/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160425.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, April 25, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 82 Headlines ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: N.D. Cal. Suit Dismissed with Prejudice ACS DATALINE: Faces "Talavera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ADECCO USA: Shepardson's Non-PAGA Claims Sent to Arbitration ADVANCEPIERRE: Recalls Breaded Pork Products due to Misbranding ALPHA NATURAL: Trial Begins Today in NCI Employee Suit ALPHA NATURAL: Pa. Court Approves Settlement in Emerald Suit ANGIE'S LIST: Summary Judgment Bids Due Today in "Moore" Suit ANGIE'S LIST: "Glick" Parties to Wait for Outcome in "Moore" Suit AIR LINE PILOTS: "Valdez" Suit Seeks Damages Over 2015 CBA ALLIED PIONEERS: Recalls Sweet Potato Strips Due to Sulphites ALLIED PIONEERS: Recalls Raisin and Sweet Potato Slices ANGIE'S LIST: "Williams" Suit Seeks OT Compensation Under FLSA ANAVEX LIFE SCIENCES: Troung Appointed as Lead Plaintiff ARCHBISHOP OF NEW ORLEANS: Sued Over Civil Rights Violation ASSET MANAGING: Faces "Reinhart" Suit Over Fla. Wage Law Breach ATLANTIC POWER: Shareholder Suits in U.S., Canada Dismissed BRIAD RESTAURANT: "Palmisano" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Securities Suit in Claims Admin. Process BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Motion to Dismiss "Zamir" Suit Pending CAESARSTONE SDOT-YAM: Israel Class Suit in Initial Stage CAESARSTONE SDOT-YAM: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit in N.Y. CANADA NEW: Recalls Fish Ball Products Due to Egg CELESTICA INC: To Seek Costs of Appeal in Ontario Suit CHANNELADVISOR CORP: Court Dismisses Securities Litigation CHICO'S FAS: Still Defends Ackerman and Altman Suits CHILDREN'S PLACE: Recalls Sleep and Play Layettes CLIMA-TECH: Faces "Roberts" Suit Over Illegal Stock Options COLTON, CA: Cops Face Class Suit by Wrongly Jailed CONSOLIDATED COATINGS: Recalls Wood Decks and Siding CWS APARTMENT HOMES: "Abramson" Files Statutory Action DAYMAR COLLEGES: Claims of Missing & Deceased Plaintiffs Nixed EAST HAVEN: Faces "Richards" Suit in New York Supreme Court EC USA: Faces "Gallegos" Suit Filed by Non-Exempt Hourly Teachers ENERGY TRANSFER: "Levine" Sues Over Discriminatory Distribution EROS INTERNATIONAL: Labaton Sucharow Named as Lead Counsel ESTATE OF MCCLENDON: Breached Fiduciary Duties Owed to Chesapeake FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Updated 3rd Amendment Litigation Chart FIRST BUSEY: Still Defends 1 Suit in Missouri Over Pulaski Deal FISHER-PRICE: Bid for Class Certification in "Harris" Denied FOREST RIVER: Recalls Cherokee 2016 Due to Noncompliance FORMFACTOR INC: Employee Class Suit in Merits Discovery GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Drugs in GM First Aid Kits GLOSS ORGANIC: "Reiche" Suit Removed to S. District Florida HAMILTON COUNTY WATER: Protocol Won't Apply to AHA Suit HARBOUR RESTAURANT: "Sutherland" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA HEFFERIN TREE: Faces "De Paz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime HOMEWAY: Faces Consumer Class Suit in Texas HYUNDAI: Recalls Tucson 2016 Models Due to Noncompliance IKEA CANADA: Recalls Floor and Table Lamps Due to Shock Hazard INFINITI: Recalls Q50 2014 Models Due to Injury Risk INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Oral Argument in Class Action Appeal Held J. CREW GROUP: Obscured Disclaimers, "Rubin" Suit Claims JACOBS VEHICLE: "Unique Brooks" Cries Discrimination JSJ EXPRESS: "Skeen" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Compensation Under FLSA KARL STORZ: Faces "Kurtz" Suit Over Defective Storz Morcellator KIA: Recalls Sorento 2011 Models Due to Defective Sunroof KOREA FOOD: Recalls Fish Paste Products Due to Egg L BRANDS: Faces "Nahas" Suit Over Unlawful Purchasing Policies LEMOND FOOD: Recalls Frozen Crab Meat and Fried Fish Cake LENOVO INC: "Ponce" Class Suit Removed to District Minnesota LIBERTY TAX: Settlement in ERC Litigation Has Final OK MACK: Recalls Titan 2016 Due to Crash Risk MANNARICH FOOD: Recalls Ball Combo Products Due to Egg MANSIONS AT SANDY: "Oliver" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA MARCHEX INC: "Porter" Suit in W.D. Wash. Dismissed MCT GROUP: Faces "Petley" Suit Over FDCPA and TCPA Breach MDL 2592: Bid for Entry of Protective Order Denied MEATING PLACE: Recalls Ground Beef Products Due to E. Coli MID CITY GYM: "Sierra" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA MOISHE'S PLACE: Faces "Martinez" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA MOUNTAIN PRODUCTS: Recalls Bacon and Pork Sausage Products NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE: Court Narrows Protected Documents NATIONAL RAILROAD: Tulks' Bid for Preliminary Class Cert. Denied NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Levin" Suit in District of New Jersey NAVISTAR INT'L: June 13 Class Cert. Hearing in N&C Suit NAVISTAR INT'L: Still Defends MaxxForce Suit in N.D. Illinois NEW LEE: Faces "Zheng" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages NEIL JONES: "Valdez" Class Action Deal Gets Initial OK NOBLE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Almeida" Suit Seeking Unpaid OT Wage NORTH SHORE: Faces "Mitros" Suit in Eastern District Pennsylvania NR EXPRESS: Faces "Bing" Suit in Southern District of New York ORIGINAL GIANETTO'S: Recalls Gianetto's Dip Products PANASONIC CANADA: Recalls Toughbook CF-S10 Battery Packs PERFECT FIT: Recalls Poultry Entrees Due to Misbranding PRODIGY GROUP: Recalls Bicycle Wheel Hubs Due to Fall Hazard RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITOR'S: Faces "Namer" Suit in E.D.N.Y. SAKS DIRECT: Faces "Rubin" Suit in District of New Jersey SALEM BROTHERS: Recalls Soup Products Due to Milk & Sesame Seeds SANOFI: 1,095 Plavix(R) Product Liability Suits Filed at Dec. 31 SANOFI: Menactra Class Action Remains Pending SANOFI: Plaintiffs Seek to Reverse Case Dismissal Order SANOFI: Appeal in CVR Class Action Pending SANTANDER CONSUMER: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Galloway" SCRIPT RELIEF: Sued in M.D. Florida Over Automated Calls SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: "Weller" Suit Still Pending SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: "Reder-Leos" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages SOUTHERN FLOOR: "Tillis" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA SUBARU: Recalls Forester 2015 and Impreza WRX 2016 Models SUPERIOR ENERGY: "Myer" Suit Seeks to Unpaid Overtime Wages TACO BELL: Plaintiffs' Bid for PAGA Penalties Denied TESCO CORP: Participating in Arbitration with Former Employees TEVA CANADA: Recalls Bortezomib Powder for Injection THUMBTACK INC: "Rhom" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California TRANS-CONTINENTAL CREDIT: Faces "Marcus" Suit in New Jersey Dist. TOWN SPORTS: Settlement in "Labbe" Case Underway TUMI HOLDINGS: "Sun" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Samsonite UNITED PARCEL: "Amaya" Suit Seeks Lost Wages Under Labor Code URGENT COURIER: Misclassified Employees, Helms Suit Claims US BANK: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Rodriguez" Suit Claims VANGUARD NATURAL: Facing "Hurwitz" Class Suit in Delaware VANGUARD NATURAL: Defending Against Eagle Rock Merger Suit VANGUARD NATURAL: Faces "Maniatis" Suit Over Debt Exchange VIA INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Marley" Class Suit in California VITAL THERAPIES: Hearing Held on Bid to Consolidate VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Touareg 2011 Due to Crash Risk WYETH: Court Affirms Trust's Denial of "Ellis" Claims XENCOR INC: Paid $950,000 for Plaintiff's Legal Award XEROX CORPORATION: "Stock" Suit Seeks Relief & Damages FLSA ZAGG INC: 10th Cir. Appeal Still Pending ZAGG INC: "Morganstern" Action in Utah Dismissed ZALE DELAWARE: Court Certifies Two Classes in "Tapia" ********* ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: N.D. Cal. Suit Dismissed with Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a class action complaint in the Northern District of California has been dismissed by the court with prejudice. The Company said, "On October 1, 2014, a securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against AcelRx and certain of our current and former officers. On April 17, 2015, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleged that between September 30, 2013 and July 25, 2014, AcelRx and certain of our current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with statements related to our lead drug candidate, Zalviso." "On November 25, 2015, the Court granted our Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs had the opportunity to file an amended complaint within 30 days' which they declined to do. On January 18, 2016, the Court issued an order dismissing the case with prejudice." AcelRx Pharmaceuticals is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of innovative therapies for the treatment of acute pain. ACS DATALINE: Faces "Talavera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jaime Talavera and Anthony Valdez, individually and on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. ACS Dataline, LP, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC61715 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 15, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. ACS Dataline, LP is a provider of telecommunication infrastructure supplies and services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 E-mail: norm@bamlawca.com ADECCO USA: Shepardson's Non-PAGA Claims Sent to Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned KAITLYN SHEPARDSON, Plaintiff, v. ADECCO USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-05102-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen granted Adecco USA, Inc.'s motion to compel Kaitlyn Shepardson's claims to arbitration except for her claims under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA). Shepardson filed the class action lawsuit in state court against Adecco, asserting various wage and rest break violations, unfair business practices, and PAGA penalty claims. On November 6, 2015, Adecco removed the putative class action lawsuit under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). Adecco then filed a motion to compel arbitration of all of Shepardson's claims pursuant to an arbitration agreement that Shepardson signed after she was hired. The parties disputed whether the class action waiver and the PAGA waiver in the Agreement are valid and enforceable. Judge Chen granted Adecco's motion to compel Shepardson's claims for failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide rest period premiums, failure to pay wages on termination, and unfair business practices to arbitration. The judge, however, denied Adecco's motion to compel Shepardson's representative PAGA claims to arbitration, but stayed the PAGA claims pending the outcome of the arbitration. A full-text copy of Judge Chen's April 5, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/vcpJIYfrom Leagle.com. Kaitlyn Shepardson, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Righetti, Righetti Glugoski, P.C., John Glugoski, Righetti Glugoski, P.C. & Michael C. Righetti, Righetti Glugoski, P.C.. Adecco USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Julie Erin Patterson -- jepatterson@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP & Julie Westcott O'Dell -- julie.odell@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP. ADVANCEPIERRE: Recalls Breaded Pork Products due to Misbranding --------------------------------------------------------------- AdvancePierre Foods, a Cincinnati, OH establishment, is recalling approximately 3,469 pounds of breaded pork products due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The product contains eggs, a known allergen, which are not declared on the product label. The CN Fully Cooked Breaded Pork Patties were produced on March 15, 2016. The following products are subject to recall: --- 19.38-lb. box containing "CN FULLY COOKED BREADED PORK PATTIES," with an Use-By-Date of March 15, 2017 and a case code of 3801. The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST. 2132" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to institutions in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, and Ohio. The problem was discovered by the firm during a routine labeling review and they immediately informed FSIS. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. ALPHA NATURAL: Trial Begins Today in NCI Employee Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, that a West Virginia state court has scheduled the trial for April 25-29 and May 2-6, 2016 in the NCI employee litigation. On February 7, 2013, the Company received notice of a putative class action lawsuit against NCI filed in the Circuit Court of Mingo County, West Virginia by a former NCI employee (the "NCI Employee Litigation"). The plaintiff in the NCI Employee Litigation is represented by the same attorney who represented the plaintiff in the ACTF Litigation, and the complaint's allegations raise issues similar to those in the ACTF Litigation and arise from the same Red Jacket Contract that was at issue in the ACTF Litigation. The Company believes that NCI has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in the NCI Employee Litigation. NCI filed its answer to the complaint in the NCI Employee Litigation on March 4, 2013. On April 23, 2013, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, granted NCI's motion to transfer and entered an agreed order transferring the NCI Employee Litigation from the Circuit Court of Mingo County to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. On November 14, 2013, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County granted NCI's Motion to Certify Questions of Law to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, but on June 17, 2014, the Supreme Court declined to review the submitted questions in the absence of a more developed factual record in the lower court. Proceedings in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia therefore resumed. * * * Alpha Natural Resources also disclosed in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report that in a case filed on April 23, 2010 in Delaware Chancery Court, In re Massey Energy Company Derivative and Class Action Litigation ("In re Massey"), a number of purported former Massey stockholders (the "Delaware Plaintiffs") allege, purportedly on behalf of Massey, that certain former Massey directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties by failing to monitor and oversee Massey's employees, allegedly resulting in fines against Massey and the explosion at UBB, and by wasting corporate assets by paying allegedly excessive and inflated amounts to former Massey Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Don L. Blankenship as part of his retirement package. The Delaware Plaintiffs also allege, on behalf of a purported class of former Massey stockholders, that certain former Massey directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the Massey Acquisition. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to secure the best price possible, by failing to secure any downside protection for the acquisition consideration, and by purportedly eliminating the possibility of a superior proposal by agreeing to a "no shop" provision and a termination fee. In addition, the Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants agreed to the Massey Acquisition to eliminate the liability that defendants faced on the Delaware Plaintiffs' derivative claims. Finally, the Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to fully disclose all material information necessary for Massey stockholders to cast an informed vote on the Massey Acquisition. The Delaware Plaintiffs also name the Company and Mountain Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary created for purposes of effecting the Massey Acquisition, which, at the effective time of the Massey Acquisition, was merged with and into Massey, as defendants. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted the former Massey directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and agreed to orchestrate the Massey Acquisition for the purpose of eliminating the former Massey directors' potential liability on the derivative claims. Two additional putative class actions were brought against Massey, certain former Massey directors and officers, the Company and Merger Sub in the Delaware Court of Chancery following the announcement of the Massey Acquisition, which were consolidated for all purposes with In re Massey in February 2011. The Delaware Plaintiffs seek an award against each defendant for restitution and/or compensatory damages, plus pre-judgment interest; an order establishing a litigation trust to preserve the derivative claims asserted in the complaint; and an award of costs, disbursements and reasonable allowances for fees incurred in this action. The Delaware Plaintiffs also sought to enjoin consummation of the Massey Acquisition. The court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction in May 2011. In June 2011, Massey moved to dismiss the Delaware Plaintiffs' derivative claims on the ground that the Delaware Plaintiffs, as former Massey stockholders, lacked the legal right to pursue those claims, and the Company and Alpha Appalachia Merger Sub moved to dismiss the purported class action claim against them for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In June 2011, certain former Massey director and officer defendants moved to dismiss the derivative claims and filed answers to the remaining direct claims. In September 2011, the parties submitted a Stipulation Staying Proceedings, which stayed the matter until March 2012, without prejudice to the parties' right to seek an extension or a termination of the stay by application to the court. The court approved the stipulation and entered the stay that same day. The court extended the stay several times and the most recent stay expired on October 31, 2014. On October 17, 2014, the Delaware Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which maintains claims against Massey and certain former Massey directors and officers but no longer asserts claims against the Company or Mountain Merger Sub, Inc. Defendants moved to dismiss on December 5, 2014, and the motion remains pending. On August 10, 2015, the Company filed a notice of suggestion of bankruptcy with the court. ALPHA NATURAL: Pa. Court Approves Settlement in Emerald Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, that the Green County court in Pennsylvania has approved the settlement and entered a final order dismissing the Emerald securities class action. On July 13, 2012, a purported class action brought on behalf of a putative class of former Massey stockholders was filed in Boone County, West Virginia Circuit Court. The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against the Company and certain of its officers and current and former directors, and generally asserts that the defendants made false statements about the Company's Emerald mine in its public filings associated with the Massey Acquisition. The plaintiff seeks, among other relief, an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the Boone County Circuit Court on February 6, 2013. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on March 22, 2013 and March 29, 2013. On January 8, 2015, the Boone County Circuit Court dismissed all claims in the plaintiff's amended complaint. The plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal. On April 25, 2014, the named plaintiff in the West Virginia Circuit Court action filed a second complaint in Greene County, Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas, again asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against the Company and certain of its officers and current and former directors, and generally asserts that the defendants made false statements about the Company's Emerald mine in its public filings associated with the Massey Acquisition. The plaintiff seeks, among other relief, an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. By agreement of the parties, the defendants' time to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Pennsylvania complaint was extended until May 7, 2015. On April 24, 2015, the parties reached agreement on definitive terms for settlement of the Greene County, Pennsylvania litigation. On July 23, 2015, the parties executed definitive settlement documentation, which received preliminary approval by the Green County court on August 3, 2015. On October 8, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order that modified the Automatic Stay to authorize the Company's insurers to fund the proposed Settlement, and further authorized related relief to allow the parties to consummate the settlement in accordance with its terms. On October 15, 2015, proceeds from its insurance policies funded the settlement escrow account. On March 1, 2016, following a fairness hearing, the Green County court approved the settlement and entered a final order dismissing the case with prejudice as to the Company and the individual defendants. ANGIE'S LIST: Summary Judgment Bids Due Today in "Moore" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in the case, Moore v. Angie's List, Inc., 2:15cv-01243-SD (E.D. Pa.), were to complete discovery by April 14, 2016, and file any summary judgment motions by April 25, 2016. On March 11, 2015, a lawsuit seeking class action status was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit alleges claims of breaches of contract and covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment and violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law premised on the allegations that the Company does not disclose that it accepts advertising payments from service providers or that the payments allegedly will impact the service provider letter grade ratings, the content and availability of reviews about the provider, and the provider's placement in search result rankings. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 13, 2015, which was granted in part on August 7, 2015. In particular, the plaintiff's breach of covenant of good faith and unjust enrichment claims were dismissed from the action based on the face of the plaintiff's complaint. Pursuant to the Court's recently amended scheduling order, the parties must complete discovery by April 14, 2016 and file any summary judgment motions by April 25, 2016. The parties have exchanged extensive written and document discovery and have conducted depositions. The parties are also exploring the possibility of resolving the matter. Certain other cases, with similar allegations and filed by some of the same plaintiffs' counsel, were also filed in two other jurisdictions, California and New Jersey. However, the Company has not been served with the summons and complaint in the California matter, and no action is currently necessary as a result. ANGIE'S LIST: "Glick" Parties to Wait for Outcome in "Moore" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in the case, Glick v. Angie's List, Inc., 2:16-cv-00546, have entered into a stipulation to extend the response deadline and await the outcome of the Moore class action. On February 1, 2016, Gary Glick, an Angie's List member, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiff alleges that the Company deceives its consumers by representing that service providers "can't pay" or "don't pay" to be on Angie's List, while concealing that service providers pay advertising fees to influence their search result ranking, and further asserts other claims substantially similar to those alleged in the Moore litigation. The plaintiff's complaint includes claims for breach of contract and for a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Glick served the summons and complaint on February 23, 2016, and the parties have submitted a joint stipulation to extend the response deadline by 75 days as the outcome of the Moore litigation could moot any further proceedings in the Glick action. The Court has yet to rule on the stipulation. AIR LINE PILOTS: "Valdez" Suit Seeks Damages Over 2015 CBA ---------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Valdez, Jeffrey Ware, Ruben Freyre, and Armando Castroverde, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02256-JPM-dkv (W.D. Tenn., April 19, 2016), seeks to recover damages against the Defendant as a result of alleged intentional or reckless misrepresentation of the true nature of a 2015 Collection Bargaining Agreement, particularly pay rate increases, signing bonuses, retirement benefits, Sick Leave Buyback, overall value, and/or "industry- leading" status to the FedEx pilots. On October 20, 2015, the ALPA-represented FedEx pilots narrowly ratified a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (2015 CBA) between FedEx and ALPA that will govern the pay, work rules, and working conditions of all FedEx pilots through 2021. According to the complaint, ALPA allegedly engaged in many forms of misconduct in connection with the ratification of the 2015 CBA, breaching its duty of fair representation. ALPA knowingly and recklessly misrepresented material aspects of the 2015 CBA prior to its ratification, specifically its pay, signing bonus, and retirement bonus provisions; misrepresented FedEx's ability to make improvements to the pilots' Defined Benefit Plan (A Plan); engaged in improper fear-mongering tactics; and depleted itself of the financial resources necessary to effectively negotiate with FedEx. As a result, the FedEx pilots suffered damages. Had the pay rate increases and signing bonus been on the same 3% that ALPA represented was needed to recoup lost compensation, the FedEx pilots would have received approximately $105 million more over the life of the 2015 CBA. Furthermore, had ALPA not acceded to FedEx's retirement proposal, the FedEx pilots would have received a significant increase in retirement benefits. ALPA is the largest pilots' union in the world, representing nearly 50,000 pilots. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Allen P. Press, Esq. Cary A. Press, Esq. JACOBSON PRESS & FIELDS P.C. 168 N. Meramec Ave. Suite 150 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 899 9789 E-mail: press@archcitylawyers.com carypress@archcitylawyers.com - and - Kenneth P. Jones, Esq. BOURLAND HEFLIN ALVAREZ MINOR & MATTHEWS, PLC 5400 Poplar Ave. Ste. 100 Memphis, TN 38119 Telephone: (901) 683 3526 Facsimile: (901) 763 1037 E-mail: kenjones@bhammlaw.com ALLIED PIONEERS: Recalls Sweet Potato Strips Due to Sulphites ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 17, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Sulphites Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Allied Pioneers Enterprises (Canada) Group Distribution: British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10465 Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Yilin Sweet Potato 300 g All codes where 6 925020 001223 Strips sulphites are not declared on the label ALLIED PIONEERS: Recalls Raisin and Sweet Potato Slices ------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 18, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Sulphites Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Allied Pioneers Enterprises (Canada) Group Distribution: British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10478 Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Yilin Raisin 150 g All codes where 6 925020 081324 sulphites are not declared on the label Yilin Sweet 300 g All codes where 6 925020 064761 Potato sulphites are Slices not declared on the label Yilin Sweet 400 g All codes where 6 925020 032432 Potatoes sulphites are not declared on the label ANGIE'S LIST: "Williams" Suit Seeks OT Compensation Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Williams, Andy Town, James Bryan Grant, Erin Burgess, Devin Myers, Andrew Barton, Nick Jackson, Jim Pierce, Dustin Morris, Chris Williams, Adam Wright, Dan Thacker, Ryan Galbraith, and Robert Avila, on Behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Angie's List, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00878-WTL-MJD (S.D. Ind., April 19, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation and other relief including back pay, additional equal amounts as liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post judgment interest, costs and expenses, reasonable attorneys' fees, and declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the Complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for Defendant at Defendant's sales offices in Indianapolis holding sales representative positions. The Plaintiffs worked over 40 hours in a workweek, but did not receive overtime pay for all overtime hours worked, or at their correct rates of pay. Angie's List is a US-based, paid subscription supported website containing crowd-sourced reviews of local businesses. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kathleen A. DeLaney, Esq. Christopher S. Stake, Esq. DELANEY & DELANEY LLC 3646 Washington Blvd. Indianapolis, IN 46205 Telephone: (317) 920 0400 Facsimile: (317) 920 0404 E-mail: kathleen@delaneylaw.net cstake@delaneylaw.net ANAVEX LIFE SCIENCES: Troung Appointed as Lead Plaintiff -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jesse M. Furman appointed Lam Truong as lead plaintiff in the case captioned KEVIN CORTINA, Plaintiff, v. ANAVEX LIFE SCIENCES CORP., et al., Defendants, No. 15-CV-10162 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.). On December 30, 2015, Kevin Cortina filed a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Anavex Life Sciences Corp. securities between May 17, 2013, and December 28, 2015. His Complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. section 78a et seq., and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. The same day that Cortina filed his Complaint, he also published notice of the lawsuit, in accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"). On February 29, 2016, three motions were filed with respect to appointment of a lead plaintiff: one by Phillip Din; one by Lam Truong; and one by Stanley Gunawan and Stephen Lin, proceeding jointly. Judge Furman found that Troung has "the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class," and that Troung satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A full-text copy of Judge Furman's April 5, 2016 memorandum opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/47ExGefrom Leagle.com. Kevin Cortina, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP. Phillip Din, Movant, represented by Geoffrey M. Johnson -- gjohnson@scott-scott.com -- Scott Scott, LLP & Thomas Livezey Laughlin, IV -- tlaughlin@scott-scott.com -- Scott Scott, L.L.P.. Lam Truong, Movant, represented by Adam M. Apton -- aapton@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP & Nicholas Ian Porritt -- nporritt@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP. Stephen Lin, Stanley Gunawan, Movant, represented by Brian Philip Murray -- bmurray@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Lesley Frank Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Anavex Life Sciences Corp, Christopher U Missling, Sandra Boenisch, Athanasios Skarpelos, Defendants, represented by David H. Kistenbroker -- david.kistenbroker@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP, Carl E. Volz -- carl.volz@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP & Melanie C MacKay -- melanie.mackay@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP. ARCHBISHOP OF NEW ORLEANS: Sued Over Civil Rights Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Chong Su Yi and people of similarly situated v. Archbishop of New Orleans, Case No. 8:16-cv-01122-DKC (D. Md., April 15, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for Civil Rights violation. Archbishop of New Orleans is an ecclesiastical division of the Roman Catholic Church administered from New Orleans, Louisiana. Chong Su Yi is a pro se plaintiff. ASSET MANAGING: Faces "Reinhart" Suit Over Fla. Wage Law Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Reinhart and Christina Knight, on behalf of themselves and those silimarly situated, vs. Asset Managing Group, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Assistax, Inc a Florida Corporation, Ameritax Mediation Group, Inc., a Florida Corporation and Paul Moise, individually, Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-00439-BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla., April 13, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Florida Minimum Wage Act, Florida Statute to recover unpaid wages and/or overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Asset Managing Group Inc. is in the mortgage brokering business. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick V. Douglas, Esq. Arlen M. Weintraub, Esq. DOUGLAS & CARTER 177 NW Madison Street Lake City, FL 32055 Phone: 386-752-5511 E-mail: Patrick@douglasandcarter.com Arlen@douglasandcarter.com Info@douglasandcarter.com ATLANTIC POWER: Shareholder Suits in U.S., Canada Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- Atlantic Power Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that both the U.S. and Ontario securities class action suits have been dismissed by the respective courts, with no payments required by the Company. The Company said, "On March 8, 14, 15 and 25, 2013 and April 23, 2013, five purported securities fraud class action complaints were filed by alleged investors in Atlantic Power common shares in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "District Court") against Atlantic Power and Barry E. Welch, our former President and Chief Executive Officer and a former Director of Atlantic Power, in each of the actions, and, in addition to Mr. Welch, some or all of Patrick J. Welch, our former Chief Financial Officer, Lisa Donahue, our former interim Chief Financial Officer, and Terrence Ronan, our current Chief Financial Officer, in certain of the actions (the "Proposed Individual Defendants," and together with Atlantic Power, the "Proposed Defendants") (the "U.S. Actions")." The District Court complaints differed in terms of the identities of the Proposed Individual Defendants they named, the named plaintiffs, and the purported class period they alleged (July 23, 2010 to March 4, 2013 in three of the District Court actions and August 8, 2012 to February 28, 2013 in the other two District Court actions), but in general each alleged, among other things, that in Atlantic Power's press releases, quarterly and year-end filings and conference calls with analysts and investors, Atlantic Power and the Proposed Individual Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the sustainability of Atlantic Power's common share dividend that artificially inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common shares. The District Court complaints assert claims under Section 10(b) and, against the Proposed Individual Defendants, under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The parties to each District Court action filed joint motions requesting that the District Court set a schedule in the District Court actions, including: (i) setting a deadline for the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated amended class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), after the appointment of lead plaintiff and counsel; (ii) setting a deadline for Proposed Defendants to answer, file a motion to dismiss or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint (and for subsequent briefing regarding any such motion to dismiss); and (iii) confirming that the Proposed Defendants need not answer, move to dismiss or otherwise respond to any of the five District Court complaints prior to the filing of the Amended Complaint. On May 7, 2013, each of six groups of investors (the "U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants") filed a motion (collectively, the "U.S. Lead Plaintiff Motions") with the District Court seeking: (i) to consolidate the five U.S. Actions (the "Consolidated U.S. Action"); (ii) to be appointed lead plaintiff in the Consolidated U.S. Action; and (iii) to have its choice of lead counsel confirmed. On May 22, 2013, three of the U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants filed oppositions to the other U.S. Lead Plaintiff Motions, and on June 6, 2013, those three Lead Plaintiff Applicants filed replies in support of their respective motions. On August 19, 2013, the District Court held a status conference to address certain issues raised by the U.S. Lead Plaintiff Motions, entered an order consolidating the five U.S. Actions, and directed two of the six U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants to file supplemental submissions by September 9, 2013. Both of those U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants filed the requested supplemental submissions, and then sought leave to file additional briefing. The Court granted those requests for leave and additional submissions were filed on September 13 and September 18, 2013. On March 31, 2014, the Court entered an order consolidating the five individual U.S. Actions, appointing the Feldman, Shapero, Carter and Smith investor group (one of the six U.S. Lead Plaintiffs Applicants) as Lead Plaintiff and approving Lead Plaintiff's selection of counsel. The Court also granted the parties' joint motion regarding initial case scheduling and directed the parties to resubmit a proposed schedule that contains specific dates. In response to that directive, on April 7, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed an application and proposed order, which sought an extension of the schedule contained in the joint motion. The application and proposed order requested that: (i) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to file an amended complaint on or before May 30, 2014, (ii) the Proposed Defendants be permitted to move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the amended complaint on or before July 29, 2014, (iii) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to file an opposition, if any, on or before September 24, 2014, and (iv) the Proposed Defendants be permitted to file a reply to Lead Plaintiff's opposition on or before November 13, 2014. Proposed Defendants did not object to the schedule proposed by Lead Plaintiff. On May 29, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a renewed application and proposed order, which sought another extension of the schedule, and on June 3, 2014, Lead Plaintiff and the Proposed Defendants jointly filed a stipulation and proposed order requesting the following revised schedule: (i) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to file an amended complaint on or before June 6, 2014, (ii) the Proposed Defendants be permitted to move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the amended complaint on or before August 5, 2014, (iii) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to file an opposition, if any, on or before October 6, 2014, and (iv) the Proposed Defendants be permitted to file a reply to Lead Plaintiff's opposition on or before November 20, 2014. On June 3, 2014, the Court entered an order setting this requested schedule. On June 6, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed the amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint names as defendants Barry E. Welch and Terrence Ronan (the "Individual Defendants") and Atlantic Power (together with the Individual Defendants, the "Defendants") and alleges a class period of June 20, 2011 to March 4, 2013 (the "Class Period"). The Amended Complaint makes allegations that are substantially similar to those asserted in the five initial complaints. Specifically, the Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that in Atlantic Power's press releases, quarterly and year-end filings and conference calls with analysts and investors, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the sustainability of Atlantic Power's common share dividend, which artificially inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common shares during the class period. The Amended Complaint continues to assert claims under Section 10(b) and, against the Individual Defendants, under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. It also asserts a claim for unjust enrichment against the Individual Defendants. In accordance with the schedule referenced above, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the consolidated (the "Motion to Dismiss") U.S. Action on August 5, 2014. On September 30, 2014, citing Atlantic Power's September 16, 2014 announcement of changes to its dividend and its President and CEO transition, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion (the "Extension Motion") requesting a thirty-day extension of its October 6, 2014 deadline for filing its brief in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, in which to determine whether to file a second amended complaint. On October 2, 2014, the Court entered an order (i) extending Lead Plaintiff's deadline to file its opposition to the Motion to Dismiss to October 10, 2014 and (ii) requiring Defendants to file their opposition to the Extension Motion by October 2, 2014. In accordance with this order, on October 2, 2014, Defendants filed their opposition to the Extension Motion. On October 10, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed its opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (the "Opposition") and also filed a motion for leave to amend the Amended Complaint, attaching a proposed second amended complaint. On October 21, 2014, Lead Plaintiff and Defendants filed a joint scheduling motion requesting (i) November 7, 2014 as the deadline for Defendants to file their opposition to Lead Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the Amended Complaint; (ii) November 24, 2014 as the deadline for Defendants to file their reply in further support of the Motion to Dismiss; and (iii) November 24, 2014 as the deadline for Lead Plaintiff to file its reply in further support of its motion for leave to amend the Amended Complaint. On October 22, 2014, the Court entered an order setting this requested schedule. Pursuant to that order, the Motion to Dismiss and Extension Motion were fully briefed on November 24, 2014. On January 22, 2015, the Court held oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss and Extension Motion. On January 30, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental submission in opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss (the "Motion for Leave"). The Court denied the Motion for Leave in an order entered on February 5, 2015, but permitted Lead Plaintiff to submit a brief letter identifying supplemental authorities. Lead Plaintiff filed that letter on February 9, 2015, and Defendants filed a response on February 10, 2015. On March 13, 2015, the District Court entered an order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss and denying Lead Plaintiff's motion to amend the Amended Complaint, and on March 18, 2015, the District Court entered an order dismissing the Amended Complaint with prejudice. On April 16, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (the "First Circuit"). On August 19, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed with the First Circuit its brief appealing the dismissal of its securities fraud claims. On September 4, 2015, while appellate proceedings were still on- going, Lead Plaintiff filed with the District Court a Rule 60(b)(2) motion to vacate the judgment based on evidence cited in the Ontario Superior Court's decision dismissing a similar action in Canada. On September 17, 2015, Atlantic Power opposed Lead Plaintiff's motion. On September 18, 2015, Lead Plaintiff requested a stay of the appellate proceedings in the First Circuit pending resolution of the District Court's decision on its Rule 60(b)(2) motion. On September 21, 2015, Atlantic Power opposed Lead Plaintiff's request for a stay and tendered to the First Circuit its opposition brief to Lead Plaintiff's appeal. On October 5, 2015, the First Circuit granted Lead Plaintiff's request for a stay in the appellate proceeding pending the District Court's decision on the Rule 60(b)(2) motion. On October 21, 2015, the District Court entered an order denying Lead Plaintiff's Rule 60(b)(2) motion to vacate the judgment. On October 29, 2015, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), the parties jointly stipulated to the voluntary dismissal of the appeal before the First Circuit with prejudice. On November 30, 2015, the First Circuit ordered that the case be voluntarily dismissed. * * * On March 19, 2013, April 2, 2013 and May 10, 2013, three notices of action relating to Canadian securities class action claims against the Proposed Defendants were also issued by alleged investors in Atlantic Power common shares, and in one of the actions, holders of Atlantic Power convertible debentures, with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the Province of Ontario. On April 8, 2013, a similar claim issued by alleged investors in Atlantic Power common shares seeking to initiate a class action against the Proposed Defendants was filed with the Superior Court of Quebec in the Province of Quebec (the "Canadian Actions"). On April 17, May 22, and June 7, 2013 statements of claim relating to the notices of action were filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the Province of Ontario. On August 30, 2013, the three Ontario actions were succeeded by one action with an amended claim being issued on behalf of Jacqeline Coffin and Sandra Lowry. As in the U.S. Action, this claim named the Company, Barry E. Welch and Terrence Ronan as Defendants. The Plaintiffs sought leave to commence an action for statutory misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act and asserted common law claims for misrepresentation. The Plaintiffs' motions for leave and certification were heard on May 20-21, 2015. On July 24, 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued a decision denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave and certification. The Superior Court granted leave to reconstitute a claim for debenture holders but required that there be a debenture holder as plaintiff, that the claim be amended and that the Plaintiffs pay the Defendants partial indemnity costs of responding to the Plaintiffs' motion. The Plaintiffs appealed the July 24 decision on leave and certification to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The appeal was subsequently abandoned by the Plaintiffs, and the Ontario action was dismissed by Order dated December 2, 2015, the Defendants agreeing not to claim costs from the Plaintiffs. The proposed Quebec class action was suspended by the Superior Court of Quebec pending the outcome of the motions for leave and certification of the Ontario action as a class proceeding. Following the result in Ontario, the petitioner in the Quebec proceedings has agreed in principle with the Defendants to discontinue the Quebec proceedings without costs. The discontinuance will require the authorization of the Superior Court of Quebec. The parties are preparing materials to obtain this authorization. The petitioner in the Quebec proceedings did not estimate the alleged damages of the proposed class. Because the Quebec proceedings were suspended and then an agreement to discontinue was made in its early stages, Atlantic Power is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation, if it were to continue. If the action were to continue, Atlantic Power intends to defend against it vigorously. As announced by the Company in December, both the U.S. and Ontario securities class action suits were dismissed by the respective courts, with no payments required by the Company. Following the resolution of the Ontario matter, the petitioner in the Quebec proceedings has agreed in principle with the defendants in the suit to discontinue the proceedings, with each side bearing its own costs. The agreement is subject to the approval of the Superior Court of Quebec. BRIAD RESTAURANT: "Palmisano" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Palmisano on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Briad Restaurant Group, LLC, Briad Restaurant Group N.J., LLC, and Briad Restaurant Group, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02183-ES-JAD (D.N.J., April 19, 2016), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, unlawful deductions, and other wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a human resources website where tipped workers at any Briad T.G.I. Friday's restaurant could access information regarding enroll in benefits programs. The Defendants paid Plaintiff at a "tipped" minimum wage rate -- less than the full minimum wage rate for non- tipped workers. Briad is a hospitality company that operates and owns recognizable brands, including T.G.I. Friday's, Wendy's, Marriott, and Hilton. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen H. Kahn, Esq. KAHN OPTON, LLP One Parker Plaza Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Telephone: (201) 947 9200 Facsimile: (201) 402 6878 Email: eruggiero@kahnopton.com - and - Justin M. Swartz, Esq. Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245 1000 E-mail: www.warnlawyers.com BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Securities Suit in Claims Admin. Process --------------------------------------------------------------- Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a $15.5 million settlement of the securities class action in the Southern District of California is now proceeding through the shareholder claims administration process. On July 13, 2012, a securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by Donald K. Franke naming the Company, Andrew Clark, Daniel Devine and Jane McAuliffe as defendants for allegedly making false and materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results, specifically the concealment of accreditation problems at Ashford University. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from May 3, 2011 to July 6, 2012. A substantially similar complaint was also filed in the same court by Luke Sacharczyk on July 17, 2012 making similar allegations against the Company, Andrew Clark and Daniel Devine. The Sacharczyk complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from May 3, 2011 to July 12, 2012. On July 26, 2012, another purported securities class action complaint was filed in the same court by David Stein against the same defendants based upon the same general set of allegations and class period. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. On October 22, 2012, the Sacharczyk and Stein actions were consolidated with the Franke action and the Court appointed the City of Atlanta General Employees' Pension Fund and the Teamsters Local 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan as lead plaintiffs. A consolidated complaint was filed on December 21, 2012 and the Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 19, 2013. On September 13, 2013, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend for alleged misrepresentations relating to Ashford University's quality of education, the WSCUC accreditation process and the Company's financial forecasts. The Court denied the motion to dismiss for alleged misrepresentations concerning Ashford University's persistence rates. Following the conclusion of discovery, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the litigation for $15.5 million, which was funded by the Company's insurance carriers. The settlement was granted preliminary approval by the Court on December 14, 2015 and is now proceeding through the shareholder claims administration process. BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Motion to Dismiss "Zamir" Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Bridgepoint Education, Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that defendants' motions to dismiss the case, Zamir v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., et al., are currently pending. On February 24, 2015, a securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by Nelda Zamir naming the Company, Andrew Clark and Daniel Devine as defendants. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects, specifically regarding the Company's improper application of revenue recognition methodology to assess collectability of funds owed by students. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from August 7, 2012 to May 30, 2014 and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest and attorneys' fees. On July 15, 2015, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for appointment of lead counsel. On September 18, 2015, the plaintiff filed a substantially similar amended complaint that asserts a putative class period stemming from March 12, 2013 to May 30, 2014. The amended complaint also names Patrick Hackett, Adarsh Sarma, Warburg Pincus & Co., Warburg Pincus LLC, Warburg Pincus Partners LLC, and Warburg Pincus Private Equity VIII, L.P. as additional defendants. On November 24, 2015, all defendants filed motions to dismiss, which are currently pending with the Court. The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise. Based on information available to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated with this action. CAESARSTONE SDOT-YAM: Israel Class Suit in Initial Stage -------------------------------------------------------- Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a purported class action lawsuit in Israel District Court is in the preliminary stage. The Company said, "A lawsuit by a single plaintiff and a motion for its class certification were filed against us in April 2014 in the Central District Court in Israel. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of a fabrication plant and to have contracted silicosis as a result of fabricating our products. In connection therewith, the plaintiff claims that we did not provide adequate warnings regarding the risks and protection measures required with respect to fabrication of our products, and that we intentionally hid and did not warn about the high risk and irreversible damages that may occur to the persons processing our products and misled the fabricators in Israel by comparing the hazards related to the fabrication of our products to those associated with the fabrication of natural stones. In acting so, the plaintiff claims that we did not act as a reasonable manufacturer; we violated the law and Israeli standards, committed an assault, acted negligently and are liable under the Israeli Law for Liability for Defective Products, 1980. The plaintiff also claims that our products are a "dangerous item" under the Israeli Tort Ordinance, 5728-1968 and, therefore, the plaintiff claims that the burden of proof falls on us to prove that there was no carelessness for which we are liable in connection with our products. The plaintiff claims that by our wrongful conduct we violated the plaintiff's freedom to choose whether to be exposed to the risks associated with the fabrication of our products." "The plaintiff alleges that, if the lawsuit is recognized as a class action, the claim against us is estimated to be NIS 216 million (approximately $55 million), calculated by claiming damages of NIS 18,000 ($4,628) for each individual who worked in fabrication workshops in Israel in fabrication or administrative roles and who have been exposed to dust generated by the fabrication of our products. The plaintiff claims that there are 12,000 such individuals who worked at 400 fabrication workshops in Israel, each of which employed 10 fabricators and five administrative persons, with one rotation during the relevant period. In addition, such claim includes an unstated sum in compensation for special and general damages, such as medical disability, functional disability, pain and suffering, medical expenses, medical and nursing assistance, which will require proof and quantification for each injured person in the purported class action. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, to compel us to notify the alleged group (and potential members of the group) and each individual about the risks, recommending that they undertake a medical examination and assert their rights." "We intend to vigorously contest recognition of the lawsuit as a class action and to defend the lawsuit on its merits, although, considering the preliminary stage of this lawsuit, there can be no assurance as to the probability of success or the range of potential exposure, if any." CAESARSTONE SDOT-YAM: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the securities class action claim. The Company said, "On August 25, 2015, a purported purchaser of our ordinary shares filed a proposed class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting, among other things, that we and two of our officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, by allegedly making false and misleading statements about our business. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of purchasers of our securities between March 25, 2013 and August 18, 2015." "On January 15, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that asserted similar claims, but that seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of our securities between February 12, 2014 and August 18, 2015. On February 26, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. "We believe this claim is without merit and intend to contest it vigorously. We believe that expenses incurred and any payments due as a result of this claim will be covered under our directors and officers liability insurance policy, subject to deductibles and the terms and limit of the coverage." CANADA NEW: Recalls Fish Ball Products Due to Egg ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 18, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Egg Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Canada New Global Trend Group Ltd. Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10471 Canada New Global Trend Group Ltd. is recalling certain Natural Farm brand fish ball products from the marketplace because they contain egg which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg should not consume and retailers, hotels, restaurants and institutions should not sell, serve or use the recalled products described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to egg, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. Learn more about common food allergies There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Natural Cuttlefish 300 g 13.04.2017 6 957489 000134 Farm Balls Natural Fish Balls 300 g 13.04.2017 6 957489 000158 Farm Natural Fried Fish 10 kg 12/14/2016 None Farm Balls (4 x 2.5 kg) Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/Q9j1kc CELESTICA INC: To Seek Costs of Appeal in Ontario Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Celestica Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends to seek costs of Supreme Court proceedings related to an appeal in a class suit in Ontario. The Company said, "In 2007, securities class action lawsuits were commenced against us and our former Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by certain individuals, on behalf of themselves and other unnamed purchasers of our stock, claiming that they were purchasers of our stock during the period January 27, 2005 through January 30, 2007. The plaintiffs alleged violations of United States federal securities laws and sought unspecified damages. They alleged that during the purported period we made statements concerning our actual and anticipated future financial results that failed to disclose certain purportedly material adverse information with respect to demand and inventory in our Mexico operations and our information technology and communications divisions. In an amended complaint, the plaintiffs added one of our directors and Onex Corporation as defendants." "On October 14, 2010, the District Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety. The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit the dismissal of their claims against us and our former Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers, but not as to the other defendants. In a summary order dated December 29, 2011, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's dismissal of the consolidated amended complaint and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the case in its entirety, and plaintiffs moved for class certification and for partial summary judgment on certain elements of their claims. "In an order dated February 21, 2014, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification because they sought to include in their proposed class persons who purchased Celestica stock in Canada. Plaintiffs renewed their motion for class certification on April 23, 2014, removing Canadian stock purchasers from their proposed class in accordance with the District Court's February 21 order. Defendants opposed plaintiffs' renewed motion on May 5, 2014 on the grounds that the plaintiffs were not adequate class representatives. "On August 20, 2014, the District Court denied our motion for summary judgment. The District Court also denied the majority of plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, but granted plaintiffs' motion on market efficiency. The District Court also granted plaintiffs' renewed class certification motion and certified plaintiffs' revised class. On February 24, 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the U.S. case, which was subsequently formalized in a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated April 17, 2015. "On April 17, 2015, the plaintiffs submitted the settlement to the District Court seeking preliminary approval of the settlement and of the form of notice to be issued to class members. On May 6, 2015, the District Court preliminarily approved the settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate, and directed the issuance of notice to class members. On July 28, 2015, the District Court held a settlement approval hearing at which it granted final approval to the settlement. The time for any person to appeal the District Court's order approving the settlement has expired without any such appeal having been filed. The settlement payment to the plaintiffs was paid by our liability insurance carriers. "Parallel class proceedings were initiated against us and our former Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. These proceedings are not affected by the settlement discussed above. On October 15, 2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted limited aspects of the defendants' motion to strike, but dismissed the defendants' limitation period argument. The defendants' appeal of the limitation period issue was dismissed on February 3, 2014 when the Court of Appeal for Ontario overturned its own prior decision on the limitation period issue. "On August 7, 2014, the defendants were granted leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, together with two other cases that dealt with the limitation period issue. The Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal on February 9, 2015. The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision on December 4, 2015, allowing the defendants' appeal and holding that the statutory claims of the plaintiff and the class under the Ontario Securities Act are barred by the applicable limitation period. In an earlier decision dated February 14, 2014, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice denied certification of the plaintiffs' common law claims. No party appealed that decision. "We will be seeking our costs of the Supreme Court proceedings . . . . It is too early to assess the quantum of costs that may be awarded, if any. The Canadian plaintiff has initiated a second motion to certify its common law claims, even though those claims were denied certification in February 2014. "We believe that the February 2014 decision is final and binding and that any attempt to re-open certification of the common law claims is without merit. There can be no assurance that the outcome of the lawsuit will be favorable to us or that it will not have a material adverse impact on our financial position or liquidity. In addition, we may incur substantial litigation expenses in defending the claim. As the matter is ongoing, we cannot predict its duration or the resources required." CHANNELADVISOR CORP: Court Dismisses Securities Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned In re CHANNELADVISOR CORP. Securities Litigation, No. 5:15-CV-00307-F (E.D.N.C.), Judge James C. Fox allowed the motion filed by the defendants ChannelAdvisor Corporation, Scot Wingo, David Spitz, and John Baule to dismiss the plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint. In this class action, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of: (1) Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and (2) Section 20(a) of the Act. All claims against the defendants were dismissed. A full-text copy of Judge Fox's April 6, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/OAMFU6from Leagle.com. Justin Dice, Plaintiff, represented by Brooke Albert Howard, Howard Law, PLLC, Jacob A. Goldberg -- jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., James A. Roberts, III -- jar@lewis- roberts.com -- Lewis & Roberts, PLLC, Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA, pro hac vice, Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A. & Erica Lauren Stone -- estone@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.. David A. Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Brooke Albert Howard, Howard Law, PLLC, Francis Paul McConville, Pomerantz LLP, James A. Roberts, III, Lewis & Roberts, PLLC, Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP. Channeladvisor Corporation, Scot Wingo, David Spitz, John Baule, Defendant, represented by Clifton L. Brinson -- cbrinson@smithlaw.com -- Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP, Donald H. Tucker, Jr. -- dtucker@smithlaw.com -- Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP, Lyle Roberts -- lroberts@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP, pro hac vice, Dana Moss -- dmoss@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP, pro hac vice & George E. Anhang -- ganhang@colley.com -- COOLEY LLP. CHICO'S FAS: Still Defends Ackerman and Altman Suits ---------------------------------------------------- Chico's FAS, Inc. continues to face the Ackerman lawsuit in California, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. In June 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative representative Private Attorney General action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Ackerman v. Chico's FAS, Inc. The complaint attempts to allege numerous violations of California law related to wages, meal periods, rest periods, wage statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses, among other things. The Company denies the material allegations of the complaint and filed its answer on July 27, 2015. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Company believes that the case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend. As a result, the Company does not believe that the case should have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results of operations. In July 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc. The complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of federal law, published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number or an expiration date on customers' receipts. The Company denies the material allegations of the complaint and filed a motion to dismiss on September 9, 2015, which is pending. The Company believes that the case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend. As a result, the Company does not believe that the case should have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results of operations. CHILDREN'S PLACE: Recalls Sleep and Play Layettes ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 17, 2016 Posting date: March 17, 2016 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products, Clothing and Accessories Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Flammability Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-57554S This recall involves certain sleep and play layettes. The recalled products can be identified by the following descriptions and style numbers. Style Number Description Affected Sizes ------------ ----------- -------------- 2056000 Blue one-piece 3-6 months with a "Mommy's 6-9 months little sailor" screenprint and dog captain on the front and 3-D dog details at the feet with snap closures from neck to waist and leg inseam 2058039 Pink one-piece with 3-6 months bunny print and 3-D 6-9 months details at the feet with snap closures at the chest and leg openings Only the sizes listed above are affected by this recall. The size can be found on the tagless label on the center back of each garment. Both products contain CA number 40465 on the inner label. Hazard identified The 3-D decorative dog and bunny ears attached to the feet extend beyond 6 mm from the point of attachment and do not meet the flammability requirements for tight-fitting children's sleepwear under Canadian law. Neither Health Canada nor The Children's Place (Canada) LP has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these products in Canada. Approximately 1,544 units were sold in Canada. The recalled products were sold between December 2015 to March 2016 online at www.childrensplace.com and at various The Children's Place retail locations across Canada. Manufactured in India Manufacturer: Kitex Childrenswear Limited Kerala INDIA Distributor: The Children's Place (Canada) LP Mississauga Ontario CANADA Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/HuunNS CLIMA-TECH: Faces "Roberts" Suit Over Illegal Stock Options ----------------------------------------------------------- Ada Roberts, an Individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Clima-Tech, Inc. d/b/a Climatech Refrigeration and Does 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. BC61730 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 15, 2016), arises out of the Defendant's alleged fraudulent issuance of stock options and fraudulent issuance of stock options in lieu payment of wages. Clima-Tech, Inc. owns and operates a refrigeration and HVAC company in Los Angele County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodney S. Diggs, Esq. Brittany R. Gibson, Esq. IVIE, McNEILL & WYATT A Professional Law Corporation 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 489-0028 Facsimile: (213) 489-0552 E-mail: rdiggs@imwlaw.com bgibson@imwlaw.com COLTON, CA: Cops Face Class Suit by Wrongly Jailed -------------------------------------------------- Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a man jailed under $100,000 bond on a warrant for somebody else claims in a class action in Riverside, Calif. that he's just one of 450 people San Bernardino County sheriff's officers have wrongfully jailed in the past five years. Manuel Bravo Martinez sued the city of Colton and its police department, San Bernardino County and its sheriff's department and Sheriff John McMahon in Federal Court. He was arrested and jailed on a warrant for a man with his name but a different birthday and with fingerprints, which were on filed. Bravo claims that the sheriff's own records show that in the past five years "as many as 450 prisoners were, in fact, wrongly jailed on warrants meant for others," and the sheriff and police allow it to keep happening because they refuse to use information systems readily available to them to verify people's identities. "It's a bigger problem than people realize," his attorney Donald Cook told Courthouse News. "What's going on is that the police refuse to use the information systems available to them to catch the bad guys or exonerate the innocent." Once an officer makes a tentative identification on a suspect, no one wants to overturn that decision, which is how Bravo ended up in jail on someone else's warrant, Cook said. Bravo says he had to borrow $100,000 to bond out after spending a night in jail because he was afraid he would be fired if he missed work. When he went to court nine days later, the judge saw immediately that Bravo's birthday and the actual suspect's birthday were different and released him. "It's a fairly significant problem," Cook said. "What's so upsetting is that the police figured out how to do this decades ago." Fingerprint matching is more common, cheaper, and more accurate than DNA: identical twins can have the same DNA but not the same fingerprint, Cook said. The fingerprints of the man on the warrant were in the law enforcement system because of prior arrests, according to the complaint. "It's not like using a latent print. They have nice, clean sets of all 10 prints" and use sophisticated software to make a match, Cook said. "The problem is that the police don't want to use these numbers to get people out of jail," Cook said. Jailers too have the technology to see an arrestee is the wrong man, but are reluctant to take responsibility for letting people go, the attorney said. "The issue of arresting the wrong person never goes away," he said. "The best time to address it is right off the bat. Instead, they kick the can down the road to let the judges figure it out. "It's very frustrating. If it sounds outrageous, it's because it is outrageous." A Colton cop stopped Bravo for a traffic violation on Aug. 11, 2015, and arrested him on the warrant for another Manuel Martinez. (In Spanish, the first surname, the patronymic, is usually used as a person's last name. The second surname, the metronymic, is used only in formal documents. It is unclear from Bravo's lawsuit whether the other man's Martinez name was his patronymic or metronymic.) Bravo and his wife insisted that he was not the man the officer was looking for, but he was taken to jail anyway. His protests of innocence also were ignored at his arraignment the next day. Since the court denied his request to be released on his own recognizance, he had to borrow $100,000 from family members to post bond so he would not lose his job, according to the complaint. Bravo claims the defendants have a long-standing practice of ignoring fingerprint numbers, birthdays and other discrepancies when they arrest people. Nor does he believe the sheriff's excuse for it. After citing the sheriff's records of 450 mistaken arrests, the complaint continues: "The County and SBCSD have claimed that more than 99 percent of these wrongly imprisoned persons never complained to LASD [sic] personnel they were being wrongly incarcerated on another person's warrant. Plaintiff submits that because it is reasonable to assume that a person who sincerely believes he is being incarcerated on another person's warrant is likely to make that complaint to his jailer, the County/SBCSD claim that more than 99 percent of the prisoners wrongly incarcerated never so complained is patently false." The defendants did not respond to emailed requests for comment on April 15. Bravo seeks class certification and compensatory damages for false arrest, wrongful incarceration and false imprisonment. Cook's office is in Los Angeles. CONSOLIDATED COATINGS: Recalls Wood Decks and Siding ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 21, 2016 Posting date: March 21, 2016 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Chemicals Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Labelling and Packaging Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-57602 This recall involves WoodPal Organic Transparent Stain, an oil- based semi-transparent stain for wood decks and siding. The affected product was sold in 3.78 L / 1 gallon containers only and are listed below: Product Type Product Code UPC ------------ ------------ --- Natural 30-4500 776389104553 Cedar 30-4510 776389104577 Redwood 30-4530 776389104614 Pacific Gold 30-4520 776389104591 Red Wine 30-4533 776389104706 Pacific Walnut 30-4540 776389104638 Ocean Bleached 30-4543 776389104713 Transparent Slate 30-4550 776389104652 Tint Base 30-4560 776389104676 Health Canada's inspection process has revealed that the products do not meet labelling requirements for consumer chemical products under Canadian law. The consumer product does not have proper hazard labelling required by the Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001 under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. The improper labelling could result in unintentional exposure to these products and lead to property damage, injury or death. Neither Health Canada nor Consolidated Coatings Corporation has received any reports of consumer incidents related to the use of this product. 300 units of the recalled products were sold in various retail stores in British Columbia. The recalled products were sold in Canada from January 2011 to March 9, 2016. Manufactured in Canada. Manufacturer: Consolidated Coatings Corporation Delta British Columbia CANADA Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/qleAK8 CWS APARTMENT HOMES: "Abramson" Files Statutory Action ------------------------------------------------------ Stewart Abramson has filed a statutory action in acordance with US Code 28:1331. The case is captioned Stewart Abramson, individually and on behalf of a class of all person ad entities similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CWS Apartment Homes, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00426-DSC (W.D. Pa., April 13, 2016). CWS owns and operates mobile home parks in the United States. It is headquartered in 9606 N. Mopac Expressway, Austin, Texas 78759. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clayton S. Morrow, Esq. MORROW & ARTIM, PC 304 Ross Street 7th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Tel: (412) 281-1250 Fax: (412) 386-3184 Email: cmorrow@allconsumerlaw.com DAYMAR COLLEGES: Claims of Missing & Deceased Plaintiffs Nixed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned KEVIN WIGGINS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DAYMAR COLLEGES GROUP, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:11-CV- 00036-GNS-LLK (W.D. Ky.), Judge Greg N. Stivers granted the defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Claims of Certain Plaintiffs for Failure to Prosecute and Motion to Dismiss the Deceased Plaintiffs' Claims. The judge dismissed the claims of the following plaintiffs: Donald Lee, Jason Hillerich, Christina Tobin, Denise Titze, Christina Richey, Erin Ash, Alicia Ayers, Otto Fields III, Kerston Hauswirth, Jamie Mullins, Joanna Roberts, Stephen Robinson, Capucine Sanders, Kristina Fortney, Susan Neace, Dean Pyle, Misty Searcy, James Simon, Sabrena Western, Kathy Williams, D'Aundra Wilson, Ashley Harrell, Joseph Langston, Robin Layne, Donald Lee, Robert Littlemyer, Jazsum May, Tabitha Reed, Christy Skirvin, Jennifer Umberg, Stephanie Wade, and Grace Yopp. A suit was filed against, inter alia, Daymar Colleges Group, LLC; Daymar Learning of Paducah, Inc.; Daymar Learning of Ohio, Inc.; Draughons Junior College, Inc.; and Mark Gabis (collectively, "Daymar Defendants") by a class of individuals "composed of present and former students of Daymar who have been fraudulently solicited to attend Daymar educational institutions with the promise of receiving [d]egrees transferable to the vast majority of institutions of higher learning, and for whom these representations were both false and the [d]egrees and credits non- transferable." The Daymar Defendants sought to dismiss the claims of those plaintiffs who could not be located for lack of prosecution and those plaintiffs that are deceased for their estates' failure to file a motion for substitution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1). Judge Stivers found sufficient cause and accordingly granted the Daymar defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to the missing plaintiffs' failure to prosecute their claims. The judge also dismissed the deceased plaintiffs' claims absent timely motions for substitutions. A full-text copy of Judge Stivers' April 5, 2016 memorandum opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/swK8vAfrom Leagle.com. Angela Williams-Trice, Annette Angel, Venus Beverly, Jessican Broughton, Kimberly Campbell, Betty Coleman, Ashlee Colvin, Hanna Costello, Jeanette Crow, Deke Deacon, Ce'Arra Decker-Goodman, Beverly Ferguson, Jennifer Fisher, Allison Flynn, Teresa Hill, Pamela Holsinger, Heather Homer, Christina Kazee, Cindy Knittel, Kayla Landman, Jane Lemaster, Karen Melott, Melanie Morman, Jennifer Mullins, Amy Newsome, Brandy Oatney, Christie Pollock, Terri Pontious, Kathy Radcliff, Robin Ratcliff, Virginia Riddle, Stuart Scott, Jason Shultz, Michelle Shultz, Jodi Smith, Melinda Smith, Robert Smith, Corey Tabor, Kevin Tillson, Christina Uhl, Amanda Wallace, Heather Wallace, Megan Westcamp, Larry White, Brian Whiteaker, Amanda Carver, Darlene Hobbs, Plaintiffs, represented by David G. Bryant, Jones Ward PLC, Kenneth L. Sales, Bubalo Goode Sales & Cronen, PLC, Mark P. Bryant, Bryant Law Center, PSC & Emily Ward Roark, Bryant Law Center, PSC. Daymar Colleges Group, LLC, Daymar Learning of Paducah, Inc, Daymar Learning of Ohio, Inc, Daymar Learning, Inc, Defendants, represented by Caroline L. Pieroni -- caroline.pieroni@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Emily Wang Zahn, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP & R. Kenyon Meyer -- kenyon.meyer@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. The Daymar Foundation, Inc, Defendant, represented by Jon L. Fleischaker -- jon.fleischaker@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP & Michael Merrick -- michael.merrick@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. Terrie L. Gabis, Defendant, represented by Emily Wang Zahn, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Susan S. Wettle -- Frost Brown Todd LLC & Winston E. Miller, Frost Brown Todd LLC. Draughons Junior College, Inc., Defendant, represented by R. Kenyon Meyer, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. EAST HAVEN: Faces "Richards" Suit in New York Supreme Court ----------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against East Haven Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC. The case is captioned Richards, Sandra and Bridgette Briscoe, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs. v. East Haven Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 20750/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 19, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Fernando Tapia. East Haven operates a nursing home for older people and the disabled. The Plaintiffs are represented by: LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C. North Shore Location 1613 Northern Blvd. Roslyn, NY 11576 Telephone: (516) 625 0105 E-mail: louisginsberg@1800lostjob.com The Defendant is represented by: JACKSON LEWIS LLP 666 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 545 4000 E-mail: webmaster@jacksonlewis.com EC USA: Faces "Gallegos" Suit Filed by Non-Exempt Hourly Teachers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kristina Gallegos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. EC USA Holdings Inc., a Massachusetts corporation; EC Los Angeles Language Center, Inc., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 25, Defendants, Case No. BC 616867 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, April 13, 2016), was filed on behalf of all non-exempt hourly teachers employed by Defendants in California within the four years prior to the initiation of this action until the date that a purported class is certified. EC USA Holdngs Inc. owns and operates EC Language Centers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron c. Gundzik, Esq. Rebeca G. Gundzik Esq. GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Phone: (213) 542-2100 Fax: (213) 542-2101 - and - Marshall A. Caskey, Esq. Daniel M. Holzman, Esq. Thomas L. Dorogi, Esq. CASKEY & HOLZMAN 24025 Park Sorrento, Ste. 400 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (818) 657-1070 Fax: (818) 297-1775 ENERGY TRANSFER: "Levine" Sues Over Discriminatory Distribution --------------------------------------------------------------- Lee Levine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., LE GP, LLC, Kelcy L. Warren, John W. McReynolds, Marshall S. Mccrea III, Matthew S. Ramsey, Ted Collins, Jr., K. Rick Turner, William P. Williams, Ray Davis and Richard D. Brannon, Defendants, Case 12197 (Del. Ch. Ct., April 12, 2016), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, cash payment of convertible units, accrual of conversion value, damages, attorneys' fees and expenses and such other and further relief for breach of Section 6.3 and 7.6(f) of Partnership Agreement and breach of Obligation of Good Faith under Section 5.8,7.9, 13.1(d)(i) and 13.1(g) of the Partnership Agreement. Plaintiff accuses Energy Transfer Equity of discriminatory distribution of their Series A Convertible Preferred Units to Defendants Kelcy L. Warren ("Warren"), Richard D. Brannon, John W. McReynolds, Marshall S. McCrea III, Matthew S. Ramsey, Ray Davis and to certain other holders of Common Units. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee D. Rudy, Esq. Michael C. Wagner, Esq. Leah Heifetz, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Tel: (610) 667-7706 - and - Michael Hanrahan, Esq. Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Esq. Corinne Elise Amato, Esq. PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A. 1310 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 888-6500 EROS INTERNATIONAL: Labaton Sucharow Named as Lead Counsel ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Alison J. Nathan consolidated the two actions captioned Vladimir Maliarov, Plaintiff, v. Eros International PLC et al., Defendants and Savva Popi, Plaintiff, v. Eros International PLC et al., Defendants, Nos. 15-CV-8956 (AJN), 16-CV-223 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.). The judge also appointed putative class members Fred Eisner and Strahinja Ivosevic as lead plaintiffs, and approved their choices of counsel. The Court approves Eisner and Ivosevic's selection of Labaton Sucharow as lead counsel. The two securities fraud class actions were filed against Eros International PLC and certain of its officers and directors, alleging that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements about Eros' financial condition that caused a stark decline in stock price when discovered. A full-text copy of Judge Nathan's April 5, 2016 memorandum and order is available at http://is.gd/NVdWqqfrom Leagle.com. Savva Popi, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A. ESTATE OF MCCLENDON: Breached Fiduciary Duties Owed to Chesapeake ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin T Stocker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Estate of Aubrey K. McClendon and American Energy Partners LP, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00391-M (W.D. Okla., April 19, 2016), seeks to recover damages as a result of alleged intentional and reckless breaches of Defendants' fiduciary duties owed to Chesapeake Energy Corporation's shareholders since at least 2008. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a shareholder in Chesapeake, who owned approximately 6,946 shares of stock. McClendon, formerly the CEO, director, and co-owner of Chesapeake prior to his resignation, allegedly offered himself and accepted lucrative contract to the detriment of Chesapeake and its shareholders. The contract was lucrative and not in the best interest of shareholders and it lacked any non-compete clause, allowed him to pilfer valuable information and secrets for his own personal use. McClendon also allegedly loaned himself over a billion dollars from Chesapeake for personal gain at shareholders' expense. The Plaintiff appears pro se. FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Updated 3rd Amendment Litigation Chart ---------------------------------------------------------------- At http://bankrupt.com/gselitigation201604.pdfeditors of the Troubled Company Reporter and Class Action Reporter have posted a chart, updated on Apr. 18, 2016, organizing information about the dozens of lawsuits complaining about how the Department of the Treasury and the Federal Housing Finance Administration are handling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's conservatorship proceedings. Unaltered, this chart may be freely shared with anyone for any purpose, notwithstanding that it is copyrighted by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., and Beard Group, Inc., and all rights are reserved by the publishers. For additional information, contact Peter A. Chapman at peter@beardgroup.com by e-mail or (215) 945-7000 by telephone. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has entertained oral argument in Perry v. Lew, No. 14-5243 (D.C. Cir.). The government argues that the appellate tribunal should affirm Judge Lamberth's dismissal of lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The shareholders want the Third Amendment vacated. The three-judge panel scheduled one hour for oral argument, but listened to and questioned the parties for nearly three times that amount of time. We predict the D.C. Circuit will remand the cases to Judge Lamberth with instructions to reconsider his decision after receiving a full administrative record, with minimal, if any, guidance about how to interpret section 4617(f) of HERA, which the government says prohibits shareholder lawsuits, and HERA's succession provision in section 4617(b)(2)(A)(i). The D.C. Circuit asked the parties to discuss what, if any, effect section 4623(d) of HERA, limiting judicial review of FHFA's capital classification decisions, and, presumably, whether the Third Amendment should be viewed as a capital classification change. The Court asked the four parties to the appeal to submit 10-page briefs about this new topic in the coming week. Attentive GSE litigation followers will recall -- see http://goo.gl/MzpAUH -- that Director Lockhart suspended capital classifications and capital requirements in Oct. 2008 while the GSEs are in conservatorship. In In re: Third Amendment Litigation, MDL No. 2713 (J.P.M.D.L.), FHFA has asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate all present and future lawsuits complaining about the Net Worth Sweep in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, with the unstated but obvious goal of having Judge Lamberth dismiss them all. Plaintiffs in those present and future cases -- Joshua J. Angel at Herrick, Feinstein LLP; Ms. Robinson in Kentucky; the Saxton Plaintiffs in Iowa; the Roberts Plaintiffs in Illinois; and the Jacobs Plaintiffs in Delaware -- don't share FHFA's enthusiasm. The JPMDL will consider FHFA's transfer and consolidation request at a hearing in Chicago on May 26, 2016. FIRST BUSEY: Still Defends 1 Suit in Missouri Over Pulaski Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- First Busey Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that two putative class action lawsuits have been filed in the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, Missouri. The lawsuits name as defendants the members of Pulaski Financial Corp.'s board of directors, Pulaski and First Busey. Demand for jury trial has been made. The lawsuits allege breaches of fiduciary duty due to the process leading to the proposed merger of Pulaski and First Busey, 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. The lawsuits also allege that First Busey 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. On March 4, 2016, the plaintiff in one of the actions filed a notice voluntarily dismissing First Busey from the lawsuit. First Busey remains a defendant in the second action. Pulaski and First Busey each believes that the factual allegations in the complaints are without merit and intends to defend vigorously against these allegations. FISHER-PRICE: Bid for Class Certification in "Harris" Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned JASON DANE HARRIS and RACHEL MARIE DABBS HARRIS, as next friend of P.D.H., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FISHER-PRICE, INC., MATTEL, INC., et al., Defendant, Case No. 1:13-cv-00076-KOB (N.D. Ala.), Judge Karon Owen Bowdre denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), the plaintiffs moved to certify two nationwide classes: one of purchasers who purchased the sleeper at issue in this case before January 9, 2013 and one of gift recipients who acquired the sleeper before January 9, 2013. Each nationwide class would have eight subclasses for purchasers and gift recipients from the states of Alabama, California, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Massachusetts. The plaintiffs moved to certify these classes for all of the claims set out in their Fourth Amended Complaint. Judge Bowdre found that the plaintiffs have not satisfied the requirements for class certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). A full-text copy of Judge Bowdre's April 5, 2016 memorandum opinion is available at http://is.gd/MULQwEfrom Leagle.com. Jason Dane Harris, Rachael Marie Dabbs-Harris, Plaintiffs, represented by Donald W Stewart -- donaldwstewart5354@yahoo.com -- STEWART & STEWART PC. Fisher-Price Inc, Mattel Inc, Defendants, represented by Richard E Smith -- resmith@csattorneys.com -- CHRISTIAN & SMALL LLP, Erik K Swanholt -- ekswanholt@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY, pro hac vice, Peter Biersteker -- pbiersteker@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY, pro hac vice & Sharon D Stuart -- sdstuart@csattorneys.com -- CHRISTIAN & SMALL LLP. FOREST RIVER: Recalls Cherokee 2016 Due to Noncompliance -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 22, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Travel Trailer Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Wheels Units affected: 14 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016127TC ID number: 2016127 Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 110 - Tire Selection and Rims. The certification label incorrectly states the tire and rim installed on the vehicle are ST205/75R15/C Tire(s) with 15X5.0JJ Rims, however the vehicle was originally equipped with T205/75R14/C Tire(s) with 14X5.5JJ Rims. This could lead to vehicle overloading, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will provide replacement certification labels containing the correct tire and rim size (ST205/75R14/C Tire and 14 X 4.5JJ Rim). Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- FOREST RIVER CHEROKEE 2016 FORMFACTOR INC: Employee Class Suit in Merits Discovery ------------------------------------------------------- FormFactor, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 26, 2015, that a class action lawsuit by a former employee is proceeding in merits discovery. In August 2013, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of California, alleging violations of California's wage and hour laws and unfair business practices on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated current and former employees at the Company's Livermore facilities from August 21, 2009, to the present. On January 4, 2016, the court certified the plaintiff class. The lawsuit is currently proceeding to notice to class members and merits discovery. The Company denies the allegations contained in the lawsuit, and, based on available information, believes it has significant defenses to the allegations of the lawsuit. The Company currently believes that any settlement reached would be an amount that is not material to the Company's financial statements. If the matter is not settled, the Company could incur material attorneys' fees in defending the lawsuit. GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Drugs in GM First Aid Kits -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 22, 2016 Posting date: April 8, 2016 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Drugs, Natural health products Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-57868 No Market Authorization Depth of distribution: Retailers (British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec) Affected products: a) Ibuprofen tablets in GM first aid kit DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM No Market Authorisation Dosage form: Tablet Strength: 200 mg Lot or serial number: (L) 4505, various Recalling Firm: General Motors of Canada Ltd. 1908 Colonel Sam Drive Oshawa L1H 8P7 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Not Applicable b)1% Hydrocortisone Cream in first aid kit DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM No Market Authorisation Dosage form: Cream Strength: 1% Hydrocortisone Lot or serial number: Various Recalling Firm: General Motors of Canada Ltd. 1908 Colonel Sam Drive Oshawa L1H 8P7 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Not Applicable c) Triple Antibiotic Ointment in GM first aid kit DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM No Market Authorisation Dosage form: Solution Strength: Bacitracin Zinc - 200units Neomycin Sulfate - 2.5 mg Polymyxin-B Sulfate - 2500units Lot or serial number: Various Recalling Firm: General Motors of Canada Ltd. 1908 Colonel Sam Drive Oshawa L1H 8P7 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Not Applicable GLOSS ORGANIC: "Reiche" Suit Removed to S. District Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Marta Reiche and other similarly situated individuals v. Gloss Organic Nailbar and Sandra Weir, Case No. 16-005994-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16- cv-21351-JLK to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims. Gloss Organic Nailbar and Sandra Weir owns and operates a nail spa in South Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Chad Kevin Lang, Esq. LIEBLER GONZALEZ & PORTUONDO 44 West Flagler Street 25th Floor Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 379-0400 Facsimile: (305) 379-9626 E-mail: ckl@lgplaw.com HAMILTON COUNTY WATER: Protocol Won't Apply to AHA Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned AMERICAN HERITAGE APARTMENTS, INC. v. THE HAMILTON COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT AUTHORITY, HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, No. E2014-00302-SC-R11-CV (Tenn.), the Supreme Court of Tennessee held that American Heritage Apartments, Inc. was not required to exhaust the administrative procedures found in Part 4 of the Utility District Law before filing its lawsuit to challenge the Hamilton County Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority's (County Authority) $8 charge. American Heritage filed a lawsuit individually and as a class representative, arguing that the monthly charge assessed by the County Authority is unlawful. In response, the County Authority asserted that a customer who seeks to dispute the rates charged must first follow the administrative procedures provided in the Utility District Law of 1937, Tennessee Code Annotated sections 7- 82-101 to -804 (2015). On this basis, the County Authority sought dismissal of the lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court of Tennessee held that the administrative procedures in Part 4 of the Utility District Law of 1937 do not apply to a rate challenge filed by an individual customer against a water and wastewater treatment authority. Thus, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the trial court erred in dismissing the lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Supreme Court also affirmed the remainder of the Court of Appeals' decision, except that it vacated the trial court's alternative ruling on class certification and remanded that issue to the trial court for reconsideration. A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's April 8, 2016 opinion is available at http://is.gd/RVWRRufrom Leagle.com. J. Christopher Clem -- cclem@sampleslaw.com -- Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellant, Hamilton County Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority. Jimmy Fain Rodgers, Jr., Chattanooga, Tennessee; and James G. Stranch, III -- jims@bsjfirm.com -- J. Gerard Stranch, IV -- gerards@bsjfirm.com -- and Michael G. Stewart -- mikes@bsjfirm.com -- Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, American Heritage Apartments, Inc. HARBOUR RESTAURANT: "Sutherland" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremiah Sutherland, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Harbour Restaurant Partners, LLC, d/b/a Makoto, a foreign limited liability company, Starr Restaurant Organization, LP, a foreign limited partnership, Starr Restaurant Organization GP, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, and Stephen Starr, an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21400-MGC (S.D. Fla., April 19, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime wage compensation, liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). According to the complaint, the Defendants claimed the tip credit to pay servers, who served food and beverages to Defendants' customers, at an hourly wage rate below the minimum and overtime wage although servers were forced to kick-back a portion of their tips directly or indirectly to Defendants, or to others (non- service bartenders who did not have more than de minimis contact with guests) for Defendants' benefit. By failing to satisfy the requirements under Federal and Florida law, the Defendants were not eligible to claim the tip credit and were required to pay their servers the full minimum and overtime wage, free and clear. Harbour Restaurant is a foreign limited liability company that owns and operates the Makoto restaurant located in Bal Harbour, 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 Telephone: (305) 358 6800 Facsimile: (305) 358 6808 E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com legal@kuvinlaw.com HEFFERIN TREE: Faces "De Paz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Marvin De Paz and Jose De Paz, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Hefferin Tree & Landscaping Contractors, Inc., Frank Hefferin, and any other entities affiliated with or controlled by Hefferin Tree & Landscaping Contractors, Inc., and Frank Hefferin, Case No. 602614/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 15, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are engaged in the landscaping business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd Ambinder, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com HOMEWAY: Faces Consumer Class Suit in Texas ------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a homeowner paid HomeAway $1,448 to list her rental home on its websites for a year based on its promise not to charge renters a fee, then it did start charging them, driving away business, she claims in a federal class action in Austin, Texas. HYUNDAI: Recalls Tucson 2016 Models Due to Noncompliance -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 21, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: SUV Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 392 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016125TC ID number: 2016125 Manufacturer recall number: R0110 (61CC01) Certain vehicles outfitted with a tow hitch accessory may not comply with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 - Lighting System and Retroreflective Devices. Due to an incompatibility between the tow hitch harness control module and the vehicle's power supply circuitry, when the vehicle's engine is running and the brake lights are illuminated, if the turn signal is activated the trailer's turn signal lamp may either: a) Remain continuously illuminated (not flash), or b) Turn off. As a result, drivers may not be able to clearly signal their intentions to turn, change lanes, which could increase the risk of a crash. Correction: Dealers will update the tow hitch harness. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- HYUNDAI TUCSON 2016 IKEA CANADA: Recalls Floor and Table Lamps Due to Shock Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 17, 2016 Posting date: March 17, 2016 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Electrical Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-57550 This recall involves IKEA GOTHEM floor and table lamps. The lamps are not sold with shades and have a brushed finish nickel-plated appearance. The lamps are intended for indoor lighting and have dimming functionality. This recall involves the following lamps: Model Height Article Number ----- ------ -------------- GOTHEM Table Lamp 35cm 35 cm 403.030.24 GOTHEM Table Lamp 45cm 45 cm 503.030.33 GOTHEM Floor Lamp 124cm 124 cm 103.030.49 The recalled lamps may have damaged cables, posing an electric shock hazard to consumers. Neither Health Canada nor IKEA Canada has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of these products. IKEA has received three reports internationally of the products causing minor electric shocks, with no reported injuries. Approximately 1,259 GOTHEM lamps have been sold at IKEA stores across Canada and online at www.ikea.ca. Approximately 13,536 GOTHEM lamps have been sold at IKEA stores across the United States and online at www.ikea.com. The GOTHEM floor and table lamps were sold in Canada and the United States from October 2015 to February 2016. Place of origin Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: IKEA Canada Limited Partnership Burlington Ontario CANADA Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/fN06zJ INFINITI: Recalls Q50 2014 Models Due to Injury Risk ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 17, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 442 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016123TC ID number: 2016123 On certain vehicles, the front passenger seat occupant classification system software may incorrectly classify the passenger seat as empty, when it is occupied by an adult. If this occurs, the passenger airbag would be deactivated without the illumination of the airbag warning lamp. Failure of the passenger airbag to deploy during a crash (where deployment is warranted) could increase the risk of injury to the seat occupant. Correction: Dealers will reprogram the occupant classification system. This is an expansion of recall 2014-093. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- INFINITI Q50 2014 INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Oral Argument in Class Action Appeal Held -------------------------------------------------------------- Oral argument was scheduled early this month in an appeal related to the class action lawsuit against Invivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. Invivo Therapeutics said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that on July 31, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and Francis Reynolds, the Company's former Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as defendants (the "Securities Class Action"). The Company said, "The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements related to the timing and completion of the clinical study of our Neuro Spinal Scaffold. The plaintiff seeks class certification for purchasers of our common stock during the period from April 5, 2013 through August 26, 2013 and unspecified damages. On April 3, 2015, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the plaintiff's claim with prejudice. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of this decision on May 4, 2015. A mandatory mediation conference was held on September 10, 2015. Following that conference, on October 5, 2015, plaintiff/appellant filed his opening brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit." The Company and the individual defendants/appellees filed their answering brief on November 5, 2015, and plaintiff/appellant filed his reply brief on December 10, 2015. The Court of Appeals scheduled oral arguments for April 6, 2016. Invivo is a research and clinical-stage biomaterials and biotechnology company with a focus on treatment of spinal cord injuries (SCI). J. CREW GROUP: Obscured Disclaimers, "Rubin" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Fruma Rubin, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. J. Crew Group, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02167-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., April 19, 2016), seeks penalties for Defendant's violation of the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA). According to the complaint, Defendant's website provides a terms and conditions section. Within these terms and conditions, the Defendant blatantly obscures the effects of its disclaimers on residents of all jurisdictions. By obscuring their effect on New Jersey residents, Defendant allegedly violated the TCCWNA. The Plaintiff is a natural person, who has resided at Lakewood New Jersey. The Defendant owns and operates the website jcrew.com, which sells clothing directly to consumers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Fred M. Zemel Esq. THE ZEMEL LAW FIRM, P.C. 70 Clinton Ave. Newark, NJ 07114 Telephone: (973) 622 5297 Facsimile: (973) 824 2446 E-mail: Thezemellawfirm@icloud.com JACOBS VEHICLE: "Unique Brooks" Cries Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------- Unique Brooks, Plaintiff, v. Jacobs Vehicle Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6067451-S (Conn. Super., April 14, 2016), seeks compensatory damages, back pay, front pay, lost personal days, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, interest, job reinstatement with promotion, prejudgment interest, injunction requiring the removal of any and all adverse information contained in Plaintiff's personnel file and proper relief pursuant to the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act. Jacobs Vehicle Systems, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of business located at 22 East Dudley Town Road, Bloomfield, Connecticut 06002 ,where Plaintiff worked as a machinist. Plaintiff claims to have endured racist remarks from his superiors. The Plaintiff is represented by: James Sabatini, Esq. SABATINI & ASSOCIATES LLC 1 Market Square Newington, CT 06111 Tel: (860) 667-0839 Fax: (860) 667-0867 Email: jsabatini@sabatinilaw.com JSJ EXPRESS: "Skeen" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Compensation Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marcus L. Skeen, on his own behalf and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JSJ Express, Inc., and James Sherman, Jr., individually and as the President and CEO of the corporate, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01270-WSD (N.D. Ga., April 19, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable expenses of litigation, and attorneys' fees, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, prior to April 20, 2014 to September 8, 2015, the Defendant required Plaintiff to work in excess of 40 hours per workweek. However, the Defendant allegedly did not compensate Plaintiff for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week on a basis of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay at which they are employed. The Plaintiff is a former driver for the Defendant who was denied overtime compensation during the terms of his employment. JSJ Express provides delivery services throughout the metropolitan Atlanta area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry A. Pankey, Esq. PANKEY & HORLOCK, LLC 1441 Dunwoody Village Parkway, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30338-4122 Telephone: (770) 670 6250 Facsimile: (770) 670 6249 E-mail: lpankey@pankeyhorlock.com KARL STORZ: Faces "Kurtz" Suit Over Defective Storz Morcellator --------------------------------------------------------------- Marcy E. Kurtz v. Karl Storz Endoscopyamerica, Inc., Karl Storz Endovision, Inc., Karl Storz Gmbh & Co. KG, and Does 1 through 1000, inclusive, Case No. BC617218 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 15, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of the cutting, shredding and fragmenting of the uterus and fibroids within Ms. Kurtz, which disseminated and seeded uterine cancer, as a result of the use of the Storz Morcellator. The Defendants are engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, marketing, testing, promoting, selling and distributing Storz Morcellators. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne Andrews, Esq. John C. Thornton, Esq. Lila Razmara, Esq. ANDREWS & THORNTON 2 Corporate Park, Suite 110 Irvine, CA 92606 Facsimile: (949) 315-3540 Telephone: (949) 748-1000 E-mail: aa@andrewsthornton.com ict@andrewsthornton.com lr@andrewsthornton.com - and - Sean P. Tracey, Esq. Rebecca B. King, Esq. Andy Rubenstein, Esq. TRACEY & FOX 440 Louisiana, Suite 1901 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713)495-2333 Facsimile: (866) 709-2333 E-mail: stracev@tracevlawfirm.com rking@tracevlawfirm.com arubenstein@tracevlawfirm.com KIA: Recalls Sorento 2011 Models Due to Defective Sunroof --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 17, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: SUV Notification type: Safety TC System: Structure Units affected: 10459 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016120TC ID number: 2016120 Manufacturer recall number: SC012 On certain vehicles, the sunroof can break due to external impacts, which can cause the sunroof crosspieces with some tempered glass attached to dislodge and drop into the passenger cabin onto occupants. Such breakage would be most prevalent in provinces where gravel road treatments for ice/snow and severe temperature shifts are common. Correction: Dealers will install additional connective pieces to prevent the possibility of sunroof crosspieces dropping under a product enhancement campaign. In the interim, owners are advised to drive with the sunshade in the closed position until the campaign is completed. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- KIA SORENTO 2011 KOREA FOOD: Recalls Fish Paste Products Due to Egg -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 18, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Egg Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Korea Food Trading Ltd. Distribution: Ontario, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10472 Korea Food Trading Ltd. is recalling Assi brand fish paste products from the marketplace because they may contain egg which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg should not consume the recalled products described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to egg, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Assi Stick Man 140 g All codes where 0 81652 19327 2 Fish Cake egg is not - Fish declared on the Paste label Product Assi Fish Paste 272 g All codes where 0 81652 19340 1 Product egg is not declared on the label Assi Fish Paste 320 g All codes where 0 81652 19336 4 Product egg is not declared on the label Assi Fish Paste 350 g All codes where 0 81652 19339 5 Product egg is not declared on the label Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/OwzStB L BRANDS: Faces "Nahas" Suit Over Unlawful Purchasing Policies -------------------------------------------------------------- Bronwyn Nahas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. L Brands, Inc., Victoria's Secret Direct Brand Management, LLC, and Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02107-CCC-MF (D.N.J., April 15, 2016), seeks redress for the unlawful commercial practices employed by the Defendants in connection with consumer purchase from the Defendants' website or via Victoria Secret's microsites, mobile websites, or mobile applications. Based in Columbus, Ohio, the Defendants are engaged in fashion retailing business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen T. Sullivan Jr. KEEFE BARTELS 170 Monmouth Street Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (732) 224-9400 Facsimile: (732) 224-9494 E-mail: ssullivan@keefebartels.com LEMOND FOOD: Recalls Frozen Crab Meat and Fried Fish Cake --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 18, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Egg Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Lemond Food Corporation Distribution: New Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10470 Lemond Food Corporation is recalling Sajo brand Frozen Imitation Crab Meat and Choripdong brand Frozen Par Fried Fish Cake from the marketplace because they may contain egg which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg should not consume the recalled products described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to egg, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. Learn more about common food allergies This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products from the marketplace. Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Sajo Frozen 243 g All codes where 8 801066 500273 Imitation egg is not Crab Meat declared on the label Sajo Frozen 500 g All codes where 8 801066 500198 Imitation egg is not Crab Meat declared on the label Sajo Frozen 1 kg All codes where 8 801066 500167 Imitation egg is not Crab Meat declared on the label Choripdong Frozen Par 400 g All codes where 7 61898 60521 9 Fried Fish egg is not Cake declared on the label Choripdong Frozen Par 800 g All codes where 7 61898 60522 6 Fried Fish egg is not Cake declared on the label Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/uxsdTI LENOVO INC: "Ponce" Class Suit Removed to District Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit styled Katherine Ponce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., Case No. 4881768, was removed from the Hennepin County Minnesota District Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:16-cv-01000-MJD-JSM to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims for the Defendant's alleged fraudulent business practices. Lenovo (United States) Inc. is a Delaware corporation that manufactures computers and software and hardware products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anna P. Prakash, Esq. Brock J. Specht, Esq. Kai H. Richter, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 80 S. 8th St., Ste 4600 Mpls.,, MN 55402-2242 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 215-6870 E-mail: aprakash@nka.com bspecht@nka.com krichter@nka.com - and - Michael J. Vanselow, Esq. OPPENHEIMER WOLFF & DONNELLY LLP 222 S 9th St Ste 2000 Mpls, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 607-7000 Facsimile: (612) 607-7100 E-mail: mvanselow@oppenheimer.com - and - Prentiss E. Cox, Esq. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL 229 19th Ave S Ste 190 Mpls, MN 55455 Telephone: (612) 625-5515 Facsimile: (612) 624-5771 E-mail: coxxx211@umn.edu The Defendant is represented by: Brian Melendez, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 4000 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-3903 Telephone: (612) 486-1589 Facsimile: (866) 637-2804 E-mail: bmelendez@dykema.com LIBERTY TAX: Settlement in ERC Litigation Has Final OK ------------------------------------------------------ Liberty Tax, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a trial court has approved the final settlement agreement in the ERC class action litigation. The Company said, "We were sued in November 2011 in federal courts in Arkansas, California, Florida, and Illinois, and additional lawsuits were filed in federal courts in January 2012 in Maryland and North Carolina, in February 2012 in Wisconsin, and in May 2012 in New York and Minnesota. "In April 2012, a motion to consolidate all of the then-pending cases before a single judge in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois was granted, and in June 2012, the plaintiffs filed a new complaint in the consolidated action. The consolidated complaint alleges that our refund transfer products formerly called electronic refund checks ("ERC") represent a form of refund anticipation loan ("RAL") because the taxpayer is "loaned" the tax preparation fee, and that the refund transfer product is, therefore, subject to federal truth-in-lending disclosure and state law requirements regulating RALs. "The plaintiffs also allege disclosure violations related to the ERC fees paid by RAL customers. The plaintiffs, therefore, claim violations of state-specific RAL and other consumer statutes. The lawsuit purports to be a class action, and the plaintiffs allege potential damages in excess of $5.0 million. "We appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit a ruling that certain of the plaintiffs' claims were not subject to arbitration. Following mediation, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in June 2015 pursuant to which we funded the establishment of a settlement fund of $5.3 million, inclusive of settlement administration costs and plaintiffs' counsel fees. The claims process is complete and the trial court approved the final settlement agreement on January 7, 2016, with final judgment being entered on January 8, 2016. "We have preserved potential claims against a financial product partner that was responsible for the design of a portion of our ERC programs in the years at issue in the cases. We accrued the proposed settlement amount during fiscal 2015. MACK: Recalls Titan 2016 Due to Crash Risk ------------------------------------------ Starting date: March 18, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Steering Units affected: 14 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016124TC ID number: 2016124 Manufacturer recall number: SC0401 On certain vehicles manufactured with a 2-piece steering shaft, the upper steering shaft may disconnect from the coupler. Separation would result in complete loss of steering, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: As an interim measure, dealers will drill a hole through the steering shaft and install a roll pin. When parts become available, dealers will replace the 2-piece steering shaft with a one piece shaft. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- MACK TITAN 2016 MANNARICH FOOD: Recalls Ball Combo Products Due to Egg ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: March 16, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Egg Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Mannarich Food Inc. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10467 Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Mannarich Ball 240 g XYYYXX or YYYXX 0 68636 05201 5 Food Combo where "X" is a random number and "YYY" is a number between 002 and 018 Mannarich Seafood 260 g All codes where 0 68636 05202 2 Food Ball egg is not Combo declared on the label. MANSIONS AT SANDY: "Oliver" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Joan E. Oliver, on her own behalf and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Mansions at Sandy Springs d/b/a Sandy Springs Senior Holding, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv- 01269-ODE (N.D. Ga., April 19, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable expenses of litigation, and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, prior to August 1, 2015 to February 23, 2016, Defendant required Plaintiff to work in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant allegedly did not compensate Plaintiff for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week on a basis of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay at which they are employed. The Plaintiff is a former Activity Director for the Defendant who was denied overtime compensation during the terms of her employment. Sandy Springs provides housing and various activities for seniors in the Atlanta area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry A. Pankey, Esq. PANKEY & HORLOCK, LLC 1441 Dunwoody Village Parkway, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30338-4122 Telephone: (770) 670 6250 Facsimile: (770) 670 6249 E-mail: lpankey@pankeyhorlock.com MARCHEX INC: "Porter" Suit in W.D. Wash. Dismissed -------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff in the case, Porter et al v. Marchex, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00360 (W.D. Wash.), filed a voluntary dismissal of case on April 22, 2016. Marchex, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that on November 17, 2015, Steven Porter, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a putative securities class action, alleging violations of the federal securities laws (the "Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Civil Action No. 15-cv-09011). The defendants in the case are Marchex, Inc. and certain officers (collectively, the "Defendants"). Mr. Porter seeks to represent all people who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock during the period from March 19, 2014 to September 18, 2014, excluding the Defendants, and seeks unspecified damages. The Complaint alleges violations under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by all Defendants and violations under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by certain officers. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. On February 4, 2016, the Company filed a Motion to Transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (the "Motion to Transfer"). Mr. Porter did not oppose the Motion to Transfer. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the claims asserted in this action. The Company believes that the Defendants have meritorious defenses to the allegations made in the Complaint and does not expect the results of this suit to have a material effect on its business or consolidated financial statements. The parties in the case faced a deadline to complete discovery on class certification on August 5, 2016; and aeadline for Plaintiffs to file motion for class certification on September 4, 2016. The parties were also supposed to file a joint status report by April 27. Judge James Robart entered an order appointing lead counsel on April 1. Marchex is an advertising analytics company. MCT GROUP: Faces "Petley" Suit Over FDCPA and TCPA Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Petley, formerly known as Elizabeth Kishore vs. San Diego County Credit Union and MCT Group, a California corporation, Case 3:16-cv-00891-W-RBB (S.D. Cal., April 13, 2016), is a complaint for damages and injunctive relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and for damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Act. MCT Group engages in debt collection business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen G. Recordon, Esq. RECORDON & RECORDON 225 Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 232-1717 Fax: (619) 232-5325 E-mail: sgrecordon@aol.com MDL 2592: Bid for Entry of Protective Order Denied -------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE: XARELTO (RIVAROXABAN) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, SECTION L. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO All Cases, MDL No. 2592 (E.D. La.), Judge Eldon E. Fallon denied the defendants' motion for entry of a protective order regarding attorney work product. This multidistrict litigation against the defendants, Bayer Corporation, Bayer HealthCare LLC, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Bayer HealthCare AG, Bayer Pharma AG, and Bayer AG, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Janssen Ortho LLC, and Johnson & Johnson, arose from damages that the plaintiffs claim to have suffered from the manufacture, sale, distribution, and/or use of the medication known as Xarelto, an anti-coagulant used for a variety of blood- thinning medical purposes. The plaintiffs alleged that they or their family members suffered severe bleeding and other injuries due to Xarelto's allegedly inadequate warning label, among other things, as well as Xarelto's purported lack of reliance on regular blood monitoring. During discovery, the defendants moved the court to issue a pretrial order labeling lists of documents compiled by counsel and shown to a witness prior to a deposition as attorney work product, thereby making the lists immune from discovery. Judge Fallon denied the motion, holding that a list of documents reviewed by a witness in preparation for a deposition is discoverable under Civil Procedure Rule 26(b), because the list is relevant, proportional to the needs of the case, and not privileged. A full-text copy of Judge Fallon's April 8, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/NssXQ8from Leagle.com. Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Leonard A. Davis -- ldavis@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC & Gerald Edward Meunier -- Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier & Warshauer. Defendant, Defendant, represented by Susan M. Sharko -- susan.sharko@dbr.com -- Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP, James B. Irwin, V -- jirwin@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC & Steven Jay Glickstein -- steven.glickstein@kayescholer.com -- Kaye, Scholer, LLP. Jake Woody, Interested Party, represented by Jacob S. Woody -- jswoody@browngreer.com -- BrownGreer PLC. MEATING PLACE: Recalls Ground Beef Products Due to E. Coli ---------------------------------------------------------- Meating Place, a Buffalo, N.Y., establishment, is recalling approximately 325 pounds of ground beef product that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The ground beef patties were produced on April 15, 2016. The following product is subject to recall: --- 5-lb. boxes of "LORIGO BRAND BEEF PATTIES KEEP FROZEN THE MEATING PLACE INC." with a package code of 120106. The product subject to recall bears establishment number "Est. 8631" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The item was shipped to retail and institutional locations in the Buffalo, NY area. The problem was discovered by FSIS during routine in-plant review of testing results. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of this product. E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause dehydration, bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps 2-8 days (3-4 days, on average) after exposure to the organism. While most people recover within a week, some develop a type of kidney failure called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). This condition can occur among persons of any age, but is most common in children under 5-years old and older adults. It is marked by easy bruising, pallor, and decreased urine output. Persons who experience these symptoms should seek emergency medical care immediately. FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be frozen and in consumers' freezers. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. MID CITY GYM: "Sierra" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ Santiago Sierra, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mid City Gym and Tanning LLC (d/b/a Mid City Gym and Tanning), Vincent Consalvo and Elida Consalvo, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02892-AT (S.D.N.Y., April 19, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly has worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for any of the hours that he has worked over 40 in a week. The Defendants allegedly failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of hours worked, and have failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked over 40. The Plaintiff has worked at Defendants' gym and tanning center, where his duties consist of maintenance and repair of exercise equipment and cleaning of the entire business. Mid City Gym is a gym and tanning center located at 345 W. 42nd Street, New York, New York, 10036. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317 1200 Facsimile: (212) 317 1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com MOISHE'S PLACE: Faces "Martinez" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- CESAR MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, v. MOISHE'S PLACE LLC, DELI 52 FOOD CORP., DELI 52 BS"D INC. and JOEL [LAST NAME UNKOWN], Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-01796, (E.D.N.Y., April 13, 2016), seeks to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) unpaid minimum wages, (3) liquidated damages and (4) attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants own and operate two restaurants. 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 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 MOUNTAIN PRODUCTS: Recalls Bacon and Pork Sausage Products ---------------------------------------------------------- Mountain Products Inc., a Lagrangeville, N.Y. establishment, is recalling approximately 467 pounds of bacon and pork sausages products due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The company produced the pork products formulated with breadcrumbs containing milk, soy and wheat, known allergens which were not sub-listed on the finished product labels. The Mountain Products Smokehouse brand bacon and Irish bangers sausages items were produced on various dates between March 31, 2014 and March 9, 2016. The following products are subject to recall: --- 1-lb. packages of "SMOKED CAJUN STYLE PORK SAUSAGE READY TO EAT" with packing dates of 1/5/15. --- 1-lb. packages of "HOT ITALIAN SAUSAGE" with packing dates of 9/9/15, 1/29/16, 3/9/16. --- 1-lb. packages of "SWEET ITALIAN SAUSAGE" with packing dates of 9/9/15 and 3/9/16. --- 1-lb. packages of "BREAKFAST SAUSAGE IN SHEEP CASING" with a packing date of 1/29/16. --- 1-lb. packages of "IRISH BANGERS" with packing dates of 3/31/14, 1/5/15, 3/10/15, 6/10/15, 7/15/15, 9/9/15, 1/29/16, 3/2/16 and 3/9/16. --- 1-lb. packages of "Giovanni's Delizioso PARMESAN & OREGANO COUNTRY STYLE BACON" with a packing date of 11/20/15. The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST. M17458" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to retail locations in the Dutchess County, New York and California. The problem was discovered during a label review verification at the firm on April 11, 2016. Upon further investigation, it was discovered that additional product types may had been cross- contaminated with milk, soy and wheat. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE: Court Narrows Protected Documents --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned In Re: National Hockey League Players' Concussion Injury Litigation This Document Relates to All Actions, MDL No. 14-2551 (SRN/JSM) (D. Minn.), Judge Susan Richard Nelson granted in part, denied in part, and denied as moot the plaintiffs' appeal of the confidentiality rulings in the Magistrate Judge's order of December 9, 2015. The plaintiffs, former professional hockey players in the National Hockey League ("NHL"), sought to represent two classes of former NHL players for the following: (1) medical monitoring of current cellular and subcellular injuries allegedly caused by the defendant's actions or inactions concerning concussive and subconcussive impacts during the players' careers in the NHL; and (2) further medical monitoring of those players already diagnosed with a neurodegenerative illness, along with compensatory damages. They contended that the NHL knew or should have known of a growing body of scientific evidence purportedly showing a link between repetitive concussive events, sub-concussive events and/or brain injuries and a greater risk for chronic neuro-cognitive illness and disabilities both during the players' careers and, especially, later in life. During discovery, the court entered protective orders pursuant to the parties' concerns about the confidentiality of certain requested material. The court's Amended Protective Order of April 23, 2015 provided for the definition of a "Protected Document." This protective order, however, "does not confer blanket protection on all discovery." Rather, its protections apply "only to the limited information or items entitled to confidential treatment under applicable legal principles." On October 8, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their Motion to Compel Confidentiality De-Designation by the NHL, challenging the confidentiality designations of 54 documents produced by the defendant and sought to "de-designate" them as non-confidential. Magistrate Judge Mayeron issued a 48-page Order, granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion. The magistrate judge overruled the NHL's confidentiality designations on 21 documents and sustained the NHL's confidentiality designations in whole or in part on 33 documents. The plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion requesting the affirmance of the magistrate judge's 21 de- designations and appealing the magistrate judge's rulings sustaining the NHL's confidentiality objections on the following nine documents: PRN 1, 2, 4, 10, 18, 28, 29, 32, and 33. Judge Nelson concluded as follows: (a) that the commercially and competitively sensitive documents -- PRN 1 and 2 -- were properly designated "Protected Documents" under the Amended Protective Order and pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (b) that as to the the minutes, notes and summaries of various meetings involving NHL General Managers -- PRN 4, 10, and 18 -- most of the dispute is rendered moot, in light of the narrower scope of the plaintiffs' appeal and the defendant's willingness to de-designate much of the information in these documents. As to the limited areas of disagreement, Judge Nelson affirmed the magistrate judge's ruling; (c) as to those regarding supplemental discipline, rule changes and League business: -- PRN 28 was properly designated "Protected"; -- PRN 29, 32 and 33 are not entitled to "Protected" status under the Amended Protective Order and Rule 26 and must be de-designated A full-text copy of Judge Nelson's April 5, 2016 memorandum opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/IrdDvtfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley C Buhrow -- brad.buhrow@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed PLLP, pro hac vice, Brian C Gudmundson -- brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Charles S Zimmerman -- charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, David M Cialkowski -- charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Hart L Robinovitch -- hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Janine D Arno -- jarno@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbin Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Kathleen L Douglas -- kdouglas@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Leonard B. Simon -- lens@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Mark J. Dearman -- mdearman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Stephen G. Grygiel -- sgrygiel@mdattorney.com -- SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, SLUTKIN & WHITE, Steven D. Silverman -- ssilverman@mdattorney.com -- SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, SLUTKIN & WHITE, Stuart A Davidson -- sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, pro hac vice & William N. Sinclair -- bsinclair@mdattorney.com -- SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, SLUTKIN & WHITE. Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey D. Klobucar -- jklobucar@bassford.com -- Bassford Remele, PA & Lewis A Remele, Jr. -- lremele@bassford.com -- Bassford Remele, PA. Plaintiffs' Executive Committee, Plaintiff, represented by Brian D Penny -- penny@lawgsp.com -- Goldman Scarlato & Karon, PC, Bryan L Bleichner -- bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com -- Chestnut Cambronne, PA, Christopher P Renz -- crenz@chestnutcambronne.com - - Chestnut Cambronne PA, Daniel E Gustafson -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, David A Goodwin -- dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, David I Levine, The Levine Law Firm, James W Anderson -- janderson@heinsmills.com -- Heins Mills & Olson, PLC, Jeffrey D Bores -- jbores@chestnutcambronne.com -- Chestnut Cambronne, PA, Joshua J Rissman -- jrissman@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Katelyn I Geoffrion, Corboy & Demetrio, Mark S Goldman -- goldman@lawgsp.com -- Goldman Scarlato & Karon, PC, Michael R Cashman -- mcashman@hjlawfirm.com -- Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC, Richard M. Hagstrom -- rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com -- Hellmuth & Johnson, Robert K Shelquist -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Thomas Joseph Byrne -- tbyrne@nbolaw.com -- Namanny, Byrne & Owens, APC, Thomas A Demetrio -- tad@corboydemetrio.com -- Corboy & Demetrio, Vincent J Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, PLC,William T Gibbs -- wtg@corboydemetrio.com -- Corboys Denetrio & Wm Dane DeKrey -- dane.dekrey@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, LLP. National Hockey League, Defendant, represented by Aaron D Van Oort, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Adam M. Lupion, PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP, Daniel J Connolly, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Geoffrey M. Wyatt, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, James A. Keyte, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Jessica D Miller, Skadden, Arps, Meagher & Flom LLP, John Herbert Beisner, SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, Joseph Baumgarten, PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP, Joseph M Price, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Linda S Svitak, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Matthew Michael Martino, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Matthew Stein, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, Michael H Menitove, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP &Shepard Goldfein, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom. The Chubb Corporation, Respondent, represented by Peter H Walsh, Hogan Lovells US LLP. CTV, Movant, represented by Mark R Anfinson, Anfinson Law Office. Dennis Lang, Movant, represented by Mark R Anfinson, Anfinson Law Office. NATIONAL RAILROAD: Tulks' Bid for Preliminary Class Cert. Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE: AMTRAK TRAIN DERAILMENT IN PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, ON MAY 12, 2015 MDL NO. 2654 This document relates to: Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-04354-LDD, No. 15- md-2654 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Legrome D. Davis denied the motion filed by the plaintiffs Mark and Nicola Tulks for preliminary settlement class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(B). Lawsuits against the National Railroad Passenger Corporation were filed in multiple federal jurisdictions soon after the May 12, 2015 derailment of Amtrak Train No. 188 near the Frankford Junction in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) established MDL 2654 as the procedural framework for coordinating all pre-trial proceedings arising from the derailment. The plaintiffs Mark and Nicola Tulk initially filed a complaint against Amtrak with no class claims. On August 6, 2015, the Tulks filed a separate class action. In the class complaint, the Tulks contended that the action is properly maintained as a class action under Rule 23(b)(1)(A), 23(b)(1)(B), and 23(b)(3), and requested damages in the amount of one billion dollars. Despite these claims, the Tulks did not file any objections to the ongoing MDL proceedings, which ran from June through October of 2015. On February 2, 2016, after MDL 2654 had been established, the Tulks filed a motion in their individual docket to certify a mandatory, non-opt out, settlement class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(B). The Tulks moved for an order "certifying a Settlement Class" pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1)(B), "for the purpose of facilitating class-wide settlement discussions" with Amtrak. The certification was styled as preliminary. As the Tulks' motion was filed only in their individual docket, the Court ordered that all parties to the MDL respond to the motion for class certification. The consolidated Plaintiffs vigorously opposed certification and argued that the Tulks have failed to establish the predicates for a class action under Rule 23(b)(1)(b) and 23(a) and, further, that the MDL procedure is appropriate and sufficient to currently manage the litigation. The defendant Amtrak also filed a response deferring to the Court and the plaintiffs as to whether certification is the most fair and efficient way to resolve this case. On March 14, 2016, the Tulks re-filed their initial class certification motion on the MDL docket and then filed a reply in support of settlement class certification. Judge Davis found that, at this stage of the litigation, the Tulks have not shown that the proposed settlement class satisfies Rule 23(b)(1)(B). Meeting the requirements of Rule 23(b) is necessary for class certification whether preliminary or final. A full-text copy of Judge Davis' April 6, 2016 memorandum is available at http://is.gd/5xkbnFfrom Leagle.com. IN RE: AMTRAK TRAIN DERAILMENT IN PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, ON MAY 12, 2015, IN RE:, represented by YURI J. BRUNETTI -- ybrunetti@lcbf.com -- LANDMAN CORSI BALLAINE & FORD P.C.. NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Levin" Suit in District of New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit Inc. The case is captioned Chana Levin, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated, v. Nationwide Credit Inc., and Arindam Bose, the President, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02173-AET-TJB (D.N.J., April 19, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Anne E. Thompson. Nationwide Credit is a debt collection agency. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward B. Geller, Esq. 15 Landing Way Bronx, NY 10464 Telephone: (914) 473 6783 E-mail: epbh@aol.com NAVISTAR INT'L: June 13 Class Cert. Hearing in N&C Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a certification hearing is scheduled in the MaxxForce Engine EGR warranty lawsuit commenced by N&C Transportation Ltd. starting on June 13, 2016. On June 24, 2014, N&C Transportation Ltd. filed a putative class action lawsuit against Navistar International Corporation, Navistar, Inc., Navistar Canada Inc., and Harbour International Trucks (collectively, "Navistar") in Canada in the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the "N&C Action"). Subsequently, six additional, similar putative class action lawsuits have been filed in Canada (together with the N&C Action, the "Canadian Actions"). A certification hearing is scheduled in the N&C Action starting on June 13, 2016. The plaintiff submitted application materials for the certification motion, and Navistar's responding materials were filed on December 4, 2015. There are no court dates scheduled in any of the other Canadian Actions at this time. NAVISTAR INT'L: Still Defends MaxxForce Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend against the MaxxForce Engine EGR Warranty Litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On July 7, 2014, Par 4 Transport, LLC filed a putative class action lawsuit against Navistar, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Par 4 Action"). Subsequently, sixteen additional putative class action lawsuits were filed in various United States district courts, including the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the Southern District of Florida, the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Southern District of Texas, the Western District of Kentucky, the District of Minnesota, and the District of Alabama (together with the Par 4 Action, the "U.S. Actions"). Some of the U.S. Actions name both Navistar International Corporation and Navistar, Inc. The U.S. Actions allege matters substantially similar to the Canadian Actions. More specifically, the Canadian Actions and the U.S. Actions (collectively, the "EGR Class Actions") seek to certify a class of persons or entities in Canada or the United States who purchased and/or leased a ProStar or other Navistar vehicle equipped with a model year 2008-2013 MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine. In substance, the EGR Class Actions allege that the MaxxForce Advanced EGR engines are defective and that the Company and Navistar, Inc. failed to disclose and correct the alleged defect. The EGR Class Actions assert claims based on theories of contract, breach of warranty, consumer fraud, unfair competition, misrepresentation and negligence. The EGR Class Actions seek relief in the form of monetary damages, punitive damages, declaratory relief, interest, fees, and costs. On October 3, 2014, Navistar International Corporation and Navistar, Inc. filed a motion before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel") seeking to transfer and consolidate before Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois all of the then-pending U.S. Actions, as well as certain non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits pending in various federal district courts. On December 17, 2014, Navistar's motion to consolidate the U.S. Actions and certain other non-class action lawsuits was granted. The MDL Panel issued an order consolidating all of the U.S. Actions that were pending on the date of Navistar's motion before Judge Gottschall in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "MDL Action"). The MDL Panel also consolidated into the MDL Action certain non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits pending in the various federal district courts, with the exception of one matter. For putative class action lawsuits filed subsequent to Navistar's original motion, we continue to request that the MDL Panel similarly transfer and consolidate these U.S. Actions. At the request of the various law firms representing the plaintiffs in the MDL Action, on March 5, 2015, Judge Gottschall entered an order in the MDL Action appointing interim lead counsel and interim liaison counsel for the plaintiffs. On May 11, 2015, lead counsel for the plaintiffs filed a First Master Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Consolidated Complaint"). The parties to the MDL Action exchanged initial disclosures on May 29, 2015. The Company answered the Consolidated Complaint on July 13, 2015. "Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the above actions, we are unable to provide meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of these claims may impact our future consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows," the Company said. NEW LEE: Faces "Zheng" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Xiu Jian Zheng, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. New Lee Chi Garden, Inc. d/b/a Lichee Nut, Jerry Shen, and Lin Feng Ji, Case No. 1:16-cv-01850 (E.D.N.Y., April 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. New Lee Chi Garden, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant located at 162 Montague St # 1, the Brooklyn, the New York 11201. Xiu Jian Zheng is a pro se plaintiff. NEIL JONES: "Valdez" Class Action Deal Gets Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned LUIS VALDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE NEIL JONES FOOD COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:13-cv-00519- AWI-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Stanley Boone granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. A complaint was filed against Neil Jones Food Company, alleging failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to pay overtime, failure to pay required "reporting time", failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay wages due upon termination, failure to provide itemized wage statements, unfair business practices, conversion, and violation of the Private Attorneys General Act. The plaintiffs have previously filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement, but was denied three times by the court. On February 19, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a fourth motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Defendant agrees to pay $850,000 in cash to resolve the claims of any class members who do not timely and validly opt out. Of the gross settlement amount, $650,000 is allocated to the released claims of settlement class A and $200,000 is allocated to the released claims of settlement Class B. The parties propose the following deductions from the gross settlement amount: -- Service payments of $5,000.00 each to Plaintiffs Martinez and Valdez for their services and participation as class representatives; -- Up to $212,500.00 (25 percent of the gross settlement fund) to class counsel for attorney fees;3 -- Up to $30,000.00 in legal costs and expenses; -- $40,215.64 in claims administrator costs; -- $15,000.00 for civil penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act; and -- Defendant's portion of FICA, FUTA, and all other state and federal payroll taxes on the individual settlement payments. Judge Boone granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement and likewise granted conditional certification of two classes, Settlement Class A and Settlement Class B. The judge also designated the named plaintiffs Luis Valdez and Carolina Martinez as representatives for Settlement Class A and Carolina Martinez for Settlement Class B. A final approval hearing is scheduled on August 10, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. A full-text copy of Judge Boone's April 8, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/qDwqOBfrom Leagle.com. Luis Valdez, Carolina Martinez, Plaintiffs, represented by Dennis Patrick Wilson -- wilsontrialgroup@att.net -- Law Offices Of Dennis P. Wilson. The Neil Jones Food Co., Defendant, represented by Andrea Bednarova -- abednarova@fosteremploymentlaw.com -- Foster Employment Law & Michael Eugene Wilbur -- mwilbur@fosteremploymentlaw.com -- Foster Employment Law. NOBLE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Almeida" Suit Seeking Unpaid OT Wage ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nikol Almeida, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOBLE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Florida Profit Company, and SULEMAN JIWANI, individually Case 6:16-cv-00632-GKS-DAB (M.D. Fla., April 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid commissions, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. The complaint also seeks to obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Noble Communications Inc. is an organization in the radiotelephone communication industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Celleer, Esq. CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Phone: (866) 344-9243 Fax: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com NORTH SHORE: Faces "Mitros" Suit in Eastern District Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against North Shore Agency. The case is captioned John Mitros, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. North Shore Agency, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01853 (E.D. Penn., April 19, 2016). North Shore provides accounts receivables outsourcing including first part billing services, collection letters, mailing services, and collection services. The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Searles, Esq. James A. Francis, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C. Land Title Building, 19th Floor 100 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: (215) 735 8600 E-mail: dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com NR EXPRESS: Faces "Bing" Suit in Southern District of New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against NR Express Inc. The case is captioned Bing Hang Li, on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NR Express Inc., Chi On Wong, individual, Jason Doe (last name unknown), individually, John Doe 1-10, and Jane Doe 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16- cv-02918 (S.D.N.Y., April 19, 2016). NR Express is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running a freight hauling business from Maspeth, New York. The Plaintiff appears pro se. ORIGINAL GIANETTO'S: Recalls Gianetto's Dip Products ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 17, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Mustard Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: The Original Gianetto's Dip Company Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10469 The Original Gianetto's Dip Company is recalling The Original Gianetto's Dip from the marketplace because it contains egg, milk, and mustard which are not declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg, milk, or mustard should not consume the recalled product described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to egg, milk, or mustard, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of this product. This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- None The Original 227 g All codes where egg, None Gianetto's milk, and mustard Dip are not declared on the label Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/CdjwVk PANASONIC CANADA: Recalls Toughbook CF-S10 Battery Packs -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 21, 2016 Posting date: March 21, 2016 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Electronics Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fire Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-57492 This recall involves the battery pack found in Toughbook CF-S10 Series Notebook Computers. The notebook model number CF-S10 can be located on the lower left keyboard side of an opened notebook. The recalled battery pack model and lot number can be located by removing the battery housing found on the back of the notebook. The following battery model number and lot numbers are included in this recall: Battery Model Number Lot Number (beginning with): -------------------- ---------------------------- CF-VZSU61U BAW BBF BBX BBY BC C1 C2 C3 The battery packs can overheat or ignite, posing a fire hazard. Neither Health Canada nor Panasonic Canada have received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of this product. No incidents have been reported in the United States. There is a reported incident in Asia in which the laptop caught fire while charging. Approximately 110 recalled battery packs were sold in Canada, and approximately 387 were sold in the United States. The recalled products were sold in Canada from October 2011 to April 2012. Manufactured in Japan. Distributor: Panasonic Canada Inc. Mississauga Ontario CANADA Manufacturer: SANYO Electric Company Ltd. JAPAN Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/Smqx3s PERFECT FIT: Recalls Poultry Entrees Due to Misbranding ------------------------------------------------------- Perfect Fit Meals, LLC, a Houston, Texas establishment, is recalling approximately 10,455 pounds of poultry entrees due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products are mislabeled and one of the products, the Turkey Enchilada, may contain milk, a known allergen which is not declared on the mislabeled product label. The Turkey Enchilada items were produced on March 28, 2016. The Lemon Pepper Chicken items were produced on March 25, 2016. The following products are subject to recall: --- 10.4-oz. sealed tray packages with a label that says "Perfect Fit Meals Texas Chicken Ranch Casserole" with a use-by date of 4/24/2016, but may contain "Perfect Fit Meals Lemon Pepper Chicken." --- 11-oz sealed tray packages with a label that says "Perfect Fit Meals Chipotle Chicken Sausage" with a use-by date of 5/2/2016, but may contain "Perfect Fit Meals Turkey Enchilada." The products subject to recall bear establishment number "P-827" inside the USDA mark of inspection on the sealed tray packages. These items were shipped to retail locations nationwide. The problem was discovered after the firm was notified by a retailer that the products were incorrectly labeled. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. PRODIGY GROUP: Recalls Bicycle Wheel Hubs Due to Fall Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: March 16, 2016 Posting date: March 16, 2016 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Sports/Fitness Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fall Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-57544 This recall involves SRAM's Zipp bicycle wheel hubs. The model names of the affected hubs are ZIPP 88v6, 88v7 and 88v8. It can be identified by the Z logo printed on the hub. The wheel hubs come in black, silver and falcon grey. The diameter of the clinch nut is approximately 3.71 centimetres (1.46 inches). Some of the hubs were sold as part of wheel sets installed on new bicycles. The following is a list of affected bicycle brands and models: Brand Year Model ----- ---- ----- Cannondale 2010 Slice Hi-Mod SuperX SRAM Red 2011 SuperX SRAM RED 2013 Slice RS Black Edition Jamis 2010 Xenith T2 2011 Xenith SL Xenith T2 Felt 2009 AR Team DA 2010 AR1 Team DA DA Di2 B2 Pro Specialized 2012 S-Works SHIV DI2 X2 S-Works TARMAC SL4 SRAM NEW RED X2 S-Works VENGE MCLAREN X2 S-Works VENGE DI2 X2 2013 S-Works VENGE S-RECORD EPS X2 S-Works TARMAC SL4 DI2 X2 The front hub flange can fail, posing a fall hazard. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these front wheel hubs in Canada. In the United States, SRAM has received 1 report of the hub flange failure that could have led to the wheel collapsing. No injuries were reported. Approximately 2,900 units of the recalled front wheel hubs were sold in Canada, and approximately 54,000 of the recalled products were sold in the United States. The recalled front wheel hubs were sold from May 2010 to January 2015 at specialty bicycle retailers. Manufactured in the United States and Spain. Manufacturer: Prodigy Group Mooresville Indiana UNITED STATES Manufacturer: Decoletaje y Fijacion Arrigorriaga Biscay SPAIN RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITOR'S: Faces "Namer" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against Retrieval-Masters Creditor's Bureau, Inc. The case is captioned Rena Namer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Retrieval-Masters Creditor's Bureau, Inc., a/k/a American Medical Collection Agency, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01927 (E.D.N.Y., April 19, 2016). Retrieval Masters is a recovery agency for consumer collections. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan J Sasson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C. 2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 339 0856 Facsimile: (347) 244 7178 E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com SAKS DIRECT: Faces "Rubin" Suit in District of New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Saks Direct Inc. The case is captioned Fay Rubin, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Saks Direct Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02197-PGS-LHG (D.N.J., April 19, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Peter G. Sheridan. As of January 30, 2010, Saks Direct was acquired by Saks Incorporated. Saks engages in online and catalog retailing. The Plaintiff is represented by: Fred M. Zemel, Esq. THE ZEMEL LAW FIRM, P.C. 70 Clinton Ave. Newark, NJ 07114 Telephone: 973-622 5297 Facsimile: 973-824 2446 E-mail: Thezemellawfirm@icloud.com SALEM BROTHERS: Recalls Soup Products Due to Milk & Sesame Seeds ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 17, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Sesame Seeds Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Salem Brothers Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10441 Salem Brothers is recalling Jameedna Zaman brand Soup Starter Soup Base and Kasih brand Halva from the marketplace because they contain milk and sesame which are not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk or sesame should not consume the recalled products described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to milk or sesame, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Jameedna Soup 1 kg All codes where 6 251591 112151 Zaman Starter milk is not Soup Base declared on the label Kasih Ayam Zaman 450 g All codes where 6 253001 002205 Halva Extra sesame is not Pistachio declared on the label Kasih Premium 900 g All codes where 6 253001 010385 Quality sesame is not Halva Extra declared on the with label Pistachio Kasih Premium 450 g All codes where 6 253001 010422 Quality sesame is not Halva Extra declared on the Vanilla label Kasih Ayam Zaman 900 g All codes where 6 253001 010019 Halva Extra sesame is not Vanilla declared on the label Kasih Ayam Zaman 450 g All codes where 6 253001 004919 Halva Super sesame and milk Extra - are not on the Mixed & label declared Covered with Nuts & Chocolate Kasih Ayam Zaman 900 g All codes where 6 253001 010057 Halva Super sesame and milk Extra - Mixed are not declared & Covered on the label with Nuts & Chocolate Kasih Premium 450 g All codes where 6 253001 010460 Quality Halva sesame and milk Super Extra- are not declared Mixed & Covered on the label with Nuts & Chocolate Kasih Premium 900 g All codes where 6 253001 010415 Quality Halva sesame and milk Super Extra- are not declared Mixed & Covered on the label with Nuts & Chocolate Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/07zuSL SANOFI: 1,095 Plavix(R) Product Liability Suits Filed at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sanofi said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that as of December 31, 2015, around 1,095 lawsuits, involving approximately 5,520 claimants have been filed against affiliates of the Group and Bristol-Myers Squibb seeking recovery under U.S. state law for personal injuries allegedly sustained in connection with the use of Plavix(R). The actions are held in several jurisdictions, including the federal and/or state courts of New Jersey, New York, California, Delaware, and Illinois. It is not possible, at this stage, to assess reliably the outcome of these lawsuits or the potential financial impact on the Company. SANOFI: Menactra Class Action Remains Pending --------------------------------------------- Sanofi said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that proceedings are ongoing in an antitrust class action lawsuit related to Menactra(R) Vaccine. In December 2011, a class action was filed in the New Jersey Federal District Court alleging that Sanofi Pasteur Inc. violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully monopolizing and restraining trade in the meningococcal market and seeking treble damages and other remedies for alleged anticompetitive overcharges. On August 6, 2012, the Court denied Sanofi Pasteur's motion to dismiss. In September 2015, the Court certified a class, which (subject to certain exclusions), consists of all persons or entities in the United States that purchased Menactra directly from Sanofi Pasteur or its affiliates after March 1, 2010. Proceedings are ongoing. SANOFI: Plaintiffs Seek to Reverse Case Dismissal Order ------------------------------------------------------- Sanofi said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that plaintiffs in a U.S. shareholder securities class action have sought reconsideration of a court order dismissing their amended complaint. In December 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Sanofi American Depositary Shares. The complaint, which named Sanofi and certain of its current and former officers as defendants and asserted claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleged that Sanofi's public disclosures failed to disclose that Sanofi (i) was making improper payments to healthcare professionals in violation of federal law and (ii) lacked internal controls over financial reporting, which allegedly inflated the price of its securities. In February 2015, a related putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York, alleging the same misconduct, but asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933. In March 2015, the cases were consolidated, and in May 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, naming Sanofi and its former CEO as defendants and asserting claims under the Exchange Act. In August 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, and in January 2016, the Court granted that motion. On February 4, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's January 6, 2016 dismissal order and for leave to amend the consolidated amended complaint, which motion remains pending before the Court. SANOFI: Appeal in CVR Class Action Pending ------------------------------------------ Sanofi said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal in the CVR class action remains pending. In December 2013, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of holders of contingent value rights ("CVRs") issued in connection with Sanofi's acquisition of Genzyme in 2011. The complaints, which named Sanofi and certain of its officers as defendants and asserted claims under the Exchange Act, alleged that Sanofi's public disclosures materially misrepresented (i) the efficacy and safety of Lemtrada(R) (alemtuzumab) and (ii) the design of two Lemtrada(R) clinical trials, CARE-MS I and CARE-MS II. Such alleged misrepresentations, according to the complaints, caused an artificial inflation in the price of the CVRs. In March 2014, the cases were consolidated. Also in March 2014, an additional group of 32 purported CVR holders filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Sanofi, Genzyme and certain of their officers (the "AG Funds Action"), asserting claims under the Exchange Act, the Securities Act and California, Massachusetts and Minnesota state law, based on alleged material misrepresentations and omissions regarding Lemtrada(R), its development and likelihood of success before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In April 2014, the plaintiff in the consolidated putative class action (the "Consolidated Action") filed an amended shareholder class action complaint, which named Sanofi and certain of its officers as defendants and asserted claims under the Exchange Act. In June 2014, the defendants in the Consolidated and AG Funds Actions filed a motion to dismiss the complaints, and on January 28, 2015, the court granted that motion. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. SANTANDER CONSUMER: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Galloway" ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned JACQUELINE GALLOWAY, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., Defendant-Appellee, No. 15-1392 (4th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing Jacqueline Galloway's action against Santander Consumer USA, Inc. Galloway brought an action against Santander, seeking damages for breach of contract and alleging a violation of the Maryland Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions (CLEC). Galloway alleged that Santander breached their retail installment contract and violated the CLEC by failing to provide sufficient notice before selling her vehicle. Galloway purported to bring suit on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated. Applying a summary-judgment-like standard, the district court concluded as a matter of law that Galloway had agreed to arbitration and that the agreement to arbitrate was enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The district court initially granted Santander's motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case. However, on reconsideration, the court entered a final judgment dismissing the case so as to allow Galloway to pursue an immediate appeal. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court correctly enforced the parties' arbitration agreement, and affirmed the district court order dismissing Galloway's action. A full-text copy of the Fourth Circuit's April 8, 2016 decision is available at http://is.gd/khB0xYfrom Leagle.com. ARGUED: Cory Lev Zajdel, Z LAW, LLC, Reisterstown, Maryland, for Appellant. Robert John Brener -- robert.brener@leclairryan.com -- LECLAIRRYAN, Newark, New Jersey, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Michael von Diezelski -- michael.vondiezelski@leclairryan.com -- LECLAIRRYAN, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee. SCRIPT RELIEF: Sued in M.D. Florida Over Automated Calls -------------------------------------------------------- Medical & Chiropractic Clinic, Inc., individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Script Relief, LLC and John Does 1-10, Case No. 8:16-cv-00915-VMC-MAP (M.D. Fla., April 18, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of placing calls to consumer's wireless telephone using an automatic dialing system. Script Relief, LLC offers prescription discount programs for U.S. consumers and businesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA Suite 760, 3701 Algonquin Rd Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: "Weller" Suit Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Servicesource International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend the "Weller" securities class action lawsuit. On July 8, 2015, a single plaintiff filed a putative securities class action lawsuit, Weller v. ServiceSource International, Inc. et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Weller Lawsuit") against the Company and the Company's former Chief Executive Officer. The Weller Lawsuit was brought on behalf of purchasers of Company stock during the period January 22, 2014 through May 1, 2014, and alleges violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). In connection with the mandatory lead plaintiff appointment process under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), various law firms issued press releases between July 2015 and September 2015 to search for additional shareholders that would be willing to serve as lead plaintiffs in this lawsuit. This solicitation period ended on September 29, 2015 and no other shareholders came forward, leaving only the named plaintiff as the sole shareholder seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff. The court appointed Weller as lead plaintiff on October 21, 2015. At this time, no motion to certify a class has been filed. The Company believes that the claims are meritless, and will vigorously defend itself against such claims. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: "Reder-Leos" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Alexzander Reder-Leos, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Southern California Gas Company, Sempra Energy and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC616985 (Cal. Super., April 14, 2016), seeks compensatory damages, restitution of all monies due, disgorged profits from the unfair and unlawful business practices, meal and rest period compensation pursuant to Labor Code Sec. 226.2 and 226.7 and IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001, liquidated damages pursuant to Labor Code Sec. 1194.2, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, waiting time penalties pursuant to Labor Code Sec. 203, statutory and civil penalties, interest on the unpaid wages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Labor Code Sec. 1194 and declaratory relief. Southern California Gas Company is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, where Plaintiff worked as a meter reader. Reder-Leos claims to have worked through meal and breaks without compensation, wasn't paid final pay upon separation, and did not receive pay stubs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP 1230 Rosecrans A venue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 SOUTHERN FLOOR: "Tillis" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Melvin Tillis, Nicholas Boykin, Teona Rockingham, and all similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. Southern Floor Covering, Inc., Jeff Matthews, Steven Keith, doing business as: Steven Keith's Floor Covering, and John Does 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00287-HTW-LRA (S.D. Miss., April 19, 2016), seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs generally work up to 18 hours in a day for 5-6 days per week. The Defendants allegedly do not track hours worked and no hourly pay or overtime is paid to Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs are carpet installers/apprentice carpet installers employed by Defendants at their locations in Pearl, Mississippi. The Southern Floor is a Mississippi corporation operating a carpet installation business. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joel F. Dillard, Esq. JOEL F. DILLARD, PA 405 Tombigbee Street Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 487 7369 Facsimile: (601) 487 1110 E-mail: joel@joeldillard.com SUBARU: Recalls Forester 2015 and Impreza WRX 2016 Models --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 17, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Safety TC System: Engine Units affected: 2163 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016122TC ID number: 2016122 Manufacturer recall number: WTA-62 On certain vehicles, a portion of the engine turbocharger air intake duct may crack due to incorrect material being used during production. If the air intake duct were to crack, it could result in the engine developing a rough idle, reduced power and possibly a stall. Engine stalling would result in lost propulsion which, in conjunction with traffic and road conditions, and the driver's reactions, could increase the risk of a crash causing property damage and/or personal injury. Correction: Dealers will inspect the engine turbocharger air intake duct, and replace as necessary. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- SUBARU FORESTER 2015 SUBARU IMPREZA WRX 2016 SUPERIOR ENERGY: "Myer" Suit Seeks to Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Michael Myers and Trever Balfour, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Superior Energy Services, Inc., d/b/a Superior Energy Services Of Delaware, Inc. and Wild Well Control, Inc., f/k/a BTI Services, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-01025 (S.D. Tex., April 15, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate an oilfield services company in Houston, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2030 North Loop West, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com vijay@buenkerlaw.com TACO BELL: Plaintiffs' Bid for PAGA Penalties Denied ---------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE TACO BELL WAGE AND HOUR ACTIONS, Case No. 1:07-cv-01314-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Stanley A. Boone denied the plaintiffs' request for Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) penalties. Taco Bell is the defendant in a consolidated action comprising of six underlying lawsuits. Prior to trial three classes were certified as follows: 1) Late Meal Period Class 2) Underpaid Meal Premium Class 3) Rest Period Class On March 9, 2016, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for the Underpaid Meal Premium Class and in favor of Defendants for the Late Meal Period and Rest Period Classes. The parties agreed that the court would determine penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"). The plaintiffs filed their brief in support of penalties on March 14, 2016. The defendants filed an opposition on March 15, 2016. Although the plaintiffs only prevailed on the claims for the Underpaid Meal Premium Class, they sought penalties under PAGA for all three classes and additional unspecified claims that were not certified in this action. Judge Boone denied the plaintiffs' request for PAGA penalties for the Late Meal Period and Rest Period Classes. The judge found that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving that Taco Bell violated the Labor Code for the Rest Period and Late Meal Period Classes, and thus cannot receive penalties under PAGA for these classes based on the same evidence which the jury found to be insufficient. As to the Underpaid Meal Premium Class, Judge Boone found that the plaintiffs have not proven the amount of penalties under PAGA for the relevant time period. For this reason, the judge held that the plaintiffs have not met their burden at trial of proving any autopay violations occurred during the time period relevant to PAGA penalties and no PAGA penalties shall be awarded. Judge Boone also denied the plaintiffs' request to submit additional briefing on restitution under the UCL. A full-text copy of Judge Boone's April 8, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/SZY3rHfrom Leagle.com. Sandrika Medlock, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski -- andrew.sokolowski@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Jennifer Renee Bagosy -- jennifer.bagosy@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law Group, Jonathan Sing Lee -- jonathan.lee@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Monica Balderrama -- mbalderrama@initiativelegal.com -- Initiative Legal Group APC, Raul Perez -- raul.perez@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Rebecca Maria Labat -- rebecca.labat@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Robert J. Drexler -- robert.drexler@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Stuart Rowe Chandler, Law Office Of Stuart R. Chandler & Matthew Thomas Theriault -- matthew.theriault@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC. Lisa Hardiman, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Renee Bagosy, Capstone Law Group & Matthew Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC. Miriam Leyva, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski, Capstone Law APC, Matthew Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC, Raul Perez, Capstone Law APC, Rebecca Maria Labat, Capstone Law APC, Robert J. Drexler, Capstone Law APC & Timothy Donahue, Law Offices Of Timothy Donahue. Lisa Hardiman, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski, Capstone Law APC, Jonathan Sing Lee, Capstone Law APC, Marc Primo Pulisci, Initiative Legal Group LLP, Matthew Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC & Monica Balderrama, Initiative Legal Group APC. Loraine Naranjo, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski, Capstone Law APC, Kenneth Yoon, Law Offices Of Kenneth H. Yoon,Matthew Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC, Peter M. Hart, Law Offices of Peter M. Hart, Raul Perez, Capstone Law APC, Rebecca Maria Labat, Capstone Law APC, Robert J. Drexler, Capstone Law APC & Larry W. Lee, Diversity Law Group. Endang Widjaja, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski, Capstone Law APC, Jerusalem F. Beligan, Bisnar Chase, LLP, Raul Perez, Capstone Law APC, Rebecca Maria Labat, Capstone Law APC & Robert J. Drexler, Capstone Law APC. Christopher Duggan, Debra Doyle, Hilario Escobar, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski, Capstone Law APC, Matthew Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC, Raul Perez, Capstone Law APC, Rebecca Maria Labat, Capstone Law APC, Robert J. Drexler, Capstone Law APC, Joseph Hoff, Law Offices Of Mark Yablonovich, Mark Yablonovich, Law Offices of Mark Yablonovich &Patrick Joseph Clifford, Law Offices of Mark Yablonovich. Taco Bell Corp., Taco Bell of America, Inc., Defendants, represented by Morgan Patricia Forsey -- mforsey@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton, Nora K. Stiles -- nstiles@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton & Tracey Adano Kennedy -- tkennedy@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. TESCO CORP: Participating in Arbitration with Former Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- Tesco Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is currently participating in an arbitration, based on the Company's dispute resolution process, with 38 current and former employees (the "Employees") who had worked or are working in various states. The Employees claim that they are owed unpaid overtime wages including liquidated damages under the Federal Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the applicable state laws of various states, including New Mexico and Colorado. The case is assigned to a three- judge panel of arbitrators. On October 22, 2015, an arbitration panel agreed that the case could proceed as a class action. If a class is ultimately certified, discovery will begin. "At December 31, 2015 and as of the date of this report, we maintain an estimated reserve for potential exposure," the Company said. TEVA CANADA: Recalls Bortezomib Powder for Injection ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 18, 2016 Posting date: April 8, 2016 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Drugs Hazard classification: Type I Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-57860 Potential for presence of particulate matter (glass) in this lot. Depth of distribution: Wholesalers, hospitals - Quebec, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador Affected products: Bortezomib for Injection DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02423405 Dosage form: Powder for solution Strength: 3.5 mg/vial Lot or serial number: 1600615 Recalling Firm: Teva Canada Ltd. 30 Novopharm Court Toronto M1B 2K9 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Teva Canada Ltd. 30 Novopharm Court Toronto M1B 2K9 Ontario CANADA THUMBTACK INC: "Rhom" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Michael Rhom, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated v. Thumbtack, Inc., Case No. CGC-16- 551067, was removed San Francisco Superior Court to the U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-02008-MEJ to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Thumbtack, Inc. operates a software company located at 360 9th St, San Francisco, CA 94103. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandria R. Kachadoorian, Esq. STROOK AND STROOK AND LAVAN 2029 Century Park East Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 356-5800 E-mail: akachadoorian@stroock.com - and - Anthony Joshua Orshansky, Esq. Justin Kachadoorian, Esq. COUNSELONE, PC 9301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 277-9945 Facsimile: (424) 277-3727 E-mail: anthony@counselonegroup.com justin@counselonegroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Jonathan Hugh Blavin, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON, LLP 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 512-4000 x4011 E-mail: jonathan.blavin@mto.com TRANS-CONTINENTAL CREDIT: Faces "Marcus" Suit in New Jersey Dist. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Trans-Continental Credit & Collection Corp. The case is captioned Shira Marcus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Trans-Continental Credit & Collection Corp., and John Does 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02199-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., April 19, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Freda L. Wolfson. Trans-Continental is a collection agency headquartered in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Gideon Kelsen, Esq. KELSEN LAW 1415 Queen Anne Road, Suite 206 Teaneck, NJ 07666 Telephone: (201) 692 0073 Facsimile: (201) 692 0151 E-mail: bgkelsen@kelsenlaw.com TOWN SPORTS: Settlement in "Labbe" Case Underway ------------------------------------------------ On or about October 4, 2012, in an action styled James Labbe, et al. v. Town Sports International, LLC, plaintiff commenced a purported class action in New York State court on behalf of personal trainers employed in New York State. Labbe is seeking unpaid wages and damages from TSI, LLC and alleges violations of various provisions of the New York State labor law with respect to payment of wages and TSI, LLC's notification and record-keeping obligations. The Company completed settlement negotiations, pursuant to which TSI will pay its trainers the aggregate sum of $165,000 in exchange for full releases. The settlement agreement is currently in the process of being executed by the parties, which will become effective upon approval of the court and the class, Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. Town Sports owns and operates fitness clubs. TUMI HOLDINGS: "Sun" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Samsonite --------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Sun, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Tumi Holdings, Inc., Claire M. Bennett, Christopher J.L. Fielding, Jerome Griffith, Joseph R. Gromek, Thomas H. Johnson, Michael J. Mardy, Alexander W. Smith, Samsonite International S.A., and PTL Acquisition Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02184-JMV-JBC (D.N.J., April 19, 2016), seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the merger of Tumi Holdings, Inc. and Samsonite International S.A. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, PTL Acquisition Inc. On March 3, 2016, Tumi's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger to which stockholders of Tumi will receive $26.75 per share in cash. On March 24, 2016, Defendants issued materially incomplete and misleading disclosures in the Preliminary Proxy Statement (Proxy) filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy is deficient and misleading in that it fails to provide adequate disclosure of all material information related to the Proposed Transaction, says the complaint. Tumi Holdings is a South Plainfield, New Jersey-based manufacturer of suitcases and bags for travel. The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald .T. Enright, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 985 7290 Facsimile: (202) 333 2121 Email: denright@zlk.com - and - 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 Telephone: (302) 295 5310 E-mail: info@rl-legal.com UNITED PARCEL: "Amaya" Suit Seeks Lost Wages Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Amaya, Sr., Robert Amaya, Jr., Joel Agutlera, Cuauhtemoc Alonso, Lavery Bowie, Ricardo Bastidas, Hector Cabrera, Maurice Campos, Michael Castaneda, Mariocelis, Johnny Chhem, Elvis Chinchilla, Carlos Contreras, Eric Craig, Joel De La Torre, Jorge Franco-Garcia, Pedro Gartbay, Luis Hernandez, William Iraheta, Hector Jimenez, Robert Kagawa, Alejandro Medrano, Victormorante, Rollo Mosqueda, Adrian Ornelas, Jose Rico, Serena M. Saenz, Manuel Silva, Erasmo Solis, Olga Solis, Vincent Thomas, Alex Torres, and Jose Vergara, the Plaintiffs. v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), a California business; Mordea Pearson, as an individual and as a Managing Agent for UPS; Casey Thomas, as an individual and as a Managing Agent for UPS; James Rucker, as an individual and as a Managing Agent for UPS, Rangin Mohammadi, as an individual and as a Managing Agent for UPS; Josh Prajin, as an individual and as a Managing Agent for UPS; Edward Crabb, as an individual and as a Managing Agent, and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC617526 (Cal Super. Ct., April 19, 2016), seeks to recover lost wages and incurred expenses; penalties, interest, attorney fees and costs; and injunctive and declaratory relief under the Labor Code. According to the complaint, Defendants created a hostile workplace by instigating, ordering and/or personally carrying out daily acts of harassments that permeated almost every aspect of the workplace. The Defendants allegedly instigated and implemented a UPS policy that each supervisor must produce at least 3 to 5 daily written discipline of employees, even if the charges were false, to keep the employees, including plaintiffs, in fear of losing their pay from either job loss or suspension. The Defendants instigated and implemented a UPS policy that no employee may ever miss work, for any reason, and would receive written discipline, such as an employee who was severely injured on the job when he was hit by a forklift, then spent three days in the hospital intensive care unit, yet, written up for unexcused absence for spending time in the hospital; also, the employee who suffered severe chest pain then spent three days in the hospital but was disciplined for unexcused absence. United Parcel is a transport company of goods and freight, including hazardous materials. The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Otto, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES A. OTTO 19536 San Jose Street Northridge, CA 91326 Telephone: (818) 366 8432 Facsimile: (818) 368 7757 E-mail: jaotto@msn.com jaotto@lawofficesofjaotto.com URGENT COURIER: Misclassified Employees, Helms Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Kathleen Helms, an individual, and Kathleen Helms ex rel. the State of Illinois, the Plaintiffs, v. Urgent Courier, Inc., an Illinois corporation, Al Evans, an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 2016-CH-05471 (Ill. Cir Ct., April 19, 2016), seeks redress for Urgent's wrongful conduct in allegedly misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors instead of as employees. Helms provided courier services for Urgent in the State of Illinois as a driver during 2015 and early 2016. During that time, Urgent misclassified Helms as an independent contractor rather than an employee. Urgent is in the business of providing courier and delivery services for its customers. Urgent operates in Illinois, Indiana, and West Virginia. The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Fish, Esq. The Fish Law Firm, P.C. 200 E. 5th Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (331) 425 7083 Facsimile: (630) 778 0400 E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com - and - Richard J. Lofgren, Esq. Charles G. Wentworth, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF LOFGREN & WENTWORTH, P.C. 536 Crescent Blvd. Suite 200 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Telephone: (630) 469 7100 Facsimile: (630) 469 7108 E-mail: rlofgren@elrlaw.com cwentworth@elrlaw.com US BANK: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Rodriguez" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. US Bank National Association, d/b/a US Bank and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC617356 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 15, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, all earned overtime, failure to provide meal breaks or meal period premium pay. US Bank National Association is a national banking association organized and existing under the National Bank Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Myers, Esq. THE MYERS LAW GROUP, APC 9327 Fairway View Place, Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Telephone: (909) 919-2027 Facsimile: (888) 375-2102 VANGUARD NATURAL: Facing "Hurwitz" Class Suit in Delaware --------------------------------------------------------- Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company and other defendants have yet to respond to the case, Robert Hurwitz v. Eric Mullens et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00711-UNA (D. Del.). A putative class action was filed on June 3, 2015 in connection with the LRE Merger by a purported LRE unitholder (the "LRE Delaware State Plaintiff") against LRE, LRE GP, the members of the LRE GP board of directors, Vanguard, Lighthouse Merger Sub, LLC, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Vanguard ("Lighthouse Merger Sub"), and the other parties to the LRE Merger Agreement (collectively, the "LRE Litigation Defendants"). The lawsuit was styled Barry Miller v. LRR Energy, L.P. et al., Case No. 11087- VCG, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "LRE Delaware State Lawsuit"). On July 23, 2015, the LRE Delaware State Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the LRE Delaware State Lawsuit without prejudice. On July 10, 2015 and July 13, 2015, two additional purported LRE unitholders (the "LRE Texas State Plaintiffs") filed putative class action lawsuits against the LRE Litigation Defendants. These lawsuits were styled (a) Christopher Tiberio v. Eric Mullins et al., Cause No. 2015-39864, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 334th Judicial District; and (b) Eddie Hammond v. Eric Mullins et al., Cause No. 2015-40154, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 295th Judicial District (the "LRE Texas State Lawsuits"). On July 28, 2015, the LRE Texas State Lawsuits were nonsuited without prejudice. On July 14, 2015, an additional purported LRE unitholder (the "LRE Texas Federal Plaintiff") filed a putative class action lawsuit against the LRE Litigation Defendants. This lawsuit was styled Ronald Krieger v. LRR Energy, L.P. et al., Civil Action No. 4:15- cv-2017, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (the "LRE Texas Federal Lawsuit"). On July 17, 2015, the LRE Texas Federal Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the LRE Texas Federal Lawsuit without prejudice. On August 18, 2015, another purported LRE unitholder (the "LRE Plaintiff") filed a putative class action lawsuit against the members of the LRE GP board of directors, Vanguard, and Lighthouse Merger Sub (the "LRE Lawsuit Defendants"). This lawsuit is styled Robert Hurwitz v. Eric Mullens et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv- 00711-UNA, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the "LRE Lawsuit"). The LRE Lawsuit alleges that the LRE Lawsuit Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. In general, the LRE Plaintiff alleges that the proxy statement/prospectus filed in connection with the LRE Merger failed, among other things, to disclose allegedly material details concerning (i) the background of the LRE Merger, (ii) the financial analyses conducted by LRE's and the LRE conflicts committee's financial advisors in connection with the LRE Merger, (iii) LRE's and Vanguard's financial and operational projections, and (iv) alleged conflicts of interest held by one of LRE's financial advisors. The LRE Plaintiff seeks, among other relief, to rescind the LRE Merger, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The LRE Plaintiff has not yet served the LRE Lawsuit Defendants, and the LRE Lawsuit Defendants' date to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the LRE Lawsuit has not yet been set. Vanguard cannot predict the outcome of the LRE Lawsuit or any others that might be filed subsequent to the date of the filing of this report; nor can Vanguard predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the LRE Lawsuit. The LRE Lawsuit Defendants believe the LRE Lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it. VANGUARD NATURAL: Defending Against Eagle Rock Merger Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend litigation related to the Eagle Rock Merger. On May 28, 2015 and June 10, 2015, alleged Eagle Rock unitholders (the "State Plaintiffs") filed two derivative and class action lawsuits against Eagle Rock, Eagle Rock GP, Eagle Rock Energy G&P, LLC ("Eagle Rock G&P"), Vanguard, Talon Merger Sub, LLC, a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Vanguard ("Merger Sub"), and the members of Eagle Rock G&P's board of directors (collectively, the "Defendants"). These lawsuits have been consolidated as Irving and Judith Braun v. Eagle Rock Energy GP, L.P. et al., Cause No. 2015- 30441, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 125th Judicial District (the "State Lawsuits"). On November 11, 2015, the State Lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On June 1, 2015, another alleged Eagle Rock unitholder filed a class action lawsuit against the Defendants. This lawsuit was styled Pieter Heydenrych v. Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Cause No. 4:15-cv-01470, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (the "Federal Lawsuit"). On February 12, 2016, certain additional alleged Eagle Rock unitholders (the "Federal Plaintiffs") amended the complaint in the Federal Lawsuit (the "Amended Complaint"), which is now styled Irving Braun, et al. v. Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Cause No. 4:15-cv-01470. In the Amended Complaint, the Federal Plaintiffs allege multiple causes of action related to the registration statement and proxy statement filed with the SEC in connection with the Eagle Rock Merger, including that (i) Vanguard and certain of its officers and directors have allegedly violated Section 11 of the Securities Act for including inaccurate, misleading and untrue material statements in the registration statement and proxy statement related to the Eagle Rock Merger, (ii) the members of Vanguard's board of directors are allegedly culpable participants in the violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act for signing the registration statements and of Section 15 of the Securities Act for participating in the issuance of common units in connection with the Eagle Rock Merger, (iii) the Defendants have allegedly violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder for filing proxy statements with misleading and untrue material statements and (iv) the Defendants have allegedly violated Section 20 of the Exchange Act by failing to use their control and influence to stop the violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. The Federal Plaintiffs allege that the registration statement and proxy statement filed in connection with the Eagle Rock Merger failed, among other things, to disclose allegedly material details concerning (x) Eagle Rock's and Vanguard's financial and operational projections, (y) Vanguard's debt obligations and (z) an imminent reduction in Vanguard's distributions to unitholders. Based on these allegations, the Federal Plaintiffs seek damages and attorneys' fees. The Defendants' date to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the Federal Lawsuit was set for March 28, 2016. Vanguard cannot predict the outcome of the Federal Lawsuit or any others that might be filed subsequent to the date of the filing of this report; nor can Vanguard predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the Federal Lawsuit. The Defendants believe the Federal Lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it. VANGUARD NATURAL: Faces "Maniatis" Suit Over Debt Exchange ---------------------------------------------------------- Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a purported holder of the 7.875% Senior Notes due 2020, Gregory Maniatis, individually and purportedly on behalf of other non-qualified institutional buyers ("non-QIBs") who beneficially held the Senior Notes due 2020 (the "Debt Exchange Plaintiff"), filed on March 1, 2016, a class action lawsuit, against Vanguard and VNRF (collectively, the "Debt Exchange Defendants"). The lawsuit is styled Gregory Maniatis v. Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC and VNR Finance Corp., Case No. 16-cv-1578, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Debt Exchange Lawsuit"). The Debt Exchange Plaintiff alleges a variety of causes of action challenging the Company's debt exchange, whereby the Debt Exchange Defendants issued new 7.0% Senior Secured Second Lien Notes due 2023 in exchange for certain Senior Notes due 2020, including that (a) the Debt Exchange Defendants have allegedly violated Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 by benefiting themselves and a minority of the holders of Senior Notes due 2020 at the expense of the non-QIB holders of Senior Notes due 2020, (b) the Debt Exchange Defendants have allegedly breached the terms of the indenture governing the Senior Notes due 2020 (the "Senior Notes Indenture") and the Debt Exchange Plaintiff's and class members' contractual rights under the indenture, (c) the Debt Exchange Defendants have allegedly violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in connection with the debt exchange, and (d) the Debt Exchange Defendants have allegedly unjustly enriched themselves at the expense of the Debt Exchange Plaintiff and class members by reducing indebtedness and reducing the value of the Senior Notes due 2020. Based on these allegations, the Debt Exchange Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief that the debt exchange and the liens created for the benefit of the Senior Secured Second Lien Notes are null and void and that the debt exchange effectively resulted in a default under the Senior Notes Indenture. The Debt Exchange Plaintiff also seeks monetary damages and attorneys' fees. The Debt Exchange Lawsuit is in early stages of litigation. The Debt Exchange Defendants have yet to answer, move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the Debt Exchange Lawsuit. Vanguard cannot predict the outcome of the Debt Exchange Lawsuit or any others that might be filed subsequent to the date of the filing of this report; nor can Vanguard predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the Debt Exchange Lawsuit. The Debt Exchange Defendants believe the Debt Exchange Lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it. VIA INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Marley" Class Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Via International, Inc., (d/b/a The Digital Concierge), Stearns Enterprises, Inc., (d/b/a Engineered Environments), DSI Entertainment Systems, Inc., and Does 1-10, Inclusive. The case is captioned Michael J. Marley, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Via International, Inc., (d/b/a The Digital Concierge), Stearns Enterprises, Inc., (d/b/a Engineered Environments), DSI Entertainment Systems, Inc., and Does 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. CGC 16 551518 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 16, 2016). Via International, Inc. operates a management consultancy focused entirely on marketing, distribution and sales channels. Stearns Enterprises, Inc. offers consultation and design, engineering and documentation, project management, and calibration services. VITAL THERAPIES: Hearing Held on Bid to Consolidate --------------------------------------------------- Vital Therapies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a hearing was held in March on plaintiffs' motion to appoint lead counsel and consolidate securities class action lawsuits. On December 2, 2015, a securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, captioned Patrick A. Griggs v. Vital Therapies, Inc., et al., No. 3:15-cv-02700-JLS-NLS. On December 30, 2015, a substantially similar complaint was filed in the same court, captioned Alicia Beach Halverstadt v. Vital Therapies, Inc., et al., No. 3:15-cv-02951-JLS-NLS. The complaints name as defendants the Company, Terry Winters, and Michael V. Swanson for allegedly misrepresenting material facts and/or misleading investors about the interconnection between the Company's three clinical trials, the independent significance of each clinical trial, and the potential effects of the failure of one of the clinical trials on the others. The complaints assert a putative class period from April 17, 2014 through August 21, 2015. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints seek unspecified damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and equitable/injunctive or other relief. On February 1, 2016, putative shareholders Kaktrale Austin, Sumesh Kumar, and Nelson Than moved for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of choice of counsel. Kaktrale Austin and Sumesh Kumar also moved to consolidate the complaints into a single action. A hearing on the motions was set for March 24, 2016. "We intend to defend all of the securities lawsuits vigorously," the Company said. VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Touareg 2011 Due to Crash Risk -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: March 22, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Brakes Units affected: 11588 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016128TC ID number: 2016128 Manufacturer recall number: 46G4 On certain vehicles, a securing clip at the brake pedal hinge may have become dislodged during vehicle assembly. This could allow the pivot pin to move out of position, which would allow the pedal to wobble, and could fracture the brake pedal pivot through continued use. A fractured hinge would allow the pedal to separate from its pivot, which could lead to impaired brake function and increase stopping distances, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect and add a securing clip as necessary. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- VOLKSWAGEN TOUAREG 2011 WYETH: Court Affirms Trust's Denial of "Ellis" Claims ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/ FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. SHEILA BROWN, et al., v. AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Civil Action No. 99-20593, No. 2:16 MD 1203, Mdl No. 1203 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Harvey Bartle, III affirmed the AHP Settlement Trust's denial of the claim of Dana G. Ellis for Matrix B-1, Level III benefits and the related derivative claim submitted by her spouse. Ellis is a class member under the Diet Drug Nationwide Class Action Settlement Agreement with Wyeth. In affirming the Trust's denial of Ellis' claim, Judge Bartle concluded that Ellis has not met her burden of proving that there is a reasonable basis for finding that she had at least mild aortic regurgitation between the commencement of Diet Drug use and the end of the Screening Period. A full-text copy of Judge Bartle's April 6, 2016 memorandum is available at http://is.gd/VkNJLFfrom Leagle.com. IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE, FENFLURAMINE, DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, IN RE:, represented by ANDREW A. CHIRLS -- achirls@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS PC, ARNOLD LEVIN -- alevin@lfsblaw.com -- LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, GERALD COOPER KELL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, JOHN FITZPATRICK -- jfitzpatrick@hdp.com -- HARNES DICKET PIERCE PLC, JULES S. HENSHELL -- jhenshell@sogtlaw.com -- SEMANOFF ORMSBY GREENBERG & TORCHIA LLC, ROBB W. PATRYK, HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED -- robb.patryk@hugheshubbard.com -- ROBERT A. LIMBACHER -- rlimbacher@gdldlaw.com -- Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann LLP,ROBERT N. SPINELLI -- rspinelli@kjmsh.com -- KELLEY JASONS MCGOWAN SPINELLI & HANNA, LLP, THEODORE V. MAYER -- ted.mayer@hugheshubbard.com -- HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED & RAND NOLEN, FLEMING, NOLEN & JEZ LLP. HEATHER C. GIORDANELLA, Special Master, represented by HEATHER C. GIORDANELLA -- heather.giordanella@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP. XENCOR INC: Paid $950,000 for Plaintiff's Legal Award ----------------------------------------------------- Xencor, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in the case, DePinto v. John S. Stafford, et al., C.A. No. 10742, the Company has paid the plaintiff's legal award cost of $950,000 net of insurance proceeds of $187,500. On March 3, 2015, a verified class action complaint, captioned DePinto v. John S. Stafford, et al., C.A. No. 10742, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain of the Company's current and former directors alleging cause of action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Invalidity of Director and Stockholder Consents. In general, the complaint alleged that the plaintiff and the class he seeks to represent were shareholders of the Company during the recapitalization and certain related transactions that the Company underwent in 2013 and that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in the course of approving that series of transactions. It also challenged as invalid certain corporate acts taken in the 2013 time period. On June 10, 2015, the Company filed a Verified Petition for Relief under Del. C. Section 205 (the 205 Petition) related to the corporate acts challenged in the complaint. The defendants filed an answer to the class action complaint on June 22, 2015. On July 9, 2015, the Court consolidated the 205 Petition with the class action, joined the Company as a defendant and ordered it to file the claims in the 205 Petition as counter-claims in the class action, which the Company has done. On August 11, 2015, the Company filed a Motion for leave to File an Amended Counter-Claim, along with the proposed Amended Counter- Claim and related documents. On October 5, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Partial Settlement and related documents disclosing a settlement of the invalidity claims addressed in the complaint, the counter-claim and the proposed amended counter- claim including a request by plaintiff's counsel for reimbursement of legal fees up to $950,000. On October 7, 2015, the Company filed the Amended Counter-Claim and the related documents. On December 14, 2015, the Court entered an Order and Partial Final Judgment approving the settlement of the invalidity claims, validating each corporate act challenged in the complaint, dismissing with prejudice Count II of the complaint the invalidity claims) and granting plaintiff's counsel a fee award. "We have paid the plaintiff's legal award cost of $950,000 net of insurance proceeds of $187,500 which has been reflected as a charge in our 2015 operations," the Company said. Based on the nature of the remaining claim, the Company believes that it is not possible to estimate the likelihood of loss or a range of potential loss related to the claim; accordingly, no additional amount for any loss has been accrued at December 31, 2015. XEROX CORPORATION: "Stock" Suit Seeks Relief & Damages FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- Robert Stock and Martin Rifkin, on behalf of themselves and all other employees and former employees similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Xerox Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv- 06256-EAW (C.D. Cal., April 19, 2016), seeks declaratory relief and monetary damages as redress for the deprivation of rights secured to plaintiffs under Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), the laws of California, and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, Defendant allegedly failed to maintain adequate and required records on the hours worked by the Plaintiffs. It also failed to pay wages as required by applicable state laws. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ira Spiro, Esq. SPIRO LAW CORP 10573 West Pico Blvd. No. 865 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 235 2350 E-mail: ira@spiromoore.com - and - J. Derek Braziel, Esq. Jay Forester, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL LLP 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749 1400 Facsimile: (214) 749 1010 E-mail: info@l-b-law.com ZAGG INC: 10th Cir. Appeal Still Pending ---------------------------------------- Zagg Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit has not yet issued a decision in the appeal in the case, Albert Pikk v. Robert G. Pedersen II, et al., U.S. District Court, District of Utah, Case No. 2:12-cv-01188; Rosenberg v. Robert G. Pedersen II, et al., U.S. District Court, District of Utah, Case No. 2:12-cv-01216. On December 19 and 28, 2012, two shareholder derivative complaints were filed against several of the Company's current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. These complaints make allegations similar to those presented in the consolidated class action lawsuit, and allege various state law causes of action, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and insider trading. These complaints seek unspecified damages on behalf of the Company, which is named solely as a nominal defendant against whom no recovery is sought. On February 26, 2013, the District Court consolidated the Pikk and Rosenberg actions under the caption In re ZAGG Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, and on June 5, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On April 4, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which the court granted on October 9, 2014. On January 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. Briefing for the appeal was completed on October 1, 2015, and the Tenth Circuit heard oral argument on January 19, 2016. The Tenth Circuit has not yet issued a decision. ZAGG INC: "Morganstern" Action in Utah Dismissed ------------------------------------------------ Zagg Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the case, Arthur Morganstern, et al. v. Robert G. Pedersen II, et al., Third Judicial District Court, Salt Lake County, State of Utah, Civil No. 120908452, has been dismissed pursuant to a stipulation. On December 14, 2012, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed against several of the Company's current and former officers and directors in Utah state court. The complaint made allegations similar to those presented in the consolidated class action lawsuit and alleged claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff in this action sought damages on behalf of the Company, which is named as a nominal defendant against whom no recovery is sought. The Morganstern action was dismissed pursuant to a stipulated motion to dismiss on January 22, 2016. ZALE DELAWARE: Court Certifies Two Classes in "Tapia" ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned NAOMI TAPIA, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ZALE DELAWARE INC., Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-1565-BAS (PCL) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Cynthia Bashant granted the motion filed by Naomi Tapia to certify two classes of hourly employees. In her first amended complaint, Tapia alleged that Zale Delaware, Inc. violated several provisions of the California Labor Code by failing to issue complete and accurate wage statements, pay overtime compensation, and provide meal and rest breaks. She also sought relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Tapia further alleged that these failures violate California's Unfair Competition Law and Private Attorneys General Act. Tapia sought to certify a California class of 1,600 current and former hourly, nonexempt employees. She identified six issues: (1) failure to pay overtime compensation; (2) failure to provide wage statements that accurately state the overtime rate; (3) failure to provide a timely meal period, alteration of records, and failure to pay the statutory penalty; (4) unlawful meal period policy; (5) unlawful rest period policy; and (6) a derivative claim for former employees. Tapia also sought to certify a nationwide class of 20,000 retail workers, based on her allegation that Zale Delaware failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the FLSA. Judge Bashant found that Tapia has demonstrated that common questions of law and fact predominate over individual issues, such that a class action is a superior method for adjudicating the State law claims. The judge further found that Tapia has also met the standard to conditionally certify a class under the FLSA. A full-text copy of Judge Bashant's April 6, 2016 order is available at http://is.gd/QcY724from Leagle.com. Naomi Tapia, Plaintiff, represented by Eric K. Yaeckel, Sullivan Law Group LLP, Lara Ann Prodanovich, Sullivan Law Group, LLC & Clint S. Engleson, Sullivan Law Group, LLP. Zale Delaware Inc., Defendant, represented by Holger C Grossman Besch -- hbesch@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw, Brian Patrick Long -- bplong@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shawll LLP, Kristen Michelle Agnew -- kagnew@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Michael F. Marino, III -- mmarino@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice. ********* 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 * * *