would replace them. King, Blaudeau and Blair did not respond to requests for comment. More than 30 lawsuits have been filed alleging that Ethicon's power morcellators -- medical devices used in laparoscopic uterine surgeries -- have caused women to develop an aggressive form of cancer. Ethicon pulled those devices from shelves in 2014 following a U.S. Food and Drug Administration safety advisory. The cases against Ethicon were coordinated into an MDL on Oct. 15. King and Blaudeau filed motions on Dec. 30 and Jan. 4 to resign from the committee after settling cases against Ethicon. Both lawyers joined Blair and Molly Hoffman of Fay Kaplan Law in Washington, another plaintiffs lawyer, in opposing the fund's approval. Mr. Pennock's proposal also included holdbacks for future settlements of up to 12 percent fees and costs -- an amount that another plaintiffs lawyer, Andrew Sciolla of Pogust Braslow & Millrood in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, called "excessive" in a Jan. 21 motion. Mr. Pennock said he would be talking with Mr. Sciolla in the coming weeks about those concerns. Mr. Sciolla did not respond to a request for comment. EXPERIAN INFO: "Clark" Suit Seeks Statutory Damages Under FCRA -------------------------------------------------------------- Carolyn Clark, Jon Hann, Angela Osment, Leon Wilson, Chmond Va Debra Punturi, Elmo Wilcox, Iii, Rosemary Robinson, Marveen Robinson, Hezekiah Winn, Roderick Samuels, Wanda Mcdowney, Elizabeth Kirwin, Susan Chandler, Kim Breeden, and Olga Anderson, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00032-MHL (E.D. Virg., Richmond Division, January 15, 2016), seeks to recover statutory and punitive damages, as well as attorney's fees and costs, punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the legal rate, and such other relief the Court deems just, equitable, and proper pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Experian Info is an information services company that provides data and analytical tools to clients around the world. It offers credit report, credit score, credit monitoring, and identity theft protection services to individuals; and customer acquisition, customer management, risk management, fraud management, debt recovery, regulatory compliance, business resources, and consulting services to businesses. The company is based in Costa Mesa, California. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Erausquin, Esq. Casey S. Nash, Esq. Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Susan M. Rotkis, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600 Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (703) 273 7770 Facsimile: (888) 892 3512 E-mail: matt@clalegal.com casey@clalegal.com lenbennett@clalegal.com srotkis@clalegal.com - and - Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. KELL y & CRANDALL, PLC 4084 University Drive, Suite 202A Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424 7576 Facsimile: (703) 591 9285 E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com EXPRESS COURIER: Sued for FLSA, Ark. Minimum Wage Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Harris, Rick Ketcham and Adam Manske v. Express Courier International, Inc., Case 5:16-cv-05033-TLB (W.D.Ark., February 11, 2016), was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Express Courier International, Inc. provides on-demand and scheduled courier services. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua West, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com EZCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss New York Action Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- EZCORP, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the defendants' motions to dismiss the federal securities litigation in New York remains pending. On August 22, 2014, Jason Close, a purported holder of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, for himself and on behalf of other similarly situated holders of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York styled Close v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:14-cv-06834-ALC). "The complaint names as defendants EZCORP, Inc., Paul E. Rothamel (our former chief executive officer) and Mark Kuchenrither (our former chief financial officer and former chief operating officer) and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934," the Company said. "In general, the complaint alleges that the implementation of certain strategic and growth initiatives were less successful than represented by the defendants, that certain of the Company's business units and investments were not performing as well as represented by the defendants and that, as a result, the defendants' disclosures and statements about the Company's business and operations were materially false and misleading at all relevant times." "On October 17, 2014, the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan, also purporting to be the holder of Class A Non-voting Common Stock and acting for itself and on behalf of other similarly situated holders of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the United Stated District Court for the Southern District of New York styled Automotive Machinists Pension Plan v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:14-cv-8349-ALC). The complaint names EZCORP, Inc., Mr. Rothamel and Mr. Kuchenrither as defendants, but also names Mr. Cohen and MS Pawn Limited Partnership. The complaint likewise asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging generally that (1) EZCORP and the officer defendants (Mr. Rothamel and Mr. Kuchenrither) issued false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the business and prospects, and compliance history, of the Company's online lending operations in the U.K. and the nature of the Company's consulting relationship with entities owned by Mr. Cohen and the process the Board of Directors used in agreeing to it, and (2) Mr. Cohen and MS Pawn Limited Partnership, as controlling persons of EZCORP, participated in the preparation and dissemination of the Company's disclosures and controlled the Company's business strategy and activities. "On October 21, 2014, the plaintiff in the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan action filed a motion to consolidate the Close action and the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan action and to appoint the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan as the lead plaintiff. On November 18, 2014, the court consolidated the two lawsuits under the caption In Re EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 1:14-cv-06834-ALC), and on January 16, 2015, appointed the lead plaintiff and lead counsel. "On March 13, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging generally that: * EZCORP and the officer defendants (Mr. Rothamel and Mr. Kuchenrither) issued false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's online lending operations in the U.K. (Cash Genie) and Cash Genie's compliance history; * EZCORP and the officer defendants issued false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the nature of the Company's consulting relationship with Madison Park LLC (as entity owned by Mr. Cohen) and the process the Board of Directors used in agreeing to it; * EZCORP's financial statements were false and misleading, and violated GAAP and SEC rules and regulations, by failing to properly recognize impairment charges with respect to the Company's investment in Albemarle & Bond; and * Mr. Cohen and MS Pawn Limited Partnership, as controlling persons of EZCORP, were aware of and controlled the Company's alleged false and misleading statements and omissions. The defendants have filed motions to dismiss, and the parties have submitted their respective supporting and opposing briefs. That motion is pending before the Court. "We cannot predict the outcome of the litigation, but we intend to continue to defend vigorously against all allegations and claims," the Company said. EZCORP INC: Has Until Feb. 29 to Respond to Texas Action -------------------------------------------------------- EZCORP, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has until February 29, 2016 to respond to the Amended Complaint in the federal securities litigation in Texas. On July 20, 2015, Wu Winfred Huang, a purported holder of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, for himself and on behalf of other similarly situated holders of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas styled Huang v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS). "The complaint names as defendants EZCORP, Inc., Stuart I. Grimshaw (our chief executive officer) and Mark E. Kuchenrither (our former chief financial officer) and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder," the Company said. "The original complaint related to the Company's announcement on July 17, 2015 that it will restate the financial statements for fiscal 2014 and the first quarter of fiscal 2015, and alleged generally that the Company issued materially false or misleading statements concerning the Company, its finances, business operations and prospects and that the Company misrepresented the financial performance of the Grupo Finmart business." "On August 14, 2015, a substantially identical lawsuit, styled Rooney v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00700-SS) was also filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. On September 28, 2015, the plaintiffs in these 2 lawsuits filed an agreed stipulation to be appointed co-lead plaintiffs and agreed that their two actions should be consolidated. "On November 3, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the two actions under the caption In re EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS), and appointed the two plaintiffs as co-lead plaintiffs, with their respective counsel appointed as co-lead counsel. "On January 11, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). In the Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of our Class A Common Stock between November 6, 2015 and October 20, 2015. The Amended Complaint asserts that the Company and Mr. Kuchenrither violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, issued materially false or misleading statements throughout the proposed class period concerning the Company and its internal controls, specifically regarding the financial performance of Grupo Finmart. The plaintiffs also allege that Mr. Kuchenrither, as a controlling person of the Company, violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint does not assert any claims against Mr. Grimshaw. "Under the Court's current scheduling order, we have until February 29, 2016 to respond to the Amended Complaint, and we intend to file a motion to dismiss the claims," the Company said. "This case is in the very early stages. We cannot predict the outcome of the litigation, but we intend to defend vigorously against all allegations and claims." FARMER BROS: "Hernandez" Class Action Claims Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------ Farmer Bros. Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a court has dismissed claims in the case, Steve Hernandez vs. Farmer Bros. Co., while the claims in the case, Monica Zuno vs. Farmer Bros. Co., Superior Court of State of California, County of Los Angeles, remain pending. On July 24, 2015, former Company employee Hernandez filed a putative class action complaint for damages alleging a single cause of action for unfair competition under the California Business & Professions Code. The claim purports to seek disgorgement of profits for alleged violations of various provisions of the California Labor Code relating to: failing to pay overtime, failing to provide meal breaks, failing to pay minimum wage, failing to pay wages timely during employment and upon termination, failing to provide accurate and complete wage statements, and failing to reimburse business-related expenses. Hernandez's complaint seeks restitution in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief, in addition to attorneys' fees and expenses. Hernandez alleges that the putative class is all "current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt individuals" for the four (4) years preceding the filing of the complaint through final judgment, and Hernandez also purports to reserve the right to establish sub-classes as appropriate. On November 12, 2015, a separate putative class representative, Monica Zuno, filed claim under the same class action; the Court has related this case to the Hernandez case. On November 17, 2015, the unified case was assigned to a judge, and this judge ordered the stay on discovery to remain intact until after a decision on the Company's demurrer action. The plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Demurrer and, in response, on January 5, 2016, the Company filed a reply to this Opposition to the Demurrer. "On February 2, 2016, the Court held a hearing on the demurrer and found in our favor, sustaining the demurrer in its entirety without leave to amend as to the plaintiff Hernandez, and so dismissing Hernandez's claims and the related putative class," the Company said. "Claims on behalf of the plaintiff Zuno remain at this time, pending the filing of an amended complaint on behalf of this remaining plaintiff and reduced putative class. At this time, we are not able to predict the probability of the outcome or estimate of loss, if any, related to this matter." FEDERAL INTERIORS: Faces "Harmon" Suit Over FLSA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN HARMON and THERMAN D. GLADDEN, SR., v. FEDERAL INTERIORS GROUP, LLC, JASON ROCKWELL, DAVID ROCKWELL, U.S. BUSINESS INTERIORS, INC., Case 1:16-cv-00390-JKB (D.Md., February 11, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act; unpaid wages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Maryland Code Annotated, Labor and Employment Article; and unpaid wages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, Maryland Code Annotated, Labor and Employment Article. Defendants operate a business that delivers, assembles and installs office furniture and equipment in the Baltimore, Virginia and Washington, D.C. areas. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph E. Spicer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Tel: (410) 244-7005 Fax: (410) 244-8454 E-mail: jspicer@nicholllaw.com FERRING PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Action Over Fertility Drug --------------------------------------------------------------- CTVNews.ca reports that a British Columbia couple has launched a class-action lawsuit against the maker of a fertility drug after certain batches of the drug were recalled over concerns about their potency late last year. Amanda and Joep Olthuis are suing Swiss-based Ferring Pharmaceuticals, alleging that an ineffective batch of the drug Bravelle dashed their hopes of having children. They also say they can't afford another round of treatment. The drug is designed to help women's ovaries produce more eggs, often in combination with another hormone for growth and ovulation, as part of a cycle of in vitro fertilization. Amanda Olthuis was 36 years old when she and her husband travelled from their home in Port Moody, B.C., to the Genesis Fertility Centre in Vancouver. There, she was prescribed a series of treatments over the next several months, including injections of Bravelle. The couple says the total cost of those treatments was $14,000, a sum that required years of saving. "It took us two years to save up the money. I had to work six days a week . . . we didn't go to movies, we didn't go out for dinners," Mr. Olthuis told CTV News. "We scrounged, scraped and saved for two years because we wanted a family." But to the couple's shock, the IVF cycle failed and the batch of Bravelle Olthuis was taking was recalled. Ferring announced last October that tests showed four lots of Bravelle, sold between 2014 and 2015 in the U.S. and Canada, had displayed "reduced potency" and could result in lessened therapeutic effect. The company said the batches were "unlikely" to result in direct adverse health consequences in the short term, but warned there was the potential for "unnecessary overexposure" of patients in the process of determining an effective dose. Ferring is offering to refund the cost of the drug -- about $2,500 -- but the couple says they are also owed the cost of the IFV cycle. "We would have never have done the whole cycle if we knew the drug was a dud," said Joep Olthuis. "We really started realizing we deserve more." Quebec is the only Canadian province that provides universal coverage of the costs of IVF. The province's health plan covers up to three cycles of the treatment. Last fall, Ontario agreed to cover the cost of one cycle for women under 43. Amanda and Joep Olthuis are also suing Ferring for other related health care costs, out-of-pocket expenses like travel, loss of income, pain and suffering, as well as the "loss of opportunity to have biological children." "The Defendant may have squandered these women's last opportunity to get pregnant, causing serious mental and emotional harm to couples who now may be unable to start families of their own," a statement of claim submitted to B.C.'s Supreme Court says. The law firm representing the couple says it has been contacted by another 20 families across Canada about issues relating to Bravelle. "It is our understanding is that there are hundreds across the country who have been affected," said David Klein, managing partner of Klein Lawyers. There are also reportedly dozens of similar lawsuits in the U.S. In a statement, Michael Seckler, the general manager of Ferring, said the company is aware of the lawsuit, but can't comment on pending litigation. "Distribution of Bravelle has been halted while an analysis to establish the root cause of the issue is carried out," said Mr. Seckler. "We appreciate the urgency of this issue, and are working hard to restore supply as quickly as possible." The company says "manufacturing issues" have slowed the release of new batches of Bravelle. That's not a problem for many other couples as there are other drugs that can be used instead. But Joep and Amanda Olthuis, who's about to turn 38 in March, say the issues with the drug have cost them precious time and money in their efforts to have children. "I just want to have a family -- that is our dream," said Joep. "It is getting harder and harder when we miss out on these chances and we're cheated out of that." FIFTH STREET: Faces "Craig" Class Action in Delaware ---------------------------------------------------- Fifth Street Finance Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a putative stockholder class action lawsuit captioned James Craig v. Bernard D. Berman, et. al. was filed on January 29, 2016, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint names certain current officers and/or directors, consisting of Bernard D. Berman, James Castro-Blanco, Ivelin M. Dimitrov, Brian S. Dunn, Richard P. Dutkiewicz, Byron J. Haney, Sandeep K. Khorana, Todd G. Owens and Douglas F. Ray, the Investment Adviser, Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. ("FSAM"), the Company and Fifth Street Holdings L.P. as defendants. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by, among other things, perpetuating and failing to terminate the Company's investment advisory agreement with Fifth Street Management LLC; seeking to have existing board members and management remain in place; and including certain disclosures in the Company's proxy materials, including, among other things, the effect that termination of the investment advisory agreement would have on the Company's debt obligations, business and operations. The complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction preventing the Company and its board of directors from soliciting proxies for the 2016 annual meeting until additional disclosures are made; a declaration that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties by refusing to terminate the investment advisory agreement and by acting to have the Company's board of directors and Fifth Street Management LLC remain in place; a declaration that any shares repurchased by the Company after the record date of the 2016 annual meeting will not be considered outstanding shares for purposes of the stockholder approvals sought at the annual meeting; and awarding plaintiff costs and disbursements. FISCARDO INC: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Hernandez" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Celso Hernandez and Jorge Lechuga, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Fiscardo, Inc. d/b/a Orion Diner & Grill Astrinos Voumvourakis, Ioannis Akrriotis, and Georgios Milatos, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00359-LTS (S.D.N.Y., January 15, 2016), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, spread of hours pay, uniform-related expenses, unlawful deductions, and other statutory penalties, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Fiscardo owns and operates the Orion Diner, which is an American food diner located in Midtown Manhattan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S, Schaffer, Esq. Arsenio D. Rodriquez, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 300 0375 FLINT, MI: Meeting Held Over Water Crisis Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Amanda Emery, writing for MLive, reports that hundreds of people packed the Northbank Center in downtown Flint for an informational meeting on class action lawsuits related to the city's water crisis. More than 300 people packed the grand ballroom Tuesday, Feb. 16, with dozens more turned away because there wasn't enough room. The informational meeting was for residents interested in becoming part of lawsuits filed in connection to the water crisis. Erin Brockovich has joined the Flint Water Class Action Legal Team, but was unable to attend the informational meeting. Instead Brockovich talked to the audience over the phone and answered questions. Ms. Brockovich said Flint residents making their voices heard has made the biggest impact in getting the city's story told. "We continue to do our activist work, but I have to say . . . what has made the biggest difference in this community is every single one of you coming out and using your voices and standing up to right and wrong," Ms. Brockovich said. "You have become a model example of how communities need to rally and take care of their people for this entire country. I have to say thank you and how proud I am of every one of you." Water and blood testing is something Ms. Brockovich said she couldn't stress enough to Flint residents. She said the legal team will continue to work to get information out to residents. "We will work diligently to provide information to you so you can better protect your children, your loved ones, provide information about your property, and as I said earlier it is very important that everyone get tested. I can't emphasize that enough," Ms. Brockovich said. Flint attorney Trachelle Young was one of several lawyers at the meeting that spoke to residents. She said the meeting was held to inform residents about resources available to them, as well as the lawsuits that were filed. "We were here primarily to inform people about what's going on, to educate them about the resources that are out there, about what the symptoms and signs can be because everybody is different. Some people are thinking 'Well I'm suffering from this, but not that so maybe it's not lead poisoning.'" Ms. Young said. "We don't want people to self-assess themselves. We want them to get tested and to educate themselves, because when you educate yourself, you arm yourself and you better prepare yourself to deal with the situation." Ms. Young is no stranger to the water crisis. Ms. Young said the water at her Flint home was tested by Virginia Tech researchers and came back with elevated levels. "Every day for the last few months I take my kids and we drive outside of Flint. I don't trust the water to the extent that we don't shower in it, we don't bathe in it, we don't cook in it." Ms. Young said. "So we're eating out, we're eating over at relatives' homes. We have no trust at all as far as my house is concerned. We don't use it except for sewage purposes to flush the toilet, because that's about what we think the water is worth." The Flint Water Class Action Legal Team explained the three lawsuits that have been filed in federal, court of claims, and circuit court. Young broke-down what each of the lawsuits claim. "Basically the federal lawsuit deals with the U.S. Constitution, so that's the Constitutional claims against the defendants." Ms. Young said. "Court of claims is the court you're required to sue the state in. Anytime you want to sue the state as a defendant you have to go in the court of claims, so Snyder and the state are named in the court of claims lawsuit. The circuit court case is dealing with intentional infliction of emotional distress and it's named all the lower level government officials that made decisions throughout this process that were not based on solid evidence of any sort or those who were in their position and just did not do their job." Ms. Young said first and foremost, residents need to get their blood and water tested. She said test results today wouldn't necessarily indicate lead exposure in the past. "The test results are not something that you can strictly rely upon because we know the life of the lead in your body is only about 30 days," Ms. Young said. "Just because you test negative does not mean you have not been exposed. So we still want people to get tested because that will give you an indication of what's in your body at that point in time." Prudie Kelso lives in Flint and said she just got her blood tested on Feb. 15. Ms. Kelso said she has issues getting water to her house because she is a senior citizen and has health issues. "It's bad when your skin breaks out and you itch," Ms. Kelso said. "You have to go get water every day to wash dishes and wash up." Sandra Metcalf said the meeting gave her a lot of great information. She not only has rashes, but also lead poisoning. Metcalf said she also has issues getting bottled water into her home. "It's hard for me to tote the water in, and then having to bathe in it," Ms. Metcalf said. "It's affecting a little bit of everything. Trying to deal with getting water in and having water accessible to me and my grandkids." The meeting also allowed residents to speak to the legal team and talk to experts who provided information about testing, nutrition, plumbing, housing issues, along with other important issues. For more information about the lawsuits, visit www.flintwaterclassaction.com FLOYD COUNTY, NY: Jail Strip-Search Class Action Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Depompei, writing for News and Tribune, reports that a U.S. District Court judge in New Albany granted a request on Feb. 16 that makes a lawsuit against the Floyd County Jail a class action case. A lawsuit was filed in June 2014 in which Tabitha Gentry -- who was arrested March 20, 2014, on multiple misdemeanor charges -- claims she was forcibly stripped of her clothes, Tasered and pepper-sprayed while being held in a padded cell for nearly five hours. She and six other plaintiffs who were held in padded cells claim that punishment by jail officers during their incarceration violated their constitutional rights. The other plaintiffs are: Vincent Minton, Michael Herron, Adam Walker, Brian Burgess, Anna Chastain and Janelle South. With Chief Judge Richard Young's order to make the lawsuit a class-action case, those seven plaintiffs now represent "all inmates confined from June 12, 2013, to present in the Floyd County jail who were not on a suicide watch, but were housed in a padded cell where they were deprived of clothing, bedding and hygiene products." Also included in the lawsuit are "those class members who were subjected to weapons deployment while confined and secured in the padded cells." The defendants named in the lawsuit are former Floyd County Sheriff Darrell Mills and officers who were employed by the sheriff's department at the time of the alleged incidents. In the defense's response to a request for class-action status, Jeffrey Lowe, the attorney representing Floyd County, said the lawsuit should not be certified as class action because the court would have to decide whether each plaintiff and potential class member was wrongfully punished on an individual basis. The response, filed in August, further stated that the plaintiff's examples of additional reports allegedly describing similar treatment of other individuals by jail personnel are unfounded. The defense claims that the behavior of the plaintiffs was "deemed to pose a threat to the safety and security" of the jail at the time. Because of the perceived threat, in some cases, "plaintiffs had their clothes removed, were provided a smock to cover them and were placed in a padded cell by [themselves] until the threat was removed." The Floyd County Sheriff's Department's policy on combative subject states that clothing is removed to "prevent the inmate from further harming themselves, other inmates, and or staff." GAONA LANDSCAPING: Faces "Vazquez" Suit for Alleged FLSA Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- ADAN VAZQUEZ v. GAONA LANDSCAPING, INC. and JOSE L. GAONA, Case: 1:16-cv-02162 (N.D.Ill., February 11, 2016), was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Portal to Portal Act, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for Defendants' alleged failure to pay wages and overtime wages to Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated employees. Defendant Gaona Landscaping, Inc. is a landscaping business located in McHenry, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marty Denis, Esq. Bethany Hilbert, Esq. BARLOW, KOBATA & DENIS LLP 525 West Monroe, Suite 2360 Chicago, IL 60661 Phone: (312) 648-5570 GEICO GENERAL: "Milligan" Suit Seeks to Recover Damages and Costs ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lorena M. Milligan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Geico General Insurance Company And CCC Information Services Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00240 (E.D.N.Y., Long Island Division, January 15, 2016), seeks to recover actual, consequential, and punitive damages, equitable and declaratory relief, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under GEICO Policies and New York Law. GEICO General Insurance Company provides personal automobile insurance products. The company operates as a private passenger auto insurer offering various insurance products, including auto and motorcycle insurance; boat insurance; home, apartment, and mobile home insurance; renter's insurance; flood insurance; and personal umbrella protection. It offers its products and services in the United States. GEICO General Insurance Company, Inc. was formerly known as Equi-Gen Insurance Company and changed its name to GEICO General Insurance Company, Inc. in September, 1982. The company was founded in 1934 and is based in Chevy Chase, Maryland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. Marc L. Newman, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: 248-841-2200 E-mail: ssa@millerlawpc.com mln@millerlawpc.com - and - Ari Kresch, Esq. EXCOLO LAW GROUP 26700 Lahser Rd. Southfield, MI 48033-2608 Telephone: (248) 565 2099 GENERAL CHEMICAL: Violated Sherman Act, St. Cloud City Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- City of St. Cloud, Minnesota, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the 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, the Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-00091 (D. Minn., January 15, 2016), seeks to recover damages over the Defendants' violation of the Sherman Act, by conspiring to increase prices and otherwise restrain competition in the market for Alum sold. General Chemical manufactures specialty chemicals. The Company provides refinery and chemical sulfuric acid regeneration services. General Chemical serves the photographic, water treatment and pharmaceutical industries. It is based in Parsippany, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. Charles N. Nauen, Esq. Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq. Brian D. Clark, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339 6900 Facsimile: (612) 339 0981 E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com cnnauen@locklaw.com hmsilton@locklaw.com erodette@locklaw.com bdclark@locklaw.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Joshua J. Rissman, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street #2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333 8844 Facsimile: (612) 339 6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com jrissman@gustafsongluek.com - and - Bruce L. Simon, Esq. Alexander R. Safyan, Esq. PEARSON SIMON WARSHAW LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94104-4610 Telephone: (415) 433 9000 Facsimile: (415) 433 9008 E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com asafyan@pswlaw.com - and - K. Craig Wildfang, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 800 LaSalle Ave., Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 349 8500 Facsimile: (612) 339 4181 E-mail: KCWildfang@RobinsKaplan.com GEORGIA: Dept. of Driver Services Faces Suit Over Denied License ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kapil Sethi, Ignacio Blanco Sola, Jyotsnaben Patel, Indira Nursalim, Munira Nasser, Badrudduza Nasser, Shree Sravanirachakulla, Mohamed L. Camara v. Robert Mikell Commissioner of Georgia Department of Driver Services, Case No. 2016CV269936 (Ga. Super. Ct., January 6, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide a basis for the denial of the Petitioner's application for a driver's license. Robert Mikell is the Commissioner of Georgia Department of Driver Services. Georgia Department of Driver Services serves the public by offering commercial and regular passenger vehicle driver's licenses and driver's permits. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin W. Chaney, Esq. JUSTIN W. CHANEY, LLC 1801 Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 110 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (678) 592-5432 Facsimile: (678) 686-8473 E-mail: jchaney@lawchaney.com GERDES WHOLESALE: "Cabrajal" Suit Asserts FLSA & IMWL Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gabriel Flores Cabrajal, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, v. Gerdes Wholesale Nursery, Inc., and Jason Gerdes, individually the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-50007 (N.D. Ill., Western Division, January 15, 2016), seeks to recover liquidated damages, unpaid back wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Gerdes Wholesale Nursery is a wholesale nursery stock provider, growing a variety of plants and trees, as well as purchasing a variety of other plants and trees from other growers and nurseries, and then selling them to clients throughout the United States and Mexico. The Plaintiff is represented by: John W. Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd. Suite 840 Chicago, IL, 60604 Telephone: (312) 853 1450 - and - Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq. FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 784 3541 GOLDEN STATE: "Parson" Sues Over Denied Breaks, Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ David Parson and Brandon Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, and Mariah Gullat as an individual, Plaintiffs, v. Golden State FC LLC, Amazon.com, Inc., Trueblue Inc., SMX, and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG15797524 (Cal. Super., Alameda County, December 22, 2015), seeks penalties, damages and injunction resulting from unlawful denial of rest breaks, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide accurate pay stubs in Violation of Labor Code 226, Unfair Business Practices in Violation of Business and Professions Code 17200, violation of Labor Code Sec. 203 (Waiting Times). Defendants engaged in the business of selling merchandise via an online catalog and fulfilling orders at multiple large warehouses referred to as "fulfillment centers" from which customer orders were mailed or otherwise shipped to consumers. Plaintiffs worked in such warehouses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq. Joshua H. Watson, Esq. John T. Stralen, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, APC 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Tel: (916) 777-7777 Fax: (916) 924-1829 Email: jwatson@justice4you.com GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Faces "Sain" Suit Over Deceptive Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Darrell Sain, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Ronnie Greathouse, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Goodman Manufacturing Co., L.P., Goodman Company, L.P., and Goodman Global, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-04006-SOH (W.D. Ark., January 15, 2016), seeks damages and relief for Goodman's unfair and unconscionable conduct of failing to disclose evaporator coil defect in Goodman Units pursuant to the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Defendant also allegedly failed to compensate consumers for the service and labor costs they were forced to incur to hire HVAC technicians to diagnose and repair the units. Goodman Manufacturing Company designs, manufactures, and markets air conditioning and heating equipment. It offers residential and light commercial air conditioning, heating, and indoor air quality products and systems. The company also provides residential products, such as air conditioners, heat pumps, gas furnaces, packaged units, controls and thermostats, indoor air quality products, air handlers and coils, and mini-split systems. It offers its products through a network of distributors and independent installers in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1975 and is based in Houston, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Chad Trammell, Esq. Virginia C. Trammell, Esq. Melody H. Piazza, Esq. TRAMMELL PIAZZA LAW FIRM, PLLC 418 North State Line Avenue Texarkana, AR 71854 Telephone: (870) 779 1860 Facsimile: (870) 779 1861 E-mail: chad@trammellpiazza.com vctramrnell@hotrnail.com - and - Jim Wyly, Esq. Sean F. Rommel, Esq. WYLY-ROMMEL, PLLC 4004 Texas Boulevard Texarkana, TX 75503 Telephone: (903) 334-8646 Facsimile: (903) 334-8645 E-mail: wyly@wylyyrommel.com srommel@wylyrommel.com - and - Eric T. Bishop, Esq. BISHOP & BISHOP P.O. Box 609 171 W. Main Ashdown, AR 71822 E-mail: bishop-thad@sbcglobal.net H&O INVESTMENTS: "Molina" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Molina, Mauricio Hernandez, Constantino Avila, Gabriel Gutierrez and Wilson Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. H & O Investments LLC, H & O Equipment LLC, d/b/a H & O Lawn 360, David Mahler Jr., Karen Stirling, Randall Gomez, Rick Summers and Roy H. Maughan Jr., jointly and severally, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00377 (E.D. La., January 15, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. H & O Investments is an active Louisiana Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business at Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385 9700 - and - Marco Balducci, Esq. PELTON + BALDUCCI, LLC 1100 Poydras St., Ste. 2725 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 708 5400 HAIN CELESTIAL: $9.35MM Settlement in False Ad Suit Wins Final OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler entered an Order Approving Class- Action Settlement, Dismissing Case, And Entering Final Judgment in the case, ROSMINAH BROWN and ERIC LOHELA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, No. 3:11-cv-03082-LB (N.D. Cal.). The court finds the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable and approves the final settlement, including fees, costs, and the incentive awards to the named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs Rosminah Brown and Eric Lohela bought Avalon Organics(R) and JASON(R) brand cosmetic products that are manufactured and marketed by the defendant The Hain Celestial Group and then -- on behalf of themselves and other consumers -- sued Hain complaining that Hain falsely advertised, marketed, sold, and labeled these and other products as organic, in violation of 1) the California Organic Products Act of 2003 ("COPA"), Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 110810, et seq., 2) the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200 et seq., 3) the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1750, et seq., and 4) the California Commercial Code provision regarding express warranties, Cal. Com. Code Sec. 2313. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that on May 11, 2011, Rosminah Brown, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, as well as a non-profit organization, filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County against the Company. The complaint alleged that the labels of certain Avalon Organics(R) brand and JASON(R) brand personal care products used prior to the Company's implementation of ANSI/NSF-305 certification in mid-2011 violated certain California statutes. Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The action was consolidated with a subsequently-filed putative class action containing substantially identical allegations concerning only the JASON(R) brand personal care products. The consolidated actions sought an award for damages, injunctive relief, costs, expenses and attorney's fees. The court previously certified two classes. In July 2015, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle the class action. Hain will pay: -- $7.5 million cash and -- $1.85 million in coupons (plus $150,000 in redemption costs) redeemable for the two cosmetic-product brands at issue in the litigation: Avalon Organics(R) and JASON(R). In connection with the proposed settlement, the Company recorded a charge of $5,725,000 in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2015 (a separate charge of $1,975,000 was recorded in prior years). The parties finalized the settlement and the court granted preliminary approval in October 2015. The Court held a fairness hearing on February 11, 2016. A copy of the February 17, 2016 Settlement Approval Order is available at http://is.gd/vJv39hfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs are represented by: Lisa Margaret Burger, Esq. Howard Judd Hirsch, Esq. Mark N. Todzo, Esq. LEXINGTON LAW GROUP 503 Divisadero Street San Francisco, CA 94117 Tel: 415 913-7800 Fax: 415 759-4112 - and - Amir David Benakote, Esq. Behram Viraf Parekh, Esq. Heather Baker Dobbs, Esq. Michael Louis Kelly, Esq. KIRTLAND AND PACKARD 2041 Rosecrans Ave El Segundo, CA 90245 Tel: 310-536-1000 E-mail: adb@kirtlandpackard.com bvp@kirtlandpackard.com hmb@kirtlandpackard.com mlk@kirtlandpackard.com The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, is represented by: William Lewis Stern, Esq. Alexandra Eve Laks, Esq. Claudia Maria Vetesi, Esq. James M. Schurz, Esq. Kathleen Brenna Roney, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Tel: (415) 268-7637 E-mail: wstern@mofo.com alaks@mofo.com cvetesi@mofo.com jschurz@mofo.com kroney@mofo.com Steven Helfand, Defendant, represented by: Steven F. Helfand, Esq. HELFAND LAW OFFICES 582 Market Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 E-mail: steven@stevenhelfand.com QAI, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Robert Laurence Rosenthal, Attorney at Law. NSF International, Interested Party, represented by Robert Laurence Rosenthal, Attorney at Law. Sheri Lee Williams, Objector, represented by Bradley David Salter, Attorney at Law. Dawn Weaver, Objector, represented by Joseph Darrell Palmer. HALLIBURTON CO: 5th Cir. to Hear Appeal on Certification Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Halliburton Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has granted the Company's petition to appeal a district court ruling in a securities class action lawsuit. "In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against us in federal court alleging violations of the federal securities laws after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated an investigation in connection with our change in accounting for revenue on long-term construction projects and related disclosures," the Company said. "In the weeks that followed, approximately twenty similar class actions were filed against us. Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants several of our present or former officers and directors. The class action cases were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint, styled Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and served upon us in April 2003. As a result of a substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case was styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al. AMSF has changed its name to Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (the Fund). We settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004." "In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the court. In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint included claims arising out of our 1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc., including that we failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure. "In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named the Fund the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third consolidated amended complaint and that we file our motion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in August 2005. In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other claims while permitting the Fund to re-plead some of those claims to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint. "In April 2006, the Fund filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint. We filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that had been re-pled. A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other than our Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The court ordered that the case proceed against our CEO and us. "In September 2007, the Fund filed a motion for class certification, and our response was filed in November 2007. The district court issued an order in November 2008 denying the motion for class certification. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying class certification. "In June 2011, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit ruling that the Fund needed to prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification and the case was returned to the lower courts for further consideration. "In January 2012, the district court issued an order certifying the class. In April 2013, the Fifth Circuit issued an order affirming the district court's order. "Our writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court was granted and in June 2014 the Supreme Court issued its decision, maintaining the presumption of class member reliance through the "fraud on the market" theory, but holding that we are entitled to rebut that presumption by presenting evidence that there was no impact on our stock price from the alleged misrepresentation. Because the district court and the Fifth Circuit denied us that opportunity, the Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court decision. "In December 2014, the district court held a hearing to consider whether there was an impact on our stock price from the alleged misrepresentations. On July 27, 2015, the district court denied certification for the plaintiff class with respect to five of the six dates upon which the plaintiffs claimed that disclosures correcting previously misleading statements had been made that resulted in an impact to the stock price. However, the district court certified the class with respect to a disclosure made on December 7, 2001 regarding an adverse jury verdict in an asbestos case that plaintiffs alleged was corrective, leaving the allegation relating to disclosure of the asbestos liability exposure as the only remaining punitive class action claim. The ruling was based on the district court's conclusion that the court was required to assume at class certification that a disclosure was actually corrective. "We do not agree with that conclusion and filed a petition with the Fifth Circuit seeking to appeal the ruling. On November 4, 2015, the Fifth Circuit granted our petition to appeal the district court's ruling. The case will now be fully briefed and argued before the Fifth Circuit. We cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case, which we intend to vigorously defend." HAWKINS INC: Dismissed as Defendant in Antitrust Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- Hawkins, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 27, 2015, that the Company has been dismissed as defendant in several civil antitrust class action lawsuits. During the end of the third fiscal quarter and the beginning of the fourth fiscal quarter, the Company was named as a defendant in several civil antitrust class action lawsuits filed in the federal District Court in Minnesota. These cases appear to have arisen out of a series of recent federal criminal and civil lawsuits in New Jersey alleging price fixing or bid rigging among manufacturers of aluminum sulfate, or alum. The lawsuits erroneously alleged that Hawkins manufactures alum even though we are only a distributor. Accordingly, after working with the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the various lawsuits, the Company was dismissed as a defendant in each of the lawsuits in February 2016. HEALTHPORT TECH: Removes Class Action Over Medical Record Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison Record, reports that a health records company removed a Belleville attorney's class action lawsuit alleging it charges unauthorized fees in Illinois and Missouri. HealthPort Technologies filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Jan. 11 through attorneys Jena Valdetero and Jonathan Potts of Bryan Cave LLP in Chicago. The Law Office of Brent Gaines, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed the lawsuit on Nov. 16 against Healthport Technologies. According to the complaint, Healthport Technologies contracts with doctors and hospitals throughout the country to fulfill requests for medical records. However, the suit alleges the defendant is charging unnecessary fees. In Illinois, Mr. Gaines alleges the defendant charges $20 for copying medical records when there is actually no copying done. Similarly, in Missouri, Gaines claims the defendant charges $22.82 to search and retrieve records when it isn't actually retrieving anything. The suit alleges the fees violate both states' laws. As an example, the plaintiff explained that he sent a letter to the defendant requesting copies of a client's medical records but the defendant said there were no records for the dates indicated, meaning no copying was performed. But the plaintiff still received a bill for the $20 fee. He alleges a similar situation occurred in Missouri. The plaintiff seeks certification of the proposed class, declaration that the defendant has violated the law, statutory, punitive and monetary damages, monetary relief, court costs and attorney's fees. Mr. Gaines is represented by Brian T. Kreisler of The Kreisler Law Firm in O'Fallon, Michael R. Reese and George V. Granade of Reese LLC in New York City, and Melissa W. Wolchansky -- wolchansky@halunenlaw.com -- of Halunen Law of Minneapolis. St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 15-L-651 HF FINANCIAL: Defending "Stein" Class Suit in South Dakota ---------------------------------------------------------- HF Financial Corp. is defending a class action lawsuit by Shiva Y. Stein, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015. On December 14, 2015, Shiva Y. Stein, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a putative class action and derivative complaint against the Company, each of the members of the Company's Board of Directors and Great Western in the Circuit Court of Minnehaha County, South Dakota, purportedly on behalf of the public stockholders of the Company. The complaint asserts that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by purportedly failing to take adequate steps to enhance the Company's stockholder value as a merger candidate and by not acting independently to protect the interests of the Company's stockholders. The complaint further asserts that the Company and Great Western aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff seeks (i) a declaration that the action may be maintained as a class action; (ii) injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the Merger; (iii) in the event the Merger is consummated, rescission of the transaction or rescissionary damages; (iv) an order directing the defendants to account to the plaintiff for damages because of alleged wrongdoing; (v) an award to plaintiff of costs and disbursements including attorneys' and experts' fees; and (vi) other relief as may be just and proper. The Company believes these claims are without merit, and are vigorously defending this action. The Company cannot predict the outcome of or estimate the possible loss or range of loss from these matters. HILTON WORLDWIDE: Faces "Elder" Suit for Breach of Contract ----------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Elder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc. and Hilton Grand Vacations Company, Inc. the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00278-LB (N.D. Cal., January 15, 2016), seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief, pursuant to the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Unfair Competition Law, and California False Advertising Law. The Plaintiff asserts breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment against the Defendants. Hilton Worldwide Holdings, a hospitality company, owns, leases, manages, develops, and franchises hotels, resorts, and timeshare properties worldwide. The company operates hotels under the Hilton Hotels & Resorts, Waldorf Astoria Hotels & Resorts, Conrad Hotels & Resorts, Canopy by Hilton, Curio - A Collection by Hilton, DoubleTree by Hilton, Embassy Suites by Hilton, Hilton Garden Inn, Hampton by Hilton, Homewood Suites by Hilton, Home2 Suites by Hilton, and Hilton Grand Vacations brands. As of October 28, 2015, it had approximately 4,500 managed, franchised, owned, and leased hotels and timeshare properties with approximately 745,000 rooms in 97 countries and territories. The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Julia A. Luster, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300 4455 Facsimile: (925) 407 2700 E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jluster@bursor.com - and - Jana Eisinger, Esq. MARTINEZ LAW GROUP 720 South Colorado Boulevard South Tower, Suite 1020 Denver, CO 80246 Telephone: (303) 597 4000 Facsimile: (303) 597 4001 E-Mail: eisinger@mlgrouppc.com II-VI INCORPORATED: To Defend Against Anadigics Merger Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- II-VI Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is aware of a class action complaint captioned Wes Zalewski v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., filed on January 27, 2016 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County (the "Zalewski Litigation"), which is related to the Company's proposed acquisition of Anadigics, Inc. ("Anadigics") by means of a tender offer and second-step merger. In the Zalewski Litigation, the plaintiff, a stockholder in Anadigics, generally alleges, among other things, that the members of Anadigics's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to Anadigics's shareholders, putting the board of directors' personal interests ahead of the interests of Anadigics, using allegedly unfair deal protection devices, and having an unfair and inadequate process in negotiating the tender offer and the merger. The plaintiff also has named the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Regulus Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Purchaser"), as defendants in the complaint, alleging that both Purchaser and II- VI aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty by the Anadigics board of directors. The plaintiff in the Zalewski Litigation generally seeks, among other relief, declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the proposed tender offer and merger, rescission of the proposed tender offer and merger if consummated prior to final judgment, attorneys' fees and expenses, and other forms of relief. Purchaser and II-VI are reviewing the allegations in the Zalewski Litigation, but believe the Zalewski Litigation is without merit and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations. The Company does not believe that a material loss related to this claim is reasonably possible. II-VI Incorporated, a worldwide leader in engineered materials and opto-electronic components, is a vertically integrated manufacturing company that develops innovative products for diversified applications in the industrial, optical communications, military, life sciences, semiconductor equipment, and consumer markets. The Company produces a wide variety of application-specific photonic and electronic materials and components, and deploys them in various forms, including as integrated with advanced software. INSYS THERAPEUTICS: April 4 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on Feb. 16 disclosed that class action litigation has been brought on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Insys Therapeutics, Inc. ("Insys" or the "Company") between March 3, 2015 and January 25, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased or acquired Insys common stock during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than April 4, 2016. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the action will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. Insys investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541- 7358. Background on the Insys Securities Class Litigation Insys is a commercial-stage specialty pharmaceutical company that develops and commercializes supportive care products. Insys's core product, Subsys, is a sublingual fentanyl spray approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the "FDA") to treat breakthrough cancer pain. The action alleges that during the Class Period, Insys and certain of its senior executives misrepresented and failed to disclose that Insys was engaged in off-label marketing of Subsys, that certain Insys employees were complicit in an illegal kickback scheme pursuant to which Insys paid millions of dollars to medical professionals in exchange for prescribing Subsys to patients, and, as a result of the foregoing, Insys's financial results and guidance were materially false and misleading. On April 24, 2015, the Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation ("SIRF") reported an increasing number of patient deaths from off- label uses of Subsys. Following this article, the price of Insys stock fell $6.00 per share, or nearly 10%, to close at $56.42 per share on the next trading day, April 27, 2015. On May 20, 2015, two top prescribers of Subsys were reportedly arrested by federal authorities and charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice and to commit healthcare fraud. Following this news, Insys stock price fell $2.65 per share, or more than 4%, from its close on to close at $57.12 on May 20, 2015. On June 25, 2015, The New York Times reported that a nurse who was a top prescriber of Subsys pled guilty to federal charges of accepting kickbacks from Insys. On this news, Insys's stock price fell another $3.00 per share, or nearly 8%, from its closing price on June 24, 2015, to close at $35.74. On December 3, 2015, SIRF reported that Insys's prior authorization unit routinely changed insurance codes for patients' diagnoses to ones for "cancer" and engaged in other misconduct to deceive insurers. Following this news, Insys stock price fell another $5.93 per share, or nearly 19%, to close at $26.06 on December 3, 2015. On January 25, 2016, SIRF reported that Insys executives have continued to pressure the Company's employees to develop new schemes to promote Subsys for off-label uses. On this news, Insys stock price fell another $1.07 per share, or more than 4%, from its close on January 24, 2016, to close at $21.58 on January 25, 2016. About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Seattle, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for thirteen years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity." Best Lawyers and U.S. News have named Lieff Cabraser as a "Law Firm of the Year" for each year the publications have given this award to law firms. ISORAY INC: April 21 Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss ------------------------------------------------------- IsoRay, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that oral argument is scheduled on this motion on April 21, 2016, on IsoRay's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit. On May 22, 2015, the first of three lawsuits was filed against IsoRay, Inc. and two of its officers -- Dwight Babcock and Brien Ragle -- related to a press release on May 20, 2015 regarding a May 19 online publication of the peer-reviewed article in the journal Brachytherapy titled "Analysis of Stereotactic Radiation vs. Wedge Resection vs. Wedge Resection Plus Cesium-131 Brachytherapy in Early-Stage Lung Cancer" by Dr. Bhupesh Parashar, et al. The lawsuits are class actions alleging violations of the federal securities laws. By Order dated August 17, 2015, all of the pending lawsuits were consolidated into one case -- In re IsoRay, Inc. Securities Litigation; Case No. 4:15-cv-05046-LRS, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. IsoRay retained Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati as its and its officers' defense counsel. On October 16, 2015, an amended complaint was filed with more detailed allegations relating to violations of federal securities laws and requesting damages through a jury trial. Mr. Ragle was dismissed from the complaint. On December 15, 2015, IsoRay filed a motion to dismiss the complaint altogether. Oral argument is scheduled on this motion on April 21, 2016. IsoRay believes the lawsuit is without merit and is seeking its dismissal. IsoRay, Inc. is a brachytherapy device manufacturer with FDA clearance and CE marking for two medical devices that can be delivered to the physician in multiple configurations as prescribed. The Company manufactures and sells these products as the Proxcelan(R) Cesium-131 brachytherapy seed and the GliaSite(R) Radiation Therapy System (GliaSite(R) RTS). Each brachytherapy seed order is manufactured to the physician's specifications for a named patient on a specific treatment date. The GliaSite(R) RTS utilizes a balloon catheter system, which allows the physician to later place a specified dose of radioisotope (either Cesitrex(R) or Iotrex(R) solution) in the treatment location. JNP BUS: Violated FLSA, New York Labor Law, "Xu" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Xi Qun Xu and Yi Di Xue, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JNP Bus Service Inc., Taos Global Group Inc., Xiao Long Chen, Wen Liang Wu, Pei Gen Tao, John Does and Jane Does No. 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00245 (E.D.N.Y., January 15, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. The Plaintiffs also seek damages for illegal termination of up to $5,000 per Plaintiff; up to $5,000 per Plaintiff for Defendants failure to provide a paystub that lists employee's name, employer's name, employer's address and telephone number, employee's rate or rates of pay, any deductions made from employee's wages, any allowances claimed as part of the minimum wage, and employees gross and net wages for each pay day; liquidated damages equal to the sum of unpaid minimum wage, unpaid "spread of hours" premium, unpaid overtime pursuant to the NY Wage Theft Prevention Act; and prejudgment and post-judgment interest. JNP Bus Service owns and operates a garage that services and repairs buses in Brooklyn, NY located at Clinton Street, Brooklyn, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC. 136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353 8588 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com KELLOGG, BROWN: Veterans File Class Action over Toxic Burn Pits --------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Hickman, writing for Vice News, reports that at the start of America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, military commanders were faced with a seemingly mundane problem: how to dispose of the wreckage created by bombs and battle, and the waste created by more than 100,000 military personnel. This soon became a serious issue -- every soldier was said to be producing an average of 10 pounds of trash per day -- and the DOD decided to construct open- air burn pits on military bases to incinerate the trash. The Pentagon contracted the firm Kellogg, Brown, and Root (KBR) to get the job done, and by May of 2003, there were more than 270 burn pits operating on military bases across Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of the pits were massive -- some as large as 10 acres, burning more than 50 tons of trash a day. Most pits operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in close proximity to where service members slept and worked. The acrid smoke and ash from the pits was a constant annoyance to soldiers. From 2002 until 2009, there was no regulation for what could or could not be burned. And so KBR burned Styrofoam, plastics, tires, pesticide containers, batteries, medical waste, and even human body parts. According to a 2010 Government Accountability Report, more than 1,000 known toxins and carcinogens were burned in the pits. As early as 2004, US veterans returning home from the wars began to get sick. Their symptoms often started out as annoyances -- constant congestion, endlessly runny noses. But the symptoms didn't always go away; instead, they would get worse, leading to shortness of breath, constant pain, and an inability to work. For the sickest vets, there were diagnoses of cancer. And, eventually, death. Thousands of men and women were getting sick because of their exposure to the burn pits; over the past few years, Mr. Hickman have poken with about 150 of them. The Department of Defense (DOD), however, denied the burn pits were a health hazard, blocked veterans from getting the medical assistance and compensation they needed, and shielded KBR. Military service members started to become ill with rare and mysterious bronchial diseases and cancers. These veterans -- the vast majority of whom were completely healthy before deploying -- came to believe their illnesses were caused from their exposure to the burn pits, but when they sought treatment at Veteran's Administration (VA) hospitals and filed for disability benefits, the DOD denied that the pits were a hazard, and the VA sided with the DOD. Almost every veteran who sought benefits based on exposure to burn pits had his or her claim denied. It is hard to prove a war injury not created by a bullet or grenade. Veterans decided to take legal action. Because of a federal law known as the Farris Doctrine, military members and veterans cannot sue the Pentagon for compensation for injury or death. So many veterans decided to join a class-action lawsuit and sue KBR, alleging that the contractor knew it had constructed the burn pits too close to where soldiers were housed and knew that what was being burned was hazardous. KBR, however, claims that the military chose both the locations of the burn pits and the makeup of what was burned. The DOD is staying silent on the issue, neither agreeing nor disagreeing with KBR. Many lawyers I interviewed who are familiar with the case believe this is a coordinated legal strategy; it creates a legal limbo in which no one can seemingly be held accountable. Fourteen years after the wars began, there are tens of thousands of veterans who are still sick. Many of them are dying from what they believe was their exposure to the burn pits. Very few have received benefits from the VA for their illnesses. Many are so sick they can't work and are going broke. DOD officials have done nothing to help them. A clear pattern has emerged regarding these illnesses, and the VA should acknowledge that pattern and take action. The DOD must take responsibility and stop denying its involvement in creating the burn pits, admitting there were health hazards associated with exposure. And KBR must provide compensation to sick veterans. It is what's owed to the service members who selflessly went to war on behalf of the United States. KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN: "Restivo" Files Suit Over Acorn Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- John Restivo, 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, Jos‚ 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. 11840 (Del. Ch., December 23, 2015), seeks damages, attorney's fees and equitable relief for breach of fiduciary duties. According to the complaint, Acorn Holdings would acquire all of the outstanding shares of Keurig in a merger. The Board agreed to certain onerous deals in favor of Acorn that are generally unfavorable to the stockholders. John Restivo 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 - Evan J. Smith, Esq. Marc Ackerman, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 2 Bala Plaza, Suite 510 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Tel: (610) 667-6200 KLA-TENCOR CORP: MOU Reached to Settle Lam Research Merger Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- KLA-Tencor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a memorandum of understanding has been reached to settle litigation relating to the Merger Agreement between KLA and Lam Research Corporation ("Lam"). Certain legal actions against KLA, the members of the KLA board of directors (the "KLA Board"), Lam, Topeka Merger Sub 1, Inc. ("Merger Sub 1"), and Topeka Merger Sub 2, Inc. ("Merger Sub 2") were brought in connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated October 20, 2015, by and among Lam, KLA, Merger Sub 1, and Merger Sub 2 (the "Merger Agreement"). These legal actions consist of (i) the action captioned Rooney v. Wallace, et al., Case No. 11700, pending in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware (the "Rooney Action"), (ii) the action captioned Hedgecock v. KLA-Tencor Corp., et al., Case No. 115CV287329, pending in the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County (the "Hedgecock Action"), (iii) the action captioned Karr v. KLA-Tencor Corp., et al., Case No. 115CV287331, pending in the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County (the "Karr Action"), and (iv) the action captioned Spoleto Corp. v. Wallace, et al., Case No. 115CV289552, pending in the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County (the "Spoleto Action," and together with the Rooney Action, the Hedgecock Action, and the Karr Action, the "Actions"). The Hedgecock Action and the Karr Action were brought in October 2015; the Rooney Action was brought in November 2015; and the Spoleto Action was brought in December 2015. Each of the Actions challenges the proposed sale of KLA to Lam as a putative class action filed on behalf of KLA's stockholders. The Actions collectively allege that (i) the KLA Board breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, causing KLA to agree to a merger transaction with Lam, Merger Sub 1, and Merger Sub 2 (the "Lam Group") at an unfair price and pursuant to an unfair process, and making disclosures concerning the transaction that are materially misleading, and (ii) KLA and the Lam Group aided and abetted such breaches. The plaintiffs in each of the Actions seek to enjoin or rescind KLA's transaction with the Lam Group, as applicable, as well as an award of damages and attorney's fees, in addition to other relief. Agreement in Principle to Resolve Merger-Related Litigation On February 5, 2016, an agreement in principle was reached with the plaintiffs in the Rooney Action, Hedgecock Action, and Spoleto Action to settle those actions. Pursuant to the agreement in principle, as set forth in a signed memorandum of understanding, the parties agreed to resolve disputed legal claims and KLA and Lam agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures regarding the proposed merger of KLA with and into a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lam, whereby KLA will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lam, as set forth in this Current Report on Form 8-K. None of the defendants in the Actions has admitted wrongdoing of any kind, including that there were any inadequacies in any disclosure, any breach of any fiduciary duty or aiding or abetting any of the foregoing. The agreement in principle is expected to be further memorialized in a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to customary terms and conditions, including court approval, and will include an agreement by the plaintiffs, on behalf of a class of KLA stockholders, to provide a release of claims of KLA stockholders against KLA, Lam, Merger Sub 1, Merger Sub 2, and their respective officers and directors. The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid to stockholders of KLA in connection with the acquisition of KLA by Lam or the timing of the special meetings of the stockholders of KLA and Lam. This Current Report on Form 8-K should be read in conjunction with the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus. Plaintiff in the Karr Action has agreed to either dismiss his action or join the memorandum of understanding through an amendment thereto, by February 9, 2016. The proposed settlement is conditioned on the dismissal of the Karr Action, whether by plaintiff Karr individually or through plaintiff Karr joining the memorandum of understanding. KOENIG'S INC: Owners Face "Velasquez" Suit Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Juan Velasquez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. William Fitzgerald, Lori Fitzgerald and John Does 1-3. Defendants, Case No. 16-009018-AB (N.Y. Sup., Nassau County, October 14, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime, spread of hours and uniform maintenance compensation with corresponding liquidated damages under the New York Labor Law, liquidated damages as a result of failure to furnish a notice at the time of hiring, correct wage statements, failure maintain records, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and further equitable relief under the New York Labor Law. Defendants own and operate Koenig's Restaurant Corp., a New York Corporation with principal place of business at 86 South Tyson Avenue, Floral Park, New York 11001. Velasquez worked as a cook at Koenig's. He claims to have worked in excess of forty hours a week, without compensation for the overtime hours rendered. He typically worked more than ten hours each day during the week, without being paid spread of hours wages. He also never received wage statements. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marous Monteiro, Esq. MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP 91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108 Hempstead, NY 11550 Tel: (516) 280-4600 Fax: (516) 280-4530 Email: mmonteiro@mflawny.com LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: March 24 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss ----------------------------------------------------------- LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that a court is scheduled to hear the motion to dismiss the amended complaint the federal securities class action on March 24, 2016. A consolidated securities class action captioned In re LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-CV-00347- EMC, is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against LeapFrog and two of its officers, John Barbour and Raymond L. Arthur (the "Class Action"). The consolidated complaint, filed on June 24, 2015, alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or misleading statements regarding the Company's financial projections, financial results, and development of new products between May 5, 2014 and June 11, 2015. The complaint also alleges that defendants are liable as control- person under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Based on a review of the allegations, the Company and the individual defendants believe that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. A hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss was held on October 8, 2015. At the hearing on the defendants' motions to dismiss, the Court stated that it perceived significant problems with the plaintiff's allegations and directed the plaintiff to file a further amended complaint that pleads more particularized facts. The amended complaint was filed on December 4, 2015. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on January 15, 2016. The Court is scheduled to hear the Company's motion to dismiss on March 24, 2016. LEAR CORP: Settlement with End-Payor Purchasers Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Lear Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a settlement agreement between the Company and the class of end-payor purchasers of automotive wire harnesses remains subject to the final court approval. Beginning on October 5, 2011, several plaintiffs filed putative class action complaints in several United States federal district courts against the Company and several other global suppliers of automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and related laws. Plaintiffs purport to be direct and indirect purchasers of automotive wire harnesses supplied by the Company and/or the other defendants during the relevant period. The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to fix prices at which automotive wire harnesses were sold and that this had an anticompetitive effect upon interstate commerce in the United States. The complaints further allege that defendants fraudulently concealed their alleged conspiracy. The plaintiffs in these proceedings seek injunctive relief and recovery of an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs and expenses relating to the proceedings, including attorneys' fees. On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an order transferring and coordinating the various civil actions (the "Consolidated Cases"), for pretrial purposes, into one proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the "District Court"). In order to avoid the costs and distraction of continuing to litigate the Consolidated Cases, the Company entered into settlement agreements with the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Cases on May 5, 2014 (the "Settlement Agreements"), under which the class plaintiffs in the Consolidated Cases will release the Company from all claims, demands, actions, suits and causes of action. The Settlement Agreements contain no admission by the Company of any wrongdoing, and the Company maintains that it violated no laws in connection with these matters. Because the conduct alleged by the class plaintiffs overwhelmingly relates to periods prior to the Company's emergence from bankruptcy proceedings in 2009, the Settlement Agreements provide that the aggregate settlement amount of $8.75 million will consist of $370,263 in cash contributed by the Company with the remainder paid in outstanding common stock and warrants of the Company held in the bankruptcy reserve established under the Company's plan of reorganization. The Settlement Agreements were approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on May 27, 2014, and preliminarily approved, on the record in open court, by the District Court on July 1, 2014. The Settlement Agreement between the Company and the class of direct purchasers received the final approval of the District Court on December 3, 2014. The Settlement Agreement between the Company and the class of auto dealers received the final approval of the District Court on December 7, 2015. The Settlement Agreement between the Company and the class of end-payor purchasers remains subject to the final approval of the District Court, which will be decided following the provision of notice to purported class members and a hearing to confirm the fairness of the settlement. Lear Corporation is a leading Tier 1 supplier to the global automotive industry. Lear supplies seating, electrical distribution systems and electronic modules, as well as related sub-systems, components and software, to virtually every major automotive manufacturer in the world. LET THERE BE BAGELS: "Amon" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Recovery ------------------------------------------------------------ Victor Amon, on behalf of himself, Plaintiff, v. Let There Be Bagels PW, Inc., Yuriy Murgat, Worn Simon and Simon Varon, Defendants, Case No. CV-0094 (E.D.N.Y., January 8, 2016), seeks an injunction, award of unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated and/or punitive damages for failure to pay overtime compensation and minimum wage, statutory penalties and prejudgment, and other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Amon was hired by the Defendants to work in the kitchen for Defendants' bakery located at 475 Port Washington Blvd., Port Washington, New York 11050 as a salad preparer, stock person and dishwasher. He claims to have rendered in excess of 40 hours per workweek without overtime compensation. Let There Be Bagels PW, Inc., is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of New York, with a principal place of business located at 475 Port Washington Blvd., Port Washington, New York 11050 with Yuriy Murgat is owner and Principal. 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 LIVANOVA PLC: Faces Class Action Over Heater-Cooler Device ---------------------------------------------------------- Heather Stauffer, writing for Lancaster Online, reports that some patients who may have been exposed to potentially deadly infection during open-heart surgeries at two regional hospitals have filed a class-action lawsuit seeking aggregate damages in excess of $5 million. Two York County residents have filed the lawsuit in federal court against LivaNova PLC, which is based in Italy and manufactures the heater-cooler device used in the surgeries. The class-action lawsuit was filed by Philadelphia-based firm Anapol Weiss on behalf of the York County residents and others like them who had open-heart surgery at either WellSpan Health York Hospital or Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center. The lawsuit says the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has linked the infection risk to the device. WellSpan reported in October that about 1,300 patients who had open-heart surgeries at their York Hospital between Oct. 1, 2011, and July 24, 2015, may have been exposed to the infection -- and that the infection was likely a contributing factor in four deaths. Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center made a similar report in November, saying that about 2,300 patients who had open-heart surgery there between Nov. 5, 2011, and Nov. 5, 2015, may have been affected. The hospitals are offering free screening and treatment to exposed individuals, but the lawsuit says it is unknown how long that will last. The plaintiffs are seeking to have the devices declared unsafe and LivaNova held responsible for the cost of monitoring the patients. Both hospitals said they have now replaced all of the devices, but the plaintiffs say that other hospitals in Pennsylvania continue to use them. LivaNova has issued revised cleaning and disinfecting protocols for the device, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has asked hospitals to follow them. Lancaster County hospitals said they have not uncovered instances of the infection and follow the new cleaning and disinfecting procedures for the device. LOS ANGELES, CA: LA Fire Dept Employees Files Wage and Hour Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Clifford R. Anderson, Marvin D. Anderson, Eugene M. Andrews, Humberto Aponte, John R. Arce, Martin O. Avila, Alan K. Babin, John T. Benn, Ruthie Bernal, Jennifer Boscoe, Mark S. Chase, Braxton Clark, Dennis Clay, Dennis A. Clemons, Shawn Connolly, Nicolas R. Cruz, John I. Dallas Jr., Shawn L. Dean, Federico G. Delavega Jr., Daniel Delgadillo, James Fisher, Benjamin Flores, Carlos Gallegos, Frank Godoy, Kenneth F. Guardado, Martin, Gutierrez, Sir R. Habersham IV, Brian Halley, Kwante L. Hampton, Craig P. Hancock, Reynaldo Husband, Leon Jones, Paul Jordan, Cynthia Josselyn, Rickey King, Marcus D. Law, Lee Lewis, Marcus A. Lidy, Derricke Lockhart, Glenn Martinez, Oscar Martinez, Lance V. Matthews, Eric V. McGlover, Kenneth Meyer, David R. Miranda, Alexander A. Molina, Carlos Morez, Aaron G. Mungaray, Bryan Nassour, Erick Nieves, John Novela, Gabriel Orona, Linsay Pellegrini, Mario Pinel, Timothy Pleasant, Clinton Pruiet, Russell K. Rawls, Michael Reddy, Benjamin Reyes, David Riles, Alberto Ros Jr., Bernard Sanchez, Richard M. Sesma, Mark Siddens, Donald A. Smith, Cindy A. Struck, Warren Sutton, Thomas J. Teora, Paul A. Terris, Gerald R. Travens, Gilbert T. Urrea Jr., Anthony T. Valdez, Ray Valles, John Vigil, Aaron Walker, John L. Williams, Plaintiffs, v. City Of Los Angeles, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv- 00187 (C.D. Cal., January 9, 2016), seeks back pay compensation, liquidated damages equal to his/her unpaid compensation, plus pre- judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs and other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq. Plaintiffs work as fire inspectors for the Los Angeles Fire Department. They were assigned to work four 10-hour shifts each week. In addition to this schedule, plaintiffs routinely work an additional 10-hour shift causing them to work over 40 hours in a workweek and are routinely credited with compensatory time on an hour-for-hour basis without overtime compensation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lester G. Ostrov, Esq. LESTER G. OSTROV, PROFESSIONAL CORP. 5757 Wilshire Blvd., Penthouse 5 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Tel: (323) 424-3440 Fax: (323) 424-3468 Email: lostrov@lgolaw.com - and - Thomas A. Woodley, Esq. Michael R. Willats WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY 1101 Vermont Ave, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 833-8855 Fax: (202) 452-1090 Email: taw@wmlaborlaw.com mrw@wmlaborlaw.com MAG BUILDERS: "Chacon" Suit Asserts FLSA, NYLL Violation -------------------------------------------------------- EDGAR CHACON, LUIS CHACON and RICARDO RUIZ, v. MAG BUILDERS, INC. and TOMAFZ SKROVZKI, Case 1:16-cv-01075 (S.D.N.Y., February 11, 2016), seeks to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) liquidated damages and (3) attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. MAG Builders is a custom-home builder. The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. Shin Hahn, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 MANASSEH JORDAN: Faces "Molitor" Suit Over Automated Calls ---------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Molitor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Manasseh Jordan Ministries, Inc. and Yakim Manasseh Jordan, Case No. 2016CH00079 (Ill. Cir. Ct., January 5, 2015) seeks to put a stop to the incessant and abusive spam robocalling practices to constantly find new donors and generate new lines of revenue. The Defendants operate a non-profit organization that conducts business and solicits payments throughout Cook County, the State of Illinois, and the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Eve-Lynn Rapp, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com erapp@edelson.com MANHATTAN NUVO: Violated FLSA AND NYLL, "Bonini" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Darianna Bonini and Christa Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Manhattan Nuvo, LLC, d/b/a Le Reve Restaurant & Lounge, Jouseph Shenouda, and Adam Attia, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00335- VEC (S.D.N.Y., January 15, 2016), seeks: * to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, damages for requiring Plaintiffs to participate in illegal tip pool, * liquidated damages and all other remedies prescribed by the FLSA and the New York Law, * injunctive relief to enjoin the Defendants from future violations of federal and state law, and * attorneys' fees and costs as provided by statute. Manhattan Nuvo is a corporation duly organized and existing under New York law. It operates an establishment doing business at East 54th Street, New York, New York. The Plaintiffs are represented by: James F. Woods, Esq. WOODS LONERGAN & READ PLLC 280 Madison Avenue, Suite 300 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 684 2500 Facsimile: (212) 684 2512 E-mail: jwoods@wlesq.com - and - Erik H. Langeland. Esq. LANGELAND LAW 733 3rd Avenue, 15 Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 354 6270 Facsimile: (212) 898 9086 E-mail: elangeland@langelandlaw.com MANNKIND CORPORATION: Faces "Ardolino" Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Ardolino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mannkind Corporation, Alfred Mann, Matthew Pfeffer, and Hakan Edstrom, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16- cv-00348 (C.D. Cal., January 15, 2016), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of federal securities law and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. MannKind Corp., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the discovery, development, and commercialization of therapeutic products for diseases, such as diabetes. The company's primary approved product, AFREZZA is a rapid-acting inhaled insulin that is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2014 to improve glycemic control in adult patients with diabetes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. (SBN 219683) THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com MCESSY INVESTMENT: "Amador" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Amador, on behalf of himself and other Plaintiffs similarly situated v. McEssy Investment Company d/b/a McDonald's and William H. McEssy, Case No. 1:16-cv-00789 (N.D. Ill., January 19, 2016) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate McDonald's restaurants throughout Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marty Denis, Esq. Bethany Hilbert, Esq. BARLOW, KOBATA & DENIS LLP 525 West Monroe, Suite 2360 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 648-5570 MCKEE FOODS: "Juan" Suit Seeks OT Wages Under Cal. Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------- James Juan, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. McKee Foods Corp., and Does 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-00058 (C.D. Cal, January 15, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages, pursuant to the California Labor Code. McKee Foods engages in the production and distribution of snack cakes in the United States and Canada. Its products include granola bars and cereals, fudge dipped granola bars, fruit and grain bars, seasonal bars, and sweet and salty granola bars; brownies, cakes, cookies, donuts, muffins, pastries, pies, snack bars, and seasonal snacks; and steel cut oats, bulgur wheat, oat bran, and pie crusts. The company was formerly known as McKee Baking Company and changed its name to McKee Foods Corporation in 1991. McKee Foods was founded in 1934 and is headquartered in Collegedale, Tennessee. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel G. Emilio, Esq. Laurie M. Cortez, Esq. EMILIO LAW GROUP APC 12832 Valley View Street, Suite 106 Garden Grove, CA 92845 Telephone: (714) 379 6239 Facsimile: (714) 379 5444 MID-ATLANTIC LUBE: "Hoover" Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- David Hoover, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Mid-Atlantic Lubes, Inc. trading as Jiffy Lube and Mark I. Rhee, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00064-PD (E.D. Pa., January 7, 2016), seeks to recover minimum wage and unpaid overtime pay from Defendants for all overtime hours worked, as well as liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and declaratory relief and attorneys' fees and costs for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, 43 PS. Sec. 260.1 et seq. and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, 43 RS. Sec. 333.101, et seq. The Defendant is a California Corporation engaged primarily in the operation of automobile service shops whose services range from oil changes and battery maintenance to engine repair. Hoover worked for Jiffy Lube at its Warminster, Pennsylvania location as an Assistant Manager. He claims to have rendered in excess of 40 hours per work week without overtime compensation. Eric Meyer, Esq. Jerry R. DeSiderato, Esq. DILLWORTH PAXSON LLP 1500 Market Street, Suite 350oE Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: (215) 575-7000 Email: emeyer@di1worthlaw.com jdesiderato@dillworthlaw.com - and - Steven K. Eisenberg, Esq. Evan Barenbaum, Esq. STERN & EISENBERG, P.C. 1581 Main Street, Suite 200 Warrington, PA 18976-3400 Tel: (267) 620-2130 Email: ebarenbaum@stemeisenberg.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Mercado, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00038-WJM-MF (D.N.J., January 4, 2016) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Midland Credit Management, Inc. operates a financial services company that helps consumers resolve past-due financial obligations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl. Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com MODEL N: Mediated Settlement Reached in Consolidated Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Model N, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that all parties have reached a mutually acceptable resolution of a consolidated class action lawsuit by way of a mediated settlement. On September 5, 2014 and January 22, 2015, purported securities class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of the Company's current and former directors and executive officers and underwriters of the initial public offering (IPO). The lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of the Company seeking to represent a class consisting of all those who purchased the Company's stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO. The lawsuits assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seek unspecified damages and other relief. On March 2, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the two class action lawsuits. On November 4, 2015, all parties reached a mutually acceptable resolution by way of a mediated settlement. The Company does not believe that its portion of the settlement amount will be material to its results of operations. MONSANTO CO: Brief in "Mirzaie" 9th Cir. Appeal Due July 25 ----------------------------------------------------------- Elvis Mirzaie, et al v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 16-55228 (9th Cir, Feb. 12, 2016), is an appeal filed before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from a lower court decision in a fraud class action, Case No. 2:15-cv-04361-DDP-FFM (C.D. Cal., June 9, 2015). Appellants Edison Mirzaie, Elvis Mirzaie and Romi Mirzaie's opening brief is due July 25, 2016. Appellee Monsanto Company's answering brief due Aug. 24, 2016. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Elvis Mirzaie and Romi Mirzaie, as individuals and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: T. Matthew Phillips, Esq. T MATTHEW PHILLIPS LAW OFFICES 10040 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite 170 Las Vegas, NV 89129 Tel: 323-314-6996 Monstanto Company, a Delaware corporation, is represented by: Stephen R. Smerek, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: 213-615-1700 NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Class Action Status Sought for Antitrust Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY, reports that lawyers for the plaintiffs in an antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA and 11 major conferences on Feb. 17 filed documents that began the process of asking a federal judge to grant class-action status to groups of athletes seeking monetary damages based on the difference between the value of a traditional athletic scholarship and one that also covers the full cost of attending college. Much of the Feb. 17 filing with U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland was provisionally made under seal, but prior filings in the case and reporting this past August by USA TODAY Sports concerning the value of cost-of-attendance-based scholarships that some Division I schools began awarding this school year indicate the prospective classes could cover tens of thousands of athletes and hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. In a separate portion of this case and in another related case, Judge Wilken already has granted class-action status to groups of athletes challenging the NCAA's new cost-of-attendance-based limits on the compensation athletes can receive while playing college sports. In that portion of this case, and in the other related case, the plaintiffs are seeking an injunction that would nullify the new limits. The NCAA and the conferences have begun the process of asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Judge Wilken's ruling. Judge Wilken is the same judge who handled the Ed O'Bannon lawsuit and found that the NCAA's limits on what major-college football and men's basketball players can receive for playing sports "unreasonably restrain trade" in violation of antitrust laws. That finding was upheld by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit, although the panel -- by a 2-1 margin -- threw out Judge Wilken's plan that would have allowed schools to provide athletes deferred compensation of as much as $5,000 per year. The panel's majority ruled that the law "requires that the NCAA permit its schools to provide up to the cost of attendance to their student athletes. It does not require more." The O'Bannon plaintiffs' bid for a re- hearing by an 11-member panel of the 9th Circuit has been rejected, and the parties have until mid-March to decide whether to ask the Supreme Court to take the case. Both the damages and the injunctive portions of the suit at issue in the Feb. 17 filing are being led primarily by lawyers from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. The related case, which seeks the injunction -- but not damages -- is being directed primarily by Jeffrey Kessler. It is being pursued on behalf of plaintiffs led by former Clemson football player Martin Jenkins and two current Wisconsin athletes: basketball player Nigel Hayes and football player Alec James. It covers football and men's basketball players in the power conferences. However, when Judge Wilken granted class-action status to the groups of plaintiffs seeking an injunction, she noted that if groups of athletes seeking damages were granted class-action status, the plaintiffs intended to delay pursuit of the Jenkins case pending completion of a jury trial in the damages case. The request being made on Feb. 17 regarding damages classes relates to groups of plaintiffs outlined in an amended version of a case initially filed in March 2014 on behalf of former West Virginia football player Shawne Alston. Mr. Alston remains a named plaintiff, but the initial case was consolidated with other suits involving athletes in other sports. According to a revised filing of the suit in July 2014, it now seeks to cover Bowl Subdivision football players, Division I men's basketball players and Division I women's basketball players who received athletic scholarships. Although the NCAA and 11 conferences are named as defendants, other Division I schools and conferences are alleged to have been co-conspirators. Because of federal antitrust law, the prospective classes would be allowed to reach back and attempt to cover athletes who were on scholarship in those three sports during the four years prior to the suit's initial filing. The suit also seeks to cover athletes in those three sports subsequent to the suit's initial filing who received -- or are still receiving -- athletic scholarships that do not cover the full cost of attendance. As a result, the prospective class could cover five-plus years of athletes in Bowl Subdivision football, which covers more than 120 schools and has a scholarship limit of 85. Division I basketball covers more than 330 schools and has a scholarship limit of 13 for men's teams and 15 for women's teams. With $3,000 to $3,500 as the average differential between a scholarship that does not cover the full cost of attendance and a scholarship that covers cost of attendance, the damages being sought in the case potentially could be between $250 million and $350 million. Under antitrust law, if a jury decides to award damages to a plaintiff, that amount is tripled. If this portion of the case results in any of the prospective classes not being granted class-action status, the case could be limited to some or all of the named plaintiffs only. Since the beginning of the 2015-16 school year, colleges have been allowed to award athletic scholarships that cover tuition, room, board, books, fees and other incidental expenses up to the full cost of attending college. Prior to this year, schools could not cover those incidentals -- part of what was at issue in the O'Bannon case. While the NCAA pursued its appeal of Judge Wilken's verdict in the case to the 9th Circuit, the association's wealthiest conferences enacted a rules change that put the new scholarship model in place before Judge Wilken's ruling would have required it. NEWBRIDGE BANCORP: MOU Reached in Yadkin Merger Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------------- Newbridge Bancorp said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2016, that the parties in the class action lawsuits related to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 12, 2015 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among Yadkin Financial Corporation, NewBridge Bancorp, a North Carolina corporation ("NewBridge"), and Navy Merger Sub Corp., a North Carolina corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Yadkin ("Merger Sub"), have reached a memorandum of understanding for the settlement of the cases. Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger Agreement, three purported class action lawsuits relating to the Merger Agreement were filed on behalf of NewBridge shareholders in the Superior Court of the State of North Carolina, Guilford County, against NewBridge, members of the NewBridge board of directors, Yadkin and Merger Sub (the "Defendants"), which lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into a single class action currently pending in the General Court of Justice Superior Court Division, County of Guilford (the "Court"), captioned In re NewBridge Bancorp Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 15-CVS- 9251(Master File); 15-CVS-10097, 15-CVS-10047 (the "Consolidated Action"). On February 5, 2016, the Defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding") with respect to a proposed settlement of the Consolidated Action, pursuant to which the parties have agreed, among other things, that NewBridge will make certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed merger. The proposed settlement will not affect the timing of the respective special meetings of NewBridge and Yadkin, which are each scheduled to be held on February 23, 2016, or the amount of the consideration to be paid to NewBridge shareholders in connection with the proposed merger. The proposed settlement is not, and should not be construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any of the Defendants. The Defendants believe that no further disclosure is required to supplement the joint proxy statement/prospectus under applicable laws; however, the Defendants have agreed, pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed merger, all of which are set forth below in order to, among other things (1) eliminate the burden, inconvenience, expense, risk, and distraction of further litigation; and (ii) finally resolve and terminate all of the claims that were or could have been asserted against the Defendants in the litigation. Nothing in this Current Report or any settlement shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality of any of the disclosures set forth herein. The parties have agreed to use their reasonable best efforts to obtain final approval of the proposed settlement and the dismissal of the Consolidated Action with prejudice. Subject to the allowance for reasonably appropriate and necessary confirmatory discovery by counsel to the plaintiffs, if any, the Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a definitive settlement agreement ("Stipulation"). The Stipulation will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to NewBridge' shareholders. If the Stipulation is finally approved by the Court, the parties anticipate that it will resolve and release all claims pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to NewBridge shareholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Action will file a petition in the Court for approval of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by NewBridge or its successor. NewBridge or its successor will pay or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees and expenses approved by the Court. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into the Stipulation or that the Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such Stipulation. In such event, the Memorandum of Understanding may be terminated. NISKA GAS: Plaintiffs Dismiss Public Unitholders Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that plaintiffs in the Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC Public Unitholders Litigation have filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the Litigation. Subsequent to the announcement of the proposed acquisition of the Company by Brookfield Infrastructure Partners L.P. and its institutional partners on June 14, 2015, alleged unitholders of Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC (the "Plaintiffs") filed four class action lawsuits against Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC, Niska Gas Storage Management LLC, Niska Sponsor Holdings Cooperatief U.A. (collectively "Niska"), Brookfield Infrastructure Partners L.P., Swan Holdings LP, Swan Merger Sub LLC, and the members of Niska's Board of Directors (collectively with Niska, the "Defendants") in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. These lawsuits are styled (a) Eddie Barringer vs. Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC, et al. (Case No. 11210); (b) David Raul vs. Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC, et al. (Case No. 11220); (c) Nathan Peterson vs. Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC, et al., (Case No. 11234); and (d) Fred Pappey vs. William H. Shea, Jr. et al., (Case No. 11238) (collectively, the "Litigation"). The above styled lawsuits have been consolidated for all purposes and captioned In re Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC Public Unitholders Litigation, CONSOL. C.A. No. 11210-CB (the "Action"). On February 5, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the Litigation without prejudice as to any individual or class claims, with each party to bear its own costs. The Company operates the AECO HubTM, which consists of the Countess and Suffield gas storage facilities in Alberta, Canada, and the Wild Goose and Salt Plains gas storage facilities in California and Oklahoma, respectively. Niska Partners markets gas storage services of working gas capacity in addition to optimizing storage capacity with its own proprietary gas purchases at each of these facilities. It also operates a natural gas marketing business which is an extension of our propriety optimization activities in Canada. NISSAN NA: "Jefferson" Suit Alleges Illegal Vehicle Reselling ------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Jefferson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nissan North America, Inc., Defendant, Case. No. 3:16-cv-00031-JCH (D. Conn,, January 7, 2016), seeks actual and compensatory damages and reasonable attorney fees and costs as a result of fraud, negligence, unjust enrichment and for violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Defendant allegedly sold, bought back and auctioned off a 2014 Infinity Q50 and registered it with the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Department. It was eventually bought by the Plaintiff on May 4, 2015 and she was unaware that it was a buy-back unit. Nissan North America, Inc., is a Tennessee business entity headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. It is into the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW L.L.C. 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Tel: (203) 653-2250 ext. 5500 Fax: (203) 653-3424 NUVASIVE INC: Motion to Dismiss 5th Amended Complaint Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Nuvasive, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a California court has not yet ruled on the Company's motion to dismiss a Fifth Amended Complaint in a securities class action lawsuit. On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California naming the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers for allegedly making false and materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results, specifically relating to the purported improper submission of false claims to Medicare and Medicaid. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from October 22, 2008 to July 30, 2013. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. On February 13, 2014, the lead plaintiff ("Plaintiff") filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. The District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and ordered Plaintiff to amend its complaint. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on September 8, 2014, and the District Court once again granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. On December 23, 2014 Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss, and while the Company's motion was pending, Plaintiff sought leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint. On August 28, 2015, the District Court issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint with leave to amend. On September 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Fifth Amended Complaint and the Company subsequently filed a motion to dismiss. The Court has not yet ruled on the Company's motion. Nuvasive is a medical device company in the global spine surgery market, focused on developing minimally-disruptive surgical products and procedurally-integrated solutions for spine surgery. Its currently-marketed product portfolio is focused on applications for spine fusion surgery, including biologics used to aid in the spinal fusion process. For the year ended December 31, 2015, Nuvasive generated global revenues of $811.1 million, including sales in over 30 countries. PEERLESS NETWORK: "Pacleb" Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA -------------------------------------------------------- Florencio Pacleb, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Peerless Network, Inc.; Airbus, Inc., and Does 1-10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00359-DSF-AGR (C.D. Cal., January 15, 2016), seeks to recover damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendants, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Peerless Networks, based in Chicago, Illinois, provides telecommunications services. The Company offers interconnections networking services to better connect individuals through their website. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M Friedman, Esq. Arvin Ratanavongse, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC 324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com Aratanavongse@toddflaw.com PEPPERIDGE FARM: SDAs File Class Action Over Employment Status -------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Herra, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a federal class action lawsuit claims cookie and cracker maker Pepperidge Farm has exploited the workers who deliver, set up and maintain its product displays in supermarkets and other stores, treating these workers like employees, but classifying them as independent contractors, contrary to labor law. In the lawsuit filed Feb. 12 in Chicago federal court, plaintiff Daniel Mulhern claimed Pepperidge Farm should have classified him and other sales development associates, or SDAs, as employees, not as independent contractors. Mr. Mulhern asked the court to award damages and court costs. SDAs are responsible for delivering Pepperidge Farm merchandise to stores in their territory, stocking shelves, merchandising the products, setting up promotional displays and removing unsold product. According to the lawsuit, they have also been expected to solicit new stores and other sales locations in their territory in order to expand Pepperidge Farm's footprint in the area. The suit claimed the SDAs are required to sign an agreement establishing them as contractors with Pepperidge Farm, but the terms of the agreements cannot be negotiated. The suit claimed that SDAs do not have the freedoms one would expect of independent contractors. They are not permitted to sell or sublet all or part of their route or territory without the consent of Pepperidge Farm, and they cannot act as distributors for any of Pepperidge Farm's competitors. Pepperidge Farm determines the amount and type of product to be delivered to each customer and the retail price of those products, and does not permit the SDAs to have input on such matters. The company also sets each SDA's delivery schedule, and expects them to visit retailers in their personal vehicle on non-delivery days to check on their inventory. Though SDAs are generally treated as employees, Mr. Mulhern claimed their classification as independent contractors has allowed the company to charge them for expenses the company would have to absorb if they were regular employees. For example, SDAs have been required to purchase and maintain specialized handheld computer units to perform their work tasks, and to purchase or lease and insure an appropriate delivery truck. Each quarter, the company has advised SDAs how much damaged or expired merchandise they may return to the company; they are charged for returning merchandise over that amount. As contractors, SDAs also have not been eligible for benefits such as insurance, retirement plans, paid time off or overtime pay. The average SDA would routinely work between 55 and 70 hours a week for Pepperidge Farm, the lawsuit said, making it difficult, if not impossible, for them to contract with any other clients. The suit alleged three violations against Pepperidge Farm. In the first count, the lawsuit asserted the company violated the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act by charging SDAs for such things as returned merchandise and the purchase and maintenance of computer equipment. The second count alleged the company violated the Illinois Minimum Wage Law by failing to pay overtime. The third count charged the company with unjust enrichment, claiming it avoided obligations like payroll tax contributions and workers' compensation coverage by classifying the SDAs as independent contractors and shifting the burden on to them. The putative class covered by the suit would include all SDAs in Illinois who were under contract with Pepperidge Farm between Feb. 12, 2006, and Feb. 12, 2016. Mr. Muhern and the putative class is represented by the firms of Freed Kanner London & Millen, of Bannockburn; Shapiro Haber & Urmy, of Boston; and Rudolph Friedmann LLP, of Boston. The case is docketed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois as 16-CV-02199 Mulhern vs Pepperidge Farm. PFIZER INC: Rejection of Plaintiffs' Zoloft Case Experts Upheld --------------------------------------------------------------- P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for Law.com, reports that a Philadelphia judge said the exclusion of two causation experts from a state court Zoloft birth-defect case was proper, observing that one of the experts had also been barred from offering testimony in the federal multidistrict litigation surrounding the drug. In an opinion in response to the plaintiffs' appeal in Porter v. SmithKline Beecham, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Mark I. Bernstein wrote that the conclusions drawn by the plaintiffs' experts, Dr. Michael Freeman and Dr. Robert Cabrera, were based on flawed methodology. Dr. Cabrera's testimony had previously been excluded from the Zoloft MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The future of that litigation remains uncertain, as presiding U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe's decision in December to bar testimony from causation expert Dr. Nicholas Jewell leaves the plaintiffs without an expert. Judge Rufe has yet to rule on Pfizer's summary judgment motion in the litigation. Judge Bernstein pointed to several factors for not allowing Dr. Freeman and Dr. Cabrera's testimony, who focused on general and specific causation. According to Judge Bernstein, Dr. Freeman described himself as a forensic epidemiologist, meaning applying epidemiology in the legal setting for evaluating causation. Dr. Freeman testified that the application of forensic epidemiology depended on which legal jurisdiction he was in. "Although Dr. Freeman believes the appropriate standard for a scientific conclusion in the field of 'forensic' epidemiology depends on 'jurisdiction,' only a legal standard depends on jurisdiction," Judge Bernstein said, "and proper scientific methodology and conclusions do not vary whether testified to on the Pennsylvania side or the New Jersey side of the Benjamin Franklin Bridge." Proper epidemiological analysis is based on study results that show an association between a drug and a reaction, Bernstein said. He added that different birth defects, such as gastrointestinal, cardiac and other malformations that have been alleged in Zoloft cases, cannot be lumped together in terms of causation. According to Judge Bernstein, Dr. Freeman did this with omphalocele birth defects -- a condition in which children are born with their intestines outside of the body. The plaintiff, Bo Porter, suffered from this condition. "Dr. Freeman improperly lumps the omphalocele birth defect with digestive system defects and assumes medical literature concerning digestive system defects supports his opinion," Judge Bernstein said. "However, omphalocele is not a digestive system birth defect." Other factors, such as poor nutrition, smoking, age and drug use have to be considered as well when looking at birth defects. Bernstein said Freeman did not address confounding factors in his report. Additionally, "Dr. Freeman opines specifically that Bo Porter's omphalocele birth defect was caused by exposure to Zoloft in utero. However, Dr. Freeman is not a medical doctor and does not have a clinical medical degree," Judge Bernstein said. The judge added that while medical doctors rely on clinical judgment and expertise to formulate opinions, Dr. Freeman relied on forensic epidemiology. Judge Bernstein said that Dr. Cabrera's opinions contained the same methodological failings as Dr. Freeman's, as well as others. Dr. Cabrera reported that studies have shown SSRIs, the class of drug that Zoloft belongs to, significantly increase the risk of birth defects. But according to Bernstein, Cabrera did not analyze studies that excluded the drug Paxil. "This is a fatal methodological flaw because Paxil has been identified as having significantly different effects from Zoloft and the other SSRIs," Judge Bernstein said. "Paxil is a causal factor in birth defects." Lastly, Judge Bernstein said Dr. Cabrera's conclusions were speculative and lacked the data necessary to support his theory that the alteration of serotonin levels in the body can damage a developing fetus. Plaintiffs' counsel Mark Karpo did not return a call seeking comment. Mark Cheffo -- markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan represented the defendants and deferred comment to a Pfizer spokesperson, who said in a statement sent to The Legal, "The order affirms that there is no reliable scientific evidence demonstrating that Zoloft causes the injuries alleged by the plaintiffs." PHILLIP MORRIS: Not Obliged to Offer CT Scans to Smokers -------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Stockman, writing for Law Newz, reports that a class action lawsuit against tobacco giant Phillip Morris wrapped up with a ten person jury determining that the company should not have to offer CT scans to smokers. The plaintiffs, a class of Massachusetts smokers, argued that Philip Morris knew cigarettes were dangerous and defective, could have easily made them safer and therefore should cover the costs of tests to assess whether the smokers had developed lung cancer. What made this case particularly interesting was that the plaintiffs were not seeking monetary damages but just low dose scans that can detect early-stage lung cancer often too small to show up on traditional X-rays. Before the case began, Law professor Richard Daynard of Northeastern told the Associated Press that this one was stronger than many past legal efforts because: "you have better technology which captures the tumors at a much earlier stage where there's a very good chance that if you get them that the person . . . is probably not going to die from it," Putting aside the legal arguments, at the least, it seems like a pretty compelling emotional and moral argument. Well, the law firm that represented Phillip Morris, New York based Weil Gotshal and Manges seemed to recognize that too. They actually issued a press release gloating about their "monumental" win over "all Massachusetts smokers of Philip Morris USA cigarettes who have smoked for 20 pack-years, with a total class size estimated to be in the tens of thousands." They even named all the heroic attorneys who helped to defend the good Phillip Morris name: "The Weil trial team is led by litigation partner Diane Sullivan and also includes counsel Adam Tolin and associates Jed Winer, Caroline Toole, and Robert Brown." Self-touting can sometimes be awfully revealing. They actually said this in trumpeting their victory: "Plaintiffs sought a comprehensive program that would have included yearly low dose CT scans, which are now the standard of care for the early detection of lung cancer for certain patients." It's the standard of care so it's even more impressive that we were able to deny them that!?! A legal victory is one thing but for lawyers for a tobacco company to publicly celebrate denying potential cancer victims the best way of identifying lung disease as early as possible seems reprehensible. . . even for a law firm. Law Newz reached out to Phillip Morris and they had no comment. PREFERRED IMAGING: "Lewis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- R. Michelle Lewis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Preferred Imaging Centers, LLC, Toggle, LLC, and Lisa Baird, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv- 00136-M (N.D. Tex., Dallas Division, January 15, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and all available damages under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act. Preferred Imaging is a limited liability company incorporated under the laws of the State of Texas. It has done business in the State of Texas with principal place of business located at 5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 460, Plano, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. Baron & Budd, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521 3605 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com PRIMERO MINING: April 15 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Feb. 16 issued the following statement: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Primero Mining Corp. ("Primero Mining") between October 5, 2012 and February 3, 2016. You are hereby notified that a securities class action has been commenced in the USDC for the Central District of California. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Primero Mining securities between October 5, 2012 and February 3, 2016, your rights may be affected by this action. To get more information go to: http://zlk.9nl.com/primero-mining The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose material facts about tax compliance at Primero's Mexican subsidiary, Primero Empresa Minera, S.A. de C.V. On February 3, 2016, Primero disclosed that its Mexican subsidiary received a legal claim from the Mexican tax authorities, Servicio de Administraci¢n Tributaria ("SAT"), seeking to nullify the Advance Pricing Agreement issued by SAT in 2012. On this news, shares of Primero Mining fell $0.74 per share or over 28% to close at $1.89 per share on February 4, 2016. If you suffered a loss in Primero Mining you have until April 15, 2016 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972, or visit http://zlk.9nl.com/primero-mining Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation involving financial fraud, and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. PROVIDENCE ST. JOHN'S: "Nemeth" Sues Over Illegal Termination ------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Nemeth, Plaintiff, v. Providence St. John's Health Center, a non-profit California corporation, Rightsourcing, Inc., a New York corporation, Pro Unlimited Global Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Jaron McDonnel, an individual and Does 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 604623 (Cal. Super., December 21, 2015), seeks general, special, punitive, treble, economic and non- economic damages, prejudgment interest, costs of suit, attorney's fees and further relief according to proof resulting from wrongful termination and employment practices in violation of public policy and in violation of California Labor Code Sec. 1050, 1102.5, 2698, 6310, California Health & Safety Code Sec. 1278.5. Plaintiff is a certified medical assistant. She claims to have been illegally dismissed after reporting certain malpractices pertaining to the prescription of drugs in the hospital. Providence St. John's Health Center is a California Corporation operating a hospital in Los Angeles. Right Sourcing, Inc. is a New York corporation and is affiliated with Pro Unlimited Global Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation. They are human resource management companies which hire individuals to work in healthcare positions. They jointly managed human resource functions at Providence during Plaintiffs employment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tali Shaddow, Esq. Mark Steven Avila, Esq. AVILA & SHADDOW 21800 Oxnard Street, Suite 1180 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (818)227-8610 Fax: (818)227-8616 PULASKI FINANCIAL: To Defend Against Merger Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Pulaski Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends to defend against a putative class action lawsuit filed in relation to its merger with First Busey Corporation. On December 3, 2015, the Company and First Busey Corporation entered into a Merger Agreement, pursuant to which First Busey will acquire the Company and the Bank. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, the Company agreed not to issue any new stock- based awards. A putative class action lawsuit, Patel v. Douglass, et al., has been filed in the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, Missouri. The lawsuit names as defendants the members of the Company's board of directors, the Company and First Busey Corporation. A demand for jury trial has been made. The lawsuit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty due to the process leading to the proposed merger of the Company and First Busey Corporation, potential conflicts of interest, inadequate merger consideration, the terms of the merger agreement, and the failure to disclose allegedly material information related to the proposed merger in the Schedule 14A Proxy Statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2016. The lawsuit also alleges that First Busey Corporation aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duty. The relief sought includes class certification, declaratory relief, an injunction against the merger, rescission or rescissory damages if the merger is consummated, costs and attorney's fees. The Company believes that the factual allegations in the complaint are without merit and intends to defend vigorously against these allegations. Pulaski Financial Corp., operating in its 94th year, is a community-based financial institution holding company headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. It conducts operations primarily through Pulaski Bank, N.A. (the "Bank"), which had $1.65 billion in assets at December 31, 2015. Pulaski Bank provides an array of financial products and services for businesses and consumers primarily through its thirteen full-service offices in the St. Louis metropolitan area and residential mortgage loan production offices in the St. Louis, Kansas City, Chicago and Omaha-Council Bluffs metropolitan areas, mid-Missouri, southwestern Missouri, eastern Kansas, and Lincoln, Nebraska. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: "Fober" Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA -------------------------------------------------------- Audrey Fober, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., dba Examone, and Does 1-10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-00065-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal., January 15, 2016), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendants, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Quest Diagnostics provides diagnostic testing information services in the United States and internationally. The company offers clinical testing services, such as routine testing, gene-based and esoteric testing, anatomic pathology services, and drugs-of-abuse testing, as well as related services and insights; laboratory testing services for new drugs, vaccines, and medical devices; analytic, on-site prevention, and wellness services; laboratory outreach services; and risk assessment services for the life insurance industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC 324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com RAYMOND JAMES: Class Action Pending Related to Open End Funds ------------------------------------------------------------- Raymond James Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that one class action remains pending pertaining to the open end funds. Certain of the Morgan Keegan entities, along with Regions Financial Corporation ("Regions"), have been named in class-action lawsuits filed in federal and state courts on behalf of shareholders of Regions and investors who purchased shares of certain mutual funds in the Regions Morgan Keegan Fund complex (the "Regions Funds"). The Regions Funds were formerly managed by Morgan Asset Management ("MAM"), an entity which was at one time a subsidiary of one of the Morgan Keegan affiliates, but an entity which was not part of our Morgan Keegan acquisition. The complaints contain various allegations, including claims that the Regions Funds and the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts relating to the activities of the funds. In August 2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee approved the settlement of the class action and the derivative action regarding the closed end funds for $62 million and $6 million, respectively, which have been paid. There is one pending class action pertaining to the open end funds. Certain of the shareholders in the funds and other interested parties have entered into arbitration proceedings and individual civil claims, in lieu of participating in the class action lawsuits. Raymond James Financial, Inc. is a financial holding company whose broker-dealer subsidiaries are engaged in various financial services businesses, including the underwriting, distribution, trading and brokerage of equity and debt securities and the sale of mutual funds and other investment products. In addition, other subsidiaries of RJF provide investment management services for retail and institutional clients, corporate and retail banking, and trust services. REPUBLIC SCHOOLS NASHVILLE: Violated TCPA, "Skeete" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Irika Skeete, on behalf of herself and all other entities and persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Republic Schools Nashville, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00043 (M.D. Tenn., Nashville Division, January 15, 2016), seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited text message activities and an award of statutory damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. RePublic Schools Nashville is a Tennessee corporation, having an address of 1300 56th Avenue North, Nashville, Tennessee. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe P. Leniski Jr., Esq. J. Gerard Stranch IV, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH &JENNINGS, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254 8801 E-mail: jleniski@bsjfirm.com gstranch@bsjfirm.com REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 28 Tobacco-Related Cases Served in Q4 2015 ------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that during the fourth quarter of 2015, 28 tobacco-related cases were served against Reynolds Defendants. On December 31, 2015, there were 268 cases pending against Reynolds Defendants: -- 251 in the United States and -- 17 in Canada, as compared with 177 total cases on December 31, 2014. The U.S. case number does not include the approximately 564 individual smoker cases pending in West Virginia state court as a consolidated action, 3,111 Engle Progeny cases, involving approximately 4,046 individual plaintiffs, and 2,499 Broin II cases, pending in the United States against RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco or their affiliates or indemnitees. Of the U.S. cases pending on December 31, 2015, 24 are pending in federal court, 226 in state court and 1 in tribal court, primarily in the following states: -- Maryland (43 cases); -- Illinois (35 cases); -- Florida (30 cases); -- New York (24 cases); -- Missouri (19 cases); -- Delaware (14 cases); and -- California (12 cases). REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Served in 3,111 Engle Progeny Cases ---------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that as of December 31, 2015, RJR Tobacco had been served in 3,111 Engle Progeny cases filed on behalf of approximately 4,046 individual plaintiffs. The tobacco-related legal actions range from individual lawsuits to class-actions and other aggregate claim lawsuits. In Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling that, while determining that the case could not proceed further as a class action, permitted members of the Engle class to file individual claims, including claims for punitive damages, through January 11, 2008. The decision preserved several of the Engle jury findings for use in adjudicating these subsequent individual actions, which are now known as Engle Progeny cases. As of December 31, 2015, RJR Tobacco had been served in 3,111 Engle Progeny cases filed on behalf of approximately 4,046 individual plaintiffs. Many of these cases are in active discovery or nearing trial. In all Engle Progeny cases tried to date, a central issue has been the proper use of the preserved Engle findings. RJR Tobacco has argued that use of the Engle findings to establish individual elements of claims (such as defect, negligence and concealment) is a violation of federal due process. In 2013, both the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected that argument. The Engle Progeny cases have resulted in increased litigation and trial activity, including an increased number of adverse verdicts, and increased expenses. Through December 31, 2015, RJR Tobacco or Lorillard Tobacco cumulatively paid $214.9 million in compensatory and punitive damages and $66.8 million for attorneys' and statutory interest, for a total of $281.7 million, in these cases. In addition, outstanding jury verdicts in favor of the Engle Progeny plaintiffs had been entered against RJR Tobacco or Lorillard Tobacco in the amount of $184.2 million in compensatory damages (as adjusted) and in the amount of $191.1 million in punitive damages, for a total of $375.3 million. All of these verdicts are in various stages in the appellate process. Although RJR Tobacco cannot currently predict when or how much it may be required to pay, RJR Tobacco will likely be required to pay additional judgments as the litigation proceeds. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 6 Engle Progeny Cases Removed to Federal Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that on October 22, 2015, RJR Tobacco and Philip Morris USA Inc. removed five Engle Progeny cases to federal court and, on January 4, 2016, removed a sixth Engle Progeny case. In 2000, a jury in Engle v. Liggett Group, a class action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by Florida smokers allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine, rendered a $145 billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the class. In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court set aside that award, prospectively decertified the class, and preserved several of the Engle jury findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed within one year of its decision. The preserved findings include jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases, that nicotine is addictive, and that each defendant sold cigarettes that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, committed unspecified acts of negligence and individually and jointly concealed unspecified information about the health risks of smoking. In the wake of Engle, thousands of individual progeny actions were filed in federal and state courts in Florida against the major tobacco companies, including RJR Tobacco, Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., Lorillard Tobacco and Philip Morris USA Inc. Such actions are commonly referred to as "Engle Progeny" cases. As of December 31, 2015, 27 Engle Progeny cases were pending in federal court, and 3,084 of them were pending in state court. These cases include approximately 4,046 plaintiffs. In addition, as of December 31, 2015, RJR Tobacco was aware of 9 additional Engle Progeny cases that had been filed but not served. One hundred eight Engle Progeny cases have been tried in Florida state and federal courts since the beginning of 2013, and numerous state court trials are scheduled for 2016. The number of pending cases fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including voluntary and involuntary dismissals. Voluntary dismissals include cases in which a plaintiff accepts an "offer of judgment," referred to in Florida statutes as "proposals for settlement," from RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco and/or RJR Tobacco's affiliates and indemnitees. An offer of judgment, if rejected by the plaintiff, preserves RJR Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco's right to recover attorneys' fees under Florida law in the event of a verdict favorable to RJR Tobacco or Lorillard Tobacco. Such offers are sometimes made through court-ordered mediations. During the first quarter of 2015, RJR Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco, together with Philip Morris USA Inc., tentatively settled virtually all of the Engle Progeny cases then pending against them in federal district court. The total amount of the settlement was $100 million divided as follows: RJR Tobacco - $42.5 million; Philip Morris USA Inc. - $42.5 million; and Lorillard Tobacco - $15 million. The settlement, which received final approval from the court on November 6, 2015, covers more than 400 federal progeny cases but does not cover 12 federal progeny cases previously tried to verdict and currently pending on post-trial motions or appeal; one federal progeny case pending as of December 31, 2015, involving pro se plaintiffs unrepresented by counsel; and two federal progeny cases filed by different lawyers from the ones who negotiated the settlement for the plaintiffs. On August 3, 2015, RJR Tobacco and Philip Morris USA Inc. removed 33 cases from state court to the federal courts in Florida. These cases also are not part of the settlement, and were remanded back to state court on November 24, 2015. On October 22, 2015, RJR Tobacco and Philip Morris USA Inc. removed an additional five cases to federal court and, on January 4, 2016, removed a sixth case. At present, those cases remain in federal court. In March 2015, RJR Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco paid their share of the settlement. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: $375-Mil. in Judgments Remain Outstanding ------------------------------------------------------------ Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that as of December 31, 2015, judgments in favor of the Engle Progeny plaintiffs have been entered and remain outstanding against RJR Tobacco or Lorillard Tobacco in the amount of $184,217,140 in compensatory damages (as adjusted) and in the amount of $191,106,000 in punitive damages, for a total of $375,323,140. All of these verdicts are at various stages in the post-trial or appellate process. RJR Tobacco continues to believe that RJR Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco have valid defenses in these cases, including case-specific issues beyond the due process issue discussed above. It is the policy of RJR Tobacco and its affiliates to vigorously defend smoking and health claims, including all Engle Progeny cases. Should RJR Tobacco or Lorillard Tobacco not prevail in any particular individual Engle Progeny case or determine that in any individual Engle Progeny case an unfavorable outcome has become probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, a loss would be recognized, which could have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, cash flows and financial position of RAI in a particular quarter or year. This position on loss recognition for Engle Progeny cases as of December 31, 2015, is consistent with RAI's and RJR Tobacco's historic position on loss recognition for other smoking and health litigation. It is also the policy of RJR Tobacco to record any loss concerning litigation at such time as an unfavorable outcome becomes probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated on an individual case-by-case basis. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 26 Cases Set for Trial Through Dec. 2016 ----------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that there are 26 tobacco related cases, exclusive of Engle Progeny cases, scheduled for trial as of December 31, 2015 through December 31, 2016, for RJR Tobacco, Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., Lorillard Tobacco or their affiliates and indemnitees: one non-smoking and health case, one class action, three individual smoking and health cases and 21 Filter Cases. There are approximately 93 Engle Progeny cases against RJR Tobacco, B&W and/or Lorillard Tobacco set for trial through December 31, 2016, but it is not known how many of these cases will actually be tried. Trial schedules are subject to change, and many cases are dismissed before trial. From January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2015, 112 smoking and health, Engle Progeny and health-care cost recovery cases in which RJR Tobacco, B&W and/or Lorillard Tobacco were defendants were tried, including seven trials for cases where mistrials were declared in the original proceedings. Verdicts in favor of RJR Tobacco, B&W and Lorillard Tobacco and, in some cases, RJR Tobacco, B&W, Lorillard Tobacco and/or other defendants, were returned in 53 cases, including 12 mistrials, tried in Florida (52) and West Virginia (1). Verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs were returned in 53 cases tried in Florida, and 1 in California. Three cases in Florida were dismissed during trial. One case in Florida was a retrial only as to the amount of damages. In another case in Florida, the jury entered a partial verdict that did not include compensatory or punitive damages, and post-trial motions are pending. In the fourth quarter of 2015, nine Engle Progeny cases in which RJR Tobacco and/or Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant were tried: * In Marchese v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 55% at fault, RJR Tobacco 22.5% at fault, and the remaining defendant 22.5% at fault, and awarded $1 million in compensatory damages. The jury also awarded $250,000 in punitive damages against each defendant. * In Gordon v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 98% at fault and RJR Tobacco 2% at fault, and awarded $5,000 in compensatory damages. Punitive damages were not awarded. *In Robertson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco. * In Barbose v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 15% at fault, RJR Tobacco 42.5% at fault and the remaining defendant 42.5% at fault, and awarded $10 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages against each defendant. The damages are to be split equally. * In Fanali v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco. * In Shulman v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco. * In Green v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco. * In Monroe v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 42% at fault and RJR Tobacco 58% at fault, and awarded $11 million in compensatory damages. No punitive damages were awarded. * In Ledoux v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 6% at fault, RJR Tobacco 47% at fault and the remaining defendant 47% at fault, and awarded $10 million in compensatory damages and $12.5 million in punitive damages against each defendant. In addition, since the end of the fourth quarter of 2015, three other Engle Progeny cases, in which RJR Tobacco and/or Lorillard Tobacco were a defendant, were tried: * In Howles v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the court declared a mistrial because the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. * In Rounds v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco. * In Ewing v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 98% at fault, RJR Tobacco 2% at fault and the remaining defendant 0% at fault, and awarded $240,000 in compensatory damages. Punitive damages were not awarded. In the fourth quarter of 2015, no non-Engle Progeny individual smoking and health cases, in which RJR Tobacco, B&W or Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant, were tried. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 16 Tobacco PI Class Suits Pending at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that as of December 31, 2015, 16 class-action cases, excluding shareholder cases, were pending in the United States against Reynolds Defendants. These class actions seek recovery for personal injuries (PI) allegedly caused by cigarette smoking or, in some cases, for economic damages allegedly incurred by cigarette or e-cigarette purchasers. In 1996, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Castano v. American Tobacco Co. overturned the certification of a nation-wide class of persons whose claims related to alleged addiction to tobacco products. Since this ruling by the Fifth Circuit, most class- action suits have sought certification of state-wide, rather than nation-wide, classes. Class-action suits based on claims similar to those asserted in Castano, claims that class members are at a greater risk of injury or injured by the use of tobacco or exposure to ETS, or claims that seek primarily economic damages are pending against RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco, or their affiliates or indemnitees in state or federal courts in Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, West Virginia, California, Florida, New York and New Mexico. The pending class actions against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or indemnitees include four cases alleging that the use of the term "lights" constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practices under state law or violates the federal RICO statute. Such suits are pending in state or federal courts in Illinois and Missouri. E-cigarette class-action cases are pending against RJR Vapor, RAI, and other RAI affiliates in California. In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Vapor, Lorillard Tobacco, and other RAI affiliates made false and misleading claims that e-cigarettes are less hazardous than other cigarette products or failed to disclose that e-cigarettes expose users to certain substances. The cases are typically filed pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes and seek recovery of economic damages. Several class actions relating to claims in advertising and promotional materials for SFNTC's NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes are pending in federal courts. In general, these plaintiffs allege that use of the words "natural," "additive- free," or "organic" in NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT advertising and promotional materials suggests that those cigarettes are less harmful than other cigarettes and, for that reason, violated state consumer protection statutes or amounted to fraud or a negligent or intentional misrepresentation. The cases seek various combinations of recovery, including economic damages, treble damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief (including medical monitoring), and attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. Finally, certain third-party payers have filed health-care cost recovery actions in the form of class actions. Few smoker class-action complaints have been certified or, if certified, have survived on appeal. Eighteen federal courts, including two courts of appeals, and most state courts that have considered the issue have rejected class certification in such cases. Apart from the Castano case, only two smoker class actions have been certified by a federal court -- In re Simon (II) Litigation, and Schwab [McLaughlin] v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., both of which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and were ultimately decertified. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: May 2 Fairness Hearing in Camel Cash Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a fairness hearing will be held by the court on May 2, 2016, on the settlement reached in the Camel Cash class action. Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., is a class action filed in November 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California relating to the termination of a series of promotions by RJR Tobacco's CAMEL brand from 1991 to 2007 known as "Camel Cash." The plaintiffs originally brought the case on behalf of a putative class of all persons who tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash certificates from October 1, 1991 through March 31, 2007, or who held Camel Cash certificates as of March 31, 2007. The plaintiffs alleged that RJR Tobacco failed to have any rewards available during the final promotional period. The plaintiffs alleged claims based on the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Law, breach of contract and promissory estoppel, and the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, costs and expenses. In January 2010, RJR Tobacco filed a motion to dismiss. In February 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In the amended complaint, the proposed class definition changed to a class consisting of all persons who reside in the U.S. and tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash certificates, also referred to as C-Notes, from October 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007. The plaintiffs also proposed a California subclass consisting of persons in California meeting the same criteria. In May 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim was granted with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In July 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was granted with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, and RJR Tobacco filed a motion to dismiss in September 2010. In December 2010, the district court granted RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered final judgment. In January 2011, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. In July 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, referred to as the Ninth Circuit, affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims under the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Acts and reversed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims for promissory estoppel and breach of contract. In October 2012, the Ninth Circuit denied RJR Tobacco's motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc. RJR Tobacco filed its answer to the plaintiffs' third amended complaint in December 2012. Following the completion of discovery in June 2014, RJR Tobacco filed a motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On December 19, 2014, the district court denied RJR Tobacco's motion for summary judgment, declined to certify a national class, found that the plaintiffs' promissory estoppel claim could not be tried on a class basis, and, on the plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, certified a class of "all persons in California who, as adult smokers, were assigned registration numbers by RJR Tobacco, collected C-Notes, and held C-Notes as of October 1, 2006." RJR Tobacco filed a motion to decertify the class and further discovery was stayed. Subsequently, the parties agreed to a settlement. Pursuant to the proposed settlement, RJR Tobacco would make available non-tobacco merchandise to class members for Camel Cash that they held on October 1, 2006, and pay plaintiffs' counsel $4.75 million in fees and costs. On January 19, 2016, the court granted its preliminary approval order for the settlement. A fairness hearing will be held by the court on May 2, 2016. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Court Conditionally Approved "Feinman" Accord ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court has conditionally approved the settlement agreement and dismissal of the "Feinman" class action lawsuit. In Feinman v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a putative class action filed in September 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the plaintiff brought a case against RJR Tobacco on behalf of a putative class of residents of New York, Iowa and South Dakota who were excluded from the California class in Sateriale; namely, all persons who resided in New York, Iowa or South Dakota as of October 1, 2006, and who, as adult smokers, purchased Camel-brand filtered cigarettes along with C-Notes, collected C-Notes and held C-Notes as of October 1, 2006. The plaintiff alleges breach of contract claims based on the termination of a series of promotions by RJR Tobacco's Camel brand from 1991 to 2007 known as "Camel Cash." On September 28, 2015, RJR Tobacco accepted service of process of the complaint. On January 16, 2016, the court conditionally approved the parties' settlement agreement and dismissal of the case subject to the court in Sateriale granting its final approval of that settlement agreement. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Diek" Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs in the "Diek" class action lawsuit have filed an amended complaint naming as defendants RAI, two RAI affiliates, Imperial Sub, and two Imperial Sub affiliates. In Diek v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., a putative class action filed in April 2015, in the Superior Court of California, Orange County, the plaintiff brought a case against Lorillard Tobacco and two affiliated entities on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of one or more blu brand e-cigarettes, including e-juices, components thereof, cartridges or accessories sold by the defendants. The plaintiff alleges that certain advertising, marketing and packaging materials for blu brand e-cigarettes made deceptive claims and omitted material information. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief under California Civil Code Sec.1,750 et seq., injunctive and equitable relief under California Business & Professions Code Sec.17,200 et seq., injunctive relief and damages under California Business and Professions Code Sec.17,500 et seq., and damages for purported breaches of express warranty. On June 18, 2015, pursuant to the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement, RAI tendered the defense of this action to, and sought indemnification for this action from, Imperial Sub. On June 26, 2015, the defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On October 2, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming as defendants RAI, two RAI affiliates, Imperial Sub, and two Imperial Sub affiliates. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Asset Purchase Agreement, Imperial Sub has agreed to defend and indemnify RAI and its affiliates. On June 12, 2015, a wholly owned subsidiary -- Imperial Sub -- of Imperial Tobacco Group, PLC, acquired for approximately $7.1 billion certain assets (1) owned by RAI subsidiaries or affiliates relating to the cigarette brands WINSTON, KOOL and SALEM, and (2) owned by Lorillard subsidiaries or affiliates related to the cigarette brand MAVERICK and the "e-vapor" brand blu (including SKYCIG), as well as Lorillard's owned and leased real property, and certain transferred employees, together with associated liabilities, all in accordance with (a) an asset purchase agreement, dated July 15, 2014, as amended, and for certain provisions of the Asset Purchase Agreement and as guarantor of certain obligations of Imperial Sub, Imperial, and (b) a transfer agreement, dated July 15, 2014, between Lorillard and Imperial Sub. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Imperial to Indemnify RAI in "Whitney" Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Imperial Sub, a wholly owned subsidiary of Imperial Tobacco Group, PLC, has agreed to defend and indemnify RAI and its affiliate in the "Whitney" class action lawsuit. In Whitney v. ITG Brands, LLC, a putative class action filed in September 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the plaintiff brought a case against RAI, an RAI affiliate, Imperial Sub, and an Imperial Sub affiliate on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of blu brand e- cigarettes. The plaintiff alleges that certain advertising, marketing and packaging materials for blu brand e-cigarettes failed to advise purchasers and users that they potentially could be exposed to formaldehyde. The plaintiff asserts claims under California Business & Professions Code Sec.17,200 et seq. and California Civil Code Sec.1,750 et seq. and seeks declaratory relief, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief and damages. On September 18, 2015, pursuant to the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement, RAI tendered the defense of this action to, and sought indemnification for this action from, Imperial Sub. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Asset Purchase Agreement, Imperial Sub has agreed to defend and indemnify RAI and its affiliate. On June 12, 2015, a wholly owned subsidiary -- Imperial Sub -- of Imperial Tobacco Group, PLC, acquired for approximately $7.1 billion certain assets (1) owned by RAI subsidiaries or affiliates relating to the cigarette brands WINSTON, KOOL and SALEM, and (2) owned by Lorillard subsidiaries or affiliates related to the cigarette brand MAVERICK and the "e-vapor" brand blu (including SKYCIG), as well as Lorillard's owned and leased real property, and certain transferred employees, together with associated liabilities, all in accordance with (a) an asset purchase agreement, dated July 15, 2014, as amended, and for certain provisions of the Asset Purchase Agreement and as guarantor of certain obligations of Imperial Sub, Imperial, and (b) a transfer agreement, dated July 15, 2014, between Lorillard and Imperial Sub. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motion to Dismiss "Harris" Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a decision is pending on R. J. Reynolds Vapor Co.'s motion to dismiss the "Harris" class action lawsuit. In Harris v. R. J. Reynolds Vapor Co., a putative class action filed in September 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the plaintiff brought a case against RJR Vapor on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of VUSE e-cigarettes. The plaintiff alleges that certain advertising, marketing and packaging materials for VUSE e-cigarettes failed to advise purchasers and users that they potentially could be exposed to formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. The plaintiff asserts claim under California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17,200 et seq. and California Civil Code Sec. 1,750 et seq. and seeks declaratory relief, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief and damages. RJR Vapor accepted service of process on September 23, 2015. An amended complaint was subsequently filed alleging a violation of Proposition 65. RJR Vapor filed a motion to dismiss on January 8, 2016. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Lights Cases Pending in Illinois & Missouri -------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that "lights" class-action cases are pending against RJR Tobacco or Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., in Illinois (2) and Missouri (2). The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W. In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than other cigarettes. The cases typically are filed pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes. Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that "lights" class-action case against Altria Group, Inc. and Philip Morris USA Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to as FTC, historic regulation of the industry. Since this decision in December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active again. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motion to Recall Mandate Denied in "Price" ------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the motion to recall mandate filed by plantiffs in the case, Price v. Philip Morris, Inc., was denied by the Illinois Supreme Court. The seminal "lights" class-action case involves RJR Tobacco's competitor, Philip Morris, Inc. Trial began in Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. in January 2003. In March 2003, the trial judge entered judgment against Philip Morris in the amount of $7.1 billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages. Based on Illinois law, the bond required to stay execution of the judgment was set initially at $12 billion. Philip Morris pursued various avenues of relief from the $12 billion bond requirement. On December 15, 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and sent the case back to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the case. On December 5, 2006, the trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and for entry of final judgment. The case was dismissed with prejudice the same day. In December 2008, the plaintiffs filed a petition for relief from judgment, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. rejected the basis for the reversal. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' petition for relief from judgment in February 2009. In March 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District, requesting a reversal of the February 2009 order and remand to the circuit court. On February 24, 2011, the appellate court entered an order, concluding that the two-year time limit for filing a petition for relief from a final judgment began to run when the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit on December 18, 2006. The appellate court therefore found that the petition was timely, reversed the order of the trial court, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Philip Morris filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. On September 28, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court denied Philip Morris's petition for leave to appeal and returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings. In December 2012, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' petition for relief from the judgment. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District. In April 2014, the appellate court reinstated the 2003 verdict. In May 2014, Philip Morris filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court and a motion for supervisory order. Philip Morris has requested the Illinois Supreme Court to direct the Fifth Judicial District to vacate its April 2014 judgment and to order the Fifth Judicial District to affirm the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's petition for relief from the judgment, or in the alternative, grant its petition for leave to appeal. On September 24, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to hear Philip Morris's appeal. In November 2015, the Illinois Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the lower courts and dismissed the case without prejudice to allow the plaintiffs to file a motion to recall the mandate. The plaintiffs filed a motion to recall the mandate or for other appropriate relief in the Illinois Supreme Court, which was denied on January 11, 2016. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 24 Status Conference in "Turner" Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in February 2000, in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified a class in November 2001. In November 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR Tobacco's motion for a stay pending the court's final appeal decision in the Price case. The stay subsequently expired, and the court accordingly scheduled a series of status conferences, all of which were continued by agreement of the parties. The next status conference is scheduled for February 24, 2016. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still No Activity in Howard v. B&W Case ---------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in February 2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified a class in December 2001. In June 2003, the trial judge issued an order staying all proceedings pending resolution of the Price case mentioned above. The plaintiffs appealed this stay order to the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Circuit Court's stay order in August 2005. There is currently no activity in the case. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 22 Status Conference in "Collora" Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a "lights" class-action case is pending against each of RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., in Missouri. In Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in May 2000 in Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Missouri, a judge in St. Louis certified a class in December 2003. In April 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to reassign Collora and the following cases to a single general division: Craft v. Philip Morris USA Inc. and Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., discussed below. In April 2008, the court stayed the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. A nominal trial date of January 10, 2011 was scheduled, but it did not proceed at that time. A status conference is scheduled for February 22, 2016. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 22 Status Conference in "Black" Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in November 2000 in Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, the trial court, in April 2008, stayed the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. A nominal trial date of January 10, 2011, was scheduled, but it did not proceed at that time. A status conference is scheduled for February 22, 2016. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Hearing in "No Additive" Case in March or May ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the hearing before the Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation is anticipated on the Panel's March 31, 2016 or May 26, 2016 hearing dates related to the "No Additive/Natural Claim" Cases against Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. Following the FDA's August 27, 2015, warning letter to SFNTC relating to the use of the words "natural" and "additive-free" in the labeling, advertising, and promotional materials for NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes, plaintiffs purporting to bring claims on behalf of themselves and others have filed putative class actions against SFNTC and RAI. There are currently a total of seven such actions that are pending in the U.S. district courts for the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida, Southern District of New York, District of New Mexico, and Northern District of California. The claims asserted in these actions are based on alleged violations of state deceptive and unfair trade practice statutes, state common law, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, and the cases seek various combinations of recovery, including economic damages, injunctive relief, interest, restitution, disgorgement, treble and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On January 6, 2016, the plaintiffs in one of these actions filed a motion before the U.S. Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate these actions, referred to as the MDL Motion. SFNTC and RAI responded to the motion on January 27, 2016, and the hearing before the Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation is anticipated on the Panel's March 31, 2016 or May 26, 2016 hearing dates. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Sproule" Stayed Pending Bid to Consolidate -------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Sproule v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., a putative class action filed in September 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the plaintiff brought a case against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a nationwide putative class of purchasers of Natural American Spirit brand cigarettes. The plaintiff alleges that use of the words "natural," "additive-free," "organic," and "unadulterated tobacco product," suggests that Natural American Spirit brand cigarettes are healthier than or present reduced health risks as compared to other cigarettes. The plaintiff asserts claims based on alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, as well as claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and, as to RAI, for aiding and abetting and vicarious liability. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, including medical monitoring and smoking cessation programs, compensatory damages, civil penalties and statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and punitive damages. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on December 15, 2015. On January 26, 2016, the Sproule court stayed all proceedings pending resolution of a motion before the U.S. Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate these actions. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Brattain" Stayed Pending Bid to Consolidate --------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Brattain v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., a putative class action filed in October 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the plaintiff brought the case against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative class of California purchasers of Natural American Spirit brand cigarettes. The plaintiff alleges that use of the words "natural," "100% additive free," and "organic" suggests that Natural American Spirit brand cigarettes are healthier than or present reduced health risks as compared to other cigarettes. The plaintiff asserts claims based on alleged violations of the California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17,500 et seq., California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17,200 et seq. and California Civil Code Sec. 1,750 et seq., and seeks injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs and prejudgment and post-judgment interest. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on December 14, 2015. On January 22, 2016, the Brattain court stayed all proceedings pending resolution of a motion before the U.S. Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate these actions. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parties in "Rothman" Case Request Stay --------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Rothman v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., a putative class action filed in November 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the plaintiff brought a case against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative class of New York purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. The plaintiff alleges that the use of the words "natural" and "additive-free" suggest that NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes present a lower risk of tobacco-related disease and are less harmful than other commercially available cigarettes. The plaintiff asserts claims based on alleged violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349-50 and a claim for unjust enrichment. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory damages, restitution, and attorneys' fees and expenses. The defendants have not yet filed their initial response. On January 25, 2016, the parties jointly requested a stay of all proceedings pending resolution of a motion before the U.S. Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate these actions. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parties in "Dunn" Case Request Stay ------------------------------------------------------ Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Dunn v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., a putative class action filed in December 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, the plaintiff brought a case against SFNTC on behalf of a nationwide putative class (and Minnesota subclass) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. The plaintiff alleges that the use of the word "natural" suggests that NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes are less harmful than other commercially available cigarettes. The plaintiff asserts claims based on alleged violations of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act, Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minnesota False Advertising Law, and New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff seeks compensatory, treble, and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants have not yet filed their initial response. On February 1, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to stay all proceedings pending resolution of proceedings pending resolution of a motion before the U.S. Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate these actions. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parties in "Haksal" Case Request Stay -------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Haksal v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., a putative class action filed in December 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, the plaintiffs brought a case against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a nationwide putative class (and California, Illinois, Minnesota, and New Mexico subclasses) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. The plaintiffs allege that the use of the words "natural," "additive-free," and "organic" and the use of Native American imagery, suggests that NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes are less harmful than other commercially available cigarettes. The plaintiffs further challenge use of the description "natural" based on alleged use of artificial fertilizers and tobacco produced from genetically modified organism (GMO) tobacco, and allege false and misleading environmental claims. The plaintiffs assert claims based on alleged violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, New Mexico False Advertising Act, California Unfair Competition Law, California False Advertising Law, Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, Minnesota False Statement in Advertising Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, fraud, intentional misrepresentation, deceit, negligent misrepresentation, quasi- contract, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs seek compensatory exemplary, treble, and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief, including recall of allegedly unlawfully labeled product. The defendants have not yet filed their initial response. On February 1, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to stay all proceedings pending resolution of a motion before the U.S. Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate these actions. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Has Yet to Respond in "Cuebas" Case ------------------------------------------------------ Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Cuebas v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., a putative class action filed in January 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the plaintiff brought a case against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a nationwide putative class (and New York subclass) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. The plaintiff alleges that the use of the words "natural," "additive- free," "100% additive free," "organic," and "unadulterated tobacco product" suggest that NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes are less harmful than other commercially available cigarettes. The plaintiff asserts claims based on alleged violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349-50, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff seeks compensatory, treble and exemplary damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief including medical monitoring and smoking cessation programs, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and punitive damages. The defendants have not yet filed their initial response. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Has Yet to Respond in "Okstad" Case ------------------------------------------------------ Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Okstad v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., a putative class action filed in January 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the plaintiffs brought a case against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a nationwide putative class and sixteen putative state- based subclasses (Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin subclasses) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. The plaintiffs allege that the use of the words "natural," "additive free," "100% additive free," "organic," and "unadulterated tobacco product" suggests that NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes are less harmful than other commercially available cigarettes. On behalf of the putative nationwide class, plaintiffs assert common law claims of alleged fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. On behalf of the 16 state-based subclasses, plaintiffs assert claims based on alleged violations of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practice Act, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law, Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Georgia's Fair Business Practices Act, Georgia's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, Iowa Private Right of Action for Consumer Frauds Act, Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, Maryland Consumer Protection Act, New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The plaintiffs seek compensatory, treble, and exemplary damages, injunctive relief, including medical monitoring and smoking cessation programs, civil penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and punitive damages. The defendants have not yet filed their initial response. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Young v. American Tobacco Remains Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in November 1997 in Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the plaintiffs brought an ETS class action against U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, on behalf of all residents of Louisiana who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, have been exposed to secondhand smoke from cigarettes which were manufactured by the defendants, and who allegedly suffered injury as a result of that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. In March 2013, the court entered an order staying the case, including all discovery, pending the implementation of the smoking cessation program ordered by the court in Scott v. The American Tobacco Co. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parsons v. AC&S Remains Dormant -------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in Circuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, the plaintiff sued asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, Lorillard Tobacco, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR and Lorillard, seeking to recover $1 million in compensatory and punitive damages individually and an unspecified amount for the class in both compensatory and punitive damages. The case was brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke. The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products and exposure to asbestos products caused her to develop lung cancer and to become addicted to tobacco. In December 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc., Desseaux Corporation of North America and Armstrong World Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to all defendants who filed for bankruptcy. The case remains pending against the other defendants, including RJR Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco, but it has long been dormant. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Jones v. American Tobacco Remains Dormant ------------------------------------------------------------ Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in December 1998 in Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, the defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri in February 1999. The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, Lorillard Tobacco, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR and Lorillard, by tobacco product users and purchasers on behalf of all similarly situated Missouri consumers. The plaintiffs allege that their use of the defendants' tobacco products has caused them to become addicted to nicotine. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. The case was remanded to the Circuit Court in February 1999. There is currently no activity in this case. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Lorillard Faces 64 Filter Cases at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by a predecessor to Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time ending more than 50 years ago. As of December 31, 2015, Lorillard Tobacco and/or Lorillard was a defendant in 64 Filter Cases. Since January 1, 2012, Lorillard Tobacco has paid, or has reached agreement to pay, a total of approximately $51.8 million in settlements to resolve 187 claims asserted in Filter Cases. Pursuant to the terms of a 1952 agreement between P. Lorillard Company and H&V Specialties Co., Inc. (the manufacturer of the filter material), Lorillard Tobacco is required to indemnify Hollingsworth & Vose for legal fees, expenses, judgments and resolutions in cases and claims alleging injury from finished products sold by P. Lorillard Company that contained the filter material. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Oral Argument Held in Lorillard Appeal --------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the jury in DeLisle v. A. W. Chesterton Company, a case tried in the Circuit Court for the 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, found on September 13, 2013, in favor of the plaintiffs as to their claims for negligence and strict liability, and awarded $8 million. Lorillard Tobacco is responsible for 44%, or $3.52 million. Judgment was entered on November 6, 2013. Lorillard Tobacco filed its notice of appeal on November 18, 2013. Briefing is complete. Oral argument was scheduled for February 16, 2016. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: JTI Assumes Defense of 7 Canadian Cases ---------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that RJR Tobacco has tendered the defense of seven class action lawsuits in Canada to JT International Holding BV. Subject to a reservation of rights, JTI has assumed the defense of RJR Tobacco and its current or former affiliates in these actions. Seven putative Canadian class actions were filed against various Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, in courts in the Provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Saskatchewan, although the plaintiffs' counsel have been actively pursuing only Bourassa, the action pending in British Columbia, at this time: * In Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case filed in June 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench, Winnepeg Judicial Centre against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, severe asthma and lung disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their estates, and their dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes manufactured by the defendants, as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products. * In Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case filed in June 2009, in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Judicial Centre of Calgary against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic bronchitis resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their estates, dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes designed, manufactured, marketed or distributed by the defendants, as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products. * In Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case filed in June 2009 in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Halifax against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging his own addiction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their estates, dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes designed, manufactured, marketed or distributed by the defendants for the period from January 1, 1954, to the expiry of the opt-out period as set by the court, as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-care costs allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products. * In Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case filed in July 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals who were alive on July 10, 2009, and who have suffered, or who currently suffer, from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed or distributed by the defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Saskatchewan court. * In Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Victoria Registry against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco- related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleging that the deceased was addicted to and suffered emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from chronic respiratory diseases, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed by the defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have filed a challenge to the jurisdiction of the British Columbia court. The plaintiff filed a motion for certification in April 2012, and filed affidavits in support in August 2013. An amended claim was filed in December 2014. * In McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed in June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Victoria Registry against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco- related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging his own addiction and heart disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from heart disease, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed by the defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have filed a challenge to the jurisdiction of the British Columbia court. * In Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case filed in June 2012 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, St. Catherines, against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, or cancer, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed by the defendants, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products. In each of these seven cases, the plaintiffs allege fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, breach of warranty of merchantability and of fitness for a particular purpose, failure to warn, design defects, negligence, breach of a "special duty" to children and adolescents, conspiracy, concert of action, unjust enrichment, market share liability, joint liability, and violations of various trade practices and competition statutes. Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the defense of these seven actions to JTI. Subject to a reservation of rights, JTI has assumed the defense of RJR Tobacco and its current or former affiliates in these actions. On January 13, 2016, RAI, through various subsidiaries, completed the sale of the international rights to the NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand name and associated trademarks, along with the international companies that distribute and market the brand outside the United States, to JT International Holding BV, referred to as JTI Holding, a subsidiary of Japan Tobacco Inc., referred to as JTI, in an all-cash transaction with a value of approximately $5 billion. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motions Pending in ERISA Litigation ------------------------------------------------------ Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a district court will address pending motions in the ERISA Litigation in due course. In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an employee of RJR Tobacco filed a class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging that the defendants, RJR, RJR Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee, violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, referred to as ERISA. The actions about which the plaintiff complains stem from a decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., subsequently renamed Nabisco Group Holdings Corp., referred to as NGH, to spin off RJR, thereby separating NGH's tobacco business and food business. As part of the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the previously related entities had to be divided into two separate plans for the now separate tobacco and food businesses. The plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to participants of the RJR 401(k) plan when the defendants removed the stock funds of the companies involved in the food business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., referred to as Nabisco, as investment options from the RJR 401(k) plan approximately six months after the spin-off. The plaintiff asserts that a November 1999 amendment (the "1999 Amendment") that eliminated the NGH and Nabisco funds from the RJR 401(k) plan on January 31, 2000, contained sufficient discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds after January 31, 2000, and that the failure to exercise such discretion was a breach of fiduciary duty. In his complaint, the plaintiff requests, among other things, that the court require the defendants to pay as damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount equal to the subsequent appreciation that was purportedly lost as a result of the liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds. In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted in December 2003. In December 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot. In April 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee. The remaining defendants, RJR and RJR Tobacco, filed their answer and affirmative defenses in June 2007. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which the court granted in September 2008. The district court ordered mediation, but no resolution of the case was reached. In September 2008, each of the plaintiffs and the defendants filed motions for summary judgment, and in January 2009, the defendants filed a motion to decertify the class. A second mediation occurred in June 2009, but again no resolution of the case was reached. The district court overruled the motions for summary judgment and the motion to decertify the class. A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010. During closing arguments, the plaintiff argued for the first time that certain facts arising at trial showed that the 1999 Amendment was not validly adopted, and then moved to amend his complaint to conform to this evidence at trial. On June 1, 2011, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and found that the 1999 Amendment was invalid. The parties filed their findings of fact and conclusions of law on February 4, 2011. On February 25, 2013, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice finding that a hypothetical prudent fiduciary could have made the same decision and thus the plan's loss was not caused by the procedural prudence which the court found to have existed. On March 8, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On August 4, 2014, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, referred to as Fourth Circuit, reversed, holding that the district court applied the wrong standard when it held that the defendants did not cause any loss to the plan, determined the test was whether a hypothetical prudent fiduciary would have made the same decision and remanded the case back to the district court to apply the "would have standard." On December 1, 2014, the defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition for writ of certiorari. On November 19, 2014, the district court held a hearing and ordered briefing on various issues that remain pending on remand. The parties filed briefs addressing (1) the application of the different prudence standard, the "would have standard" adopted by the Fourth Circuit and (2) the merits of the defendants' affirmative defense related to releases executed by many class members and to the claims by class members who voluntarily sold their Nabisco shares while their accounts were frozen. The defendants also filed a renewed motion to decertify the class. The district court will address these pending motions in due course. RINCON PROGRESENO: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Castillo" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Doris Nohemi Acosta Castillo and all others similarly situated v. Rincon Progreseno II Corp. and Nora G. Bueso, Case No. 1:16-cv- 20225-KMW (S.D. Fla., January 19, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located in Miami, Florida. 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 RITE-AID: Does Not Provide Workers Rest Periods, Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Ogura, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public v. Rite-Aid Corporation and Does 1000, Case No. BC605968 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 6, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide employees rest periods as required by the California Labor Code. Rite-Aid Corporation owns and operates drugstore chains within the state of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Crate Clark, Esq. James M, Treglio, Esq. Dawn M. Berry, Esq. CLARK & TREGLIO 205 West Date Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-1321 Facsimile: (888) 273-45S4 - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Bolsa Avenue/Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (562) 256-1047 Facsimile: (562) 256-4554 ROTHMAN FOOD: Faces "Veronese" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bonnie Veronese, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Rothman Food Group, LLC, and Does 1- 100 Inclusive, Case No. BC606097 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 6, 2016) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Rothman Food Group, LLC operates Fishbar restaurant in the city of Manhattan Beach. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carol L. Gillam, Esq. Sara Heum, Esq. THE GILLAM LAW FIRM 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 203-9977 Facsimile: (310)203-9922 E-mail: carol@gillamlaw.com sara@gillamlaw.com - and - Steven S. Elster, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN ELSTER 785/E2 Oak Grove Road, #201 Concord, CA 94518-3617 Telephone: (925) 324-2159 E-mail: steve.elster.law@gmail.com SAN FRANCISCO: "Lofton" Suit Alleges Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- Anita Lofton and Almudena Martin Marcos, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The City And County Of San Francisco, and Does 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-15-549595 (Cal. Super., San Francisco County, December 23, 2016), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction against the City, back pay, front pay, and other monetary relief according to proof, general, exemplary and punitive damages sustained, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pre-judgment and post-judgment interest for violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code Sec. 12940, et seq. Lofton is an African-American female while Almudena Martin-Marcos is a Hispanic female. Both are over the age of 40 and were allegedly denied the opportunity to bid on better positions with the City because of their race and age as well as in retaliation for their previous complaints about Department policies. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Russell L. Goodrow, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RUSSELL GOODROW Law Chambers Building 345 Franklin St. San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: (415) 655-9478 Fax: (415) 241-7340 Email: russ@goodrowlaw.com - and - Burke Hansen, Esq. 345 Franklin St. San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: (415) 863-1520 Fax: (415) 263-1510 SANTANDER CONSUMER USA: Violated FUTCL, "Jones" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Lecora Jones, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 9:16-cv-80082 (S.D. Fla., January 15, 2016), seeks to recover damages incurred as the result of a deceptive and fraudulent scheme conducted by Defendant of taking title to vehicles that have been declared a total loss by an insurer and then reselling the "totaled" vehicles at auction without disclosing the salvage history or classification of the vehicle, and without "rebranding" the title as "salvage certificate title", pursuant to the Florida Uniform Traffic Control Law. Santander Consumer USA, a consumer finance company, provides vehicle finance and unsecured consumer lending products. The company offers new and used car loans, and auto and cash-back refinance services. It provides products through dealers in the United States. The company was incorporated in 1981 and is based in Dallas, Texas. Santander Consumer USA Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. Mark F. Fistos, Esq. Brittany N. Henderson, Esq. FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 524 2820 Facsimile: (954) 524 2822 E-mail: seth@pathtojustice.com mark@pathtojustice.com brittany@pathtojustice.com - and - Sergei Lemberg, Esq. Vlad Hirnyk, Esq. LEMBERG LAW L.L.C. 1100 Summer Street, Third Floor Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 653 2250 E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com vhirnyk@lemberglaw.com SANTANDER CONSUMER USA: "Jones" Suit Seeks Damages Under FUTCL -------------------------------------------------------------- Lecora Jones, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-14012-RLR (S.D. Fla., January 15, 2016), ), seeks to recover damages incurred as the result of a deceptive and fraudulent scheme conducted by Defendant of taking title to vehicles that have been declared a total loss by an insurer and then reselling the "totaled" vehicles at auction without disclosing the salvage history or classification of the vehicle, and without "rebranding" the title as "salvage certificate title", pursuant to the Florida Uniform Traffic Control Law. Santander Consumer USA, a consumer finance company, provides vehicle finance and unsecured consumer lending products. The company offers new and used car loans, and auto and cash-back refinance services. It provides products through dealers in the United States. The company was incorporated in 1981 and is based in Dallas, Texas. Santander Consumer USA Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. Mark F. Fistos, Esq. Brittany N. Henderson, Esq. FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 524 2820 Facsimile: (954) 524 2822 E-mail: seth@pathtojustice.com mark@pathtojustice.com brittany@pathtojustice.com - and - Sergei Lemberg, Esq. Vlad Hirnyk, Esq. LEMBERG LAW L.L.C. 1100 Summer Street, Third Floor Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 653 2250 E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com vhirnyk@lemberglaw.com SINGER FINANCIAL: Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, KHS Says --------------------------------------------------------- KHS Corp., a Delaware Corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Singer Financial Corporation, Paul Singer and John Does 1-12, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00055-AB (E.D. Pa., January 7, 2016), seeks equitable and injunctive relief, including injunctions enjoining further violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. Section 227). Defendants sent unsolicited fax messages to market their services, often without the prior express consent of the persons using those cellular telephone numbers in order to promote their products and services. Plaintiff is a corporation registered in the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Singer Financial Corp. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania and is into loans and other financial services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. James M. Smith, Esq. BOCK & HATCH, LLC 134 N. La Salle St,, Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 658-5500 SINGING RIVER: Sued Over Failure to Fund Workers Retirement Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dolly Ann Montgomery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Singing River Health System Foundation, a/k/a Singing River Hospital System, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv- 00017-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss., January 19, 2016) is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' failure to adequately fund the Singing River Health System Employee Retirement Plan and Trust. Singing River Health System Foundation operates a community hospital located in Jackson County, Mississippi. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Yarborough Jr., Esq. YARBOROUGH LAW FIRM, PLLC 845-B Highway 90 Bay Saint Louis, MS 39520 Telephone: (228) 467-5771 E-mail: ylf@garyyarborough@att.net SING SONG: "Tang" Suit Seek Overtime Pay Recovery -------------------------------------------------------------- Ai H. Tang, Jing G. Jiang, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sing Song Inc. d/b/a BARNACLE Bill's, Todd Sherman, George P. Gill Jr., John Doe and Jane Doe No. 1-10, Defendants, Case. No. 3:16-cv-00085-FLW-DEA (D.N.J., January 7, 2016), seeks injunction against Defendants, recovery of unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated and/or punitive damages, and attorney's and expert fees and further legal and equitable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et. seq. and New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. Ai H. Tang was hired by Defendants as a kitchen helper while Jing G Jiang worked as a chef. They claim to have rendered in excess of 40 hours per work week without overtime compensation. Sing Song Inc. is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of New Jersey, with a principal place of business located at #1 1st St, Rumson, NJ 07760. It operates a restaurant under the name Barnacle Bill's. The Plaintiff is represented by: Keli Liu, Esq. 136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Tel: (718) 353-8588 Email: kliu@hanglaw.com SKINDER-STRAUSS: 3rd Cir. Affirms Junk Fax Settlement Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Wolf, Shayna Posses and Nathan Hale, writing for Law360, report that the Third Circuit on Feb. 16 affirmed a $625,000 class action settlement between legal publisher Skinder-Strauss Associates and law firm Landsman & Funk PC over the publisher's transmission of unsolicited faxes, finding a magistrate judge properly handled the settlement and fee determinations despite the arguments of a lone objector. The decision upholds U.S. Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor's May 2015 approval of a deal to end a 6 1/2 year-old Telephone Consumer Protection Act suit on behalf of a proposed class of consumers alleging the New Providence, New Jersey-based legal publisher sent them thousands of unsolicited faxes. With her approval, Judge Waldor denied a challenge by Philadelphia-based Lightman & Manochi, which objected to the deal for not adequately providing for potential claimants who may not recall or have proof of receiving a fax. The circuit court on Feb. 16 rejected Lightman's arguments that the settlement excludes a large number of potential claimants, miscalculates class counsel attorneys' fees at around $208,000 and unfairly reverts a majority of settlement funds back to the defendant once class members are paid out approximately $58,000. The panel observed that Lightman was the only objector out of thousands of potential claimants, that Judge Waldor properly relied on the appropriate benchmark for assessing the size of the fund, and that she appropriately determined the reverter element of the settlement was fair and reasonable because there were "no indicia of self-dealing by counsel" and "counsel has met its responsibility to seek an award that adequately prioritizes direct benefit to the class." "It appears uncontested that class counsel are highly skilled and experienced in this type of litigation, they devoted hundreds of hours of work to what was a complex and heavily litigated case, they settled this case well before trial, and there was only a single objection to the fee award," the panel said. Landsman's attorney Aytan Yehoshua Bellin of Bellin & Associates LLC told Law360 on Feb. 16 that his client is gratified with the court's decision, and added that the panel's approval of a settlement with a reverter element is significant. "It's not a basis to say that a settlement is no good," he said. "You can have a reverter as part of your settlement as long as you made funds available to class members." An attorney for Lightman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Feb. 16. The suit, which survived a trial court dismissal after the Third Circuit reversed and remanded the case, hinged on a debate over whether the TCPA's right-of-private-action clause required it to consider New York law, which prohibits class actions seeking statutory penalties. The appellate panel found that there was no federal-question jurisdiction, citing recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings and saying federal class action law applied. In December 2012, U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden rejected a second motion to dismiss the claims on remand, saying that because federal law applies in this case, the defendant's motion to dismiss based on limitations imposed by a state law fails. The deal allows for the statutory maximum recovery of $500 per fax received and retained, as well as a sliding scale down to $175 per fax for those who did not retain faxes but declared that they received them. Lightman appealed the decision, arguing the claims process required claimants to jump through "extremely high hurdles" and that it was unreasonable to ask claimants to remember receiving faxes more than six years ago. As such, the settlement value was "illusory" because only a low number of claimants would qualify. On appeal, Landsman blasted Lightman's argument that the attorneys' fee award should be reduced to reflect the amount of the fund that's actually claimed rather than the entire common fund, saying the contention goes against Supreme Court precedent. It also said Lightman can't challenge the deal since it is not a class member. Landsman is represented by Aytan Y. Bellin of Bellin & Associates LLC. Lightman is represented in-house by Glenn A. Manochi -- gmanochi@lightmanlaw.com -- and Gary P. Lightman -- garylightman@lightmanlaw.com Skinder-Strauss is represented by Michael R. McDonald -- mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com -- and Jeffrey A. Palumbo -- jpalumbo@gibbonslaw.com -- of Gibbons PC. The case is Landsman & Funk PC v. Skinder-Strauss Associates et al., case number 15-2485, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. SKULLCANDY INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Utah ----------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. on Feb. 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah on behalf of all persons or entities who acquired Skullcandy, Inc. (NASDAQ:SKUL) securities between August 7, 2015 and January 11, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"). According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (1) Skullcandy's revenue and net income guidance for the third quarter and full year 2015 were unattainable; (2) Skullcandy's revenue and net income guidance for the fourth quarter and full year 2015 were unattainable; (3) Skullcandy faced challenges with its largest Chinese distributor; (4) defendant Rick Alden and Ptarmagin, an entity controlled by Alden, engaged in insider selling and realized proceeds in excess of $4 million with knowledge of undisclosed materially adverse facts; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about Skullcandy's business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis. On January 11, 2016, Skullcandy issued a press release updating the company's financial outlook for the fourth quarter of 2015 and announcing that the company had missed its quarterly net sales projections. Following this news, Skullcandy stock fell $1.29, more than 28%, to close at $3.26 per share on January 12, 2016. If you purchased Skullcandy securities during the Class Period, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters please contact J. Brandon Walker, Esq. by email at investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a New York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. SKULLCANDY INC: April 12 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Feb. 16 issued the following statement: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Skullcandy, Inc. ("Skullcandy") between August 7, 2015 and January 11, 2016. You are hereby notified that a securities class action has been commenced in the USDC for the District of Utah, Central Division. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Skullcandy securities between August 7, 2015 and January 11, 2016, your rights may be affected by this action. To get more information go to: http://zlk.9nl.com/skullcandy The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose material facts, including: (a) that the Company issued false and misleading earnings guidance and (b) that the Company was experiencing challenges with its largest Chinese distributor. The complaint further alleges that the aforementioned omissions and/or misleading statements led Skullcandy to trade at artificially inflated prices, permitting certain insiders to engage in unusual insider selling and the realization of proceeds in excess of $4 million. If you suffered a loss in Skullcandy you have until April 12, 2016 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972, or visit http://zlk.9nl.com/skullcandy Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation involving financial fraud, and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. SOCAL GAS: Pleads Not Guilty to Criminal Charges Over Leak ---------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Southern California Gas Co. pleaded not guilty on Feb. 17 to misdemeanor criminal charges stemming from a weeks-long leak of gas from a storage well that led thousands of nearby Los Angeles residents to relocate. The utility's attorneys entered the pleas in Los Angeles County Superior Court in suburban Santa Clarita. "We do not believe a criminal prosecution is warranted here," SoCalGas spokesman Mike Mizrahi said outside court. The complaint brought by the county district attorney includes three counts of failing to report the release of a hazardous material and one count of discharge of air contaminants. If convicted, the company could be fined up to $1,000 per day for air pollution violations and up to $25,000 for each of the three days it didn't notify the state Office of Emergency Services of the leak. The company said it discovered the leak Oct. 23 and notified state regulators. But it failed to let state emergency officials know until Oct. 26, California Attorney General Kamala Harris said in one of more than two dozen lawsuits filed against SoCalGas. Residents of the nearby Los Angeles community of Porter Ranch began complaining of symptoms ranging from nosebleeds to nausea. Nearly 6,500 families have temporarily relocated to short-term housing such as hotels and rental houses. The leak was recently stopped, but the families won't start moving back until state authorities have certified that cement pumped into the well has permanently plugged it. The well that ruptured was more than 60 years old and was originally drilled to pump oil from deep underground. It was reused in the 1970s to pump natural gas into the empty oil wells for storage and withdraw it when demand spiked. SPOTIFY: Seeks Dismissal of $150MM Copyright Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Jon Blistein, writing for RollingStone, reports that Spotify has filed legal motions to halt a $150 million class action lawsuit over copyright infringement fronted by Camper Van Beethoven and Cracker frontman David Lowery, Pitchfork reports. The streaming giant submitted two motions on February 12th, one asking a judge to dismiss the case due to lack of jurisdiction, the other requesting the case be barred from being treated as a class action. In regards to the motion to dismiss, Spotify noted that Lowery lives in Georgia, but filed his initial suit last December in California, while Spotify is a Delaware corporation based in New York. They requested the judge move the case to New York if it is not dismissed on these grounds. As for the class action component, Lowery positioned his suit so that it could encompass a wide swath of musicians who believed they had been similarly wronged by Spotify. Listing several of his own tunes, Lowery accused the streaming service of both failing to find and pay the composers and songwriters of tracks provided to its users; and knowingly reproducing and distributing copyrighted music without a proper license. Members of the class, the suit claimed, could be easily identified by searching Spotify's own database files and records. In their motion, however, Spotify called Lowery's suit "a fatally flawed candidate for class treatment." The company claimed there was "no way to determine who qualifies as a class member" because of the "thorny and often intractable" questions of identifying the owner of a song's mechanical rights (i.e. the right to reproduce it), and determining if Spotify "distributed those compositions without license or authorization." The streaming service also argued that Lowery did not prove "that common issues predominate over individual ones," or that a class action made more sense than individual adjudication in a copyright-based case. They argued each potential class member would have to be given their own "mini-trial" centered around the various ownership specifics of each song. Mona Hanna -- mhanna@mrllp.com -- a partner in the law firm representing Mr. Lowery, Michelman & Robinson, LLP, told Pitchfork that Spotify's motions were "a standard defense maneuver to try to avoid dealing with the merits of the complaint and trying to see if they can get a dismissal on procedural grounds." She added: "We are very confident that this is just a delay tactic and we are going to get to the merits." SUMMIT COLLECTION: Faces "McGeehan" Suit Over Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------------- Pat McGeehan, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Summit Collection Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00045-SDW-SCM (D.N.J., January 5, 2016) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Summit Collection Services, Inc. operates a debt collection agency in New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com SYNGENTA AG: 3,929 U.S. Suits Filed Over VIPTERA and DURACADE ------------------------------------------------------------- Syngenta AG said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that since September 12, 2014, a total of 3,929 lawsuits (as of January 25, 2016) have been filed against Syngenta in state and federal courts in the United States by plaintiffs seeking damages from Syngenta for commercializing its AGRISURE VIPTERA(R) (MIR162) and DURACADE(TM) corn seed in the U.S. without having obtained import approval from China for those products. Virtually all of the lawsuits were filed by individual plaintiffs (including growers, grain elevators and exporters such as Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland), and approximately 70 by putative classes of growers and of exporters, ethanol plants, and others affected, on the theory that China's 2013 rejection of U.S. corn based on the alleged presence of MIR162 caused increased costs and U.S. commodity prices to drop. The cases are pending in multiple jurisdictions, including: (1) a federal court multi-district litigation ("MDL") in the District of Kansas; (2) a consolidated state court proceeding in Hennepin County, Minnesota; (3) federal court in the Southern District of Illinois; and (4) various state courts in Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana and Ohio. Certain of these cases also name additional defendants including ADM, Bunge, Cargill, Louis Dreyfus and Gavilon. Certain of the cases currently pending in state court may be removed to federal court. The allegations include claims that Syngenta issued misleading statements concerning the status of or timetable for approval of import of VIPTERA(TM) corn into China and that the public had a right to expect that corn sold to the general public was free from "contamination" with VIPTERA(TM) corn. The Cargill lawsuit refers to damages of in excess of $90 million and one of the exporter lawsuits specifies damages of $41 million. The federal court presiding over the MDL in Kansas issued a Scheduling Order on October 21, 2015, setting the first case for trial in June 2017. The court presiding over the consolidated state court proceeding in Minnesota issued a Scheduling Order on November 4, 2015, anticipating that the first trial will occur in March 2017. No other trial dates have been set. Syngenta strongly believes that the claims in these cases are without merit and will vigorously defend the lawsuits, and has filed counterclaims against ADM, Cargill and other grain companies. SYNGENTA AG: Faces Ontario Class Action Over VIPTERA and DURACADE ----------------------------------------------------------------- Syngenta AG said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a claim was filed on December 1, 2015, in Ontario, Canada by a proposed representative plaintiff on behalf of a putative class comprising all farmers in Canada against Syngenta Canada Inc. and Syngenta AG seeking damages from Syngenta for commercializing its AGRISURE VIPTERA(R) (MIR162) and DURACADE(TM) corn seed in the North American corn market without having obtained import approval from China for those products. Syngenta Canada Inc. has been served with the claim. Syngenta AG has not been served with the claim to date. The causes of action referred to in the lawsuit include negligence and negligent misrepresentations. The allegations include claims that Syngenta actively misled farmers about the importance of the Chinese market, the timing and substance of the application for approval in China, its ability to channel VIPTERA(TM) corn into non-Chinese markets and its ability to contain the infiltration of VIPTERA(TM) corn to the North American corn supply. The proposed representative plaintiff is seeking on behalf of the putative class general and special damages of 300 million Canadian dollars ($216 million at the December 31, 2015 exchange rate), punitive and aggravated damages of 100 million Canadian dollars ($72 million at the December 31, 2015 exchange rate), the costs of distributing all monies awarded to class members, pre-judgment interest, and costs on a substantial indemnity basis. No steps have been taken in the action except for the service of the claim on Syngenta Canada Inc. After Syngenta AG is served with the claim, and subject to any preliminary motions that Syngenta determines should be brought, the next step in these proceedings will be a certification motion brought by the proposed representative plaintiff. Syngenta strongly believes that the claims in this action are without merit and will vigorously defend the action. SYNGENTA AG: Motion to File Class Suit in Montreal Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Syngenta AG said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that no date has been scheduled for the Motion for Authorization in the Canada Beekeeper Lawsuits. The Motion seeks permission to bring a similar class proceeding in in Montreal, Quebec. In September 2014, a claim was filed in Ontario, Canada by two proposed representative members on behalf of a putative class comprising all beekeepers who have owned or continue to own and operate honey producing, pollinating, and/or queen bee rearing businesses in Canada since January 1, 2006, against a number of Syngenta legal entities together with certain entities of a second manufacturer of neonicotinoid insecticides. Plaintiffs allege negligence through the sale by that manufacturer and by Syngenta of products containing such insecticides in the knowledge that they would be injurious to bees and by virtue of misrepresentations and concealment relating thereto. Plaintiffs claim 400 million Canadian dollars ($288 million at the December 31, 2015 exchange rate) general and 50 million Canadian dollars ($36 million at the December 31, 2015 exchange rate) punitive damages. The pleadings in the Ontario proceedings have subsequently been amended by plaintiffs' counsel to add waiver of tort and unlawful conspiracy to the single cause of action, negligence, which was previously pleaded. Both of the additional causes of action are ancillary to and largely dependent on the negligence claim. The Syngenta defendant legal entities (Syngenta Canada Inc. and Syngenta International AG) have filed appearances in the proceedings. Subject to any preliminary motions, the next step in these proceedings will be a certification motion brought by the proposed representative plaintiffs. No dates have been scheduled for any motions at this time. In October 2014, a Motion for Authorization was filed by the same firm of plaintiffs' counsel in Montreal, Quebec seeking permission to bring a similar class proceeding in that province. The proposed representative plaintiff operates a family business specialized in the breeding of queen bees. The Quebec litigation closely resembles the original Ontario lawsuit claiming negligence except that, rather than a nationwide class, it alleges a class limited to Quebec. At this preliminary motion stage damages are unspecified. Notices of appearance have been entered on behalf of the Syngenta defendant legal entities in Quebec. A case management judge has been appointed in the Quebec proceedings. No date has been scheduled for the Motion for Authorization. A preliminary motion will be scheduled early in 2016 to address evidentiary issues related to any Motion for Authorization. Syngenta believes the claims in these cases are without merit and will vigorously defend the lawsuits. TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Violated Securities Act, "Patel" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Mitesh Patel, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Terraform Global, Inc., Sunedison, Inc., Brian Wuebbels, Ahmad Chatila, Martin Truong, Carlos Domenech Zornoza, Jeremy Avenier, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co LLC, Goldman, Sachs Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith Incorporated, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., BTG Pactual US Capital LLC, Itaij BBA USA Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., SG Americas Securities, LLC, Kotak Mahindra, Inc., And Does 1-25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CIV 536788 (Cal Super. Ct., County of San Mateo, January 4, 2016), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws, and to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. TerraForm Global owns and operates renewable energy generation assets worldwide. It generates electricity through solar, wind, and hydro-electric projects with a total combined capacity of 987.8 megawatts. The company serves utility, commercial, industrial, and governmental customers. The company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. TerraForm Global, Inc. is a subsidiary of SunEdison, Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. (SBN 219683) THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com TRICAN WELL SERVICE: "Alawar" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Recovery -------------------------------------------------------------- Rawad Alawar, Plaintiff, v. Trican Well Service, LP, Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00014 (W.D. Tex., San Antonio Division, January 8, 2016), seeks all unpaid and/or underpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, post-judgment interest on all amounts awarded and other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Alawar was employed by the Defendant as a field engineer and claims to have rendered in excess of 40 hours per workweek without overtime compensation. Trican is an independent oilfield services contractor that provides various specialized products, equipment, services and technology for use in the drilling, completion, stimulation and reworking of oil and gas wells in Canada and the United States to include acidizing and production enhancement, cementing, coil tubing, fracturing and coal bed methane fracturing. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos A. Solis, Esq. 310 S. St. Mary's St., Suite 2900 San Antonio, TX 78205 Tel: (210) 446-5000 Fax: (210) 446-5001 Email: csolis@hilley-solis.com TWENTY-FIRST: Wilder Litigation Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------- Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. continues to defend the class action lawsuit, Wilder v. News Corp., et al., it said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015. On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned Wilder v. News Corp., et al. ("Wilder Litigation"), was filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between March 3, 2011 and July 11, 2011, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff brought claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, alleging that false and misleading statements were issued regarding the alleged acts of voicemail interception at The News of the World. The suit names as defendants the Company, Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and seeks compensatory damages, rescission for damages sustained, and costs. On June 5, 2012, the court issued an order appointing the Avon Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead counsel. Thereafter, on July 3, 2012, the court issued an order providing that an amended consolidated complaint shall be filed by July 31, 2012. Avon filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 31, 2012, which among other things, added as defendants NI Group Limited (now known as News Corp UK & Ireland Limited) and Les Hinton, and expanded the class period to include February 15, 2011 to July 18, 2011. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the litigation, which were granted by the court on March 31, 2014. On April 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint, which generally repeats the allegations of the amended consolidated complaint and also expands the class period to July 8, 2009 to July 18, 2011. Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint, and on September 30, 2015, the court granted defendants' motions in their entirety and dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims. On October 21, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's memorandum, opinion and order, which defendants have opposed. The Company's management believes the claims in the Wilder Litigation are entirely without merit, and intends to vigorously defend this action. UGI CORP: Appeal by Direct Customers Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------- UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal by direct customers of propane gas is still pending with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Between May and October of 2014, more than 35 purported class action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by certain of their direct and indirect customers. The class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor colluded, beginning in 2008, to reduce the fill level of portable propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to persuade its common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The claims seek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative classes. On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class action cases to the Western Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. In July 2015, the Court dismissed all claims brought by direct customers and all claims other than those for injunctive relief brought by indirect customers. The direct customers filed an appeal with the Eighth Circuit, which is still pending. The indirect customers filed an amended complaint claiming injunctive relief and state law claims under Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont law. In January 2016, the District Court dismissed the remaining injunctive relief claims for the indirect purchasers. As a result, the only claims remaining with respect to indirect purchasers involve alleged violations of Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont state antitrust laws. "We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any, arising from such litigation. We believe we have strong defenses to the claims and intend to vigorously defend against them," the Company said. UGI Corporation ("UGI") is a holding company that, through subsidiaries and affiliates, distributes, stores, transports and markets energy products and related services. UNITED CONTINENTAL: Sued in Ill. Over Alleged Breach of Contract ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard S. Neft, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. United Continental Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc. and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 1:16-cv- 00765 (N.D. Ill., January 19, 2016) is brought on behalf of all consumers who purchased a Silver Wings Plus program lifetime membership against the Defendants for breach of contract arising from United's failure to provide the bargained-for benefits to the Silver Wings lifetime members, in violation of the express terms of the contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Defendants own and operate an airline company headquartered in the Willis Tower in Chicago. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Stein III, Esq. ALVARADO SMITH, A.P.C. 1 MacArthur Pl., Suite 200 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Telephone: (714) 852-6800 E-mail: rstein@alvaradosmith.com - and - Anthony S. DiVincenzo, Esq. DIVINCENZO SCHOENFIELD SWARTZMAN 33 N. LaSalle St., 29th Fl. Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 334-4800 E-mail: adivincenzo@dsschicagolaw.com UNITED DEVELOPMENT: "Anderson" Sues over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------- James and Jennifer Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. United Development Funding IV, Hollis M. Greenlaw, and Cara D. Obert, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00009-Y (N.D. Tex., January 7, 2015), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and other relief for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b) and 78t(a) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5. According to the complaint, the Company's share prices dropped after published reports alleged United Development Funding of engaging in a "Ponzi-like real estate scheme." Plaintiffs acquired and held shares of the Company at artificially inflated prices and lost significantly by the revelation of the Company's material misrepresentations and omissions, says the complaint. United Development Funding IV is a Maryland corporation organized as a real estate investment trust, with its principal place of business in Grapevine, Texas. It is a real estate investment trust under the larger United Development Funding umbrella. The Company primarily originates, purchases, participates in and holds for investment secured loans made directly by the Company or indirectly through its affiliates to persons and entities for the acquisition and development of parcels of real property as single- family residential lots or mixed-use master planned residential communities, for the construction of single family homes and for completed model homes. Hollis M. Greenlaw is Chief Executive Officer while Cara D. Obert is Chief Financial Officer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Willie C. Briscoe, Esq. THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC 8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1575 Dallas, TX 75206 Tel: (214) 239-4568 Fax: (281) 254-7789 Email: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com UNITED SERVICES: Judge Set to Decide on Attorney Sanctions ---------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an Arkansas federal judge soon will decide whether to sanction attorneys for their dismissal of a class action settlement in his court and subsequent refiling in a state court. Chief Judge Paul K. Holmes III for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas said in a December show-cause order that the counsel appeared to have dismissed the action "for the purpose of evading this Court's review of their negotiated settlement." "This forum shopping is inimical to our system of justice and violates the spirit of the laws governing the jurisdictions of the state and federal sovereigns," Judge Holmes wrote in the seven- page order, which the judge filed a week after an Arkansas business journal ran an article on the state court settlement. Judge Holmes, in a notice, has set a show-cause hearing for Feb. 18, allowing all counsel of record to show cause as to why he should not sanction them. "Counsel will be given the opportunity to respond through argument of their own attorneys, presentation of testimony, and/or the admission of other evidence, as counsel and their attorneys deem appropriate and advisable, and at the discretion of the Court," the chief judge wrote. "If the Court ultimately determines that sanctions should be imposed, the Court will give notice of the nature of sanctions it intends to impose and will give counsel an opportunity to respond, at a second hearing, to the propriety of the specific sanctions before any final order imposing sanctions is entered." The plaintiffs in Adams et al. v. United Services Automobile Association et al. originally filed their class action in state court, claiming their insurer improperly applied depreciation when adjusting claims for structural losses under their homeowners insurance policies. Allegedly, the defendant -- United Services Automobile Association, USAA Casualty Insurance Company and USAA General Indemnity Co. -- applied depreciation to labor and other non- material items, such as taxes and general contractor overhead and profit. USAA removed the case to the federal court in January 2014, and then moved for partial judgment on the pleadings in April 2014. Soon after, the parties jointly moved to stay the case pending mediation. Later, the stay was lifted and the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal on June 19, 2015. An order of dismissal was entered on June 22. According to Judge Holmes' show-cause order, the matter was re- filed in Polk County Circuit Court, together with a motion for preliminary approval of class settlement one day later. The chief judge noted in his December order that "although this matter was pending in this Court until June 22, the stipulation of settlement was signed by counsel on June 16, 2015, and specifically defines 'Court' as 'the Circuit Court of Polk County, Arkansas.'" "The clear inference to be drawn from the fact that counsel filed a stipulation of settlement in Polk County the day after dismissing the case that had been pending with this Court for over 17 months is that counsel wished to evade the federally-mandated review of the class and the proposed settlement by this Court in particular," Judge Holmes wrote. "This inference is supported by the fact that on May 13, 2015, this Court held a hearing in a separate case brought by 'Mark and Kathy Adams' (also of Mena, Arkansas, and presumably the same Plaintiffs in this matter) on preliminary approval of a class-action settlement of claims identical to those raised in the instant matter and brought by many of the same plaintiffs' counsel." According to the chief judge's show-cause order, he had expressed concerns about that settlement's structure and attorneys' fee award. The settlement was ultimately approved in federal court, but only after both parties had to make revisions to address Holmes' concerns. "Having experienced or otherwise been made aware of the Court's scrutiny of the settlement in Adams 1, counsel had the benefit of knowing the Court's views on the issues that would be raised by the stipulation of settlement filed with the Circuit Court of Polk County upon dismissal of this case. Counsel likely believed that, given the almost identical nature of Adams 1 and this case, the Court would not approve a settlement so strikingly different from that entered into in Adams 1," Judge Holmes wrote. "The Court can only conclude that counsel anticipated that this Court would be diligent in its duty to protect the interests of absent class members and would be unlikely to approve a settlement that advanced the interests of class counsel (a large fee award with a clear sailing provision) and defense counsel (a claims made settlement with onerous claims requirements and a reversionary fund) while largely failing to protect the interests of the class, whose members would otherwise be entitled to collect potentially substantial sums of money from Defendants. Plaintiffs' counsel likely also anticipated that the Court would look with skepticism at a request for a large sum of attorneys' fees for negotiation of a claims-made settlement, and that recovery of fees would likely have to bear some relationship to the amount ultimately recovered on behalf of the class. "Counsel therefore chose to dismiss the action from this Court to evade this review. The ethical problem presented by this case is compounded by counsel's abuse of process in using this Court and its exercise of jurisdiction as a bargaining chip in the negotiation of the ultimately questionable settlement." Plaintiffs' counsel argued in their Jan. 14 response that they "have acted in good faith and pursued a legitimate course of action." "Given that Plaintiffs initially filed their case in Arkansas state court and always believed that it was the appropriate forum, Counsel ultimately negotiated a settlement that appropriately took the matter back to its forum of inception," lawyers for the plaintiffs' counsel wrote. "Such actions were in no way detrimental to the class nor were they in any other manner improper." W.H. Taylor -- whtaylor@taylorlawpartners.com -- Stevan E. Vowell -- svowell@taylorlawpartners.com -- William B. Putman and Timothy J. Myers of Fayetteville law firm Taylor Law Partners LLP and Matt Keil and John C. Goodson of Keil & Goodson PA in Texarkana represented the plaintiffs. Mitchell Williams Selig Gates & Woodyard PLLC in Little Rock represented the defendant. The defendant's counsel said in its Jan. 19 response to Holmes' show-cause order that it "always intended to litigate the case in this Court to finality if settlement discussions were unsuccessful." "After lengthy settlement negotiations assisted by a prominent national mediator who is a former federal judge, spanning more than six months, USAA agreed to settle in state court because it could not reach an acceptable settlement agreement with Plaintiffs otherwise," they explained. "Prior to receiving this Court's recent order, USAA's counsel had no knowledge of the concerns this Court expressed in May of 2015 concerning a proposed class action settlement in Adams v. Cameron Mutual Ins. Co." Counsel for both parties noted in their responses that in two recent, similar class actions, Arkansas federal courts didn't take issue with the cases being removed from state court before returning there for settlement approval. "If this Court were to reach a conclusion that a decision to dismiss a federal case and enter into a state court settlement is improper, it appears this Court would be the first court ever to do so," lawyers for the defendant's counsel wrote. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: "Jacobs" Suit Seeks Relief Under ERISA -------------------------------------------------------------- MELINA N. JACOBS v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; VERIZON INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CORP.; THE VERIZON EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE; MARC C. REED; MARTHA DELEHANTY; ANDREW H. NEBENS; CONNIA NELSON; SHANE SANDERS; ROBERT J. BARISH; DONNA C. CHIFFRILLER; FIDELITY MANAGEMENT TRUST COMPANY; AND FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC., Case 1:16-cv- 01082 (S.D.N.Y., February 11, 2016), seeks to recover financial losses allegedly suffered by the Verizon Plans and participants and beneficiaries of the Verizon Plans, and to obtain injunctive and other equitable relief pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Verizon Communications Inc. (Verizon) is a holding company that, acting through its subsidiaries, provides communications, information and entertainment products and services to consumers, businesses and governmental agencies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert I. Harwood, Esq. Peter W. Overs, Jr., Esq. HARWOOD FEFFER LLP 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 935-7400 Fax: (212) 753-3630 E-mail: rharwood@hfesq.com povers@hfesq.com - and - John F. Edgar, Esq. Michael D. Pospisil, Esq. Boyce N. Richardson, Esq. EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC 1032 Pennsylvania Avenue Kansas City, MO 64105 Phone: (816) 531-0033 Fax: (816) 531-3322 E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com mdp@edgarlawfirm.com bnr@edgarlawfirm.com - and - Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq. Michael McKay, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 8501 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 270 Scottsdale, AZ 85253 Phone: (480) 428-0145 Fax: (866) 505-8036 E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com mmckay@schneiderwallace.com - and - Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Mark T. Johnson, Esq. Kyle G. Bates, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Phone: (415) 421-7100 Fax: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com VICTORIA FINE FOODS: Violated CPL, "Shmidt" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------- Ulyana Shmidt and John Does 1-100, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Victoria Fine Foods, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. CV16-00230 (E.D.N.Y., January 15, 2016), seeks to recover damages and relief as a result of Defendants' deceptive practice of marketing Victoria Premium Vodka Sauce product as containing "No Preservatives"" when it contains the non-natural, chemically processed ingredient and preservative Citric Acid, pursuant to the Consumer Protection Laws. Victoria Fine Foods produces and sells pasta sauces, specialty sauces, artichokes, olives, peppers, marinated vegetables, other specialties, gourmet spreads, and herbs and spices. The company also offers private label products for several various supermarket chains and for select specialty food companies. Its products are sold through supermarkets, club stores, specialty shops, and its e-store; specialty distributors and brokers; and co-pack products for companies, such as Fortune 100 companies and small manufacturers in the United States. Victoria Fine Foods, LLC was founded in 1929 and is based in Brooklyn, New York. 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 Telephone: (212) 465 1188 Facsimile: (212) 465 1181 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Martin" Files Suit Over Defeat Device -------------------------------------------------------- Janice Martin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Veritas Auto Finance, LLC, and John Does 1-25,the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-20195-JLK (S.D. Fla., January 15, 2016), seeks legal and equitable relief in the form of damages, specific performance, rescission, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and other relief as a result of Defeat Device in VW automobiles purchased by the Plaintiff from the Defendants. Volkswagen Group designs, manufactures, and sells automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company houses operations of a family of brands worldwide, including Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini and Volkswagen, as well as VW Credit, Inc. It sells its vehicles through a network of dealers in the United States. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. was founded in 1955 and is headquartered in Herndon, Virginia. It has a manufacturing plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth G. Gilman GILMAN LAW LLP 8951 Bonita Beach Road, S.E. Suite 525 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Telephone: (781) 307 2526 E-mail: kgilman@gilmanlawllp.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Noggle" Suit in Id. Over Defeat Devices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chelsea Noggle, individually and on behalf of others similarly suited v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv- 00031-BLW (D. Id., January 19, 2016) arises out of the Defendant's alleged installation of defeat devices in approximately 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles manufactured and sold and leased in the United States since 2009, to switch engines to a cleaner mode during official emissions testing. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components throughout the United States of America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard H. Greener, Esq. Fredric V. Shoemaker, Esq. Loren K. Messerly, Esq. GREENER BURKE SHOEMAKER OBERRECHT P.A. 950 West Bannock Street, Suite 950 Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 319-2600 Facsimile: (208) 319-2601 E-mail: rgreener@greenerlaw.com fshoemaker@greenerlaw.com lmesserly@greenerlaw.com WAL-MART: Supreme Court to Review "Stacked" Class Action Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether to review a circuit court decision that petitioner Wal-Mart said endorses "stacked" class actions thanks to a timeout in the statute of limitations. The retail giant is challenging a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that allowed former members of the landmark Dukes v. Wal-Mart class action to proceed with their gender discrimination case on a regional basis after the Supreme Court rejected the nationwide class in 2011. WEDGEWOOD VILLAGE: Violated JFPA, Noah's Ark Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Noah's Ark, Inc. d/b/a Winchester Animal Clinic, a Massachusetts corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Wedgewood Village Pharmacy, Inc. And John Does 1-10, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16- cv-10068-LTS (D. Mass., January 15, 2016), seeks relief including injunctive relief enjoining Defendants, their employees, agents, representatives, contractors, affiliates, and all persons and entities acting in concert with them, from sending unsolicited advertisements under the Junk Fax Prevention Act (JFPA); and an award of statutory damages in the minimum amount of $500 for each violation of the JFPA. Wedgewood Village Pharmacy, doing business as Wedgewood Pharmacy, operates as a compounding pharmacy in the United States. The company provides human health compounded preparations for urology, ophthalmology and retina, obsterics/gynecology, addiction, dentistry, endocrinology, and dermatology applications; veterinary compounded preparations for companion animals, such as dogs, cats, birds, pocket pets, and horses, as well as amphibians, hippopotamus, and reptiles; and veterinary specialties in ophthalmology, performance horses, reproduction, and oncology. It serves human health and veterinary markets. The company was founded in 1980 and is based in Swedesboro, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan L. Cantor, Esq. SWARTZ & SWARTZ 10 Marshall Street Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 742 1900 Facsimile: (617) 367 7193 - and - Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368 1500 Facsimile: (847) 368 1501 WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Sued Over Misleading Proxy Statement -------------------------------------------------------- City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00017-UNA (D. Del., January 19, 2016) is brought against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties and the dissemination of a materially false and misleading proxy statement in violation of the Securities Exchange Act. The Williams Companies, Inc. is a provider of the large-scale infrastructure responsible for connecting North America's natural gas supply and natural gas products to the growing global demand for clean fuels and feedstock. The Plaintiff is represented by: Pamela S. Tikellis, Esq. A. Zachary Naylor, Esq. Tiffany J. Cramer, Esq. CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, 11th Floor P.O. Box 1035 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 656-2500 Facsimile: (302) 656-9053 E-mail: pst@chimicles.com zn@chimicles.com tjc@chimicles.com - and - Joseph E. White III, Esq. Jonathan M. Stein, Esq. Adam Warden, Esq. SAXENA WHITE, P.A. 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601 Boca Raton, FL 33486 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 Facsimile: (888) 458-9055 E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com jstein@saxenawhite.com awarden@saxenawhite.com WORLD SECURITY: Faces "Garcia" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law ------------------------------------------------------------- RAFAEL GARCIA v. WORLD SECURITY BUREAU, INC. d/b/a) WORLD SECURITY AGENCY, and IBRIHAM KISWANI, Case: 1:16-cv-02130 (N.D.Ill., February 11, 2016), was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. World Security Bureau is a detective and armored car service located in Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. Sarah J. Arendt, Esq. Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com sarendt@flsalaw.com zflowerree@flsalaw.com XL FOODS: Court Approves E. Coli Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Siskinds LLP of London, Ontario, James H. Brown and Associates of Edmonton, Alberta and D'Arcy & Deacon LLP of Calgary, Alberta on Feb. 17 announced the court approval of a protocol for the distribution of settlement funds in the XL Foods class action. The class action was commenced in connection with the fall 2012 recall of beef products processed at the XL Foods facility in Brooks, Alberta. The recall was issued as a result of a possible E. coli contamination and is the largest food recall in Canadian history. A settlement in the amount of $4 million has been reached with XL Foods to resolve the litigation in its entirety. XL Foods do not admit any wrongdoing or liability. The Alberta court approved the settlement and a protocol for distribution of the settlement funds. Daniel Bach, a lawyer with Siskinds LLP, states: "The result of this case highlights the importance of food safety and holding companies accountable where they have failed to implement safe food processing and testing techniques." Persons in Canada or the United States who purchased and/or consumed recalled XL beef or who purchased beef that could not be positively identified as not being recalled XL beef are eligible to claim settlement benefits. Claims can be filed online at www.xlbeefclassaction.com on or before August 17, 2016. More information about the settlement, the distribution of settlement funds and the claims process can be found online at www.xlbeefclassaction.com or by calling the claims administrator at 1-800-951-3201. About Class Counsel Siskinds LLP is a full-service law firm with offices in Toronto and London, and affiliate offices in Montreal and Quebec City. Siskinds LLP is Canada's leading class action law firm. James H. Brown and Associates is based in Western Canada and carries out an active class action, serious injury and fatality litigation practice. D'Arcy & Deacon LLP, with offices in Winnipeg and Calgary, is a full service law firm, with extensive experience in class actions. ZIMMER INC: Faces "Gallagher" Suit in Cal. Over Durom Cup Design ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roxanne Gallagher, Nona F. Daniel- Marycholet, Detlef Moeller, Debra Neundorf and Shirley Wilson v. Zimmer, Inc., et al., Case No. BC606098 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 6, 2016) arises out of the Defendants' negligence in designing, manufacturing, testing, inspecting, packaging, labeling, distributing, and marketing the Zimmer Metasul(R) Durom(R) Acetabular Component (Durom Cup). Zimmer Metasul(R) Durom(R) Acetabular Component (Durom Cup) is a medical device for implantation in the human hip. Zimmer, Inc. is a producer of orthopedic devices, and it does a substantial amount of business in Los Angeles County, including marketing and sales of the orthopedic device at issue in this case. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin R. Heim, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC 525 S. Douglas St., Suite 260 EI Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 331-8224 Facsimile: (310) 736-2877 E-mail: JHeim@napolilavv.com * Justice Scalia's Death May Complicate Two Pending Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Marcus and William McConnell, writing for The Street, report that the death of Justice Antonin Scalia may complicate nearly a dozen significant business pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. The absence of the conservative icon from the panel creates a greater likelihood that contentious cases will result in a 4-4 tie among the justices. The lack of a clear majority will leave the previous rulings by lower courts intact. One key case is a challenge to new Environmental Protection Agency rules governing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. On Feb. 9 the Supreme Court blocked their implementation pending the outcome of a legal challenge to the climate change rules by more than two dozen states. If an appeals court upholds the rules, the regulations would remain on hold pending a Supreme Court ruling expected to come no sooner than 2017. Justice Scalia was among the 5-4 majority voting for the stay. In previous opinions addressing climate change Scalia argued that climate change was a distinct issue from air pollution. Other business-related cases likely to be affected by his absence or the potential for a 4-4 split on the court: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association The legal question in this case, argued before the justices Jan. 11, is whether "agency shop" agreements for public employees violate the First Amendment. Prompted by efforts to limit the political influence of public-sector unions, conservative groups that helped bring the case argued a teacher's free-speech rights were violated by a requirement that she pay union fees. A ruling on behalf of the teacher would overturn a 1977 decision upholding public-sector union agency fees. During oral argument Justice Scalia was "dubious" of the need to charge non-members. If the union's work was valuable to teachers it should be able to get them to sign up willingly, he said. Spokeo v. Robins Argued on Nov. 2, the justices must consider whether plaintiffs may sue even if they have no concrete injuries. A plaintiff argued that people search Web site Spokeo posted inaccurate information about him and is seeking to represent a class of people with similar complaints. The Fair Credit Reporting Act provides up to $1,000 in damages for inaccurate reports. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce argued that allowing standing to be based solely on a technical statutory violation would render traditional class-certification requirements meaningless and would invite class action abuse. Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo In another case involving class actions, the court on Nov. 10 heard whether a certified class may include people who suffered no injuries. This case examines the certification by a lower court of a class action against Tyson Foods on behalf of 3,000 hourly workers who seek pay for time putting on and removing protective gear. Walmart, Dow Chemical and other companies urged the court to reject class actions unless specific legal claims predominate among the entire class. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 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 * * *